|
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:
AR: "Open Carry" retaliation? Bald Knob Police Chief's truck vandalized
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Bald Knob Police Chief Erek Balentine went outside of his home Monday night to find his personal truck fully engulfed in flames. It was immediately determined to be a case of arson.
“I opened the front door and the whole back glass fully engulfed and then written on the side of it second amendment,” Chief Erek Balentine said.
“Second amendment” was written on both sides of the truck. The right to bear arms--at least openly without a permit has been a topic of the town recently when Bald Knob citizen Richard Chambless was arrested and then later convicted for open carrying inside a McDonalds. |
Comment by:
xqqme
(9/17/2015)
|
Without evidence to the contrary, one must consider the possibility, however small, that the "victim" might also be the perpetrator.
People have committed heinous vandalism against themselves to garner support in the past, and getting a new truck out of the deal certainly might be a "bonus".
No accusation here, just thinking outside the box. |
|
|
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) |
|
|