|
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:
jac
(6/26/2019)
|
This guy was already a convicted criminal and prohibited from possessing a gun. The anti gun laws worked so well in this incident that we obviously need more.
Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals don't obey the law and will have guns regardless of any prohibitions.
Don't even suggest that this latest incident changed Newsom's mind on any anti-gun restrictions. He is patently anti-gun and will sign any gun control legislation that makes it to his desk.
(Con't)
|
Comment by:
jac
(6/26/2019)
|
Now they want to expand the so called "red flag" law to allow almost anyone to file a complaint resulting in your guns being confiscated. It doesn't matter if you are a law abiding citizen, veteran, rotary club president, teach Sunday School, and have never been charged with anything in your entire life. One disgruntled acquaintance and the cops will come and take away your guns without any due process.
Don't piss off your neighbor. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|