|
|
|
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:
Stuck on stupid: Capitol Hill antis unveil another ‘smart’ gun scheme
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Anti-gun New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney was joined yesterday by Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey for the introduction of yet another so-called “smart gun” scheme, this one dubbed the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which mandates the exclusive manufacture of so-called “personalized handguns,” according to The Hill.
This is the second time in a week that Maloney has floated a gun control measure that, according to critics, is a non-starter. That measure would require every gun owner to carry liability insurance. |
| Comment by:
Uncommon1
(6/4/2015)
|
| People like Maloney and Markey have to show their constituents that they are doing something for them and "for the children." Needless to say, they are serious about wanting to disarm us, they just know it isn't going to happen while they're in office. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
