PORTAL

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwLWFzEPVonC9dn44qIL5ASSs557asBGgx7UcyiQTM71fl7lk5yXWU1171I-LrLmpmXE6HCd_-iYRcWVrKJOX9kBzoht2EJ1hLyTZJgv5V7mkba99ZfFLH45gZCwNPwD0rHe25AfMkVWcX/s1600/animatfB.gif
Showing posts with label 2nd AMENDMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2nd AMENDMENT. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

GOP Takes House But Second Amendment Battle is Far From Over

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- We are happy to see that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives as the Grand Old Party as it is known tends to be friendlier to gun related issues.


The people have spoken and this wasn’t the result of some nefarious plot by the insidious gun lobby – which is how the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are painted in the mainstream media – to take control of the country.

This was the will of the people, which includes hunters, shooters, gun collectors and just every day citizens that believe in the Second Amendment.

But the writing is on the wall, and we’re not out of the woods yet. Nor is it the time however to let down our guard.

The Senate will still include a rogue’s gallery of anti-gun zealots including two Republicans: Senator-Elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), a co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives of legislation to close the so-called gun show loophole, and Senator-Elect Dan Coast in Indiana had previously served in the U.S. Senate, voting for the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Key anti-gun Democrats retained their seats in the U.S. Senate as well, and these include Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator Barbara Boxer of California. New York was also a special case as Kirsten Gillibrand was finally “elected” to the Senate (she had been appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat, which she will now hold for two more years).

Both Schumer and Gillibrand have been foes to gun owners, while Boxer has also been a supporter of gun control. The NRA-endorsed Christine O’Donnell was also defeated by Democrat candidate Chris Coons in Delaware, while Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado), who was appointed to finish the term of former Senator Ken Salazar, was elected to a full term. He has co-sponsored gun show loophole legislation.

We happy that Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) was defeated in his re-election bid, as Feingold has had at what best can be described as a mixed record on gun related issues, including voting in favor of background checks at gun shows.


But now is the time to think to the future, but to be on guard today. Only this year the EPA attempted to ban lead ammunition, while the State Department stopped efforts to allow the importation of American M1 made rifles from South Korea. These are both back door gun bans, and while the same mainstream media that sees the NRA as a cabal of evildoers bent on turning America into a Wild West, turn a blind eye to these efforts. Instead the media tries to say that the Democrats and President Obama have done nothing to impose new restrictions.

Except for the attempt to ban lead ammo, the blocked importation of those M1 rifles and the appointment of two fiercely anti-gun rights Supreme Court Justices.

So while this is a time to celebrate our wins with the House, we should be remain on guard.

Peter Suciu is executive editor of FirearmsTruth, a website that tracks and monitors media bias against guns and our Second Amendment rights.

Monday, September 6, 2010

Chandler man shoots, kills 2 suspected gang members

http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html

by Jim Walsh - Sept. 6, 2010 05:00 PM

Published in: The Arizona Republic

The intruder who punched out a Chandler man while stealing beer at a keg party picked the wrong victim.


The man, who had been attempting to defend his wife during the beer theft, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fearing for his life and under attack, he pulled out a gun and fatally shot two men believed by police to be gang members early Sunday morning.


"People in Arizona carry guns," said Detective David Ramer, a Chandler police spokesman. "You better be careful about who you are picking on."


Ramer said police have concluded the shooter, who fears reprisals and whose name is not being released, acted in self-defense and have cleared him of any potential wrongdoing in the shooting deaths.


The names of the two men who were shot to death also have not been released by police.


The shootings occurred early Sunday morning in the 600 block of North Sunland Drive. A group of men showed up as uninvited guests at the keg party, paid a $2 admission fee, then became angry when the organizers started to shut the bash down, Ramer said.


"They thought they weren't getting their money's worth," he said.


The intruders were stealing the beer when they were confronted by a woman who had been attending the party, Ramer said. After the men started yelling at the woman, her husband attempted to come to her defense and was punched to the ground.


"This guy was punched, he was attacked," Ramer said.


When one of the intruders threatened the man with a gun, he pulled out his own gun and shot the two assailants to death, Ramer said. Police said they have documents confirming that the men are gang members.


Ramer said the husband showed restraint during the incident and only fired when he was threatened with a gun.


The man involved in the shooting had passed a concealed weapons course, Ramer said. Although he had a permit, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill earlier this year to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without one.


Chandler police have arrested seven other men and plan to recommend that they be charged not only with robbery but with murder because the slayings occurred during the commission of another crime, Ramer said.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/09/05/20100905chandler-shooting-two-dead.html#ixzz0yoP62Au8

Friday, August 27, 2010

NRA Warns Against New Gun Control Push ...From EPA - THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/08/27/nra-warns-against-new-gun-control-push--from-epa.html

THEY ARE AFTER THE AMMUNITION!

Environmental agency ponders whether lead in bullets is poisoning wildlife.

By Paul Bedard

Posted: August 27, 2010


The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.



Chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox charges in a letter to the EPA that the effort amounts to "a vehicle to implement gun control



" and could end hunting by most who can't afford the higher priced alternatives to lead.



[See who in Congress gets the most money from gun rights groups.]



At issue: lead, the most widely used material for making bullets, shot, and sinkers. The Center for Biological Diversity says in a 100-page petition that lead used by outdoorsmen and women can be blamed for causing deaths in some 130 species of birds like eagles. "Lead-based bullets fragment on impact, distributing toxic lead particles widely throughout carcasses, and making it impossible for scavenging animals or humans to avoid ingesting lead along with meat," says the center, joined on petition by the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and two other groups.



The NRA counters that claims lead is causing a horrific toll on wildlife is bogus. The proof, they say, is the population explosion of American Eagles around the nation, including some inside Washington's beltway.



But more importantly, says the NRA, the EPA is barred from regulating ammo or fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But the ammo foes think that they have found a way around that by asking the EPA to regulate elements of ammo and the element they want banned is the lead.



Cox said that would counter what Congress has intended in previous laws. "Put another way, if Congress exempts a cow from regulation, one could hardly argue that it nevertheless would allow for regulation of the hide attached to the cow's body," said Cox.



Despite the opposition from the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearm and ammunition industry, the EPA is considering banning lead. It is seeking public comment until Halloween.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Chicago approves new handgun restrictions


Move comes days after Supreme Court
ruling cast doubt on city ban.


Mayor (MORON) "Guns is the problem" Daley


by DON BABWIN
(Associated Press)


CHICAGO — The Chicago City  Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The 45-0 vote came four days after a Supreme Court ruling made it almost certain that Chicago's handgun ban would be overturned. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The new city ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun. It will take effect in 10 days.

The ordinance also:

— Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

— Requires residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

— Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

— Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

— Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who already have handguns in the city — which has been illegal since the city's ban was approved 28
years ago — would have 90 days to register those weapons, according to the proposed ordinance.

Residents convicted of violating the city's ordinance can face a fine up to $5,000 and be locked up for as long as 90 days for a first offense and a fine of up to $10,000 and as long as six months behind bars for subsequent convictions.

Though Monday's Supreme Court ruling did not specifically strike down Chicago's handgun ban, it ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling.

Mayor Richard Daley moved quickly to get a new ordinance in place and has indicated that he expects legal challenges to the new restrictions.

Meanwhile, a northwestern Wisconsin prosecutor said he won't prosecute a range of state weapon violations in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Jackson County District Attorney Gerald R. Fox said in a statement he will no longer prosecute people for carrying uncased or loaded guns in vehicles, carrying concealed weapons, carrying firearms in public buildings or taverns or carrying switchblades and butterfly knives.

Fox said the Supreme Court ruling invalidated Wisconsin's laws against those practices.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Fox is inviting crime into Jackson County and if he won't enforce the state's laws he should be removed from office.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38061266/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Why Guns Are Good

By John Stossel

Published June 23, 2010 FOXNews.com

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders areevil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- lesscrime.

(This will be the topic, by the way, tomorrow night on my Fox Business News show.)

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year?

Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stoppedbecause would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away.

Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (20 more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law, at the time, did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels.

What happened?

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed . A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed.

Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims.

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone's at home.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. "McDonald v. Chicago" is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

Despite my earlier bias, I now understand that striking down those laws will probably save lives.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

In Debate Over Gun-Carry Laws, Critics Are Quick to Shoot Down the Facts

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, May 2010).Published June 24, 2010 FOXNews.com


People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? A newly revised study by the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center found that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press, and Dennis Henigan, the vice president of the Brady Campaign, will likely make these claims again when he and I appear on John Stossel’s FoxBusiness show today. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florida, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn't provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 29 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 729,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

In sharp contrast, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders. They boldly assert that 17 Florida permit holders have "killed" people with their guns over the past three years and that this one state by itself accounts for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide. The other 79 cases are scattered across 26 other states, with no other state accounting for more than 10 cases. Florida is also said to account for 2 of the 7 cases where permit holders are said to have killed law enforcement officers.

The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage to these claims. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post (e.g., here and here).

So what is the evidence? The gun control groups don't actually point to actual court cases. They look at news stories and selectively report what is reported in those stories. For Florida, there are eleven "pending cases." The gun control groups assume that anyone involved in a shooting will be convicted. Indeed, in 7 of the 11 cases no one was even charged with a crime. Three cases involved suicides, and three had convictions for some type of offense. (See this link for a detailed presentation of sources.)

But there is something that the gun control advocates conveniently omit: When a permit holder uses a gun defensively and kills an attacker in a public place, the police often arrest them. Typically, he will later be released, but the police must first investigate what happened. The police can’t just take the shooter's word for it that they used the gun defensively.

Take the four pending cases where charges were filed, two of which involved the "killing" of law enforcement.

-- Humberto Delgado, Jr. was charged with the death of a police officer. Delgado obviously engaged in a horrible crime, but there is one major problem with the stories as presented by the gun control groups. He also was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. If he had a concealed handgun permit, he obviously couldn't have been charged with this crime. Delgado was just your typical criminal, who didn't have a permit, who killed a police officer.

-- James Wonder was charged with the death of an off-duty Customs and Border Protection Agent Donald Pettit. Pettit is said to have engaged in road rage against Wonder and then followed Wonder's car into a Post Office parking lot solely to continue harassing Wonder. Pettit had over shot the parking lot and had to circle back to go into it. He had no intention to do business with either the Post Office or any other nearby business. Pettit was clearly the aggressor in the situation. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper wrote on August 29, 2008: "local lawyers said [Wonder] may be able to make a strong claim under Florida law that he was within his rights to shoot Pettit." One measure of the severity of the case is that Wonder was released on a very minimal bond of $10,000. Neither the Brady Campaign nor the Violence Policy Center noted these points in their discussion of the case.

-- Gabriel Mobley shot two people outside a bar, and the gun control groups’ discussions fail to mention the defensive nature of Mobley's actions. A friend of Mobley's had an argument with two other men in a bar. Mr. Mobley separated the men, but the two waited outside and Mobley's lawyer, Richard Della Ferra, told me that they pounced on Mobley and his friend as soon as they left the bar. Witnesses saw one of the two attackers throw a punch that shattered the friend's eye socket. Mobley says that he shot when he thought one of the two men was reaching for a weapon, and police found the DNA of one of the men on a steak knife at the scene.

-- On January 7, 2008, Adam Hill was accused of accidentally firing his gun, the bullet fatally striking a friend while the friend had visited Hill to use his washing machine. Since the case has yet to go to trial, the law office that is representing Hill was unwilling to discuss the case, but they did say that the news articles did not accurately represent what had happened in the case. The law office representing Hill in his legal case emphasized to me in a telephone discussion that news articles on these cases can be quite misleading because defense lawyers warn their clients not to talk to others about their case, including the press.

Two of the three convictions in Florida are quite different than what gun control groups represent. One involved a boyfriend who accidentally shot his girlfriend when he was showing her how to use a gun in her home. There was no evidence of arguing or any disagreement. In another case, the issue was whether the permit holder had done enough to avoid the confrontation. A convicted felon confronted the permit holder. According to newspaper accounts, even the prosecutor acknowledged: “Kallenbach was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video” and that "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways.”

While this discussion focuses on Florida, the just released third edition of More Guns, Less Crime provides a detailed analysis for all states from 1990 to July 1, 2008. In state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Arizona, there were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a 0.03 percent rate. In Texas, there were 288,909 active permit holders. Of these, 160 were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony, a rate of 0.05 percent. That is about one-seventh the conviction rate in the general adult population, and the convictions among permit holders are for much less serious offenses.

I went to some other cases from the gun control groups after July 1, 2008. In two of the other five killings involving law-enforcement, it also appears as if the person who fired a gun didn't have a concealed handgun permit. In one case, in Pennsylvania, Christina Korbe fired a shot killing a police officer when police raided her home. The police were serving an arrest warrant on her husband, and she didn't know it was the police who were breaking into her home, and she was concerned about the safety of her two children, ages 4 and 10.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center evaluate the benefits of concealed handgun laws based solely on the claimed costs -- they don't compare the cases where defensive uses occurred to the bad things that happen, but only count what they claim are the bad cases. They ignore lots of amazing defensive gun use cases. But even more bizarrely, they count legitimate self-defense cases as bad events even when no charges are filed or the permit holder is later exonerated.






Concealed carry gains momentum in much of Illinois

Steve King, who operates the Belleville Indoor Shooting Range, says law abiding residents of East St. Louis and throughout Illinois should be able to legally carry concealed handguns to defend their lives. "Much of the crime in our area is in East St. Louis," said King, "This is not meant to be derogatory toward East St. Louis. There are many law abiding people there who have their backs against the wall who must risk breaking the law to protect themselves. They should be allowed to protect themselves." And some top metro east lawmen agree. They urge that a law be adopted in Illinois to make it legal for qualified persons to pack a handgun. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states to entirely ban concealed firearms.


Read About It: The Belleville News Democrat (Ill.)

Posted: 6/28/2010 9:30:05 AM

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

ANTI GUN CONTROL FAX- COPY AND SEND TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES!!

STOP GUN CONTROL!


I Oppose Any Regulation Of Firearms!

To: My elected officials,

WE THE PEOPLE own this nation DEMAND you stop giving away our freedom! I am asking you to STOP any Bill which regulates guns! Several gun control bills were introduced at the beginning of the Congressional session.

Stop all gun Bills NOW! Particularly ANY UN Treaties!

All gun control Bills are poison to the American People and to the Second Amendment.

WASHINGTON DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

WE THE PEOPLE feel vulnerable. For the first time in American history we are being punished by unfair Government practices in the name of firearm management!

STOP MEDDLING IN OUR LIVES!

There are many proposed Bills you will consider in the near future, please remember “We The People” are watching, and rewarding with our votes those who protect the citizens of the United States of America.

Those who betray “We the People” by voting for any Gun Control Bills will be punished by our votes in upcoming elections. Some on Capitol Hill are a pen-stroke away from destroying our beloved nation's right to bear arms.

WE THE PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING YOU TO STOP ANY LEGISLATION WHICH CONTAINS ANY LICENSING, REGULATION OF FIREARMS OR IN ANY WAY INTERFERES WITH AMERICA'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. WE ARE WATCHING WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE!

Fat cats and career lobbyists will try to entice you with hollow promises. They will try to convince you limiting gun ownership is good for our future. Don’t believe the global elite, their agenda will destroy our nation.

STOP ALL GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION, NOW!


NO DATABASE OF GUN OWNERSHIP OR GUN OWNER MEDICAL RECORDS



Sincerely,



YOUR NAME

YOUR ADDRESS

CITY, STATE ZIP CODE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST.

Friday, June 4, 2010

“Guns Is Not the Answer” - Mayor "Moron" Daley of Chicago

 “Guns Is Not the Answer”
Shoot an Armed Home Invader,
Invite the Wrath of Chicago’s Moron Mayor?


Ask any convicted burglar what he fears the most, and he’ll usually name an armed homeowner.


Imagine the following terrifying home invasion scenario:


You live in Chicago’s west side Garfield Park community, a neighborhood in which armed home invasions are “all too frequent,” according to news media.

It’s still dark in the pre-dawn hour of 5:20 a.m. Few people will be awake to hear your pleas for help, let alone do anything to assist you as they slumber.

You’re 80 years old, and now walk with the assistance of a cane. You’re a peaceful Army veteran of the Korean War, respected by your neighbors. You have a wife who also walks with a cane, whom you’d defend with your life.

Suddenly, you hear an intruder at your back door downstairs. The burglar is in his 30s... And he’s armed with a gun.

But fortunately, so are you.

Split seconds seem like hours. So what do you do?

Do you call 911, and hope that you will somehow have time to describe your situation and location to the dispatcher, await the dispatcher’s call to the police and then pray until the officer’s arrival? At which point the armed intruder may ambush the officer, you, your wife or all three?

Or do you defend yourself and exercise both your inherent right to self-defense and your Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Fortunately for the homeowner in question and his wife, he chose the latter.

As a result, an 80-year-old Korean War veteran and his wife live to enjoy many more days together.

In contrast, the armed burglar, a career criminal who discharged his own weapon twice during his assault, provides a vivid example to other potential armed robbers. Namely, that you risk death at the hands of armed homeowners in an America whose Constitution explicitly protects the individual right to keep and bear arms.

As one would expect, the vigilant homeowner is a hero in the eyes of neighbors and the Chicago community. Neighbor Shaquite Johnson labeled him a “hero” for defending himself against the now-deceased attacker, noting that there is now “one less criminal” threatening them all. She added, “they don’t bother no one, so why would anyone do that to them?”

Curtis Thompson, another neighbor, commented that, “it’s a good thing they had a gun, or they might be dead.”

Preposterously, however, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley doesn’t see it that way. Of course, he enjoys the protection of armed bodyguards.

Unable to assemble a grammatically coherent statement, let alone an intellectually coherent one, Daley responded to the incident by proclaiming that “guns is not the answer:”

“I understand the situation and I understand. What I’m saying is all of us have to understand that guns is not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It’s just as simple as that.”

Even worse, Mayor Daley refused to say whether the homeowner would be charged under the city’s handgun prohibition. That would be the same handgun prohibition likely to be overturned by the United States Supreme Court within the month.

So tell us, Mayor Daley… If “guns is not the answer” to stopping a potentially murderous pre-dawn armed invader, what is? And tell us, Mayor Daley… If someone calls the local pizza restaurant and 911 at the same time, which is likely to arrive first?

The simple reality is that our nation’s police officers serve admirably and do everything in their power to prevent crime and apprehend transgressors. But unfortunately, as almost any officer will testify, they cannot be everywhere on a moment’s notice.

The elapsed time between the moment an armed invader enters a home and the decisive moment he confronts the homeowner, family member or even terrified pet is typically measured in seconds. It is simply too much to ask police to ensure our collective safety with that sort of efficiency.

Moreover, ask any convicted burglar what he fears the most, and he’ll usually name an armed homeowner.

Although opponents of the Second Amendment dismiss the right to keep and bear arms as an 18th century anachronism, this example from Chicago illustrates once again that it’s as important today as it was then. Korean immigrant shopkeepers who defended their lives and livelihoods against attacking mobs during the 1992 Los Angeles riots provide the same illustration.

No, Mayor Daley – sometimes, guns still are the answer. Thankfully, you’re not the final authority on the matter.