|
|
|
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:
TX: Lawmaker confronted by gun activists owns ‘more guns than all those people’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“I bet I own more guns than all those people who came in the office put together,” Nevarez added. “I mean, I have a lot of weapons. I have a shooting range on my place. So I don’t think they really did their homework with the person they came to accuse of not being a Second Amendment supporter.”
Kory Watkins, the man behind the camera, told KXAN by phone that he wouldn’t support an open carry law that requires a permit.
“If you support the Second Amendment, you support the bill we provided him. He admitted he didn’t support it and he wasn’t going to support it. He admitted he was a tyrant to the constitution.”
Watkins says the constitution is clear and you don’t have to ask permission or pay a tax to have a gun. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/15/2015)
|
| Yet another example of the flaming hubris of politicians-in-office. Absolute contempt for the electorate drips from every statement. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
