|
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:
VA: Hampton City Council member withdraws resolution supporting Second Amendment rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hampton city leaders decided not to vote on a resolution that would have supported Second Amendment rights.
The move came after hours of testimony. Supporters of proposed new gun laws cheered the move, while gun rights advocates walked out of the meeting after the decision.
Hampton City Councilwoman Eleanor Weston Brown withdrew the resolution after hearing from people on both sides.
She told News 3, "Regrettably, many misinterpreted the fact that our resolution said that we supported the Second Amendment... that it meant we supported creating a Second Amendment sanctuary. We don't support that." |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/9/2020)
|
"We support the Second Amendment, up to and until the time that it becomes necessary to support the Second Amendment."
A+ in double-speak.
GAH. |
|
|
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) |
|
|