|
|
|
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:
After years, Senate renews Violence Against Women Act
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But some say the act doesn’t do enough. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said it falls short of protecting women from potentially dangerous dating partners or stalkers because it does not close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” Spouses convicted of domestic abuse cannot own a gun, but boyfriends can. Republicans, led by Ernst, fought to keep a provision that would change that out of the final bill, saying it violates the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
lucky5eddie
(3/15/2022)
|
| Why dont these politicians get it, laws dont protect people, never have and never can. They only allow society to hold people accountable for breaking these laws. Its not that hard a concept. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
