|
|
|
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: Controversy over proposed symbolic gun ban in Constantine
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Controversy continues in the village of Constantine.
Weeks after people packed a village meeting, speaking out over the possibility of an assault rifle ban, another meeting wrapped up Monday night.
The meeting room was packed with people once again Monday, all standing up against any type of ban.
Tempers were high at tonight's Constantine Village Council meeting.
The hot topic: whether or not to ban assault rifles in the community.
"Everybody has the right to bear arms, that's all we're trying to do. And she's trying to take them away from us," said resident Phil Lockwood.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/20/2016)
|
"Weiss says she's not calling for a ban on guns, but wanted to hear from her community."
This is commonly known as the "walk-back".
Translation: "When I proposed a ban on guns, I really wasn't calling for a ban on guns."
Huh?
Despicable. They should dump this witch as soon as possible. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
