|
|
|
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:
Spouting Maloney
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Now and then it’s worth taking a deep breath and asking those who want to force us to be defenseless victims what their agenda really is. So I recently called U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., since she has proposed several measures in Congress lately that would punish you financially for being a gun owner, that would ban your guns and that would make you somehow—no one knows how—install not-yet-invented “smart-gun” technology into your handguns.
The phone rang in her Capitol Hill office. A congressional aide answered and referred me to Maloney’s press secretary, Mike Morosi—who never responded to my interview request.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/24/2015)
|
Re: "smart-gun technology"
The real reason she wants this mandate is because these guns can be disabled by government using EMPs at the flick of a switch.
Which makes such a mandate facially unconstitutional.
But, Maloney being a "progressive" in the mold of Woodrow Wilson, the Constitution is to be ignored whenever it presents an obstacle to the left's definition of "good governance". |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
