
|
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:
‘The View’s Joy Behar on Columbus Shooting: Police Should “Shoot the Gun in the Air as a Warning”
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“I mean, it seems to me in a situation — This is what it looked to me. I looked at the tape and still can’t figure it out. Shoot the gun in the air as a warning. Tase a person. Shoot them in the leg. Shoot them in the behind. Stop them somehow. If the only solution is to kill a teenager, there’s something wrong with this. There’s something wrong with the way these things are being conducted. Even if the cop had to do it, there’s something wrong with it. I can’t explain it any better than that.” she added, suggesting that police could’ve shot a warning shot or use a taser, and addressing why the situation still rubbed her the wrong way. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/24/2021)
|
"Even if the cop had to do it, there’s something wrong with it. I can’t explain it any better than that.” - Joy Behar, the preeminent exemplar of liberal 'thought.' |
|
|
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) |
|
|