|
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: Americans want protection from irresponsible gun owners
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mr. Arthur and others believe that adoption of such a proposal would protect gun owners against an intrusive government and so-called red flag laws, universal background checks and prohibitions against semi-automatic long guns and high-capacity magazines.
Michigan has no red flag law, there are no universal background checks and no prohibition against so-called assault rifles. So if nothing changes, commissioners would be taking a bold stand against . . . nothing. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/23/2020)
|
The existence of fundamental rights is not dependent upon what the public WANTS. They exist independent of any majoritarian plebiscite, as inherent properties of being human.
It's clear from this writer's perspective that the current state of the public's understanding of American civics is woefully atrophied. |
Comment by:
hisself
(4/23/2020)
|
"Americans want protection from irresponsible gun owners"
Actually, Americans want protection from irresponsible journalists and legislators!! |
|
|
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) |
|
|