|
|
|
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:
Hillary Clinton Slams Bernie Sanders for Lax Stance on Gun Control
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://inrigare.wordpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hillary Clinton ripped into US Sen. Bernie Sanders for what she said was his pass-the-buck stance on gun control, and said the rural Democrat isn't taking into account how many weapons flow from his state into New York. Clinton, speaking in an emotional rally in Long Island alongside families of violence victims, touted her own record fighting against a bill that made it impossible for people to sue gun manufacturers when their weapons are used in mass killings like Sandy Hook. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/12/2016)
|
" ... a bill that made it impossible for people to sue gun manufacturers when their weapons are used in mass killings like Sandy Hook."
So why SHOULD an AR-15 manufacturer be held responsible for what Adam Lanza did? He STOLE the weapon from his mother (whom he MURDERED) and commited a horrible act. Did Bushmaster somehow "know" that their product would be used by Adam Lanza that way?
Trying to hold manufacturers responsible like Hillary wants is SICK and twisted .... it will only serve to hurt the manufacturers --- AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY POLITICIANS WANT THESE SUITS TO GO FORTH. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
