Bell Icon - White EdgesWith 110% of the media's focus on the recent nightmare in Connecticut and how some new law, any law restricting gun ownership would definitely have prevented the murder of 27 people, nobody has taken the time to notice the 22 year old concealed carry permittee who drew on the Oregon mall shooter during a break in the action [1]:

Nick Meli is emotionally drained.  The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor.  Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

Nick Meli, acting in defense of everybody in the mall - voluntarily, I might add, took cover and brandished his own weapon.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli.  "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The fact that Meli knows what a charging handle is on an AR-15 rifle and understands what hitting the side means (hitting on the forward assist button to attempt to clear a jammed cartridge) means that Meli either owns or has fired an AR-15 assault rifle <gasp!>.  (Incidentally, it also means he knows more about AR-15's than 99.9% of the media.)

But wait... hasn't the media, the Left, the President, the Governor of Colorado, Hollywood, Michael Moore, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mayor of Boston been telling us all lately that AR-15 rifles have no legitimate use outside of mass murder?  How could Meli, who acted selflessly in defense of hundreds of people he didn't even know, possibly have used something intended only for mass murder?

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli.  "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The shooter saw Meli take cover in the store.  But, rather than fire wildly at the shooter, as liberals and the media would have you believe would be the case (after all, Meli is a CCW holder and gun owner - he is therefore a toothless hillbilly with an IQ of 25), he withheld his fire out of concern that he might injure civilians behind the shooter.

The shooter also understood that there was someone else in the mall who was able to return fire, despite most malls being "gun free zones."  So, after clearing the jam, rather than shooting any number of unarmed people within the vicinity (which would have required him to move and given Meli a clear shot), he elected to take his own life instead.

Meli's presence in the mall more than likely saved an untold number of lives once the shooter knew he could come under immediate fire from an armed civilian.

But... let's not let that stupid fact distract us from the very serious "conversation" the Left and the media is having about gun control...

What a dirtbag.  Everyone knows that guns are dangerous.  How dare this toothless hillbilly civilian bring a LOADED WEAPON INTO A MALL!!!  GUNS KILL!!!

Is our society seriously this damn stupid?

Yes, apparently [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

In love of liberty,

The Bulletproof Patriot

<>

  • blogger Blog this!
  • digg Digg this post
  • facebook Recommend on Facebook
  • google_buzz Buzz it up
  • linkedin Share on Linkedin
  • stumble Share with Stumblers
  • twitter Tweet about it
  • rss Subscribe to the comments on this post
  • print Print for later
  • Karl Bonner

    Guess what, TBP? I totally agree with you about Meli. We need more honest, peaceable citizens to carry guns like this.

    That said, I still support an *assault* weapons ban. It won't stop everyone from obtaining them, but it *will* make them a lot harder to obtain. And the few people who obtain assault rifles illegally will have to deal with a populace that's heavily armed with legal firearms. Makes sense to me at least, though you may disagree.

    • http://www.thebulletproofpatriot.com/blog M.A. Weimer

      What exactly is it about semi-automatic pistols that makes them "honest" and "peaceable," but makes semi-automatic rifles worthy of being banned? If you trust "honest, peaceable citizens" with pistols, how can those same people not be trusted with rifles? Aren't they, by definition, honest and trustworthy?

      After all, pistols were used to murder 6,220 people in 2011 [1]. Rifles were used to murder 323. This was the problem with the first assault weapon ban - it hardly reduced crime, if it did at all, because "assault weapons" are almost never used in crimes anyway. The murder rate didn't dramatically rise when it expired in 2004... almost as if it only affected the law abiding, or "honest" and "peaceable" gun owners, who weren't out committing mass murders to begin with.

      I find it difficult to believe that you can both simultaneously make the case that law abiding gun owner should be trusted to be law abiding (with pistols), but the law abiding should not be trusted to be law abiding (with rifles).

      • Karl Bonner

        Assault rifles are NOT the same as pistols and hunting rifles. Assault rifles have far more destructive power.

        Now that we're on the topic, if you think private civilians should be allowed to own assault rifles, why not allow them to attain dynamite free of regulation? How about TNT? Plutonium?

      • http://www.thebulletproofpatriot.com/blog M.A. Weimer

        Really? You've got your talking points down, I see. Let's engage in a little actual thinking here...

        What does "destructive power" mean? Does it mean the energy imparted by the bullet? If so, "assault rifles" are nowhere near the "destructive power" of common hunting rifles - the common "assault rifle" .223/5.56 NATO imparts 1,250 ft-lbs, while the 338 Win Mag imparts 3,875 ft-lbs. Even if you factor in the use of a single magazine, (30) .223 impart a cumulative 37,500 ft-lbs and (10) 338 Win Mag impart a cumulative 38,750 ft-lbs. The .223 is hardly more "destructive," which explains why the military has been searching for a replacement caliber for years and why SOCOM has been leading the charge (with the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel the closest to adoption).

        It would also explain why rifles account for only 5% of all murder in the U.S, while pistols account for the remaining 95%.

        Simply feeling that "assault rifles" are "more destructive" doesn't make it so, Karl.

        On the issue of regulating access to explosives, the Supreme Court took this argument up in DC v. Heller on page 58 [1]:

        It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

        The point the Court was making was that simply because the AR-15 pattern rifle is in service with the military is no reason to allow it to be banned from society, as it is in common ownership for lawful purposes. Explosives are not in common use and so therefore may be restricted from purchase by common citizens.

        In addition, the ability to obtain explosives "free of regulation" is completely different from an outright ban on "assault rifles." For one thing, explosives are not constitutionally protected. Firearms are.

      • http://www.thebulletproofpatriot.com/blog M.A. Weimer

        Also, if you can trust a person to lawfully handle a semi-automatic pistol, why can you not trust that same person to lawfully handle a semi-automatic rifle? You are implying that the same person who was trustworthy and honest with the pistol is now a potential mass murderer the moment he is holding a rifle.

  • Pingback: Hall of Fame: The First Banned Troll of The Bulletproof Patriot | The Bulletproof Patriot

Site News

TBP supports the Convention of States project to call an Article V convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution to limit the powers of the federal government.

412008 visitors
Subscribe to updates!


Archives
Categories