On Saturday a homeowner shot a burglar when he surprised the scumbag in his home. Here is the local news story on the incident. It is wrong in so many ways that I thought we’d analyze it:

A Kent man who shot and killed a suspected intruder inside his home Saturday was armed with his own handgun when he walked in the door and found the stranger inside his home, police said.

Who else’s gun would he have? Its pretty hard to ‘take a gun away’ from someone else when you don’t have one yourself.

A man and woman came home to their condo on Kent’s East Hill at 6 p.m. Saturday to find another man inside. The 28-year-old homeowner used his own gun to shoot the suspected intruder, said Kent police spokesman Paul Petersen.

Suspected intruder? He caught the guy robbing his home — there is no suspected about it!

It’s unknown why the homeowner had a handgun, Petersen said.

Why? Its pretty damn obvious why! To protect himself against murders and thieves. Its a good thing he did, isn’t it? Otherwise you might have another unsolved murder to solve.

Police aren’t releasing the homeowners’ names. The dead man, believed in his mid-20s, has not been identified.

Neighbors reported four to five gunshots, but there were no witnesses other than the homeowners, Petersen said.

After the man was shot, he ran through a broken sliding-glass door and died in the backyard. He was carrying a bag that contained some stolen property from the couple’s home, Petersen said.

Nowhere in this article do they call the burglar what he is. They call him a ‘suspected intruder’, and only at the end mention that he was carrying a bag with stolen items. Isn’t that the definition of burgling? I have a problem with the PI ‘reporter’ who wrote this, as well as with the Kent Police spokesman who wonders why the guy had a gun?

Happy Bill of Rights Day Everyone!

Lets start off the day with the Bill of Rights Institutes’ interesting facts:

• The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791.
• Congress adopted twelve amendments, of which only ten were ratified by the states by 1791.
• Over 200 years later, one more of the original twelve, concerning compensation for Congress was ratified on May 7, 1992, becoming the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.
• James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights and was inspired, in part, by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason.
• The Bill of Rights initially applied only to the federal government; however, the Supreme Court, through the Fourteenth Amendment, has incorporated some portions to apply to the states.
• Only 17 amendments have been ratified since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

The National Archives Bill of Rights site should already be in your bookmarks. You have read it lately, haven’t you? While you are at it, have you read it to your kids?

No Looking Backwards reprints the Bill of Rights. , The War On Guns tries to find a better word than Happy. The Other Side of Kim also reprints them. The Ready Line also wishes everyone a Happy Bill of Rights Day.

And then we have Tim Lynch’s post over at Cato @ Liberty – He goes through the amendments and covers how nearly every one is being violated by our current government.

It’s a depressing snapshot, to be sure, but I submit that the Framers of the Constitution would not have been surprised by the relentless attempts by government to expand its sphere of control. The Framers themselves would often refer to written constitutions as mere ”parchment barriers” or what we would describe as ”paper tigers.” They nevertheless concluded that putting safeguards down on paper was better than having nothing at all. And lest we forget, that’s what millions of people around the world have — nothing at all.

And to top it off, go buy a bunch of Pocket Constitutions and give them to your friends and family for Christmas. Don’t forget the kids, our founding documents are surprisingly easy to read and understand — that is as long as you’re not a Lawyer, pointy-headed intellectual, or liberal activist.

Well, the anti-gunner’s no-gun signs did their job — they disarmed the good guys and allowed a scumbag to wreak havoc at will.

Here is what one 1st hand witness to the shooting has to say:

Either way though, I could have drawn and taken a clean shot. However, in both cases, regardless of the laws, I am not allowed to carry a gun at all in Westroads Mall. If the laws did not oppress my rights, I would carry a gun most places (except work). I would certainly have had it in the mall as mall shootings have been on my mind since the incident at a mall involving a shotgun back in February.

Read the full account over at Joe’s Crabby Shack

What do I take away from this incident? That my right to defend myself takes precedence over anyone elses ‘property rights’ when they try to deprive me of the ability to save my own life from criminals bent on killing me and my family. I shall carry when and where I please and you shall be none the wiser — unless I am forced to defend myself.