|
|
|
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:
Texas woman shoots suspected robber trying to grab purse: 'I shot until I couldn't shoot anymore'
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Texas woman shot at two suspected robbers, wounding one, early Tuesday morning when they allegedly reached into her car to grab her purse.
Lachelle Hudgins had just parked outside her home in southwest Houston around 2:30 a.m. when the suspected robbers reached through her driver’s side window, according to KTRK-TV. She told police several other men were also near her parking space.
Hudgins grabbed her gun from her purse and fired the only two shots left in her gun, hitting one of the men.
All of the men ran away when Hudgins fired and the wounded man was found a short time later on the other side of the apartment complex.
He underwent surgery and is expected to face aggravated robbery charges, KTRK reported. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/5/2019)
|
Why were there only two shots left in her gun? Is she cheap, destitute, or vapid?
Anyway, that's WEIRD. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/5/2019)
|
Cuomo would argue that one needs only two rounds to kill a deer.
[/sarc] |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
