I’m convinced that most home invasions involve drug dealers, one way or another. Most, but certainly not all. Besides, even a drug dealer has a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – even if he’s a felon. IMHO. I mean, when I see a video of a crew streaming into a house, guns drawn, I’m not really bothered about anything other than the self-defense of the person or persons within. That person(s) is going to need some serious firepower. Or not . . . [WARNING: Autoplay video after the jump.]

ajc.com reported that the bad guys all left “once they heard yelling from the homeowner.”Really? Methinks the homeowner had more than harsh words working in his favor. Gun? What gun? I didn’t have no gun.

Oh, and any government that limits Americans’ ammunition magazines to ANY number of rounds is doing nothing to protect them, and a great deal to endanger them.

Oh look! Here’s a New York City criminal with an illegal mag (as reported by nydailynews.com as an “automatic weapons”)! Guess he didn’t read the SAFE Act.

[h/t CC]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

77 COMMENTS

  1. Im thinking that group of thugs all herded together would be a nice target for a blunderbuss.

  3. I must have missed the day they taught bunch up and congrgate in the doorway as a entry tactic.

  4. Everyone needs more than 10 rounds since the worst home invasions are committed by SWAT gangsters.

  5. I agree with the ridiculous ammo limitation issue for handguns and magazines and I agree with the premise of the article.

    But, did I read it correctly in which he believes felons ought to be able to possess guns?

    • Perhaps if the drug dealer is a non-violent offender. Though, I don’t want to put words in RF’s mouth.

    • This is a pretty common thread that comes up from time to time on TTAG, if youre capable of living outside of incarceration and not being a tool, you should be able to gain those rights back. Particularly since this War on Drugs thing is going so well…

      • So, under that logic, someone who murders someone else, has served his time, should be able to get his firearms rights restored.

        • Yep. If they’re no longer a threat such that they’re turned loose on the streets, then prohibiting them from owning a gun serves no purpose. If they’re still dangerous enough that you don’t want to let them have a gun, then why the hell are you letting them out of prison?

          If they were convicted of vehicular manslaughter, are they not allowed to own a car ever again?

        • What if he murdered his victim with a knife or a ball bat.. he serves his time, he’s free.. can he buy knives?.. does he get a turn at bat at the company softball game, using his own bat no less?

        • You can be a felon without having victims. The wonders of the drug war. Not to mention, once a debt to society is paid, it’s paid. Should restrict any right we desire, if they are too dangerous to have their rights restored, they are too dangerous to be freed.

        • The law are rules created by government, quite often the only victim of “lawbreakers” is the feelings of politicians.

          Government has no rights.

        • Laws are nothing more than rules created by government, quite often the only victim of “lawbreakers” is the feelings of politicians.

          Government has no rights.

    • A small sample of felonies nowadays: fishing/selling certain seafood and picking up moose antlers (I think, it’s been a little while since I read about this one). There are many, many more bullshit felonies out there.

      Still agree that felony should equal loss of rights?

    • Given that a federal prosecutor can turn anyone into a felon, and have been known to do so just because they can, the only people who should be prohibited from the use of firearms (in terms of crime) are those who have engaged in violence against others.

    • I suppose there is some merit in not allowing bad check writers to own guns. Never know when they could strike again!

      Hell, on average, US citizens commit three felonies a day, just by the sheer amount of asinine laws we have.

    • Hey, I agree. The law denying a felon a gun definitely keep gun out of the hands of felons. So obviously, all those guys wearing masks and holding a bunch of guns have got to be just a gang of law abiding citizens that decided that night to do an armed home invasion. I’m positive they couldn’t be felons, they can’t legally own guns!!!
      Click to EditDelete (2 minutes and 40 seconds)

  6. Who needs more than 2000 calories a day? Who needs more than a 15 gallon gas tank? Who need a house with more than 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms? Who needs a federal bill with more page than the Constitution? Who needs a poltican who servers more than two terms? Who needs Shannon Watts? And Bloomberg? And DiFi?

    I can go all day.

  8. this can all be answered by one simple question: if only ten rounds was sufficient to deal with any unknown numbers of threats armed to unknowable levels, then that’s all LEOs would carry. But they don’t. Why is my life worth less than theirs to justify more risk is being under-supplied with ammunition or firepower? Ii sin’t, plain and simple. that is why we have the Second Amendment: to put us on equal footing not below the people who would tyrannize us or attack us.

    • Some animals are more equal than others. On magazine capacity, the cops get the carve out.

  9. The guy in the last video was an excellent example of the modified gangsta grip, very very accurate

  10. DKW- I think he does mean felons, too. The second amendment doesn’t make any exceptions.

  11. Think it is about time we look at what Portugal has been doing in the illegal drugs area and find a way to make that happen here. All of these Puritan solutions (punish, jail or kill) obviously are not working. And our current system creates far too much money for the gangs and other bad guys. And the spillover creates way too many graft and corruption problems in our police force, politicians and other government entities. There has got to be a better way and, so far, it looks like what Portugal is doing is working far better than our methods of handling our drug issues.

    • Agreed! They are a pretty good example. The war on drugs is a joke…talk to the typical DEA agent and they really just do not get it.

      • Why would they? Their financial well-being as well as their deep emotional need to control people and dispense violence depend on the continuation of the drug war.

      • They dont get it because every house the DEA raid makes it a payday for them… I’m surprised that the DEA doesnt sell the drugs they confiscate,.. or do they??…. they get to keep the cash and weapons…

  12. Firearm laws only hurt law-abiding people. Criminals don’t give a shit about them. Only morons believe otherwise.

    “Oh noo homey. We’re gang-bangers, drug dealers and murderers, but we better not break gun law #xx. Let’s just stick wit using knives and bats bro.”

  13. The only thing a 7 round magazine is good for is: The guy at the range shooting 5 shot groups, and needs a couple extra rounds in the mag, in case he misses the target altogether!

    • Or carrying in your 1911 as God and John Moses Browning intended. Was Alvin York out gunned when he relied on his 1911?

  14. I’ll give the antis one thing: It would be pretty hilarious if we were all using muzzle loaders (since the drafters of the constitution didn’t think that technology would ever improve, evidently) home invasions would get awful interesting if after one shot you had to draw your saber or fix a bayonet and it became a crazy free for all. Its a pretty hilarious picture. Well that and everyone walking around with a saber for when they’ve fired their one shot. Or everyone walking around with bandoliers of flintlock pistols just firing one and tossing it and drawing another. Also we should get around in horsedrawn buggys and piss into pots.

    • This would actually make 3d printed pistols very practical. Shoot it, toss it, forget about it. It’s the New York reload taken to its logical conclusion.

  15. “… Besides, even a drug dealer has a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – even if he’s a felon. …”

    That’s a bold statement RF. And one I’m very happy to see you make.

    I could not agree more.

    • Yes, it’s in the constitution, but so is free speech, but there is that little problem of “fire at the movies”. Once proven to abuse, you are a good candidate to lose. See “denaturalization” …nothing is absolute if you act like an animal, as it should be.

      • That “shouting fire in a crowded theater” restriction on the First Amendment is a myth and was debunked a long time ago. You can google “fire in a crowded theater myth” yourself. 😉

        http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

        Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known — yet misquoted and misused — phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

        Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, “the law”–as some have curiously called it–can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

        https://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-metaphor/

        For nearly a century now, our discourse on constitutional matters has been haunted by a ridiculous analogy that was meaningless when it was created and even more meaningless now. It’s time to put this tired cliche to rest, once and for all.

        http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/debunking-another-first-amendment-myth-2/

        And so on. The point is, stop perpetuating falsehoods, please.

        • Seems to me people like to get all worked-up over a short-hand statement that is plainly understood by nearly everyone. “can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is fact. Unstated is the term “falsely”. Does it really matter that blog posters (and most people in regular life) prefer to use a short-cut phrase to express their thought that even the 1st has limits? Try inciting a riot. You will see the limitation pretty quick. May not like that courts actually make law through rulings, but there it is. Much case law limits virtually all the articles and amendments in the constitution. Can we just let these little syntax lessons go, and deal with the theme of the different ‘arguments’ regarding limits to the exercise of rights?

        • @Sam I Am: It appears as though you didn’t read the information provided. If you did then you should quite readily realize that you are pissing into the wind.

          Does it really matter that blog posters (and most people in regular life) prefer to use a short-cut phrase to express their thought that even the 1st has limits?

          If you investigate further, you will find that that your statement is incorrect. It doesn’t rely upon the use of “falsely”.

          You apparently perceive that I am “all worked up” simply because I made a reasoned comment, included some information for clarity, and didn’t personally attack anyone.

          • If Justice Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”, the only conclusion is a limit on free speech. That is, the constitution does not directly or precisely state that such an outburst is protected, nor does it state it is not protected. The limit to the exercise of free speech is the immediate result. One can legally and properly be charged with creating an unnecessary panic that led directly and immediately to damages, injury or even loss of life. A jury would almost assuredly find the defendant guilty. This is an example of free speech that has no protection. Please not Holmes’s use of the word “falsely”.

            My comment is merely asking that we accept here the common understanding of the metaphor. Whether we believe, claim or boast that all rights protected under the constitution are absolute and unlimited, fact is we face limits on them all. The only way to eliminate any and all limits on rights is to start over, and promptly, permaneltly expunge our government and nation of anyone who even proposed legislation to limit any natural human civil right.

          • Are any of us really claiming that if the results of our words (“falsely” crying fire”) hurt innocent people, the ensuing damage is just “tough shite”? The risk, consequences of having unlimited natural human civil rights?
            Are we not then advocating anarchy? If there are no limits, what is the legal standing of any law?

        • http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

          Today, despite the “crowded theater” quote’s legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”

    • Drug dealers especially need to be armed, to protect themselves from government predators.

  16. It’s simple – no one needsss ten boolitss to kill a deyahh!

    In all seriousness RF, I hope after Silver and Skelos take their political dirt naps, Bharara’s focus on Mr. congeniality will prove just as fruitful!

  19. Is it just me or maybe no one noticed but it appears that this criminal had malfunction during this, without a missing a beat, without thinking twice he racked the slide/cleared the issue and presented another string of fire. I could be wrong and of misread his actions but that’s what I think I saw.

    The only reason I wanted to address this is, I can’t count the times I’ve had a malfunction and instead of just clearing it I stopped to “investigate” the issue where I should of trained my self to just clear it and keep pressing on.

  20. Felons are a group of people who are 73% likely, over their first six years out of prison, per FBI stats, to repeat their crimes. And let’s give them guns? How about no.

    I say it’s a very fair punishment to make someone who has a felony conviction have to prove themselves over six years before they’re forgiven of their felony and once again allowed to own guns.

    If they don’t like it, their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend or someone else living with them can own the guns and use them to protect the house until they get their felony expunged.

    The Constitution doesn’t have to spell out that someone can lose their rights as part of punishment for serious crimes.

    • By that statistical logic, no black male should be allowed to own a gun. Which, funny enough, was the original purpose of gun control as pushed by those tolerant Democrats.

      Your last sentence is also ridiculous beyond words. Say with a straight face that Thomas Jefferson, who said “Laws are the tools of tyrants,” believes that natural human rights should be lost if you break an arbitrary law.

    • It’s not about “giving them guns.” The problem is that government doesn’t have the authority to prevent them from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. If they aren’t in legitimate, lawful custody then government has no place trying to disarm anyone.

      As to someone living with the former felon possessing arms… Read up on constructive possession.

  21. I think the issue is the Felony classification. Currently just about every person in the U.S. Can be charged and convicted of a crime. There are so many state and local laws that can be used against someone and nobody seems to know how many laws are in the federal register, not to mention administrative laws set forth by various agencies. So before we throw every felon under the bus maybe we should make sure we don’t deserve to be there as well.
    All it takes is pissing off someone in a position of authority with time on their hands.

    Respectfully Submitted

  22. Last 2 top cops in our city said the same thing. 90% of all the crime in our area is illegal drug related. Addicts looking/stealing/robbing for money, drugs or stuff to steal to sell to get money to buy drugs. I don’t know but the trend here in minor megalopolis is multiple assailants on 1 victim. I had to rethink not carrying an extra mag for my EDC. So much for “the great society” and social (re)engineering. It ain’t workin’.

Comments are closed.