
|
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:
Gun control back on the table with Dems taking the House
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
California’s latest gun violence is pressuring Washington lawmakers once again to confront America’s mass-shooting crisis.
For Newtown activists, the call for gun-safety laws is an all-too-frequent appeal for national action that has failed to bring significant changes since the 2012 shooting of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook School.
But something changed last week that has both sides of the gun-policy debate here expecting more movement on federal gun safety legislation in 2019. |
Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/11/2018)
|
Whatever you're going to do, don't do it on the backs of the law abiding. You will not impress anyone but yourselves. We all know that the dirt in your hearts is all about destruction of the Second Amendment. |
|
|
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)] |
|
|