Armed hero with concealed weapon permit shoots carjacker

Gun restrictions are less now than they were when President Bush was in office.

Heck, there are less gun restrictions now than there were during the Wild West days - go look it up.

No one is saying that people aren't allowed to defend themselves and others, the problem comes when you have ordinary, untrained folks walking around with a side arm at red. For every story like this, there are 10 where the "hero" accidentally shoots themselves or someone else or, leaves the gun lying around for someone else to misuse.

True story - was in Kohls (yes Kohls) once and saw a guy with a holstered revolver walk in and stroll around the place like it was a Saloon circa 1860. The only thing missing was the white horse he'd ride off on after leaving.

ConstitutionLibertyFreeMarket wrote:

Guns FTW stupid libtard commie!!! Your so BUTTHURT by concealed carry patriots it's not even funny!

"libtard commie" ------ Well done! I know "libtard" is mandatory in these posts, but I like the embelishment with the addition of commie. Others would do well to follow your style.

"Your" -- Keep up the good work.

"BUTTHURT" --- What does this mean?

"patriots" ---Just plain amusing, thanks for the laughs.

iuoieur wrote:

No one is saying that people aren't allowed to defend themselves and others, the problem comes when you have ordinary, untrained folks walking around with a side arm at red. For every story like this, there are 10 where the "hero" accidentally shoots themselves or someone else or, leaves the gun lying around for someone else to misuse.

Wrong again, Libby! The post before you only had NINE of those stories--maybe only eight, depending on how you count!

On a (slightly) more serious note--btw some truly entertaining trollage in this thread--I've noticed that many (no, not all) Second Amendment fans are people who will say that things (like, say, Bible verses) shouldn't be taken out of context. Shall we put the Second in context, for once, and quote it completely?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1) The right to keep and bear was *premised* on a "well regulated" militia's being "necessary" for preserving a state's freedom. It's reasonable to question whether a militia is still necessary for that purpose.

2) "Militia" suggests that the right to keep and bear is tied to that--not just anyone who wants to have a firearm.

3) "Well regulated" means a REAL militia, organized by a "free state," and not by a bunch of people who just like being able to shoot things up.

4) As a result of the above considerations, keeping and bearing has been regulated (aka "infringed") since the USA began. Most people don't get to own fully-automatic weapons. If someone comes up with an H-bomb-in-a-suitcase, you don't get to have one of those, even if you could carry ("bear") it. Et cetera.

All this comes from someone who's actually strongly in favor of private ownership of firearms, by the way--RESPONSIBLE, EDUCATED, LICENSED, NON-NUTBAG, NON-FELON private ownership.

Liberals appear to be in the uncomfortable position of saying they don't want untrained citizens carrying guns, while at the same time they are saying our trained police are shooting every black thing that moves, which is then used to justify their desire to see the police stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens.... who they say shouldn't have guns to defend themselves!

This is why I love liberals. Untangling the their logic is always a challenge.

Dial it up wrote:

Can't wait for the liberal take on how the carjacker was an innocent victim. Welcome to the spin zone

Can't wait for the resident morons to assign perspectives to their favorite bogeyman.

Oh yeah, looks like there was no waiting at all.

sometimes a great nation wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/police-man-shoots-kills-carjacker-outside-store-004403757.html

Funny how this story is largely absent from every major news website.

Except of course that it isn't absent at all.

Does the word "truth" ring a bell? Does it mean anything at all to you? I'm actually curious.

I find it difficult to imagine going through life constantly lying as you appear to do quite comfortably. Maybe you do not understand that there is such a thing as truth?

No. No. Just No. You have it all backwards about the use of the word 'libtard'. Without this word it would be literally impossible to take his post seriously.

Dial it up wrote:

Can't wait for the liberal take on how the carjacker was an innocent victim. Welcome to the spin zone

Carjackers are on the same level of kidnappers, rapists, and murderers. They get shot, good riddance. I applaud the guy who used his gun competently.

I'm a liberal.

Sorry if this confuses some of you guys.

DiscoGary wrote:

Liberals appear to be in the uncomfortable position of saying they don't want untrained citizens carrying guns, while at the same time they are saying our trained police are shooting every black thing that moves, which is then used to justify their desire to see the police stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens.... who they say shouldn't have guns to defend themselves!

This is why I love liberals. Untangling the their logic is always a challenge.

Not that I agree with these positions, but there is nothing incongruous about wanting tighter gun control regulations while also pointing out the documented racial biases of police.

And it is not a liberal position to "desire the police to stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens, who they say shouldn't have guns to defend themselves". Your typical straw man fallacy is a sign of weakness. Aren't you better than that?

There's no straw man in my argument at all. All those arguments are being put forth simultaneously by liberals right now. Liberal positions are always weak standing on their own, but they degenerate into the ridiculous when you try to reconcile them with each other.

But if it turns that I am not good enough to untangle the flawed liberal logic we are forced to live by every day, then I promise to work harder in the future. I do not underestimate the task.

No, Gary, it is not a liberal stance that liberals "desire the police to stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens, who they say shouldn't have guns to defend themselves". There are undoubtedly some radicals who believe this and who happen to be liberal, but that does not make it a liberal stance. Just as the fact that people who hate blacks are likely conservative, but hating blacks is not a conservative stance.

You inability to make this distinction shows either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual ineptitude. Possibly both. You should be better than this.

Gary, why can't liberals like guns?

Why are you so simplistic? Why are you so obsessed with labels?

It's sad that you can't define your political principles in the absence of the opposing party's.

spade detector wrote:

No, Gary, it is not a liberal stance that liberals "desire the police to stand down while blacks riot and terrorize average citizens....

Oh yes it is! The liberal MSM media has spent decades apologizing for black riots and making excuses like "their voices weren't being heard", etc.

They give those riots their tacit approval when they fail to unconditionally condemn the violence and refuse put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who deserve it.

I stand by my statement.

tacolover wrote:

Gary, why can't liberals like guns?

Why are you so simplistic? Why are you so obsessed with labels?

It's sad that you can't define your political principles in the absence of the opposing party's.

The vast majority of libs in my area love guns and want to increase gun ownership. As a matter of fact I don't think I've heard a liberal politician speak out against guns. It's always those conservatives who trample right over our constitutional right to own car-jacker killing guns.

tacolover wrote:

Gary, why can't liberals like guns?

Why are you so simplistic? Why are you so obsessed with labels?

It's sad that you can't define your political principles in the absence of the opposing party's.

Ah, but liberals DO like guns. They just don't want their neighbors to have guns. They're hypocrites.

I've noticed over the years that liberals get positively frantic when I manage to boil down their ideology into easily understandable points which inevitably reveals the logical inconsistencies in their positions. Liberals are like magicians, they can only fool you from one angle. But if you can see the picture from all sides, then you immediately know how you are being fooled, and you know it's all crap.

tacolover wrote:

Why are you so simplistic? Why are you so obsessed with labels?

Because he trolls more effectively that way.

What are you, dense?

The inability to articulate one's ideology without constantly defining it as the opposite of another's ideology is a sign of mental weakness.

A logical crutch if you will.