|
|
|
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:
MI: Gun owners say they buy for protection, but harm is more likely
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Tracy Lawrence was making coffee around 6 a.m. one day last June when he glanced out a window and, to his shock, saw two teenagers casing his yard in rural Jackson County.
Although it was nearly summer, they were dressed in stocking caps and heavy coats. One was near Lawrence's pickup truck; another near his garage.
Lawrence grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and stepped out on back porch.
"What the hell are you doing?" he yelled.
The two 18-year-olds took off. Lawrence ran after them and fired his gun five times. He told police he didn't mean to hurt them. But Hunter Lentz dropped dead with a gunshot wound to the head. Matthew McMillen was killed by a bullet that ripped through his back and tore his aorta. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/16/2017)
|
Good case for jury nullification. It was a bad shooting, but the results were positive.
As far as the "harm is more likely", my guns absolutely provide protection with negligible probability of the adverse outcomes mentioned in the article. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/16/2017)
|
| Law abiding means that a person should know the laws! This person did NOT know the laws that he should have! Jail time! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
