|
|
|
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:
OH: Kent State University Has No Problem With Rifle-Toting Graduation Photos
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A former Kent State University student and her rifle went viral after graduation photos showcased an AR-15 strapped to her back while walking through campus, but the school has no issue with her shot thanks to a well-timed loophole. The Blast spoke with Kaitlin Bennett, who commemorated her graduation at KSU over the weekend with a photo shoot highlighting her firepower. She took major backlash online, including death threats from people who thought the picture was in incredibly poor taste. Bennett says she took the pics “Simply because I am so passionate about the second amendment and gun rights.” |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(5/16/2018)
|
| Death threats because they thought the pictures were in "poor taste". So now poor taste gives a right to kill a person. The stupid Libtards are the reason we are arming. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
