|
|
|
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:
CCRKBA Chides Boxer On Security Scare; Is Hillary Boosting Gun Sales?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today rather publicly told anti-gun California Sen. Barbara Boxer that if she “feared for her safety” in the wake of an incident in Nevada last week, instead of surrounding herself with security, she might consider getting a gun. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, returning from the National Rifle Association’s annual convention in Kentucky, observed, “Boxer has traditionally supported restrictive gun laws to keep people disarmed, so she should try buying a gun and find out firsthand what it’s like to be treated the same way as her constituents. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/24/2016)
|
But Boxer is special. She got a permit in a no-issue county. Now that she has hers, to Hell with yours.
http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/political-elite-with-concealed-carry-permits-a-symptom-of-only-ones-not-support-for-gun-rights/#axzz49b6KLjJW |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
