ABC11:

VANCE COUNTY, N.C. (WTVD) — A homeowner in Vance County opened fire on a man who kicked in his door Monday morning.

It happened about 9:45 a.m. as the homeowner, Jonathan Haith, was sleeping in his home in the 2200 block of Thomas Lane.

“Somebody was you know knocking on the door at 9:15, 9:30 in the morning,” said Haith. “I wanted to roll over and stay in the air conditioning, and I just ignored it.”

When the door knocks lasting 15 minutes were followed by a boom and a thud, Haith grabbed his AR-15 semi-automatic from under his bed and slowly crept into the hallway.

“I peeked around the corner, saw a tall, slender black gentleman standing over me with a pistol,” said Haith.

When the intruder shot at Haith with a 9mm and missed, he fired back. The bullet pierced the suspect’s stomach and shoulder.

“That was my round,” said Haith. “Evidently, it went through his body and struck the wall.”

Pandemonium followed, and the intruder scurried out. An apparent getaway vehicle spun out of Haith’s yard to pick up the intruder, who had collapsed outside of a day care up the street.

By that time, Haith had dialed 911.

“Once-in-a-lifetime incident that I hope doesn’t happen again,” said Haith.

The Vance County Sheriff’s Office hasn’t officially released any details of the incident.

According to Haith, both the driver and the shooter were taken into custody. He says the intruder who he shot was last listed in critical condition at the hospital.

Yea.  Once in a lifetime.  That’s may be what Mr. Stephen Bayezes thought too, but I guess it’s nice to have the accuracy of a rifle combined with the capability of repeat fire when your life is at stake – once in a lifetime or not.

And I thought those awful “military-style” weapons had no place in the home?

From David Codrea, there is this.

The 8 News NOW I-Team has learned that FBI agents have started an investigation into the events surrounding a potentially deadly showdown one month ago surrounding rancher Cliven Bundy.

It is one thing for Cliven Bundy and his supporters to square off against an assortment of Bureau of Land Management employees. It is quite another when the FBI enters the picture, and that is exactly what has happened.

The I-Team has confirmed that FBI agents have launched a formal investigation into alleged death threats, intimidation and possible weapons violations that culminated with a dangerous showdown on April 12, and the first people to be interviewed by FBI agents are Metro Police, starting with Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillispie.

Federal employees suspended their roundup of Cliven Bundy’s cattle, following a confrontation outside the BLM compound near Bunkerville. At the urging of Metro Police, Bundy’s cattle were released, but BLM’s new director announced the matter wasn’t over and would be resolved, one way or another. 

Last week, the I-Team talked with Metro officers who intervened to protect the lives of federal employees from the 400 or so Bundy supporters and armed militia members. Officers told the I-Team they feared for their lives that day because of the assembled firepower, and because many in the crowd had pointed weapons at officers, taunted them, told them they should be ready to die.

I don’t know about the details at the last of the report I cited, but it’s important that this issue be gotten right.  My readers know my views.  I believe that the federal government has two legitimate functions: (1) the common defense, and (2) building (only) the necessary roads and bridges to enable interstate commerce.  Beyond this, everything is unconstitutional and not approved by the wise founders.

But there is an audience who doesn’t think like me.  If the FBI is successful, some men may stand before a “jury of peers” for pointing weapons at BLM agents.  Since many juries are nothing more than a collection of imbeciles pooling their ignorance, discussions of the constitutional provisions or lack thereof for what the BLM did is a bridge too far.  Lives are at stake, and thus a simple and compelling argument needs to be pressed.

Fortunately, there is such an argument.  First of all, all men regardless of station in life are justified in self defense, and moreover, are duty bound to preserve life to the best of their ability.  This is a moral obligation on par with the most basic and important of God’s expectations for man.

There is also an equally simple and compelling legal argument for pointing weapons at BLM agents.  The irony is that it was given to us by the Supreme Court of the U.S., that other collection of imbeciles in Washington.  In Tennessee vesus Garner, we learned that even the Supreme Court believes that certain uses of firearms by LEOs is immoral.  Guns can only be used by law enforcement officers for the exact same reason that they may be used by civilians, i.e., for self defense.

This doesn’t mean that LEOs across America actually abide by Tennessee v. Garner, or that courts uphold the constitution.  But it does mean that right is on our side.  It is the BLM who came in pointing weapons at men, women and children.  If they are going to do this, it is not an unreasonable thing to expect that overwatch and security would point weapons back at the perpetrators to ensure their own safety.

There are those who may say that Cliven Bundy was a criminal, and some jurors might be in that very pool.  I disagree, but that’s not the point.  The men, women and children who were there were engaged in peaceful protests, and nothing more.  The objection rings hollow.

When the conversations get complicated, when the lawyers cite regulation until the faces of jurors are confused, when the media is perplexed or going along with the administration talking points, and when perhaps even your own folk become disillisioned and confused, we need to keep pressing this simple, compelling, morally upstanding position.  Weapons were pointed at BLM agents because the men there had to protect the lives of the people under their charge.  God approves, and even the stolid Supreme Court has recognized this fundamental right.

No backing up, no surrender, no losing focus on the point.  Say it again and again, indefatigable as it were, and without rest for your opponents.  The legal defense doesn’t need to be any more complicated than that.  We (and the lawyers defending these men) just need to be disciplined enough to pull it off.

Like sharks feeding on chum, there has been another wrongful police raid.

David Codrea:

That’s the culmination of a series of “musical chairs” personnel moves involving Zapor that, per a whistleblower source, have been unwarranted, needlessly expensive, and ultimately, politically protective of management.

The relationship at this level of politics is incestuous.  None of this is surprising, but it’s a good read nonetheless.  And no wonder ATF morale is in the toilet.

Kurt Hofmann:

But back to the original question of bazookas. Why shouldn’t their possession by private citizens be protected? It’s not as if governments never use tanks against private citizens (see attached video), and nor can it be denied that enormous, heavily armored vehicles are becoming more and more routinely part of civilian police agencies’ equipment in the U.S.

We should.  And I should be able to own and M1A1 tank if I can afford it.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, this from The Salt Lake Tribune:

With anti-government sentiments roiling in the aftermath of Cliven Bundy’s Nevada standoff, government workers in western Utah are stripping BLM logos from their vehicles after two motorists brandished a gun and displayed a threatening sign at a federal wrangler who was driving Tuesday in Juab County.

The wrangler was driving a load of horses and burros north on Interstate 15 about 11 a.m. near Mills when a dark blue Dodge 1500 extended-cab pickup pulled up alongside the wrangler. The two occupants “told him he was No. 1 with that certain gesture,” said Eric Reid, the wrangler’s supervisor at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Fillmore Field Office.

It’s insulting to wranglers everywhere to call anyone who works for the BLM a “wrangler.”  As a former wrangler I’d kick the crap out of anyone with the BLM taking such a title.

WRSA has more on the Miami-Dade shooting frenzy by cops.  For the best analysis of what should be done about this, see my commenter Archer.

I’d charge all of them with first-degree murder (one count for each of the two people in the car) with the included lesser offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter, conspiracy to commit the same (one count for each of the two people in the car), willful negligence/disregard for safety (one count for every bullet fired and another for the chase), endangering the public (one count for every bullet fired and another for the chase), assaulting a police officer (one count for each of the two officers hit by friendly fire), assault with a deadly weapon (one count for each of the two officers hit by friendly fire)…. I could go on. Under Florida’s “10/20/Life” statute, they’d all get 20 years, minimum, EVEN IF the shooting of the two in the car is ruled justified – which would be a stretch given the totally disproportionate amount of force present/used. Watch the media clamor to find a “Stand Your Ground” defense for the “public safety” officers.

After this event, it’s apparent once again that we need controls on assault hammers.

The Atlantic:

I’ve long proposed a simple rule: police officers who shoot unarmed innocents should have their guns taken away. They can work desk jobs or monitor meters. But if nothing else, they shouldn’t ever be in a position to put lives in danger again.

Applying that rule in Miami would have dramatic consequences.

The local CBS affiliate has investigated a police shooting that happened there last December. The results are jaw-dropping. A man who committed armed robbery and shot a police officer hours earlier was spotted in his automobile, along with a passenger who played no role in his crime. Police officers gave chase.

CBS reports what happened next:

The suspect’s blue Volvo crashed into the backyard of a townhouse.

It was later determined that neither the suspect nor the passenger was armed. Police officers nevertheless fired two barrages of bullets into the vehicle. Witnesses say that after the first volley of approximately 50 bullets, the two men were still alive. 

Anthony Vandiver, who lives in a building adjacent to the lot, saw the incident. “They were saying put your hands up, and the guys were still moving after they shot maybe 50, 60 times,” he said. “And the guy tried to put his hands up. And as soon as he put his hands up, it erupted again. And that was it for them. That guy tried his best to give up. I swear to God on everything I love, my kids, my momma, everything, I seen it all.”

Roughly two minutes passed between volleys.

After the second volley both men were dead. Said another witness: “The policemen that had on the black and white vests were out there laughing like it was so funny.”

How about a different standard than the one proposed by the writer?  How about all 23 officers stand accused of murder (with a jury composed entirely of people from the neighborhood from which the victims came), and if found guilty of first degree murder receive the death penalty.  If found guilty of second degree murder get life without the possibility of parole and live among the general prison population for the rest of their miserable existence?

Sounds reasonable to me.  Would you propose a different standard?  Why?

Politico Magazine:

It is here in the forest that you leave behind, once and for all, Ukraine’s cosmopolitan present and take a step back into its violent past—as well as glimpse what could become its bloody future. It is here, locals say, where Ukraine’s fate could be decided once again.

The training camp for Ukraine’s new generation of partisans—mostly young people who are signing up to fight the Russians in anticipation of an invasion—sits in a grassy clearing in the forest. A few dilapidated buildings given to the group by a Ukrainian non-governmental organization of mysterious origins, sitting on private land loaned to them by a local businessman, make up the “headquarters.”

An old army mobile kitchen (designed to be pulled by a jeep) is parked up outside the canteen: a long, rectangular room where the partisan trainees break for lunch to eat thick, potato-heavy vegetable soup. A hose resting on a chopped tree trunk provides the drinking water. The people here are preparing to live rough—and, they say, to die fast, if necessary.

“Many of us are here learning the basics so we don’t get killed in the first minute of the war,” says Tanya, a 38-year old graphic designer and the camp’s coordinator. “Maybe with what we’ve learned we might last one or two days.”

An advisor close to Kyiv’s security establishment told me that dozens of these camps are springing up around the country—with more opening every week—but they are all organized by private citizens working in informal groups without funding or oversight from the state, making reliable information as to their extent almost impossible to find.

What is clear is that the idea of partisan war has taken hold among the people. In the bars of Kyiv, men talk to me about going to east to fight a guerrilla war, while a senior advisor close to Kyiv’s security establishment assures me that Moscow will face widespread partisan resistance if it continues its aggression.

Forgetting for a moment about the loser Obama and how his weakness has catapulted the world in chaos, the upshot of this is watching the Ukrainian unorganized militia become organized and learn to fight and survive – or perish for their cause.

One very important point should be made here.  If they are training this hard for the purpose of lasting a few days to kill the enemy, the Russians are in for a hard time.  While it’s certainly more effective to live for your cause than to die for it, a man who is willing to lose everything is a very dangerous man.

From a pastor in the UMC (where else?).

Consider for a moment a nightmare scenario: A person walks into your worship service and brandishes or, worse still, actually fires, a weapon.

Now, because your church has opted into our state legislature’s new law allowing licensed gun owners to bring weapons to church, several folks in the congregation are able to draw their guns and return fire.

Now, look into that scene and tell me truthfully: Does the second half of that scenario make you feel safer? In the chaos of such a moment, are worshipers in LESS peril because MORE people are shooting?

I’ll admit, however, that my perspective, like any personal view, isn’t simply practical. My opinion is shaped by my Christian faith and beliefs.

[ … ]

I’m not saying there is no place for power or weapons in the protection of the innocent (my own son is a police officer, and people I love and respect are in the military). I AM saying that guns in the church are:

• a danger to the very people we would protect,

• one more barrier between us and Christ, and

• no more than the illusion of security.

And then there is this from Patheos.

My views on our gun culture are fairly simple.  It can be boiled down to this: the human tradition of the second amendment does not trump the divine revelation of the fifth commandment. That’s because, to repeat, the single most important fact of our gun culture is 30,000 corpses each year.

Notice that our UMC pastor tips his hat to the necessary evil of having to use violence by pointing to police (while not mentioning a man’s own protection of his family), but says that it is a “barrier between us and Christ.”

Also take note how he paints the picture.  It is one of a perpetrator firing wildly, and a would-be self defender, rather than shooting in a controlled manner to end the violence and thus save innocent lives, firing wildly in return.  It’s a painting of two whirl tops shooting indiscriminately rather than with purpose.

He does this to bias his ignorant readers into thinking that folk who carry guns are going to go wild and whirl top on their families.  But the pastor knows that something is wrong with his argument.  He knows that there is no stopping a gunman unless someone else has a gun.

His solution?  “The way of the cross is true and good. Be not afraid.”  But here his powers of Biblical exegesis (if he ever had any) fail him.  Christ never promised that his propitiatory sacrifice on the cross would stop gunmen.  The ignorant pastor conflates different subjects in the Bible.

We’ve discussed this before.  Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.  Thus have I said:

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

So our writer at Patheos and the UMC pastor are both equally theologically shallow and childlike.  We can only hope that their influence is commensurate with their poor knowledge of the Scriptures.

As for guns in churches (and anywhere else for that matter), think of the children and the mandate by God to protect them.  If you cannot do that you are guilty of violating God’s law.  Think of the children.

David Codrea:

Titled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles,” and assigned OMB Number 1140–0100, the 60-day notice abstract declares “The purpose of this information collection is to require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

In the updates and comments, there is still some question as to just how far this goes.  Does this codify the requirement only for border states or does it expand it to all FFLs?  Either way, the ATF is overreaching, a feature of every agency in the Obama administration and a symptom of a larger more pernicious illness.

Kurt Hofmann:

The reporting requirement was imposed by raw executive fiat. A similar requirement for multiple handgun purchases, in contrast, is mandated by federal law. A blatantly unconstitutional law, to be sure, but at least that requirement has the thin veneer of legitimacy of having received the blessing of Congress.

At least when the communists in Congress have been involved, part of the constitution has been followed (albeit neglecting the most important part – our protections in the Bill of Rights).  But the ATF knows that there is no constitutional provision for what it is doing.

WRSA has a must read piece on more police piggishness, oddly enough by Mark Steyn.  Read every word of Mark’s article.  And there is this.

The District Court found for the coppers, and so did the Fifth Circuit, ruling that “Get your fucking hands off my mom” constituted a “verbal threat” and, from a guy on his knees 15-20 feet away, “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers” – rather than (as we approach Mother’s Day) what ought to be the sentiment of any self-respecting young man seeing somebody physically assault his mom.

The district court and the officer who perpetrated this evil had better watch their six should they ever do this to my wife of mother.

I had to miss Mike on Alan Colmes, but there is this.

Acrimonious, but fun. My favorite line: “You know, I’ve been warning about the possibility of civil war caused by government bad conduct for the past 20 years, but it wasn’t until I started mentioning that collectivist senators were putting their own testicles at risk that people started paying attention. I think I must have accidentally put my finger on where you fellers worship — if you can stand THAT mental picture.”

Alan Colmes and his radio show?  Worthless.  The telephone call in?  Pennies.  Mike’s line: Priceless.

Finally, if you want some pure gun porn, look here and here (be warned, it will take you a while).

Hillary “What difference at this point does it make” Clinton, has spoken on guns.

Hillary Clinton told an audience of mental health professionals on Tuesday that the United States needs to rein in its gun culture or risk a world where insignificant disagreements could lead to shootings.

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated,” Clinton said, painting a picture of a country where small annoyances could lead to shootings.

Clinton, whose comments came during the question and answer portion at the end of her appearance, said because “we are living at a time when there is so much external stimulation and some much internal confusion in certain people,” it would be a bad idea to let people “go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

But Clinton also gave an olive branch to gun owners, adding “I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

The witch knows this isn’t true.  She knows that many people carry guns to church.  I have, others have, and do all of the time.  She knows that we don’t let disagreements with the sermon devolve into shooting sprees.

And the witch knows that you can’t say the things she said and believe what she believes and “still support the right of people to own guns.”  A gun at home in a safe is the equivalent of a paperweight.

So there you have it.  Collectivist, liar, witch.  But you knew that all along.

Fox News:

CONGAREE NATIONAL PARK, S.C. –  Search crews have found a father and his two children who had been missing for more than two days in the vast woods and swamps of the Congaree National Park in South Carolina, officials said Tuesday.

In a news release, the National Park Service said rangers had located J.R. Kimbler, his 10-year-old son, Dakota, and his 6-year-old daughter, Jade.

The three did not appear to be seriously hurt and were being taken to a local hospital for observation, officials said. Authorities planned to release more information later in the day.

Crews traveling by airplane, boat and on foot had been looking for the family in the 27,000-acre site since the father sent a text message late Saturday saying they were lost.

Officials closed the park Monday afternoon during the search. An investigative team from the National Park Service had also checked on leads outside the park in case the family members had not been lost while hiking.

There had been no indication Kimbler, 43, took any camping gear or other items for an overnight stay. The taxi driver left his cigarettes in his cab that was still parked near the visitor’s center Monday, and his daughter’s inhaler and other medicine were in the hotel room where he lived, according to his family.

The park has marked trails, but beyond the paths are tangles of old growth trees, swamps and underbrush. The land has become even more rugged since an ice storm in February knocked down thousands of trees and limbs.

“Many of the trails you can’t see to navigate right now,” said Sana Sohen, a park service spokeswoman.

ABC News reports that “Kimbler and his two children – Dakota, 10, and Jade, 6 – set out for a nature hike Saturday in Congaree National Park. They soon found themselves lost in the 27,000-acre park with no food, water or supplies … During the ordeal, the family drank dirty rain water collected in puddle, and even tried unsuccessfully eating wild turkey eggs.”

The Congaree National Park is more than 40 square miles of old growth forest and swamp, the original stomping grounds of General Francis Marion, legendary Swamp Fox of the war for independence.  It’s no place to go out unprepared and without a knowledge of the area.

We’ve covered this many times before.  I don’t even go on day hikes without a day pack or patrol bag, water, energy bars, tactical light, poncho, fire starting equipment, compass, 550 cord and a gun.

With the gun you can defend yourself and perhaps obtain food, even with a handgun.  With the poncho and 550 cord you have instant shelter in the rain and can avoid hypothermia.    With the fire you have heat and light along with water purification, with the water you pack in you have temporary hydration and a container for collecting more water (it’s best to pack a water container that can be put into the fire).

With the compass you have navigation, and with energy bars you have relief from food gathering in the initial stages of survival.  With pack, water, bars, heavy rubberized poncho, 550 cord and a gun (with several magazines) you can get by with less than 15-20 pounds.

If you can’t pack in 15-20 pounds, you shouldn’t be going into 27,000 acre old growth forest and swamp that managed to destroy the morale of troops commanded by General Charles Cornwallis.