|
|
|
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: Don't Want Armed Nazis? Legislature Should Fix Michigan's Stupid Gun Laws
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Want to give local police departments the means to keep armed Nazis off Detroit's streets?
Change Michigan's open carry laws.
It's just that simple.
And just that complicated, because our GOP-led Legislature is extremely unlikely to do anything of the sort.
After last week's protest, I emailed spokespeople for Sen. Maj. Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, and House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, to ask whether the exploitation of Michigan's open carry laws by Nazi protesters would prompt either to reconsider revising those laws, at least with a view toward granting local law enforcement autonomy to handle potentially dangerous situations.
Neither provided a response. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/17/2019)
|
Reductio ad absurdum.
"If you're armed, you're a Nazi."
Right? (GAWD wadda schmuck.)
This is the same Red Queen 'logic' that assumes that if 'nobody' has guns, criminals won't have them either, therefore 'nobody' should have guns..
Progressive thralls seem incapable of understanding even basic manifestations of natural law, which is why they should never be permitted to wield power - it's lethally dangerous to individual liberty. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
