|
|
|
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:
Addled Clinton Confuses SCOTUS Decision With Gun Control Ad
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. So they wanted people with guns to safely store them and the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation. But they’ve accepted many others, so I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment.
Um…what? Nowhere in the case are toddlers mentioned. She must be confusing an actual SCOTUS case with the Brady Campaign’s “Toddler’s Kill” ad.
In fact, the Heller decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of citizens to be able to own a functioning gun to protect their children in their own homes. |
| Comment by:
mzanghetti
(10/21/2016)
|
| Do not make the mistake of thinking Hillary was addled or confused about how she answered. Her answer was carefully crafted to confuse and conflate the ad and the issue. She is counting on the average under informed voter to have little to no knowledge of what the Heller actually held and to take her word for what the decision was about AND NOBODY TOLD THEM OTHERWISE. She counted on this happening! I would not ever make the mistake of thinking Hillary was ever just confused about anything, she counts on you doing this so she will be able to advance her agenda unopposed. You do so at your and the 2nd Amendments peril. |
| Comment by:
mzanghetti
(10/21/2016)
|
| Do not make the mistake of thinking Hillary was addled or confused about how she answered. Her answer was carefully crafted to confuse and conflate the ad and the issue. She is counting on the average under informed voter to have little to no knowledge of what the Heller actually held and to take her word for what the decision was about AND NOBODY TOLD THEM OTHERWISE. She counted on this happening! I would not ever make the mistake of thinking Hillary was ever just confused about anything, she counts on you doing this so she will be able to advance her agenda unopposed. You do so at your and the 2nd Amendments peril. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/21/2016)
|
| To paraphrase the (now daft) Glenn Beck, "She is a lying liar who lies." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
