Bowsite.com

This thread made me think of this scene in Lonesome Dove.

Setting that aside, why does anyone need an AR-15 that holds 30 rounds....... Exhibit A

Protesters target home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson

Associated Press

November 8, 2018, 2:55 PM |WASHINGTON

Police say they are investigating a protest and vandalism at the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson as a possible hate crime. It's the latest example of protesters targeting the personal lives of Trump administration officials and allies in the D.C. area.

Washington's Metropolitan Police Department reported that officers were summoned to Carlson's home Wednesday evening and found about 20 protesters and a commonly used anarchy symbol spray-painted on the driveway.

A brief video posted on social media by a group calling itself "Smash Racism DC" shows people standing outside a darkened home chanting "Tucker Carlson we will fight. We know where you sleep at night."

The video was later removed from Twitter.

There were no arrests but police confiscated several signs. The report lists the incident as a "suspected hate crime" on the basis of "anti-political" bias.

Carlson has been a major supporter of President Donald Trump and his policies. In recent months, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Republican Sen. Ted Cruz were all either refused service or berated by protesters in area restaurants.

Wednesday's incident prompted reactions from across the political spectrum.

A statement released by Fox News called it "reprehensible" and called for more civil discourse at a time of intense political polarization.

"We as a nation have become far too intolerant of different points of view," the statement said. "Recent events across our country clearly highlight the need for a more civil, respectful, and inclusive national conversation."

Former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly tweeted that the incident was "stomach-turning" and late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert, a frequent critic of Trump and Fox News, also condemned it on Twitter.

"Fighting Tucker Carlson's ideas is an American right. Targeting his home and terrorizing his family is an act of monstrous cowardice," Colbert wrote. "Obviously don't do this, but also, take no pleasure in it happening. Feeding monsters just makes more monsters."

If that were my door they'd have been met with 00 buckshot, and that would be from my WIFE! When she became a mom 29 years ago the maternal instinct kicked in....and it hasn't left!

Ever notice that Antifa and similar groups never act as they do where the state is 2A friendly? In many states, had someone been beating on the door like in DC, the homeowner (or wife/children) would have responded with better ballistics than the door pounder had?

From AOS:

A Legal Opinion On The Tucker Carlson Mob From A Real Expert [Andrew Branca] —Open Blogger

Hey fellow morons!

In the aftermath of the attack at the home of Tucker Carlson I’ve been kindly invited to do a brief guest post on use-of-force law in the context of defense of one’s home.

It’s a humbling honor I could hardly decline.

Use-of-force law gets complicated fast when we’re talking about defensive force in the context of highly-defensible property, such as ne’s home. American jurisdictions have taken wide variety of approaches to achieving what they each feel is the appropriate balance between the value of the property rights of the defender on the one hand and the value of the life of the aggressor on the other.

That said, most jurisdictions create some special provisions for the use of deadly force in the context of highly-defensible property, such as one’s home, where the use of that same deadly defensive force would be unlawful absent the context of the highly-defensible property.

The Carlson home is located in the District of Columbia, and the relevant defense of highly-defensible property law is most conveniently found in DC criminal jury instruction 9.520, which reads in relevant part:

[A person may use deadly force to protect [[his/her [home] [business]] [a home in which s/he is a lawful occupant] if s/he has a reasonable belief that an intruder is entering the home or business with the intent to commit a felony or to do serious bodily harm to any of the occupants.]

The news reports I’ve read have indicated that the angry, threatening mob had used sufficient force against the Carlson home to substantially damage ("crack") the front door, which can be reasonably perceived as little else but an intent to unlawfully and forcibly breach and enter the home.

Would such aggressive conduct lead a reasonable resident inside that home to conclude that an intruder is attempting to enter the home with the intent to do serious bodily harm to any of the occupants—meaning not just to Mrs. Carlson but also her children present?

I rather think so.

Further, it’s worth keeping in mind that the burden on this issue is on the prosecutor, not the defender. That is, the defender need not prove that they were reasonably in such fear, and thus justified in killing the apparent intruder. The defender must merely reasonably assert that they were in such fear, which is certainly supportable on these facts, at which point the burden shifts to the prosecutor to disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and to do so to a unanimous jury.

Does it seem likely given these facts that a DC prosecutor could convince a jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Carlson, having the duty of protecting not just herself but her children present, lacked a reasonable fear that the angry, threatening mob apparently breaching her front door intended her and her children serious bodily injury?

I think not.

The particular individuals apparently attempting to breach the Carlson’s home should be grateful every day for the rest of their lives that Mrs. Carlson was not armed with, and willing to use, deadly force upon them as they attempted their violent breach of her home.

Not only would an effective use of deadly defensive force by Mrs. Carlson been highly likely to have maimed or killed some number of them, that use of deadly defensive force would almost certainly have been found to be both lawful under DC law and a social good by American citizens generally. ******

Andrew was kind enough to prepare this analysis of the attack on the Carlson house with no notice at all! As many of you know he is an attorney specializing in the law of self-defense in the United States, and has written a rather good layman's book on state-specific issues. I have read it and found it quite interesting and informative. It's worth a read, especially since he is offering free shipping until midnight tonight, because we are such a wonderful (and profane) audience!

In addition to his legal work, Andrew is a lecturer at the FBI National Academy and has been cited as a subject-matter expert by the national media. He is also a gun guy! And a Moron in good standing!

Andrew provides free content at his Patreon page,, and also hosts webinars, including one tomorrow evening, Nov. 12,: a FREE two-hour live webinar on precisely this topic, the use of force in defense of highly-defensible property. He is partnering with ConcealedCarry.com. Head over to this link if you are interested.

According to the official police report:

1) the police arrived and interacted w/ the protestors as they were leaving & they didn't arrest anyone. NOBODY!

They actually saw the person spray-paint the anarchist symbol on the driveway.

The protestors were walking away slowly. Two walked with canes (yes). No one tried to run. NOBODY!

2) there were 4 legal observers at this protest. People going to someone's house to break in, don't usually take legal observers.

3) The police talked to the protestors about not having a problem w/ them exercising their first amendment rights but that spray-painting the driveway was crossing the line. That was the issue and its a fair one. Its vandalism which is a crime.

4) If the police had received a frantic 911 call from Mrs. Carlson saying she was terrified, had locked herself in her pantry & people were trying to break into her house, there is no way that the police would have let the protestors go. They would have made arrests.

5) In the police report, there is no mention whatsoever of any damage to the front door of Mr. Carlson's residence. Not a scratch. This is consistent w/ protestors' saying they simply knocked on the door and then left a placard resting on it before retreating to the street.

6) I still believe that his home should be off limit. Go protest at his place of work, not at his home. That is not ok no matter what.

But if you believe law enforcement, then you'll see no mention of Antifa. NONE.