|
|
|
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:
4 Gun Rights Advocates Who Were Shot by Guns in 2016
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Many cities saw a rise in shootings in 2016, and that’s not something that just gun control advocates should be complaining about. After all, plenty of gun rights advocates have been the victims in these shootings, too.
Below are four examples of major gun rights proponents who were either killed or seriously wounded by firearms this year. To be clear, this list is certainly not meant to make light of these tragedies or suggest that the victims in any way deserved to be shot. Rather, the intention is to underscore the dangerous nature of firearms by showing that even people who love and own guns can fall prey to accidents or even deliberate violence as well. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(12/31/2016)
|
Soldiers die in war, the sun comes up in the east, water is wet, and bears **** in the woods.
Your point? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
