|
|
|
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:
GRPC in Phoenix: Bloomy independent run wouldn’t be popular here
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If the crowd at yesterday’s opening session of the 30th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix had read the Newsmax report on speculation on Michael Bloomberg’s possible run for president as an independent, the groans might have been heard all the way to New York City.
That’s because the billionaire former Big Apple mayor’s name was used in vain numerous times by various speakers. They blasted him for using his wealth to help buy an anti-gun initiative election last year in Washington, for supporting politicians in Oregon who passed a so-called “universal background check” law in Oregon, and for supporting a similar effort in Nevada. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/28/2015)
|
Micheal Bloomberg, Dem spoiler?
Under the theory that everybody who voted for Perot should have voted for the anti-gun incumbent, Perot's campaign handed the presidency to Clinton.
If we had an anti-gun Clinton vs an anti-gun Bloomberg vs a pro-gun Republican who obviously can't be named Bush, could Bloomberg split the progressive vote and give the win to the Republican? |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
