|
|
|
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 Entirely Understandable Psychology of a Mother Who Lost Her Son At Sandy Hook (video available)
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"'For all the moms and dads out there,' Nicole Hockley calls out to her TEDx audience (@ 5:40), 'you can stop this happening to you.' Ms. Hockley’s referring to the tragic death of her son Dylan, one of twenty first-graders murdered by Sandy Hook spree killer [redacted]. 'Because every gun-related death is a preventable death. These are not random acts. You can never say 'this will not happen to me.' This can happen to anyone at any place at any time.' Gun rights advocates will immediately see that the born-again civilian disarmament crusader is both completely wrong and totally right, and not a small bit confused . . ." ... |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(2/6/2015)
|
| If the Sheeple really looked into it beynd what the Government controlled media wants you to believe you will see it was really Sandy Hoax. It was a staged event to get support for gun control |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
