|
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:
Rubio Scores, Jeb Stumbles on Gun Control During GOP Debate
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gunowners' rights was not a primary topic in the Sept. 16 Republican debate with the issue only discussed briefly by several of the 11 presidential candidates, therefore a great deal of vetting remains to be done before America's 90 million gunowners can be sure whoever wins the GOP nod will have their backs 14 months from now in the general election against the Democrats.
But the general consensus is former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's comments are cause for alarm while Sen Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gained a few points among gunowners. |
Comment by:
mickey
(9/19/2015)
|
Indeed, agrees BearingArms.com Editor Bob Owens, Bush "may have hurt his credibility with gunowners."
Um, Bob, how can J.E. Bush hurt his credibility with gunowners? In order to do that, he'd first need to have credibility. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/19/2015)
|
Mickey, in fairness, JEB was a fantastic governor, and a pro-gun stalwart while in that office.
What he as become given the national parameters' effect on his politics, however, is a different story. |
|
|
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) |
|
|