|
|
|
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:
SC: Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Sticky Situation Edition
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"A South Carolina woman approached an ATM to withdraw some money, but encountered a man who looked to do her harm in a way that we don’t usually see. He threatened to stick her with a dirty needle . . .""According to a press release, a woman told officers as she was withdrawing money from the ATM at the Conway National Bank branch in Socastee, a man approached her truck’s window, showed her a large needle, and demanded she give him money. She told police he threatened to inject her with the needle."
"The woman told police she pulled out her handgun and stuck it in the suspects face saying 'I dare you to stab me!'"
"The suspect said 'Are you seriously going do that to me,' and ran off, the report said." ... |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/11/2015)
|
| I would have put a bullet in his head in consideration of the next victim. And there will be a next victim. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
