|
|
|
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:
Neither Trump Nor Clinton
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As Massachusetts' governor, he backed the drug war and restrictions on gun ownership.
Today, about Iraq, he said, "I wasn't exactly waving flags when the invasion occurred ... That Iraq thing has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes ever."
Why did he push gun regulation? "There are a lot of bills kicking around in Massachusetts. I've been a hunter my entire life, a gun owner my entire life. I really consider myself a Second Amendment guy."
Ed.: For values of 'Second Amendment guy' that includes banning an entire class of commonly owned guns. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/10/2016)
|
The Democrat/Progressive machine is suddenly a fan of the Libertarian Party.
Why would they do that?
They're hoping the LP will do for the Clintons what the Reform Party did for the Clintons 24 years ago. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(6/10/2016)
|
Nothing good comes out of Assachussetts.
I guess for a socialist **** like that he may be seen as a raving 2A advocate. But when measured against the rest of the country and in free states in particular, he comes up woefully short. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
