|
|
|
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:
Nope, They Really Do Want to 'Burn It All Down!'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hawk Newsome—while boasting how right it is to “burn it down”—also oddly interjected the announcement that Black Lives Matter will practice their “Second Amendment rights” in the pursuit of their demands.
Armed thuggery, bragged about, on primetime news?
My hunch is the cowardly mayors will bow to the angry mob again and look the other way on the firearms. But God help you if, as a law-abiding American citizen, you get stopped while Constitutionally carrying. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/29/2020)
|
| I guess Hawk Newsome is begging for a race war ...... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/29/2020)
|
| He is a FIL-thy RAH'thn SCHWARTZE!!!!!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
