Forum Post: 15-Year-Old Defends Home Against Burglars, Shoots One With Father's AR-15
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 10, 2013, 12:21 p.m. EST by outlawtumor
(-162)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
15-Year-Old Defends Home Against Burglars, Shoots One Of Them With Father's AR-15
The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.
The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.
The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”
The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.
A man used his gun to protect himself and his two-month old son from a robber:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - A Columbus man said that he fought back when a man tried to rob him at gunpoint in west Columbus Monday night. Kelby Smith, 34, told police he was in the driveway of the home on Crescent Drive just before 9 p.m. when he was approached by a robber. Smith said that he had his 2-month-old in a car carrier and had to shield him from the robber who held a gun at Smith's head. The suspect took Smith's money and started to flee the scene as he pointed the gun back at Smith and his child. That's when Smith pulled out his own gun and fired at the robber. The robber continued to run, but police said that a man fitting his description arrived at Mount Carmel West a short time later with a gunshot wound. Authorities said Smith does have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and they believe he was trying to defend himself. Police are continuing to investigate, but the man at the hospital could face charges if it's determined he is the robbery suspect. Smith and his child were uninjured in the robbery.
We have a long list of examples of guns protecting and of guns being misused. What's the solution? Do we let the loudest voice settle things, permit someone to dictate what we will be allowed to do or not do, or simply go with what the majority want no matter which way that happens to be?
From an NPR article:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/20/167720040/gun-control-only-modest-change-in-opinion-since-newtown-shootings
"— 49 percent of respondents agreed with the view that it's more important to control gun ownership than it is to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
— 42 percent said the right of Americans to own guns is more important than gun control."
It's only a minor shift in opinion from before the Connecticut shootings and not a clear majority for any definitive solution.
Do you have a solution to offer?
There are many solutions, we just can't always agree on which ones to support. Continue the push for whatever legislation you think is best, control of the more deadly assault weapons or an amendment to remove all guns from society. I don't think an amendment has a prayer and over time opinions are likely to drift back to a more 50/50 acceptance of the status quo.
Possibly a more successful route would be to approach this from the second amendment itself, the often ignored well regulated militia portion. Require gun owners to join a government approved organization, attend regular courses on gun law, gun safety, gun usage. You must have a license to own a gun and take classes to keep your license valid. Better enforcement of current laws would be nice too.
ATTENTION Gun Debaters…Please Read This Entire Article…‘The Riddle of the Gun’ By Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
A 4-year-old boy is in critical condition after accidentally shooting himself in the face with a loaded handgun he found in his father's furniture chest, Houston police officials said.
"I was careless for one minute. I was careless," the boy's father, Jose Luis Nunez, told reporters. The boy reportedly climbed onto a tall dresser in his parents' apartment and discovered a hidden handgun just before midnight Tuesday. He then accidentally fired the weapon at his head, according to the Houston Police Department's official press release. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/13/15885754-boy-4-shoots-self-in-face-with-fathers-gun?lite
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty
Except you didn't do a thing.
It's all bullshit.
Here's an asshole among assholes.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/
Who's this dipshit think he's going to shoot?
Sounds to like he's taken one too many hits of "bath salts".
Looks the role too.
Not to mention the SCOTUS has ruled twice the 2nd Amendment allows individuals can own guns. I'm truly puzzled why everyone doesn't own a gun for self defence, even a .22 revolver is better than allowing yourself to be a victim..
That isn't the problem and you are aware of this. Even though the NRA created a nonexistent issue for the second amendment it is now incorporated.
Yes,excellent point. Even these weenie anti-gunners would benefit from knowing how to handle a .22. It can be a very good defense gun,just make your shot's count.
Shill.
Good call.
Wonder when this tumor will be excised?
you're right, with a.22 ,deadly acuracy is a must . otherwise the object of your projection just gets angry.
A 33-year-old father was shot and killed Friday by his 3-year-old son, who accidentally fired a handgun he found in their home. Michael A. Bayless was on a couch watching television in a Salem house he was renovating when the gun discharged at about 9:55 p.m. ET, according to a news release from the Indiana State Police. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-14/toddler-fatally-shoots-father/56223082/1
A 10-year-old boy has been charged with the murder of his father, whom he said was a known white supremacist. He initially confessed to the murder but has now said he was influenced by a popular television crime series. Jeff Hall was shot at point-blank range while he slept, and his son is now on trial for his murder. The boy's defense attorneys argue that their client was exposed to violent images and hate speech through Hall's association with the National Socialist Movement. "If you were going to create a monster, if you were going to create a killer, what would you do? You'd put him in a house where there's domestic violence, child abuse, and racism," attorney Matthew Hardy argued.
Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/boy-10-shoots-neo-nazi-father-cites-criminal-minds-as-influence-84240/#sFHoLddfGaQlmyub.99
Thanks for helping to bump my post.
In a chilling 911 call, Texas teen Jake Evans spent 20 minutes calmly recounting how he shot and killed his mother and sister, calling himself "evil."
"It's weird," an even-voiced Evans told the 911 dispatcher. "I wasn't even really angry with them. It just kind of happened. I've been kind of planning on killing for a while now."
Evans, 17, of Parker County, Texas, was arrested after he called police early Thursday morning to report he had killed his mother Jami Evans, 48, and his 15-year-old sister Mallory Evans. http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-teen-tells-911-weird-kill-mother-sister/story?id=17407314
Well that solves it! Every kid gets an AR. Fuck it, take it off burst and just make em fully auto.
They are only semi-auto's. No more deadly then or faster then a semi-auto pistol. There's no burst,there's no auto,no assault,no fear mongering,just semi-auto rifles.
[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-274) 3 minutes ago " had the toughest"
Didn't say that,I believe I said "some of the most restrictive".
If you're trying to claim some sort of victory by splitting hairs,so be it.
You know what the point is,you simply don't want to acknowledge it.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
You're a shill. That's the point. You look funny running around in circles.
Greensboro, N.C., police are investigating a grisly murder-suicide in which a mother shot her children, killing her teenage son, before turning the gun on herself.
Police said that Sandra Lyn Palmer, 47, shot her boyfriend, daughter and son on Monday night following a domestic dispute.
Palmer appears to have pepper-sprayed her boyfriend, Maurice Eugene Edmonds, incapacitating him, before shooting her daughter, Danielle Imani Jameison, 18, and son Maurice Edmonds II, 14, with a handgun.
Edmonds the elder was shot trying to take the gun away from Palmer, according to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/sandra-palmer-north-carolina-woman-shoots-children-video_n_2439714.html
Police said a family was eating dinner at their home in the 100 block of Milo around 8 p.m. when the toddler wandered into a bedroom and picked up a 9 mm handgun. The gun discharged and a bullet struck the child in the chest, exiting through the back. http://www.kmov.com/home/Police--2-year-old-shoots-self-in-chest-with-9-mm-handgun-186183271.html
(Photo Credit: KDKA) Filed Under
Local, News, Syndicated Local Related Tags
Allegheny General Hospital, Car Thief, Man, Marshall-Shadeland, Police, Shooting, Stolen Car PITTSBURGH (KDKA) – A man accidentally shot his son in the shoulder while attempting to thwart a supposed car thief.
It happened around 5 a.m. on Central Avenue in Marshall-Shadeland Wednesday. http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/01/10/man-shoots-son-instead-of-car-thief/
THE GAZETTE A 45-year-old Black Forest man is being held in the Criminal Justice Center after he tried to shoot one man but accidentally shot his son. Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/glenn-149535-decarlo-shot.html#ixzz2Hb8sTy1X
Neighbors called them the “perfect couple,” but authorities say a St. Paul, Minn., man hid a sinister side and allegedly shot his wife to death, then dismembered her body and stashed the remains in a friend’s garage.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/minn-man-dismembers-wife-body-police-article-1.1237228#ixzz2Hb8NytVV
A 5-year-old Kensington girl shot herself while playing with a gun Tuesday night, according to Philadelphia Police.
The girl was home with her two siblings and her father along the 1800 block of E Wishart Street when the gun went off -- hitting her in the big toe, police said. http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Girl-Shot-Playing-With-Gun-Kensington-183109451.html
Hazleton, Pennsylvania: Home invasion intruder killed:
A female homeowner shot one of several intruders breaking into her home in Pennsylvania. The woman was wounded but is expected to recover; one intruder was killed, the others retreated.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Man fatally shot during car break-in:
Indianapolis Star: An armed homeless man confronted two citizens and tried to break into their car. The owners were present, but rather than complying with the gunman’s demands, they drew weapons of their own, shooting the would-be robber. Neither armed citizen has been charged.
You think it's ok to kill un armed people for attempted theft?
In answer to your question, as far as the law might be concerned, based on what she knew and her situation at the time. I think the law would essentially say yes it's ok to kill, in this case.
I do agree though with what I think is your point. You don't punish theft with death. Once you know all the facts, in hindsight this isn't the great case for guns the NRA would like it to be. However the woman's frame of mind and situation has to be considered. She was apparently in a crawl space with her children and didn't know the intruder's intentions. He had already gone through at least two or three locked doors.
I am so sick of demented, sexist pigs suggesting that I, a woman, passively endure a home invasion, and wait until I can determine that I'm only going to be stolen from, and let him go on his merry way. Shall I conduct an interview to see if he plans on raping me and my kids before I defend myself?
We don't punish shoplifters with death. But for you to compare home invasion with shoplifting? Are you fucking kidding me?
Stop pretending that you care about people. You actually equate the value the life of a sociopathic criminal with a mother and two children as meritting equal consideration. You are seriously fucked up.
And that goes for you too, VQkag2.
I think I failed to make myself clear and you misunderstood me. Please note I responded to a question, "You think it's ok to kill un armed people for attempted theft?" My answer is yes in this case, attempting to kill the invader is proper.
For this woman, at that moment, in her mind, it was life threatening. She had every right to shoot, and kill if that's the way it turned out. I was trying to say that while death is not a fit punishment for theft, the victim doesn't have the luxury of our hindsight. She reacted to the situation as it was for her at the moment, and I believe she acted within the law.
No victim is under any obligation to interview their attacker. Had the man simply been captured the legal system would be expected to make a more deliberate, sober, reasoned judgement. In that case death would not be considered a fair punishment for theft. In the heat of the moment the mind set of the victim legally (and in my opinion correctly) permits the use of deadly force.
Oh and in all honesty I don't actually care that much for individual people, I'm interested in what the law says is right. That may make you right about my being messed up though.
Thank you for clearing that up. VQkag2 just can't seem to wrap his/her head around the fact breaking into someone's home is on a whole different scale than "theft". And any compassion for home invaders is simply contemptible, in my opinion.
I think he's right as far as how the courts treat defendants, but in the heat of the moment it's the state of mind of the intended victim that is most important. I do think it's important though to structure laws and educate gun owners that it's defense of people we're talking about, not so much property.
[Deleted]
Sorry. Everyone is throwing shooting examples around and that one was on my mind because I read about it this evening.
[Deleted]
The point in general is the state of mind for the victim at the time the event is happening I guess. Better and required legal education for gun owners may be necessary.
Sure, maybe a test. I think also we must make some effort to keep guns from criminals & mentally ill.
Hard to legislate responsibility. I'd have to agree that most gun owners are responsible. When one isn't though, by the time you know it's too late. The mother of the Connecticut shooter made a serious error in judgement, but no punishment can help those children now.
Be great to close off the private sales at gun shows, keep everything in shops where records have to be kept.
Punishment isn't intended to help victims. It is intended to dispense justice, perhaps serve as a deterrent.
With that i mind and in regards to the 20 slaughtered children, obviously justice would be served by prosecuting the adults close to the irresponsible gun owner 'mother' who knew that the mentally ill son had access to guns.
It won't "help those children now" but no murder prosecution is intended to "help" the murdered. Right?
There are laws already on the books involving criminal negligence. It may be going too far to suggest that friends or neighbors that knew the shooter's mother owned guns and had a clue that her son had emotional problems are somehow liable. Proving criminal responsibility of who knew what and when they knew it could be a tangled legal nightmare. In this case with both the shooter and mother dead, I don't see where scapegoating some neighbor just to satisfy the public's anger and frustration is justice.
Trial lawyers seem to be already pushing the boundaries of sanity with some of the personal injury actions these days. Adding friends, family, and neighbors of gun owners to the pool of criminal and civil defendants seems to go too far.
I want you to know that I have followed and agree with your argument 100%.
Well if it's "a tangled legal nightmare" and therefore too difficult I guess we shouldn't do it. No reason to go beyond doing easy things.
I think it is wrong if a person knows that a mentally ill person is being trained with guns and says nothing.
You think that is ok? It may not be against the law but I'm saying it should be.
This is what falls under the catagorie of civic duty. We can't encourage silence. I've seen commercials asking us to report animal cruelty, child abuse, suspicious behavior, reporting crimes. In regards to deadly weapons we need to kick it up a notch.
I do agree it's very difficult, I just can't accept difficulty as an excuse for inaction.
The car thief was armed. Yes he deserved what he got. Why are you so fuzzy in your morals? Why do you assume he only was going to steal the car. How many serial killers shoot the guy and kidnap/rape/murder the woman? I suggest you take a day or two off these forums and carefully examine why you hold so much more compassion for dangerous criminals than you do for their victims. Seriously.
[Deleted]
See, there you go pretending to care about people again. You guys are openly hostile to anyone that disagrees with your opinion about guns. And then you try to argue that you care about us if one of our guns causes us harm.
He (and all) should therefore learn the lesson that having a gun TO AID IN THE COMMITTING OF A CRIME frequently ends in your own wounding or death. Fixed that for ya.
[Deleted]
How many times have I seen OWS posters bitch about "the war on women" and then here you are, openly advocating that the one device that equalizes a woman's ability to defend herself be banned. India has banned guns and it's open season on women.
It was "open season" in India long before that.
What an idiotic, misogynistic thing to say.
Education was the change.
You should try and get you some.................:)
Wow Shooz, one more post and you've hit 16,000!!!! And here I was thinking GirlFriday was impressive. Take a guess what would happen to the rape/murder stats in India if women were allowed to conceal carry? I guess you'd be against that, right? Who's the misogynist? Faux compassion is all you people have to offer. Well, off to cook din-din! Later phonies!
Is that right? You uneducated goat roping hill jack-take your ass the public library and stay out of the fiction section.
Quit stalking me you sicko. And there's no way you're a female, unless of course you're one of those femminazi obese beasts with shaved heads, facial tattoos and pierced head to you-know-where. Your hideous. Leave me alone.
[-] 1 points by Freebird (150) 0 minutes ago LOL!!! Knew it. Only feminazi beasts ridicule motherhood and cooking real food for your family. You're a pathetic, lonely bull-dyke, who will die alone and get eaten by your cat.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
You are a little female imposter shill that has tried to play yourself off as elderly and wheelchair bound.
And you're just another uneducated douchebag. So, hurry now........do what you can to maintain your new little lie...........something is burning on the stove and the baby is a crying.
Shoo now.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (11962) 11 minutes ago Is that right? You uneducated goat roping hill jack-take your ass the public library and stay out of the fiction section.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
ummm...........should I ask? I am thinking a repeat for proper emphasis. I am right aren't I ?
Hurry, something is burning on your stove.
Your baby is crying.
The library is a waiting.
I'm all female.
LOL!!! Knew it. Only feminazi beasts ridicule motherhood and cooking real food for your family. You're a pathetic, lonely bull-dyke, who will die alone and get eaten by your cat.
I hope you enjoyed your last day on the forum.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (11962) 11 minutes ago
Is that right? You uneducated goat roping hill jack-take your ass the public library and stay out of the fiction section.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
I didn't use the term. You did.
The rest of your suppositions are meaningless, as neither one of us could even come close to an accurate answer.........
Did you say you're a FLAKESnews fan?
Nobody's advocating that guns be banned little female impersonator shill.
Do you have a life aside from this forum? Almost 12,000 posts puking vitriol on anyone who disagrees with you. That's quite an achievement!!!
Yep, but I really enjoy verbally beating your lying, conniving waste of fucking space.
[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (11962) 11 minutes ago
Is that right? You uneducated goat roping hill jack-take your ass the public library and stay out of the fiction section.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
Being anti gun is not anti women, that's your weak, twisted attempt to garner support for continuing the current system that allows massive profits for gun mfg, sellers by having easy unfettered sales to criminals and mentally ill.
Nice try, you're the one with all the simpering compassion for violent criminals. Too late, you've already exposed yourself as a morally bankrupt control freak.
YOU are preventing efforts to keep guns from criminals in order to protect the profits of Mfg, and individual sellers.
Let's take a look at how the proposed solutions worked out in Canada, shall we?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/
This ain't Canada. And their experience is not a good enough reason to continue the weak regulations here they allow criminals & mentally ill access to guns in order to maintain profit.
Perhaps we can accept Canadas experience as a learning experience and build on it, improve it.
I think most of all we must ignore people who put the profits of gun mfg/dealers over the lives of our children.
A 13-year-old fatally shot his grandparents in their home because he was upset that they called his mother a whore and “were speaking poorly about her,” state police said in charges filed Tuesday.
Zachary James Proper, of Oil City, was charged with criminal homicide for the weekend shootings of Dorothy and George Fross.
According to the criminal complaint by troopers in northwestern Pennsylvania, Proper’s parents, Ryan and Karen Kapp, called Oil City police Monday night because they were concerned that their son had gotten drunk and high on Sunday night and had stolen a car belonging to his grandparents. The Kapps called police because they could not reach the Frosses by phone and because Proper told them that “his friend had shot and killed his grandparents,” the complaint said.
The Oil City police chief went to the Frosses’ home and questioned the boy, who acknowledged shooting his grandparents, authorities said. The state police were eventually called because they have jurisdiction in the township where the grandparents lived about 70 miles north of Pittsburgh. http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/10/13-year-old_boy_fatally_shoots.html
An 11-year-old boy was pronounced dead in Deerfield Beach last night after being accidentally shot in the face by his little brother.
The boys' mother said the pair had been asked to go to the parking lot outside their home to their father's truck to retrieve a hat. While searching for it, 10-year-old Terrence Reddick found a gun inside the vehicle and shot and killed Randy Reddick.
"[Terrence] just said, 'It was a mistake. It went off by itself. I didn't mean to do it. I shot my brother!'" said Spencer Wayman, who witnessed the moments following the shooting.
"So, his father came out and I told him that – I didn't know it was his father – said a boy's been shot right there. He said, 'Yes, that's my son.' And he got hysterical and he leaned down and kissed his son and covered him up." http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Boy-Accidentally-Kills-Brother-With-Dads-Gun-85766022.html
A 13-year-old South Carolina boy was charged Tuesday with shooting his 10-year-old brother to death after they argued over who got to sit in bed to watch a movie on a snow day, authorities said.
The boys' father, 44-year-old Gary Roberts, was charged with unlawful neglect because he left a loaded rifle leaning against the wall of a bedroom while running errands, Kershaw County Sheriff's Capt. David Thomley said.
"It wasn't in a closet, it didn't have a gun lock on it," Thomley said. "It was just sitting there, loaded."
Gayloyd Roberts, 10, was shot Monday afternoon in the neighborhood of small houses and mobile homes off U.S. 1 in the tiny town of Cassatt, about 35 miles northeast of Columbia.
Gary Roberts and his wife left their four children at home while they went to the county dump and Wal-Mart, Thomley said. School had been canceled due to the threat of winter weather.
Gayloyd and his 13-year-old brother argued over the seating arrangement for watching the movie, but their 15-year-old sister thought she'd broken up the fight and left the room. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4841887.html
And your point being?
Irresponsible gun owners pass background checks so maybe that ain't enough.
Both parents should be put in jail for that negligent homicide.
A message to all the other ignorants.
It's apparent all these people have "mental problems".
I think they all should receive a "frontal labodomy" and placed in a home with food and clothing to live out the rest of their "calm" life.
That will get them out of society for sure and we won't have to worry about them causing anymore problems.
lolwut?
You need a frontal labodomy?
Hey, if we do this to all violent people who kill others just think how much better society will be.
No more crime, no more violence, no more worrying about buying firearms to protect ourselves.
As a matter of fact people would probably give up their firearms for that reason alone.
This will absolutely solve our crime problem without a doubt.
Piers Morgan, CNN's most-outspoken and impolite gun control advocate, got a much-needed education about the Second Amendment and firearms Tuesday.
In the middle of a lengthy and uncharacteristically civil interview on Piers Morgan Tonight, former Marine Joshua Boston said, "The American people aren't as gun-happy and trigger-happy as they're being painted out to be by the media. They are smarter than that. They know when to hold their fire. They know when to fire"
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: If everybody exercises that choice and is legally allowed to do so, you could end up with every movie theater and every school and every church and every shopping mall in America with everybody armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and magazines that could kill 100 people in a minute. Where does that lead America to other than utter Wild West hell?
JOSHUA BOSTON, FORMER MARINE: All right, they said this was going to happen whenever Texas instituted its concealed handgun laws, and it hasn't happened. In the Clackamas mall shooting there was a 22-year-old carrying a concealed weapon, and he presented his weapon at the threat, and he held his fire just like happened at Congresswoman Giffords' shooting. There was a CHL holder there, and he held his fire.
The American people aren't as gun-happy and trigger-happy as they're being painted out to be by the media. They are smarter than that. They know when to hold their fire. They know when to fire. And we can increase the chances of success for these people that get caught in these situations for their survival by education. We've got to stop making this a taboo subject to everyone because it's scary. We can't give up our rights because we're afraid.
MORGAN: Well, I would say the only thing I would say to that is I believe the rights of a six or seven-year-old child to go to school without the fear of being murdered, to me, exceed and come higher than any rights to own an AR-15 assault rifle. That's my point.
BOSTON: Well, Piers, I don't disagree with you. I don't think children should have to be going to school worry about being murdered. But we have to accept reality. No matter what laws we pass, Lord knows we have laws, and during the last assault weapons ban, it didn't stop Columbine from happening. It didn't stop the West Hollywood shoot-out from happening. These things happen. There are criminals in our world that we have to contend with. And disarming people and taking the AR-15s out of their homes isn’t going to help.
There was a lady in Georgia who shot a man six times. He laid down, cried, got up and left. Now, imagine if there were multiple attackers. She only had six bullets in her pistol. If there were more than one attacker, she could not be alive today.
Good news -- it has become known that hidden deep within the massive 2800-page bill called Obamacare there is a Senate Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c.
According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect "any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition."
Good news. For every little attempt to pull a little story out there are another 25 that make you look like more of a paid for shill.
That's your narrative. I don't need to spend half my day posting to prove my point. It was proven with my first post.
You've even augmented and fortified my point by showing how extremely biased the MSM is against gun ownership.
There are just as many stories of people defending their lives and families with their firearms but they just don't get published.
Keep bumping my post though,I appreciate it.
Apparently you do see the need because you are repetitive as hell. You wanted to draw attention to your little thread. Have some attention, shill.
the NRA doesn't even have to pay these guys. lol
Well, we saw that for several issues. But, considering his history of posting. He is paid for.
the gun posters are a weird form of dedicated.
Just like the Kochs don't have to pay the tea party supporters, just the tea party politicians and ad campaigns of propaganda.
Who knows. Maybe he is paid. Either way, he's a shill for sure. Just about all his posts are about guns.
Awwww........down voting? I'm crushed.
Shill.
Remember this? A dozen people were shot and wounded Tuesday night in Chicago, a bloody start to the July 4 holiday in a city which has seen a dramatic rise in gang-related violence this year.
CBS 2 in Chicago, in conjunction with the Sun-Times Media Wire, reports that three people remained hospitalized in critical condition, and a 15-year-old boy shot while playing basketball was in serious condition.
At least five separate shootings were reported between 5 p.m. and just before 9 p.m., according to CBS 2.
CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds reported earlier this week that, as of Monday, Chicago police had already reported 240 homicides in 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57466334/chicago-sees-12-shootings-in-4-hours-as-gang-warfare-rages-on/
Guess what? The only difference between you and yours and the gang bangers is.............oh never mind. There is not one fucking difference. You are a thug.
Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
Thanks for further illustrating how more gun laws and regulation will do nothing to prevent murder,which by the way has been against the law for quite a few years.
Rahm can't stop it all he can do exploit the crisis to accomplish things he never thought he could do before.
No, hon. They had, HAD that until http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521
keep up.
I keep bringing up the obvious with the guns and you can't keep up or are in complete denial. Closing your eyes and pretending that none of these other problems exist doesn't help your cause.
Chicago Has Plenty of Gun Laws, Ed Schultz Belatedly Learns:
SCHULTZ: What are the gun laws in Chicago? What can you tell us?
MOORE: Well, first of all, Chicago used to have a ban but then, you know, the Supreme Court back in 2010 issued an opinion that, I believe an incorrect one, but they basically said that you had a First Amendment right (Moore confusing First and Second Amendments) to own a handgun and that the city could not ban handgun or gun ownership.
And so, the city went back to the drawing boards and worked up a new ordinance which has been on the books now for two years that allows for, allows you to own a gun but requires you to register it. And it has a, you can register no more than one handgun per month, and you have to obtain a city firearms permit which requires having a valid state of Illinois firearm owner's identification card. And then you must register the gun with the Chicago police department. If you've been convicted of a violent crime, you can't own a handgun or if you've been convicted of two or more offenses for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you can't have a handgun. You can't have a gun if you're convicted of domestic violence, and assault weapons are banned entirely. And if you do are caught with one there's a mandatory jail time for anyone caught with a gun.
SCHULTZ: OK. Uh, so that's a pretty strict gun law, I mean, by national standards.
MOORE: Absolutely.
SCHULTZ: Would you consider the gun laws in Chicago strict?
MOORE: Certainly as compared to most jurisdictions, yes I would.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/01/09/chicago-has-plenty-gun-laws-ed-schultz-belatedly-learns#ixzz2HbeR1WwL
Just some highlights GF.
So,you believe that all these shootings are done by legally owned guns and lawful gun owners?
You took me to an Ed Shultz interview on NEWSBUSTERS? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
Did you forget these parts? SCHULTZ: Why isn't it working? What's happening in Chicago? Why so many homicides? Is it the gang wars?
MOORE: Yeah, I'll tell you why it's not working or not working as well, I wouldn't say it's not working but not working as well as we'd like, particularly with regard to violence on the street, is because there's not any reasonable national restrictions. A majority of the illegal guns that arrive in Chicago come from elsewhere, from outside the city. From 2005 to 2010, which is the latest study on this, 50 percent of the short time, the crime, guns (? -- Moore not coming across as all that coherent) recovered in Chicago crime scenes were traced to sources outside the city of Chicago. So, you can't have reasonable restrictions on gun(s) on a, on a local basis just simply because people can cross the street into the suburbs, go to a gun shop and get a gun, and then take it into the city. What you really need to do is have really national rest- (starts to again say "restrictions," settle instead on the seemingly less severe "regulations") reasonable national, uh, regulations on gun ownership. ...
SCHULTZ: OK. And, but you think that, or should I just flat out ask you, do you believe that the lack of a federal firearm regulation affects the city of Chicago?
MOORE: There's no question about it. It makes it much more difficult to stem the violence.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2013/01/09/chicago-has-plenty-gun-laws-ed-schultz-belatedly-learns#ixzz2HbiIHHz8
Just showing you how consistently wrong the Left in this country is.
And you being a Leftist charter member and one of the most egregiously wrong Leftist on this Forum you'd appreciate the fact that you're not alone in your errors and absurdity.
Really? Because what you showed me is that you made a weak ass attempt to prove your point by omitting what was actually said. Because you are a thuggin' shill.
Actually no. You're basically saying Chicago doesn't have strict gun laws correct?
I'm saying you're just as wrong as your neanderthal mentor Ed was until he found out otherwise.
You can go look up the City's codes and regulations if you want to,if you don't believe me. I don't have the time.
That's it. I'm not promoting Ed's Leftist bullshit or the other guy's asinine opinions on gun regulation. That's not my job,I don't get paid for posting like you do.
Nice attempt to flip..............and you fail................again. Youse a shill.
Youse a dumb shill but a still a shill.
Painting with that monotone brown paint again.
So,in other words you know you're wrong and this is your defense mechanism? You lash out and call names when you've been proven wrong. I see you do that a lot. Interesting technique,ineffective but interesting.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
Fucking shill.
Excellent resource. See how many firearm laws and regulations are already in place?? That wasn't even Chicago's State laws.
We are already so besieged by laws and regulations and restrictions on our Constitutional rights.
And look how much violence and death still takes place even with all those laws.
So what ever Obama and Biden are cooking up via EO will do nothing more then usurp the Constitution,piss off millions of honest,law abiding Americans and possibly start a fight. But do nothing to curb,stop, alleviate any crime period.
This definitely reinforce's my point. Thanks.
[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-274) 3 minutes ago Excellent resource. See how many firearm laws and regulations are already in place?? That wasn't even Chicago's State laws.
We are already so besieged by laws and regulations and restrictions on our Constitutional rights. And look how much violence and death still takes place even with all those laws. So what ever Obama and Biden are cooking up via EO will do nothing more then usurp the Constitution,piss off millions of honest,law abiding Americans and possibly start a fight. But do nothing to curb,stop, alleviate any crime period. This definitely reinforce's my point. Thanks.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
So, you saw that shit on violent offenders and domestic violence, amiright?
Bring me something more. So, yeah, had the toughest. Not so much now. And the ones listed in the article aren't all that. Wanna try again? You don't have a point. You're a shill.
" had the toughest"
Didn't say that,I believe I said "some of the most restrictive".
If you're trying to claim some sort of victory by splitting hairs,so be it.
You know what the point is,you simply don't want to acknowledge it.
Guns and Freedom.,,,
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior -- like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy -- immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government -- whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force -- is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty -- the personal dominion over self -- by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century -- from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad -- have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
Where is this historical linchpin and how's it supposed to work in the present?
"The National Rifle Association has gained more than 100,000 new members in the last 18 days, the organization told POLITICO’s Playbook on Thursday.
The number of paid new members jumped from 4.1 million to 4.2 million in that time frame.
“Our goal is to get to 5 million before this debate is over,” the NRA told POLITICO’s Mike Allen."
See?
They play you like a fiddle.
A horribly out of tune fiddle.
And to think, I could have received a free NRA folding knife, if only I would have joined.
But I don't care for fear mongering, terrorist organizations. So I declined.