|
|
|
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:
IN: Gun Owners Stage Walk to Bring Attentions to Second Amendment
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Barely a week after the general election, William Johnson and Jake Vaughn started spreading a message they believe will be crucial in the 2020 presidential election. The pair staged a Second Amendment Walk downtown, starting at Dickmann Plaza, to educate the public on gun rights. “We’re just out exercising our Second Amendment rights — and our First Amendment right,” said Johnson, who carried a 9-mm revolver. “Those people out here making new laws, you’re not hurting criminals. You’re hurting us. Legal gun owners are not the ones out here causing the problems.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/11/2019)
|
I'd like to see the "9-mm revolver." They do exist, but practically nobody would carry one because the 9X19 round is a tapered cartridge with a recessed rim, not designed for nor conducive to revolvers - it is designed for auto-loading firearms. A 9mm revolver would be rare as hen's teeth. Fact Check, Rebecca. (That, or post a picture of his weapon.)
Mebbe Johnson wuz pulling your Johnson (so to speak). [grin] |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
