|
|
|
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:
WH throttles online gun, ammo info
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has confirmed the Obama administration is administering a stealth project to hinder the dissemination of information on firearms."
"'Even as news reports have been highlighting the gun control provisions of the administration's 'Unified Agenda' of regulatory objectives, the Obama State Department has been quietly moving ahead with a proposal that could censor online speech related to firearms,' the NRA-ILA reports."
"In his ongoing assault on Americans' Second Amendment rights, which some say started soon after he took office, Obama is now attempting to restrict numerous forms of communication Americans have concerning guns and munitions." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(6/10/2015)
|
| Perhaps the most insidious and vicious attack on freedom ever compounded in the nation's capitol ! It, in one blow, encompasses curtailing both our First and Second Amendment rights. The proposed regulatory change could force every firearms forum participant or videographer to seek permission from the USDOS to publish even the most commonplace details of any firearm or ammunition. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
