|
|
|
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 Won’t Budge From Staunch Second Amendment Advocacy
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is facing down his Second Amendment critics who say the Republican is a do-nothing legislator on gun violence, stating Monday his legislative position provides him with a platform that others aren’t afforded. “I’m a U.S. senator; I can defend myself. But a lot of people can’t, and the message to them is: If you don’t agree, you need to be quiet or go away or we’ll turn on you too,” Rubio said. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/28/2018)
|
| Guns are NOT violent, so how can anyone do anything about "gun violence"???? |
| Comment by:
GR8dowbay
(3/29/2018)
|
Parkland student David Hogg WANTS A BAN ON -AMONGST, WELL, EVERYTHING(!)... BUT SPECIFICALLY "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGs.
SURPRISE!! THE PARKLAND SKOOL SHOOTER DIDNT 'USE' LARGE-CAPACITY MAGS. HE USED 10rd. 'HUNTING' {sic} MAGs! SO RUBIO: WAKE UP MY MAN, and SMELL THE ROSES!! YA BEING BULLIED!!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27790/narrative-fail-florida-school-shooter-did-not-use-ryan-saavedra
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
