|
|
|
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:
GRPC in Phoenix: Bloomy independent run wouldn’t be popular here
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If the crowd at yesterday’s opening session of the 30th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix had read the Newsmax report on speculation on Michael Bloomberg’s possible run for president as an independent, the groans might have been heard all the way to New York City.
That’s because the billionaire former Big Apple mayor’s name was used in vain numerous times by various speakers. They blasted him for using his wealth to help buy an anti-gun initiative election last year in Washington, for supporting politicians in Oregon who passed a so-called “universal background check” law in Oregon, and for supporting a similar effort in Nevada. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/28/2015)
|
Micheal Bloomberg, Dem spoiler?
Under the theory that everybody who voted for Perot should have voted for the anti-gun incumbent, Perot's campaign handed the presidency to Clinton.
If we had an anti-gun Clinton vs an anti-gun Bloomberg vs a pro-gun Republican who obviously can't be named Bush, could Bloomberg split the progressive vote and give the win to the Republican? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
