I
will never shop at Walgreens again, only after a robber tried to shoot him, did
Walgreen employee, Jeremy Hoven pull his
pistol and
shot at the robbers who then fled; his reward was to be fired. Jeremy Hoven had
been robbed in 2007, he asked Walgreens for extra security but they refused.
Michigan’s liberal judge, Karen Nelson Moore said, “Michigan
Self-Defense Act doesn't confer an unlimited right to engage in self-defense.”
So a man tries to murder me and I don’t have the right to defend myself under
the Michigan Self-Defense Act? Let’s see what the act says:
(1)
An individual who has not or is not engaged in
the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use
deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right
to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual
honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to
prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or
herself or to another individual.
So
the attempted murder tries to murder but is stopped by the one he tried to
murder and to this judge it doesn’t match the above; she needs to be removed
from the bench, she is pushing an agenda not the law as is the case with most
every liberal judge.
Now
I will go to Meador Pharmacy in
Arkansas,
where a robber was threatening the life of a pharmacist who then pulled his
legal concealed weapon and killed the robber. This is how it should go every
time possible; shot the robber, rapist, or carjacker and we have no court cost,
incarceration cost, and one less thug on the streets. Liberals will never get
this because it makes since to punish the criminal instead of the victim and
they will never figure out that criminals never pay attention to the law. When
you have a “Gun Free Zone”, the only thing you are doing is telling criminals
that all the law abiding citizens who are allowed to carry a gun isn’t so there
is no threat to you. Does this sound like a logical action or one that
endangers more people?
The
2nd Amendment states-A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So
you cannot infringe on gun ownership without violating the US Constitution but
this has never stopped a liberal like President Obama. First they tried to get
a gun ban which was shot down by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional, then
they tried to make everyone have a million dollar insurance policy for every
gun you owned which also was shot down by the US Supreme Court. I thought they
would learn but instead of accepting the law they tried to buy every round (1.6
billion) in the US to prevent citizens from buying the ammo, they even bought
rounds the government doesn’t use but now there money has ran dry. I thought
surely they have learned now but no, the president is trying to do an executive
order to ban the most common round used in America the 5.56mm which is once
again unconstitutional.
If
you are pro-gun, you should never vote for another Democrat or liberal
Republican as long as you live, they have shown they have no respect for your
rights, the Supreme Court, or the US Constitution. You always have a knee jerk
reaction to these mass shootings but the liberal side who is always pushing
their anti-gun agenda will never try to listen and fix the problem, because if
the problem is fixed, they will never be able to ban them. The more criminals
shot and killed the less that will rob you. The more unstable persons (truly
unstable, not identified for an agenda) identified by psychiatrist and uploaded
to the no buy list the better. You have a crazy anti-gun man attacks an innocent man
for what, for having a legally concealed weapon; he is luck he wasn’t shot.
This isn’t uncommon, and it isn’t the law abiding gun owners doing the
attacking, it’s the anti-gun nuts. Just like it isn’t the law abiding gun owner
robbing you, it’s the criminal who has no regard for the law, just like the
liberals.
No comments:
Post a Comment