|
|
|
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:
Support For Second Amendment Back In White House
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox took to NRATV Monday to announce that President Donald Trump will be speaking at the National Rifle Association Annual Meetings & Exhibits next week in Atlanta, Ga.
During his appearance, Cox spoke on President Trump’s historic first 100 days: "We now have a Supreme Court back on the side of individual freedom, back on the side of the Second Amendment," he said. "We have someone in the White House who supports the Second Amendment. That’s a big shocker after 8 years of Barack Obama." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/18/2017)
|
The reality is that if we are to have real commonsense federal laws (which, I know, is an oxymoron - according to the 2A, there can BE no federal restrictions whatsoever), McConnell will have to exercise the "nuke option" on normal legislation, and I'm not at all sure he would do that.
As it stands now, the Dems can stop Full Faith and Credit carry in the Senate with a filibuster. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
