|
|
|
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: More regulations? More guns? Michigan Lawmakers Debate Solutions In Wake of Oregon Shooting
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"I always hear the NRA say 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' They're right. Let's do background checks on those people," he said.
But Democratic legislation calling for universal background checks has not seen any action so far in the Michigan Legislature, where the Republican majority has moved to streamline gun rules in recent years.
Gun control laws simply do not work, according to Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton, who delivered a floor speech on Tuesday challenging his colleagues to name one law that would have prevented the mass shooting in Oregon.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/7/2015)
|
Here's how any gun control debate should go:
"We need common sense gun safety laws."
"No."
"But..."
"No."
"How about if we..."
"No."
"But we have to..."
"No."
"Is that all you can say? NO?"
"Yes." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
