Good guy with a gun saves lives; if liberals had their way, he'd have been helpless

[Русский агент]

ROBBER POPPED AT POPEYES

A Texas man dining out with his family shot and killed an armed man allegedly trying to rob the store, according to police.

The family was dining at a restaurant in south San Antonio when a man came in around 8:30 p.m. and began threatening the father while his children were in the bathroom.

“He was threatened by the robber, who was displaying a gun,” San Antonio Police Department Captain Michael Starnes said.

The armed man had asked the family for money, but the father said he wouldn’t give him anything and tried to get the attention of one of the employees. At some point, the would-be robber threatened the restaurant employees, who ran to the back of the restaurant.

The father told police the gunman turned the gun on his family, at which point he pulled out his own handgun and shot the robber.

“The citizen is a licensed carrier and did use his handgun to take down the robber,” Starnes said. The robber, who was between 25 and 30 years old, died at the scene.

Police say the man who took him down is not facing charges.

“He really saved the day and protected a lot of people today,” Starnes said.

Texas law allows licensed gun owners to carry weapons openly.



http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Police-Armed-man-fatally-shot-after-threatening-12411849.php

[Craig234]

It happens. Much more often, innocent person killed by a gun, if liberals had their way they wouldn't be killed.

[sear]

Ah yes.
The ever-present one-sided coin.

Bias confirmation strikes again!

[AnnieOakley]

Perp shot while robbing a fast food chicken chain, what are the chances the guy's name was Tyron?

[Русский агент]

Why do liberals hate the Constitution and the right of every citizen to defend themselves?

[SmarterthanYou]

It happens. Much more often, innocent person killed by a gun, if liberals had their way they wouldn't be killed.

11% of police shootings kill an innocent person — about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

[Русский агент]

CCW reciprocity just passed the House.

I'm not sure why we need it. The Constitution is clear.

[Flash]

CCW reciprocity just passed the House.

I'm not sure why we need it. The Constitution is clear.

The Constitution is clear it allows regulations on weapons. If not, government could not even prohibit violent felons from owning and carrying weapons. Plus, the Bill of Rights only dealt with restrictions on the federal government--not the states (although the 2nd was made applicable to the states in 2010).

[Русский агент]

The Constitution is clear it allows regulations on weapons. If not, government could not even prohibit violent felons from owning and carrying weapons. Plus, the Bill of Rights only dealt with restrictions on the federal government--not the states (although the 2nd was made applicable to the states in 2010).

Isn't the federal Constitution superior to state statutes?

BTW, violent felons own and carry weapons, in case you haven't heard.

[Flash]

Isn't the federal Constitution superior to state statutes?

BTW, violent felons own and carry weapons, in case you haven't heard.

Not when the constitutional provision does not restrict state action as in the 2nd (until 2010).

Violent felons cannot usually legally purchase and own weapons. My point is that if a person believes government can prohibit violent felons from owning weapons he concedes there can be some regulation of weapons. No legal scholars or justices have ever argued there can no regulation of guns.

[Русский агент]

Not when the constitutional provision does not restrict state action as in the 2nd (until 2010). Violent felons cannot usually legally purchase and own weapons. My point is that if a person believes government can prohibit violent felons from owning weapons he concedes there can be some regulation of weapons. No legal scholars or justices have ever argued there can no regulation of guns.

Government clearly cannot prevent violent felons from owning weapons.

I do not care what legal scholars or justices have supposedly argued. The Second Amendment itself places no specification or limitation on prohibiting the the government's infringement of the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

BTW, 2010 was almost 8 years ago, wasn't it?

[Flash]

Government clearly cannot prevent violent felons from owning weapons.

I do not care what legal scholars or justices have supposedly argued. The Second Amendment itself places no specification or limitation on prohibiting the the government's infringement of the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

BTW, 2010 was almost 8 years ago, wasn't it?

Of course they cannot prevent felons from owning guns; neither can it prevent murder, rape, robbery, theft, child molestation, embezzlement, drug use, or any other crime.

2010 was 8 years ago, but in the 221 years in which the 2nd Amendment did not restrict the states we saw no examples of states banning or severely restricting weapons. Many did not allow open or concealed carry, but that changed due to political decisions and not constitutional interpretation.

[Русский агент]

Of course they cannot prevent felons from owning guns; neither can it prevent murder, rape, robbery, theft, child molestation, embezzlement, drug use, or any other crime. 2010 was 8 years ago, but in the 221 years in which the 2nd Amendment did not restrict the states we saw no examples of states banning or severely restricting weapons. Many did not allow open or concealed carry, but that changed due to political decisions and not constitutional interpretation.

So you say.

There are good reasons to criminalize murder, rape, robbery, theft, and child molestation.

Armed citizens are obviously in a better position to resist the above. How is that a bad thing?

[Flash]

So you say.

There are good reasons to criminalize murder, rape, robbery, theft, and child molestation.

Armed citizens are obviously in a better position to resist the above. How is that a bad thing?

I never suggested it was a bad thing. I was questioning the power of the federal government to force the states to comply with the carry laws of other states. When the original background check law was passed it required local sheriff departments to do the checks. Conservative groups challenged the power of the federal government to force that upon the states and the courts agreed. Now, the same conservative groups are abandoning their principles to achieve something they agree with. If they really favor limited federal power and states' rights they would oppose this law.

[Русский агент]

I never suggested it was a bad thing. I was questioning the power of the federal government to force the states to comply with the carry laws of other states. When the original background check law was passed it required local sheriff departments to do the checks. Conservative groups challenged the power of the federal government to force that upon the states and the courts agreed. Now, the same conservative groups are abandoning their principles to achieve something they agree with. If they really favor limited federal power and states' rights they would oppose this law.

Federal law applies to all states, doesn't it? Isn't interstate commerce regulated by the federal government?

Limiting the power of states to impose unconstitutional limits on the citizenry isn't an expansion of federal power, is it?