|
|
|
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:
Blacks, conservative movement have a long, rich history together
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "The [NRA] ... swept through the south in its early incarnation, registering black members, teaching them the ins and outs of gun use and safety, pointing to firearms as a means of protecting their newly won rights after the Civil War. ..."
"And it was gun rights advocates and second amendment enthusiasts who stood shoulder to shoulder, at least the most honest and pure ones, with Black Panther groups and other black militant organizations throughout the 1960s against more establishment leaders and stalwarts such as Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson as they led the charge to pass gun registration laws on the state and national levels. ..."
"But far too often modern gun advocates are MIA when it comes to the black community." ... |
| Comment by:
mickey
(2/2/2015)
|
"But far too often modern gun advocates are MIA when it comes to the black community."
Logic, DailyProgress style:
1. Gunowners are racists. Why? Because we say so.
2. Gunowners don't care about blacks. Why? Because we just proved they're racists by assuming they're racists. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
