Posted: 1/4/2003 11:36:04 AM EDT
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
Not allowing such is like giving intruders engraved
invitations to storm our castles.
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....