|
|
|
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:
Pro-gun group wants Trump to dump Petraeus as possible secretary of state
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Former Central Intelligence (CIA) Director David Petraeus is a bad pick for secretary of state because of his “Clinton-like” disregard for Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights, according to Gun Owners of America.
Earlier this year, Petraeus joined retired astronaut Mark Kelly in launching a gun control group called The Veterans Coalition for Common Sense. The group’s primary objectives are increasing background check scrutiny for gun purchases and working to decrease veteran firearm suicides. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/9/2016)
|
Not to mention his "Clinton-like" disregard for the security of classified documents.
Seriously, how can you repeatedly call your opponent "Crooked Hillary", then hire a Secretary of State who is already proven guilty of the crime that you accused Hillary of? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
