|
|
|
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:
NM: Anti-Gun Activist Targets Charity Gun Raffle
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In order to help raise funds for charity, the United Way of Otero County New Mexico decided to have a “calendar raffle” with prizes including many popular firearms and a gun safe. The raffle stood to raise thousands for the charities that United Way supports, but the inclusion of firearms in the raffle drew the ire of Miranda Viscoli.
Ms. Viscoli apparently discovered the raffle due to her position on the board of United Way of Santa Fe, and immediately set to work to disrupt or terminate the raffle. While it might seem strange for the board member of one United Way chapter to interfere with the fundraising activities of another chapter, Ms. Viscoli also happens to be the Co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/6/2016)
|
Find out where she lives, knock on her door, and when she opens it slap her face.
Hard. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
