|
|
|
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:
IL: Cook County Official Condemns Poll Tax Analogy for Ammunition Tax
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A spokesman for the Cook County president’s office defended its ammunition tax increase in response to a report from Illinois Business Daily, taking particular issue with one gun rights group executive’s choice to compare the increase to a “modern-day poll tax.” “Most appalling, you compare the bullet tax to a poll tax,” Frank Shuftan, press secretary for the Cook County president said in an email to the Illinois Business Daily. “Poll taxes were historically designed to disenfranchise African-Americans from being able to vote, a stain on our history rooted in institutional racism and exclusion.”
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/15/2016)
|
Right, poor analogy. Poll taxes were designed to prevent blacks from voting.
You only want to prevent blacks from living.
That's soooo much better... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
