http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313148,00.html
Interesting in light of the current debates and discussions on gun ownership.
Was granny out looking for a fight too?
Probably. What was granny doing with a gun in her house with children inside?
She was evidently just looking for a chance to use it.
I hope the poor 39 year old woman is okay. One can only imagine the mental anguish granny has caused the 16 year old.
I hope they put granny in jail and throw away the key.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Probably. What was granny doing with a gun in her house with children inside?
She was evidently just looking for a chance to use it.
I hope the poor 39 year old woman is okay. One can only imagine the mental anguish granny has caused the 16 year old.
I hope they put granny in jail and throw away the key. [/quote]
I’m not sure what she was thinking either. I think we can agree she should have laid down, let the robbers use her as a literal floor mat and then told them where her hidden stash of cash was located after they ransacked everything else.
Well, granny did a good job, she kicked them the fuck out with her gun… and didn’t gun them down as they ran.
Although I would have shot them both in the legs then cut off their right hands.
I probably would have gotten in trouble for that.
I am glad you two have managed to demonstrate your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of my points in the other thread somewhere else on this board.
The only parallels between this and the old man in the other thread are that they both had guns, they are both elderly, and they both involved burglars. Thats where the similarity stops.
The old lady was defending her own house from burglars. She did not shoot anyone. She did not disobey the instructions of a police dispatcher. She had no intent to use the weapon for anything besides SELF defense.
Do you want to debate with me whether or not there is a difference between an old man leaving his house to go gun down to men who had broken into his neighbors house after being told by the police to keep his ass where it was and an old woman who stayed in her house and ran two burglars off with her handgun?
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I am glad you two have managed to demonstrate your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of my points in the other thread somewhere else on this board.
The only parallels between this and the old man in the other thread are that they both had guns, they are both elderly, and they both involved burglars. Thats where the similarity stops.
The old lady was defending her own house from burglars. She did not shoot anyone. She did not disobey the instructions of a police dispatcher. She had no intent to use the weapon for anything besides SELF defense.
Do you want to debate with me whether or not there is a difference between an old man leaving his house to go gun down to men who had broken into his neighbors house after being told by the police to keep his ass where it was and an old woman who stayed in her house and ran two burglars off with her handgun?
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.[/quote]
A robbery is a robbery. If your neighbors are not home, take care of them.
If you feel like the fact a neighbors house is getting robbed creates a potential threat for you, legally take action to protect yourself. That is how the law works here. Criminals caught in the act forfeit rights and any assumptions of good will. Waiting for them to come in to his house, possibly armed, would make the old mans chances of survival and keeping his stuff much slimmer. So, instead of waiting to be fucked over, he prevented the criminals in the middle of a criminal act from committing any against him, which is self defense.
And nobody is coddling poodle nuts’ nuts. We just happen to agree that it’s ok to stand up for yourself, and your neighbors. I’m not going to argue with him on a point I can agree with.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I am glad you two have managed to demonstrate your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of my points in the other thread somewhere else on this board.
The only parallels between this and the old man in the other thread are that they both had guns, they are both elderly, and they both involved burglars. Thats where the similarity stops.
The old lady was defending her own house from burglars. She did not shoot anyone. She did not disobey the instructions of a police dispatcher. She had no intent to use the weapon for anything besides SELF defense.
Do you want to debate with me whether or not there is a difference between an old man leaving his house to go gun down to men who had broken into his neighbors house after being told by the police to keep his ass where it was and an old woman who stayed in her house and ran two burglars off with her handgun?
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.
A robbery is a robbery. If your neighbors are not home, take care of them.
If you feel like the fact a neighbors house is getting robbed creates a potential threat for you, legally take action to protect yourself. That is how the law works here. Criminals caught in the act forfeit rights and any assumptions of good will. Waiting for them to come in to his house, possibly armed, would make the old mans chances of survival and keeping his stuff much slimmer. So, instead of waiting to be fucked over, he prevented the criminals in the middle of a criminal act from committing any against him, which is self defense.
And nobody is coddling poodle nuts’ nuts. We just happen to agree that it’s ok to stand up for yourself, and your neighbors. I’m not going to argue with him on a point I can agree with.
Also, maybe you just make poor points. Funny how so many people have apparently no idea what you are trying to say.
[/quote]
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I am glad you two have managed to demonstrate your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of my points in the other thread somewhere else on this board.
The only parallels between this and the old man in the other thread are that they both had guns, they are both elderly, and they both involved burglars. Thats where the similarity stops.
The old lady was defending her own house from burglars. She did not shoot anyone. She did not disobey the instructions of a police dispatcher. She had no intent to use the weapon for anything besides SELF defense.
Do you want to debate with me whether or not there is a difference between an old man leaving his house to go gun down to men who had broken into his neighbors house after being told by the police to keep his ass where it was and an old woman who stayed in her house and ran two burglars off with her handgun?
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.
A robbery is a robbery. If your neighbors are not home, take care of them.
If you feel like the fact a neighbors house is getting robbed creates a potential threat for you, legally take action to protect yourself. That is how the law works here. Criminals caught in the act forfeit rights and any assumptions of good will. Waiting for them to come in to his house, possibly armed, would make the old mans chances of survival and keeping his stuff much slimmer. So, instead of waiting to be fucked over, he prevented the criminals in the middle of a criminal act from committing any against him, which is self defense.
And nobody is coddling poodle nuts’ nuts. We just happen to agree that it’s ok to stand up for yourself, and your neighbors. I’m not going to argue with him on a point I can agree with.
Also, maybe you just make poor points. Funny how so many people have apparently no idea what you are trying to say.
[/quote]
Funny that the two people having no idea what I am saying are from the same state, saying the same things, and are notorious for being self-righteous asshats on this message board.
Just because you are incapable of understanding something does not make it an invalid point. It makes you less intelligent than the person making the points, and it is not very difficult to draw the conclusion based on your posts in various threads around here.
Lethal force is a last resort, not an initial reaction. What was stopping that man from keeping the two men under citizens arrest? He was armed and they apparently were not. He did not try to stop them, he walked outside and killed them.
A gun is one of the few ways an elderly man or woman can stand up to a young thug intent on robbing and killing them.
It is the great equalizer and effectively levels the field which creates doubt in the mind of the criminal. You want the criminals to have doubt. Doubt creates fear and lowers crime rates.
The Police, I’m sure, would have arrived in minutes. The problem is when a criminal is at the door you need them in seconds.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.[/quote]
You used bigoted assumptions in a failed attempt at making a point.
It is not my bigotry, but yours.
Now you are bringing testicles into this?
Seems to me if you had a valid fucking argument, idiocy such as your personal attacks would not be needed.
Grow up, learn how to fucking debate, then maybe you won’t embarrass your parents like you have over the last couple of days.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Seems to me if you had a valid fucking argument, idiocy such as your personal attacks would not be needed.
Grow up, learn how to fucking debate, then maybe you won’t embarrass your parents like you have over the last couple of days.
[/quote]
Someone mentioned personal attacks…?
Come on now, weve already established that nothing is bad unless Rainjack doesnt like it.
It seems to me that if you had a valid “fucking” argument then you wouldnt be:
- playing the “I am older than you, you wouldnt understand” card
- playing the “I am from Texas, you wouldnt understand” card
- dodging nearly every point I make and excusing the ones that you do address as illogical
- reading my posts with the sole intent of finding something that you could possibly misconstrue into being negative. Its called ambushing, RJ, and its what people with poor communication skills do when they sense that they are losing an argument. Oh wait, nevermind. I learned that bit of information in a college class and we all know that shit you learn in college isnt knowledge because you didnt learn it from real world experience.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Come on now, weve already established that nothing is bad unless Rainjack doesnt like it.
It seems to me that if you had a valid “fucking” argument then you wouldnt be:
- playing the “I am older than you, you wouldnt understand” card
- playing the “I am from Texas, you wouldnt understand” card
- dodging nearly every point I make and excusing the ones that you do address as illogical
- reading my posts with the sole intent of finding something that you could possibly misconstrue into being negative. Its called ambushing, RJ, and its what people with poor communication skills do when they sense that they are losing an argument. Oh wait, nevermind. I learned that bit of information in a college class and we all know that shit you learn in college isnt knowledge because you didnt learn it from real world experience.[/quote]
I have a very valid argument - it is backed by Texas Law.
-
I asked if you were old enough to own property. You side with the thieves. Seems that you have no property worth defending.
-
This has been proven over and again with your denial of the fact that people going out of town will ask their neighbors to look after their property. Has nothing to do with me being right - just your utter ignorance of local customs.
-
Please list the “points” you have made beyond you being a bigot. I have not seen you make a single “point” worth addressing.
-
This is your idea of communication? I think you said more about your talent, or lack thereof, than I ever could.
But I am still waiting on why you think testicles are a part of this argument. I have stayed on point through out your racial bigotry, your personal attacks, and your preoccupation with the male genitalia.
Can you say as much?
You might want to work on your ability to write. At least learn how to avoid the double negative. It makes you look like an even bigger idiot.
[quote]SteinJorgen wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Seems to me if you had a valid fucking argument, idiocy such as your personal attacks would not be needed.
Grow up, learn how to fucking debate, then maybe you won’t embarrass your parents like you have over the last couple of days.
Someone mentioned personal attacks…?
[/quote]
Can you read? I am sure you can.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
texasguy2 wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I am glad you two have managed to demonstrate your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of my points in the other thread somewhere else on this board.
The only parallels between this and the old man in the other thread are that they both had guns, they are both elderly, and they both involved burglars. Thats where the similarity stops.
The old lady was defending her own house from burglars. She did not shoot anyone. She did not disobey the instructions of a police dispatcher. She had no intent to use the weapon for anything besides SELF defense.
Do you want to debate with me whether or not there is a difference between an old man leaving his house to go gun down to men who had broken into his neighbors house after being told by the police to keep his ass where it was and an old woman who stayed in her house and ran two burglars off with her handgun?
We already know that the two of you value your shit more than you do the lives of others, but please, keep your ignorance to yourself. Hell, Rainjack here assumes that if race is ever mentioned, that the person mentioning it must be a racist. Im glad you guys are all about coddling each others testicles now, it was getting old seeing your arguments pop up in every other thread on this board.
A robbery is a robbery. If your neighbors are not home, take care of them.
If you feel like the fact a neighbors house is getting robbed creates a potential threat for you, legally take action to protect yourself. That is how the law works here. Criminals caught in the act forfeit rights and any assumptions of good will. Waiting for them to come in to his house, possibly armed, would make the old mans chances of survival and keeping his stuff much slimmer. So, instead of waiting to be fucked over, he prevented the criminals in the middle of a criminal act from committing any against him, which is self defense.
And nobody is coddling poodle nuts’ nuts. We just happen to agree that it’s ok to stand up for yourself, and your neighbors. I’m not going to argue with him on a point I can agree with.
Also, maybe you just make poor points. Funny how so many people have apparently no idea what you are trying to say.
Funny that the two people having no idea what I am saying are from the same state, saying the same things, and are notorious for being self-righteous asshats on this message board.
Just because you are incapable of understanding something does not make it an invalid point. It makes you less intelligent than the person making the points, and it is not very difficult to draw the conclusion based on your posts in various threads around here.
Lethal force is a last resort, not an initial reaction. What was stopping that man from keeping the two men under citizens arrest? He was armed and they apparently were not. He did not try to stop them, he walked outside and killed them.
[/quote]
I hear your opinions and I disagree with them. You are parading around as if you are the only one who has the right answer. Who is self righteous? You are. Fuck face. And you are a pussy!
Your opinions suck. There is no misunderstanding about it.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Come on now, weve already established that nothing is bad unless Rainjack doesnt like it.
[/quote]
Hello pot? This is the kettle. You are black.
It just warms my cockles to see RJ and texasguy agree so much.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It just warms my cockles to see RJ and texasguy agree so much.[/quote]
Heh, heh, heh…Zap said cock.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Hello pot? This is the kettle. You are black. [/quote]
You are obviously a racist.
[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Fuck face.
[/quote]
Is that what you call the thing in your avatar?