|
|
|
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:
Dems Now Aim for Broad Ammo Ban
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Reacting bitterly to the news that the [ATF] had yielded in its attempt to ban the M855 ... a small group of congressional Democrats yesterday announced plans to destroy the entire American rifle market. Touting his strong support for what the clique has rather cynically christened the 'Modernize Law Enforcement Protection Act,' Representative Steve Israel (D., NY) rehearsed a familiar linguistic trick. 'The Second Amendment, which I support,' Israel contended, has 'well-intended 18th-century protections.' 'But,' he lamented, 'we live in a world with 21st-century criminals and increasingly lethal weapons.' As a result, Washington has been left with little choice but to take away your bullets." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/18/2015)
|
| its the same old gang strong-arm tactics. With unlimited cash resources "banners" can afford to create slick docudrama support and endlessly create ever more inclusive/prohibitive legislation. IOW, they can afford to endlessly throw mud against a wall secure in the knowledge some will adhere no matter how diligent its preservers work to preserve it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
