|
|
|
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:
AL: Dem state senator: Second Amendment advocates have ‘mental problems’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s public hearing on a constitutional carry bill on Wednesday, a Democratic state senator accused Second Amendment advocates of wanting people with mental illnesses to be able to purchase and possess firearms, leading the senator to assert that these same advocates themselves have “some mental problems.”
State Sen. Gerald Allen’s (R-Tuscaloosa) SB 4 would get rid of the requirement that a gun owner has to have a permit to carry a lawfully owned firearm. It would not affect any existing legal requirements for someone to lawfully obtain that firearm. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/18/2019)
|
| Even in my erstwhile home state we have demorats going full blown nutz. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
