|
|
|
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:
US Will Stop Selling Guns to Terrorists
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Known or suspected terrorists on the US terrorism watch list are currently able to purchase weapons and explosives. But US Senator Charles Schumer believes they should legally be prevented from making such purchases."
"'Today, US Senator Charles E. Schumer called for passage of new legislation, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 (S.551), that would give the Department of Justice authority to prevent a known or suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives,' the Monday statement said."
"The bill, backed by several Democrats in both houses of the Congress, would allow the US Attorney General to deny the purchase or transfer of weapons to known or suspected terrorists." ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(3/3/2015)
|
Note how the title tells it like it's a done deal.
Not a snowball's chance in hell.
Schumer's bill violates due process. |
| Comment by:
Bob G
(3/4/2015)
|
| The US isn't selling guns to terrorists. It seems it's giving them away to terrorists if the stories of (mis(?)-)air-dropped arms being obtained by ISIS are correct. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
