Now they've published a rebuttal by Warren E. Neumann, who served in the Navy during the Korean War, was a police officer in Englewood for 14 years and has been a private detective for 39 years.
Mr. Neumann makes some of the very points which our own commenters made on the first article. For example, he disputed Iannarelli's idea that a safely stored weapon is completely removed from the action if a break-in should occur.
Iannarelli suggests storing a weapon unloaded, but it takes a mere two to five seconds to slap a loaded magazine into a semi-automatic pistol if and when that late-night breaking of glass occurs. So much for his suggestion that an unloaded gun is ineffective. In many cases, the mere display of an unloaded or loaded weapon has thwarted intruders and allowed them to be held for the police.
It seems to me both of them are exaggerating. What do you think?
I have lived many, many years with a loaded firearm by my side, and have used it many times over the years in protection of my property and safety and even of others in my neighborhood, despite Iannarelli’s opinion that one would have a once-in-a-lifetime crime experience.
It doesn't seem like a fair comparison does it? One guy's a rough and tumble law enforcement officer and the other is a normal suburban homeowner.
And the reason for Neumann's rebuttal:
I know and like Anthony Iannarelli, but because of my own life experience, feel a responsibility to contradict what I consider misinformation to the law-abiding public, which only serves to fuel those who oppose the Second Amendment.
What do you think about that? Is opposing the 2nd Amendment the same as hating guns? Do you think it might be possible for one to reject the 2nd Amendment argument for individual gun rights and still accept the possession of guns in certain cases?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.