|
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:
RI: Carcieri pulls bill on homeland security (Alternate Report)
Submitted by:
P. Jones
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Carcieri's bill would have created new felony charges, closed some public records and included a definition of terrorism that critics contended was so broad it could have defined as terrorists people who were exercising their First Amendment rights of speech and assembly."
"Carcieri's 18-page bill also added language to World War I-era laws that make it illegal to: display foreign flags as symbolic of governments preferable to the United States; 'speak, utter, or print' statements in support of anarchy; speak in favor of overthrowing the government; or display 'any flag or emblem other than the flag of the Unites States' as symbolic of, or preferable to, the United States government."
"Carcieri said he will draft and introduce a new homeland-security bill in this session of the General Assembly." |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
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)] |
|
|