|
|
|
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:
A Look at Hillary Clinton's Claim About Vermont's Gun Pipeline to New York
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://inrigare.wordpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As the April 19 New York presidential primary approached, Hillary Clinton sought to draw a contrast with rival Bernie Sanders on gun policy. During an April 11 appearance in Port Washington, N.Y., for what was billed as a "conversation on gun violence," Clinton took issue with Sanders’ characterization of his home state, Vermont, in the gun policy debate. Sanders has said that Vermonters have a more tolerant attitude toward guns than more urbanized states like New York, because of their state’s small, rural nature.
|
| Comment by:
laker1
(4/13/2016)
|
| So with all those guns in Vermont, why do they have extremely low crime with guns and NY has high crime with guns? You know Hillary, when those guns cross into NY they must become free to kill and maim. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
