|
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:
The NRA�s New Playbook for Making Gun-Grabbers Out of Democratic Nominees
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When it comes to inveighing on the relative gun-rights qualifications of elected officials, the National Rifle Association rarely holds back. For decades, the NRA has graded politicians at both the state and federal level, a system that has served to establish the group as the most influential voice on gun rights in America.
But until very recently, the kind of broadside attack the group launched on Wednesday against Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama�s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, simply wouldn�t have happened. That�s because the NRA respected the longstanding tradition that allowed Senators to �advise and consent� on judicial picks without fear of retribution. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/18/2016)
|
The NRA didn't "make" Garland a gun-grabber, his own record does.
Red Queen, call your office.... |
|
|
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) |
|
|