Clinton Confuses Declaration of Independence With Constitutional Rights

Hillary Clinton

It seems Hillary Clinton is having a problem keeping the document that made the promise and the document that fulfilled the promise straight. In a recent interview, Clinton said, “There’s a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” While these statement both come from two of the most important documents in U.S. history, there is a huge difference between the Constitution/Bill of Rights versus the Declaration of Independence.

I will write this tongue and cheek, but there seems to be at least a few of you out there who believe one [mispelling] will derail the Second Amendment and give the anti-gunners all the [amunition] they need. There are far [to] many posts for one, or even a team of editors to walk on water and deliver perfection every time, but we do our mortal best. However, for those of you with sharp eyes who catch our mistakes now and then, we salute you and will strive in the future to intimidate—nope that should have been intimate (I forgot the brackets to denote a misspelling)—well, here is one from the antis that should make our little blunders pale by comparison.

Major gun rights groups are coming out to support the Toomey-Manchin proposal, which makes it worth a look.

Here is the full story from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA): Hillary Rodham Clinton needs a remedial course on U.S. history because she can’t tell the difference between the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Clinton, in an interview with television personality Steve Harvey that aired Wednesday, erroneously declared “there’s a constitutional right for people to own guns, but there’s also a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But that’s not really true, noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“Clinton had it right on the Second Amendment,” he observed, “but she’s embarrassingly wrong about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those unalienable rights are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but they are not enshrined or enumerated in the Constitution.’ Gottlieb said this gaffe “was painful, considering that Hillary Clinton is a former attorney, former First Lady, former U.S. Senator and former Secretary of State.’ “You would think that with such a resume, Clinton would have learned to get her documents straight,” he suggested. “You might also expect that some sharp reporter might have questioned her about this, but so far she’s essentially gotten a pass. If some Republican had said the same thing, he or she would have been verbally pilloried by now. Consider this one more example of media bias by a fawning press.” Clinton, Gottlieb said, has been on the warpath against gun rights for months. Her remarks on Harvey’s program simply underscore that fact, as she has tried once again to diminish the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.

“Instead of sending her back to the White House,” Gottlieb suggested, “America should send Hillary Clinton back to the school house. ” With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at or by email

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (44)

  1. The problem is that when a Liberal opens their mouth they cannot tell the Truth. Therefore, for Queen Hillary I’m a Lying Murdering Witch Clinton and should be imprisoned it comes as no surprise that she is so confused. Move over Vinnie Barbarinio. Here come Hillary Clinton. The Queen of misquotes and the Potomac Two-step.

  2. I’m not convinced that her election would be hampered any more than it has been. I just watched the Town Hall meeting. She lied her but off, and the people in the studio acknowledged that she has a problem with image and trust, yet they cheered her. They don’t trust her but they will place the destiny of the nation in her hands. Of course, she can lie about emails and classified materials because she is talking to people who haven’t a clue about OPSEC. The audience believed her when she talked about how she has excellent relations with Republicans and would work with them, and yet, in front of their eyes she made snide remarks against Republicans left and right. (Remember when she bragged about making Republicans her enemies?) And, worse than Killary, are the numbers of leftists who support an avowed socialist. As Gary Kasperov, Soviet Grand master Chess Champion, writer, and activist, says, ‘anyone who follows the Bern is a fool.’ Didn’t these people learn anything from the collapse of the USSR? I fear this will be the last “free” election of the progressives win… and the GOP seems bent on giving the election away rather than see Trump selected as the party nominee.

  3. I believe there may be one other way Obama can “pardon” Clinton before she has been convicted. That would be an Executive Order covering any discretions while acting as an agent of the government. Essentially, blanket immunity.

    1. @Dave,
      Yes, I will agree that Obama could put out such an executive order. He doesn’t seem to have been constrained by the law on previous executive orders he has issued in the past (including the one Obama himself had stated he didn’t have the authority to do), why should it matter now? Unlike previous orders, however, I do believe this would be contested in court.

      One problem for Hillary would be that if Obama was to issue such an executive order, it would be the equivalent of him saying “I am convinced that Hillary violated federal law while she was in office but I’m going to put her above the law and am giving her a ‘get out of jail free card'”. Such a statement would have a devastating affect on her candidacy comparable to her copping a plea to a lesser charge. The people who currently believe her statements that she did nothing wrong would realize that the president is convinced she’s guilty and start to drop like flies. Then, if a Republican becomes the next president, that executive order could be vacated just like any other executive order. It would be, after all, just another executive order. At that time she would be subject to whatever charges she would have been subject to had Obama never made that executive order.

  4. Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess Grandmaster, former World Chess Champion, writer, and political activist, has much to tell us about people like Bernie and those who would support his ideals…. and they are not good predictions for the future of America if we don’t get back to the principles which gave rise to the greatest and most generous nation in history.

  5. I think the fix was made long ago at the beginning of Obama’s first run. Nobody had heard of Obama, but everyone knew Hillary. Then, suddenly, she was out and he was in for the election. I believe some kind of backroom deal was made.

  6. You see, Constitution, Declaration…none of it matters to her. She’s a textbook fascist. I looked up the meaning when someone was arguing that Nazi Germany and communist Russia were on opposite ends of the political spectrum. How? They both believe in totalitarian government! Not so. Bernie is an actual communist. On paper, it looks like a kindergarten dream. Everyone shares, everyone gets along. It isn’t a valid political or economic philosophy because Marx was never an economist. He never held a job. He was an out of work philosopher. Just like Bernie. He was out of work and living on welfare when he ran for political office. He has always lived off of the government. He is a true believer.
    Hillary, on the other hand, is reading directly from the Nazi playbook. Pander to big business and liberal wealthy backers with zero illusions that any of it is for the people. A fascist believes that only one person is worthy and capable of ruling the nation. This is why it is in opposition with communism. They openly consider the people to be incompetent and in need of ruling. At least on paper, communism believes in zero government and total economic equality. It has never worked. Once “the people” decide to create the great utopia, the realize a need for a bureaucracy to force equality and dole out “the people’s” assets. In theory it does this without any bias or real power. In reality it must have complete power or society refuses to give up its autonomy and assets.
    Both political ideologies demand that society give up its weapons and right to defend itself or society will revolt. But remember that Hillary is not a socialist or communist. Bernie is an idiot clinging to a failed ideology but he does so because he actually believes that it is better for everyone. Hillary is an evil fascist who believes that she is the only one worthy of being president. It has nothing to do with us. She is a megalomaniac intent on personally owning this country.

  7. It doesn’t matter what Hillary does or doesn’t do; for I firmly believe she’ll be granted a Presidential pardon by Obama – whether it be the e-mail server, Benghazi, etc.

    1. Obama hates her but I see no reason why she wouldn’t be pardoned. She is going to be handed the presidency. I have no illusions that there will be a free election this year. Hillary has spent far too much money and put in too much time for anything else. There is no way she can win the general. Even Democrats hate her. Bernie has poisoned the socialist vote. They hate her. The arguments about Trump pulling from angry Republicans and Democrats, or Rubio being the only one who can beat her in a general, or Cruz being the only conservative are all moot. She has bought and paid for the presidency over the last 40 years and she’ll kill to keep it. She will be the next president. She will not go to prison or even be investigated. It may be up to us to decide what happens in 2017.

    2. @Andy and @Todd
      The problem with your beliefs of Obama giving Hillary a presidential pardon is the fact that he can’t give her a pardon until he can give her a pardon. That may sound strange, but there is a logic to it and it is factual.

      Right now, at this time, Obama is unable to give Hillary a pardon. What would he pardon her for? He can’t pardon her for any crime right now because she hasn’t been found guilty of any crime… yet. A pardon can only be given to someone who has been found guilty, in a court of law, of a crime. Obama has less than a year left in office before he is out of office and no longer able to hand out pardons. Considering where the investigation is at, in that she hasn’t yet been charged, there is no way they can complete the investigation, charge her, set a court date and complete a full trial before Obama leaves office.

      OK, now since I often have a hard time with the word “can’t”, I will admit that there is “a way” that it can be shortened up to a point that Obama would be able to give her a pardon before he is out of office. If Hillary plea bargains to a lesser charge, they can forgo the lengthy trial and the lengthy wait for a court date, and have her declared guilty. At that point, Obama could give her a pardon… if he so desires at that time. The problem with that idea is… do you think Hillary is going to admit to violating any of the laws she is obviously guilty of? I don’t think so! Then she better be sure that Obama will give her a pardon, considering there has been some bad blood between the Obamas and the Clintons in the past.

      To top that off, I really think the DNC will drop her like a hot potato as soon as she is charged and, as soon as she copped a plea, she would probably be considered “persona non grata”. She would definitely no longer be the Democrats’ darling anymore. Hillary currently has a bad enough poll rating on the trust factor. The people who are still backing her fall into two groups: 1) The people who (for some reason) still believe her when she says she is not guilty and 2) The people who just don’t care. Once she cops a plea, the people who currently still believe her will come to the realization that she has been lying to them.

      Personally, one thing I think could happen would be for the DOJ to not charge her. If that happened, however, the results if the investigation would most assuredly be leaked by someone in the FBI to the media and would still end up with devastating effects on her campaign. If the election ends up with a Republican as president, the charges could then be filed by the new administration. Hillary’s best chances would probably be if the DOJ doesn’t charge her, a Democrat gets voted in (and it won’t be her) and the new administration chooses not to charge her. If the FBI recommends that she be charged and the DOJ refuses AND she still, somehow, ends up being voted into office, I think what she has done could be considered… wait for it… impeachable offenses.

  8. First of all, there is no such thing as a “Constitutional right”! ALL our “rights” come from our Creator. The Constitution is a “creation” of “man” and can neither confer nor revoke any “right”. Our “Creator” gives us, the living” our “rights”; “man” delegates “power” and giver “privileges”!!!

    That is why the PTB are in the process of “dumbing-down” the people as to the difference between a “right”, a “privilege” and a “power”; once the PTB have completed that task their work in converting the “people” into their willing slave will almost be complete. The “power” in knowing that “man (the government)” cannot revoke a “right” is a POWERFUL thing in that it means that the Constitution cannot be.amended to revoke a “right” especially an “enumerated” “right” that is the gift to us by our nations founders. The 2nd Amendment cannot be “lawfully” amended.

    Unfortunately our government is rife with Constitutional violations. And it appears that the majority of the people are so far down the road to slavery that they do not know what is happening to them. .

    Of the two documents the “Declaration of Independence” and the “Constitution … ” the “Declaration… ” is by far the most importance.for it was written for ALL the peoples of the earth, not just the American people. The Constitution was written primarily as a “constraint to increased government” made necessary by the bankruptcy of our Nation that could not be dealt with under the framework of the “Articles of Confederation”, something more was needed. The creation by that Constitution of the United States (10 sq.mile area between Maryland and Virginia) was initially necessary to pay off the bankruptcy of the Nation following the Revolution (Crown, Rothschild).

    A “personal” bankruptcy is 7 years; a “national” bankruptcy is 70 years;(that is international). If the 1st bankruptcy was 1789 then future bankruptcies would occur in 1859, 1929, 1999, and will occur in 2069.

    The “United States” has never fulfilled its primary reason for existence. And has through usurpation of unconstitutional, extra-constitutional powers has failed to protect the Constitution which gives it its “power” and reason to exist. .

    Can you see why these co

  9. Thus far,as much as I can see, they are all incorrect. Neither the Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence, give the right to either bear arms or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are granted to us by our Creator. The Declaration promises, and the Constitution ensures, that the overbearing government cannot infringe upon those rights in any way. If we were to accept that an aging piece of paper grants us those rights, it might be possible for government to take those rights away. We must start referring to these rights as unalienable, inherent, and protected by the Constitution by placing limitations on government. The constant attacks on our rights is a result of referring to them as given to us by government. Lawyers or not, they will certainly ignore the wording if it means subjugating us.

  10. Impeach Clinton if she doesn’t follow the Constitution? The Congress wont even do that with Obama after 8 years of his open defiance of the Constitution, nor do the take action when the SCOTUS fails to rule based on the Constitution, nor when they, themselves exceed the powers granted to them by the Constitution.

  11. People seem to forget that at the time of the Founders, the King/Queen established the religion of ALL British citizens, and went so far as to persecute the practice of any other religion. All British subject, including the colonists, were Church of England (Anglican), essentially Catholic in practice but eliminating the Pope and substituting the Monarch, and it had been that way since Henry the VIII dumped the Pope because he was refused a divorce. The idea of the Monarch setting the religion of all was standard practice throughout Europe. In the colonies, every town and city had a house of worship which also served as a meeting house for the community; serving both religious and secular needs of the community. If the separation was as the progressives say, then the dual use would never have been permitted. Essentially, the separation was to keep the government from dictating to the people.

  12. Hilary Clinton is a power hungry socialist,communist,marxist and if she gets to be president God help us all! She will not be my president if she does not follow the Constitution she should be impeached!

  13. Whether the rights are in the Constitution or mentioned in the Declaration they are two edged. Yes, we have a right not to be harmed by gun violence, but we also have the right to defend and kill ,when justified, the sob that wants to harm us. Too bad Harvey wasn’t quick enough on his feet to point that out.

  14. Checks and balances are built in, but are pointless today when courts make new laws, when POTUS openly violates the Constitution, where the Legislative Branch crosses the line between responsibilities.

    SCOTUS ignores the written words of the very people who wrote those documents as to what they themselves say the word and intent of their rights meant then. Words which have the same intent and meaning today. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on the personal views, political or otherwise.

  15. Trump doesn’t even come close to the Liar in Chief, Head Bigot, Racist Rex, Haters Hero, when it comes to narcissism. Trumps traits are actually common among those of power and wealth. But Obama takes the prize. And Hillary is close behind. Every step of her life has been building to one thing… the Presidency of the United States of America… the most powerful position in the world (at least until Obama started screwing around with the economy). It’s likely, Bill would have been quite happy to only be a governor who plays a sax and has a lot of sax with women other than his wife. It’s also probable that the only reason Chelsea exists is the publicity photo op prop.

  16. I can imagine Hillary’s comeback statement would be,

    “With all due respect, the fact is we had a bunch of old dead guys that used to write lots of words on paper. Was it because of a Declaration to become Independent or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that we needed written Constitutional Rights for Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

    Thank you, I’ll be here all night.

  17. The fact that Hillary thinks there is a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t surprise me. Most democrats also seem to think the phrase “separation of church and state” appears somewhere in the constitution and that it guarantees “freedom FROM religion”.

    1. Clinton didn’t come up with that. Jefferson did, and the SCOTUS has agreed ever since. Superstitious nonsense has no place in government policy. If it did, we would be like all the Middle East countries that are on fire right now. Instead, we have checks and balances, regardless of opinions.

    2. I neither stated nor imply that Hillary came up with that statement. I merely stated that most democrats seem to think that it is in the constitution.

    3. @DonP: your opinion notwithstanding, NO Democrat think that the term “separation of church and state” appears in the Constitution as worded. What most thinking people, Democrat or not, know that Jefferson coined the phrase in his letter to Dansbury Baptists and that it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as Jefferson stated for 200 years. It is called the Establishment Clause, the very first part of the very first sentence of the very first Amendment. And as such, Oathkeepers are sworn to uphold the Establishment Clause and to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and ESPECIALLY domestic. But we all know how fickle Oaths are to those who would ignore it.

    4. @Tominator: I have heard enough democrats, in person and on TV, complain about things supposedly being in violation of “the separation of church and state” and/or “freedom from religion” to know that there are a lot of them who apparently think there is actually something in the law that requires a separation of church and state. Maybe you hit it on the head… maybe they aren’t, as you phrased it, “thinking people”. Whether or not they think it is worded exactly as “separation of church and state” is not really important since their understanding of the supposed law results in the same misunderstanding. If there actually was such a law, however, it could be argued that such law would be unconstitutional.

      What I am not exactly clear on is your intent in the phrasing of your statement: “…What most thinking people, Democrat or not, know that Jefferson coined the phrase in his letter to Dansbury Baptists and that it has been interpreted by the SCOTUS as Jefferson stated for 200 years. It is called the Establishment Clause, the very first part of the very first sentence of the very first Amendment…”

      It could be interpreted that the first “it” in your “It is called the establishment clause,…” is referring to the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is the last thing you referred to as “it”, but I’m not sure. If that is what you meant, there is a big difference between “separation of church and state” and the actual Establishment Clause of: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    5. The Problem with the Oath Keepers, are they have A Habit of Picking and Choosing What Part’s of the US Constitution to Obey. And Discard the Rest.

    6. You are at least partly right. The phrase “wall of separation” between church and state was, indeed Jefferson’s. But it doesn’t mean what leftists THINK it means. If you had bothered to actually READ the document where Jefferson used the phrase you would know that Jefferson’s wall was never intended to protect the government from religion. Jefferson’s wall was intended to protect religion from government. The constitution was written to establish the boundaries of government power. That’s why Article 1, Section 8 explicitly lists the areas in which congress is empowered to legislate. Section 9 includes some “Don’t you dare go there” language for good measure. But, not being certain that future generations would understand that Article 1, Section 8 was inclusive of every allowable for legislation, the framers went so far as to add the 9th Amendment which explicitly states that the 1st through 8th amendments is not an exhaustive list – just because a right is not enumerated does not mean that we the people do hot have it. Further, the framers also added the 10th amendment which says that a power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people.

      The bottom line is that the framers clearly intended for the government to have only those powers specifically granted in in the constitution.

    7. “Clinton didn’t come up with that. Jefferson did, and the SCOTUS has agreed ever since.”

      Shows what you (think you) know.

      The SCOTUS case illogically integrating a misintrepretation of Jefferson’s “Danbury letter” as a “constitutional right” didn’t come to pass until the 1947, when Justice Hugo Black, in ‘Everson v. Board of Education,’ penned:

      “In the words of Jefferson [the First Amendment] was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State’…[that] must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”

      IOW: that was 142 years AFTER the Jefferson letter of 1805.

      Study up:

      The Mythical ‘Wall of Separation’: How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
      By Daniel L. Dreisbach

      Oh, BTW:

      In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

      In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”

      As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.

      On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:

      “Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.

      Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.

      Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.

      In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

      ‘Tominator,’ eh? Perfect nym for you. 🙂

  18. The lying about the extramarital affair WAS the reason for the impeachment since he lied about it under oath to Congress.

    1. Marc, you really need to get your facts straight.
      First, Bill Clinton was impeached on two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. He was not charged with lying about an extramarital affair. Lying about an extramarital affair not only isn’t an impeachable offense, it isn’t even illegal. It was the fact that he lied under oath that he was impeached. What the lie was about doesn’t matter.
      Second, the perjury offense was NOT a lie to congress, it was in front of a grand jury during a sexual harassment case in which he was the defendant.

    2. DonP,
      You are correct about Clinton not being impeached for merely lying publicly about his relations(ship) with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached, in part, for lying about the Lewinsky affair UNDER OATH. Jurists call conveying falsehoods while one is under oath “perjury” and THAT very much IS a crime at any level of court.

    3. @Bad Cyborg,

      Merely? In part?

      You are correct about Clinton not being impeached for xxxxxx lying publicly about his relations(ship) with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached, xx xxxx, for lying about the Lewinsky affair UNDER OATH. Jurists call conveying falsehoods while one is under oath “perjury” and THAT very much IS a crime at any level of court.

      There, fixed it for you.

      For all of you people who continue to try and link Bill Clinton’s dalliances with Monika Lewinsky as being significant with respect to the perjury charge, here’s an analogy for you.

      Saying that Bill Clinton’s crime was lying about a sexual relation is like some kid in jail telling his parents the reason he was arrested was that he was driving his red Camaro. When, in fact, the kid was arrested for driving through the police chief’s lawn. What he was driving (Exactly what Bill Clinton was lying about) is inconsequential. The fact that where he was driving was in violation of the law (lying under oath) is the only thing that matters.

  19. It is truly sad that so many democrats support hrc stating all of her accomplishments yet when asked cannot name a single one. She is a disbarred lawyer, the “wife” of President who was impeached for lying about extramarital affairs, had no accomplishments as a senator and serious failures as the Secretary of State. I believe both she and her husband should be in the big house, not the White House.

    1. Actually, Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for “lying about extramarital affairs”. That’s a democrat talking point used in an attempt to downplay the severity of his actions. Bill Clinton was impeached for committing perjury under oath, which is a felony. The fact that the topic at hand was about his infidelities is inconsequential.

    2. HRC was never disbarred. She had not practiced in a long time and her license lapsed without renewal. That is NOT disbarment. Period.

    3. Better check your facts sir, Mrs Clinton was disbarred for professional misconduct in the same incident that got her fired from the law firm she was employed by. Her behavior as SOS would seem to indicate she has not lost her penchant for misconduct.

  20. Clinton is a mongoloid and a liar. She neither understands nor cares about the rights of Americans. All she cares about is power.

    1. And Herr Adolph Trump has never told a lie, has not had multiple marriages, is a fine, upstanding christian and not a narcissistic personality disorder.

      Jeebus. THIS is why America cannot have nice things.

    2. @Mikial:

      I totally agree with your feelings about Hillary. Aren’t Presidents supposed to have a fair amount of charisma or likability, to where people may actually want to believe and trust and follow them? Well, Hillary has NONE of that. I don’t even like to look at her face. Honestly I have really bad feelings when I see her.

      She is just a relic from her husband’s years, and the only reason she has a following is because the Democratic party (for some odd reason) could not offer up anyone else as an alternative. I’m not counting Bernie because I believe he is a maverick, not chosen by the party.

    3. My main complaint about her is how she plays both sides of the fence, on various topics, and gets away with it… apparently because her followers are either too dumb to realize it or just don’t care. But then it seems to be fairly common among Democrats. They tout all of their supposed better than thou attitudes, such as the treatment of women and blacks. but then only seem to apply them their fellow Democrats and throw them out the window in how they treat people in those categories who are Republicans.

  21. I believe they are one and the same.

    I have a RIGHT long ago described by the Constitution and guaranteed by the government and that this right gives me the ability to defend myself and my family so that we can have life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.