|
|
|
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:
CA: How Gavin Newsom’s Family Tragedy Led To Ammo-Control Initiative
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The November ballot measure aimed at clamping down on the sale of bullets in California can trace its genesis to one grisly death 43 years ago at a dining room table in Mill Valley. That table is where Gavin Newsom’s grandfather shot himself to death in front of the future lieutenant governor’s mother and aunt. Arthur Menzies had endured the Bataan Death March as a World War II prisoner, and apparently was never able to shed the anguish.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/28/2016)
|
Isn't that nice?
People who aren't related to Gavin Nuisance are going to need a license to purchase ammo because Gavin has a family history of mental illness.
Or is it because the voters had to be mentally ill to put him in power? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
