The Blessing of the Second Amendment

A Texas family lives in safety thanks to the Second Amendment.

Here is an excerpt from a story reported by Fox News:

A 21-year-old Texas man is being credited with protecting his family when he retreated into his family’s bedroom, retrieved a gun and fatally shot one of three intruders who forcefully entered his home, KHOU.com reported.

Regarding the same incident, here is an excerpt from a report published by KHOU.com:

. . . After the father was down, the suspects went after the mother. That is when the son ran and got his dad’s gun. He opened fire and hit one of the suspects, who died in the back bedroom. The other two suspects fled the scene. . .

. . . Deputies said they do not know why the suspects targeted this home.

“At this point, we don’t know what the motive is behind this home invasion, but they did force entry into the residence,” said Sgt. Greg Pinkins, Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

Neighbors said the son was just doing what he had to do.

“People can’t go breaking into people’s homes and not expect some sort of consequence,” said Harry Moulder.

What say you now, gun-control zealots?

Visual Aid: The Stupidity of What Constitutes an 'Assault Weapon'
Birthday of a Giant: Where Have you Gone George Washington?
  • jim_m

    The gun control zealots would respond that you don’t know whether or not the criminal is just there for your property and you should just let them take whatever they please and hope that the police will catch up with them. If they are actually there to harm you , well then, at least you will have the smug feeling of moral superiority of having given them the benefit of the doubt for that flickering moment before the rape your daughter and torture and murder your family.

    There is no circumstance where the gun confiscators can accept that you have the right to defend yourself. Such decisions are best left to “professionals” in government, who are trained and responsible for making such decisions.

    After all, look how well the LAPD did in tracking Dorner. They only short a bunch of innocent people who looked nothing like him. The left assumes (wrongly) that someone confronting a criminal in their own home is incapable of figuring out who to shoot since the police are so obviously incapable of doing so.

  • JWH

    This sounds exactly how such things should go.

    • JWH

      Actually, now that I think about it, no, it’s not. In a better world, people wouldn’t break into others’ houses. But this isn’t the better world …

      • herddog505

        Yes: in a better world, we wouldn’t have criminals and, hence, no need to keep guns around to defend ourselves. Ditto tyrants and guns.

  • GarandFan

    “What say you now, gun-control zealots?”

    Simple, they’ll tell you ‘be a good witness’ (unspoken is IF YOU LIVE). And make sure to dial 911.

    Taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, even for your own safety is a no-no in the ‘feel good’ circles.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    And the Wizbang reaction to the Oscar Pistorius shooting, the most talked about incident in the US and world this week, but not not on this site of course, since everthing on this site must be “on message”? If not, it is a non-story, and the editorial reaction is complete silence, and probably because Pistorious’ controversial shooting of his girlfriend by a self confessed gun nut, (he always slept with a loaded gun), who was obsessed with the possibility of intruders, doesn’t fit so comfortably into the gun nuts’ ‘blessed’ agenda, that everyone should be armed, dangerous and vigilant.

    • JWH

      The whole thing is a mess. There are questions galore in it. So what can somebody say about it?

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Yes the facts aren’t completly clear yet, but I assume it was a case of a heated domestic jealously rage, and she tried to get away in a locked bathroom, yet enough are buying into his story, to me, a implausible intruder alibi, that he may ,with the aid of incompetent detective work, and a lousy prosecution get the benefit of doubt, in the end, in his trial ,as he has with his bail hearing.

        • jim_m

          And this is relevant to the gun control discussion why?

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I could site alarming American statistical examples that there are a large number of accidental or deliberate kilings because guns are very available, to warn or shoot intruders .(give me a few minutes), but the Pistorious case is certainly relevant and topical of what can go wrong.

          • Vagabond661

            The same goes for cars and ladders….geez.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            That is why we have safer cars and stricter licenses for car drivers, or do you feel anyone even with or without a license can drive at any speed they want.

          • jim_m

            Show me where driving is a constitutional right. SHow me where operating a gun is anywhere near as complex as driving a car.

            Last I looked the rules of the road in Illinois was a 100 page booklet. I can sum up the rules to gun use in four bullet points.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Yes, agreeed without the Supreme court’s interpreting of Madison’s second amendment “a well regulated milita…” implying an unregulated militia does not have that right, it would be a new ball game. As far as the self-defense justification, the reminder that..

            Instead, (most) killings happen during fights between rival gangs or angry spouses, or even from road rage, and leave deep regret in their wake. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances. When your anger takes over, it’s nice not to have guns lying around.”

          • jim_m

            “Why manufacture guns that go off when you drop them?” asks professor of health policy David Hemenway… Logic like this pervades Hemenway’s new book,

            That’s how far I got because this idiot is so ignorant about guns that it was of no purpose to read any further. Because were he informed even to the slightest degree he would know that modern firearms come with safety mechanisms that prevent firing unless the trigger is pulled. Most strictures about gun handling are in place because it makes sense to never trust mechanical safeties because they can fail.

            The author you cite is doing little more than spewing liberal BS to please the ignorant and his fascist masters.

            The answer to why have a gun because how likely are you to use it comes from the question why have insurance that covers for leukemia. Most people will never get leukemia. It is stupid to pay for insurance that covers it. The likelihood of ever needing it is quite small. Then again if you are wrong you’ll probably die. The same goes for having a gun. So you believe that people should just die. That is your bottom line answer. You would rather that people die so you can be happy with your ideology.

          • jim_m

            You might also explain why it is that while the whole of the US is seeing murder decline at 2% a year the City of Chicago, with the nation’s most restrictive gun laws and part of the only state that prohibits concealed carry, is seeing murder increase at 16% a year and we are on a schedule to beat last year’s nation topping numbers.

          • retired.military

            When anger takes over it is not good to have knives, hammers, tire irons, cars, or other objects around which you can swing or throw. I got it. We need to institute a law that says if anyone is angry they have to go into a govt mandated time out until they are not mad anymore.

          • retired.military

            BTW hours later and Steve has no link or solid statistics to back up his lies.

          • herddog505

            Are you serious??? Because I MIGHT make a mistake, defined as anything from negligent homocide to “maybe I really DIDN’T have to shoot”, you feel comfortable denying me my rights???

            Anyway, ask this Hemenway fellow to chat with the family in the story above. THey might have a different view, borne NOT of armchair, pseudo-psychological mumbo jumbo, but of terrifying experience.

          • jim_m

            Hey, anyone “might” commit a crime so why don’t we just turn the nation into one vast prison state? That would suit Steve and his lefty friends just fine.

          • jim_m

            That is why we have safer cars and stricter licenses for car drivers,

            Come to Illinois where former Gov George Ryan is in Federal Prison because his admin sold driver’s licenses. Don’t tell me how we have stricter licensing provisions.

          • Vagabond661

            c’mon talk sense. So someone uses a gun to commit crimes and you want to get rid of guns?

            Using that same logic if one person commits welfare fraud then we should get rid of all welfare.

          • Jwb10001

            Please site the area of the constitution that assures car ownership for me I can’t seem to find it.

          • herddog505

            I suggest caution with this argument: the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights and similar amendments are not so much a laundry list of rights that we HAVE, but rather restraints on the government that apply to rights that the Founding Fathers thought of the greatest importance: speech, religion, assembly, bear arms, trial by jury, etc.

            The Ninth and Tenth Amendments give us (in effect) unlimited rights, at least so far as the federal government is concerned. So, while there is no specific right to drive a car (or ride a horse) in the Constitution (as there unquestionably is with the right to bear arms):

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            And:

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            This is where, IMO, generations of legal scholars and Supreme Court justices have made a capital error: the Constitution has nothing to say about many issues. Even when it DOES speak to an issue, it is generally a matter of defining what the federal government may or may not do in certain matters. For my money, most cases that get to the SCOTUS – indeed, any federal court – ought to be tossed out immediately: “The Constitution gives us no authority to rule on this matter as it concerns powers and priviledges implicitly reserved to the states or the people.”

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Hear him, Hear Him!

          • jim_m

            Then cite away. Otherwise it is just make believe BS from the left.

            There are an estimated 800,000 to 2.4 million crimes prevented every year by the lawful use of guns. In the vast majority of cases the guns are never discharged. In the cases of mass shootings they are only stopped by someone else intervening with a gun. The longer it takes for someone with a gun to arrive on the scene the more people die. Your answer is to let more people die by making it take longer for that person to arrive.

            I believe that there are more accidental drownings than there are accidental deaths by shooting. When are you going to protest against swimming pools? It would be more effective? Oh that’s right you have no plans for that. It doesn’t advance your agenda of controlling other people like disarming them does.

          • retired.military

            Deliberate killings will include suicides I am sure.

          • retired.military

            It isnt. Steve is just going through his list of talking points.

        • retired.military

          More people die in domestic disputes due to knives than due to guns.

          Wnat to ban knives as well?

          More than half the gun fatalities in the US are suicides. Why dont you ban suicides and maybe the number of gun deaths will go down?

    • jim_m

      SO your claim is that anyone who owns a gun is therefore a gun nut? Ponyh up some proof of that ignorant statement. For why else is it an issue otherwise? Your whole premise is that Pistorius undercuts the idea of the 2nd amendment because everyone who would own a gun is a murderous lunatic.

      Apart rfom the fact that this blog has covered gun rights numerous times and you could have brought up the issue at anytime is not evidence of deficiency here. The fact that you take Pistorius as evidence of anything other than he is one messed up individual betrays your view that you think that all individuals cannot be trusted with individual liberty and that we should not be allowed any. (it’s for our own good after all)

      • SteveCrickmore075

        no Pistorious was a gun nut. He had several guns including a loaded machine gun, which he kept by his bed, or so he said. to a journalist in an interview. And a couple of months ago, one of his guns went accidentally off in a restaurant, nearly wounding someone, but he persuaded the restauranteur not to press charges.

        • jim_m

          Machine guns and all automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since 1934. The average gun owner has 4 guns. Plaxico Burress went to prison for unlawful discharge of a weapon so your complaint is what exactly? That to prevent accidental discharge we should ban all guns? You’re nuts. Either that or you’re a fascist and just won’t admit it.

          Your so called data is without substance or point.

        • retired.military

          So a gun nut is by your definition someone who has several guns, at least one of which is a machinegun. What a buffoon.

        • Jwb10001

          And celebrities drive cars into people, and kill their wives with knives etc. Perhaps we should ban celebrities? I think that would be much more helpful.

    • Vagabond661

      I would say Pistorius’s girlfriend would have had a better chance to survive if SHE had a gun. Cmon, the gun is not the criminal here. Do you think he could have killed her with anything else? A bat? A knife?

      • jim_m

        A prosthetic leg?

      • SteveCrickmore075

        ..but guns are very lethal, that is why soldiers and the police have them and. Whenever soldiers returned home. and weapons flooded the US. i.e the civil war ,American homicides went way up! And with a gun, you merely to have to pull a finger, while to kill someone with a knife or cricket bat, requires considerable more ferocity and perhaps rage!

        • jim_m

          The purpose for having guns and the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to prevent murder it was to prevent oppression. SO are you going to claim that a totalitarian society is an acceptable trade off for reducing crime?

          And what say you to the fact that many nations have far stricter gun control laws and yet their murder rates far exceed those of even Chicago? Why did the murder rate in the UK go up 35% AFTER they banned all guns?

          Give us answers. You owe us them if you are going to claim that banning guns is a solution to anything other than implementing a fascist state.

          • retired.military

            Lets look at nation leaders who were or are gun control

            Castro
            Hitler
            Mussolini
            Stalin
            Idi Amin
            Barrack Obama.

            Great company there Barrack.

        • retired.military

          The people who fought in the civil war generally took their guns with them when they went off to the war. Gee Steve, any more liberal talking points that are as laughable as that.

          Oh wait I forget. You are the bad ass biker dude who scares bad guys by looking at them.

        • herddog505

          Wait… you cite some fool below who yaps about “rage” and gun use. So, which is it? Guns allow people to cold-bloodedly kill people while a knife or ball bat requires rage, or guns allow people with rage to kill people? What ARE you trying to say?

          Other than that guns are TEH ICKY and we shouldn’t be allowed to have them, that is?

          • retired.military

            Herddog

            See what happens when they use more than one talking point in a thread.

    • retired.military

      If he didnt have a gun he could have beaten her to death with his fake feet.

    • herddog505

      Let me know when Kos, DU, or NBC for that matter start making self-defense shootings “on message”. Lefties just LOVE to point to an outrage as the ONLY time that guns get used, as irrefutable evidence that GUNS ARE BAAAAAD.

      We’ve had two cases in the past couple of months where a family member shot an intruder, somebody who was in their house and coming after them and their children. Yet, from the left, crickets. Why is that, Steve? Why DO you lefties not like to talk about lawful self-defense? Could it be that you’ve got your message and you’re sticking to it? Is that why we’re supposed to obsess over a man in South Africa who apparently murdered his GF, and we’re supposed to agree to give up our guns because of it?

    • Jwb10001

      Steve, gun ownership in the US is a civil right defined in the constitution just like abortion and the right to a cell phone and high quality healthcare. But I will make a side deal with you, I’ll give up my 2ond amendment rights if you’ll give up your 1st amendment rights.

  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    Liberals would say a life not in thrall to big government is a life not worth living. So, anyone that agrees with the Constitution doesn’t deserve to live.

    • jim_m

      The rest of us feel that a life in thrall to the government is not worth living. This will not end well.

  • retired.military

    Call the cops while your dad is beaten and your mom is raped.

  • http://www.facebook.com/darian.bruskie Darian Brunner

    The second amendment is the best constutional right that we have, with the lack of free speech anymore. It allows us to, when all else fails stand against the government, protect your home and loved ones, and keep the liberals in check. When a liberal is getting attacked by an intruder, thats when they will ask for the help of my ar-15, and law-abiding citizenship, to save them. Id fight for anybodys freedom just dont try and take it away from me.

  • TomInCali

    What say you now, gun-control zealots?

    As someone who’s not a gun-control zealot, perhaps I shouldn’t respond, but I will anyway. The answer is, that it’s pretty stupid of you to try to argue your position by citing a story such as this, when you know full well there are many times more stories every day that serve as counterexamples.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      [citations required]

  • Paul Hooson

    I certainly have nothing against guns, but unless a guy can stand up and protect himself in a situation where a gun isn’t around, then he can potentially be in a very sorry situation one day. I had to stand up against a screwball who threatened my customers in a store I owned with a machete one day, and made him back down. No weapons here, I just stood up to to the guy and he backed down. Many bad guys with a weapon are actually cowards and are trying to get their nerve up by waving a gun or a knife, they’re not nearly as powerful or intimidating as one would think by any means. And my brother and a mechanic friend who was his roommate had to beat the holy crap out of three violent intruders who broke into their home in their neighborhood which was going downhill and sinking into crime and drugs.

    When you’re outnumbered three to one things aren’t always good. But, a friend of mine liked a fight with two or three guys, because they act confused and not in sync in their actions, and he could land plenty of good blows on them and usually win a fight like that. You just can’t let one guy hold you and the others pound away. You have to avoid that at all costs, and land blows on them taking full advantage of their out of sync attempts to punch until they had enough and back off.

    • Gmacr1

      Still a f**king moron I see…

      “I certainly have nothing against guns, but unless a guy can stand up and protect himself in a situation where a gun isn’t around,”

      Maybe you missed the part of the story where the father went down?

      Dumbass, not everyone is 21 and as fast and trained as Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris, that’s why a gun is the great equalizer.

      “God made man, but Colt made them equal.”

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE