|
|
|
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:
Fake gun shop video raises questions about truth, compliance with laws
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
... "The first flag is raised when viewers are told the entire video setup is a lie. That won’t surprise anyone familiar with “progressive” anti-gunner practices, but the thing is, once someone admits they’re lying, how are we to trust anything they say?"
"Is it reasonable to believe that not one person recorded challenged the fraud behind the counter, told him off and walked out? Why is it the “first time customers” were all so receptive to the technique of being lied to that they swore off something they represented themselves as wanting for reasons as valid as protection and belief in the Second Amendment? ..." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/18/2015)
|
| Likely they didn't have a "film permit", either, but I don't expect NYC mavens will prosecute them for not having obtained permitting every other film maker must have. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
