|
|
|
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:
GOA: Tell Trump Petraeus Wrong Secretary of State Choice for Gun Owners
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If Trump does not listen to those advising against that pick, that fighting is going to spread, with gun owners taking a lead. That’s because Petraeus broke his oath to the Constitution and joined with retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and other veterans to form the Second Amendment-infringing Veterans Coalition for Common Sense. The group is part of retired Captain Mark Kelly’s and Gabby Gifford’s Americans for Responsible Solutions.
As with all things Opposite Day “progressive,” there’s nothing “common sense” or “responsible” about it. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(12/1/2016)
|
| The military has always been cursed with a certain level of institutional stupid, and it's well represented by the who's who named in the first paragraph. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/1/2016)
|
| Trump showing his democratic true colours? |
| Comment by:
laker1
(12/1/2016)
|
| Petraeus and Mark Kelley in bed on gun control like banning semi-auto rifles. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/1/2016)
|
| I wonder what the NRA and the Heritage Foundation's input on General P.s nomination would be? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
