|
|
|
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:
Trump Goes After Hillary Clinton on Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepanbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Trump hammered home his argument that gun rights are critical to fighting terrorism — raising the specter of recent terrorist attacks — but spent most of his speech sharpening his attacks on Clinton. He even referenced Clinton’s advantage with women voters, arguing that Clinton is telling “every woman that she doesn’t have the right to defend herself” with a firearm. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(5/23/2016)
|
| Just a dog and pony show. Forget all that the Government controlled cooperate media tells you. Its all lies. Do a search and you will see in the past trump has spoke in favor of the assault weapon ban and has even come out in favor of longer waiting bans. Forget all the times he has publically spoke as to how good the Clintons are. The Bankers and the Military Complex pick who runs and who wins |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(5/23/2016)
|
Forget that fact that Ronald Reagan was not a supporter of Democrats, but WAS a card carrying Democrat who converted to Republican.
And forget that fact that in order to do business in certain situations you MUST grease the Democrat skids, don't support Democrats, forget doing business in Illinois, California or New York.
A business man does what he has to, to conduct business, silly people believe otherwise. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
