|
|
|
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:
Anti-Gun Fear and Bigotry from the Washington Post
Submitted by:
Robert Morse
Website: http://slowfacts.wordpress.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Fred Hiatt edits the Washington Post editorial page. He wrote about a “gun free society”. He tried to repackage his gun grab and call it “gun prohibition”. He wrapped his anti-rights bigotry in terms of a “mass buyback”. I immediately noticed Fred’s distortion about violence in the United States.
Fred wants President Barack Obama to issue executive orders and make gun owners into criminals. You don’t use executive orders to change a culture; you use executive orders to disarm the US by force. Fred wants guns to protect Obama’s kids with guns, but not to protect yours.
Let’s take Fred’s ideas to their logical conclusion and look at the gun confiscation he wants. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(11/2/2015)
|
| ...because drug prohibitions worked so well in the 1920s, and every decade after that... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
