|
|
|
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:
Joy Behar Rants About Gun Rights Case Before the Supreme Court but Gets Details Very Wrong
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“The View” co-host Joy Behar voiced concern about the impact a decision in a major gun rights case before the Supreme Court could have on New York.
But her comments included wrong terminology and details about the case.
During a segment of the show on Wednesday, Behar said, “The Supreme Court is poised to pass a bill contradicting the New York City, state laws.”
She continued, “We have very strict gun laws here. And they would like it to be — apparently somebody has put this on their desk — that New York should be an open carry state and an open carry city.” |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(4/15/2022)
|
Because the supreme court "passes bills"
rofl she is really stupid |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
