|
|
|
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: Residents speak out about Livingston County becoming second amendment sanctuary county
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There's a debate over sanctuary counties and the second amendment in Livingston County with a resolution to make Livingston County a Second Amendment sanctuary county. The resolution was presented in front of the public safety and infrastructure committee, and it would limit what law enforcement can enforce.
It’s a topic that has many people speaking out. People are making their points about why Livingston County should or shouldn't be a Second Amendment county. Some say it’s a good idea while others say no way.
"I believe that we need sensible gun laws that are designed to keep everyone safe," said Cindy Kalogeropoulos, a long-time resident of Livingston County.
Video available. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/20/2020)
|
"I hear people talking about Red Flag laws (which) are designed to create a situation where people have due process of law before their guns are taken away," Kalogeropoulos said.
Patently false, therefore your argument is bogus.
Taking firearms first and having a hearing afterward is NOT due process. It's a process, alright, but not DUE PROCESS. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
