|
|
|
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:
MI: Rep. Dingell urges Snyder to veto gun bill
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell on Tuesday urged Gov. Rick Snyder to veto a bill that would allow some domestic abusers to obtain concealed weapons permits.
The Dearborn Democrat raised her personal history in urging the second-term Republican governor to veto a bill backed by the National Rifle Association.
"As someone who lived for years in an environment that could erupt violently at any point, I recognize provisions in this legislation as a serious threat to protecting Michigan women, children and communities, and quite frankly even men," Dingell wrote.
Submitters note: Is she referring to her husband former Rep. John Dingell, whose voting record was pro-gun? |
| Comment by:
jughead
(1/15/2015)
|
| never have understood why stupid people think a piece of paper will stop a bullet when a person intends to use one |
| Comment by:
jughead
(1/15/2015)
|
| never have understood why stupid people think a piece of paper will stop a bullet when a person intends to use one |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(1/15/2015)
|
| Women in our city, Bakersfield, die regularly due to having to be disarmed, ie guns confiscated when they file a retraining order against a violent estranged boyfriend or husband. Some liberals have blood on their hands. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
