|
|
|
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:
Women at NRA Convention are Sticking to Guns – and Trump
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Among the tens of thousands of people who took part in the National Rifle Association convention here, women were an obvious minority. The thing that seemed to unite them was an overwhelming enthusiasm for President Trump. An attendee passes by a large banner advertising a handgun during the NRA convention at the Georgia World Congress Center on Thursday in Atlanta. President Trump gave the keynote the address to the convention, where the women who helped him beat Hillary Clinton are sticking with him.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/1/2017)
|
Ms. Jansen (God bless ya!), the reason the 'debate' isn't (and can't be) "calm" is because it is literally a life/death struggle for our liberty. When a fundamental individual right is under such relentless, unabated attack, fierce determination and vinegar is necessary in its defense. Without that intensity, defeat is a certainty.
The anti-Second Amendment people are deadly serious, and they will not let up. They must be fought with the most vicious ferocity possible.
"Calm" ain't in the equation. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
