|
|
|
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:
MO: Brattin Presents Stand Your Ground Law to Emerging Issues
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://inrigare.wordpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The first of two “stand your ground” measures has been heard in a House committee. Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, presented HB 1744 to the Emerging Issues Committee Monday evening in order, he said, to ensure that people “have the right to protect yourself against an imminent threat to your life or others.” “This isn’t about making it to where it’s the Wild Wild West here in Missouri,” he said. We don’t have a perfect justice system, no doubt, but I believe in the ability to protect yourself…The police can’t be everywhere all the time.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/20/2016)
|
"The police can’t be everywhere all the time.”
Which came first; individual life, or societies' creation of police forces?
Whether or not the police can be everywhere all the time is immaterial.
You have a right to shoot any dirtball who has the means, intent and opportunity to kill you.
And as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (no originalist, he) famously wrote, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."
'Course, that was back when liberals were actually patriots. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
