|
|
|
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:
IN: Helmke aims gun-control message at fellow Republicans
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Paul Helmke is convinced that he still can call himself a Republican and a gun-control advocate.
It’s getting harder.
As the presidential primary unfolds with GOP candidates competing hard for the gun vote, Helmke said he's witnessing a disappearance of Republican leaders willing to advocate what he calls “common sense” gun laws.
“Republicans used to realize there were things you could do that don’t impinge on Second Amendment rights that might make us safer,” he said. “Now, it seems all Republican candidates either go with the simplistic ‘I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment,' or they’re pushing for more guns in more places. One means nothing, and the other just makes us less safe.” |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/9/2016)
|
Just another wolf in sheeps clothing, NOT a conservitive of any sort
Wholly ignorant of our Republic, or hatefull of it. |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/10/2016)
|
| Maybe it is because there is no such thing as common sense gun laws. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(4/10/2016)
|
The Brady pukes (may they burn forever) tried to claim they were republican too, but they always seem allied with the democraps.
We don't need another enemy in our ranks. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
