|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
jac
(11/9/2018)
|
The guy was 77 years old and confronted 12 people including young men cutting each other with broken beer bottles.
I'd have my gun out too.
Airbnb says the renters have been barred from the site. Who pays for the $80,000 damage? It may be difficult for the homeowner to recover damages from out of state renters.
The miscreants should have been arrested instead of the homeowner? The charge would be criminal mischief and/or destruction of property exceeding $$$$ and is easily proven. It must have been a liberal jurisdiction that they arrested the homeowner instead of the miscreants.
Sounds like there's more to this story than reported. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
