|
|
|
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:
CO: Gun debate illustrates lack of core values
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The recent controversy with state Sen. Kerry Donovan raises many questions about beliefs around guns. As Mick Ireland wrote, Donovan is likely to lose her next election no matter how she votes on large gun magazines. He also mentions the belief by many conservatives that their guns will protect them from losing their liberty to a totalitarian government. As usual, the Democrat has caved in, and Democrats in general have been out-messaged with propaganda."
"I personally warned Sen. Mark Udall that the Democrats lacked 'identity and narrative.' His campaign addressed neither and he lost. National Democrats have now figured this out. They are going to try to fix it. ..." ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/25/2015)
|
"The Second Amendment only guarantees that states may have militias."
Color Patrick clueless.
It guarantees that states have armed populations that they can call up for militia duty.
That is PRECISELY what it says.
Despite the historical exegeses written by the SCOTUS, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which were independent analyses of the history of the Second Amendment yet were in 100% agreement, this yokel et al parrot that inane statement.
Why don't they just GO AWAY? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
