|
|
|
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:
NRA ad falsely says Clinton 'doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a new multi-million-dollar ad buy, the NRA attacks Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s stance on guns.
Clinton, the ad says, doesn’t want gun owners to be able to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association said it’s spending $3 million on the ad in North Carolina plus other "key battleground states" of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada.
"She’s one of the wealthiest women in politics," the ad begins. "Combined income: $30 million. Tours the world on private jets. Protected by armed guards for 30 years. But she doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense." |
| Comment by:
laker1
(8/12/2016)
|
| She is a proven liar and corrupt owner of a money laundering organization. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(8/12/2016)
|
| How much b***sh** can a sane person take?? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
