Benson over at Tomato 7 takes exception to a Winston-Salem Journal opinion piece where columnist Scott Sexton states:
I've gotten into arguments in the past with those who recommend racking the shotgun slide to scare intruders off. I can't think of any reason to give an enemy the tactical advantages of knowing:
1. I am there,
2. I am aware of him,
3. My approximate location, and
4. My armaments/capabilities
But that's not my major beef with Sexton's article. I think the guy's heart is in the right place but his knowledge base needs to catch up.
What grabbed my attention was his absurd claim:
"Nobody - police, prosecutors or advocates for crime victims - thinks that firing a gun is the preferred method for dealing with an intruder."I see Benson's point. Anyone intentionally breaking into your home must be considered dangerous. Hesitation could prove fatal.
I've gotten into arguments in the past with those who recommend racking the shotgun slide to scare intruders off. I can't think of any reason to give an enemy the tactical advantages of knowing:
1. I am there,
2. I am aware of him,
3. My approximate location, and
4. My armaments/capabilities
But that's not my major beef with Sexton's article. I think the guy's heart is in the right place but his knowledge base needs to catch up.
What grabbed my attention was his absurd claim:
This is what We the People permitting usurpations of power by our servants has led us to--the assumption that government authorization is needed to exercise unalienable rights. The Constitutional bright line of "shall not be infringed" has been blurred under the hollow promise and historically unjustified hope that compromise and incrementalism will lead to victory.
"Basically, that means that you have the right to obtain a permit..."