|
|
|
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:
Should Ammunition Buyers Face Background Checks? California's Voters Will Decide
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With gun control efforts stalled in Congress and in many statehouses, advocates are forging another path forward: They're going straight to the ballot box. Voters in four states will weigh gun control initiatives Nov. 8 ballot: Maine, Nevada, Washington and California. In Nevada and Maine, voters are being asked whether to strengthen background check requirements for gun sales. Washington State voters already did that; now they're considering whether to allow a court to take guns away from potentially dangerous people.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(10/26/2016)
|
| Every day I'm thankful to have exited that state 18 months ago. |
| Comment by:
GR8dowbay
(10/27/2016)
|
** THERE ARE... beleive it r not... TONS of CA. GUN OWNERS who actually SUPPORT this Bill!! ...think its a "really good idea"...
For years I've said: KALIFORNIANS arent just STUPID - But a Special KIND of Stupid. SO Let 'em Burn - SOCIALIST Style. They're actually TOO IGNORANT To worry about!
** HELL is a place with NO HOPE. I just defined CA. !! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/27/2016)
|
No. California voters shouldn't be allowed to decide what to have for breakfast.
Next question? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
