|
|
|
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:
Politics Geraldo Rivera Grabs Rifle To Make Theatrical Point In Gun Debate On ‘Hannity’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera put an exclamation mark on a gun debate Tuesday with host Sean Hannity by brandishing what appeared to be a rifle or musket. (Watch the video below.)
“Give me that rifle,” Rivera said to someone off-camera on “Hannity.” Rivera, who rotates as a cohost on “The Five” on Fox News, grabbed the antique firearm and held it up.
“This is what weapons looked like,” Rivera said, drawing laughter from Hannity and another Fox News colleague, Pete Hegseth. “This is what they looked like when the Second Amendment was passed. This is what they looked like.”
|
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(1/26/2023)
|
| Geraldo, see this feather quill ? This is what the First Amendment looked like when the Bill of Rights passed - before fools like you could con millions on TV. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
