|
|
|
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:
Clinton Aide: Of Course She Doesn’t Want to Abolish the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
According to Chris Cox, executive director of The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Clinton is wrong on all fronts.
“A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms,” he said last year. “Hillary Clinton’s extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people.”
Ed.: Of course she doesn't want to repeal it, she just wants to ignore it. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(5/13/2016)
|
| She just wants Australian type of gun registration thus confiscation of all semi-auto rifles. When that does not slow criminals it will be all semi-auto handguns. When that does not work it will be all sniper rifles, (hunting rifles). When that does no work all pump action shotguns and rifles, etc. Just like in Australia, England, France, Germany, Etc. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/13/2016)
|
Hillary wants the "Australian Solution," but she doesn't think that damages our second amendment rights.
Because we will still be allowed spitballs.
Meanwhile, just how is this e-mail investigation...."inquiry?" ....going?
Hillary: "Laws for thee, NOT for me." |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
