|
|
|
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: Whitmer joins 11 governors demanding federal gun reform
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and 11 governors called on President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to pass "common sense gun legislation."
The letter cites recent mass shootings in Gilroy, California; El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio and Philadelphia in addition to noting thousands of gun deaths this year.
"Thoughts and prayers won’t fix this disturbing trend. Enough is enough," the letter says. The group of 12 governors is being led by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
They say that a "patchwork" of state laws will not be sufficient for addressing gun violence.
Video available |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(9/12/2019)
|
Another example of the liberals just throwing stuff against the wall. If we throw enough stuff, something might stick!
How about addressing the root cause, not the symptoms..... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/12/2019)
|
| One-word answer: NO. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(9/12/2019)
|
| NOW WE KNOW WHICH GOV'S TO VOTE OUT FOR NOT PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY AFFIRMED TO PROTECT. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
