|
|
|
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:
Anti-Gun Sculptures: The Next Step In Public Indoctrination
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constiutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The gun control lobby has come up with a new way to convince supporters of the Second Amendment to abandon their pro-gun stance. With the recent spate of high-profile school shootings, the left has reignited its crusade to bring about more anti-gun legislation. So far, the lobby’s tactics seem to have had little impact on overall public opinion. Now, it is trying a uniquely different approach. Gun control activists have designed statues depicting frightened children as a visual tool intended to persuade Americans to reconsider their pro-gun views. Using visuals is an effective persuasion tool, but in this case, it will likely fail. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(9/18/2018)
|
| Fantastic, great idea. Remember all the historical statues the left has destroyed, and the cost of them. Well Libtards, go ahead and spend your money. The deplorables will be there. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
