|
|
|
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:
Russia's 2016 Twitter Campaign Was Strongly Pro-Gun, With Echoes Of The NRA
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
To illustrate the reach of the posts, the data analysts calculated their total potential impressions — the number of followers for the accounts multiplied by the number of Tweets.
Pro-NRA and pro-gun messages had more than 32.4 million potential impressions; anti-gun and anti-NRA messages had fewer than 6.7 million potential impressions. The pro-NRA messages had nearly five times the reach as the anti-NRA messages.
The tweets are overwhelmingly supportive of gun ownership and speak about the NRA in positive terms. There was comparatively little anti-NRA content.
Ed.: For comparison, Elon Musk gets more potential impressions than that in just two tweets. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/21/2018)
|
Russia is friendlier to our Second Amendment than Democrats?
My, how NOVEL!
(smirk)
There's a message in there somewhere. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
