|
|
|
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:
PHORTO
(8/27/2019)
|
What utter poppycock.
She blames McGlockton's death on SYG, yet SYG did not prevent the correct verdict. Indeed, SYG did not prevent the shooter from coming to trial.
In an inept burst of emotionalism, she defeats her own argument. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/27/2019)
|
This was never a syg case. The shooter fired as the victim walked away.
SYG laws only mean you're NOT under an obligation to retreat. It does not mean you can simply stand where you are and unjustifiably shoot someone as he leaves. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/27/2019)
|
MarkHamTownsend -
EGGS ACKLEY. |
|
|
| 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| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times.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 For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in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 If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal.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) |
|
|
