|
|
|
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:
GA: Bill aims to tax gun sales, ammunition in Ga.; residents express distaste
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun sales have been up during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, a proposed bill introduced by Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson is aiming to strengthen measures to prevent gun violence.
H.R. 5717, known as the Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020, is suggesting to tax ammunition by 50 percent. Community members feel like there are better ways to enforce gun safety.
“There is no reason to impose a syntax [sic] on a purchase of ammunition or firearms," said John Allen Annillo "What society must do and should do is go back to teaching civic responsibility.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/29/2020)
|
It is national legislation, not just in GA. And it has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law.
Johnson is am ignorant clown. Remember, he told the Pentagon that putting all the troops on one side of Guam would tip the island over?
This jack-off shouldn't even BE in government. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
