|
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:
MO: Missouri Gov. Parson Talks Gun Control, Unions In Kansas City
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
James is a staunch advocate of gun control. In an editorial published in the Kansas City Star in February, he wrote, “State government has aggravated the problem by refusing to allow cities like ours and St. Louis from doing anything to try to control the number and types of guns on our streets and in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.”
Parson has a history of supporting pro-gun legislation, like the “stand your ground” law that allows people to use deadly force on their property in self-defense. After a stop at a police station, Parson said he would work closely with leaders in the two cities to address the issue. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/3/2018)
|
"Parson also said he would consider legislation that gives cities more freedom to regulate guns — if a bill makes it to his desk."
Not good. Not good at all.
A Republican governor who doesn't hold the line is worse than worthless; he is an enabler.
FL's Rick Scott, an otherwise excellent governor, compromised his pedigree by caving into leftist pressure. |
|
|
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) |
|
|