|
|
|
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:
President Obama: Blame Second Amendment, Not Radical Islamic Terror
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
During a December 6 speech on national security and the fight against terrorism, President Obama refused to criticize radical Islamic terror but had no problem suggesting that the availability of firearms in America is problematic.
At one point during the speech, Obama actually warned Americans not criticize Islam for the attacks that Muslims have carried out on our soil–most recently the Ohio State University attack, but also the attacks on the Minnesota mall, Orlando Pulse, San Bernardino County building, Chattanooga military offices, and Fort Hood (2009), to name a few. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(12/8/2016)
|
| Just 43 more days and this incompetent community ... "organizer" is relegated to the great trash heap of history. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/8/2016)
|
Says the great divider who is surrounded by people with guns.
In the face of increasing terror threats, he would be happy to disarm all law abiding citizens and eliminate the only real protection that exists for most of us. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/8/2016)
|
| The terrorist has never had a greater enabler. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
