|
|
|
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:
PP9
(11/1/2022)
|
Handguns are carried for defense. When the assailant is fleeing, there is no self-defense situation anymore. That's vigilantism, not defense.
Second, we are responsible for wherever that bullet does after it leaves the barrel.
If the blurb correctly captures what actually happened, it appears Earls acted improperly. Does that rise to a level of a crime? I would say that it does, but I was not there when the evidence was being presented.
Lawful gun carry and self-defense have been maliciously prosecuted so often that the Grand Jury is evidently erring on the side of not indicting (presuming innocence), even when it is in a tragic situation like this. This is an unintended consequence of dirty prosecutions like the one Rittenhouse faced. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
