The Beauty of the Second Amendment - An Armed Citizen Saves A Police Officer's Life


#1

To all the gun haters out there…this is what America would be like if we stopped all the BS about gun control. If a responsible citizen saw a fellow citizen in life-threatening danger they could act and save a life worth saving…instead of running away and calling police who will only arrive in time to detain the suspect long after the innocent victim has perished. You want to see what right looks like? This is it.

On January 12, an armed citizen stopped and killed a man who was beating an Arizona State Trooper on the side of I-10.

The incident occurred early Thursday morning on about “50 miles west of downtown Phoenix.”

According to KTAR News, the trooper had stopped to investigate a rollover accident at about 4:30 a.m., when someone opened fire, shooting him in the shoulder. The alleged shooter then began to beat the officer. An armed citizen and his family were driving by when they spotted the officer under duress.

The citizen stopped the car, ran toward the officer and asked if he needed assistance. When the officer said “yes,” the citizen ran back to his car, grabbed his gun, then returned and “demanded the attacker stop.” The attacker refused to stop, so the citizen shot him multiple times, killing him.

Arizona Department of Public Safety Director Col. Frank Milstead said, “I don’t know that my trooper would be alive without [the armed citizen’s] assistance.”

The name of the armed citizen was not released, but Milstead added, “I would just say thank you.”

Also on January 12, the New York Times editorial board wrote against expanding the opportunities for armed citizens to be armed for self-defense. The paper claimed, “The grim truth is that concealed-carry permit holders are rarely involved in stopping crime.”


#2

That about says it all doesn’t it. Give all law-abiding Americans the opportunity to protect themselves and their community and they will do the right thing every time. We need to also eliminate laws that restrict the use of force. Some states require gun owners to flee in their own home, barricade themselves in a room, call police, and call for help before they are legally allowed to fire a shot to protect themselves. This gives the attacker more rights than the victim.


#3

For some unknown reason liberals have a difficult time understanding guns don’t kill people , people kill people ! And the constant whining about reducing minimum sentencing guidelines makes the problem worst NOT better .


#4

I love all police officers, but people need to remember that the police only show up after a crime has committed…not before the crime has happened or while the crime is occurring. Citizens have the right to protect their own life and liberty.


#5

ILLEGAL Mexican CONFIRMED as the man who shot and wounded an Arizona DPS Trooper last week!

Leonard Penuelas-Escobar, 37 had been previously deported!

MSM hid the fact for over a week but angry cops leaked it.

Hmmm, but I thought they all come here for jobs?


#6

But, but, but…b…they come here to work.

Two illegals in sanctuary city Chicago engage in shootout with Chicago Police Sergeant.

http://truenewsusa.blogspot.com.br/2017/01/rahm-emanuels-sanctuary-city-of-chicago.html


#7

Saw this posted on my Facebook timeline. Remember true American heroes come in all shapes, colors, and sizes.


#8

People kill people- not guns- so don’t give guns to people. Solved.

Nobody properly vetted for pistol permit is insane- until they go insane.

Drugs don’t kill people unless people use/buy/sell/ stand too close. Legalize crack!


#9

Tell me, when do the police show up? Do they show up before a crime is committed, while the crime is happening, or after the crime has occurred?


#10

Lets just ban anything that can harm a person than. By your logic that makes perfect sense.

You cant restrict a right.

Legalize all drugs. its not the governments responsibility to tell you what you can and can’t put in your body.

You want to live in a world of submission, where all the needs of he individual are met by living with the boot of the government on your throat.


#11

I am a gun owner, I hunt for 100% of the meat I consume, I am not afraid to defend me-and-mine in any way deemed appropriate by the circumstances, I served active duty in Nam and I don’t mind apologizing when I am wrong.

My post says that in my estimation, my opinion, proliferation of guns and drugs exacerbates our nation’s civilian violence, that too often fear and rage compel us into ultimate “oops” moments- like no other tool. Suicides are a good example. Most peoples’ judgement, under duress, even when trained, make their share of mistakes. The more vigilanteism the more mistakes. How would you like to see those scry “libtards” carrying? I am a generally libtardinal ex marksman. I have killed. It was not the only way. You cannot be a Christian and been into a poorly trained militiaman. I don’t trust you either.

Perhaps we will just have to disagree. That doesn’t make either of us bad people- we can do that in this country last I heard


#12

We can disagree, however My point is that you cannot legislate a right. It is an ostensible impossibility. Are we going to allow people who are charged with rape for example, to not see there day in court, not be represented and not to incriminate themselves? I would hope not. We need, as a culture, re-understand and re-educate ourselves that a gun is a tool and it’s the person, carrying the tool who should be judged.


#13

I generally agree with you here- I would only say that at the point of judgement, of the human-factor who uses that tool, the act has already been irrevocably perpetrated (that oops thing). In healthcare we are having an absurdly similar debate whether prophylaxis- like treating diabetes BEFORE the leg is amputated or providing nutrition (in one of the most affluent countries in the world) is more cost effective than remedial education or treating rickets after the fact.


#14

I can see your point, however, we have laws on the books for those oops moments.


#15

The laws only apply after injury or death has been accomplished. The BottomLine of weapon proliferation is not deemed to be even complicit in these stats that have become so abstract- depersonalized. The deliberate exageration of the positive impact of carry laws is sheer hyperbole- the damage is far worse as we interpret the 2nd Amendment through the lens of profiteering. Just compare our 30+000 fatalities against any other 1st world country in a non-wartime situation and tell me why that is. Illegal immigrants? Terrorists?


#16

how is carrying a firearm for protection profiteering?


#17

Violence is Everywhere! Look Out! Buy a gun- it’s the only solution! Or didn’t you know about the profitable business of selling firearms and rounds? Or didn’t you know of the power of the gun lobby in this country? You don’t think this need for everybody to be armed was an original idea you had, do you? That is an example of a sheep in wolf’s clothing if you ask me- which you probably won’t. It is like getting your nuts cut off because there is a reported uptick in testicular cancer.


#18

Might want to give the 2nd Amendment a quick read.


#19

I am pretty familiar with our Constitution, thanks. Your monniker suggests that you think the American Revolution was an unfortunate detail in out history that your hero will rectify in one term. Read the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights- there was more to it than your “GodEmperor” interpretation of the 2nd.


#20

Have you lost control of your senses? As it turns out, communities with a large population of legally armed citizens have a lower crime rate. And yes, I do indeed the need for the population to be armed was the original idea; it’s the second right on the bill of rights…like the SECOND one…And how are responsibly armed Americans representative of a sheep in wolf’s clothing? And how the hell did we get to ball cancer? I give your assessment a F but creativity an A+. :wink:
BTW
Open me