|
|
|
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:
Toughen 'Stand Your Ground'? Expect More Violence
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On March 10, a judge ruled that ex-Tampa police officer Curtis Reeves could not claim immunity under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law for fatally shooting an unarmed man in a movie theater. Five days later, the Florida Senate approved legislation that could make it much easier for such trigger-happy Floridians to go free after provoking a violent confrontation. Ain't life great in the Gunshine State? |
| Comment by:
hisself
(3/22/2017)
|
| No bias here! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2017)
|
Re: Title
Violence used in justifiable self-defense is appropriate, and RIGHTEOUS.
Or, as Harry Callahan so eloquently put it in Magnum Force, "There's nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot."
Yes. Just so. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
