|
|
|
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:
TX: ‘Good guys with guns’: How Austin case highlights gun control debate
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Josh Williams was halfway through his three-mile run along an Austin hike-and-bike trail on the morning of Sept. 15 when a woman’s screams overpowered the music in his earbuds.
In the predawn darkness, he ran closer to try to find her. He pointed his flashlight in her direction, then realized she was being attacked.
Williams slipped a Glock 43 pistol from a holster he had strapped to his waist. In his first time to ever point the gun at another person, he said he took aim at the man and “I told him to get off her.”
“I told him to get down on his knees, show me his hands, so that I knew he didn’t have a weapon,” Williams told the American-Statesman and KVUE-TV in a recent interview. |
| Comment by:
jac
(11/9/2017)
|
You will never see this in the national media. It doesn't fit their agenda.
I live 100 miles from Austin and this is the first time I heard about it in spite of reading the local newspaper and watching the nightly news every day.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
