|
|
|
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:
Firearms Provide Armed Citizens with Protection against Dangerous Wild Animals
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Firearms can often save lives in situations when people find themselves faced with aggressive wild animals such as bears, mountain lions and bobcats. Anti-gun politicians from metropolitan areas may not be conscious of such dangers faced by law-abiding gun owners in rural regions. Proposed gun-control laws could potentially impact citizens’ abilities to protect people and domestic animals from creatures of greater strength in dangerous encounters.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/26/2019)
|
“I think I would have been able to give it a warning shot and hopefully it would have ran off. That’s what I kind of take from all of this. When I go into the field now, I need to make sure I have my sidearm,” the man said.
So, that's it, huh? A warning shot.
People, that term shouldn't exist in your lexicon, nor in your holster. You carry a firearm to physically stop aggression, not to holler "BOO!" with it and hope the threat goes away. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
