|
|
|
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:
TX: Dan Patrick's support for background checks for some assault rifle sales sparks backlash
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick battled longtime supporter and conservative firebrand Michael Quinn Sullivan in a Twitter war Tuesday morning with the statewide officeholder telling the activist "You are destroying our party." Sullivan, who leads the influential conservative group, Empower Texans, and has been in an ongoing feud with Republican Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen, initiated the fracas with a breakfast-time tweet that lumped Patrick together with Democrat Beto O'Rourke on the gun issue. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/18/2019)
|
Patrick should know better, and Dana Loesch hit the nail on the head. None of these squishy R's have answered the question, nor are they likely to, of how universal background checks can be enacted without establishing a universal gun registry, de facto.
They deflect the question because they cannot give a satisfactory answer. That should be a "red flag" in and of itself. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
