|
|
|
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:
PP9
(11/1/2022)
|
Handguns are carried for defense. When the assailant is fleeing, there is no self-defense situation anymore. That's vigilantism, not defense.
Second, we are responsible for wherever that bullet does after it leaves the barrel.
If the blurb correctly captures what actually happened, it appears Earls acted improperly. Does that rise to a level of a crime? I would say that it does, but I was not there when the evidence was being presented.
Lawful gun carry and self-defense have been maliciously prosecuted so often that the Grand Jury is evidently erring on the side of not indicting (presuming innocence), even when it is in a tragic situation like this. This is an unintended consequence of dirty prosecutions like the one Rittenhouse faced. |
|
|
| 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| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times.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 For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in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 If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal.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) |
|
|
