TexasCHLforum.com

I have noticed how reports have started to really suggest that no person has a right to take a life even if it is in self defense. Which is what the anti-2A nuts are openly saying. They seem to suggest that in order to not be somehow guilty of a higher "sin"; the victim cannot defend themselves because they might kill the attacker. That was used, successfully, in Europe and other places, to disarm the population and keep England’s police helpless for years. I have heard families say the same sort of things since the media chose sides. It doesn't matter the criminals past or actions when they were killed. It is all about the morality of the defender and that they have no right to defend their own lives.

That said, I don't know if the shoot was justified or not. I do know that this story was anti-LEO and very anti-self defense. It did not show the officer as possibly justified though the reporter didn't come out and say they thought he was guilty. I wish I could look at this story as the station wanting ratings. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. I think this is yet another open attack on anything that upsets their ability to control the population. They demand “Peace” even if it means we are murdered or enslaved or forced to bow to their false gods and philosophies