|
|
|
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: Gun control advocates rally at Michigan Capitol
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
More than 100 gun control advocates rallied Thursday at the Michigan Capitol, urging the state’s Republican-led Legislature to enact new “common sense” regulations after a teen gunman last week killed 17 people at a Florida high school.
Organizers said they want lawmakers to ban assault weapons in Michigan, increase funding for community mental health services, hike school funding for social workers, tighten background check rules and do more to keep guns out of the hands of “extreme risk” individuals.
“It’s a sad place and time in America where you go to school and you have to fear for your life,” said Jake Foles, 18, a senior at Kalamazoo Central High School.
|
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/23/2018)
|
| Why don't they try to FIX it instead of destroying MY RIGHTS???!!! |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(2/23/2018)
|
| There will be thousands of pro-gunners. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/23/2018)
|
| And the sun rose in the East this morning. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/23/2018)
|
| And the sun rose in the East this morning. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
