|
|
|
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:
CT: Lawmakers Take Aim at New and Revived Gun Bills
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As Connecticut lawmakers tackle the 2019 legislative session over the next five months, legislators are pushing an array of firearm bills that highlight issues regarding gun safety, rights, and reforms. Connecticut has more firearm laws than almost every other state, according to an inventory by Boston University researchers. Many of those laws emerged in response to the Sandy Hook School massacre in 2012, and have been touted as some of the nation’s strongest restrictions on guns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/30/2019)
|
STOP calling it "gun safety" (guddammit).
GAWD, that drives me NUTZ. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/31/2019)
|
| Still trying to figure out what criminal activity has to do with the law abiding. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
