A private citizen shot and killed an armed man who walked into an Oklahoma City restaurant this evening and began firing at patrons wounding four.
The take away from this is that a licensed armed citizen took down a vicious criminal long before the police arrived. This is only one example of the many times licensed, trained, armed citizens have been responsible for saving lives. I’m actually amazed it made the News. Well of course this is from Fox. No doubt CNN and the like will either play down this aspect of the story or find a number of “experts” who will minimize his actions or offer reasons why a private citizen should not take it upon themselves to intervene.
His bravery is a shining example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers when they passed the 2nd Amendment and why we must be vigilant in preserving it!
Even though I am an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, I still find I must take issue with the conclusion of this article. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of government – not protection them from one another. This is a happy by product indeed, but not the original intent. The Founding Fathers were not thinking of random tavern shootings or protecting hunters’ rights. They were thinking of the ability of the people to fight their government if it ever attempted to abrogate their freedoms.
I understand your point, however the Supreme Court revisited this in 2008 and concluded that the 2nd Amendment was also intended to secure the rights of the individual to bear arms which in addition to hunting, is primarily used for the purpose of self defense.
As I stated previously, the right of self defense is a happy byproduct of the Second Amendment, but not its original intent. George Mason, recognized as the father of the Bill of Rights, stated during the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 14, 1788:
“No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established, in any country, the people lose their liberty. When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense — yeomanry, unskillful & unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies?
An instance within the memory of some of this house, — will shew us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them. But that they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally diffusing and neglecting the militia. This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed?”
I believe you cannot tease apart the Second, or for that matter, any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, without understanding the Founding Fathers deep distrust and loathing for a strong, potentially tyrannical government backed by a standing army that outgunned the citizenry.
I understand your point, but do you honestly believe anyone could stand up against the Government today?