|
|
|
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:
LA: The Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus Is Into Gun-Grabbing In This Year’s Legislative Session
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Common sense, after all, dictates that of all the people who need guns it’s probably the law-abiding black homeowner living in a dangerous neighborhood who is most justified in going around accoutered. And yet that homeowner is represented by people who would leave him or her at the mercy of crooks who don’t obey gun laws and/or cops who see him or her as a potential criminal.
You would think these things would weigh on the conscience of members of the Black Caucus in advance of a legislative session like this one, and you would be wrong. Because members of that caucus have filed a veritable orgy of gun-grabbing bills for this session, all of them apparently taking inspiration if not direction from national gun-grabbing groups. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2018)
|
"Mind you, none of these bills are going anywhere. Louisiana is not a state where gun-grabbing legislation gets far."
'Doesn't matter. Grab the horse whip and meet me down at the State House...... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
