“Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers,” Ramsin McMahon reports in Canada’s National Post.
Ian Thomson…woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home…So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.
The result?
The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.
And now he lives with charges hanging over his head, and in fear of reprisals, from which he is now rendered essentially defenseless—under force of law.
Read the entire story and watch the video. Imagine this were you under terrorist attack by masked fire-bombers.
If anything, Mr. Thomson showed great restraint—anyone throwing Molotov cocktails at an occupied house deserves to be repelled using any and all force necessary, including lethal.
Then remember this incident when hysterical anti-defense zealots characterize passage of “castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws as a legislative body “turn[ing] it back on its constituents.”
I suppose if the constituents are violent criminals, they have a point.
------------
Saints be praised!
Last Sunday we discussed a Catholic News Service report on U.S. bishops calling for elimination of privately-owned handguns, and of Vatican efforts supporting stricter limits on the global firearms trade.
A pro-gun Catholic group is taking action to protest misguided citizen disarmament efforts by some in the church hierarchy:
The St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc. today ripped into gun prohibitionists in the Catholic Church hierarchy and suggested gun owners place a written or printed message of complaint in collection baskets as an initial form of protest.
St. Gabriel Possenti?
If you don’t know he was, you can learn about him here.
And you can get one of those collection basket protest coupons here.
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc. (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Insanity. I recommend the "Crown" take a flying .... in a rolling doughnut. III.
That's the problem with gun grabbers -- once they have everything they want, they get bored and they turn to challenging other countries (in this case, clearly England) to a battle of dimwits over who can stick it to their subjects the hardest.
The St. Gabriel Possenti is an interesting read. Gun-grabbers should note that he prevented the soldiers' crimes through the THREAT of lethal force, WITHOUT having to shoot any of the soldiers. This, I believe, is the most important, yet untold story of armed self-defense, is it not?
Thank You Mr. Codrea.
from CutAndPaste
On Morality Conscience and Rights
“The word Morality may be defined, in part as, a simple a code of individual conduct.
Conscience, when correctly applied, serves the individual in some circumstances as a restraint upon certain actions, and in other circumstances as a calling to act.
The word Rights identifies in part, the natural status of every person.
From the quality of Conscience, Moral concepts have been derived, and the natural extension of the quality of Conscience as combined with Moral concepts is recognition of the Rights of each individual.
The Moral code of conduct dictates that each person conduct themselves in such a manner as to avoid intentionally violating the Rights of another person or persons.”
With the aforementioned in mind:-
Is there any question as to whether or not a person has the Right to defend him or herself and naturally thereafter ones own property and possessions?
In regard then to written laws, is not the most fundamental purpose that of securing and protecting the Rights of the individual, that penalties be specified and designated in writing for violations of Rights?
Given the circumstances as presented, is there any question as to whose Rights were being violated?
Were not Mr. Thomson’s actions prompted by, and solely in response to persons intentionally violating his Rights; willfully and maliciously acting to destroy his property and possessions; and additionally, with some likelihood that he himself might at least suffer bodily injury or possibly death as a direct result?
Then Mr. Thomson utilized one of the most viable tool yet devised for self-defense, discharged his firearm and caused the perpetrators to cease and desist their criminal act.
Was he right, and acting well within his Rights to do so?
When authorities of the Niagara Regional Police were provided video footage of the crime from Mr. Thomson’s surveillance camera and informed of what had occurred, Mr. Thomson then became the focus of their investigation, resulting the local Crown attorney’s office charging him with crimes and recommended that he ‘go to jail’.
So I would inquire here:- "Which of the two groups displayed the most Immoral and Conscienceless acts---the criminals who threw the firebombs or the criminals acting as ‘authorities of the Crown‘?
this is why every single canadian man should have a crossbow
three hundred and fifty foot pound and about twenty five bolts with broad heads
those three A holes would fit in most out door wood furnaces nicely
I would killed the sons of bitches,screw wasting ammo trying to scare a criminal.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!