|
|
|
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:
UK: Why gun rights advocates don't trust Clinton on the second amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Throughout her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has said that she supports the second amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
But many gun rights advocates say they fear she will reopen the door for cities and states to ban private ownership of handguns, pointing to her repeated comments questioning a key US supreme court decision on gun ownership. Even liberal second amendment experts have called some of Clinton’s explanations of her position “odd”.
As one law professor who supports gun rights put it, Clinton on guns is like a Republican politician who claims she supports abortion rights, even as she opposes Roe v Wade. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(10/27/2016)
|
But she says she supports the 2nd Amendment BUT:
Since she has been proven to be a pathological and criminal liar even to the FBI how can anyone believe anything she says? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
