|
|
|
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:
CA: Here's another reason to object to concealed-carry gun bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When it comes to the federal government’s role, Republicans in state capitals have for decades pushed back at federal dictates, most recently on Obamacare and water rights. Yet when it comes to constitutional state laws on guns, this principle evaporates. That it’s happening so soon after two of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history makes it all the more unfathomable. Here’s hoping Senate Republicans have fewer hypocrites — and more members willing to tell the National Rifle Association no. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(12/1/2017)
|
To all those Republican's. 2018 is coming. The deplorables have a long memory.
|
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/1/2017)
|
| PROJECTION , the hypocrites are in the democratic party!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
