|
|
|
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:
History of Aguila Ammo
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Established by Industrias Tecnos in 1961, Aguila Ammunition manufactures firearms cartridges in Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico, commonly known as the City of Eternal Spring for its gorgeous climate. In fact, prior to the arrival of the Spanish, this was where the Aztec ruling class made their home during the dog days of summer. Aguila develops ammo for self defense, sport shooting, hunting, law enforcement and military use, and has become one of the largest rimfire manufacturers in the world. They’re also known for their sponsorship of the Aguila Cup shooting event, a multi-discipline shooting sports tournament. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(10/16/2019)
|
| good ammo, i like it, i shoot 22 lr and 9mm |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
