|
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:
NC: A father taught his little girl to shoot before he died. That training just saved her mother’s life
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Steven Kelley, 46, was found dead by deputies who responded Aug. 8 to a call about a shooting at the house in the North Carolina foothills west of Charlotte, authorities said. He was shot twice and killed by his girlfriend’s 15-year-old daughter after he attacked the woman and threatened to kill her and her three children in the home they all shared, the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office said.
The children’s late father had taught the girl and her siblings how to shoot and safely handle guns, allowing her to effectively use the single-action Colt .45-caliber revolver that had to be cocked between shots, said District Attorney Ted Bell. |
Comment by:
RapidRobert
(8/19/2018)
|
In Kalifornia this family would have been dead and the suspect on the run. You may google on California pitchfork killer for articles. Note that the AP version totally ignores the part Kali law played in this crime. The Lew Rockwell version does not. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/11/richard-poe/the-merced-pitchfork-murders/ |
|
|
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) |
|
|