|
|
|
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
(12/5/2020)
|
Sorry about your son, but this is not about stand your ground.
This proposed law is to give people the right to defend their livelihood from looters when the authorities stand down or are overwhelmed by events.
Looters should be shot. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/5/2020)
|
I'll summarize so you don't have to read the newslink:
My son got drunk and tried to force himself into somebody's apartment. Somebody shut their door on his bare foot in the process of repelling him.
Then a few minutes later, he attacked somebody holding a Glock (the same somebody) and got himself deaded.
The law is an ass, because the guy he attacked didn't go to prison for being attacked by a drunk. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
