And the great news is that his buddy when they catch him will charged with capital murder for his friends death.

Conceal Carry = 1

Crooks = 0

First few rounds are on me. I'm glad a citizen took the personal responsibility on himself to assess the threat and take action.

Now that is a justified shooting.

Being a Criminal in Florida is not a good idea 8)

Floridians number in around close to a million CCW's

CCW FTW 8)

armed robbery is one of the most dangerous of crimes, very tough penalty's, a armed robber, will also kill any witness that can id him/her; if you are in a store , during a armed robbery, look for a back exit and try to get out, if not hide.

@Satan's Valet: I too, hate the phrase "clip," however it seems it's become acceptable to call "magazines" "clips" and use the phrases interchangeably. Whenever I hear clip, I think of the en-bloc or stripper clips used in fixed-magazine rifles.

Anyone know if the family of the deceased piece of crap can sue the man with the concealed carry in civil court for the death of their... uh... loved one?

I sure hope not.

Good riddance, waste of carbon!

Florida has a "Stand your ground law", so no, the CPL holder is immune from a civil action if his action is lawful.

pete,

Don't give them any ideas!

Even if you are a gun advocate, getting twitterpated over the death of another human being is sad.

@ Daisho, it's whisky for my men.

Beer is for the horses.

Here is one for the anti gun (_!_) es See we told you so. By stopping this with a gun, this person may have saved a life or two. Too bad the NYPD can't shoot as good as this person. Nice save

Anyone know if the family of the deceased piece of crap can sue the man with the concealed carry in civil court for the death of their... uh... loved one?

Maybe the CCW grandfather should be proactive and sue the parents for raising a POS and now giving him nightmares, grieving, post traumatic etc for shooting thier son. Now that would be poetic justice!

So the only safe choice for an armed robber is to begin by shooting everybody in the place.

This is another good reason to keep your NRA membership up to date. I don't know what kind of lawyer the criminal has but I want the entire gun lobby behind me if I am forced into a situation like this.

Clip, magazine, it ain't what you call it, it is how you use it. The customer used his well. As far as the dead guy, nothing bad to say about the dead...........except, he's dead, that's good. If you want to live in a gun free locality, I hear Chicago is nice this time of year. No guns allowed there either.

even though Florida has SYG like many other states.... he's still running the risk of getting charged.... it happens every day down here... it would stink if he ends up spending 6 months in court doing a SYG motion and risking a conviction for stopping a violent felony.

Colorado-4124250

Even if you are a gun advocate, getting twitterpated over the death of another human being is sad.

It's a better outcome than "2 armed robbers shot and killed dollar store clerk and customer for 40 dollars." Sorry but when grown men threaten another with a loaded weapon, you deserve what ever outcome it results in.

Where's all the anti-gun nutz jokersters at? Criminal thug = 0, 57 year old Grandpa (CCW) = 1.

Nice shot, dude, and thanks for taking out the trash!

Maybe he can train the NYPD how to shoot without hitting civilians?

Oldhamletman, you are right he maybe next at trial after George Zimmernan,seems the stand your ground law in Fl. is a money maker for the courts.

This is nothing to be excited about. Somebody is dead. The guy robbing the place certainly sounds to me like a scumbag, his shooting death is not something to celebrate. His death will cause pain to family members who loved him, and likely emotional scars on the guy who shot him. Nobody is winning here. If the gentleman who shot him could have diffused the situation without having to kill I bet he would have done just that.

At this time it doesn't seem he should be charged with any crime. I hope that the situation proves that no charges should be filed after investigations into the situation are complete.

Eric,

Normally I disagree with you on most things (I always know its you because of the penguins), but I am loving everything you are saying on this thread.

hobbesjd

" i know you are online and very brave when your not facing someone, but let's keep it somewhat "friendly". "

First off, I only respond in kind to people who ask for it. Second, this is who I am, being behind a screen does not make me more brave. I know most become people internet tough guys sitting behind a screen, but I have never claim to be who I am not. Also, I have never back down from someone in my face, but I also don't talk as much with someone in my face, and that's up for you to believe or not. As for being a professional marksman, I am not, but as for hand guns, I can still hit a target at 15-20 yards. As for calmly shoot someone, if I felt my life or my family's lives are in danger, can't really tell you what I would really do. But I can gaurantee, I would not hesitate to protect them.

By the way, I don't get personal on the vine. It's all entertainment for me. Also, I have a CCW, but rarely feel the need to carry.

Hobbesjd,
I can say that.
Also, California needs this in the worst way!

The problem here is that at no time does the article say this man who shot the robber was being threatened. Stand your Ground is only viable if your life is being threatened. Saying robbers "Might" have shot the clerk and customer is not sufficient grounds. The robbers "might" have also took the cash and ran out. Unless the robber turned to him and threatened him I cannot see Stand Your Ground

Where are all of those anti-gun, anti-CCW people from yesterday's Chicago shooting story who said that regular citizens with guns do not save lives? This blows holes in their theory. Also, sevral NY cops hit 9 bystanders to kill one man. This regular Joe did it while injuring no one else. Where are you anti-second amendment folks? Show yourselves

Robbing a dollar store for the 40 big ones in the till ... $40

Purchasing a bullet for a gun ... $1.45

Watching the POS accomplice's face when he realizes his partner in crime no longer has a pulse ... priceless.

For the cost of a single bullet, my fellow Americans were saved the cost of a lengthy trial.

Fortunately this ended well for everyone except the guy robbing the store. It is sad that someone had to die. This could have ended so much worse. But better the 'bad guy' than innocent people shopping.

Guns don't just cause crime, they also eliminate the crime (and sometimes the criminal as well).

Finally a feel good story

The second suspect fled the scene in a small SUV, FirstCoastNews.com reported. Police say the man is about 6 feet tall man and was wearing khaki pants, a blue bandana and black gloves,

'stained khaki drawers' would be a more precise description.

So this story is OK because they didn't tell us the two peoples skin color?

I do have to say hats off to this man and thank you for doing society a favor, one less POS scumbag thug for us to worry about. Hope they catch his partner as well.

Now that being said I agree with the others as well that give the man a pat on the back but we also can't celebrate a life being taken. Yes I'd say this life was probably already lost but still it is a life and that can't be forgotten.

I am glad to see a case where CC paid off but it always sad that someone's life (the robber) end up like that. I do hope the shooter is not to troubled by this and I hope there is no recourse to try and sue or charge him for this.

The fact is two men committed a crime and one paid with his life. I believe there is a good chance the other perp will be charged with the murder. As for what DRHunk said I was wondering that myself, curious to see how that will play out or if anyone can offer some insight into that?

Another thing that was pointed out and I agree with is the shooters skill set. That I think everyone who gets a CC permit should have some training like this man did. No need to be a competition shooter but safety and training class with regular range time would be good.

Again though, good job to this man, hope the other crooks learn from this.

It is time

It was not sad to see this idiot die. It ended up well for the world, one less criminal, period. We now don't have to pay for his ass to rot in jail, he can just rot in the ground for free.

Let's see, the first problem is that this happened in Florida. Once again we make national news for a bad thing.

Next, kudos to the shooter on all fronts: He stopped an armed robbery, which could have resulted in harm to the store clerk or the shooter (if he was not armed); further, he prevented the waste of taxpayer dollars on a trial and the cost of jail for this dirt bag (sure hope the State of Florida reimburses him for the cost of the bullet); but most importantly, this guy just instilled fear in the minds of criminals everywhere that maybe, just maybe, the person you are attempting to harm or rob is carrying a concealed weapon.

Thank you sir, well done.

Is this what Dennis Miller had in mind when he talked about thinning the herd? If so, works for me!

if you are stupid enough to rob a dollar store then shooting you helps the gene pool. the punishment for armed robbery is very servere, if you are going to risk your life or atleast 10 years or so of your life you should atleast be smart enough to rob a place that has some real money

sould like this guy just helped society from having to deal with another idiot out there having kids and spreading his faulty genes

I sure do love a story with a happy ending...

Toosano:

Also, California needs this in the worst way!

Actually, this whole country needs to abide by the Second Amendment, which states:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period.

Tom - doesn't matter what color the skin is. A thief is a thief!!!!!!! You steal from me and I will also shoot, because I carry a concealed weapon!!!! Make my day.

sure hope the State of Florida reimburses him for the cost of the bullet)

no, the shooter should sue the robbers family for the cost of the bullet, why should the state pay?

Exactly, Tom. I thought the same thing. I really hope the description given of the suspects to any law enforcement were more detailed than this article. But this is MSNBC so it's better to just call them "suspects", lest we seem racist for pointing out what minority group is prone to carrying out these type of crimes at a higher percentage. And don't forget to use the excuse white people have an advantage and are less likely to commit crimes which makes the minorities numbers seem higher by comparison.. Blah blah blah. If it walks like a duck..... you know the rest. Heaven forbid if the owners of the Dollar store were African American and the robbers were white, that would of been splashed all over the papers. So sick of the pandering to a double standard of racism in this country. Afrfican Americans are some of the most racist people out there. IE< Sam L Jackson, Kanye West..

I must be misreading this. NBCNEWS posted a story about a responsible gun owner protecting another person's life and possibly his own?

I thought they only covered the mass shootings to further their anti-gun agenda?

Debi-1314897

Toosano:

Also, California needs this in the worst way!

Actually, this whole country needs to abide by the Second Amendment, which states:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period.

---------------------Excellent post. I can't believe I am the only one that has voted for it so far. Something is not right.

Ex..........cellent.

The guy did the right thing i just hope hes not too hard on himself.

myspellcheckerisbroken:

People don't realize just how many rights the government has been whittling away; such as, border checks IN THE UNITED STATES and stopping and questioning people without valid reason, or recording all of our electronic communications and storing them in a facility in Utah without a court order, until one day we wake up and realize it's too late.

"...and was wearing khaki pants..."

Well, they were white when he started.

“He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he’s ever killed anyone and I don’t know how he’ll handle that.”

Well, guess it won't be the last time. Get em' gramps!

gridlock:

It's uneducated, erroneous statements such as yours which propagates racism, anti right to bear arms and "stinkin' thinkin'".

its called a MAGAZINE, not a clip.

Gridlock2307416-- You are insane. Go to the hospital and get help before you go completely nuts and hurt yourself or others

NBCSpews just happened to edit this story from the source at WKOV.

Here is the original unedited version. See if you can spot the change:

"The other robber ended up getting away -- he is described by police as a black male about 6 feet tall and wearing a blue bandana. He drove off in a small SUV."

Now NBCSpews version:

The second suspect fled the scene in a small SUV, FirstCoastNews.com reported. Police say the man is about 6 feet tall man and was wearing khaki pants, a blue bandana and black gloves.

And to the poster that said the first few rounds were on him...sorry...but the first few rounds were on the grandpa. Right at the robber.

I too, hate the phrase "clip," however it seems it's become acceptable to call "magazines" "clips" and use the phrases interchangeably.

Ok, I'm gonna be that guy.

Clip is not the proper use. A clip is used to feed an internal magazine - like what an M1 Garand has. It clips together rounds to slide into the magazine that is already built into the gun. If you've watched WWII movies, you've likely seen clips used. Clips are also sometimes used to quick load external magazines.

An external magazine is often falsely referred to as a clip. Most modern automatics use external magazines, which is a container in which rounds are housed that can be removed from the weapon.

I recall my past combat training and *gasp* training at Blackwater, and the instructors being particularly anal about people erroneously calling magazines 'clips'. Maybe they were just jerks, or maybe they wanted us to sound professional. Either way - saying 'mag' instead of 'clip' in most cases will at least portray the image that you know what you're talking about.

Steve-2570999

This is another good reason to keep your NRA membership up to date. I don't know what kind of lawyer the criminal has but I want the entire gun lobby behind me if I am forced into a situation like this.

I am the owner of several shotguns and pistols and have a concealed weapons permit.

The NRA is no longer about protecting gun rights. Its a political machine full of idiots.

From original article: Two men entered the store about 9:20 p.m., both with handguns, said Lt. Rob Schoonover of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

...yep, they may have been armed but Gramps was the one who was trained.

DRhunk- I think you are thinking a little backwards on "stand your ground". If someone has the gun and is pointing it at somebody, the "assumption" that they are going to shoot is completely implied. What are you supposed to do, WAIT for them to shoot before you can shoot back? That might be the idiotic rule for our poor soldiers orverseas, but a pointed gun is an implied threat. That is what you need for Stand Your Ground, not trying to save yourself AFTER you have been attacked. And actually yes that includes being a bystander while someone else's life is being threatened, and if someones life is being threatened during a crime, i.e. a robbery, the robber loses any ground on that law because they are the one committing the crime that caused someone else to take violent action.

Dandy:

The NRA is no longer about protecting gun rights. Its a political machine full of idiots.

It's "we the people" who are going to have to step up to the plate and protect ALL of our rights, including arms.

so sad

...another black child losing his life in this manner

"Clip" this and put it in your scrapbook.

Dandy416,

The same can be said for the Healthcare Industry but I still carry health insurance.

Melmel,

What you said about being a bystander to a crime and having the right to kill the person committing the crime even though you are not involved screams of Vigilante justice and I do not believe that is the intent. The intent of Stand Your Ground is to grant the power to protect yourself if you are in imminent danger.

Let's make this death a little more palatable for the liberals; consider the shooting a "late term abortion of unwanted tissue"... easier?

"Police say the man is about 6 feet tall man and was wearing khaki pants, a blue bandana and black gloves,"

UhOh... since they didn't list the suspects race you know he is black, wait until Sharpton and the NAACP get a hold of this "racially motivated hate crime".

khaki pants, a blue bandana and black gloves

Better stop wearing my bandana, I would hat to be mistaken for this criminal. Seriously , do you think the guy still has the bandana on?

let's see and just how many american made goods does dollar general sale...can't steal that cheap Chinese goods made money in america...Chinese steal our jobs with cheap labor for the benefit of corporate america...maybe if these robbers would have had jobs...this could have been avoided...i know thou shall not kill doesn't mean what it use to...and thou shall not steal doesn't mean what it use to...who ever dealt the robber death...needs to be rewarded with a cheap Chinese labor made product...but i ain't going to wall mart...f corporate America...

Steve:

The same can be said for the Healthcare Industry but I still carry health insurance.

Having health insurance is a necessity, unless you have the financial wherewithall to pay your own healthcare costs. The healthcare industry, which includes the insurance companies, providers and drug makers, all need a major overhaul and can only be accomplished through the will of the people. Forget getting any help from our representatives (the politicians), the healthcare industry financially enslaves them.

As for the NRA, they're losing their intended way, and it's going to be up to the people, you and me, again, to fight for our rights.

Mr. Plain Bob -

Hire the honest folk long before you hire felons.

He threateed a customer with death. Then he died. Justified (even in the bible).

Actually Debi it is not "

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period."

It actually goes on to elaborate that it is in the service of a militia since the government did not have a standing army or a police force at the time so people or certain people needed weapons to protect themselves or the community.

It should also be noted that although the second amendment has been interpreted as you have interpreted somewhat, the government can and does have the right to limit what weapons you can actually use to defend yourself. It is a grey area of course, so this is why such matters go to the supreme court.

Just clarifying...

I doubt the shooter is rejoicing like some of the people on here. Although he had made the best decision in this scenario, I am sure he wish the situation never happened.

He operated within the bounds of the law and most likely saved lives. I have no issue with his actions and hope his wife can help him deal with the emotional repercussions he may feel at taking someone's life. No matter how justified he was, he may still feel remorse.

As some of you have stated, CCW 1...but how many people have been killed accidentally by other gun owners who are aren't as careful or responsible with their guns?

J.Heron:

Please point out to me where in the Second Amendment the government is given the right to limit anything without passing another amendment.

Sadly my first thought was who the hell robs a Dollar Store?

My second thought was, that guy with the CWP was in the right place at the right time for those clerks. Good for him and he should be lauded for doing what was right.

Lol.

CCWs: 1

Accidental and criminal homicides: 10,000

As some of you have stated, CCW 1...but how many people have been killed accidentally by other gun owners who are aren't as careful or responsible with their guns?

Yes, and how many people have been killed by poor drivers driving automobiles? What do we do? Ban automobiles?

Unfortunately, death is inevitable. Death by accidents, murder, snake bites, lightening, sharks, surgery, etc. is inevitable. Where we should focus our energy and attention is on living.

Living in fear is not living at all.

Chuckx...if I could have liked your comment a million times I would have...lol

DRHunk ...(#1.31).."The problem here is that at no time does the article say this man who shot the robber was being threatened. Stand your Ground is only viable if your life is being threatened. Saying robbers "Might" have shot the clerk and customer is not sufficient grounds. The robbers "might" have also took the cash and ran out. Unless the robber turned to him and threatened him I cannot see Stand Your Ground"

AND (#1.67)......"What you said about being a bystander to a crime and having the right to kill the person committing the crime even though you are not involved screams of Vigilante justice and I do not believe that is the intent. The intent of Stand Your Ground is to grant the power to protect yourself if you are in imminent danger."

_______________________________________

Here is the LAW:

"The new law codified in Florida Statutes 776.013(3)(2006) states:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

http://www.hessingerlaw.com/Articles/Self-Defense-and-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law.aspx

" or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"

So it really doesn't matter what you think...He was well within his rights...Same as the Internet Cafe Senior Citizen in Florida:

"Senior citizen shoots would-be robbers at Ocala Internet cafe"

"Williams has a license to carry a concealed weapon and does not face any charges." (VIDEO in link below)

"http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8740954"

It's about time these stories get some attention.....They happen more than the Anti-Gun Lame Street Media want to let on....Goes against their agenda to disarm Law Abiding Citizens.

Deb...automobiles are manufactured to get people from point A to point B...guns are manufactured for the purpose of if used potentially killing someone....we should not be as worried about getting shot at a dollar store as we are crossing the street or driving on an interstate. I love how gun supporters say anything can be a weapon..its so true but guns are made for killing...lets start there and worry about what the crazies will try to use next.

Chuckx Since this was an accidental report by MSNBC about something they try not to notice, you can be forgiven for your biased and highly inaccurate statistic. It is hard to get a realistic picture of how many lives and injuries are saved by the actions of responsible gun owners every year because the vast majority of those incidents never make any news reports anywhere.

Lisa: Does it really matter "why" something is manufactured? Dead is dead, no matter the intent.

If it were possible to remove every single item from this world that has the potential to kill, I'd be 100% in support of it. But that's not, nor will it ever be, the reality. Thus, I want to maintain by ability, and my right, to defend myself.

Mike not all of us who are wishing guns were taken off the face of the earth are liberal political nut cases...we are people who believe the world would actually be a better place without them because people die every day from them..I almost did so my view has nothing to do with politics for me. This story could have gone a whole different way if he wasn't well trained...I just pray that all of those who carry guns and want to play a hero when I am around know what the heck they are doing. 15 year old in my state shot someone in a school lunch cafeteria yesterday, that should never happen and I want to know what the heck is going to be done about it ...nothing.

Look at all the gun owners doing their little happy dance...so cute.

It's lame stream media, not street. Why doesn't the media cover more of these stories, because most of the time the person claiming to defend themselves were never in danger to start with...got love fear-for-brains.

Dollar General should learn from this and begin training and arming all of their clerks.

DRHunk

Melmel,

What you said about being a bystander to a crime and having the right to kill the person committing the crime even though you are not involved screams of Vigilante justice and I do not believe that is the intent. The intent of Stand Your Ground is to grant the power to protect yourself if you are in imminent danger.

#1.67 - Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:43 PM EDT

Not involved? Anyone who happened to be in the store was a victim of the armed robbery attempt, that includes the citizen who shot and killed the one robber, which scared off the other one. You can take action to protect the life of another person, same as protecting your own. This situation was not "vigilante justice" or anything comparable to it.

yesssss ! one less PIECE OF $HIT on the streets,too bad he didn't cap the other one too !!!

hobbesjd Comment collapsed by the community

but he's a professional marksman,

Is he now? And you read this where exactly? Because all I saw was that he competes which in no way makes him a "professional marksmen". Lots of us do a lot of target shooting which is all this guy did. You really shouldn't just make stuff up to support your position

how many of you weekend warriors can say that and can say that you can calmly shot someone. i would shoot someone to defend my family...i've had a little experience with that kind of thing and i sometimes wonder if you that, are so for concealed carry, have really ever seen or shot someone...it's really not like in the movies.

Weekend warriors? Your assumption that most people with guns are movie star wannbe's is nothing more than your personal bias. If you can't keep your bias from skewing your opinion then your opinion really isn't worth much now is it?

please let's not get personal, i know you are online and very brave when your not facing someone, but let's keep it somewhat "friendly".

Was supposed to be a joke? You just called everyone who carries a gun a "weekend warrior" who believes a situation like this would be just like what they see in a movie. If you didn't want it to get personal maybe you shouldn't have started off by insulting everyone ya think?

Hi DRHunk,

Your logic is flawed. And, at least in Florida, the SYG law specifically applies to lethal force used against a perpetrator in order to protect someone other than yourself who is the victim.

Hey J_P,

Actually we don't hear about these stories all that often because the MSM isn't eager to search them out. They occur everyday, not a killing per se but a crime being prevented because of the lawful use of a weapon in the hands of a civilian, and you can find them reported to the FBI to be included in their database. I think I would see less media bias in a case like this if there was even a modest fraction of coverage for this case compared to, say, the Trayvon Martin case.

And, in other news...For his effort the 57 year old who shot and killed one of the intrudcers is being rewarded by Dollar General for his efforts by allowing him to have a 10 minute shopping spree. The expectation is DG might have to cover a few hundred bucks. j/k

@J_P_PatchesPal_1

Why doesn't the media cover more of these stories, because most of the time the person claiming to defend themselves were never in danger to start with.

And you've got sources to back up this claim or are you just using your bias to make assumptions? Because, quite frankly, that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. In that situation the media would be MORE likely to cover the story because someone overreacting with a gun is front page material in most places.

got love fear-for-brains.

I have to laugh whenever someone anti-gun brings up fear. They are the only ones who claim they won't go places because there may be someone lawfully carrying a gun. You never hear the pro gun people refuse to go places where they aren't allowed to carry. So who is really motivated by fear? Let me give you a clue, it's not those of us who occasionally carry a gun.

J.Heron

Actually Debi it is not "

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Period."

It actually goes on to elaborate that it is in the service of a militia since the government did not have a standing army or a police force at the time so people or certain people needed weapons to protect themselves or the community.

It should also be noted that although the second amendment has been interpreted as you have interpreted somewhat, the government can and does have the right to limit what weapons you can actually use to defend yourself. It is a grey area of course, so this is why such matters go to the supreme court.

....

As some of you have stated, CCW 1...but how many people have been killed accidentally by other gun owners who are aren't as careful or responsible with their guns?

#1.74 - Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:12 PM EDT

No, the 2nd Amendment does NOT "go on to elaborate" anything of the sort. The 2nd Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does NOT say that people must belong to a militia in order to keep and bear Arms, although it does note the necessity of having an armed populace in order to have a militia. It should also be noted that the "militia" mentioned by the Constitution consisted of every able-bodied male citizen between about 18 and 45 years of age (going off memory on this point, as I'm short on time to look up the reference). The Constitution and its Amendments make no mention of limiting the rights of women, the disabled, or the elderly, to keep and bear Arms--but the 10th Amendment DOES specify that any "powers not delegated to the Unites States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Constitution exists to LIMIT the power of government in order to preserve individual liberty.

Now, as to the question posed in your last statement, that is completely irrelevant to the article and this discussion thread. Misuse and abuse of any powerful tool (and that's all a gun is, a powerful tool) can and does result in injury/maiming/death.

Due to popular usage of the term clip interchangeably with magazine it now has the same meaning.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

A device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also: a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm.

From the Oxford dictionary:

A metal holder containing cartridges for an automatic firearm:

Thank you, Jim. No wonder there are those who are unable to understand our laws because of their own "elaborations".

Lisa-2951679

Mike not all of us who are wishing guns were taken off the face of the earth are liberal political nut cases...we are people who believe the world would actually be a better place without them because people die every day from them..I almost did so my view has nothing to do with politics for me. This story could have gone a whole different way if he wasn't well trained...I just pray that all of those who carry guns and want to play a hero when I am around know what the heck they are doing. 15 year old in my state shot someone in a school lunch cafeteria yesterday, that should never happen and I want to know what the heck is going to be done about it ...nothing.

#1.84 - Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:51 PM EDT

Yes, the world would be a wonderful place if everyone got along, and people died only from natural causes or accidents. But that isn't a realistic idea, no matter how nice it sounds in a song (cue "Imagine" by John Lennon).

OK...so, guns disappearing from the face of the planet ISN'T going to happen, unless perhaps they are replaced by something better. Law-abiding people are not shooting other people at random with their guns, so you have no legitimate concern about the activities of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will continue to exist, and will continue to engage in criminal acts, including murder, rape, and robbery. Law abiding citizens have the right to arm and defend themselves if necessary, including with firearms. Now, if you are so personally afraid of guns that you don't want to have one for the defense of yourself and your family, that's your right as an American. However, other law-abiding Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and choose to do so--and won't give up that right to placate your irrational attitude.

What was the point in bringing up the 15 year old in the Maryland school cafeteria? No guns are allowed there, right? Maryland is already well known as a crappy state for gun owners, with ludicrous laws and regulations. Teen apparently stole his dad's gun (disassembled) and took it to school, where he assembled it, loaded it, and then used it! What do you want to be done about it? Article actually mentioned no charges related to the kids "access" to his dad's shotgun---as if charges for that should even be a consideration (to be clear: no, they shouldn't)! How about wondering what should have been done about the bullying situation to which the kid was allegedly responding? Where was the precious Maryland state government and public school administration BEFORE this teen went over the edge? Hmm?? Too busy worrying whether law abiding citizens might have access to a gun while hiking taxes, and protecting the "rights" of criminals, it seems. Maryland makes me sick.

Hobbesjd(1.26),where did it say he was a "professional" marksman? I know several people who frequent shooting competitions that are expert shots. My father was an expert rifle shot and he was in the steel business. I know one guy who eventually went on to become a shooting instructor after winning world class events while in business selling office supplies and computers. You don't have to make it your livelihood to excel at something. Stories like this aren't that rare, they're just rarely reported.

You can look up what James Madison had to say about the 2nd amendment in the Federalist Papers #46. I don't think he could have made it any clearer.

A magazine is also a room or structure in which to store ammunition.

[Boy! Do I feel silly entering this argument!]

DRHunk Stated: "The problem here is that at no time does the article say this man who shot the robber was being threatened. Stand your Ground is only viable if your life is being threatened. Saying robbers "Might" have shot the clerk and customer is not sufficient grounds. The robbers "might" have also took the cash and ran out. Unless the robber turned to him and threatened him I cannot see Stand Your Ground"

Ok DR, then you have to asked yourself, if they had NO intention of hurting anyone, why then did they have guns? Just to scare them? You can do that with a baseball bat. It's more like they would have used the guns if the cashier wouldn't have handed the money over. It's all in how desperate they are. Next, who in their right mind wants to wait and see if they do use those guns on the cashier or customers? When idiots feel the need to play big league crooks with guns, then maybe, just maybe they need to understand what the outcome of that could very well be. In this case, one found out the hard way, that there are people out here who aren't going to stand still and wait to see if fools like that will put a bullet in their head. If they had clubs, then ok, the older man could have just pulled his gun and scared the crap out of them, but, they didn't have clubs, they had guns. When fools and idiots who feel the need to rob stores start understanding that money isn't worth threatening peoples lives over, or even being killed themselves, by using guns in the process of robbery, then maybe situations like this won't happen again.

Mario 69:

Hire the honest folk long before you hire felons.

I know some people who made mistakes in their younger, immature days that today, I could trust with my life; and others who purport to be "honest folk" who would rob me blind if they had the opportunity.

It's wrong to label all felons with a permanent Red Letter "A".

Ms. Debi -

You certainly may do that. I won't take the risk or obligation that goes with it.

FYI: "A" is for "Adulterer." No longer a crime.

Mario:

I won't take the risk or obligation that goes with it.

Hey, to each his own. Guess you were one of the few who didn't take any risk on a mortgage or buy any stocks from one of those "honest" bankers or Wall Street stock brokers. Congratulations on finding pure perfection in your life that you're able to cast the first stone.

Maybe I should have used an "F" instead of an "A" to make it simpler for you to get my point.

What is the "F" for, Ma'am?

Your guesses about me are wrong and meant to be offensive.

Back off and point that darned thing in a different direction.

Since the subject was "felons", the Red Letter "F" would have been more appropriate for me to use than the Red Letter "A". I'm sure you understand the gist of the story being someone, many times unjustifiably, being marked for life. All I said was I could have made it simpler.

Sorry you've taken offense, but I'm not guessing when somebody makes a black and white, prejudiced and erroneous statement that felons can't be trusted over so called "honest" people. One example are felons who have been wrongly convicted (the system is far from perfect and makes mistakes), are totally innocent and honest, good people.

I accept your apology on condition that you leave me alone.

Good evening.

You got it babycakes. Next time you may want to think twice about making presumptive and unkind statements about people you don't even know when blogging in a public forum.

Good evening to you, too.

Wow, armed robbery turned into a capital crime...nice. I wonder why the legislators didn't think of that?

There's no SYG law relevant here at least not from the information in the article. Having said that I wasn't there and don't know what threats or apparent danger was presented by the robbers to people in the store in general. But it's seriously screwed up to think that you are all applauding this guy's killing without knowing the facts either. Don't think just shoot. I hope none of you gung-ho for the shooter ever get hired onto a police force anywhere.

Back Country; you are way to extreme to take seriously. Those stories never make it to the media because the police know most gun defense reports are just hot heads over reacting. My friend got out of the Sheriffs department because of people who over react - he got tired of being a baby sitter to hot heads. If every domestic call made the news...

I have no fear of going in public, my same friend (the ex Sheriff) and I would go to seedy places all the time just for the thrill of it - you Fail again.

@ satans valet...Magazines go to my assault rifles and clips go in hand guns.

The man with the concealed weapon's permit was obviously a racist white hispanic out to kill a black man (who will be forthwith known as an 11 year old child). We should have blacks around the nation rally against this man and repeal the Stand Your Ground law in Florida.

Do you know what converts a gun hating liberal into a gun toting conservative? Being held up at gun point and realizing that because he/she was unarmed, he/she was totally at the mercy of the responsible thug. Don't believe me? Ask the Democrat City Councilman from Cleveland who was robbed and realized that he had no way to protect his family.

As for me, I've been held up at gunpoint and hated the fact that there was nothing I could do to protect my female employees because my employer forbade me from having the means to protect us from harm.

As for eliminating guns making the world safer, that's BS. Back in the 19th century, the saying was that God made man, but Colonel Colt made them equal. Guns allow the smaller and weaker to defend themselves against those that would prey upon them. How many people are killed with knives in this world? Look at the atrocities carried out in Africa by tribesmen armed with machetes.

I couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately, he's a Competitive marksman so his responsibility with weapons is going to be much higher than the typical gun carrier. Which is probably why this is one of the few cases you read about where he didn't end up shooting himself in the foot or accidentally shooting the cashier instead.

Rick-2682342

Rick stick it

Anyone that owns a gun should make sure they know how to use it. As a gun is only as good as its user.

I know some don't but there are also a lot of people that think they know how to drive a car. They find out real fast when something happens that never happened before. Like a stuck gas pedal and no key to shut off the engine.

Please furnish us with the date, place and names of those involved who shot themselves in the foot or accidentally shot the cashier instead. Your assumptions are invalid. Please do not invent history to support your misconceptions. I have carried concealed for more than 25 years and I run at least 200 rounds per month through my pistols to maintain my shooting expertise. I do not compete; I just carry.

Rick,

One doesn't have to look too far to find more than a "few" cases of armed citizens successfully using firearms to defend themselves w/o shooting themselves or an innocent bystander.

A quick place to start is here which picks one such case about once a week (at least recently) to highlight. If you click on "Read More", there are sometimes other recent (and historical as well) entries.

This is, not, of course an exhaustive list and only covers those cases that are reported in the news so excludes all those that never get reported in the news or even to the police. Many uses of firearms for self defense where there is not actually a shot fired and/or person injured are likely never reported to the police in areas where the police and laws are Second Amendment unfriendly.

Rick, I agree, unfortunately way too many get the CCW, with no real skill or full understanding of what they may get themselves into. I fully support concealed carry, (in my opinion, open carry just lets the bad guy know who to shoot first), but, I think there should be more along the lines of qualification. Even with past military training, the shoot/don't shoot line can be blurry. (Keep in mind, police officers are among the country's worst shots, and their judgement is nil, just shoot till the pistol is empty).

Anyone that owns a gun should make sure they know how to use it. As a gun is only as good as its user.

That's like expecting every driver to be as highly skilled as a stunt driver.

“He’s always been a marksman,” the man's wife told Jacksonville.com. “He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he’s ever killed anyone and I don’t know how he’ll handle that.”

Does a "marksman" really have to shoot to kill? That is to say, if he's that great a shot, could he not have shot the guy in the leg or knee or something? OK, I understand. They were robbing a DOLLAR STORE, but be that as it may, even his own wife isn't sure how her husband will feel that he shot someone to death. Robbery is wrong, I agree. But this "marksman" just killed the guy without a second thought.

Annie-322924, You never draw your gun unless your prepared to kill someone. Since the robbers had already made that descision, the consequences of their actions are justifiable.

Annie-322924

Ya that is how it is done.

If you shoot him in the leg, that means you did not think this was that dangerous. And a leg wound may not stop him from shooting. the threat is still there. It also leaves the first shooter open to all kinds of legal problems.

Make the shot count and stop the threat. After the threat has now been stopped, you need to see what you can do to save his life. Dot the I es and Cross the T es

"But this "marksman" just killed the guy without a second thought."

Not much to think if he thought his life was in danger. Besides shooting someone in the leg just allows the thug to shoot back at you.

Shooting a bad guy in the arm, leg, gun, knife, whatever, is Hollywood fantasy. When confronted with a deadly situation, you shoot center-mass. To do otherwise is foolish and potentially puts you and other bystanders in more danger no matter how good a shooter you are (either from a shoot-through or a bad-guy now really mad and fighting for his/her life). Any reports you read or hear of a bad guy getting shot in the arm or leg and the confrontation ending was because the shooter missed their primary target area and the bad guy decided he/she did not want to give the shooter a chance to correct his/her mistake.

"...when two armed men entered the store with the intention to rob it."

The article never states what they were armed with. People here are assuming they were also armed with guns. If they did have guns, I wonder why the surviving robber didn't shoot back. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he didn't, but this customer took a big chance shooting at two people, imo.

Annie - Yes, you always shoot to kill. If you shot him in the leg, even if you hit him in the femoral artery, he would have 20 minutes or more to kill as many as he could and we would pay millions to try him for murder and wait 20 years or more to put him to death. You never - ever shoot to wound. You shoot till the threat is neutralized. Regarding second thoughts, if you stop to think, you will likely be the dead one. This gentleman did what all ccw license holders should do. That is to practice with the weapon till you are competent and maintain that competency while you hold the license.

He's a marksman, alright, with better aim than a pair of New York City police officers. ->rimshot<-

OK. Thanks to everyone for clarifying that. I see your points.

Anne, Just because he is a marksman doesn't mean he has to shoot to kill. It just means he's a good aim at targets.
That said, thank goodness he had the sense to shoot to kill. He did what you are told/taught to do in CWW classes.

Annie, with all due respect - hitting a relatively small moving target like a leg at any range is very chancy for almost any normal shooter. There are those in the world who could do it, but damned few - and you have to dial in the circumstances. The crooks were armed, too - the task has to be to stop them before they can hurt anyone. Even if you hit someone in the leg, they may or may not be able to shoot back - you have to anchor them NOW. Dial in stress and adrenaline, aiming a difficult-to-use-accurately weapon like a handgun, and the 57 year old made a fine shot under tough circumstances. Forget the Hollywood crap..... in the real world there's a reason why people trigger off multiple rounds. Kudos to the shooter.

Yes flag waver only in America.....unlike Afghanistan where you get beheaded for dancing and listening to music.....you sound like it is OK to rob and steal....my question is how would you have felt if some no good walked into your store and put a gun to your head and asked for "a couple hundred bucks"?

@mtn-man

First of all, it's not my responsibility to give you evidence. But because it's just too funny, I'll mention that, posted on this same website within the same time this article was posted I read 2 other articles and commented on 1 with people being idiots with guns. Unfortunately one was a cop who shot himself in the leg while responding to a fox attack in the area, and the other was a woman who shot her husband while attempting to shoot a skunk. Feel free to read my post history for the proof. In fact, read my post history over the past several months and I promise a nice selection of articles about idiots with guns.

Anne-322924, Shooting someone in the leg, shoulder, or shooting the gun out of their hand is all good, in Hollywood. In the real world it doesn't work like that. Someone shot in the leg or shoulder is still a lethal threat. Shooting a gun from someones hand is not something that is a reasonable thing to think about. You're talking about a very small target from someone who is moving. I've trained with guns for over 40 years, I would not attempt it. I follow the teachings I received in the military as well as defensive handgun classes. 1) You shoot center mass. 2) You do not shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. If the person dies as a result of it, that was a choice they made by being the bad guy.

Kat, I would assume that the surviving criminal didn't fire back (if he had a gun) because he was to busy running. Most thieves are cowards and really don't want to use their guns. When confronted, the vast majority of thieves will simply run. They might fire blindly (which is probably about as effective as their aimed ability), but they won't stay unless forced to. There are so many video shows on now and days that you can see examples.

Annie:

My grandfather was a gold shield - undercover detective - for Chicago PD. If you draw your weapon, it is presumed that your intent is to shoot to kill. Therefore, the only appropriate response is the same.

James-101st:

As for cops being bad shots, think again. Where do you think marksmen come from - exclusively the military? Think again. The NY situation was tragic, but do you realize how many people are in Times Square at any given moment? No surprise that innocents were hit by police fire, it's a miracle more were not killed. However, that is not to say NYPD is at fault for being bad shots. At least be honest enough to recognize difficult situations that require the use of deadly force. No police officer takes the use of deadly force lightly, believe me.

Annie-322924 - Although the article didn't clarify which man was shot, I would assume it was the one who "had the clerk." If this is the case, there's the possibility that the perp was being partially obstructed from the shooters vision by the clerk, or maybe the perp was behind the counter with only his upper half in clear view for the shooter, or possibly even both. Either way I would say that's one hell of a shot to take in that situation no matter how many rounds you run through at the range.

JAMISON 2286 ----I can't even imagine myself in this scenario.
a.) I'd be terrified I'd be sued for killing perp or
b.) sued for maiming the perp. or
c.) jailed the rest of my life for either/ or

or you could be dead

That, too, Randy. But you know what I mean. The criminal gets a defense attorney that will turn it around on those who tried to do everything everyone says one should do.

Another thing, it's shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. The intent is the important part. There is no intent by an innocent person to end another person's life, only to eliminate the threat. But, taking a shot at anything other than center mass of the target that presents itself drastically increases the chances of loss of innocent life.

Rich, you may want to reconsider your line of thinking. You have stated 'you shoot to kill;' that is a very poor choice of words which is easily interpreted as 'premeditated murder.' You do not shoot to 'wound,' that's assault. You shoot, only as a last resort and you shoot with the intent to stop the immediate threat to your personal safety or the safety of others immediately present.

Once an assailant displays a deadly weapon and declares his intent to use it (it does not have to be a verbal declaration) you may take whatever action is appropriate to stop the assault. In the case of an assailant waving a hand gun in the face of a potential victim, he has declared the rules by which he intends to play. If you must shoot, you shoot only to stop the immediate threat. The most effective way to stop that immediate threat is to be absolutely certain you place your shot, or shots, in an area immediately above the upper lip and below the top of the forehead and a spot approximately medial to the left and right ear. This region is an area most likely to immediately disrupt the assailants central nervous system and will typically not necessitate a need for the assailant to give any further consideration to his next action; albeit, no time is required for him (or her) to think about any additional action toward his ulterior motives.

It is commonly believed, but very incorrectly, that a shot, or shots, to the 'center of mass' of the armed assailant will immediately deter or stop him (or her) from further action. This could not be farther from the truth as, oft times, the first few rounds to impact that 'center of mass' may only serve to introduce the assailant to the word, 'incredulous' and, more often than not, allow him time become really pissed off. (A situation also known as seriously incredulously pissed off!) You don't want him (or her) to become 'really pissed off;' conversely you would want him (or her) to assume a position that would be more conducive to being readily pissed on.

This brings us to the term 'gun control;' when you hear people demanding more 'gun control' you must understand that what they are asking for is greater levels of training for the lawful weapons carrying citizens of this country. What they really want is for you to know that, if you are going to be their nearest possible protection from an assailant, they want you to be damn sure you know how to use the weapon you have and, you do not miss your point of aim but, if you do miss, you quickly and accurately correct your aim before you pull the trigger subsequent times.

We saw above where one commentator used the term 'APB,' well, he failed to define that for the average reader. Several years ago we were introduced to the term "APC" at about which time 'APB' was changed, by mainstream media, to mean 'Assailant Probably Black;' thus simplifying police reporting requirements. It is much easier to state 'APB issued for a man wearing pink running shoes and a yellow polka dotted hoodie. The clothing description alone was to 'vague' so, APB was added for clarification. Now, the Always Politically Correct (APC) media does not have to say the suspect was a black man. This 'code word' worked just fine until, on August 13, 2012, a Jonesboro, Arkansas police officer filed a report identifying a handcuffed prisoner who had just committed suicide, with a handgun, in the back of the officers patrol car, as being of the race 'other than Hispanic'

Now, today, the media is very confused so, until they come to a consensus on suspect descriptions we have to accept that, if the media reports the suspect was 'white' that the suspect was 'white!' On the-other-hand, if the suspect was not white, but, 'other than Hispanic' we cannot assume he was black because he might have been of a minority race or an under-represented group. Now though, we cannot accurately describe a suspect by saying he was a 'minority' unless you first explain that the community in which the criminal activity had taken place was of a predominate nationality or race and of course the suspect was 'other than Hispanic' then, the description becomes much more clear.

So, let's test this new suspect description without profiling and while being APC. 'The suspect was a slight individual with very thin lips, black hair that may have been of a 'kinky' texture and a rather pronounced, and well supported, chest area, had long slender legs, and very broad hips and was wearing several gold rings in one ear. The clerk was not certain of the suspect's eye color saying they could have been blue or green or brown but, they were very thin and the individual was 'other than Hispanic' and, oh yeah, had a ring in the left nostril.

Damn, I knew I forgot to take my meds this morning...

Later duds, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Rick-2682342

Stick it again

there are may types of idiots that use many different type of items that can kill themselves or others.

cars, shopping carts, boats , planes,trains and kitchen knives just name a few. There is a site for all these called the Darwin Awards.

Hi Tom, I used shoot to kill interchangeably with center mass. With the weapons and ammunition available today, a true center mass shot will more than likely result in the death of the perp. While the service people are limited to FMJ rounds, we are not. There is nothing premeditated when you are involved in a battle with criminals. There is more premeditation in a military battle than civilians reacting to a lethal situation. Our sue happy society is far to involved with word play than fair play. There are too many what if's that are impossible to fathom where they come from. As far as I'm concerned, if someone displays a weapon in a threatening manner, it will elicit a lethal response. Now, if I only wound him, but he stops fighting, I'm not going to walk over and finish the job, but if he continues his aggression, I will continue firing till he stops. I don't think anyone goes out to the store with the intent to end someone's life, but you certainly would like to continue living yours and perhaps save someone else's along the way.

DingleB is right, and don't forget to double tap.

BrainCandy-3328906

You do need to pay attentions to everything around when driving and up date this information every 2 seconds. If you wait more then 10 seconds you most likely will not get to where you are going unless the other drivers help you out by getting out of your way.

You do not need to be stunt driver to drive a car safely and you don't need to have the skill of a marksman to hit the center mass at 19 feet. But you do need to know how to hold and aim and hit what you are aiming at more then 7 out of 10 shots.

Kat, I'm guessing the other robber didn't shoot back because he was thinking "Oh crap, my buddy just got shot and I'm next! Sucks to be him!" There's no honor among thieves.

There is a lot of misinformation about guns in this country and most of it comes from Hollywood. A single shot to the chest may be lethal, but it probably won't be immediately incapacitating. For information on that, read up on the Miami FBI shootout from the early 80s.

Since the average distance for a gunfight in this country is 21 ft (7 yards), virtually any gun owner should be able to hit center mass with their firearm with any type of practice or training. Trust me when I say I've seen people who needed instruction. A friend bought a new gun and was having trouble getting groups smaller than a 6 inch saucer at 5 yards. He said that something was wrong with the pistol. I proceeded to shoot 1.5 inch groupings with it at the same range. Nothing wrong with the gun, maybe just not the right gun for him. He was rather embarrassed. If you're looking to buy a handgun, read as many reviews as you can get your hands on and then go to a range that has rentals. Ask the guy behind the counter if there is anyone there who can help you if you haven't fired before. Take a class. Find a gun that fits YOUR hand and you can shoot well. I had a Glock 22 that I got in a trade. I took it and my SMALLER Astra A-75 to the range and found that I could fire the Astra more accurately than the Glock,so I traded it in for a rifle. On another occasion, I was looking at buying a 9mm. I was looking at two different models, a used Sig Sauer 228 and a new S&W Sigma. After a box of rounds through each at the range, I spent the extra $150 for the Sig. It simply fired more accurately for me than the S&W.

My current personal defense weapon is a Beretta 84F 380 ACP. Not a particularly powerful round, but the alloy frame makes the weapon VERY light and the size makes recoil negligible. Would I recommend it to everyone? Nope. I can drive tacks with it and do so VERY quickly. Would I opt for it in an open street gun fight? Nope, at least not if a more powerful option were available. I'm in agreement with the Sheriff who was asked if he was expecting trouble when he showed up at a formal affair sporting his sidearm. His response was "No. If I were expecting trouble, I'd have brought my rifle."

you say that like it's a bad thing.

Crooks don't expect that people will fire back, or fire first............

That said, I'm against 1000 round canisters, shoulder fire bazooka's, and grenades as part of conceal carry......cause its hard to conceal a bazooka........ :-)

^ LMAO! Well played sir. Well played.

Well said my friend!

My girlfriend says what I have is a bazooka and I conceal it pretty well.

He said: [ -------------------------------------------- ]

She said: [--- ]

Bazooka?

<said in Mick Dundee's voice> That's not a bazooka, THAT'S a bazooka!

Bimbo,

You know why women can never be Surveyors? All their life, their boyfriends have told them

this is 6 inches ______

Bimbo-3402428

My girlfriend says what I have is a bazooka and I conceal it pretty well.

So is that a bazooka for ants? :>)

Bazooka gum comes in very small packages. Easy to conceal. :)

So is that a bazooka for ants?

<channeling Zoolander>

Why would they make a bazooka for ants? Don't scientists know they're too small to carry bazookas?

Bimbo-3402428

My girlfriend says what I have is a bazooka and I conceal it pretty well.

She also said that it shoots blanks.

LOL this went downhill in a hurry....

Bimbo, and guys wonder why many women can't balance a checkbook.

For years we've been told that 4 and 8 are the same thing.

She also said it sometimes jams and won't fire at all.

her idea of a cannon ...can just be a pee shooter...

last I looked, there has never been a situation where someone having assault weapons have saved lives....so, I think gun restriction argument does not work for assault weapons and this person who did the protecting did not use an assault weapon.

@Gareth-Seattle

He wasn't talking about assault weapons, why is it when someone starts talking about gun control laws the trolls automatically bring up assault weapons and grenades? We are talking about simple handguns or rifles. here in california it is EXTREMELY hard and at the complete discretion of the local sheriff to obtain a CCW permit. Not to mention how long you have to wait to get a gun, But the thugs and gangsters can get guns in 30 minutes with no background checks. Strict gun laws only hinder citizens from protecting themselves. (key word strict, I beleive as another poster said, we don't need bazookas)

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. (Thomas Jefferson)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson, Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

What's an "assault weapon"? Are you referring to the (from the German) "Sturmgewehr"? That would be a select-fire arm, a machine-gun, so to speak. Why are you bringing them up in a discussion of an individual with a handgun stopping an armed felon in the commission of a crime?

You don't wanna hand out CCW permits like cereal box prizes. They belong in the hands of intelligent and thoughtful gun users.

NOT like http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/28/13527104-stinky-shot-texas-woman-aims-for-skunk-accidentally-shoots-husband#comments

"Texas woman aims for skunk, accidentally shoots husband"

Probably never considered line of fire and ricochett off concrete :|

Where did you get assault weapons out of this article? Last time I checked, assault weapons are fully automatic or burst capable weapon. Did he had a AK47 or Uzi with automatic capablity and spraying everywhere?

It's like clumping every car as a sports car and making a ignorant statement. (corvette, porsche, smart car, ford escort, etc)

'assault weapons' that are available on the street are simply a cosmetically scary / military looking version of a semi automatic rifle... they aren't concealable... they aren't any more powerful and are frequently much less powerful than hunting rifles... all the angst about them is absurd... the people who use them typically just like the look of them when they go to the range or hunting.

automatic weapons are a whole other story and they are limited in extreme ways rightfully so... gang bangers occasionally get them and go down for possessing them all the time.

the only gun control argument that potentially make sense is limitation of magazine size.... and even that is weak as a typical nut that knows something about guns would be able to switch mags in a couple seconds anyway... it was tried in the Brady bill and gun deaths went up significantly afterward so there's no correlation between magazine size and death rate.

unless a magic vacuum comes and sweeps every weapon from the earth and human beings magically become non violent.... we will continue to have violent death, end of story.... there's no way to control it legally... the bad guys will always be bad.

gc-1739726. your first quote from Jefferson about the right to bear arms to protect from the tyranny of government is bogus and has been refuted by the historians at Monticello.org who have analyzed his writings. he never wrote or uttered that. Also he was quoting Cesare Baccaria to talk about the need to be wary of unintended consequences of laws that provide false utility or as he wrote in the notes "False idee di utilità".

The example about laws forbiding people to wear arms, was Baccaria's example, not Jefferson.

Either way, the founding fathers certainly meant for us to have the right to bear arms per the 2nd Amendment, but this right, like all rights, is not without limits. But please do quote them correctly, they've earned that respect.

@Rob- Seattle

Who determines the intelligent and thoughtful users?

Why did you quote an article non CCW related? fallacy?

Your argument is easily blown away by all of the statistics on CCW. Lets start with (google is your friend):

According to the Department of Justice’s 2007 Uniformed Crime Report, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30 percent lower homicide rate, as well as a 46 percent lower robbery rate. (wow!)

Less than 1% (~.254%) of homicides/armed felonies are committed by CCW holders.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high!!!

Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year

Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

* Vermont: one of the safest of five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

CCW holders have to pass fire arms training classes (at least in CA they do rigorous background checks, fingerprinting, etc AND in CA you need a legitamtate reason for obtaining a CCW...which can still be denied if the Sheriff doesn't like you.

Agree. I think you should qualify marksman before you take your gun home....NYPD need not apply.

No, gc-1739726, not fallacy. Greg Waite stated, "Give out more CCW permits in California...." I believe the local sheriff or law enforcment determines. Giving out more isn't the answer since they are requested by citizens willing to take the responsibility and even then people can make stupid descisions. You quoted no references in CA to show this would make a difference in CA

Linky to Department of Justice’s 2007 Uniformed Crime Report ???

rob

last time i checked,,a hollow point wont come back at ya....

now a full metal jack is a diffrent story

Having been mugged at gunpoint in Richmond California, I've got to say that I don't think more legally armed Californians would make it that much harder for criminals, who are in gangs. Almost everyone who is willing to carry is armed anyway, legally or not.

It wouldn't have made a difference in my case, other than maybe getting me shot (it was two of them, and they were on me with guns drawn before I even knew they were there). That said, I support your right to bear arms and get a carry permit and think it should be easier in California. It's a question of your right to self-determination. But it won't make it any safer.

dont mess with texsas, It's not the comin' back at ya thats scary, it's random do gooder that can't hit the side of a barn but intends to use the full 17 rounds trying that'll makes ya pee your pants :)

Greg, those of us up in the Northwest might beg to differ with your thinking. Typically, from our perspectives, it would be much more cost effective to extend a concrete wall East from the Pacific Ocean to Nevada then South to Mexico and then West back to the Pacific and then throw our excess weapons over to the interior confines of that wall.

Oh, wait, that's right, I was going to go take my pills!

@Yoshi - I would not want to be anywhere around when the MG-42 went off! <lol> I really think there are a lot of anti-gun people who really don't understand the weapons and their uses. You don't often see the civilian versions of military weapons carried in public, and certainly not easily concealed. Although, I would shy away from someone wearing a trench coat in July - - for a multitude of reasons! <lol> The sad fact is many of our people are not used to seeing or using weapons like in the past. Those in an urban environment rarely have contact with them, while rural people see them all the time. In reality, if they would simply go to a range and shoot, many would actually like them.

Did anybody else notice that they didn't mention what race the perps were when they described them? Hum..... wonder why.......

in CA you need a legitamtate reason for obtaining a CCW...which can still be denied if the Sheriff doesn't like you.

Colorado was that way until somewhere around 2003, before then it was a may issue state. And one of the Sheriffs (translation pandering politicians) who got to decide if you could have one was an anti-gun kook who was busted last year for trading drugs for gay sex. He was busted, booked into the detention facility named after him and later sentenced to 38 days (time served and two years probation). This week his probation officer reported him for again soliciting sex and violating parole. So much for the kinds of people deciding who should get to CCW.

Have to agree. They mention he was wearing khaki pants, a blue bandana, and black gloves and he drove off in a small SUV, but no mention whether he is black, white or asian. Over PC today.

Only a racist bonehead would make such a statement.

To question his race is valid, to assume that he's black is a tad bit racist, kind sir.

Agreed. I was working in a grocery store once, and a woman walked off and left a bag on the register. The cashier handed it to me as I passed by and said, "Here, can you give this to that lady before she gets away without it?" I asked, "Which lady?" as there were a dozen nearby. The cashier stuttered for a description and said, "The one wearing, uh, the the the, the one with brown shoes!" I look over and there's one African-American woman walking away in brown shoes surrounded by a sea of white women with other-colored footwear. I said, "Dude, why didn't you just say 'The BLACK LADY!?' Would have been a lot quicker!"

When it comes to crime, a suspect description devoid of race is really just about useless.

• Why is that racist ?....you're an idiot....he was black, or they would have said he was white, that's the media for you...he was black, and the keyword in that phrase ?......WAS black, 'cause he is dead now

jimmy

You should change your screen name to avoid having your attitudes reflect on that fine city.

• Let me just jump...quick like a bunny and do that for you Donnie-boy.....by the way, the Jacksonville newspaper said he was black.

"he was black, and the keyword in that phrase ?"

So what is he now? White? Yellow? Really? Is he a cameleon or what?

I also find it disturbing to find such a close description of the clothes the guy was wearing, but no mention of race. So let's say the guy was white (or black), and someone finds a black (or white) guy and shoots him, thinking he's just caught the other robber when it was just a guy wearing the same kind of clothes, when in fact, if they'd have mentioned the race, the mistake would never have been made.

Mentioning the race of a person is not racist. Not mentioning the race of a person wanted in a crime is stupid.

And I've always found the description of the clothing to be slightly humorous in the first place. It's as if he only has one set of clothes and cannot take them off. Whether you spot him tomorrow or a month from now, he's sure to have on that same shirt and those same pants.

@DRHunk and ItIsTime

The standard set by federal case law gives a person the ability to use force, up to and including deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to oneself or a third party. The threat is judged by three characteristics; Ability, opportunity and jeopardy. That means that if, the perp has the ability to do harm (gun, knife, club, overwhelming physical stature), the opportunity (is in a position where one could reasonably assume they were directly in harms way) and there is jeopardy (the brandishing of said weapon or threat of force that is believable and causes fear). then the use of force is justified and protected. Hope this answers your question.

The gang bangers in Chicago are killing each other so you think more guns would be the answer?

Since they don't mention race you may assume anything you wish. Assuming is something bigots are very skilled at.

obama with the Chicago MOBpolitics will lie and twist this to "killing black Children "and the wanton murder of someone only getting more skittles...

When you need a cop, one is only a donut and 30 minutes away!!

The Chicago gang bangers are also killing innocent bystanders including children.

Didn't take you long to twist yet another story into a political rant on Obama....get a life

border joe

What an absolutely hateful, biased and disgusting comment.

any of you people bringing race into the topic...dont be surprised when someone calls you a racist then. IM sick of people bringing up "oh he must have been black, but the media wont report it cause the president is black, and so is Holder, blah blah blah"...seriously, do we have to go through the civil rights war all over again, or can we try and move forward..you know, like the great country we are!?! Or are we going to go back to the days of Bull connor, and the KKK....its all on you people, you will decide that answer (and only you can for yourself, and your children, and their kids, etc)

While race is still an important issue this is not one of them. What ever color of pigmentation this guy was he threatened the lives of others and got what he deserved.

Do you really think the guy would have said I am going to allow my life and the lives of others to be threaten because of the color of the perps skin?

I seriously doubt it.

{I am not a racist bigot.............I don't like none of you either}. A criminal is a criminal, color don't matter, except when the APB is put out.

" I am willing to bet the robbers were black."

Again, if they were black, what color are they now? There's a few of you people out there that really concerns me a bit............So if they were black when committing the crime, are they white now as to get away with the crime?

Just the facts. The paper said he was black. Now he isn't black because he didn't get away with the crime, he is a more pale black shade.

no..once they bleed out they are sorta grey...

People are bringing race into the topic because the second perp GOT AWAY. They described what he was wearing but didn't mention race?

dont mess with texsas

no..once they bleed out they are sorta grey...

Very lame, very racist, very unfunny attempt at humor.

there is a jacka$$ lying on the floor with brains splattered all over the place. ROTFFLMFAO.

and a dollar he stole in his pocket.

They also conveniently didn't mention what he was wearing on his top half. I bet I know what he was wearing. I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with the first name of a famous cartoon woodpecker.

and a big brown stain on the back of his khakis!

The other one got away with the loot. Two dollars.

You make it sound so easy yet you won't be the one going through the physiological issues he will face. It's not a video game.

Physiological issues? Like his wrist hurts? The Psychological issues are a true concern. That said perhaps knowing the 17 year old clerk was forced to lay on the floor and then shot in the head, if he hadn't acted, would be more devastating. Here's an idea: STOP ROBBING PEOPLE WITH GUNS!

Lecturing these morons that armed robbery won't work. It will go out of one ear and out the other. In this case, the bullet went out the front chest and out through the other.

He sot an armed robber who might have shot him.

The thing he felt when he shot this POS was the recoil from the weapon.

@ Kal Albert- I beg to differ sir. I say let them keep robbing people with guns. Or die trying.

It's sad someone lost their life but when you're an armed criminal getting killed or shot at is part of the job I'd guess. That was his decision, not the shooters. In a perfect world, or actually anywhere but Florida, this story would have a "happy" ending. But, since it's Florida, the criminal's family will probably sue the shooter for all he has. And win! The one that got away will sue him also for the emotional trauma of seeing his partner in crime get blown away. Said it before and I'll say it again. Florida, home of the absolute best southern rock bands in the word, but your judicial system is like playing magic eight ball. Can't wait to see how this one ends.

As are the roughly 2,499,999 other self defense occurrances with firearms are each year. Sadly the perp has to be dead for there to be any news coverage of it. As a CCW permit holder I can only imagine what this man is feeling right now. The weight of taking someone's life could have a profound impact on his life. Either way it is one less criminal/future murderer we have to worry about.

don,

The CDC was the organization that did the study. Sorry to burst your anti-gun bubble, but the number of uses of firearms in self-defense far out numbers the number of intentional shootings/homicides.

His statistics have a greater chance of being correct than the gun control advocates argument that gun control makes us safer.

Dawgfan

I do not believe that the CDC produced any such statistic.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="" width="240" height="175"><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="movie" value="" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /></object>

Dawgfan

OK ..... that string of garbage led me to an "Action America" site ...... that is not the same as CDC, but it might be even more insane than the NRA.

Don,

Try google search on Gary Kleck. He is a criminologist who use to be an anti-gunner until his researched proved that firearms are used more times a years for self-defense than in a criminal manner.

i bet the second robber will be detoured from any more robbery attempts...

if he ever gets the crap out of his kackis

Dawgfan

Gary Kleck is a gun promoting zealot and his statistics are not to be believed. You misrepresented your statistics as CDC material. You did not tell the truth.

"i bet the second robber will be detoured from any more robbery attempts..."

I'll take that bet. Give him a day or two to clean his shorts and he will almost surely be out looking for that "score" he missed out on in this incident.

These guys are far from brilliant.

Well you lose then. This guy has been apprehended and facing felony murder charges for his friend. I bet he is sitting in jail right now thinking how unfair the system is. ' Me didn't kill nobody'

It's a heartwarming tale of 'shock and awe'. Best story of the day! The armed citizen fights back. We need more like it.

I'm surprised they even allow it to be mentioned, that a competition target shooter even exists.

Really? Do you live your entire life in caricatures? Grow up.

where I worked ( couple of years ago ) we were robbed at gunpoint and the gun was held against my right temple....it was not fun. Glad this gentleman was there and now one less robber.

for all the liberal bleeding hearts whom are sad that someone died today, ireally do not see that. today another scumbag was due justice served. now it is to bad he could not have gotten the other terd! this is what CHICAGO needs. now if florida even thinks about charging this guy they are the ones are whom nuts. even if a person has a ccw you need to pratice all the time.

good job sir!

SEMPER FI

DANNY P

RETIRED

Normally I'd say something about why the heck you would CARE about his color, but you're right. What good is putting out a description of a person if you don't include skin color? I don't care if he's black or white or green, but if I'm supposed to be on the lookout for him, that's kind of important to making a positive ID, isn't it?

That way the police cannot be accused of profiling by stopping only those of one race. However, the description of the SUV is accurate and that would not be profiling should they stop all Suvs of that description and question the person. When they notice an horrendous stink emanating from that small SUV, from the urine/do do stains on his white khaki pants, they'll know they have the "alleged" suspect!

Seriously... Khaki pants take about 2 minutes to change so the color of pants is worthless as an identifying description... blue bandana and black gloves, hmmm, about 5 seconds after the incident that was no longer a valid form of indenty... The small SUV may take a little longer but by the time the police got there it was probably abandoned on a back street somewhere... point being while assuming the criminal was a particular race IS very racist and should have NO PLACE in our society, skin color as a part of a description is one of only a few attributes that can't be readily changed... I do not like the fact that some people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that this must have been a black man but IF he was then that would be a key addition to the description.

I assumed he was white otherwise they would be charging the shooter with murder.

YEAH; HE HAD A CAR!LMAO!

oh brother.

If the dead man has a cell phone or a land line, I am sure they could trace the guy out. This kind of business model needs lots of planning and communicating. They had to have spoken to each other over a phone sometime recently.

The CIA follow the same strategy with drones. They first take out the bad guys, then they take out all the associates at the funeral. It has worked well in Waziristan and should work well here too.

Very well stated, Mark L. I hope the man who shot the criminal wont feel too bad for killing another human being. A friend of mine carried that burden in her mind for accidentally hitting a fleeing robber to death at the traffic light. My friend didn't see the robber crossing the street and the traffic light was already green. Though it was an accident and she didn't know at that time that she hit a robber with her car, she felt awful. To this day, she she tried to justify the horror of it all, she lost a lot of weight, and constantly have nightmares.

It was the robber's choice to rob that night.

Or I could just give him the $27 out of my pocket and call it a night.

John,

Please provide contsct info so these thugs can visit you and leave therest of us alone.

Nice exchange: Your money for a life.

I missed the part where the shooters life was in imminent danger. Can someone point that out for me? I can't believe most people think it is a great idea to KILL someone because they have a gun in their hand. What makes this guy a hero for killing and others criminals for killing? A life is a life.

hey sam adams, if you were the guy who was being held by the robber, i am pretty darn sure you would be happy the armed customer shot him, too!!

but hmmm, i wonder what fallout their will be with this incident in comparison to the treyvon martin case???

Sam,

When someone is commiting an armed robery, everyone in the area is in imment danger -DUH.

Sam - If you were the store cashier being robbed, you would probably feel differently.

SAM:

There is a HUGE difference between killing an innocent person, and killing an armed robber. A life is a life, but some lives are just better lost.

It's a terrible idea to "kill someone because they have a gun in their hand"...but it IS a good idea to kill someone because they have a gun pointed at a cashier's head. Robbers don't just bring guns in during robberies to look fancy...they WILL use it!

Sam Adams;

The police do that everyday! If you have a gun, a knife, any kind of weapon, they will shoot you down. In NYC, they'll drop some innocent folks also. (From what I read, that shooter died without firing a round at anyone other than his dead coworker)

Sam you are missing the best part. Not only did his best friend have his head blown off, now he will be put on trial for murder. And the star witness will be the shooter. He'll serve out the rest of his life in prison while the older gentlemen has a story to tell at the barber shop. Oh, I left out the two sweet hearts were using BB guns and the one guy you have so much empathy for was shot in the head, chest and shoulder. Seems gramps fully endorses the triple tap.

BB guns seem to be the latest rage among the terminally stupid.

Posted: Wed 7:32 AM, Aug 29, 2012A A Reporter: KKTV
Updated: Wed 10:55 PM, Aug 29, 2012

One Dead After Officer-Involved Shooting In Pueblo

A 21-year-old man is dead after police say he fired at a Pueblo police officer and hit him twice. The officer returned fire and killed the man. The suspect's weapon was a BB gun.

One of the BBs lodged in the officer's head. That BB had to be removed at the hospital.

The name of the suspect has not been released.

This all started just before 7 a.m. in Pueblo.

Police say a man on a bicycle was allegedly shooting out car windows in a neighborhood near Hollywood drive and Canterbury lane.

An officer found the suspect behind Tony and Joes Pizzeria, that's near the Wal-mart on Pueblo Blvd.

The suspect then allegedly opened fire, prompting the officer to return fire.

The suspect died at the scene.

Pueblo police say they found eight shell casings at the scene, but are unsure on how many times the suspect was shot.

"Colorado Law authorizes law enforcement officers to use lethal force when confronted with imminent death or someone else is confronted with imminent death," said Pueblo Police Chief Luis Velez. "A weapon was leveled at the officer and the officer was shot."

A critical incident team made up of authorities from the Pueblo Police Department, the Pueblo County Sheriff, the Colorado State Patrol and the District Attorney's office are now investigating the incident.

sam adams

I missed the part where the shooters life was in imminent danger. Can someone point that out for me? I can't believe most people think it is a great idea to KILL someone because they have a gun in their hand. What makes this guy a hero for killing and others criminals for killing? A life is a life.

#24.2 - Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:19 PM EDT

You're either deliberately trolling, or being deliberately obtuse. There's no way that you can honestly fail to see the difference, so I take it the Pinocchio avatar choice is rather accurate for you.

That's because most of the others are committed by criminals with guns as opposed to normal citizens with guns.

Couldn't have said it any better Swan.

Sorry Swan, but you are incorrect. The majority of those deaths are accidental shootings, not criminal shootings. Read the facts, not the NRA propaganda (aka: BS).

The NRA gets its statistics from the FBI, john-483308. Where do you get yours?

John just pulls them out of his butt.

All of the linked reports failed to mention the race of the man who escaped. It was mentioned in one linked story however. http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/customer-shoots-robber-dead/nRLjK/

see whats happening in chicago.. THEY DONT ALLOW WEAPONS AT ALL...

I noticed that someone said the customer was a "professional marksman". That's not what the article says. The man's wife said: “He’s always been a marksman,” "He shoots in competitions . . ." This doesn't mean he's a professional. He may be, but he also may be just a gun enthusiast. I don't think you need to justify the mans actions or by saying "It's OK, this time because he's a professional. But, don't try this at home folks."

I believe that non-professionals can be, and often are just as competent. Let's not diminish our right to keep and bear arms by limiting it to professionals. If the robbers (who were armed - according to the article) had killed the customer, would you have lauded their "professionalism"? How about the professionals on the NYPD who shot up the crowd yesterday? Their training really showed well didn't it?

Just remember this: When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. This is why the founders made sure that we ALL have the right to keep and bear arms.

The founders did not make sure we all have the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd amendment promises that the God given right to defend ourselves will not be abridged.

And by the way, the founders had just overthrown a tyrannical government when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Lexington and Concord were about gun control.

On average, over the last 10 years, 27000 gun deaths per year. Approximately 60% are suicides, 30% intentional homicides, and 10% accidents or "other or unknown." Of the 9000 per year intentional homicides, about 600 are justifiable homicide. Approximately 80% of those are by police. Those are FBI crime statistics. So DaveGinOly, do you go to the FBI website, or do you just take the NRA's word that they are giving you the whole story?

The FBI says violent crime is down, continuing its trend over the past 30 years, EXCEPT in places that have strict gun control. Allow citizens to be armed and you'll see more crime go away, and more justifiable homicides instead of the points the antigunners are trying to throw out there and change logic. Give the guy a ton of ammunition and send him to Chicago to answer Rham's whining plea. He'll end the crime spree. More of this is what we need in our country to end the violance! Not antigun laws.

The majority of those deaths are accidental shootings, not criminal shootings. Read the facts, not the NRA propaganda (aka: BS).

Even wikipedia says you are wrong. In any case I know where your bogus statistics come from. It was from a study that said the majority of gun deaths were done by people who the victim knew . This got translated into accidental soothing by the anti-gun folks. The reality is people the victim knew includes jealous husbands, broken drug deals etc. Don't thank me now, I'm happy to educate you.

The Second Amendment was written by James Madison to assure the states that the Federal government could not nationalize the state militia, and then disarm it. It was to guarantee that state governments would always be allowed to have an armed force. It had nothing to do with the right of an individual, outside of the context of a well regulated state militia, to own a gun.

Michael you are saying that the 'armed' men that all showed up at Concord on that fateful day the British were organizing to 'Disarm' them, were in actuality Not just Armed 'Citizens' (revolutionary Subjects at the time) using their 'Own Private Weapons'?...Honestly that's a new (not really) version that I am not aware of. Possibly, more than likely by your Keynesian programed 'interpretation', it should have gone as planned (by the British), and we today could all be blessed to be disarmed British 'SUBJECTS'?.... Sorry old chap, neither I, nor my Patriotic ancestors, think NOT.

Michael, according to your (and countless naively programed Others) logic, The best and Safest Mandate is to totally Disarm the Population, society (the Subjects?)... "For their own Safety"? The UN embraced Robert Mugabe... for his 'Fairness and Equality', his civic 'responsibility' minded.. 'Executive Orders'.. that "Protected' the population ...of prosperous Rhodesia, bringing unprecedented (that is for sure) 'CHANGE'. If you were cognizant of history at that time Michael, you would have noticed the steady, 'PROGRESSIVE' eventual outcome? Mugabe's backhoes were busy in the fields 24-7, 'Trenching' Under (Composting), the Disarmed opposition party, including supporters and innocents, that did not particularly relish Mugabe's 'CHANGE'. Perpetually Dependency Addicted ZIMBABWE, is the unenviable result. History, so easy to research, so easily repeatable.....

To be fair, research not only the rates of 'gunfire fatalities' which can be Spin depicted as 'Overwhelming'. Take the next step. One that is totally ignored (purposely?) in the National Socialist, Keynesian programed, "Brave New World" mass media. Research the key ingredient in 'death by firearms'. Note the 'DEMOGRAPHICS' of the major cities, "World Alpha Cities". The Cores are particularly Ripe. Certain prominent 'features' stand out. Detroit (South Side)..Chicago (South Side) are of special note. LA (South Side) figures in prominently. Take notice in the geographical 'neighborhoods' that overwhelm the stats. Stats that are presented by agenda driven 'interests' as common and average.

There is Nothing common nor average about them. As presented, they in No way represent the overall States nor Nation of law abiding Citizens. They are basically crime infested cesspools of Dependency, that are now 'world class'. Credit the birth of 'The Great Society', That mega-virus, Redistribution of Wealth. Perpetual Dependency Addiction and it's predictable links to Crime. Career Repeat Offenders infest a disproportionate bulk of society in those areas. Should the nation take the inherent Risk and 'Subject' itself to That Demographic? I personally don't think so, but then again I am descended from a long ancestry of ..Survivors.

It had nothing to do with the right of an individual, outside of the context of a well regulated state militia, to own a gun.

The way it is written it's ambiguous at best, but the bottom line is it does say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now the initial part says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" which is basically giving a reason for the second part. However a plain reading of the text still allows people to "keep and bear Arms". It doesn't say they have to currently be in a militia or even ever be in a militia. It appears to me the idea is that a militia can be formed when needed. The first part is simply outlining the logic behind the second part, but that doesn't mean it in any way restricts it the way it is written. Of course the supreme court has final say but I still claim that's the most logical reading. This is coming from someone who doesn't own a gun.

Lack of knowledge of history is rampant. Nobody reads the Amendment in the context of it's history. The lack of ability of the majority of Americans to apply even simple logic is also remarkable. The dumbing down of America is obvious here. Of course, gun nuts' attachment to their toys is a visceral thing. They would rather you nail their wife, or even their son, than suggest that they don't have a "sacred" right to have their little toys.

Of course, gun nuts' attachment to their toys is a visceral thing. They would rather you nail their wife, or even their son, than suggest that they don't have a "sacred" right to have their little toys.

When you run out of good arguments start throwing insults.

I have owned guns in the past. I've been hunting a couple of times. It wasn't for me but I don't see a problem with it. The people I know who are heavily into guns are not crazy people. I don't know anyone who has shot or killed somebody but I know people with guns safes who collect guns of all sorts and like to shoot them. I find your characterization inaccurate.

The context of history doesn't really matter here. The question is does the second amendment allow people to own guns and I think it clearly does. If society as a whole decides that the reasons for the second amendment are now invalid then it should be repealed. That is not for you to decide however. There is a process for changing the constitution and I'm guessing that your condescending demeanor isn't going to further your cause.

Fortunately Michael, SCOTUS did read it in the proper context (notably Jus. Scalia) in DC V. Heller. Glad you don't care for firearms, you seem the type to force your opinion on others. I was born there in Charlottesville and am very aware that Jefferson and Madison had strong opinions as to how the fledgling country might maintain it's freedoms. While you feel your knowledge of history exceeds everyone else...maybe it does not?

Michael-3842950

Lack of knowledge of history is rampant. Nobody reads the Amendment in the context of it's history. The lack of ability of the majority of Americans to apply even simple logic is also remarkable. The dumbing down of America is obvious here...

#25.18 - Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:21 AM EDT

You're correct, just not for the reason you thought. It is your own lack of knowledge of history and the context of the 2nd Amendment that is very evident. Blogengeezer, Swan37, and Woodysr have already pointed this out via the content of their posts. I suggest that you do a lot more reading on the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights before trying to insult anyone else on here--because right now you're only embarrassing yourself.