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.

 

home invasion thwarted by armed citizen.

page: 5
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail
If all these people mouthing off about shooting people had actually killed a man before, I don't think that they would be so sure of themselves...


I respect life. I have not killed a man and I never want to, but if someone is in my home and I feel threatened then I will do whatever it takes to do to get rid of that feeling, death to a robber or not. If I see a person in my house with no weapon and I have one, I highly doubt I'd shoot on first sight.

The point we all wish to make is to show that there is still that right if someone has the need to shoot someone in their house. After hearing many prosecutions of people doing their job or acting upon their rights being violated, this gives many of us a slight sense of happiness that another victim got hit by the PC/corrupt politicians/judges.

I am not sure if you have implied that you have killed someone or not, but if that is the case I do not see how you want us to experience such a feeling that many or none of us have experienced before so we may not be able to see where you are coming from.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by turbokid
 


Which makes you a particularily irresponsible gun-owner. A gun should be kept out of reach, and unloaded. You just proved you don't deserve to own a gun. Well done.


that makes about as much sense as having your spare tire at home whilst on a road trip..
if a tool is out of reach, its not a useful tool, correct?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail
reply to post by turbokid
 


Which makes you a particularily irresponsible gun-owner. A gun should be kept out of reach, and unloaded. You just proved you don't deserve to own a gun. Well done.


What makes the difference if it is in such a table or in the closet? Now if there are kids present, that is a totally different story.

A responsible gun owner is one that takes responsibility of the gun, and if he chooses to let it sit by his side what does it matter as long as it does not cause harm? I fail to see your centric point of view that if it does not follow your standards it is not correct.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


from what I was taught , the first person who calls the police in a domestic disturbance, man or woman, is usually the one not getting locked up



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Ask the man if he has kids then. Ironically, a responsible gun owner with children, which many would argue are what a man should protect the fiercest, cannot keep a gun in a place which would be directly accessible in case of a break-in. Even more ironically, those who feel the need to protect their familly by choosing to keep a loaded gun around their children (despite the most elemetary gun security) actually statistically put their children at more risk than if they did not own a gun. Also, may I stress that many types of guns, such as automatics or pump-action weapons respond badly to being "kept loaded", because this increases the risk of a jam, or even a backfire. I'm sure, as a responsible gun-owner, you know this.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Good to know the home-owner wasn't injured. I want to know if the suspect didn't kick in the door but rather got into the house quietly would the police still see the owner as having the right to shoot the suspect? Or does the suspect have to be aggressive in order to be shot?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 
Ismail, it is because there are people like you, that the 2nd amendment was written into the law. It was argued that all rights not specifically given to the government in the Constitution, are valid rights held by the People, so it was unneccessary. Others wanted to amend because they considered those rights so overwhelmingly important, that the government might, in the future (like, now) try to seize those rights of the people. So now we have the right to have guns, to protect us from people who want to force us to do their will. But, with large caliber modern weapons of war 'regulated and infringed', we can not really stand up to the current military. It takes a little under .50 caliber to go thru a flac jacket, or to seize an engine block. By regulating what we can 'hunt' with, they have already effectively disarmed most of us. Not to mention their insistence on knowing who to take the guns away from.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LeTan
 


There was a victim.

Theres always a victim so either way someone gets hurt bad or good, but im pro guns.

Either way "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." -Ghandi

[edit on 26-1-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Yeah there's a general "rule of thumb"
If you shoot a guy .. Make sure and drag him home and lay him on the floor in your house .. Kick your door in then call cops...

Works every time
lol



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Niice story thats why im taking my C&C license this week so i can carry my pistol everywhere i go. In this world there are ALOT of crazy people running around and i rather be caught with one then without. Anyone tried to come around my way and invade mt privacy and what not ill be ready with my Dual sigs.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 


And what do you want these people to do, stand around and wait to see what the intruder is going to do? I don`t think so. When a person makes a choice to go into someone elses home to steal things, they are well aware they are putting their life in the balance, and could be shot for it. When it comes to the safety of ones family, then intruder beware.

You talk like you know what the intruders intentions were. Who is to say it`s just to grab TVs or other belongings, and who wants to wait and find out? I wouldn`t put my family at risk like that, not in a heart beat.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rangersdad

Uh, how did they come up with that number? I went to the site but couldnt find the evidence.


If you scroll down 1/4 inch


According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.


So a little math a survey from FSU.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 



Ismail,
You have a serious problem with your posts. Yet ironically many of the pro gun people on this thread do not see it for what it is.

Here with this quote from page 1..


Well I do find it kind of weird how some americans think it's ok to kill a guy for trying to steal their TV... It's kind of frightening because it shows how much some of you value life. (I.E. less that a TV, whats that, 100 $ for a good one ? )


Here is the problem and the nature of the problem you are not wont to describe or factor in. By your very post quoted above ..you obviously do not take the lives of the people having the property stolen or robbed as valuable.

I say this because you do not take into consideration what RISKS these people take in earning this property being stolen. Many of us in America work in dangerous occupations and take serious risks for our moneys and hence by this the properties purchased with our moneys. By your very narrow slanting of the value of life..you totally ignore the value of the persons life who earned the property and by default attempt to have these people earning this property over and over and over ad nauseum. All this to put ointment on your sentiments..while ignoring the RISKS of others in earning said properties. It is you Ismail who do not value the lives of people.

Farming is a very dangerous occupation though many of us do not know this...it is indeed very dangerous. Clerking at a convenience store is dangerous in many communities. I am in shipbuilding. Nursing is dangerous..they haven't a clue as to what many patients have until properly diagnosed and they are around some of theses peoples for days before they know. Handling sharps..or needles and such ...you don't once again know what some of these people have in sickness and disease.
Truck drivers, Firemen, Police. Working on a flight line..on a deck of an aircraft carrier..extremely dangerous.

My point is ..do not diminish the RISKS many of us take to earn our moneys and properties. When you do this ..even for a television set....you cheapen our lives as not valuable. We do not look for a career purchasing 5 or 6 television sets at great RISKS to keep ointment on the sentiments of peoples with your point of view..nor the point of view of the criminal element.

Thinking peoples know this Ismail. Emoting people do not.

One other thing for the readers..here. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting at all. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Do not be misled into debating hunting arguments in defense of the 2nd Amendment. This is a straw man argument..a placebo to get one off the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Do not misunderstand me here. I am not against hunting or shooting sports. I am all for it. These things require discipline. I am all for discipline and education. Hunting is an olde American Tradition. I have no problems with this.
Just don't let anyone mislead you about hunting being the purposes of the 2nd Amendment. Remember this when someone brings up Hunting and the 2nd Amendment. I've seen many of our leaders use this very point in attempting to put limits on the 2nd Amendment.
Beware!!

Thanks to all for thier posts,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I think the FSU survey is boasted by some.

I think it's shameful and leads me to believe there is a serious breakdown in society.

Is anyone proud of the FSU figures?

Like a bullet fired, what is it, every 13 seconds? - in the name of defence?

Man, you got problems.

[edit on 26/1/2009 by Thistled]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Orangetom, yes you are right, your entire statement.

It applies to everyone in the UK as well - WE ALL DO DANGEROUS JOBS!
Except we DON'T DO GUNS TO PROTECT OUR TREASURES, and we get along just fine.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to Beauty, that was from a Florida University.
A Gatorpost by thisguyrighthere

 



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Liked what you had to say and I would like to add this.
When an AMERICAN felon breaks into my home, I want to be to be in a state of complete readiness, I know that if this person is willing to break into my HOME, when I and or my loves are there, they don't stand a chance against a doped up, temporary, "superman". I want that person to stop breathing on my floor so their chance of doing it to another family is gone.
And they do repeat.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Thistled
 


Thistle,
Indeed ..many of us do dangerous jobs.

Here in America we have the right not to own guns as well. We do not look down on those who do not choose to own guns. No problem with me.
If someone chooses not to own a gun..bon appetit.

I also do not look down on a person who chooses to own a firearm.

We also have a basic fundamental right here to own firearms...and not for the purposes of hunting.

It is written in our laws...for Thistled...we do not have here the law of the Sovereign. We do not go around asking permission for certain things. We are not Subjects. This is an important American principle. It makes us very different from the peoples of most nations. We are not at all interested in the law of the Sovereign. Nor Admiralty Maritime law ..the law of the Sovereign ..encroaching from the sea to the land.
WE do not go around saying..."Yes Governor Yes Governor or by your Leave Lord."

WE do not want to be like the rest of the world or think that the values and thinking of the rest of the world is that great.

The UK is undergoing significant problems because of their social platforms which have taken deep root in the last 20-30 years. They are beginning to bear fruit. This is being kept out of the news and information outlets here in America.

Most Americans haven't a clue as to what happened to that Englishman, Tony Martin. They should watch this video...this is coming here to America when it can be privily sneaked past most sleeping Americans just like it was sneaked past the Brits.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The folks on this thread should watch all these videos...you will not see or hear about this through most of what passes for the media in America.

The Washington DC, Supreme Court decision was very telling last year. I am asking myself how the leaders both in the federal government and the local government are going to sneak around this one. I am sure they will do it ..just a matter of how. I am sure they are already planning it.


Thanks to all for their posts.
Orangetom



[edit on 26-1-2009 by orangetom1999]




top topics



 
46
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join