|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(7/30/2020)
|
“This is not a peaceful assertion of First Amendment rights. This is not what we want to protect. This is reckless, and it’s dangerous,” she said.
Pretty sure this lady was talking about Portland, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, etc. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/30/2020)
|
“This is not a peaceful assertion of First Amendment rights. This is not what we want to protect. This is reckless, and it’s dangerous,” she said.
Lady, you don't have a choice. You HAVE to protect it, because the 1A doesn't exclude exercising 2A rights at the same time.
Or, is that concept too difficult for your tiny mind to comprehend? |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
