|
|
|
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:
Addled Clinton Confuses SCOTUS Decision With Gun Control Ad
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. So they wanted people with guns to safely store them and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation. But they’ve accepted many others, so I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.
Um…what? Nowhere in the case are toddlers mentioned. She must be confusing an actual SCOTUS case with the Brady Campaign’s “Toddler’s Kill” ad.
In fact, the Heller decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of citizens to be able to own a functioning gun to protect their children in their own homes. |
| Comment by:
mzanghetti
(10/21/2016)
|
| Do not make the mistake of thinking Hillary was addled or confused about how she answered. Her answer was carefully crafted to confuse and conflate the ad and the issue. She is counting on the average under informed voter to have little to no knowledge of what the Heller actually held and to take her word for what the decision was about AND NOBODY TOLD THEM OTHERWISE. She counted on this happening! I would not ever make the mistake of thinking Hillary was ever just confused about anything, she counts on you doing this so she will be able to advance her agenda unopposed. You do so at your and the 2nd Amendments peril. |
| Comment by:
mzanghetti
(10/21/2016)
|
| Do not make the mistake of thinking Hillary was addled or confused about how she answered. Her answer was carefully crafted to confuse and conflate the ad and the issue. She is counting on the average under informed voter to have little to no knowledge of what the Heller actually held and to take her word for what the decision was about AND NOBODY TOLD THEM OTHERWISE. She counted on this happening! I would not ever make the mistake of thinking Hillary was ever just confused about anything, she counts on you doing this so she will be able to advance her agenda unopposed. You do so at your and the 2nd Amendments peril. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/21/2016)
|
| To paraphrase the (now daft) Glenn Beck, "She is a lying liar who lies." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
