|
|
|
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:
Biden lying on guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Biden lied when he stated the original assault weapons ban worked, knowing it didn’t use Bill Clinton’s own D.O.J. figures. When the original ban went into effect, murder rates didn’t fail any measurable degree. When the ban expired there wasn’t any noticeable spike in murders. Then, why enact another useless assault weapons ban?
Biden lied, stating when the constitution was written it wasn’t legal to own a cannon. Actually, back then, many citizens had legally owned cannons. Biden fibbed when he claimed the second amendment or no amendment is absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, ruled the second amendment absolute. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(7/3/2022)
|
| Hey Brandon, its time to go! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
