|
|
|
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:
Revered or Reviled, NRA's Power is At The Polls
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Testifying before Congress in 1934 about a bill to virtually ban machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, National Rifle Association President Karl Frederick was asked about carrying firearms for self-defense. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns,” said the former Olympic gold medal sharpshooter. “I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/16/2016)
|
| What a terrific friend the RKBA had in Karl Frederick back in 1934. (/sarcasm). |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/16/2016)
|
| They are 1/3 way back. They are now promoting the carrying of firearms for self defense. They should be lobbying to allow registration of new select fire weapons followed by no registration of same. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
