|
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:
Anti-Gun Extremist Invents Call For Armed Insurrection
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In responding to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s CPAC speech, gun control advocate Ladd Everitt falsely claims that the NRA has long called for armed insurrection, but can provide no real proof of that claim.
Everitt argues that NRA spent the run-up to the election urging group members to be ready to grab their guns and defend freedom to the point of “insurrection” if Donald Trump lost. But his argument is more than suspect, and the supporting data is even weaker. |
Comment by:
dasing
(3/3/2017)
|
The NRA promotes defence of firearm owners, NOT murder! |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/3/2017)
|
The link she'sa no worky. |
Comment by:
-none-
(3/3/2017)
|
kalipornia separatist gun collections:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6d/90/ce/6d90cebaed4b6803501c20344263bd87.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1a/90/ac/1a90ac9548dc5f2e59b3236d821a723e.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/41/2e/39412e6dfeb2d506035f2d91d58eb8e5.jpg http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1239001/scottferber4nerfjb*750.jpg -
pull down state on list: https://act.nraila.org/default.aspx |
|
|
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) |
|
|