|
|
|
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:
Michael Moore Makes Case for the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The film “American Sniper,” a tribute to slain Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, got off to a riveting start this long holiday weekend with earnings north of $100 million. The enormous support shown by Americans is lost on gun control activists like filmmaker Michael Moore, who tweeted his unsolicited opinion of the film [original wording]: “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.” |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/20/2015)
|
Michael, if I'm using a firearm to defend my life, the life of a family member, or the life of my innocent neighbor from thugs who live on the next block instead of 7000 miles away, am I a hero?
You call military snipers cowards because of the manner in which the weapon is used. You've got it all bass-ackwards.
The determinant is the WHY... why is someone using a firearm?
To commit robbery of the elderly or inform? Evil and cowardly.
To protect our military troops from a vantage point where the tactical situation can be observed by eliminating clear threats? Good and courageous.
It is courage indeed to "make the call", because one then has to live with the decision, and good men will accept that burden. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
