|
|
|
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:
Chris Christie, Second Amendment Cynic
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "This is cynical in the extreme. Christie has been in elected office for five-and-a-half-years now, during which time the good denizens of New Jersey have suffered under what are without a shadow of a doubt the worst gun laws in the country. Are we really supposed to entertain with a straight face that he has only just come to the conclusion that something needs to be done?"
"I wrote about Christie’s execrable Second Amendment record two years ago:" ... |
| Comment by:
laker1
(7/1/2015)
|
| Crispy Cream can't control what goes in or out of his mouth let alone a whole country. |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/1/2015)
|
This article sums up Christie's support for the 2nd amendment. It was non existent until he aspired to national office and realized that his anti-gun position wouldn't play in the heartland.
Christie is a RINO and will not support the second amendment if he were elected. He is at the bottom of my list of Republican candidates for the nomination, just about equal to Hillary. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
