|
|
|
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:
WA: I-1639 Saga- Opponents Speak Out, Battle Ground Council Takes Stance
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Battle Ground City Council has taken a position on Initiative 1639, deferring to the courts on the constitutionality of the gun control measure. Battle Ground Mayor Mike Dalesandro read an official statement from the council during its May 6 meeting, preceding testimony by several community members both against and in support of I-1639. The initiative, passed by Washington state voters last November, imposes restrictions on ownership of semi-automatic rifles ranging from age of purchase, interstate sales, mandating safety classes for purchases and regarding storage and liability on those firearms if used to commit a crime.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(5/8/2019)
|
Domestic Enemy definition
Definition: Domestic Enemies (to the U.S. Constitution) are those who manipulate the law or lawmakers to violate the Founder’s intent, remove their safeguards, distort, circumvent, or in any way threaten the Constitution, threaten sovereignty, infringe upon state and individual rights, usurp authority, advance tyranny,...
Reference: www.spwickstrom.com/domestic/ |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/8/2019)
|
Stripeseven -
States do not have rights, they have POWERS. Individuals have RIGHTS.
Words mean things. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
