|
|
|
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:
Vox Founder Notes GOP Supports 2nd Amendment To Overthrow Gov’t While Blood Is Still On The Field
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Liberal writer Matthew Yglesias brought up Senator Rand Paul’s support for the second amendment as a way to check tyrannical governments mere hours after the Kentucky Republican and others were shot at while practicing baseball.
A shooter opened fire on Republican lawmakers and staff Wednesday morning as they practiced for an annual charity baseball game. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others were shot.
In response to the news, Yglesias tweeted out a June 2016 comment from Paul where he said that the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical.” Ygelsias is a co-founder of the liberal news site Vox. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/15/2017)
|
| This killer was NOT a revolutionary! |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
