|
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:
Mark Levin: "How Come Obama Did Not Mention Fort Hood?"
Submitted by:
rick schwartz
Website: http://jack-burton.hubpages.com/hub/Assault-Weapons-Evil-Black-Rifles-or-perhaps-not
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Over the weekend, the president was speaking and, really, when he got to his politics it was just stomach turning. ... he named four instances in where there were, what, massacres? But he left one out. I immediately realized ... what happened to Fort Hood? How come he didn't mention Fort Hood? How come Obama did not mention Fort Hood where 13 human beings were slaughtered and there were several survivors. Because, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, Fort Hood is a military enclave, it's a base. You can't have more control than that."
"Number two, they had all kinds of rules of who can carry weapons and who can't there. ... All kinds of gun control on that base." ... |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
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]. |
|
|