More on the Brooklyn dad being harassed by the local D.A. For some background, look here.
The NY Times had this article about the reasons why the D.A. should press charges against the homeowner defending his family.
"Turning a blind eye, even to a figure as sympathetic as Mr. Dixon, would indeed send a message, Mr. Hynes said. If this man is given a pass, what then? Does everyone get to own an illegal gun because, after all, you never know who may turn up someday at the top of the stairs?"
Well, yeah. Everyone should own a gun, even if it's an illegal gun, in case someone does appear at the top of the stairs. In fact, everyone should have a gun in case a NY Times reporter appears at the top of the stairs. It's obvious that the NY Times feels it's better to promote a draconian law that violates the rights as well as the safety of the people than to challenge the government, so I'd say that makes them more of a danger to the public than the average criminal. After all, the average criminal just wants to kill you. The NY Times wants you to exist in a sheepish state of servitude. I'd rather take death myself.
& what the hell is an illegal gun? It's a gun that the city of NY did not give you explicit permission to own. Never mind that owning a weapon in your own home is not remotely subject to anyone else's approval but your own. What the NY Times is advocating is a registration scheme that NYC has already used to confiscate weapons from otherwise law abiding people.
The following is from GOA:
"But why all the fuss about gun owner registration? Quite simply, gun registration has been used -- even in this country -- to later confiscate firearms. One such instance occurred in New York City just a few years ago.
It all began with promises made by New York City officials in the mid-1960s. They wanted to register long guns, over the vocal opposition of the city's gun owners. The city fathers promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.
Gun owners were ordered to get rid of their newly-banned firearms. Those who didn't comply were subject to having their firearms taken away."
There is even a Statsi-like program in NYC, among other places, to encourage citizens to rat out there neighbors who posses "illegal guns".
But I wonder, have any NYC government officials, especially in the D.A.'s office, ever read this:
New York State Consolidated Laws
Civil Rights, Bill of Rights
ARTICLE 2, Section 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
I don't think we need more proof that the media is biased, & that bias is against the people. There not questioning abusive practices such as NYC's "illegal gun" law is bad enough, but to attempt to justify it is contemptible. They imply it would have been better for society if Mr. Dixon had not been armed when an intruder invaded his home. I find that insulting & I’m pretty sure Mr. Dixon & his family would agree.