|
|
|
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:
punch
(12/5/2016)
|
| The SunSentinal is such a rag - good only for lining bird cages and wrapping fish. Same goes for the Palm Beach Post. The only reason most people subscribe (I don't) is for the coupons. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/5/2016)
|
| Good to know that a majority of voters are haters (sarc). |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/5/2016)
|
| Why do these anti rights idiots always project their hate and fear on the lawabiding firearm owners?? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/5/2016)
|
Pay wall.
Of course.
File under, "WAAAAAAAAH!!!!!" |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
