I got this from a high school friend of mine.. He lives in a major city in the Southwestern US. I’m concealing his identity for obvious reasons.
He had a close encounter with a couple bad guys over the weekend. Or, should I say, a couple bad guys had a close encounter with him:
Two Hispanic males, mid-20’s, broke down my front door and entered my home this morning at 9:13 AM. I was monitoring them on my security cameras at the time, and when I sensed something was wrong, I grabbed my loaded 9mm from my safe and met them as they reached my kitchen. Seeing my weapon pointed at their heads, they immediately started screaming, “Oh, sh*t! Oh, sh*t! Oh, sh*t!” and turned and ran out the front door, jumped in their car, and tore off. They didn’t have a chance to touch anything, but they might need a change of skivvies.
I love a happy ending.
Of course, that happy ending was brought to you by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
And who knows? Maybe the two miscreants will take their close call with having their brains splattered over a granite countertop to get their “lives” back on track?
Several happy endings!
Those guys better be careful. That kind of behavior could lead to lead poisoning. Acute lead poisoning.
Geez, Mitch, you make it sound as if the mere presence of a firearm in the hands of a determined citizen can deter violent crime without a shot being fired.
I have it on good authority from several Liberal acquaintances that such a thing never happens; hence, no homeowner needs a gun for protection.
You’ve been reading too many NRA magazines.
A couple of thoughts.
First, in case you are confused, no one I know of, certainly not me, thinks this guy who confronted these two with his weapon in hand, was wrong or otherwise thinks he should have done something differently. Clearly they didn’t expect him to be home. If he’d shot them first and asked questions later, while I suppose I would have wished he’d have given them a chance, he’s under no obligation and he’d have been perfectly within his rights to do so. Not 2nd Amendment Rights, not self-defense rights, but epistemological rights. They invaded his home, they get what they get. I think you are suggesting there are considerable numbers of people on the other side who feel otherwise. I dispute that it’s anything like a reasonable percentage. So I am confused at your point, what are you trying to suggest?
Second, it’s not the 2nd Amendment that guaranteed this, or at least, not really. Since the time of Cruikshanks v US it is clear the states have the rights to define firearms control, at least until People V. Heller. Those states, universally really, allowed for the possession of private arms. Yes, NYC, Chicago and DC placed unreasonable restrictions, but that was a state matter until People v. Heller and more importantly McDonald v Chicago, for 230 years of our existence, this had ZERO to do with the 2nd Amendment.
So, this is a non-news story. Be happy to discuss actual 2nd Amendment issues with you if you like?
Two thugs with their fingerprints on file now. Maybe, just maybe, that $9/hour job as a Wal-Mart greeter will look better and better….
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 05.30.17 : The Other McCain
Avery Librelle: Racisssss to deny a couple of undocumented immigrants their right to your friends possessions!
I would keep your friend’s name private. The wrong prosecutor may decide he had a duty to retreat to somewhere “safe” in the house since he wasn’t physically threatened by the two “utes!” “I’m sorry, Your Honor. I meant yoouuths!”
“Yes, NYC, Chicago and DC placed unreasonable restrictions…”
Speaking as someone that doesn’t have a head for many aspects of gun policy:
It is very interesting to hear Rudy Giuliani explain the dynamics of how their draconian gun laws workout for them. I doubt that would happen anywhere else.
Normally, I let Liberals blather without bothering to rebut every single error because I’m a busy guy and I only have one life – no sense wasting it picking up droppings from people who ought to know better.
But really, Pen, Cruikshanks? You’re hauling out a states-rights case from 1875 to prove that modern gun control is Constitutional? Here’s a little suggestion — look up ‘incorporation doctrine’ and while you’re at it, notice that the Supreme Court tossed the Cruikshanks rationale over 30 years ago.
Look, if you want to argue that the Supreme Court decisions in Price, Guest, Heller and McDonald were wrong, that’s your right and I’ll match you by arguing that Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges also were wrongly decided. But let’s not pretend that we’re discussing the current state of the law: both of us are advocating a radical overthrow of standing precedent to realign public policy. The only difference is how we make America great again. Welcome to the revolution, comrade
.
First, in case you are confused, no one I know of, certainly not me, thinks this guy who confronted these two with his weapon in hand, was wrong or otherwise thinks he should have done something differently.
CLEARLY, Pen does not know DG. Because yes, DG firmly believes that no one besides sworn LEOs should be allowed to own a gun for any reason, and that the homeowner should have submitted to the wishes of the intruders.
Pen,
Joe beat me to it. Cruikshank is about as relevant today as Dred Scott.
and Dred Scott did enumerate gun ownership as one of the rights a full citizen would enjoy.
Penigma, I’m sorry, but that was just plain idiotic. The simple fact of the matter is that Brady/Violence Policy Center/Handgun Control started out as a group that wanted to ban all handguns not owned by the government. Yes, that impacts this case.
So nice to see you citing as your authority the Supreme Court decision that prevented civil rights enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments until 1966. You Democrats are always the same, it seems.