|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/18/2015)
|
Name a prominent politician of the Bush family who is pro-gun.
Just one, name him.
Can't do it, can you?
Not 1989's "yippee, I've been inaugurated, now I can enact a gun import ban by executive order"?
Not 2003's "I'll sign an AWB renewal"?
How about 2015's "Our federal gun laws are just fine the way they are, but we need more gun grabs at the state level"? |
| Comment by:
-none-
(9/18/2015)
|
pretty heavy handed "common sense reasonable" there, eh?
will divide families, will have to fully vet every member you have any contact with..or just say effit and limit/minimize/end all contact.
How many times has everyone at some point been "concerned about a family member" ?
more see something, say something, turn family into gestapo agents of the state...the masses suffer for a handful of mentally ill who actually manage to get stopped in time. There won't be any reflection upon the reporting family member, what motives are, just "will family member claim hold water before an obama judge" |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
