|
|
|
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:
MA: NRA's call to arms diverts attention from devastating crime study
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The National Rifle Association is no doubt grateful for the sensation it caused last week with a video featuring propagandist Dana Loesch.
In 2015, Loesch starred in another NRA video on the depredations of the “godless left.” In her telling, liberals sought nothing less than the extermination of decent Americans, attacking not only “our right to believe,” Loesch said, but “our right to survive.”
Loesch’s latest service to the NRA all but announces civil war. If video technology had existed in South Carolina circa 1860, and secessionist propaganda were assigned to the cause’s most unscrupulous partisans, something similar might have emerged from Charleston. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/8/2017)
|
"Loesch's latest latest service to the NRA all but announces civil war."
Really? What hyperbolic nonsense!
The lefties have become totally demented! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
