![Keep and Bear Arms](/images/clear.gif)
|
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:
Standing behind Alec Baldwin (just in case)
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In every "gritty" movie that wins awards in Hollywood, there is smoking (it makes their characters gritty and "believable"), guns and violence.
All over the movies and the violent video games the entertainment industry produces are the oily fingerprints of the liberal Hollywood elite.
Somehow these stars, who are protected by well-armed security guards but who want to defund the police who protect us, reason that we should not have our Second Amendment right and that we Southern males are the real root cause of violence in America. Guns in your hands: bad; guns in their hands: good. |
Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(11/5/2021)
|
"the police who protect us"
Oh puLEEZ. Police don't protect anyone other than themselves. |
|
|
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]. |
|
|