|
|
|
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:
Bloomberg Spends Again To Publicize His Bought-and-Paid-For Background Check Law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Oregon’s “universal” background check law became effective Aug. 9, and already expectations are tempered. The state’s Public Broadcasting network ran a story featuring a skeptical county sheriff who summarized the measure’s likely effects as follows: “[T]he bad people are going to get the guns regardless. So I truly think it’s a waste of time.” Meanwhile, the Register-Guard editorialized, “Oregon gun-sale background checks law gets off to a rough start.” The article goes on to report, “Several sheriffs in mostly rural counties … have said they simply won’t enforce the law at all.” Yet advocates of civilian disarmament know that they cannot succeed unless the state knows which Americans actually own firearms. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/15/2015)
|
| Michael Bloomberg and George Soros should be placed in a capsule and launched into space, never to return. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
