|
|
|
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:
What radicalized gunman in Virginia shooting?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
We now know that the gunman who apparently intended to take out as many Republican members of Congress as he could was a Bernie Sanders supporter. It has prompted people to ask, was he radicalized by left-wing rhetoric?
Rep. Dave Reichert: I hope we don’t have to be surrounded by security
The stuff he wrote about trickle down economics and Republicans giving tax breaks to the “1 percent” is straight out of the Democratic platform. But it’s hardly radical.
His Facebook post that reads, “Trump is a traitor… It’s time to destroy Trump & Co” – could imply violence. That rhetoric could easily have come from left-wing sites or from the comment section of just about any website. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/17/2017)
|
Absolutely ridiculous. The Second Amendment option against government is against TYRANNY, not economic policy positions; against government forces deployed against the people, not against individual lawmakers.
This guy wasn't "pushed" over the edge, a segment amounting to fully one quarter of the U.S. population LIVES there. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
