|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Lawmakers push ‘Good Neighbor Gun Dealer’ bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Four Democrats proposed a measure in the U.S. House to establish a code of conduct for firearms dealers and shame so-called “bad apples.”
The measure, proposed by U.S. Reps. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Eleanor Norton Holmes (D.C.) Mike Quigley and Robin Kelly (Ill.) earlier this week, would require the Justice Department to establish a voluntary code of conduct for federal firearms licensees that would earn the dealer a “Good Neighbor” certification.
The sponsors, all with a long history of supporting anti-gun legislation, contend their bill is needed to help combat gun violence. |
| Comment by:
jac
(9/26/2015)
|
What we really need is a code of conduct for politicians.
It is apparent to me that politicians are much more dishonest and devious than FFA holders. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
