Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Proof the 2nd Amendment isn’t just for muskets or militia

Proof the 2nd Amendment isn’t just for muskets or militia

In a suburban neighborhood outside Atlanta, a mother exercised her fundamental American right to bear arms and protect her children from an intruder during a home invasion yesterday afternoon.

A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her children to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

“She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.

The woman ran to a neighbor’s home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. He was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment.

Slater is reportedly a repeat offender having been arrested six times since 2008. Perhaps, this time, he’ll finally learn the lesson our correctional facilities can’t seem to teach him.

It’s a good thing the woman didn’t buy into Piers Morgan’s “musket argument.”

Screen Shot 2013-01-04 at 4.40.44 PM

Those things are terribly time consuming to reload and since 5 shots were barely enough to slow the intruder down, I don’t think the musket would have gotten the job done.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Conservative Beaner | January 5, 2013 at 11:13 am

The Second Amendment has never been about hunting or sport, it has always been about defeding yourself and your family against attack from other individuals and the government.

The libtards and the media want to tell us there is no need for automatic and semi-automatic weapons, they are so wrong. During the Revolutionary War when everything was equal the British had flintlocks, the rebels had flintlocks and the British had canon, the rebels had canon.

The Founding Fathers were great fortellers of the future and knew that an armed citizenry would be a free one. They saw that goverments that had a disarmed populace would leave the people to be at the mercy of their leaders.

Today the government has semi and full auto weapons. The government also has Drones armed with Hellfire missles. They can monitor your movements tracking your cell phones or getting warrentless wiretaps to listen in on your conversations, think about that when you start talking about overthrowing the government.

To me the second amendment is the most important. Without it the rest of the Constitution would become privileges and like any privilege they can be revoked at any time.

Tell Piers if he doesn’t like our laws go back to England, loser.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to K. | January 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    Right… just after liberalism is declared a mental disorder.

    Gun owners tend to be rather independent, confident and self-reliant, the anti-thesis of the contemporary Leftist, Collectivist-Progressive.

    Of course, in Soviet Russia, the people with the power to diagnose defined the sicknesses. Is the administration capable of that? Recent history would suggest so. ObamaCare and its army of faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats may just be the mechanism to steal our guns because we’ve been declared by The State to be sick.

    jasond in reply to K. | January 6, 2013 at 5:41 am

    The instinct for self defense is normal. Apathetically allowing yourself or your children to be attacked is not.

    jasond in reply to K. | January 6, 2013 at 5:47 am

    Apathy is a mental defect. If you choose not to defend yourself you are mentally unstable.

    Apathy: a neuropsychiatric disease
    http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=97806

…. out of her cold dead hands!

We ought to seize and dunk Piers Whatsisname in New York harbor to hasten his departure back to Britain.

This guy was no burglar only. Why was he hunting down the family after they’d hidden? If his intention was only to steal, he could have got away easily. Thank God that woman had a gun to protect her kids and teach that guy the error of his ways. Those kids also learned a salutary lesson: their Second Amendment right to bear arms saved their lives, and the Commies will have to pry that gun out of their cold, dead hands.

2nd Ammendment Mother | January 5, 2013 at 11:18 am

Anyone else just waiting to hear how long the police response time was?

    We don’t know if she had the opportunity to call and even if she did there is no guarantee that they would make it to the residence in time to thwart the attack.

    Which brings up the fact that the police have no duty to protect you from an attacker, they will certainly do so if the opportunity presents itself but that is different than saying it’s their duty to do so.

    And this is how is should be. You are ultimately responsible for your own well being and safety, and since this woman is a mother that duty extends to her children as well.

      You make a great point here, one that a significant percentage of the population does not realize. The police, the state, do NOT have an affirmative duty to protect you from harm. This point has been litigated numerous times (see e.g., Deshaney v. Winnebago (1989)), so there’s no dispute on this point. You’re responsible for protecting you and yours. And the Left wants to deprive you of all available means to resist.

      The Left is wrong in everything.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 5, 2013 at 11:37 am

Too bad she only had a .38 revolver. If she had an assault rifle with one of those 30 round magazines David Gregory likes scaring people with by waving them around on TV, the bad guy would not be harming anybody else ever again.

    A 12 gauge to his face would have only required one trigger pull.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | January 5, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Two points:

    Mama darlin’ needs to invest in something with a little more knockdown, spend some more time on the range or get her some hollow-point ammo.

    If he’d come into some of my east Texas neighbors’ homes, he’d have been shot and probably field-dressed out of sheer habit.

    Finally, it’s good she lives down he’ah in the souf. Up yonder or on the Left Coast, she’d probably be up on charges, or at the very least hauled into court on a wrongful death lawsuit by this wonderful man’s poor, aggrieved fambly. Who knows… Rev. Owl or Rev. Jessie might even now make a road trip to ‘Lanta to get some justi$e.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | January 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm

      I don’t count so good, do I. 😆

      9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | January 5, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      Nine years ago in Wilmette, north of Chicago, a man shot an burglar with a handgun—the guy had invaded the home for the second time in two days. Day one, the guy stole a TV, keys, and an SUV; day two, came back (locksmith couldn’t come out fast enough) and the homeowner, who had gathered his kids with him and his gun in the bedroom, shot him. The homeowner was charged with owning a handgun (progressive Wilmette has a ban) and forgetting to renew his FOID card.

      That lady is brave. What kind of psycho comes to find you and your kids in a crawl space?

      Personally, I’ve always loved the opening to The Rifleman …Chuck Connors is such a dreamboat. I’d love to have that confidence with a long gun.

        TrooperJohnSmith in reply to 9thDistrictNeighbor. | January 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm

        Only in Hollywood and on the trick shooting circuit can anyone shoot like Chuck did in The Rifleman.

        By the way, that was the little lever-action 44-40 that John Wayne carried in Hondo. Except for the TV series, a gunsmith fitted a little toggle to the lever, so when it was flipped over, it hit the trigger as the lever was operated. Hell, even the Duke couldn’t shoot like that… 🙂

Any firearm would “have got the job done,” if the shot was well placed. It only took one 22 caliber shot to do Lee Harvey Oswald in.

Weapons training is of paramount importance. One well placed shot will stop an intruder.

The perp in this case is lucky indeed as the gal had some sort of plan and executed it and possibly saved herself and children…

    bains in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 5, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    Weapons training is of paramount importance. One well placed shot will stop an intruder.

    I can put many rounds inside the inner ring with either of my handguns at a range. But at the range, I am prepared to fire accurately – I am not urging my two kids through an attic crawl space while using my body as a shield and wondering what the assailant is capable of in dim or no lighting. I have no doubts that, if presented with this situation, it would take me more than one shot to stop the threat.

    Your sentence suffers from the ignorance many of us gun owners know plague the vanguard/new-left/controllers. Much as Piers Morgan and his ilk suffer this misconception, yearned-for and fanciful fiction (as is overwhelmingly displayed in all modern media), it is not fact.

      GrumpyOne in reply to bains. | January 5, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      I think that you’re wrong.

      Weapons training involves much more than quick accurate shots. Good training instills patience to place that shot where it counts.

      It is comparable to SCUBA training where panic is erased and process of thought is invoked.

      Been there and done that…

Weren’t the gun-grabbers telling us just last week that no private citizen needs a gun capable of firing more than a few rounds? This woman emptied her gun, put five bullets in the criminal, and he still had the ability to walk downstairs from the attic, get into his car, and drive away.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Observer. | January 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    That’s why cops don’t carry .38s and more, and a lot of the young men and women deploying on active duty are ditching their issue nines for .45s.

      It’s not as if the woman was a bad shot, or the criminal only received flesh wounds either. According to the article, she hit vital organs:

      “Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri learned from Chapman late Friday night that slater has been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver and a punctured stomach.”

        TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Observer. | January 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        I’d say he was fortified with PCP, meth or crack, most likely.

          Which begs the question, which is more dangerous?

          a) a United States citizen lawfully possessing the arms that she deems necessary to protect her family and property from attack,

          b) an armed criminal that is stoned on meth and is desperate to steal as much as he can to pay for his next high, or

          c) a politician in a position to infringe upon your inalienable right recognized in the United States Constitution to keep and bear arms.

          No one need fear choice “a” unless they are a criminal. Choice “b” can be neutralized given the proper skill and firepower.

          Choice “c” is by far the most dangerous. History teaches us that when guns are confiscated by government, the disarmed citizenry is at great peril for political genocide.

          Don’t ever forget that Barack Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers opined that several million Americans would necessarily be killed in order for his vision of a Marxist America to come to pass. I don’t care how long ago he said it nor do I care for Obama’s explanation that Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhood. That is not true, they worked together intimately. These are two fellow travelers that American history will not be kind to.

You don’t reliably stop someone…the real point of shooting them…with a single round from anything.

I can cite you to accounts of people who were shot all to hell in vital organs, who went on to kill a police officer or other person.

When some idiot says that “nobody needs a 30 (or 15) round magazine”, you can tell them with absolute authority they…

1. don’t have any idea what they are talking about, and

2. it is none of their FLUCKING business.

Remember, the police ALWAYS arrive on time,

to draw the chalk lines.

Liberals are wrong on all issues.

In England, the woman would have been arrested for hurting the intruder. This is what liberals call “civilized.” It is the opposite.

Drill that home. Keep repeating that gun control would have prevented this woman from protecting her kids.

    A false dichotomy. There are equally effective alternatives to using a gun for home defense. Not that I advocate alternatives as mutually exclusive.

    A large barking dog is equally effective in protecting a home from intruders as would a gun. If the objective is to protect family and property then deterrence to “prevent” a break in versus deal with the break in a “reactive” fashion gives an equal outcome.

    IF the Mr. Slater had been confronted at the front door with a barking snarling dog on the other side of the door, what would his reaction been? IMO, he would have prudently moved on to the next house.

    IMO, a large dog, > 70#, is the equivalent of a pump action shotgun. Both instill the necessary amount of fear in the perp when racked. IMO, there is a distinct advantage of having a large dog over that of a shotgun, the dog is autonomous on duty 24/7 whereas the pump action shotgun requires your continuous presence to be effective.

    IMO, a dog is just like a fence, good fences make good neighbors. If you don’t respect my family or property, don’t expect me to respect the outcome of our encounter on my property.

    Of course there will be libs who will object to this militarizing of a pet, but then I don’t give a crap what they think as I am not bound by their faux morality. Community doesn’t mean what’s mine is yours at your convenience at my expense. Call me anti-social.

      She didn’t have a dog. She had a gun. It worked.

        What you say is true, however, that wasn’t my point. The point was there are alternative means of defense available to people depending on their unique circumstances that can be just as lethal and not mutually exclusive of gun ownership. Just because I support gun rights doesn’t mean I shouldn’t consider all the options.

        Since you raised the issue that she didn’t have a dog, IF she had one Mr. Slater would in all probability would have avoided the house entirely. She clearly had the land and room to have a dog and given there were kids this “could” have provided an equally effective alternative.

Perhaps DiFi would like to meet with this woman and tell her why she should not be allowed to have and use a weapon for self defense.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to gracepmc. | January 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    …or how her loud, politically-driven mouth helped Richard Ramirez avoid the dragnet set by San Fran cops and continue his killing.

The tweet from Morgan is the hallmark of the comparison fallacy. The comparisons should be made between military and civilian technology of the late 18th century when the 2nd Amendment was adopted. Civilians in 1791 had the right to the most advanced military technology of the day, just as their government did. The framers/founders chose not to distinguish between military/government and civilian technology. In fact, the government firearm technology often lags that available in the civilian sector, and most advances in the civilian sector are from innovators trying to improve the government’s arsenal. Anyone who’s studied the history of US Army procurement of infantry weapons can easily see that civilians (both “good” and “bad”) had access to technology that was more advanced than the concurrently fielded infantry shoulder-fired and hand-held firearms. The movie stereotype of the corrupt agent for the Bureau of Indian Affairs selling Winchester repeaters to the Native Americans while the Army used trapdoor Springfields has a grain of truth in it.
So today, weapons used for personal defense need to be compared to military/police shoulder and hand-held firearms, and not to the firearms available to the citizen and the government of 1791. In 1791, the government and citizen were similarly armed — not many civilians had cannon, etc. Today, the same similarity in weapons availability prevails, and should. In some instances (police armored cars, etc.) the government still has the upper hand, by a long shot, and folks like Morgan (who as a non-citizen has no dog in this fight) should check their logic “at the door.”

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to SRF. | January 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Note too, that Progressives are starting to insist that the First Amendment didn’t foretell the technology of the information age. In the EU, there are now “speech codes” that began with racial and ethnic sensitivities as the justification, yet now threaten to extend to social media and the Internet. Ditto Canada.

    They ain’t just coming for our guns, people… they want it all!

    Without the Second, the First ain’t worth the paper it’s written on!

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 5, 2013 at 12:10 pm

BTW, I wonder if Piers Morgan is aware that muzzleloaders are still manufactured. While today’s muzzleloaders may not technically be “muskets”, they operate the same way.

My brother-in-law got a nice 10-point buck using his muzzleloader a couple of years ago.

The thing I do not understand is why so many Jewish Americans in my extended family seem hell-bent on taking guns from the people who have protected them. For example, my husband’s family are mostly raging Democrats, with no family history of service to this country. Somehow, they think it’s somebody else’s job to take care of them and defend them. They also think that ridding the populace of guns is a good thing. This from a family that was severely pruned by the Soviets.

When I am listening to them, I can almost believe in a gene for serfdom.

If Piers Morgan really believes the right to keep and bear arms is limited to muskets, well, okay. He can have a musket. I’ll even kick in a couple dollars to buy him one.

Personally, I’d rather have something that’s a bit less effort to load but a free people can choose their own weapons. He can have a musket if that’s what he believes is best.

(do I really have to include the sarcasm tag?)

The 1st Amendment was devised with newspapers in mind, not Twitter & TV. Fact.

NC Mountain Girl | January 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm

I volunteer to my collection of antique edged weapons to help point out to Piers why they had bayonets on those muskets.

Muskets could be loaded with multiple projectiles, so as a factual matter, a musket may have done the job at close range. But that’s merely a quibble. Generally speaking, a musket is not a satisfactory self-defense weapon. I’m glad the woman succeeded, but she would have been better off with my Springfield XDm with thirteen .45 ACP rounds. That would have put the sucker down for sure.

The gun grabbers can kiss the far end of my barrel.

@PiersMorgan or useful idiot…

My ancestors were fighting against your ancestors attempt to subjugate them when the Constitution was begat. They would not be so stupid to acquiesce to your definition of acceptable arms. Fact

Justification for mult-round clips. And if there were two or three intruders, think about the justification for semi-automatic weapons. The left sure is limited and naive in their thinking. You would think with all that practice at imagining how evil the right is and the conspiracies that the Koch brothers have hatched, they could be imaginative enough to anticipate a scenario like this.

    Their thinking seems naive because it is limited to the concerns of the moment. What is convenient NOW is all that matters. Five minutes from now, if something entirely different seems (to them) to work, then that will be the new thing.

I have to say that I shuddered when I read “the woman ran out of bullets” – that is the stuff of nightmares. I am thankful that the woman was lucky enough that the .38 “worked”… others who need to defend themselves might not be as fortunate and that must never happen.

And in another nod to our liberal friends, the perp was apparently a repeat offender. Go figure.

I agree with the others that multiple round magazines would help out here. And I am not talking about the arbitrary “10 rounds” that we have here in the People’s Republic of California. The woman should have been able to fill the bad guy with enough hot lead that the coroner could attribute the death to lead poisoning.

Ddoes one have to yell “stop or I’ll shoot”?

    Ragspierre in reply to bigL. | January 5, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    After you fire the first two rounds…

    Then, you yell…

    “STOP or I’ll shoot SOME MORE…!!!!”

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to bigL. | January 5, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Not ‘n Texas.

    You just need to po-lice up your brass and drag the dead SOB off the hardwood floor onto the linoleum. 🙂

Good show! She shoulda killed him though. She needs to practice with the .38 more. I practice frequently with my weapons.

BTW, hubby and I were in the gun store today and it was unusually packed! It wasn’t casual lookers it was buyers. They were buying all manner of guns and ammo. It’s flying off the shelves.

charlesbigtruck | January 5, 2013 at 10:33 pm

The woman did alright, needs more practice on the fireing line for a tighter grouping.

GAWD, I LOVE stories like this!!

In the UK—sensitive, tolerant & enlightened—the woman would be on her way to long prison-time and her children to new homes.

But, worry not, Libs and their Boy King, want that s*** for America.

Well geez piers, ever hear of an Englishman named James Puckle?
James Puckle a London Lawyer was granted the patent in 1718 for a Portable Gun.
It was a *gasp, wait for it* MACHINE GUN. In 1718.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend