|
|
|
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:
Priest Wins Gun Raffle, Does The Unexpected!
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Not all Christians are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, while not all priests are blessed with sensibility. In the breaking news blue state of Oregon, Reverend Jeremy Lucas used $3,000 in Parish funds to put himself in pole position for winning charity raffle for an AR-15 and unfortunately, the edge in fueling idealism. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/14/2016)
|
Absolute stupidity.
With all of society's needs they wasted $3000 on a pure political stunt that benefits no one.
Anyone in that congregation that supported this stunt is just as stupid. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(12/14/2016)
|
| That gun could have saved somebody's life. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/14/2016)
|
They paid $3000 for a brand new gun worth less than $3000 and destroyed it.
Ignoring any potential problems from non-charitable use of tax deductible donations, melt all you want, we'll make more. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(12/14/2016)
|
| I hope this Episcopalian parasite's source of funding dries up. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
