|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
