|
|
|
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:
MA: Counterprotesters at Boston Common ‘Defend the Second Amendment’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As thousands marched through Boston Saturday to call for stricter gun control laws and an end to an epidemic of gun violence, several dozen counterprotesters rallied to oppose what they see as a push to limit individual freedoms and trample on constitutionally guaranteed gun rights. Organized online by the group Resist Marxism, the demonstration that gathered on Beacon Street in front of the State House around 11 a.m. and later continued onto Boston Common featured no organized speeches, but participants spoke passionately with each other and their opponents about defending gun rights from a movement they see as misguided and misinformed. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/26/2018)
|
"Veterans for Peace"? Dubious.
This is what they said: “Clearly these anti-Marxist types are trying to provoke those around to attack.”
"Anti-Marxist types"? You mean American PATRIOTS?
Well, thank you for your service, now go screw yourself. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
