|
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:
Weekly Standard Throws Down Gauntlet: ‘Let’s Debate on Guns’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Editors at The Weekly Standard this week threw down the gauntlet and challenged the gun prohibition movement to a discussion on guns, and so far, nobody has stepped up to accept.
“If progressives insist on engaging in the joyless ritual of arguing about guns after every inscrutable act of mass murder,” The Weekly Standard double-dog dared, “we would prefer that they drop the pretense and advocate the repeal of the Second Amendment and the confiscation of our guns.” |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/19/2017)
|
The problem for gun prohibitionists is that no amount of "gun safety" perfume can hide the stink. |
|
|
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) |
|
|