|
|
|
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:
African Americans and the 2nd Amendment: The Need for Black Armed Self-Defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Even today, African Americans struggle to maintain equal protection under the second amendment. A recent example is the death of Emantic Bradford Jr. Bradford was an army recruit with a concealed carry permit. While shopping in a Georgia mall, shots rang out. Bradford pulled out his weapon and directed shoppers to safety. As police entered the scene, they shot Bradford in the back three times. They told the media that Bradford was the shooter, and praised the killer as the real hero of the situation. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/21/2019)
|
| Shot him in the Back.....3 times..... |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/21/2019)
|
This article is dated.
Bradford was not shot because he was black, he was shot because he had a gun out and was running toward the victims.
The police feared he was the shooter. That was wrong but they had seconds to shoot, and their fear for loss of life was reasonable. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
