|
|
|
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:
Sen. Kennedy Drops Bill To Prevent Banks From Discrimination
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In response to banking institutions that have imposed policies against business related to the firearms industry in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Florida earlier in the year, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy proposed legislation prior the recess that would prohibit the federal government from granting contracts to banks that discriminate against lawful businesses and based only on social policy considerations. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(10/19/2018)
|
| Recent news stories confirm what many here already know, "Operation Choke Point " was just one of several Obama-Era pogroms intended to not only constrain Americans' access to firearms but to severely curtail our military's logistic support base . Too often its not the obvious actions touted that are the objective . Presently America has many manufacturers of military-pattern rifles chambered for NATO - spec ammo it can draw upon . Killing their financial support kills that resource. It also set a precedent for similar targeting of other manufacturers of politically - undesirable or popular machines or devices; say like personal comupters . |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
