Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
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
                           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

                           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
                           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

                           Not allowing such is like giving intruders engraved
                           invitations to storm our castles.

Link Posted: 1/4/2003 12:31:05 PM EDT
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....

Link Posted: 1/4/2003 1:06:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2003 1:11:49 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Top Top