|
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:
Subtle agenda at work in OH, WA school shooting aftermath
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.freelibertywriters.com/
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"It hasn’t taken long for agenda-driven groups and their mainstream press enablers to start pushing not-so-subliminal anti-gun messages in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly Ohio school shooting, and last week’s accidental shooting in Washington."
"Yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor coverage of the Ohio shooting is a sterling example of how the press is biased toward the gun prohibition lobby. When the Monitor explored the question of children and firearms, it relied on the observations of only two sources, one with the anti-gun Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) in San Francisco and the other with the equally anti-gun Center to Prevent Youth Violence (CPYV) in New York City." ... |
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]. |
|
|