|
|
|
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:
Connecticut Senator: Anyone Wanting a High-Capacity Magazine is “Arming Against the Government”
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The same senator who admitted lying to Sandy Hook families to get them to come to Washington in order to have them lobby for votes on unconstitutional gun confiscation legislation, is now claiming that if you want a high-capacity magazine for your gun, then you must be 'arming against the government.'"
"Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), a virtually unknown senator until the Sandy Hook incident, has conspired with gun grabbing senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to co-sponsor Rep. Elizabeth Esty's (D-CT) unconstitutional bill that would limit magazine capacity to only 10 rounds across the nation. ...'" ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/10/2015)
|
"Anyone Wanting a High-Capacity Magazine is Arming Against the Government."
Yo. Murphy. Let's rephrase that so folks will really get what you are saying:
"Anyone Wanting a High-Capacity Magazine is Arming Against the Crown."
Just so we're clear on that.
You confuse us with people who don't have a long memory. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/10/2015)
|
| About all that's missing from the senator's statement is the word, ME ! I doubt it was his humility that precluded its inclusion. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
