|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
jughead
(4/18/2018)
|
| they didnt ask me |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/18/2018)
|
https://www.hoaxandchange.com/2018/04/dr-john-r-lott-support-for-gun-control-has-surged-over-the-last-couple-of-years/
By contrast, support for more gun control fell from 1998 to 2014. And why has this occurred? It is because Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and others have funded a massive flood of this bogus research and gotten repeated over and over again in the news. Those who have read these emails or the beginning of Chapter 3 in my book, �The War on Guns,� knew about my warnings. I repeatedly warned people in organizations that support the right to self-defense that this shift in public opinion was going to occur. But, to put it simply, my warnings fell on deaf ears. They were still fighting the last war and not realizing that |
| Comment by:
-none-
(4/18/2018)
|
Must See:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=3BCj_1524040418
Gun Control And The Value Of Life - Gov. Bevin Responds to Alleged Hypocrisy
Governor Matt Bevin gives one of the best commentaries on gun control and the value of life. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
