|
|
|
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: Ann Arbor parents seek change in Michigan gun laws
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A group of Ann Arbor parents is petitioning the Michigan Legislature to change laws that allow licensed adults to openly carrying guns in schools.
Dr. Sonya Lewis, with support from fellow parents, launched a MoveOn.org petition on April 23 aimed at the House Judiciary Committee.
The committee is reviewing House Bill 4261, which would close what Lewis calls the "open carry loophole."
"The bill fits in with our vision of how things should be," Lewis said. "This is a common sense measure."
State Rep. Andy Schor, D-East Lansing, introduced the bill in February, and it remains in committee. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/12/2015)
|
Any time you see the phrase "common sense measure" tossed around, you know you're dealing with liberal cacadoody.
And the response should always be "NO!" |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
