|
|
|
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:
FL: Tampa Man Killed After “Testing” Bulletproof Vest
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Alexandro Garibaldi claimed he found his cousin outside a house Saturday night with a gunshot wound to the chest, but a witness told Tampa Florida police a different story. That the cousin, Joaquin Mendez had put on a bulletproof vest and wondered aloud if it worked. Then Garibaldi pulled out a gun and said let’s see. Mendez later died at a hospital.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(9/13/2016)
|
| I have a problem with stupid gun myths getting perpetuated on TV. How many times does the lead character outshoot an entire SWAT team? How many dopers get high and attempt a shootout with local law enforcement? How many times does the so called bullet proof vest keep a person healthy and carrying on as if it didn't so much as leave a bruise? What about hearing protection, shoot outs in cars and small rooms? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
