It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband

page: 2
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Despite what the Left would have you believe, the firearm is the great equalizer especially for the weak in our society: namely women and the elderly.

This story includes both.





edit on 9-5-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Granny did what was right. She got to see her children and grand-kids on another Mothers Day, and her husband will get to see them on Fathers Day.

Until the day she died my mother kept a double barrel shotgun in the closet, where the grand-kids couldn't get to, and a loaded .45 (1911) in a gun safe next to the bed. A liberal anti-gunner made the suggestion she was too old and didn't know how to use it. She took them and a few of her other little old lady friends out to the range. At 25' (9m) in bad lighting she had a 6" group of 8 shots. Most of her friends had about the same. Liberals left in a huff, range master gave them their money back and started a "old f@rts day" for seniors, it's still going. OK she and her friends were all Depression era and had grown up in the country, so maybe they were cheating a little.
edit on 9/5/2016 by LamontCranston because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LamontCranston
Funny how those types have no problem making decisions for other people. It seems to me, that mindset thinks nobody but them can think and live their lives without them telling the poor citizens how to act, think, live. In this instance, I am glad this brave woman was able to think for herself, assess the situation, and stand up for herself and her elderly husband before it was too late for both of them. I have no sympathy for criminal scum that prey upon the weak. Which, in my experience, seems unheard of in other circles. But then, the leaders of those circles have no problems surrounding themselves with armed guards for protection.

Funny that...........



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Have you ever thought the posters on ATS that shill for the anti-gun movement and rhetoric are the ones that break into houses to steal, rape and kill??? It's the only logical explanation, to me, that someone would decry anyone protecting life, limb and property.

Upon further thought, these shills have no feelings for life or property, only how they get their next high. I doubt they are true Americans. However, I do not wish them to go away...

Because they continue to impress upon myself the utmost importance of not only the second amendment to the constitution of the United States, but the Constitution as a whole while emphatically highlighting the Bill of Rights.

I guess I have come to the conclusion that "Shills have their place in a Free Society" to remind us of how bad it could really be...

Thank you, Shills!



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
She should get a medal and a bonus check from the state for all the money she saved them.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Good on Granny, allow me to join in on the pro-gun circle jerk before jealous Brits show up.

Ker-sploosh-a.


I should order some .223 ammo to celebrate.


Nothing in British law that would stop someone using lethal force in such an occasion, there may of been questions about why she's got a gun but handguns are still legal in the UK with the correct paperwork (think vets/farmers/pest control etc) but limited to two rounds for humane dispatch purposes and theres loads of shotties around.

Whatever happens carpet and quick lime mean zero need to call the cops anywhere in the world



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: NightFlight

Anti-gun folks aren't necessarily shills. They really believe that we should all live in a world without guns. The same type of people are anti-police using violence to get the job done, anti-spanking, etc. etc.

They dream of a 'civilized' world where nothing like this ever happens and we all hug and sing Kumbaya around a campfire.

The fact is: criminals will have guns regardless, so the rest of us should be able to defend ourselves
not everyone goes peacefully when police go to arrest them, sometimes violence is necessary
as long as you're not beating your kids, spanking can be an effective discipline tactic

Humans are animals, and will NEVER be 100% civilized. Sorry to break it to you.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
2nd ammendment ?

was she part of a militia ?


Do you know when the 2nd ammendment was written? It was written at a time where guns were vital to survival. 1791, when most people still hunted for their food, the country was much wilder than it is today (animal attacks likely) and arguably far more dangerous. Many lived in remote places. Guns were VITAL. For everyone. Not just the militia. So think about it critically; who do you think the ammendment actually refers to? The average Joe, who needed it to feed and protect his family in year 1791. That aside as others have mentioned, the wording implies the same.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Obviously this person would prefer that this great grandmother and her husband would have died instead of the criminal.

Because liberal dogma.


Okay guys I was just gonna lurk on this interesting thread (good for Barb!) here, but this remark requires rebuttal:

No, Metallicus... NOT. No one would prefer that she die. No one would prefer that drug-seeking intruders are allowed to intrude and physically assault homeowners. NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS!!!

Jesus H, you guys. Get over it. DEAL with the fact that NO ONE is coming for your guns, not today, or tomorrow, or next week, or next year. It's not even a possibility. It's not happening.

Y'all "Conservatives" made this sh!t up - no liberal is saying it. Okay? Got it?

NO LIBERAL IS CALLING FOR DISARMING THE PUBLIC! All they are saying is better enforcement of the rules, and more diligent screening of potentional buyers. What the hell is wrong with you that you just. don't. get. that.

Again - good for Barb Moles - (although, as Kanga said, a shocking and probably permanent 'new normal' for her began at that moment).

No liberal is going to come on tv and bitch about this.
So why are you bitching about what's not going to happen - ???
Oh yeah, conservative dogma.....



Cars and guns - they will never go away in the USA - at least not in any of our lifetimes.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ok, I can understand your position. However, I ask you, who decides and sets up this "more diligent screening of potentional buyers".

Answer me this:

  • What are the parameters of this screening process?
  • Who makes these decisions?
  • Is it a political decision, bipartisan, or based upon constitutional law?
  • Are they done behind closed doors by people that are already protected by men with firearms?
  • Does it include due process by the law, or is just based upon the suspicion of possibly someday committing a crime?
  • Is there a process in which you can have your right re-instated that is not so burdensome or expensive to make it impossible?
  • And the big question, IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?


See, all the means so far to infringe upon this right have never taken these fully into account as far as I know. Every time it has stomped upon one or more of these questions, or has been so veiled in the "you have to pass it to read it" mentality that is it rejected outright (and rightly so). Constitutionally protected rights SHOULD be difficult to infringe, they should be via due process via the law and reviewed by a judge. They should allow the ability to easily and inexpensively have it reinstated after BIPARTISAN judicial review.

Remember, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights does NOT grant these rights, it only protect them. It is an important distinction to understand before freely giving them away.



edit on 5/9/2016 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
2nd ammendment ?

was she part of a militia ?


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Note the comma after "militia". The founders wanted us to understand there was a clear difference between militia and citizens and that both had the right to bear arms. If they intended for just the militia to have firearms they wouldn't have broken the sentence with a comma. Your trying to gloss over the meaning by ignoring the punctuation.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustAnObservation

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
2nd ammendment ?

was she part of a militia ?


Do you know when the 2nd ammendment was written? It was written at a time where guns were vital to survival. 1791, when most people still hunted for their food, the country was much wilder than it is today (animal attacks likely) and arguably far more dangerous. Many lived in remote places. Guns were VITAL. For everyone. Not just the militia. So think about it critically; who do you think the ammendment actually refers to? The average Joe, who needed it to feed and protect his family in year 1791. That aside as others have mentioned, the wording implies the same.


Perhaps you are unaware that the events of 1775, in Lexington and Concord would have been quite different. Even though they were regulated militia (regulated = trained), they were citizens. And, at the time, Lexington, Concord, and all the towns to Cambridge were far from frontier. They were cities and towns, you know, civilized living. Yet, they still needed to be armed to protect themselves and their property from search and seizure (we call it breaking and entering today).

Citing the age of the document is irrelevant...even today. There are places in this country that are 100% worse crime waves than any town on the outskirts of society in the 18th century. In fact, in those places, they were needed to protect against marauding native Americans (let's not get into the debate over right/wrong on THAT issue here). So, it was more than just the need to feed yourself and family. The sooner you and other dispense with that fallacy, the sooner we can agree that they are still needed, as is the founding framing documents of this country.

And, if someone does feel so adamant that these documents are outdated, they were built to be repealed. Yes, there is a process for that which still exists today. But, many lack the fortitude or backing to go that route and be successful, so they attempt to pick away slowly over time.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa



I don't understand why you are pointing this out to me/arguing with me. I agree with you. I just didn't have time to write all the other countless reasons why guns are necessary as I am in class. But I do know of what you speak, and would have mentioned much more if I had time. I was also addressing a member who said only the militia has that right, since that is wrong; when it was written, it was vital for everyone, is my point. The date is very relevant in my response to them, as we were addressing the way the document was written and in order to do that you must take into account the time period and background of the writer.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Dude, here's the thing.

There will always be those who are suspicious of the "hidden agendas" of health professionals. It would be far easier for you to start squawking about "Mental Health is a Scam!" than it would be for you to actually think about what you are saying.

No one is trying to take your guns...so - why are you belaboring the issue?

Crazy people should not have guns. Do you disagree with that? If so, how??

That is the whole of the issue. Crazy person wants a gun? Too bad so sad. Crazy person doesn't get a gun through legal channels. It's already the everyday situation that crazy people do and can get guns outside the laws. Same as people are driving without insurance or licenses. Everyday. All day long. Criminals sell guns, and criminals buy guns.

No one is seriously trying to take your guns, and there is no sinister "plot" to round us all up, shove us in FEMA camps, and dispossess us of our lives. I know it's a popular CT, but - really - it's a loooonnng stretch from reality.


edit on 5/9/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Krakatoa

...
Crazy people should not have guns. Do you disagree with that? If so, how??

...

Tell me, who defines "crazy"?
What is the definition?
Is it fixed?
Can that accepted definition be changed?
If so, how easy is it to do?
Does it require due process or just some group of doctors and politicians making that decision?
Does being on some form of medication qualify as "crazy"?


Please do not make light of these items, they are very serious concerns for everyone.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Those are real issues.

It's a grey area being tossed around now. Like most rules today, it will be made to work for the rule makers as they see fit.

Will it be the truly ill or also those who are seen as so called threats to the system.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   
"Well regulated" means you can shoot straight, i.e.: You are competent. Like a "well regulated" clock tells accurate time. "Militia" meant every able-bodied man with a gun IN HIS HOUSE who was ready to answer the call of alarm. Of course, since this was a woman I guess maybe she doesn't count. In any event.

Go, Granny, go Granny, go, go, go!

Unless, of course, you think this druggies rights were violated because he didn't get a fair trial.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

In 1962 Jamaica had no gun control laws, it was legal to own and carry one. The murder rate was 3.9 per 100,000, the US rate was 4.6. Then confiscatory gun laws were passed. The murder rate in Jamaica is now at 45.1 per 100,000. The murder rate for the US is 4.7 for 2012, am I missing something here.

A Jamaican legislator admitted that the first steps had been to convince people that the laws were to reduce crime and murder, then confiscate all weapons. So please it can happen here. Clinton's own daughter was glorying in that now that Scaila was dead they could now get gun control enacted.

There are already laws in effect for background checks for criminal offenders and mental issues. But due to backlogs, privacy concerns, the legal system not following through on its own responsibilities, the system may not show up a problem.


edit on 9/5/2016 by LamontCranston because: Spelling

edit on 9/5/2016 by LamontCranston because: Damn hit edit before I entered anything. Hate that.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I am not making light of anything, Krakatoa.
I am, actually, a qualified professional who is taken seriously when I make a "diagnosis."

MSW - Clinical Social Worker - Specialist: Children & Families - Substance Abuse Counselor - Psychotherapist.

It would be people just like me who make those decisions. I'm not making "light" of it - I'm merely trying to fend off the attacks on Mental/Behavioral Health Professionals being 'quacks' and part of some grand 'conspiracy.' It simply isn't true.

I had the training. I own the reference manuals. I am just as qualified to assist with mental problems as your mechanic is to diagnose car trouble.

But see - I expect that you will have no regard for that at all.
That's why I responded the way I did.


edit on 5/9/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   


Cars and guns - they will never go away in the USA - at least not in any of our lifetimes.


They won't go away. They'll just become far too expensive for most citizens to own or license. Both are going that way now. By the time I'm in old man the only place i'll be seeing firearms or person-driven cars are in a museum or a movie.

What people don't seem to understand is, regulations, as far as i've seen, only go one way. Nobody ever says "Aww #, we went too far with that one", once you've given up something you used to have to the wolves you aren't getting it back.
edit on 9-5-2016 by Bundy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
56
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join