Armed Good Samaritans Rescue Man After Gunpoint Robbery: They ‘Protected Me When I Couldn’t Protect Myself’: That is all well and good, but why not just adopt stricter laws against robbery?

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

DefHarryMelon January 14, 2013 at 10:16 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Terrible story that is so common virtually everyday, but this one gets a less than horrific ending. Comments are typical, one or two loud mouth libs and a bunch of believers. I stopped reading them when I got to this one, so I wouldn’t forget to put it here for us all to share a chuckle.

Posted by Smokey_Bojangles on January 14, 2013 at 10:18am

The dog spent 2 hours licking it’s butt afterwards to get the taste of punk out of his mouth.

PsychoDad January 14, 2013 at 10:36 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

No ordinary civilian needs to own a high-powered attack dog!

DefHarryMelon January 14, 2013 at 11:11 am
GhostntheMachine January 15, 2013 at 12:32 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Far Side! Damn, miss it. Calvin & Hobbes too. Think I’ll ever grow up? Nah, where’s the fun in that?

Bonfire of the Absurdities January 14, 2013 at 11:32 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

FYI: A 2005 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that received little attention when handed down, but which is extremely pertinent to today’s gun debate, found that police officers are not constitutionally bound to protect citizens.
The case originated in Colorado, where Simon Gonzales violated a restraining from his estranged wife in order to kidnap and kill his three children. In between the time of the kidnapping and the murders, the mother of the children, Jessica Gonzales, repeatedly called the police to report the whereabouts of her children.
After her children were killed, she sued on grounds that the police did not react fast enough–and therefore did not protect her children from harm.
After an appeals court reversed a lower court ruling throwing out the case, the SCOTUS ruled that police officers are not, in fact, constitutionally bound to protect.
This is important because so many people are under the delusion that we can all give up our guns, and if anything does go wrong we can just dial 911 and everything will be fine.
No. We are responsible for our own lives, our own families, our own property.
This is no slight against police officers, whom we ought to support 100%. It is just a reminder that in the real world, our defense and the defense of those we love is in our own hands–literally.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/One-More-Reason-We-Need-Guns-SCOTUS-Rules-Police-Not-Bound-To-Protect-Citizens

Not so silent January 14, 2013 at 3:05 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

It’s good that you brought that up, people have a misconseption that cops have to do whatever is requested, and that is not true, nowadays people seem to think we should do anything and everything they ask. As a supervisor I spend a lot of time saying no and turning down complaints from people who think they are not getting “what their taxes pay for”……When people ask, I tell them straight up, you have a duty to protect yourself and your family, there are never going to be enough cops and they will never been int he right place at the right time all the time no matter what you see on TV.

I have said it before, people who have guns do not bother me, I grew up around guns and have used them since I was about 10. If we actually charged/sentenced/punished criminals who use guns or replicas we migth eliminate a lot of crime, however you will NEVER eliminate all the nut cases who can access a weapon and raise holy hell with it.

The best advise I can give, get a gun, know how to use it, train with it a lot and hope you never have to use it, but if you do remember to have the midset to win. If you don’t have it, don’t buy or own a gun.

flashingscotsman January 14, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I don’t remember the name of the book, but I had one many years ago that went state by state, listing court rulings that release police officers from the responsibility to protect citizens. Sure, if an officer sees something going down, he’s going to step up and stop it. But how often do you really think that happens? Not nearly as often as citizens themselves see things happening. If more of us were armed, more crime would be stopped.

poppajoe49 January 15, 2013 at 6:44 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

As is evidenced by the OP and many others like it.

flashingscotsman January 15, 2013 at 11:15 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

I noticed in the comments, a libtard that said that because the criminal was already running away, having done the deed, when they stopped him, they didn’t rescue this gentleman at all.

Granted. They DID rescue the next guy he was going to mug.

DefHarryMelon January 15, 2013 at 11:22 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Sounds a lot like “More Guns, Less Crime” by Dr. John Lott. Great book when it came out. Probably has been updated since then.

danybhoy January 15, 2013 at 11:42 am

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Gotta love this story. A couple of 1%ers in a Mercedes & then the doggie does his part. Laughed when I heard about this on Quinn & Rose.

GhostntheMachine January 15, 2013 at 12:35 pm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

That’s what had me laughing at the end, all I could think was screw the bone and give the dog a ribeye.

{ 1 trackback }