|
|
|
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:
Maine Lawmakers Just Say ‘No’ to Moms Demand Action
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Maine state legislators just did something that gives some encouragement to Second Amendment activists across the country: They said “no” to Moms Demand Action and the gun prohibition lobby in the nation’s Northeast.
According to the Portland Press Herald, “Leaders of the Maine Legislature voted against allowing seven gun-related bills to be introduced in the next legislative session.” Predictably, anti-gunners are an unhappy lot, with Nacole Palmer, described as a volunteer with the Maine chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America declaring, “Every other day, a person in Maine dies from a gunshot, meanwhile a small group of legislators blocked gun safety legislation from even being discussed in 2020.” |
| Comment by:
jac
(10/28/2019)
|
If they only have 183 people dying from guns every year (half of those are suicides that won't be stopped by any gun legislation), it sounds as if it is not a major problem.
She should direct her efforts to something useful like anti-smoking/vaping campaign, or cancer research. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
