|
|
|
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:
Toughen 'Stand Your Ground'? Expect More Violence
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On March 10, a judge ruled that ex-Tampa police officer Curtis Reeves could not claim immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law for fatally shooting an unarmed man in a movie theater. Five days later, the Florida Senate approved legislation that could make it much easier for such trigger-happy Floridians to go free after provoking a violent confrontation. Ain't life great in the Gunshine State? |
| Comment by:
hisself
(3/22/2017)
|
| No bias here! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2017)
|
Re: Title
Violence used in justifiable self-defense is appropriate, and RIGHTEOUS.
Or, as Harry Callahan so eloquently put it in Magnum Force, "There's nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot."
Yes. Just so. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
