|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
laker1
(7/24/2015)
|
| The Gun Store is going against the Obama policy of releasing criminals and arming terrorists. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(7/24/2015)
|
| Sadly, this 'nail' just shined his head for hammering. The "upper millstone", the USDOJ, and the "nether millstone", the ATFE are going to grind him, his business and FFL into dust, and then the EPA is going charge him with a pollution violation ! Even though we all know he's "erring on the side of caution" ( and probably lots of fed agents agree with his sentiments). |
| Comment by:
-none-
(7/24/2015)
|
hero being proactive while theleft.gov aggressively operates against the people, prosecuting Christians, importing/defending islamists...our gay seattle mayor is pushing for shariah compliant loans for mooslumz....what happened to separation of church & state as perpetrated in the school system?
floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=493
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray pushes for Sharia mortgages
ed.murray@seattle.gov
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov
tim.burgess@seattle.gov
john.okamoto@seattle.gov
jean.godden@seattle.gov
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov
nick.licata@seattle.gov
mike.obrien@seattle.gov
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov
kshama.sawant@seattle.gov
floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=479
floridafamily.org/full_article.php?article_no=485 |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
