|
|
|
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:
D.C. Mayor's Reason for Gun-Control: 'I don't like guns'
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
District Mayor Muriel Bowser said that she does not favor changing Washington's strict gun control laws to let people defend themselves from an "active shooter" because "I don't like guns."
Bowser, at a Monday press conference, told WMAL anchor/reporter Steve Burns that guns are not the answer to new comments from District Police Chief Cathy Lanier that those facing an "active shooter" should "take the gunman out." |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(11/25/2015)
|
Lets us all wait patiently for the DC mayor to announce that she has ordered her protection detail to surrender their firearms.
Fair for me but not for thee seems to be a common theme with some people, particularly entitled liberal Democrats. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(11/25/2015)
|
| She seems to forget it is not about her personal "feelings, likes or dislikes" She is elected to serve the people and uphold the Constitution, not her dislikes! Clearly another mentally incompetent liberal that is unqualified to hold office! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
