|
|
|
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:
Interested in a 3-Way?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"[T]he third-party Libertarian ticket has a rare chance this year to be more than a footnote in the presidential race."
Not for anyone who doesn't want to ensure an unchallengeable pathway to citizenship Democrat supermajority within just a few years, with all that means for passing and upholding "gun laws."
And not for anyone who doesn't want to put a demonstrable gun-grabber a heartbeat from the presidency.
Ed.: Johnson supports current gun control laws, and Weld has banned guns. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/31/2016)
|
There are only two candidates in this race.
The rest are spoilers, who will hand the presidency (and the Supreme Court) to the neocommunists, out of spite.
The Libertarians claim to be patriots. Their actions give the lie to that claim. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
