|
|
|
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:
Bigotry of a different stripe
Submitted by:
John Boch
Website: http://www.gunssavelife.com
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The mainstream media brings us yet another example of how anti-self-defense folks rely on bigotry, feelings and emotions over diversity, science and substance with the story of a University of Colorado staff member proudly displaying a “no guns” sign on his office door at a public university.
His bigotry (defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own” by Collins) should be called out by freedom-loving Americans as offensive, as he’s demanding others forgo their civil rights based upon nothing more than his personal fears about card-carrying, good guy gun owners.
Sixty plus years ago, bigots like Bonetti posted signs that said, “No Negroes”. |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
