... he armed himself and went to investigate, he was attacked by the burglar. As the burglar landed a blow, the resident fired a shot and struck his assailant who escaped.
"Yes, I thought so. This damn Beretta again"
:-)
Posted on 01/24/2009 6:17:26 AM PST by marktwain
Yesterday, a Springfield, Ohio man noticed his garage door was open when it shouldn't have been. When he armed himself and went to investigate, he was attacked by the burglar. As the burglar landed a blow, the resident fired a shot and struck his assailant who escaped.
Fortunately, the homeowner was able to protect himself from a violent criminal attack. We can only speculate what might have happened had he not been armed. Would the burglar simply have knocked him down? Or would he have decided to eliminate a witness? Fortunately, we don't have to find out.
This is exactly the kind of thing we talk about when we so strongly oppose further restrictions on our gun rights. The homeowner was lucky the law is what it is and that he had a choice. There are those out there, and sadly our new President seems to be one of them, who would prefer that he be disarmed and forced to take his chances.
Jeff Snyder once wrote, "we must carry arms because we value our lives and those of our loved ones, because we will not be dealt with by force or threat of force, and do not live at the pleasure and discretion of the lawless." Think about that for a second. Contrast it with what the gun grabbers want us to do. Those of us who choose to carry arms agree with Jeff. If we're attacked by a criminal, as the Springfield homeowner was, we don't want to be left with no option other than to put our life in the hands of a person who has already shown no respect for the law, no respect for a person's property, and often no respect for life itself.
The sad truth is the people in the anti-gun crowd see things differently. While a normal person looks at the situation objectively and says the criminal got what he deserved due to acute failure of the victim selection process, the anti-gunners will say that this guy didn't deserve to be shot just for breaking into someone's garage and then attacking when his crime is discovered. The poor, maligned criminal was simply plying his trade, right?
Keep stories like this in mind whenever you see a piece of legislation introduced that would take a gun out of the hands of a law abiding citizen, and what the consequences of such an act could be. It could just as easily be you that ends up being targeted by a criminal, and it could be you that has your choice taken away by an anti-gun politician.
Who wants to bet their life, or the life of another, on the chance a criminal won’t kill them?
Oh, yeah, the left does.
Imagine what would have happened if the criminal had incapacitated him, and the homeowner wasn’t armed...
On a positive note, criminals are liberals ...
... he armed himself and went to investigate, he was attacked by the burglar. As the burglar landed a blow, the resident fired a shot and struck his assailant who escaped.
"Yes, I thought so. This damn Beretta again"
:-)
That's all I've got to say about that--
Another thug taken out by an armed citizen. And that’s a very, very good thing. As “law enforcement” seems quite unable to successfully combat and end gang activity in our major cities—especially with the advent of illegals (doing the jobs American gangs don’t wish to do)—perhaps a few million civilian volunteers might be in order. Allow 500 thousand armed militia volunteers to enter NY City, place bounties on gang members “Dead or Alive” and I will bet that gang activity would crawl to a stop very quickly.
Bond moved up from the puny .25 Auto all the way up to the all powerful .380. It has the power of a brick going through a glass window.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.