|
|
|
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:
NV: Accelerating the boogaloo
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Second Amendment isn’t a license to subvert democratic deliberation with intimidation. One goal of these armed rallies is to intimidate elected officials into following demands, but another goal is to frighten the rest of us into staying silent. Or, as historian David Perry puts it, "maximalist Second Amendment positions are minimalist First Amendment positions. You cannot have free speech when the other side has a rifle in your face, even if it's just 'for protest.'" We cannot stay silent in the face of this intimidation. It would be a death knell for democracy. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/9/2020)
|
| BOOGA-BOOGA-BOOGA!!!! ("Oh, dear, oh, my Lippy!") |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
