|
|
|
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:
Congress Squabbles Over Drones & Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Congressional leaders continue squabbling over new rules for buying guns:
(Takano) “The Republican proposal is specifically designed to ensure the Justice Department fails and the suspect is allowed to buy a gun.”
Democrat Mark Takano of California. Republicans accuse Democrats of political showboating.
Remember that video with the handgun attached to the drone? Brought to you by Haughwout family of Connecticut. They spent the day in court fighting subpoenas by the FAA. They claim they FAA has no jurisdiction over an armed drone. The judge will rule next week. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/8/2016)
|
Bill Nelson is stink, and so is Susan Collins.
YOU CAN'T DENY A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNTIL AFTER DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
