That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.In that light, perhaps it should not be considered surprising that by New York City standards, a black man wearing body armor is considered sufficiently "suspicious" to justify forcible groping by Bloomberg's enforcers, Fourth Amendment be damned.
Again, it's not easy to conjure up any sympathy for "King Salim Habazz," or to be very upset about his removal from the streets, but if his making himself more difficult to shoot to death is to be considered grounds for suspicion of a crime worthy of suspending the Bill of Rights, why should any of us consider ourselves immune to the same abuses? [More]
Stumble it!
1 comments:
So, VPC not only objects to your owning a weapon, they think it should be illegal to wear body armor. What's next? Laws to ban seat belts and crash helmets? Laws against installing dead-bolt locks and burglar bars? Maybe they will pass a law against the private possession of any property. Then the crime statistics would drop, since there could be no such thing as robbery or theft.
Post a Comment