|
|
|
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:
CO: What's On The Democrats' Agenda For The State Legislature? Red Flag Laws And More
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A resurrected contentious red flag gun bill that failed last legislative session is among a number of bills Democrats hope to revive now that they hold both a statehouse majority and governor’s office for the first time in four years.
The red flag bill, which withered in a kill committee, would let family members or law enforcement petition a court to temporarily remove an individual’s guns, if they were a danger to themselves or others. Senate Republicans felt it was unconstitutional and violated Second Amendment rights. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/22/2018)
|
| What's on their agenda? More suppression of citizens rights, that's what. Democratic socialism at its best. It s a Federal crime to attempt to do so. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
