Of course he has the right to grab a gun (although God has nothing to do with this conversation, so kindly stick to the facts and leave out the bearded space alien for the moment), but he's also liable to face the consequences for his decision. He grabbed the gun hoping it was a deterrent. It escalated the situation, and then he made the decision to shoot the dude dead. If Read had escalated first (and don't give me any of the bullshit about how a chest bump is in any way similar to picking up a rifle) and pulled a pistol, Carruth would have been easily, 100% in his right to shoot Read immediately. But, Carruth escalated the force involved in the situation, which was his first mistake (just cause you have the right to do it doesn't make it a good decision). Even then, that specific part would not have gotten him in trouble if it had worked to scare Read away. But, Read didn't leave, and Carruth made the decision to shoot Read when there were plenty of other options available for dealing with the situation. If Carruth had shot when Read reached for the gun, odds are good this wouldn't even be debatable. But after space has been cleared and Read is just standing on the porch 8 feet away? That's an unjustified homocide.
Your mind is that of a commie being you state the "gun" escalated the event.
That's the same as stating the "gun" killed the individual.
Blame it on the gun, like the good closet commie you are.
You lie after being called to the carpet about you thinking Carruth didn't have a right to bear arms, and state he does now, and then blame the gun for escalating.
So according to you now, he still can't Bear Arms, because the "gun" can escalate the situation as you stated above.
You're doing a heck of a job Brownie.
Holy christ in a cracker. Are you capable of having a civil discussion? Or are we just gonna regress to 3rd grade name calling and screaming?
The gun didn't escalate the situation. The man getting the gun escalated the situation, by introducing a deadly weapon where there previously had not been one. I don't know why that distinction needs made here, but apparently it does. There's no blame being given to the gun; i know it's a tool just like everyone else here does. But, introducing a weapon into an otherwise unarmed altercation is called escalation. Simple notion to grasp.
The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to kill whomever you want to. The man has the right to bear arms, absolutely. Nowhere did I say he did not (go back and tell me where I said he wasn't allowed to have a gun). As the bearer of a firearm, you have responsibility for what you do with that firearm. In this situation, from all evidence shown, it seems pretty clear that the bearer of the firearm shot when there was not legal nor logical need to do so. Scream communism all you want, as that seems to be a favorite of yours, but none of this conversation is regarding his right to the gun. Just his responsibility for his actions.
