DescentBB

This could be your home:



The three thugs were armed and ready to kill as seen clearly in the video...luckily, the lady that was woken up at 3:44am had enough wits about her to grab her gun and fend them off.

who is disarming you, again? Don't you ever tire of that lame boogeyman?

I'd have to say I wouldn't have minded that lady next to me when I was in the Marines. She charged their position, firing the whole time. Amazingly brave. As to slicks comments...Hillary wants to take away your guns.

WTF! They just wanted her TV!

woodchip wrote:I'd have to say I wouldn't have minded that lady next to me when I was in the Marines. She charged their position, firing the whole time. Amazingly brave. As to slicks comments...Hillary wants to take away your guns.

prove the latter comment or be presumed a liar like usual.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/ ... rship.html

Although Clinton did not specify which opinion she disagreed with, she said, "the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, and I am going to make that case every chance I get

Speaking at a rally in Washington state on Saturday, Donald Trump announced: “Hillary Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment.” He was correct: she does, unequivocally and by her own admission.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/09/tru ... your-guns/

Last fall, Clinton declared that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” an obvious reference to D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own firearms.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -amendment

ideological bs, with zero to actually back up acquisition of so much as one weapon from any citizen without proveable mental health or violence issues.
Same old Obama Taking Our Guns ruse, with Obama replaced by Clinton. Someday, you saps will realize you've been played. I note recent figures stating that 3% of all gun owners own nearly 50% of all guns in the US. I think you'll run afoul of the 60% who own NO guns well before you will from Clinton, whose entire resume indicates that she won't commit to a legislative position until there is a substantial majority behind it. That was the lesson she learned in 1993, and she hasn't veered since. For good and bad(see Iraq vote)

Soooo which candidate wants to take people's guns away? Or is it only okay if you're taking guns from black people?

callmeslick wrote: whose entire resume indicates that she won't commit to a legislative position until there is a substantial majority behind it. That was the lesson she learned in 1993, and she hasn't veered since. For good and bad(see Iraq vote)

So in other words she won't ever get anything done and demonstrate zero leadership capabilities.

Top Gun wrote:Soooo which candidate wants to take people's guns away? Or is it only okay if you're taking guns from black people?

Dems were always good at keeping firearms out of black hands.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: whose entire resume indicates that she won't commit to a legislative position until there is a substantial majority behind it. That was the lesson she learned in 1993, and she hasn't veered since. For good and bad(see Iraq vote)

So in other words she won't ever get anything done and demonstrate zero leadership capabilities.

no, in other words, she operates as an elected official in a representative republic is supposed to conduct herself. Leadership isn't talking loudly, or rudely. Leadership is not about empty promises(the Wall, plus about 150 others). Leadership isn't about, "I'm the only one.....". In other words, you haven't the first clue about leadership in the real sense.

once again, Woody thinks the rest of us are so stupid as to not realize that the Democrats of 1960 lost a few folks to the modern GOP(and picked up more than a few appalled Republicans in the bargain).

callmeslick wrote:once again, Woody thinks the rest of us are so stupid as to not realize that the Democrats of 1960 lost a few folks to the modern GOP(and picked up more than a few appalled Republicans in the bargain).

Ah, that tired old saw. Yeah were good now because a few Southern Dems became Rep.

I was expecting a topic like this when I saw the video last night.

As shown, the gun did not prevent the crime from happening, but rather they ended it.

Even the report says they were there to take cash. But it seems some people here think cash == life.

Ferno wrote:Even the report says they were there to take cash. But it seems some people here think cash == life.

I don't give a f*** if they were in there for twinkies... You break into my home in an invasion, you die.

Aside from all of that, you could see the thugs all had guns drawn and ready to kill someone. Do you actually think they cared if they shot a child or a little old lady to death for a couple of bucks and an X-box?

Didn't think so.

I've had guns drawn on me. I'm still here.

Twinkies, cash, televisions... all these things can be replaced. Do you think their lives are worth less than replaceable objects?

Yes they are scum, no one's arguing that. They deserve to pay for their crimes when they are caught. But do you think you can live with the fact that you just shot and killed another person?

How the hell does anyone know "what they were there for" or what they would have done to get what they wanted.

Spidey wrote:How the hell does anyone know "what they were there for" or what they would have done to get what they wanted.

when the police interrogate them.

Oh and... when they say stuff like 'give us your ★■◆●ing television/money/drugs/silverware'

Spidey wrote:WTF! They just wanted her TV!

I have to say, I don't own a gun, but if someone broke into my place with the intent of stealing, say, my computer, I have several knives they can have instead.

MD-1118 wrote:

Spidey wrote:WTF! They just wanted her TV!

I have to say, I don't own a gun, but if someone broke into my place with the intent of stealing, say, my computer, I have several knives they can have instead.

"homeowner turns home invader into a kebab, story at 11"

Ferno obviously doesn’t remember the rash of senseless killings some years ago, where people were getting shot after giving up their possessions.

Spidey wrote:Ferno obviously doesn't remember the rash of senseless killings some years ago, where people were getting shot after giving up their possessions.

I do. but that does not negate the fact most home invaders bugger off after getting your possessions.

Most home burglars don’t carry guns either.

That is called armed robbery, a much more serious crime than simple burglary.

Your point?

If you take up arms to rob people…be prepared for what might come.

If you just want to steal cash, don’t take a gun, and enter the property when empty.

The point is…I don’t have any sympathy for armed robbers, yea…that's what the point is.

Here's a better video:



All three suspects were armed, she immediately has a gun pointed at her (possibly even being shot at, hard to see.) Very high risk situation. As soon she fires her first round they all run -- my favorite part is at second 18, the guy runs through the window in the living room.

Good for her. I'd have done the same thing in a heartbeat. The bastards were armed. But it does makes you wonder where all those stray bullets went that she fired out the door at the one fleeing burglar? I'd also like to know what brand of security system she has? Those are pretty good videos.