|
|
|
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:
USA Today: Yes To Gun Bans, But No To Confiscation
Submitted by:
jack burton
Website: https://myhightechsecurity.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While we all wait around to see whether or not the President is going to cave on gun control legislation, the editorial board at USA Today has published a lengthy screed about the need for moderation in what the Democrats should be asking for. They’re on board with a ban on “assault weapons” (along with extended magazines and other attachments) but they think that a mandatory “buyback” program or other forms of gun confiscation are a bridge too far. Why? Because it would cause people to stiffen their spines and reject the entire package. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/26/2019)
|
"We have too many criminals and crazy people."
And too many Democrats. And too many Independents. And too many RINOs.
EVERYBODY must be a Lockean originalist.
Period. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
