|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
jac
(1/14/2022)
|
| If you don't like it, you move to formally great Britain where self defense is not allowed. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(1/14/2022)
|
Are we really going to relitigate the Zimmerman thing?
What if Martin had a piece of concrete that he was repeatedly bashing into Zimmerman's head? Would the police have demanded he "drop the weapon" if they had arrived in time to save Zimmerman from his assailant?
It clearly would be a weapon. So what is the difference between Martin bashing a head with a piece of concrete and bashing a head into a concrete sidewalk, as he was? Martin was armed with the sidewalk, so to speak.
And as for the highlighted bit, a 911 operator has no authority to make any kind of orders. Following Martin (even if the operator advised against it) was foolish but legal, but Martin attacking Zimmerman was both foolish and illegal. |
| Comment by:
PP9
(1/14/2022)
|
Self-defense is not vigilantism, and by what woke joke stretch of a college kiddo's fertile imagination is it a central feature of American history?
Shame on you for bringing race into it.
Zimmerman, fwiw, is Hispanic. How does "white vigilantism" have anything to do with a case that does not feature white people or vigilantism?
The Rittenhouse case featured only white people, but again, no vigilantism.
Rittenhouse's assailants (three on one) struck him with a skateboard and gave chase when Rittenhouse fled. One pointed a gun at him. Ya think it was just a "claim" that Rittenhouse was afraid?
Shame on you for trying to justify these acts of violence by Martin and the three Rittenhouse assailants. They were the only criminals here. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
