California Father Who Opened Fire on Armed Attacker: ‘It Was

[jdege]

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2023/07/25/california-father-who-opened-fire-on-armed-attacker-it-was-good-thing-i-had-gun/
California Father Who Opened Fire on Armed Attacker: ‘It Was a Good Thing I Had a Gun’
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office Sergeant Amar Gandhi says a California father who opened fire on an armed attacker Sunday to save his family is a “hero.”

The father and his wife were in bed in their Carmichael, California, apartment Sunday morning when 33-year-old Alonzo Brown came looking for his girlfriend around 1:00 a.m., CBS News reported.

Brown’s girlfriend was not in the apartment, but he believed she was, so he allegedly began trying to kick in the door.

He then allegedly looked into the bedroom window, where he and the wife “made eye contact,” after which Brown allegedly opened fire, shattering glass.

The wife said, “He saw me and we made eye contact and the next thing I know I am jumping out of bed because the glass is breaking,”

The husband retrieved his gun and returned fire, striking Brown with an unknown number of rounds.

[Markemp]

Great example on why people should be allowed to own guns for self defense. You never know when you will need one.

[Erud]

Great example on why people should be allowed to own guns for self defense. You never know when you will need one.

This comment is a profound look into a leftist firearm owner's thought process on firearm ownership.

[TSKNIGHT]

Great example on why people should be allowed to own guns for self defense. You never know when you will need one.

Allowed.
The last time I read the Constitution I don't remember anything about the government granting me rights. My understanding is the amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights limits the government infringement of my God given rights.

[Jackpine Savage]

Yep. So thankful that I live in a Republic, and that the Bill of Rights was adopted. Though in the end, the commies seem to be succeeding in tearing it all down. We lived in the best of times.

[Erud]

Yep. So thankful that I live in a Republic, and that the Bill of Rights was adopted. Though in the end, the commies seem to be succeeding in tearing it all down. We lived in the best of times.

Maybe it will be replaced with a Bill of Allowances?

[Markemp]

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

[Jackpine Savage]

Where do you stand on the Left's call to expand the Supreme Court?

[jdege]

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

The IRKBA existed prior to the ratification of the Second, and would continue to exist were it repealed.

[Markemp]

Ok. Cool. Good to know.

[Markemp]

Where do you stand on the Left's call to expand the Supreme Court?

Super opposed to it.

[crbutler]

Kind of agree and disagree.

I assume the argument is that it’s a natural law that you have the right to defend yourself. I buy that.

But I also look around the world as see places like the UK, where if you defend yourself you end up in prison.

While I agree you have a moral right to defend yourself, and believe God won’t condemn you to hell for it, I also know that man will do what he wants and there are lots of folks worldwide in prison (or executed) who were defending themselves and the government decided “so what, you can’t do what you did.”

That said, in the US, it’s not supposed to be a matter of allowing, but rather you have a right to unless your behavior has taken your rights away.

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

The IRKBA existed prior to the ratification of the Second, and would continue to exist were it repealed.

[jdege]

Kind of agree and disagree.

I assume the argument is that it’s a natural law that you have the right to defend yourself. I buy that.

But I also look around the world as see places like the UK, where if you defend yourself you end up in prison.

My take on the use of deadly force is that if the situation is not such that my ending up in prison is not preferable to allowing what was about to happen to continue, it's not justified.

[IvanTheTerribleShot]

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

The IRKBA existed prior to the ratification of the Second, and would continue to exist were it repealed.

It's actually a deep philosophical issue, even religious. Markemp has a point.
It's very hard to make an atheist to respect a God-given right.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 1798.)

In a world where there is no God, the government is a god; too important a role to be left vacant, and the government is usually the mightiest entity to claim it. Take it from someone born and raised in the USSR. And, being a god, it grants and takes rights privileges as it wills; mostly takes.

[xd ED]

You do realize that the constitution can be amended, right? We are allowed to have guns as long as the second amendment isn’t overturned. We should work to prevent that from happening of course, but your “right” is given to you by the people not taking it away.

It’s literally called the second amendment.

The IRKBA existed prior to the ratification of the Second, and would continue to exist were it repealed.

It's actually a deep philosophical issue, even religious. Markemp has a point.
It's very hard to make an atheist to respect a God-given right.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 1798.)

In a world where there is no God, the government is a god; too important a role to be left vacant, and the government is usually the mightiest entity to claim it. Take it from someone born and raised in the USSR. And, being a god, it grants and takes rights privileges as it wills; mostly takes.

Not to disagree with the gov’t being the deity of the left,
The Constitution uses the word “Creator”. Whether one’s interpretation of the origins of human creation is one based in divinity, or pixie dust and a big flash, every human was created, and by virtue of their creation, they exist, and thus, are are endowed with certain inalienable rights, not the invokable, and revocable privileges administered by a gov’t agency.

Rights, as opposed to privileges, by the very definition of the word, are inalienable, and nothing is required of anyone else for a right to exist, or to be exercised.
A privilege, on the other hand, requires some manner of discriminatory action- favoring one party/ interest over another, by a controlling ‘authority’.