|
|
|
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:
TX: Texas man shoots armadillo, gets hit in face by bullet ricochet
Submitted by:
Anonymous
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"An East Texas man was wounded after he fired a gun at an armadillo in his yard and the bullet ricocheted back to hit him in his face, the county sheriff said on Friday."
"Cass County Sheriff Larry Rowe said the man, who was not identified, went outside his home in Marietta, southwest of Texarkana, at around 3 a.m. on Thursday morning. He spotted the armadillo on his property and opened fire."
"'His wife was in the house. He went outside and took his .38 revolver and shot three times at the armadillo,' Rowe said."
"The animal's hard shell deflected at least one of three bullets, which then struck the man's jaw, he said." ... |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/3/2015)
|
If the bullet did ricochet off the armadillo and not some rock or other hard object, the man may have been shooting wadcutters, which have minimal power and are not designed for penetration.
I'd hate to imagine what would happen to me if I decided to go out and shoot at an animal at 3 a.m. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
