|
|
|
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:
IL: Democratic Mayors Call for Tighter Federal Gun Laws Amid Rising Crime
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Following a weekend of four major shootings in 6 hours covering four cities, over two dozen Democratic mayors turned to the White House for solutions, asking President Joe Biden to push for tighter federal gun laws.
A total of 27 Democratic mayors sent a letter to Biden on Monday advocating for universal background checks, bans on so-called “assault weapons” and restrictions on gun sales.
They also want Biden to take on more “soft power interventions” by pouring money into the minority communities that bear the brunt of gun violence. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/19/2021)
|
Federal gun control (legislated, not bureaucratic) has gone as far as it's gonna go.
IT. AIN'T. GOIN'. NOWHERE.
Memo to Lightfoot et al: GET. YOUR. MIND. RIGHT.
Run your states/cities like DeSantis/Abbott.
Wise up, you idiots. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/19/2021)
|
P.S. -
It's "Democrat Mayors," not "Democratic Mayors."
So, THERE. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
