|
|
|
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 Spending Millions To Elect Anti-Gun Virginia Governor
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Billionaire anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg is at it again, pledging to spend $1 million through his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety in an attempt to impact Virginia’s upcoming elections for governor and attorney general. The $1 million consisted of $750,000 for Democrat gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam and $250,000 for incumbent Attorney General Mark Herring, both of whom support more restrictive gun control laws for law-abiding Virginians. |
| Comment by:
GR8dowbay
(9/20/2017)
|
THESE SCUM POLITICIANS...
Thats all... Just SCUM Liberal-Socialists. STILL @ WORK trying to DISARM anyone they can!
----------
My VA. Friend says "Yeh, but whats wrong with 1gun a month limitation, man? heh. I mean.. How many guns u WANT every month? WOW. Know what I mean {as he chuckles}?"
* MY ANSWER: Yehhh, sure... 1 gun/month ... "COMMON-SENSE" Gun Reg's, right! {he agree's}. Except - Why not -later- 1 gun/every 3 mos.!! ... And then 2 guns/yr.! huh? Why NOT? Thats makes even 'MORE' COMMON SENSE - RIGHT?!!. LISTEN: Its called a 'slippery Slope' - lest we NEVER forget the SOCIALISTS' GOAL: *NO* GUNS a month! PERIOD! {he hung 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) |
|
|
