|
|
|
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 |
| 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) |
|
|
