“Shoot first and ask questions later” is a line that appears often in movies and literature but is there an actual real-life situation where the phrase legally and morally applies? This is a good question to ask the New Orleans homeowner who shot a “…bloody intruder” who broke into his home on Sunday afternoon. According to police reports, the “bloody intruder” had been stopped by bicycle cops, alerted to his irate behavior by residents, just moments earlier and had fled while being questioned by the cops (1).
Fast forward 20 minutes and the “bloody…irate…man” is shot dead by the homeowner who “feared for his life” and the lives of others inside his home on North Broad Street. From what we know, this was a case of “shoot first, ask questions later” and yet I don’t hear anyone howling for background checks or a crackdown on guns that don’t have trigger locks. Perhaps this is due to the fact that even the most doctrinaire Progressives cannot plausibly deny men the right of self defense, even if that means they remain silent when there is a gun and its owner to be persecuted.
There is another side to this story, the current massive buildup of guns and ammo by citizens but it’s not an “irate…bloodied” intruder these weapons are being cached for. The enemy is the government of these United States who many believe will “shoot first and ask questions later” if given the opportunity against gun-owning citizens. Not since the election of Lincoln, has a significant percent of the citizenry believed their very existence and way of life were threatened by the political power of the United States government.
Sturm, Ruger reports(2) sales of over half a million guns in the last quarter alone, double what they sold in Spring of 2009. Americans continue to believe it is their duty to prepare for hostilities and self defense, whether the enemy they are guarding against is an “intruder” or an intrusive government. Heaven help us if one side “shoots first,” and “asks questions later.”