|
|
|
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:
How Do Reasonable People Become Gun Zealots?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The 2019 Utah legislative session, dominated by LDS Republicans, was a stunning exhibit of Mormon values simply forgotten. Dismissed. The honest, otherwise decent legislators are probably good husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and loyal members of their faith. Yet it is shocking to observe the spectacular metamorphosis that occurs when they have to address a gun issue. Suddenly they become rabid, myopic disciples of the NRA, spouting the same old fears about the slippery slope to gun confiscation. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/8/2019)
|
| Metamorphosis? How about just plain "in defense" of a right protected by the Constitution? Law abiding citizens refuse to take responsibility for the actions of criminals. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/8/2019)
|
With congresskritter Eric Swalwell and his ilk around, fearing gun confiscation is neither myopic or paranoid.
Swalwell WANTS semiautos CONFISCATED.
Bans and confiscations have happened in this country, despite this author's ignorant blather. Fearing them only means one is informed, not the ignoramus gun banners hope for. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
