|
|
|
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:
Australian Senator Critiques Hillary Clinton’s Embrace of His Country’s Gun Confiscation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“I was a bit horrified by that,” Leyonhjelm told NRA News in response to Clinton’s comments. “I don’t think Australia is a model for the United States on gun control at all.”
He said the country’s strict gun control did not lessen crime but instead they saw an increase. He said the mandatory gun buyback program made citizens less safe. “It also removed the right to own a gun in any state in Australia for self-defense. We are a nation of victims,” Leyonhjelm told the publication. “You cannot own a gun for self-defense.”
“It doesn’t matter what the circumstances. It doesn’t matter how big the threat. You cannot defend yourself.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/14/2015)
|
| In other words, instead of getting it from a horse's @$$, why don't we instead get it from the horse's mouth? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
