|
|
|
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:
Could These Be Solutions to Windy City Slaughter?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A leading national gun rights organization and a couple of Chicago-area state lawmakers may have offered sensible solutions to the Windy City’s ongoing mayhem that took ten lives and left 57 people wounded over the weekend. Could These be Solutions to Windy City Slaughter? CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb yesterday suggested that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel step down, allowing for a dramatic change in leadership. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(8/31/2016)
|
Democrats need to GO, from everywhere.
The time has come, because of the radical leftward movement of the Democrat base, to reject them ALL, the message being, switch to Republican, and not LIBERAL Republican, either. RINOs have to go, too.
In present terms, there should be no accepted political movement further left than the center.
None. Period. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
