|
|
|
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:
Kamala Harris wants to ban the import of 'assault weapons'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., outlined more of her plans to combat gun violence during a campaign event in Nashua, N.H., on Wednesday.
Reiterating her past promise on taking executive action on guns if Congress fails to pass more gun control bills within 100 days, Harris said because "assault weapons are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time," she will issue an executive order to ban the importation of military-style rifles. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/16/2019)
|
Pure political posturing. Even if one accepts the argument that the executive branch as the authority to ban the import of products, by far the most popular "assault weapons" are designed and manufactured in the United States.
Therefore, this gambit is a spurious attempt to appear to her base that she is "doing something about gun violence".
Riciculous |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
