|
|
|
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:
Gun Prohibitionists Ramp Up Washington State Efforts
Submitted by:
David WIlliamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun prohibitionists behind Initiative 1639 in Washington State have apparently come clean with the Seattle Times, as that newspaper reported over the weekend that if the 30-page measure passes, “Washington’s firearms laws would be among the strictest in the country.”
Perhaps by no coincidence, a new group has popped out of the woodwork that calls itself “End The NRA.” People may donate to this movement via something called “ActBlue,” which also is a fund-raising group that supports Democrat candidates. ActBlue has appeared prominently on the Federal Elections Commission reports of at least one Democrat congressional candidate in Washington State. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/25/2018)
|
"People may donate to this movement via something called 'ActBlue'."
FILTH-y STINK-ing RAH'thn.... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
