|
|
|
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:
How Do We Turn California and New York Around?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
California and New York are two of the largest states in the country, and until about two decades ago, had been if not Second Amendment friendly (with the exception of New York City in the latter), they were not outright hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Today, they are so far gone that the former requires a background check to buy ammo, and the latter state’s governor is abusing his power to attack the NRA. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(8/30/2019)
|
| There's already Federal laws on the books for such criminal activity, and that would be TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242. One can only ponder the reason as to why no one has been brought to justice for these crimes against the American people. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
