|
|
|
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:
Houston police chief criticized after ripping 'smug' Senate Republicans for officer death
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo is being criticized this week after he ripped into Senate Republicans, accusing them of delaying legislation for the benefit of the NRA, this after one of his officers was killed in the line-of-duty over the weekend while responding to a domestic abuse call.
Sen. Ted Cruz responded in a statement. “It's unfortunate the chief of police in Houston seems more focused on trying to advance his own political ambitions than on supporting the brave men and women of HPD. The fact is that this killer was a criminal whom federal law already prohibited from having a gun.
Submitter's note: Don't let facts get in the way of using a death to advance your agenda. Typical big city gun banning police chief. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/11/2019)
|
| Telling, isn't it, that the chief's own police union thinks he's a dick. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(12/11/2019)
|
| TYPICAL JERK, BLAMES THE GUN AND NOT THE CRIMINAL |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
