|
|
|
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:
Watching NRATV, a Life-Style Channel Built on Instruments of Death, After Parkland
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Since the massacre in Parkland, Florida, gun-control activists have pressured Apple, Amazon, and other streaming platforms to drop NRATV, and thereby join other companies that have cut ties with the National Rifle Association. The N.R.A.’s twenty-four-hour digital channel is a remarkable product, marked by an affluent look and a confident monomania; it keeps up the morale of loyalists primed to exalt the N.R.A.’s values, and it delights enthusiasts by investing guns with all of the glamour and valor its producers can muster. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/3/2018)
|
Built upon Instruments of Equality, you mean.
Just ask the 80 year old grandma who shoots an intruder, or the twenty-something college girl who shoots a sexual predator. Or even the 130lb pizza delivery boy who shoots a 190lb robber.
The whining caption of the lead photo is thus justified - you people SHOULD be disqualified from any 'debate'. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/3/2018)
|
| The newyorker is afraid of comments... I would like a list of NRA mass murders, when the nyker has time!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
