|
|
|
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:
The NRA’s Intellectually Dishonest Stand On Bump Stocks, Explained
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As I’m sure you’ve heard — because the mainstream media is falling over itself to tell you — the NRA is relenting on a potential gun regulation in the aftermath of the deadly shooting in Las Vegas. The NRA is willing to consider additional regulations on “bump stocks,” which are extended clips that bounce against your shoulder, causing your finger to pull a semi-automatic trigger inhumanly fast, causing the semi-automatic to fire like an automatic weapon.
Ed.: LOL. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/7/2017)
|
This turd is a self-important 'intelectual' who aligns with "Think Progress".
You know... a COMMUNIST?
Memo to those who wish to participate in the (already settled) 'gun debate': No communists need apply. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
