|
|
|
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:
VA: ‘We know where you live.’ Armed activist protests gun bill at Virginia lawmaker’s home
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A gun rights activist protested an assault weapons ban bill over the weekend by showing up at the house of the Virginia lawmaker who proposed it.
Del. Mark Levine, a Democrat from Alexandria, said Brandon Howard, head of the Right to Bear Arms Virginia group and Hopewell GOP chairman, showed up to his home with a “military-style semi-automatic shotgun and pistol,” Virginia Public Media reported.
Levine told the news outlet he called the police after he saw a protest event on Facebook. Levine said Howard posted his address on the event and read it in a Facebook video he posted. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/20/2020)
|
| Uh... getting a little WARM, there, Delegate Levine? (Heh-heh.) |
| Comment by:
hisself
(2/20/2020)
|
| Kind of a dumb stunt, but what the devil is a “military-style semi-automatic shotgun and pistol”?? Is that one of them thar shotguns that shoots over 100 cartridges a minute, with a 20 clip magazine and a black trigger? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/20/2020)
|
| No, it's the "thing that goes up." ;) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
