Saturday, October 22, 2011

Providence Home Invasion

I know, I know, this has nothing to do with the lawful gun owners and the gun-rights movement, or does it?

For one thing the proliferation of guns among the drug dealers and home invaders in Providence is directly related to the legitimate side of gun ownership. That where the guns come from.

For another, this interesting case begs the question, was this a legitimate DGU? Just because the guy protecting his home was a criminal doesn't change that fact, does it?

And what about the neighbor who has a dog for protection? That says something about the "need" for guns, don't you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I was standing next to a guy at the bar last evening. He volunteered that he had 31 rifles and shotguns in his "gun safe" (homebuilt). So far, so good. Then he volunteered that he had his mom staying at his house to watch his two dogs (150+ Rottweielers). She has Parkinsons he said and he told her where his loaded handguns are stashed in case of attack. WTF? There isn't, imo, a way to have a rational debate about guns when you talk to folks who think that way. He was in NY to hunt/fish--I'd be willing to bet a beer that he had at least one illegally carried handgun on his person or in his vehicle while he stood at the bar drinking.

    Oh, yes, he also said that if anybody came in his house uninvited he'd kill them--no conditions, no exceptions.

  2. Hey, if anyone needs guns to protect themselves, it's drug dealers and criminals.

    Now, the second amendment says it's a right of the people to keep and bear arms--aren't drug dealers and criminals part of the "people"?

    Wouldn't a drug gang be a militia?

    Isn't that the stupidest thing you've ever heard?

    Nope, the Second Amendment applies to those well regulated under article i, section 8, clause 16 militias--not your private armies or drug gangs.