|
|
|
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:
MN: Voter guide: Where the candidates for governor stand on major issues
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun control
Johnson: His campaign website quotes the Second Amendment and says, "Self-defense is a fundamental individual right and creating new 'gun control' restrictions on law-abiding citizens will only leave guns in the hands of criminals."
Walz: Walz has taken money from the National Rifle Association in his congressional campaigns, but says he has donated that money to a charity for families of troops killed in combat. He supports an assault weapons ban in Minnesota, universal background checks and state-funded gun violence research. He opposes so-called stand your ground laws. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/11/2018)
|
Nothing to see here, folks.
As per usual, the obvious choice is the Republican.
The Democrat is a statist, and the other two are fatuous. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
