Georgia mom shoots home intruder five times

by Bonnie_Clyde 112 Replies latest jw friends

  • Glander

    From the TV coverage it looked like a very nice, upscale home. The man who broke in (peace be with him) appears to be a very unfortunate individual who had turned to desparate measures in order to live a decent life.

    It's too bad it has to come to this. All people have to do is be more sharing and unselfish with their material posessions.

    Being shot in the face with a .38 seems a cruel thing to do to someone who is in need.

  • david_10

    Alex keeps talking about tyranny from his own government - but he has no real plan to do anything about it other than keep spouting on about his right to own 50 guns 'just in case'. Those 50 guns are nothing if the military should arrive with sound blasters, fire throwers, stun grenades, drones - all this talk about fighting tyranny means nothing when there is no plan, no case, no real intelligent way to find a solution to it other than behind a gun which in itself can be lost to force in a heartbeat. That is not playing smart. sammieswife.

    That's exactly what I've always wondered about, Sammieswife. Mister Alex Jones, you can have all the guns you want, but how are they going to protect you from "government tyranny." Whatever that is. All you folks who think that owning guns is keeping the wicked government at bay, please give me a practical scenario as to how your guns are going to protect other words, what do you expect the government to do, and what are YOU going to do?

    It seems to me that Mr. Jones and his ilk are divorced from reality.

    Offhand, I can only think of a couple of incidents where, apparently, the "enthusiastic" gun owners decided to go up against the United States Government and they were going to teach the government thugs a lesson. Waco and Ruby Ridge. You can argue all you want about who was right and who was wrong, but the basic facts are pretty simple: a lot of people died and their guns didn't save them from the mean ol' government. Did the government lose? I don't think so. So I'll you ask again: give me a plausible scenario as to how the government is going to attack you and how your guns are going to save you.

    Just wondering.


  • sooner7nc

    Not shooting someone in the face with a .38 seems to be an awful cruel thing to do to your children if you're trying to protect them.

    Who are you asking David? I don't think that my guns are going to keep a tyranical Govt. at bay but they'll run circles around the crackhead down the street, especially with me on the trigger.

  • sooner7nc

    And as far as I'm concerned the person who breaks into someone elses home left his right to continue to breath at the doorstep or window that he broke into. Especially if me or my family are there when it happens.

  • EntirelyPossible

    Being shot in the face with a .38 seems a cruel thing to do to someone who is in need.

    Agreed. He needed a .45, apparently.

  • sooner7nc

    You got a point there EP.

  • piztjw

    My ex-wife went on a holier than thou rant some years ago when a self righteous CO said JW's could not own any firearms because people don't need to hunt to eat so firearms are only for killing people. I told her I would rather stand before God on Judgement Day for killing some SOB that was trying to rape, maim, or kill a member of my family than for standing there watching them do it while spouting scripture at them.

    This woman should have perhaps though had and used my favorite weapon...a Colt .45 model 1911 semi-auto. I'll bet the elder and elderettes would SAB (defecate a brick) if they knew I legally carry concealed at all times.

  • sooner7nc

    The 1911. The finest sidearm ever devised.

  • EntirelyPossible

    It works every time, all the time.

  • DesirousOfChange

    And how many of these things could be prevented simply by displaying a gun and threatening to shoot an attacker?

    BULLSHIT! If the situation is serious to point a weapon (intruder who breaks into home branishing a crowbar) it's serious enough to blow his away while you've got the "jump on him". Hesitate and he overpowers the woman and uses the gun on her. They all you gun-control wussys would be using is as an example why the woman should NOT have had the weapon because it was used against her.

    She got it right. Blow his @$$ away the minute she saw the white of his eyes. Ask questions later.


    Damn! Don't you hate it when the facts of a story like this just blow away your argument!

Share this