|
|
|
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:
Guns Don't Kill People: Really?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
From time to time, I take my life in my own hands and write a column that I know lots of people will not like. This is one of those times.
The headlines in Milwaukee say homicides are up 80 percent. In Chicago they are up 23 percent. In Charlotte five more are dead in a drive-by shooting. The United States is on schedule to set a record of gun deaths in 2015.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(9/15/2015)
|
So this, guy, if a juror for a murder trial, would vote "Not Guilty" based on the following plea:
"Your Honor, my client pleads not guilty. He didn't kill the victim, the bullet did... and if not the bullet, the handgun from which the bullet was fired. All my client did was to load the bullet into the firearm, point the firearm in the direction of the victim, and gently squeeze the trigger.
My client is innocent. He was at least fifty feet from the victim and could not have inflicted the injuries resulting in death. It's all on the video.
I move for a directed verdict of acquittal." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
