|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(11/28/2016)
|
"State law currently bans cities from passing any type of law regulating guns or gun accessories."
Good! We have that in Alabama too!
And why are the demorats STILL SO INTENT on forcing gun control on us to try to reduce gun violence?
It doesn't work, and at this point, everyone knows it.
Of course WE know they have another agenda entirely, and controlling violence isn't it.
It's about controling US.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(11/28/2016)
|
Ran on a most pro gun ticket-Trump
Ran on most gun control-Hillary
How did that work out? |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/28/2016)
|
| If you believe feelings pass for reason, then by all means go ahead, copy those big cities whose gun control has a record of proven failure. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(12/1/2016)
|
**** leftists seem to forget that most states have preemption laws the prevent little socialist fiefdoms from creating a patchwork of bad laws that serve to entrap honest citizens crossing jurisdictional lines.
If they really want to deal with the violence, then sack up and deal with the people engaging in it. But that carries risks that leftists don't have the spine to face in the real world. Criminal animals are dangerous, honest citizens tend to comply. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
