|
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:
AOC Goes Full Anti-Gun, Exploits New Zealand Attack to Rip NRA
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libetyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wasted no time Friday, launching a verbal attack on the National Rifle Association in reaction to the mass shooting at two New Zealand mosques, according to The Hill.
But the Seattle P-I.com and Associated Press are reporting that the second mosque attack was interrupted when “a prayer-goer returned fire with a rifle or shotgun.” If accurate, this report would reinforce NRA’s long-standing argument that “good guys with guns” stop “bad guys with guns.” |
Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/18/2019)
|
Law abiding citizens refuse to take responsibility for the actions of criminals. Get used to it. |
Comment by:
jac
(3/18/2019)
|
She has proved her stupidity numerous times. Why would anyone care what she thinks? |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/18/2019)
|
This girl is a blatant ditz. Anyone who doesn't recognize that is also a blatant ditz.
Blatant ditzes should not be allowed to vote. |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|