|
|
|
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:
VA: Did Virginia Democrats Awaken a ‘Sleeping Giant’ With Their Anti-Gun Agenda?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Trump presidency has led to many squishy GOP voters in the suburbs voting for Democrats. This development, coupled with the Virginia GOP being unable to find candidates who could win statewide and leaving nearly 25 percent of state senate races without a Republican opponent, led to disaster on election night. Virginia Republicans only had a two-seat majority in the House of Delegates and a one-seat majority in the state senate. For the first time in two decades, the Democrats control all in Richmond. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/29/2019)
|
They are reaping the consequences of their own complacency. How many gun owners in that state held the view, "Hey. Frothing at the mouth over an imagined 'tyranny' is an extremist position." and sat on their hands instead of emulating Paul Revere. Well, the Redcoats showed up and said, "SUPRISE!"
And it should have been no surprise, at all.
General Gage, call your office... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
