|
|
|
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:
You can’t be pro-LGBTQ & against gun safety laws anymore
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Another week in the United States means another mass shooting, this time at the hands of an alleged anti-gay, anti-trans 21-year-old NPR says “evaded” Colorado’s red flag gun laws after reportedly threatening his mother with a bomb. His alleged crimes in Club Q in Colorado Springs were so clearly motivated by bigotry that state officials threw the book at him nearly immediately with murder and hate crimes charges. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(11/24/2022)
|
So be it then... anti-LGBTQRSTLNE it is, then.
I bought my first semiauto military-type rifle during the assault weapon ban of 1994-2004, legally, in compliance with all federal and state laws. It cost $400. I picked up a number of preban 30-round mags relatively cheaply too.
If you think that law saved any lives, you're insane. Of course, we already knew that. All it did was make my rifle's manufacturer remove the flash hider and bayonet mount prior to sale.
An outright ban will not happen. SCOTUS has been clear that this is unconstitutional, in a break with late 20th century jurisprudence and a return to the way things had always been from the founding of the country until then. And even if you did ban them, we would not turn them in. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
