|
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:
Romney SHOULD make ‘conservatives squirm’
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "A couple things—if Republicans realized we are in a cold civil war against ideological enemies and stopped acting like…nah, no use even going there. For the most part, they are, always have been and always will be the party of negotiable 'principles.' Still, there’s nothing that says a Senate with guts couldn’t just block any unacceptable Supreme Court nominees indefinitely. The weak point is the 'guts' part."
"Also, they’re not 'Second Amendment rights.' No one can take them from you unless you surrender them. Some of us will not."
"Really." ... |
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) |
|
|