UT: Burglary goes bad when homeowner shoots back : "Officers have arrested a man they say tried to break into a home and then traded shots with the homeowner in the middle of the street. . `They were kicking in the door, and the man was inside with his family,' Ogden Police Lt. Scott Sangberg said Tuesday. `He went to the door with his 9 mm (handgun). Then the guy realized that the place wasn't vacant and started to leave.' As he was leaving, police said one of the would-be burglars fired a gun at the homeowner. `The owner took a shot at him,' Sangberg said. The homeowner gave police a description of the men and the green Dodge Intrepid they fled in. Police recognized it from an attempted burglary case they dealt with the week before and went to the suspect's home, where he was arrested."


GA: Packing heat" "In a settlement filed in District Court on Dec. 4, the Richmond County Sheriff's Office admitted violating an Augusta man's Fourth Amendment rights by seizing and holding his firearm .. `Simply put, a police officer needs reasonable suspicion of a crime before he can detain someone, and merely possessing a handgun is not reasonable suspicion of a crime,' says Ed Stone, president of the gun rights group georgiacarry.org and co-counsel for Mead. `In this case, the encounter went beyond merely detaining Zachary Mead for having a handgun; the deputy in this case actually seized the handgun and took it with him.'"


The life and death cost of gun control: "Banning guns is in the news. India practically bans guns, but that didn't stop the horrific Muslim terrorist attacks this last week. A football player concerned for his safety violates New York City's tough gun control regulations by carrying a concealed handgun, and people call for everything from banning NFL players from carrying guns to demanding that the athlete serve many years in jail. Where is the sympathy or debate in either case over letting people defend themselves? Given that the terrorists smuggled their machine guns in with them, would anyone argue that India's extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case."


"If it's a firearm, we're taking it": "So here we all are, on the verge of more `reasonable regulation' that will strip us all of liberty and the right to property - legislation that us Three Percenters will disobey at the point of a firearm. The Emma-Gees (machine gun collectors), the Fudds and the Prags should understand at least this. The bell tolls for thee as much as for me. If you want to keep your property and your liberty you'd better be digging your foxhole along the line that we Three Percenters have marked out. Because if we lose, so do you. If we're forcibly disarmed, so will you be. And after that, you're just so much meat to be ordered about by tyrannical butchers."