We know the leftist caricature of gun-rights advocates as stupid, poor, right-wing rednecks just isn’t true.
With socialists like Bernie Sanders insisting we shouldn’t be free to protect ourselves and supporting laws meant to prohibit citizens being armed in public, our right to defend ourselves and those we love is under attack.
When two white supremacists tried to take out their hatred by attacking a black man in a For Myers, Florida Waffle House restaurant they got what they deserved.
Bay Area Intifada shared some of the security camera footage that captured the action, as well as a local newscast with further information on the altercation.
Given the nature of the video, it’s appropriately age-restricted on YouTube and you can view it here on Truth And Action on the next page.
WATCH WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NEXT PAGE:
ALWAYS REMEMBER:
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” :-<
if there were no more guns then there would be no more crime
I can’t tell if you truly believe this or not, but just in case you do… You’ll never get rid of guns, it’s a part of our world. You can get rid of gun manufacturers, but the black market will just stay open.
More importantly, it would not mean the end of crime. Guns are not the cause of crime, it’s the people who commit them — And they will either find a way to get a gun or just use something else (like a knife).
from the way the article reads, he could been protecting himself from from christian urban terrorists
Matthew Ryan I agree, and disagree. It wasn’t “just” to defend against a tyrannical government. That was certainly a concern as they just fought a war against a tyrannical government. But, contrary to some of the comments I’ve seen here (not yours Matthew, I just chose your comment because I agreed with it) there were criminal types even back in 1776 where people needed to defend themselves. They needed to defend themselves against Indian attacks as well. Not all encounters was as pleasant as Plymouth Rock. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, against a tyrannical government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It says, “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.” It doesn’t matter if the people wish to use those arms to hunt, sport shoot, defend themselves in a gas station or convenience store, or against a tyrannical government. It’s really not that difficult of a concept to understand. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It exists so that we can resist tyranny. Stopping criminals is a secondary benefit.
Richard Creighton Self defense is without a doubt a fundamental right. I believe we have the right to own guns for self defense. However, that does not change the fact that there is nothing in the second amendment about self defense. It is about the need of a well regulated militia. A need has long since passed. It also does not change the following facts. Guns are offensive weapons, with a few exceptions, they are almost always useless in self defense. It is much more likely that you will be able to disarm the attacker than draw a gun and shoot him. He can pull the trigger of a gun aimed at you before you can draw your own. Relatively few murders are committed by strangers. Most are committed by a person that knows the victim. Most are committed in a moment of rage. Most are committed with guns that were intended for self defense. Most gun suicides are accomplished with guns intended for self defense. Most accidental shootings are with guns intended for self defense. Quite simply, because so many gun owners are careless, guns intended for self defense are much more likely to harm the owner, or a loved one, than protect them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/texas-child-shootings_n_6792170.html http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
So, it is wrong to shoot a person attacking you? I don’t think so! You have a right to protect yourself and your family.
http://clashdaily.com/2015/12/breaking-17-black-thugs-arrested-for-burning-white-girl-alive-the-msm-is-silent/
plus a cop would just shoot the victim anyway.
The 2nd Amendment does, indeed, cover personal protection. What do you think “the security of a free state” means? How free are you if criminals ruled the streets?