Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Order KEEP AND BEAR: THE MOVIE now for FREE shipping and a FREE bumper sticker!
Store

A common ploy of Democrats trying to push their agenda or to make excuses for something wrong they’ve been caught at is to redefine terms and meanings. The classic example was when then President Bill Clinton was caught with his pants down in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinski. When asked about having sex, Clinton gave his famous response of saying that it depends on what is means.

The same double-speak is being used by Shannon Watts, the leader of Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Moms Demand Action when she tweeted about President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. In her tweet, she stated that Kavanaugh only uses the Constitution to determine whether or not a law is constitutional instead of weighing in other factors.

(Bearing Arms) – Shannon Watts gets a little unhinged when it comes to guns. We all know that. She sees an individual’s right to keep and bear arms as something that should pretty much be abolished, and anyone who disagrees with her is a target of her scorn…when they’re not being blocked on Twitter, at least.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Keep and Bear updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: BREAKING: Kavanaugh Accuser May NOT Show Up to Thursday Hearing (Details)

With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, she has yet another excuse to spew her bile all over social media. In the process, she may have made a bit of a slip-up.

Shannon Watts

✔@shannonrwatts

Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law’s impact on public safety.

Clearly in her statement, Watts believes that liberal agenda should be a determining factor in deciding if a law is constitutional or not, regardless of what the US Constitution says. This is already the problem with at least 3 members of the Supreme Court – Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan and many other judges appointed by Obama during his 8 years of trying to destroy the Constitution and America.

READ MORE HERE

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to a friend