|
|
|
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:
The ramifications of Georgia runoff for Biden administration
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
They warn a Democratic majority would end the Senate filibuster that requires 60 votes for most legislation, “pack” the Supreme Court by adding “radical” justices to offset the high court’s conservative majority, make possible the election of up to four more Democratic senators by approving statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, curb Second Amendment gun rights, pass such progressive favorites as the Green New Deal and “Medicare for All” and slash spending for the military and law enforcement. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/4/2020)
|
Ridiculous.
The Democrats have brazenly told us what they intend to do.
There's no way to downplay it with a straight face.
1) kill the filibuster
2) add 4 senators
3) pack the Court with a permanent progressive majority
One-party control for as far as the eye can see, with no end in sight.
GAME. OVER. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
