Alleged burglar Joseph F. Willis picked the wrong community to target, and managed to earn himself several new holes:
Detective Jason Newman says about 2 p.m. Friday, Joseph F. Willis forced his way into a home along County Road 19 near the Kitts Hill area of Lawrence County.
Investigators say during the burglary, the homeowner was in the house and had a gun. He shot at Willis multiple times, hitting him in the cheek and stomach.
Willis left the house and crashed his car into a ditch about half a mile from the home. He was flown to Cabell Huntington Hospital.
The sheriff’s department says Willis, who is from Ironton, will be charged with aggravated burglary.
Good for the Idaho legislature, the governor is expected to sign it into law. Bearing Arms has more
Despite the emotional outcry from faculty and college administrators, the Idaho House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a law enabling citizens with an enhanced concealed carry permit to carry handguns on college campuses.
Idaho lawmakers on Thursday approved a measure allowing concealed guns to be carried onto university and college campuses.
The legislation, which cleared the state House of Representatives by a 50-19 vote and was overwhelmingly approved by the state Senate last month, now heads to Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter for his signature.
If the Republican governor signs the bill into law as expected, Idaho will be the seventh U.S. state that allows guns on college campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The passage of the Idaho bill comes amid a tense debate on the extent of gun ownership restrictions in the United States, which has seen a string of recent shootings at schools, movie theaters and other public places.
Under the legislation, those who gain a so-called enhanced concealed-carry permit in Idaho can carry firearms on campus except in such places as residence halls and public entertainment facilities like football stadiums.
The law is expected to be signed by Governor Otter and should be in effect for the next academic year.
Sounds like a good law to me, and Bob Owens points out a great benefit to the “coexist” Liberal crowd
Perhaps as important as the physical security that the law will provide is the opportunity it gives to typically anti-gun faculty and administrators to learn to “coexist” as they so often preach from Prius and Volvo bumper stickers to others.
Among those I look forward to learning tolerance is Boise State University Biology Professor Greg Hampikian will have an opportunity to learn to coexist with concealed carriers, instead of acting like such a drama queen. Bearing Arms sent an email to Hampikian this morning suggesting that he take the 8-hour class needed to earn the enhanced carry permit to help mitigate his fears.
If you have not read the op-ed by Professor Greg Hampikian, go read it. It is the usual screed, filled with predictions of mass shootings and shootouts over lunch lines, and blah, blah, blah. Not only are these tired arguments terribly boring and stale they are completely invalid as well. No matter how many times Liberal buffoons predict that allowing armed law-abiding citizens in a specific place in this case on college campuses, will lead to “blood in the streets” such scenarios never seem to happen. But facts will not deter wannabe Statists like the good professor.
Bluebird of Bitterness links an op-ed in the New York Times by a Leftist named Mark Bittman who argues that we Americans ought to “rethink” our rights
Our old friend, New York Times columnist Mark Bittman, has identified what is possibly the single biggest peril facing America, one that, according to Mr. Bittman, “Poses greater threats to our existence than any communicable disease you can name.”
What is this hazard that stalks us?
Or, as he prefers, “rights,” because the only rights that are truly legitimate are those rights that are exercised in a fashion that would be agreeable to Mark Bittman.
And therein lies the problem. As it turns out, you’re simply a victim of the “the corporate consumption complex,” in which “companies engineer hyperprocessed foods in ways precisely geared to most appeal to our tastes.”
Yes, that’s right, companies continue to insist on producing products that will appeal to you.
How. Dare. They.
But the products they sell don’t appeal to Mark Bittman, of course. Unlike you, he’s not a complete imbecile who cannot possibly be trusted with the “right” to choose what is best for him. That imbecile would be you, what with your tiny mind, poor education, and non-New-York-Times editorial job.
Why, you might even work with your hands. <shudder>
And, according to Mr. Bittman, it’s not just food, it’s all manner of industries selling things “in ways that will cause premature mortality.”
Again, the Left has no ability to fathom Individualism. To them individual rights are not inherent to people. Our rights to them, come from government and are conditional. Conditional as in individual rights are secondary to the “common good”. Conditional as in the government can restrict or deny rights as it sees fit. Conditional as in “it is for our own good”.
There is one more line from Mr. Bittman I must address
The question is not only, “Do we have a right to bear arms?” but also “Do we have the right to be safe in our streets and schools?”
Oh brother here goes another Leftist imagining idealistic rights that have never existed, and that will never exist. A “right to be safe”? Really? Where does this buffoon find such a right? As I write this, I am sitting at my computer, listening to some music. Planes fly over my home all the time. Planes heading to and from two major airports. What if a plane were to crash into my home? What of my “right” to be safe? What if a driver loses control and slams in a pedestrian? What of their “right” to safety? But let me narrow this argument to gun ownership and self-defense, which are actual rights, unlike Mr. Bittman’s Utopian rights.
I own two big dogs, I lock my doors, I own firearms, and I spend considerable time training with those firearms, I also have some martial arts training, but am I “safe”? Do I have a right that will stop a crazed person or persons from trying to enter my home? Do I have any right that will stop a mad man from breaking into my house? No, a right, again, an actual right, can be exercised. Right now, I am exercising my right to freedom speech. But I cannot exercise a right to be safe. I mean seriously, I cannot create an all-protective force field around my home can I? What kind of fool would fantasize about a right to safety as if it might actually be realistic?
Of course, Mr. Bittman would say that my right to keep and bear arms should be curbed, by government of course to make me and all my neighbors safer. But again, this is a pipe dream that Statists like Bittman have held onto for many decades. Not only would me surrendering my weapons not make me, or my neighborhood safer, it would make me less safe. Again, let me set the question up. I am sitting here, let us pretend that my dogs start going nuts. As I rise from my chair to see what is the matter, I hear someone pounding violently on my back door. I hear the glass breaking, I know that some person, or persons are trying to get into my home. I know that 911 will not bring help quickly enough. I know, in short someone has come to harm me or my family. This person has obviously not read the New York Times op-ed page and thus was not stopped by Mr. Bittman’s “right” to safety. As I head downstairs listening as my dogs are shot through the door, the door that is now close to being kicked in, I have in my right hand one of my guns, an extra magazine in my back pocket. At this moment, am I “safe”? No, but I am able to defend my life, and those of my family. And, as I crouch behind the kitchen desk, out of sight, and take aim at that figure that is seconds from coming through my back door I will exercise the most fundamental human right, that of self-defense.
Mark Bittman can dream of a right to be safe, but it will never exist. I can pray that I am never in a scenario like I laid out, but, there is no promise that I never will be forced to use lethal force against a home invader. But, if such a scenario does develop, I thank God for my right to do so, and I will thank God that fools like Mark Bittman and their Utopian ideas have never come to fruition.
After getting shot down by Facebook, and being asked to skedaddle from Staples HQ it might be the right time the Bloomberg puppets to admit they are on the wrong side. Sorry ladies but America rejects your Statism!
Democrat PR consultant turned gun prohibitionist Shannon Watts probably didn’t see this coming:
Members of the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America tried deliver a petition with more than 12,000 signatures at Staples headquarters in Framingham on Tuesday morning to Staples’ CEO but were asked to leave the property.
How embarrassing for Moms Demand Action. This is just the latest in a string of failed attempts to push their prohibitionist views on the successful office supply chain.
If the photos accompanying the article are accurate, the citizen disarmament cult managed to get just seven or so ignorant cultists to show for their
triumphant assaultmeager showing on corporate headquarters.
But hey ladies, I do have a parting gift for you and your diminutive wannabe dictator leader
Tom McHale, writing at Bearing Arms points out that fear trumps reason where the Left side of the gun debate is concerned
Phil from Australia writes…
I’m glad I live in Australia, with controlled gun ownership, where all guns must be locked away. EG. I read a story where a 3 year old boy shoots himself…….go figure.
Well there you have it. A random anecdote trumps decades of factual data, at least in Phil’s mind.
But when you step back and look at a comment like this, it just illustrates the real challenge behind the gun debate. You see, Phil is not alone. Think about how many people have their views about gun policy shaped by random “I heard that…” anecdotes.
I heard about a shark attack once. But that didn’t stop me from taking showers. For long.
If one invests about four minutes to research the gun debate, it becomes pretty darn clear that guns themselves aren’t the driving issue for crime. Gun ownership is way up. Crime is way down. When folks aren’t robbed of their rights of self-protection, crime falls. Accidents are at an all time low. The vast majority of gun-related crime involves convicted felons. Guns are used far, far more frequently to prevent people from getting hurt than for hurting people. Let me repeat that.
Go read the whole thing. McHale points out that any serious research into gun stats will point out the facts, yet, folks like Phil prefer living in the Land of Emotionalism where reason takes a back seat to fear
The gun control zealots at Moms Demand Action love to talk of gun sense, and safety, and curbing gun violence. They push for what they call common sense gun laws, yet these women possess little, if any knowledge of guns. Hence the first problem. The members of this group, and like-minded groups, are for the most part very well intended. But their good intentions are guided by misinformation about guns, and by misinformation I mean lies and spin from the leaders of the gun control movement. These ordinary people also generally have an irrational fear of guns. They have been conditioned to think of guns as bad period!
If you ask the members and supporters of groups like Moms Demand Action why they hate guns they might give you the standard answers, which are usually bogus “stats” cooked up by those who are behind the push for gun control. These stats are scary, and foreboding, and they are mostly false, but that matters little. It is the emotions that gun control leaders focus on. Again, there is your first problem. Ignorance about crime stats, and the number of Americans that use guns for self-defense. And an emotionalistic fear of guns that has no real basis in facts. This combination leads to support of “common sense” gun laws.
These gun laws are sold as safety measures, it is for the children you know. They are sold as crime reducers because we have to do something about the “epidemic” of gun violence, even though the rate all violent crimes has been falling for 20 years now. But the laws, like the ones being peddled in New Jersey, will not stop, or reduce crime at all. They will, however do the one thing that is really behind these laws. They will criminalize formerly legal firearms and their law-abiding owners. And the will also pave the way for even more restrictions later. One of the key goals of the gun control crowd now is to erase stand your ground laws. And playing on emotions, playing the Race Card, and outright lies are a key component in that push. And yes, those restrictions will eventually apply not only to guns, but to self-defense. Such draconian laws are already doing that in New York
When five people attempt to invade your home, and the first one in the door pulls a pistol and apparently fires a shot, what should you do?
Most sane people would attempt to defend themselves with their own firearms, but Suffolk County, NY prosecutors are now charging a man with manslaughter for doing just that:
A Huntington Station man has been indicted on manslaughter charges for shooting an alleged home burglar who later died, but his attorney says it’s a clear case of self-defense.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad says a man with a gun was attempting to break into his Huntington Station home back in August. His family shared surveillance video of the incident with News 12 Long Island, and in it, the alleged burglar is seen trying to enter a door. The burglar then pulls out a gun, and a flash is seen that appears to be the burglar firing a shot into the home.
Youssef Abdel-Gawad’s attorney says he came to the door with a rifle and returned fire at the burglar and his alleged accomplices, striking one of them. The accomplice later died.
Watch the video at the link, and you’ll see what appears to be a flash that coincides with the home invader sticking the barrel of his pistol into the home. While there is no audio, a rational person would deduce that the home invader is firing a shot, which was answered by family members that drove off the criminals with their own firearms.
It is apparent from the video that the home invader drew and fired his weapon. The homeowner acted in self-defense, yet the fanatical DA Thomas J. Spota is trying to imprison him anyway.
Hence the second problem with such laws, those trying to pass them KNOW what the law will do, that is why they are trying to push them.They have but one goal, to disarm you, and me.
“Americans for Responsible Solutions,” the anti-gun group headlined by former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and her husband Mark Kelly, is in a tizzy over the fact that the Georgia legislature appears close to passing a bill that would, among other things, legalize the carrying of defensive firearms in the non-”sterile” (“sterile” meaning secured with metal detectors and/or other scanners, and by federal law off limits to armed private citizens) areas of airports in the state. From their “Send us money!” email:
Over 75 million people fly in and out of Hartsfield annually — maybe you’ve been one of them?
As you’re reading this, Georgia members of Americans for Responsible Solutions are sending emails and calls into the offices of elected officials across the state trying to stop this bill.
Of course 41 other states already allow this, and not one citizen legally carrying has gone nuts and shot up the place yet. this same bill is also causing some freak outs among some “religious leaders”
Nearly 200 interfaith religious leaders — including at least a dozen Baptists — took out a full-page ad in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Feb. 26 to oppose a bill in the Georgia legislature which would lift restrictions on guns in houses of worship and bars.
The ad appears about three weeks after a public affairs representative for the Georgia Baptist Convention testified in the state’s General Assembly on behalf of House Bill 875, which also would make it no longer a crime for licensed gun owners to carry firearms on college campuses. The House passed the bill 119-56 on Feb. 18, but it is under review in the Senate.
“We can no longer be silent about gun violence in our state,” 185 religious leaders said in the newspaper ad. “We will oppose political decisions driven by fear that promote the notion that the answer to gun violence is more guns. As citizens of Georgia and as leaders of faith communities we oppose House Bill 875 and any legislation that would allow more guns in more places in our state
Does the Left EVER think anything out? Disarming the law abiding does NOTHING to stop evil doers.
In another Liberal freak out, Bearing Arms tells of an outbreak of Butt Hurt
Connecticut news media are pitching a fit over a photo of a baby in a car seat momentarily touching a .22LR rifle still being held by her father (he’s holding the rifle by the stock, though you can’t tell in the station’s closely cropped picture).
The gun shop posted the picture of the baby to its Facebook page—because, well, it’s cute—and the self-important busybodies have tried to demonize him ever since.
How dare someone let a baby touch an empty rifle.
Here is the shockingly shocking picture
The Left is pushing hard to take out Stand Your Ground laws, and they are using disinformation, and lies to propagate a bias in the public’s mind against such laws. The media, of course, continues to allow these distortions to go unchallenged. Bob Owens sets them straight
The Guardian headline screams out its biased ignorance:
Florida woman’s sentence could be tripled in stand-your-ground retrial
There’s just one problem: Marissa Alexander’s trial was never about “standing her ground,” as not one, but two courts have made incredibly clear, for anyone who desires to listen.
After a confrontation with her violent husband Rico Gray, Marissa Alexander left her husband’s home, retrieved a handgun from her car, and returned to the house. She fired a shot at Gray’s head, which narrowly missed and hit the wall behind him, head-high. She only later tried to claim the shot was a “warning shot.”
Marissa Alexander never had a viable stand your ground claim, and indeed, has no viable self defense claim at all. It is only through her own incompetence that Rico Gray is still alive.
As a matter of objective fact, almost none of the cases that the media has tried to make about “stand your ground” were stand your ground cases:
- Marissa Alexander: Not a SYG case. Claim rejected by both original trial court and the appellate court. She attacked Gray again after her initial charges and was again arrested.
- George Zimmerman: Not a SYG case, but a straight self-defense case under English common law and statutory law. At the trial, police use of force expert Dennis Root says he would have shot Martin much sooner and would have been legally justified in doing so.
- Michael Dunn: Not a SYG case. Claimed that he saw a weapon barrel sticking out of the SUV before pulling and firing his own gun. Was convicted of attempted murder. May stand trial again in the death of Jordan Davis.
There is another aspect to the rabid opposition to such laws. One I had not thought of trial lawyers.
Stand your ground law isn’t new.
Stand your ground immunity, however, is relatively new, and I suspect that the immunity provisions are what is causing the corrupt (and overwhelmingly anti-gun Democrat) trial lawyers to suddenly have a problem with stand your ground after it has existed for more than a century.
Trial lawyers want money, and they enjoyed the ability to sue those acquitted in self defense cases for large sums of money until relatively recently, when new stand your ground legislation passed in 22 states began including immunity provisions that said if a person successfully argued for self defense in criminal court, then they couldn’t then be sued in civil court.
This hurt trial lawyers tremendously, as they made relatively little money from criminal trials, but could earn huge sums in the following civil cases, sometimes earning millions.
Truly despicable isn’t it?
So very well said
If you wanted to sum up the absurdity of the anti-gun zealots, you could easily use this awful, thoughtless piece by Carl Hiaasen, who apparently does not let facts get in the way of his emotionalistic arguments
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the state Legislature to fix Florida’s cockeyed stand-your-ground law. The National Rifle Association owns too many of the Republican lawmakers who could end the madness.
Nothing will get done as long as black kids are the ones getting shot by white guys claiming they acted in self-defense. What might eventually pressure politicians to change the law is when white guys start getting shot.
Well, baselessly blaming the NRA and playing the worn out Race Card did not take too long did it? Good grief, do these Liberal gun grabbers EVER think? Frankly you could get better critical thinking and far more intellectual substance from a vacuum cleaner.
The jaw-dropping verdict in the Michael Dunn case in Jacksonville brought not a peep of outrage from GOP leaders in the House or Senate. The outcome shamefully underscored the lunacy of stand-your-ground, and once again put Florida in the national spotlight as a gun-nut mecca.
Oh no, GUN NUTS! Run for your lives! Another intellectually bankrupt Liberal is having a panic attack. I wonder if Hiaasen ever thought, a silly question I know, that maybe Dunn was not convicted on First Degree Murder charge because the prosecution overreached by bringing such a charge? Frankly, I, and every other gun owner, or gun nut as Hiaasen would label us, think that Dunn SHOULD be going to prison? Hear that Mr. Hiaasen?
The sticking point was Florida’s spongy self-defense law that essentially allows the use of lethal force if a person feels threatened. True or not, practically anybody who shoots another person can say they feared for their lives. Self-defense claims in homicides have skyrocketed since 2005, when the stand-your-ground was passed.
I wonder what the color of the grass is in this man’s world? If a person feels their life is in danger why should they NOT be allowed to defend their life? How man hoops would Hiaasen force us to jump through before we used deadly force? Now, allow me to be very clear here. If I am awakened in the night by my dogs going crazy and I hear someone in my home I will defend my home, myself, and family as long as that threat is there. If that person runs back out my door when confronted I am not going to chase them. If they, however, continue to threaten me, then I will do my best to stop that threat. The same rule applies if I am confronted on the street, in my car, leaving a restaurant, whatever. For Hiaasen to suggest, in any way that a law that allows me that basic right is misguided is insulting and shows that Hiaasen does not understand liberty.
One more point needs to be made here. The reason more justifiable homicides are occurring is that more Floridians are able, by law to defend their lives. Again, what would Hiaasen have an intended victim do? Maybe he would feel better if they were prohibited from defending themselves? Lord knows he does seem to be obsessed with his feelings.
Hiaasen goes on to make more wild accusations, suggesting gun owners are running wild in Florida gunning down people left and right
This is life in Florida — guns everywhere, and laws that favor the trigger- happy. Shoot first, then cry self-defense.
Kids playing rap music too loud? Lock and load. Some guy texting at the movies? Teach him some manners.
Don’t walk away from an argument when you can end it with a bullet. Stand your ground and hope you get the right jury.
Welcome to Planet NRA.
More factually challenged pabulum from Hiaasen. I do love that he does what Liberals always do. He pretends that anyone can always just “walk away” no matter the situation. And of course, that no armed person could ever argue without shooting someone. Because, I suspect that in Hiaasen’s mind, self-defense, if you use a gun, is somehow never OK. Good grief!
A pair of Washington state armed robbers had their plans thwarted by the precise application of hot lead:
A spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Office said a man who lived in the home and his friend “were in the garage when two men allegedly entered the garage, their faces covered, and attempted to rob the two of them at gunpoint.”
She said the resident’s friend grabbed a gun from his car and shot one of the suspects. The other suspect ran away.
The 41-year-old suspect that was shot was taken to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.
The resident, a man in his 30s, was taken to Providence Hospital for evaluation. Investigators say he was shaken up after the experience.
He was treated at the hospital and has since been released.
“It’s just very surprising, because we’re out here, we’re a peaceful rural area usually,” said a neighbor. “You only hear about that in the city, but I’m sure everyone says that.”
The FBI has just released their latest semi-annual crime report, covering January to June of 2013.
Nationwide, forcible rape was down 10.6 percent, burglary was down 8.1 percent, murder was down 6.9 percent, and aggravated assault was down 6.6 percent from the previous period. Arson plunged a staggering 15.6 percent.
There was slight increase (0.6-percent ) in murders in cities with a population of 25,000-49,999, and a 2 percent rise in murders in cities with a population of 50,000-99,999. The number of murders plunged the deepest in cities with a population of more than 1 million citizens, which reported a 18.5 percent drop.
Overall, violent crime dropped 5.4 percent, with the largest drop in non-metropolitan areas, which saw a 10.5 drop in overall violent crime, and a 13 percent drop in murders.
The crime rate dropped as firearm sales had a record-breaking year:
The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record. The total number of background checks conducted for gun sales last year add up to 21,093,273, beating the previous 2012 record of 19,592,303 by 1,500,970. Texas conducted the most background checks with 1,633,278. Kentucky came is second with 1,578,331 background checks conducted.
Also at the link Bob Owens shares the fastest growing gun buying demographic. Head over and see what that demographic is. Hint- Moms Demand Action will NOT be happy!
Bearing Arms has the details
Connecticut has an “assault weapon” problem.
Politicians rammed through a law demanding that citizens register scary-looking firearms and standard capacity magazines, and the citizenry overwhelmingly responded by being “militantly sedentary.”
Gun owners sat on their butts and refused to register either arms or magazines, all but daring the state to do anything about it.
Of the estimated 375,000-400,000 firearms deemed “assault weapons” by the state, more than 325,000 remain undocumented. Only about 50,000 were registered for future confiscation.
The requirement to register standard capacity magazines was laughed at even louder by the citizenry; just 38,000 (less than 2 percent) of an estimated 2 million standard capacity magazines holding greater than ten rounds of ammunition were registered with the state.
Right before the December 31 deadline, a handful of souls attempted to register their firearms and magazines at the last minute. They now find themselves in limbo, documented but not legal, and the state is nowdemanding their firearms:
When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut.
The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally.
But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines.
The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police.
Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties.
Once people realize they can’t keep the guns and magazines, “they’re going to get rid of them,” Michael P. Lawlor, the undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, says.
More at the link, including this quote from one of the greatest Founders
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” –Samuel Adams
After deadly clashes with government forces for months, demands that new constitutional amendments in the Ukraine include the right for the people to bear arms are growing.
The Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has released a statement saying, “Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens. After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law. As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms. People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution. Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people! Armed people are treated with respect”
As Robert Heinlein once said, an armed society is a polite society.
Here is one of the proposed amendments from the UGOA. You can read about the rest here, but will need to translate the text first.
Amend Article 27, paragraph four as follows:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of owning a firearm to protect their life and health, housing and property, life and health of other people’s constitutional rights and freedoms in the case of usurpation of power , the encroachments on the constitutional order , sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine . Exercising the right to free possession of firearms is governed by applicable law and may be limited only by the court on the individual. “
Currently, gun laws in the Ukraine are categorized as restrictive and only “licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.” Ukrainians who apply for a firearms license must show “genuine reason” for why they are doing so, which must approved by the State.
When linking this from Bearing Arms, I cannot help but think of David Frum, who scoffs at the very notion that Americans use guns in self-defense, and who says idiotic things like those who want to be armed are the last who should be armed
I “blame” the National Rife Association for completely screwing up the anti-gun narrative.
Three different homeowners in Detroit used guns to defend themselves against intruders this week.
Two suspects were shot and killed.
“I think it’s just a matter of the individual homeowners protecting themselves and finally catching up with the criminals in that enough is enough and they aren’t going to take it anymore,” said Detroit Police Deputy Chief Rodney Johnson.
The latest incident happened around 2:00 Saturday morning. Two men broke into a home on Toledo in southwest Detroit, armed with a tire iron. The intruders tried to knock out the homeowner, but the homeowner fired back with his gun. He shot them both and killed one of them, a 21-year-old man. The other man got away.
The second incident happened around 12:30 Saturday morning on Abington on Detroit’s west side. A woman had just pulled her car into the garage when a man with a gun appeared out of nowhere. She dropped her keys on the ground as a distraction and then reached for her own gun and shot and killed him.
These two incidents follow last week’s attempted home invasion stopped by a mother armed with a Hi-Point carbine. The three teens driven out of the home by gunfire were arrested.
Hey Frum, why don’t you tell these folks why they are the last people that should be armed?
And folks, I think we can all agree that Mike Dickinson who is a Democrat running for the House of Representatives is a grade A asshole
Late Wednesday night, Mike Dickinson, a Virginia Democrat running to replace Eric Cantor, R-Va., in the House of Representatives, compared gun owners to children in a message on Twitter. Earlier in the day, he said guns should be “titled” and registered just like cars.
“Gun owners are like little kids right now. They all the rights but none of the responsibility (sic). With rights comes responsibility,” he tweeted.
Jump to many conclusions there Mike? There are tens of millions of gun owners in America, and the vast, vast majority never do anything wrong or illegal with those guns, yet, you wish to call us all irresponsible children? Funny Mike, gun rangers are busy every day, in every city in America. Busy with people target shooting, training, becoming proficient with their firearms, and yet you never hear of accidental shootings, or someone going nuts and shooting anyone do you? Millions of Americans have used their guns in self-defense There are about a million defensive gun uses each year. Some estimates are higher but let’s go with the lower estimate. Let’s see here Mike, one million defensive gun uses a year, most of those do not involve the gun even being fired, lots of bad guys run when confronted One million uses, divide by 365 days, comes out to 2,740 Americans a day defending themselves or loved ones with a gun. Are they irresponsible?
Now, let me see you want guns to be treated like cars? Hmmm, there is no Constitutional right to own a car Mike. You have read the Constitution right? OH, wait, you are a Democrat, you cannot be bothered by the wisdom of the Founders. Hell, you are way too busy insulting millions of Americans who own guns. And the Tea Party of course, you like to smear them too don’t you? Let look at some more of your idiotic statements about guns and gun owners
“If you as a private person sell someone a gun and it is used in a crime you should be held civilly responsible,” he said.
“If you sell a gun and it ends up being used in a crime or shooting- you should be held responsible,” he wrote in another message.
“Gun retailers should be as well if a gun is used in crime,” he added in another tweet.
Big surprise there Mike. You want MORE lawsuits and more ambulance chasers, and of course you really want more ways to punish gun owners and make guns harder to buy by raising the price, which would be a direct result of your moronic scheme. I wonder what other legal products you would target in such a foolish way. You want to charge the beer store if someone drinks too much? How about Hoyle for making cards because some folks become compulsive gamblers?
He also suggested every state have the same gun control laws.
“If every state had same gun control laws, America would be healthy. However we do not. We have some sick states that get everyone else ill,” he tweeted.
Oh I love that leap of illogic! We see gun crime rates MUCH higher in cities and states with more gun control laws, so, rather than embracing the obvious,
folks assholes like you Mike Dickinson blame other states with fewer gun control measures. Just one question there Mike asshole. If those guns cause so much trouble when taken into gun control havens like DC, Baltimore, Chicago, LA, New York, etc. why do those same guns NOT cause those same problems in Texas, Virginia, etc.? Care to answer me that? I mean if it is the guns, then surely the violent crime rate would be as high if not higher in states with more guns and fewer gun control laws?
Of course, we understand Mike, we do, it is about control with you. You know better than we peons do right? So, you are willing to lie, and twist facts and demonize all gun owners, some of the most responsible folks by the way, to get the laws you want passed. You want to trample on our liberty, that is what Statists like you like.
As an aside, yes, I know, I really should not call Mike Dickinson an asshole. I should just stick to facts, and destroy his ideology that way. But, sometimes, sometimes, you just have to call an asshole an asshole.
Short and to the point. Self-defense is akin to self-reliance, and bother are hallmarks of the thing the Collectivist Left loathes most, Individualism. William Teach offers up an example
Imagine the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and try arguing for a constitutional right to gun ownership. You will fail.
Interestingly, there is a method to do this embedded in the Constitution, whereby Amendments can be changed and even done away with. But Progressives would simply like to avoid that messy route, and simply infringe on the 2nd Amendment and just straight up ban guns.
There’s lots of moonbattery in the screed, too much to list. Zach offers three reason why people would like guns, the 2nd being “Citizens have a right to defend themselves however they’d like. Gun rights enable self-defense and, thus, save lives.” Not in ZachLand, though
The second argument in favor of untrammeled gun ownership, a right to self-defense, is equally incoherent. For starters, there’s no reason that, in a civil society, the right to defend yourself implies the right to defend yourself however you’d like. A basic part of government’s job is to limit our ability to hurt others; assuming the absolute right to self-defense constitutes, in Alan Jacobs’ evocative phrasing, “the absolute abandonment of civil society.”
Ah yes, here we see the “all violence is equal” mentality. The basic idea here is that defending yourself makes you no better than the person attacking you. Teach sums it up very well
So, we can throw defending yourself out the window in Liberal World. At least with a gun. And, really, even harsh language might be Bad, if certain words pass your lips. But, you might hurt someone who is trying to hurt you, so, that Cannot Be Allowed.
If you consider my contention that we are seeing a war on self-defense consider what happened in England after guns were banned. The loss of the right to be armed was followed by an increasing loss of a right to defend yourself.
The NFL has gotten too big for its own good in my opinion, so this is welcome news
The National Football League has implemented a new stadium policy that would ban off-duty police officers from carrying guns into games…except in the state of Texas.
According to the NFL memo, “off-duty officers who attempt to bring firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”
But a Texas state law overrides the NFL policy. As long as officers attending the game check in at a specific gate and inform Security where they are sitting – they can have their gun.
Ron Pinkston of the Dallas Police Association says that the Texas law is sensible.
“Our officers are 24/7, on or off duty, and if they run into a critical incident – they are required to take action” says Pinkston. “Our officers will be allowed to carry their weapon into AT&T Stadium and other football stadiums in the State of Texas due to Texas law.”
Hey Roger Goodell, Don’t Mess With Texas!
New Jersey may be ready to limit gun owners to 10 round magazines, because, well “no one needs” more apparently.
New Jersey is taking a dump on legal gun owners yet again in the name of “the public good,” but if it makes you feel any better, they’ll graciously let you stop to relieve yourself on the way to the range now without throwing you in prison. Maybe.
Democratic lawmakers in both house of the legislature have struck a deal that would
allow passage of a measure restricting gun owners to a 10-round
magazine, down from the current limit of 15, two sources with knowledge of the
deal said today.
In exchange, the legislature will shepherd through a gun-owner championed bill that would define what are known in the gun world as “reasonable deviations” to the law governing transport of a firearm.
Currently a gun owner may only transport an unloaded, stored weapon straight to the destination, be it on a hunting trip or to a gun range. Under the law, a gun owner may detour from the route only for deviations that are “reasonable.”
But next week lawmakers will introduce a bill that would define those deviations as small detours to allow for emergencies, picking up another range goer or hunter or for short side trip like gas station stops and bathroom breaks.
In exchange? THAT is a trade-off? Championed by gun owners? Good Freaking grief! And even worse, this “compromise” is supported by the guy who thinks I, and other gun owners are “terrorists”
You’ll note that one of the supporters of this measure, Bryan Miller, is the same citizen control zealot who shrieked that any citizen who wanted a standard capacity 15-round magazine is either a gangster or a domestic terrorist.
Yeah, that prick. What this bill is about is one thing. Taking another step towards disarming Americans. Today, 10 rounds is enough, tomorrow, seven, then five, then, well you get the idea. And let me remind you that most pistols chambered in 9 MM, and many chambered in .40 S&W have mags that hold more than 10 rounds. Many sub-compact 9 MM’s hold 12 rounds, and most “compacts” hold more than 10 rounds.
Of course, the gun grabbers will insist this is about safety, and saving lives. Baloney, it is about incrementally disarming the people.
Bearing Arms has the video evidence of how it performs against some “ordinary” premium ammo