Don't Mess .... In Texas, You'll Get Shot and Killed Dead

Why would you be a bad guy in Texas? Everyone owns a gun and people really, really like to use them. Dave from Ace's blog has been watching this case, as have I. He explains what happened:

To recap: Joe Horn, a resident of Pasadena Texas observed two men (illegal aliens as it happens), burglarizing a neighbor's home, and he called 911.

He spent some time on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, waiting for law enforcement to arrive.

They didn't, and he grabbed a shotgun and went out to confront them.

According to the transcript, the 911 operator repeatedly urged Joe to stay inside and wait for law enforcement. Joe waited a while, then said 'he did not believe it would be right to let the burglars get away'.

"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn can be heard telling the operator. "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going."

He went out, told em to stop. They didn't. And he shot both of them, in the back.

Allah says:

There’s the “stand your ground” provision. If it justifies him leaving the house to face them down, it’s not so much an exemption from the duty to retreat as an affirmative right to advance. And how was deadly force “immediately” necessary if it could have been prevented just by sitting tight? He’s got the shotgun and he’s watching them; if they try to come in his house, they’ll never know what hit them. Eh, whatever. It’s not worth parsing the statutes too finely since ultimately it’s in a (grand) jury’s hands and they’re not going to send an old man to jail for shooting two felons caught in the act, whatever the felony and time of day.

Well, this is Texas. The police took a long time to show up. A plain clothes detective saw it and did nothing. Will this force a change in Texas concealed hand gun statutes? Doubtful. Will the Castle Doctrine and its parts and pieces get revoked? Doubt that, too. Will it confirm for knobby-headed elites that Texas is a barbaric, cowboy-attitude-infested wasteland? Probably. Just want to remind the naysayers of this.

One would think that a few instances like this would be a major deterrent to crime. Move to DC, it's safer to be a criminal there.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Annie Git Yer Gun--Even In D.C.

Via the Scotusblog:

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales. [Opinion here.]

Well, the solution to yesterday's problem, seems to be this: Keep your child with you at all times, arm yourself and shoot the f__________. (John won't let me use swear words. Sometimes they just fit.)

The thing that seem unfathomable to me is that four justices voted against this obviousness. Anyone who reads the constitution, sees the right to own a gun. Only lawyers twisting themselves into self-righteous pretzels could see this any other way.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Another Reason I Love Texas

Stooopid robber, BB guns are for kids! Them shotguns will get ya.

Come Heller High Water

Hi boys and girls! This here is a gun. It's a SIG 229 to be exact and my brother owns one and I like it. A lot. He's on a gun forum and those guys voted for me when I was up for some Blog award a year ago and I just want to give 'em a shout out.

If you don't know, you should know that a big case is before the Supreme Court regarding your right to bear arms. In Washington D.C. there is a hand gun ban and it's being challenged and the case moved through the courts. The case has huge implications for gun owners everywhere and for those who might want to own a gun in the future.

Glenn Reynolds has been all over the Heller case and has been giving great updates. This is how the Wall Street Journal sums up the case (which will be decided by May):

Judging by Tuesday argument, the High Court has a majority in support of the circuit court opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the Framers included the word "people" if the Amendment only applied to militias. Justice Antonin Scalia discussed the importance the Framers attached to providing citizens the means to protect against tyrannical government. Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the Court's swing vote, informed all in attendance that "In my view, there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way."

The debate also focused on what restrictions, if any, government could impose on such an individual right. Several Justices had particular fun with Solicitor General Paul Clement, who was charged with defending his (and thus the Bush Administration's) odd split-the-baby amicus brief arguing that while the Second Amendment is an individual right, the D.C. Circuit opinion would bar governments from banning even such heavy weapons as machine guns.

In fact, that opinion leaves ample room for a government to regulate machine guns, bazookas and the like -- much as even the First Amendment protects speech as an individual right but not as a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. We hope the Supreme Court agrees with Judge Silberman that the Second Amendment does protect the right to own pistols, rifles and other guns of the kind the American Founders believed were needed to protect liberty.

Amen to that. No one knows until the court hands down the decision what the outcome of the case will be, but it's important. Jay at The Right to Bear Arms notes this:

The Toledo Blade wades into the Heller case and repeats some of the same drivel we hear all the time:

No sane public purpose would be served if the court manipulates the wording of the Second Amendment to infer that Americans have an unfettered right to carry guns. The amendment says no such thing.

Moreover, while many people in the early days of the nation did carry weapons, they were single-shot muskets and not the rapid-fire Glock 9s or AK-47s that are the firearms of choice of modern-day criminals.

Don’t you just love how the anti-gun crowd loves to talk about what the constitution doesn’t say when it comes to the second amendment? I’m certain if we asked the editorial board of the Toledo Blade about the word abortion not being mentioned at all in the constitution, they’d stutter and spittle and tell us how that’s ‘different.’ Bottom line is, what part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?

As for the type of weapons, all the talk about Glock’s and AK-47’s is a non sequitur. Free speech rights don’t change because we have the Internet now and they had quills and parchment paper back then.

It is uncomfortable to think about these days, but the 2nd Amendment is a hedge against governmental tyranny. I don't know what could be done against the government's arsenal, but an armed citizen can do more than an unarmed one, that's for sure. The right to protect life and land is the right to protect liberty. The Heller case is important for everyone--gun owners or not.

Guns Save Lives II

It's the same old story being replayed: Disaffected youth takes revenge on helpless strangers.. The only guy armed is the bad-guy in "gun-free zones". I haven't posted about this current incident, not because I'm desensitized to the trauma these events cause, but because I'm sick of them.

Let people defend themselves.

People need to stop living this pie-in-the-sky notion that the guns are the problem. Last week a psychologist got hacked to death with a machete. Shall we ban knives? Broken bottles? Shards of glass? Box cutters? Nail files? Or, if you saw Natural Born Killers, a lipstick case.

The solution is to meet brute force with brute force. Anything less means the deaths of innocents. This has to stop.

More thoughts here and here.

People Don't Kill People, Bats Kill People

Well, they can hurt people, anyway.

USA Today Editorial: Be Helpless

You know why I like Blogs more than Newspapers? Because everyone signs their name. A person has to own their opinion stupid or not. That point was driven home again today when the Editorial board of the USA Today wrote this:

Gun control laws have had a limited impact, and the pet proposal of the gun lobby — letting people carry concealed weapons — is a nonsensical answer. Even with more people packing heat, the likelihood of such a person being at the scene of a spree shooting is exceedingly low. (The woman who ended the incident at the Colorado Springs church was a congregant and former cop who volunteered as part of the church's security program.)

With more and more people carrying weapons in public, no matter how well-intentioned, the risk of accidental shootings and additional violence rises. Security on campuses, shopping malls, airports, churches and other public places is best left to professionals.

The best way forward is to keep at the imperfect but important fixes that can eventually make these shootings less murderous and more rare: Ensuring that people with a history of mental illness aren't able to buy guns; taking disturbed young people seriously and getting them counseling; and reinstating the lapsed ban on assault weapons, despite the opposition of the gun lobby.

A few thoughts:

1. No data to support any opinion
2. No name to attach the stupid opinion

So, counseling and assault weapons ban will stop these attacks. Really? And people carrying concealed hand guns won't be able to be there at the crime. Really?

Support your opinion Editorial Board. It's call facts. If you can find data to support your stupid opinion, maybe readers can take the opinion seriously.

Define Random Violence

Rachel Lucas says:

I know it’s nitpicky. And I’m sorry for his family that the kid is dead. But still. Sometimes you do something stupid, and you get hurt. Pretty simple rule of thumb to reduce your chances of getting shot in your coconut: don’t throw golfballs at meth-heads.

Words to live by.

H/T Conservative Grapevine

Cho: Psychotic or Evil?

Does the V-Tech murderer deserve a diagnosis or damnation? Would therapy and medication have normalized his behavior and prevented this gruesome violence?

Some people say he was "clearly insane". But aren't all murderers crazy? Isn't it crazy to hunt down or plan someone's death? Heck, doesn't a person have to be kinda crazy to kill in a crime of "passion"?

I tire of the psychological labels. It lets the killer, rapist, abuser, tyrant off the hook. If a person is "sick", we feel sorry for him. Pity. If only he had a better upbringing, or hadn't been picked on by a rich white kid (they all actually seemed to be very nice to him, considering his crazy), or taken his medication.

But this guy did receive interventions. Special tutor, counseling, court-ordered commitment to ascertain mental status. Clearly, the psychologist made a huge mistake. Dr. Helen says, "The level of stupidity and incompetence in the area of mental health is staggering." Or maybe the future murderer was a very good liar, consumed with hate and smart enough to manipulate the doctor. My husband protested, "You know we've seen crazy people over the years. How do you know which one will snap?" No matter, lots of people in authority--from law enforcement to judges to professors to students to school administration knew Mr. Cho was not right.

I went to school with a kid like this. He went on a school break with another classmate and the classmate mysteriously drowned (a proficient swimmer) in mysterious circumstances. Everyone was convinced that the guy killed him, but there was no proof. He didn't strike me as particularily insane. He did, however, send chills up my spine. Loner. Lived in a cult community for a while. Lived in his car because he used his loan money to gamble. Had loads of strange debt. Moved overseas to avoid payment. Crazy shit, but he wasn't crazy. He was evil. Everything seemed very calculated in his very disordered life.

What do you think? If you were forced, which would you choose? Evil implies moral condemnation with possible, but unlikely, redemption. A diagnosis implies potential rehabilitation. Or, do you believe my premise to be wrong?

If you had to choose one, was the V-Tech murderer:
	Psychotic
	Evil
pollcode.com free polls