|
|
|
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:
OR: "I can’t function as a normal human being."
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"'But I can tell you that if I go two days without taking my medication, I can’t walk in the door of this building. I can’t get up in the morning. I can’t take a shower.'"
"These are the words of Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, who says she suffers from 'major depression.' Hayward also claims that both she and her husband 'own weapons.' Certainly this has the potential to be a volatile combination and it is our hope that Hayward is getting adequate treatment and that the 'weapons' she keeps in her home are not accessible to her. (Based on her comments she almost certainly would be denied a concealed handgun license anywhere in the state.) But apparently Hayward believes that her disability should be projected onto gun owners in Oregon." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/13/2015)
|
| The author of this piece has it right. The liberals don't trust themselves to remain rational, so they believe everyone has a tendency to become irrational. As a matter of fact, they are correct. Their hatred of law abiding citizens is in itself irrational. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
