|
|
|
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:
Self-Defense Tip: See Something, Say Something. Maybe.
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"'The owner of a local gun range called authorities last September, suspicious about an inexperienced group that had come to learn how to shoot a pistol. One of those men drew much wider attention last week,' wsj.com reports. 'Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, a 23-year-old Ohio man back in town three months after he returned from training with violent extremists in Syria, was the leader of the group at the gun range, according to court documents from federal authorities. He was accused by federal officials in court papers of contemplating an attack against the U.S.' If you see something suspicious at the gun store or gun range, say something. That said . . ." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/27/2015)
|
| Seems like yet another "Feddie" search for an excuse to persecute the "small guy". We've seen it before. Several U.S. flight schools were persecuted by the feds for allegedly "training" 9/11 highjackers to fly large aircraft. How's this instance any different ? At least one gun range with a publicized "anti-arab" policy has been publicly excoriated. And who/what protects the snitch ? The feds have a dismal history of "protecting" witnesses - unless their protection also shields key fed agencies or personnel. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
