Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/4/2003 10:36:04 AM EST
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30327[/url] Defending the castle Posted: January 4, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com A man's home is his castle, yes? But with no moat, how do you protect it? With a firearm, naturally. These days, however, protecting your home can be a crime. Just ask Mark Freamon, a Long Island homeowner who was recently busted after defending his domicile from a suspected burglar with a .22 pistol, as a story from the Dec. 29 New York Post details. Last Saturday, a man clambered through Freamon's window. "Suddenly a body crashes through, I'm panicked, the adrenaline was rushing, and I instinctively racked the slide, pointed it to the middle [of the intruder] and fired four shots," Freamon recounts. The thug fell back and split for safer environs while Freamon called 911 to report the incident. Bad mistake. When police showed up, they said his gun was unlicensed. Now Freamon is facing weapons-possession charges. Worse, says the Post story, "Police also seized three legally owned rifles from Freamon's house, which he said had been burglarized before." Police later apprehended the intruder, who suffered minor wounds (the .22 isn't a hefty weapon, after all). But by seizing Freamon's guns, they put him in a spot. "This leaves me in a bad situation; now I'm unarmed," he said. Penalized for protecting his home and then left defenseless in a house with a history of burglaries – such a deal. What's nuts about situations like this is the police. Where were they? Not at Freamon's house when his uninvited guest showed up. If Freamon didn't have the gun, what might have happened? "[Y]ou never know what these people are capable of," said Freamon. "I would have been a whole lot sorrier had I not done it." With the police flat-footing it in different locales than Freamon's living room, what was he supposed to do? The answer is, apparently, whatever the thug wanted. Laws that prevent people from protecting their properties empower crooks, because the Freamons of the world cannot otherwise ward them off. Put guns in the hands of homeowners, however, and they are empowered to repel the barbarians from their castle gates. Unfortunately, people who push for laws like those that Freamon ran afoul of don't see it that way. They see citizens as mainly reliant upon government for protection. "The government-control advocates want us to place our fate in the hands of the state," writes WND Editor in Chief Joseph Farah in his new book, "Taking America Back." "Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor should be entrusted to the police for protection, they say." Farah sets up his discussion of firearms ownership with a case in which a burglary was underway when police were called. Officers responded, checked out the scene and left – completely unaware that the burglars and victims were still in the building. The intruders, beyond looting the family silver, also raped and abused the people present – even a little girl. Devastated that the police hadn't protected them, the victims sued the authorities. Their devastation was made complete when they lost their case. The court basically ruled that the police cannot be held liable for not protecting people. So here's the double whammy: Americans are increasingly being bullied by gun-grabbers to resign their home and personal defense to the police. But the courts say the police can't be held responsible if citizens get the shaft for putting their trust in the cops for naught. In other words, damned if you do, damned if you don't. The police couldn't have protected Freamon. The attack on his home was sudden. It needed a sudden response – something police are usually in no position to give (it's not as though thugs give law enforcement their itineraries). So where does that leave people afraid of getting screwed with no recourse? Illegally owning guns. Free people must defend their own property, and the government must not hinder them. If it does, many otherwise law-abiding citizens will simply break the law. Thus, in the name of stopping crime, gun-grabbers turn innocent people into lawbreakers. And they're fine with that – after all, they hate guns. It's not much of a stretch to assume they care little for those who own them. But own them we must. As Farah says in "Taking America Back," "Safety and security can only be achieved when individuals take responsibility for themselves." In most cases, no one else can, no one else will. Individuals must have access to firearms and must be able to use them in defense of their lives and properties. Not allowing such is like giving intruders engraved invitations to storm our castles.
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 11:31:05 AM EST
Truly Sad. I don't understand the merit behind confiscating all his weapons either. I hope the guy doesn't become a mark. If it were me, I would definatly move(if financially able). I keep a couple of guns for self defense. I realize that if I shoot someone, I will probably loose that weapon. I just really don't understand why he is being punished for shooting an intruder...but, then again, Im a backwards sasquatch from the rural south and we live by a different code than my civilized urban brothers up north.... -HS
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 12:06:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/4/2003 12:11:49 PM EST by TomJefferson]
Top Top