|
|
|
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:
MN: Senate Republicans open door to gun control bills – but only slightly
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Minnesota’s top Senate Republican is opening the door for hearings on two gun control bills, but there’s a catch.
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said the House would have to pass both bills first. One measure requires background checks for all gun sales, while the other would allow police to seize guns from a person whom a judge deems a threat.
The measures have passed two House committees controlled by Democrats, but have been stuck in the Senate. Two weeks ago, the Senate Judiciary committee chairman said he would not hold hearings on either bill. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/28/2019)
|
Democrats: "Restrict, restrict, restrict."
Republicans: "Liberate, liberate, liberate." |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
