|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/31/2020)
|
| What a crock of bullputty. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/31/2020)
|
Wow ... speaking of MISINTERPRETING history .....
Of course the Constitution denies a "right to sedition/revolt." But it assumes that the government remains just and respects the rights of the people and the Bill of Rights. If the government violates the B. O. R., all bets are off. The contract between govt. and the people has been violated, and the people have the right to defend themselves.
Too much other stuff is out of context or just plain wrong to deal with in this post. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
