|
|
|
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:
Canada: Liberal minister calls Leitch's pepper spray proposal 'offensive to women'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In an early indication the Trudeau government won’t shy away from weighing in on the Conservative leadership race, Status of Women Minister Patty Hajdu is slamming Conservative candidate Kellie Leitch for her proposal to legalize the possession of pepper spray and mace so that women can better protect themselves from violence.
On Thursday, Leitch, a former minister in Hajdu’s portfolio, vowed to amend the Criminal Code to make it legal to carry mace or pepper spray to “better empower Canadians to defend themselves from criminal acts.” |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/3/2016)
|
It's offensive to women to suggest that they have a (limited) choice in self defense, but it's not offensive to give them no option to defend themselves.
In Progressiveland, it's always Opposite Day. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
