|
|
|
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:
Anti-Gun Brit John Oliver Exemplifies Self-Serving ‘Dual Citizen’ Oxymoron
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“‘Last Week Tonight’: John Oliver Rips Gun Laws That ‘Exalt A White Person’s Fear Over A Black Person’s Life,’” a Monday Deadline Hollywood promo piece masked as objective news claimed. The laws in question are commonly referred to as “Stand Your Ground,” and per the “woke” kneejerk lynch mob congregating in the “comments” section, anyone who questions the accusation is also racist. “The stand-your-ground law was infamously used in the 2012 George Zimmerman case, in which a community watch shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin,” the report declares. “Zimmerman was successfully exonerated of wrongdoing after lawyers used stand-your-ground in his defense.”
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/19/2021)
|
Lies, lies, and more lies!!!!! "Stand your ground" laws WERE NOT used in the Zimmerman trial. They were brought up, but did NOT play a role in the defense.
Trayvon Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head against the edge of a cement walk at the time and threatening to murder him when Martin discovered Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman acted in self-defense. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
