Rick Snyder Vetoes Gun Bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:00:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Rick Snyder Vetoes Gun Bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Rick Snyder Vetoes Gun Bill  (Read 1272 times)
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,752
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 15, 2015, 05:24:02 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/15/rick-snyder-veto_n_6479478.html

As an extreme supporter of gun rights, I commend the good Governor for this great move to protect the most vulnerable in our society who were at dangerous risk of having their security jeopardized. Common Sense over Ideology! Happy to up him to FF (Former Fascist)
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 05:27:24 PM »

Excellent move, Gov. Snyder.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 06:05:49 PM »

What was this spiteful bill called? The Arm Men Against Lying Whores Act?
Logged
Representative Joe Mad
Joe Mad
Rookie
**
Posts: 189


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 07:27:04 PM »

Good on him.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,580
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2015, 07:37:25 PM »

Excellent
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2015, 12:20:14 PM »

What a right-winger! Tongue
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2015, 01:39:57 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2015, 01:49:54 PM »

Good on him, and good on Gabby Giffords and other survivors of violence for urging him to veto it.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 01:55:41 PM »

He also vetoed a bill that would have struck the biodiversity mandate in Michigan's forestry laws: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/15/snyder-biodiversity-restricting-bill/21813713/
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2015, 01:56:05 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
As I understand it, the troubling aspect of this bill was a side effect, not the principal intent of the bill.  The intent was that gun rights would not be stripped from someone without some sort of hearing in which the person would be able to counter the reason why.  Restraining orders typically don't involve such a process. Persons who lost their concealed carry privileges because of a domestic violence conviction would not have been affected by the bill, so it wouldn't have been a totally open season on women had it been passed, just a mostly open season.

While I can see both sides of this issue, the side Synder came down in support of is clearly the better side in this case.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2015, 03:09:45 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
Because they don't want to punish someone for life because of a terrible mistake they made?
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2015, 03:11:22 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
As I understand it, the troubling aspect of this bill was a side effect, not the principal intent of the bill.  The intent was that gun rights would not be stripped from someone without some sort of hearing in which the person would be able to counter the reason why.  Restraining orders typically don't involve such a process. Persons who lost their concealed carry privileges because of a domestic violence conviction would not have been affected by the bill, so it wouldn't have been a totally open season on women had it been passed, just a mostly open season.

Um...what? Who, before they hit their wife, thinks "good thing this won't prevent me losing my concealed carry license"?
Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2015, 05:19:58 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
Because they don't want to punish someone for life because of a terrible mistake they made?

The court is worried about your propensity towards violence so we would rather you not tote your weapon around.  Oh my, what a travesty.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2015, 09:35:12 PM »

Who in the hell would even be introducing a bill like this?!  How could you be so callous and mean-spirited?
As I understand it, the troubling aspect of this bill was a side effect, not the principal intent of the bill.  The intent was that gun rights would not be stripped from someone without some sort of hearing in which the person would be able to counter the reason why.  Restraining orders typically don't involve such a process. Persons who lost their concealed carry privileges because of a domestic violence conviction would not have been affected by the bill, so it wouldn't have been a totally open season on women had it been passed, just a mostly open season.

Um...what? Who, before they hit their wife, thinks "good thing this won't prevent me losing my concealed carry license"?

Practically no one plans on abusing their significant other. (Or their ex-significant other.)  The goal is to keep concealed weapons out of the hands of those more likely to use them to commit harm, not to cause people to hold back so as to avoid losing their permit.  My "mostly open season" comment was intended to convey that there would still be some habitual abusers who would still be unable to get CCPs even if this bill had been signed into law.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.