|
|
|
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:
NY: Guns protect us from socialists
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
I am concerned about my needs because they aren’t being protected by liberal socialists who want more power. The individual right to own guns is to protect us against a socialistic government which gains too much power legally over the working class people.
Both our Democratic senators don’t want the Second Amendment at all. Sen. Schumer is full of rage and hatred over Trump impeachment finding – not guilty. So people in power like Schumer, Gillibrand, Pelosi and Schiff never stick up for the middle class who pay their salaries in their federal tax file. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/19/2020)
|
"You have run out of free articles."
'Scuse me for a moment while I mourn.
Okay, that's done! Wanna go get a beer? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
