|
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:
MA: A ban on Muslims while guns proliferate
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This situation seems to have come about largely due to the wealth and power of the NRA and its ability to influence elections. Modern assault weapons could not even have been imagined when the Second Amendment was written. Our candidates seem to be bought with money and fear of losing campaign funding rather than representing the citizens they serve. Do we really believe that every single Republican candidate who is supported by the NRA is truly so heartless as to refuse to legislate in favor of innocent children and families who are victims of homegrown violence in far greater numbers than those from foreign terrorists?
|
Comment by:
dasing
(4/7/2017)
|
They were not ONLY imagined then they were in use then! |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/7/2017)
|
Law abiding citizens do NOT kill kids or anyone, for that matter! So what is your problem !?! |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/7/2017)
|
This woman might want to study the muslim form of government...it is a terrorist theocrasy! |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/7/2017)
|
Guns don't fly airliners into buildings. |
|
|
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) |
|
|