|
|
|
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:
Texas Paper Rips Ted Cruz's 'Second-Amendment Absolutism' on Ghost Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz was taken to task by a newspaper in his own state this week for his attempt to block President Joe Biden's latest crackdown on "ghost guns." On Monday, the Houston Chronicle editorial board criticized Cruz for promoting "Second-Amendment absolutism" amid a rise in U.S. gun violence. The editorial comes after Cruz and three other Republican senators announced last week that they would attempt to stop Biden's latest gun control measure, which is meant to stop Americans from purchasing so-called "ghost guns," unlicensed firearm kits that can be self-assembled at home. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(4/19/2022)
|
| he Houston hronical is an ultra left wing rag. If the Chronicle is against the bill Cruz proposes, then that bill is the best thing for America and its people! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
