|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
