|
|
|
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:
CT: On 2nd Amendment, Day is no ‘defender of the people’s rights’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
For decades now, The Day's editors have run a hysterical and biased campaign cunningly designed to help deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights. If there is a shooting anywhere, you print full details of the tragedy, and then milk it for all it is worth. Callously using the victim's injuries and deaths to promote your immoral agenda has become a sickening spectacle that is recognized by many readers as a tragic misuse of your power. It's a violation of your self-described mandate to: "be the champion and protector of the public interest and defender of the people's rights." If you think the public isn't well aware of your thinly disguised tactics, you're sadly mistaken. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/1/2020)
|
| Nice rant. Deaf ears. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
