Lawmakers endorse controversial gun-rights billLeave it to an "authorized journalist" to find self defense controversial, or surmise with a straight face that it is something a sovereign human being needs to be allowed to do by some damned government edict.
...The House bucked the law-enforcement community and endorsed a proposal to let residents brandish firearms if they feel threatened.
That ridiculous proposition could only be asserted by a liar or a fool.
3 comments:
The overruling law of self-preservation predates, and is superior, to ANY government edict. It is the First law of Nature, and beyond the scope of government 'regulation'.
"brandish" communist for "bear"
well, if a criminal was engaged in a crime, he has no right of self defense, he was an OFFENDER. If he escalates and continues adding to his initial crime, then he should be charged with all of those as well. How would that make it harder to prosecute?
Actually, according to this article, the House "changed its mind," and voted the bill down.
I especially like this part:
"You Republicans are playing with a devil's game here," Wiseman said. "This bill will let killers go free. Have no mistake about it."
"Have no mistake"? Is English a second language for this "Wise Man"?
Post a Comment