My Wife Almost Shot Someone This Morning
-
Sure they would have. They were elected, remember? They didn't seize control against the will of The People.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
The USA has a fairly recent history of dictators controlling armed citizens.
I wouldn't call the Brady Campaign a bunch of dictators... The only thing keeping our government from controlling armed citizens is that if they tried, those very same armed citizens would probably rebel, and the government would have a real mess on its hands.
harold aptroot wrote:
And in more recent times, heavily armed syndicates corrupting public offices?
That's always been the case - everywhere.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright.. So what is the govt doing now, if not controlling you? Stealing your money and giving it to sick people? (aka 'a Health-care System') Telling you what you can't do? (laws?)
-
It is foolish to criticize people whose shoes you have not walked in. Violence from drug runners and other criminals is a serious danger in the US, particularly in the Southwest. Criminals are usually heavily armed, and don't hesitate to kill, much less lie about their "business".
-
So, you think it would've been just as easy to commit the Holocaust against a heavily armed citizenry?
-
Most of us get by every day without needing to mechanically enhance their manhood like you seem to.
Your prejudice is showing, as is your rudeness. FYI, I don't own a handgun, nor do I care to. I don't however, bash those who do feel their situation requires that for their safety. You should check your asshole quotient. It seems to have climbed recently.
-
So they would have had tanks? Hitler would have sustained more casualties, that's all. A bunch of people with guns is not an army. And most of them would probably have chosen to go with them and Maybe survive, rather than fight and die for sure.
Ok, so even with your assumptions of the behavior of those who have gone before us. What do you think the armed citizens of the US would do if faced with the same situation here? The only thing "going with" did back then, was make it easier for the Nazi's to dispose of the bodies.
-
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright.. So what is the govt doing now, if not controlling you? Stealing your money and giving it to sick people? (aka 'a Health-care System') Telling you what you can't do? (laws?)
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright.. Sounds like the American Revolution? I think you are vastly underestimating how trained and armed this country's citizens are. And I live in a Blue state where we can't even carry concealed firearms.
-
I think this is a "normal" story for US citizens, where it is so simple to buy and own guns... It seems to me that you're fanatical in expecting the worse from everything that happens. Also the way your wife handled the affair by going directly to the gun even before the poor guy stated his business is a sign of a different way of thinking between europeans and americans. I think it is sad to live in such a perpetual mistrust. Cheers
federico.strati wrote:
I think it is sad to live in such a perpetual mistrust.
Have you seen the statistics on rape crimes? Over 10% (might be much higher, depending on your location) will be raped in their lifetime. I don't know about you, but I don't like those odds. And that's just one category of crime. It may be sad, but it also seems prudent.
-
So she was expecting someone at 7 am, but 6:45 was suspicious. And what is a foreman supposed to look like, a businessman? He is going on your roof, in December. He even identified himself as the foreman, and was just 15 minutes early. Would a shady character from down the block break into the companies computers, check their schedule, find the first house of the day, then impersonate the foreman 15 minutes prior to the real foreman showing up to commit some crime? It seems like maybe she just needs an excuse to use the 9mm? Tip, if he starts asking about honeybees, fire at will.
wizardzz wrote:
So she was expecting someone at 7 am, but 6:45 was suspicious.
She wasn't *expecting* anyone to be there when she left. I already explained our experience with contractors - they've been less than reliable regarding promised appearances. We had no reason to think this experience would be any different. He essentially came out of nowhere, didn't identify himself until she asked him who he was, and was walking toward her out of the dark. His truck wasn't parked in view of the garage door, so she didn't know who this person could have been. I think she handled it just fine. There have been plenty of times when someone shows up to perform some sort of work, and after discovering that a woman is home alone, decides to take advantage of the situation. I gave my wife the knowledge, training, and equipment to defend herself because I can't always be there to do it for her. It's certainly not our fault that some people simply can't control their criminal urges.
wizardzz wrote:
It seems like maybe she just needs an excuse to use the 9mm?
How do you come up with that? She never even drew the pistol from her purse.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Ok, so even with your assumptions of the behavior of those who have gone before us. What do you think the armed citizens of the US would do if faced with the same situation here? The only thing "going with" did back then, was make it easier for the Nazi's to dispose of the bodies.
-
wizardzz wrote:
So she was expecting someone at 7 am, but 6:45 was suspicious.
She wasn't *expecting* anyone to be there when she left. I already explained our experience with contractors - they've been less than reliable regarding promised appearances. We had no reason to think this experience would be any different. He essentially came out of nowhere, didn't identify himself until she asked him who he was, and was walking toward her out of the dark. His truck wasn't parked in view of the garage door, so she didn't know who this person could have been. I think she handled it just fine. There have been plenty of times when someone shows up to perform some sort of work, and after discovering that a woman is home alone, decides to take advantage of the situation. I gave my wife the knowledge, training, and equipment to defend herself because I can't always be there to do it for her. It's certainly not our fault that some people simply can't control their criminal urges.
wizardzz wrote:
It seems like maybe she just needs an excuse to use the 9mm?
How do you come up with that? She never even drew the pistol from her purse.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001I completely agree with your second paragraph. As far as my cited sentence. You noted her safety was off, whether brandished or not, she clearly had the drop on the guy and to me turning the safety off is pretty much intent to use it. I will be honest, I speak from some experience, I had to see a family member face a murder trial for killing a robber he believed was armed. He truly acted in self defense, and it forced him to relocate, face death threats, etc. I am a gun ownership advocate, and she handled it well because nobody was injured, I just think she was possibly jumpy to pop the safety off, that's probably just a matter of opinion and difference in training.
-
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright.. So what is the govt doing now, if not controlling you? Stealing your money and giving it to sick people? (aka 'a Health-care System') Telling you what you can't do? (laws?)
harold aptroot wrote:
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright..
235 years ago, the British made the same wrong assumption... Just like in 1776, MANY of the citizens are ex-military, trained by the very government that is tryign to oppress them. The British assumed that many of thse citizens would remain loyal to The Crown, but as history shows, that wasn't the case. And just in case you think that the technological might wielded by the armed forces would over-power mere civilians with guns, look at the trouble they're having in the middle east as a prime example of what they'd be facing here, and then multiple that by about ten.
harold aptroot wrote:
So what is the govt doing now, if not controlling you? Stealing your money and giving it to sick people? (aka 'a Health-care System') Telling you what you can't do? (laws?)
Obama-care is unconstitutional, and the courts are just now gettign a hold of that. Problem solved. Well, the system is the system, and it's certainly flawed, but better than the alternatives. When enough people (or enough of the right people, depending on how you look at it) get tired of the status quo, things change - sometimes violently so.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright.. Sounds like the American Revolution? I think you are vastly underestimating how trained and armed this country's citizens are. And I live in a Blue state where we can't even carry concealed firearms.
And the American Revolution as an example of "The People fighting The Man" oh please. They were organized. Obviously not the work of a couple of armed citizens. How about the French revolution then? They won by sheer numbers, not trainedness or armedness. That wouldn't work anymore these days, due to the advance in weapons technology. And neither of these revolutions have anything to do with the Holocaust you mentioned somewhere else - a small subset of the population is of course much easier to fight than Everyone
-
Most of us get by every day without needing to mechanically enhance their manhood like you seem to.
You must live in Chicago. I hear that's the safest city in the country because they don't allow anyone to own a handgun.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Well you tell me - organize a resistance that is effective against the US Army, using a couple of handguns and a limited supply of ammunition, and sit out a 5-year siege with only the supplies from their houses?
The armed, freedom loving citizens are the same people you are proposing as an occupational force. BTW, I know many citizens with military grade AR's and sniper rifles. The irony is, this is in Obama's home city, one of the bluest of them all. This is getting irrelevant; by the internet standards the argument was lost when I brought up Nazis. Maybe you can start a new post in the anything goes forum.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Yea the army vs a couple of armed riots, that'll be messy alright..
235 years ago, the British made the same wrong assumption... Just like in 1776, MANY of the citizens are ex-military, trained by the very government that is tryign to oppress them. The British assumed that many of thse citizens would remain loyal to The Crown, but as history shows, that wasn't the case. And just in case you think that the technological might wielded by the armed forces would over-power mere civilians with guns, look at the trouble they're having in the middle east as a prime example of what they'd be facing here, and then multiple that by about ten.
harold aptroot wrote:
So what is the govt doing now, if not controlling you? Stealing your money and giving it to sick people? (aka 'a Health-care System') Telling you what you can't do? (laws?)
Obama-care is unconstitutional, and the courts are just now gettign a hold of that. Problem solved. Well, the system is the system, and it's certainly flawed, but better than the alternatives. When enough people (or enough of the right people, depending on how you look at it) get tired of the status quo, things change - sometimes violently so.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Your prejudice is showing, as is your rudeness. FYI, I don't own a handgun, nor do I care to. I don't however, bash those who do feel their situation requires that for their safety. You should check your asshole quotient. It seems to have climbed recently.
-
Joe Simes wrote:
He had a Dirty Harry gun. Not sure what that is but it was big and loud and he kept it under his bed at night.
Most guns are loud, and a lot are "big". That's so you can use it as a club if you run out of ammo.
Joe Simes wrote:
One night his 4 year old brother got up for a bathroom break. My friend who was a little drunk and not asleep yet almost shot his brother in the kitchen!!
He has a 4-year-old brother livinng in the same house, but he keeps his gun under his bed? Your friend wasn't anything more than stupid and dangerous. He had no business owning a gun if he wasn't ensuring it was inaccessible by a child. Further, owning a gun pretty much precludes one from the priviledge of being even "a little" drunk.
Joe Simes wrote:
Scary stuff.
In that situation, yes, very scary stuff.
Joe Simes wrote:
and hate the attitude on most of the fundamental Christian/ex-military folks I work with which is "Shoot first ask questions later."
Well, were not christians - fundamental or otherwise - and my wife isn't ex military, and I am ex-Navy ith very little exposure to small arms as a rsult of my service. In fact, until today, she only carried her pistol because *I* insisted that she did. After this morning, her attitude will most certainly have changed. And if someone is properly trained, the "shoot first" concept doesn't even cross their minds. IMHO she did it exactly right. Even though she was startled by the presence on an unknown person with undetermnined intentions, she kept her cool and everybody walked away without any extra holes they weren't born with. It's certainly your right to hate guns, and I applaud you for desire to avoid their use, but me and mine are a bit more pragmatic about the whole thing. We certainly don't want to have to shoot anyone - for any reason - but if it came down to it...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make -
Joe Simes wrote:
She said you would be horrified to know how many people are actually carrying handguns!
Horrified? Really? Since when should law-abiding citizens relinquish their right to self defense simply because it horrifies another citizen? I'm "horrified" that an American would think that their own illusion of discomfort overrides my rights. I have never ONCE heard of a gun owner insisting that everyone else must own a gun to make him/her feel more comfortable. EDIT ---------------- I would defend - to the death - my right to keep/bear arms, as well as your right to not have to. In fact, I've already done my time in defense of your rights - and mine. It would be pointless to give up the fight, and would diminish the efforts by others to make sure we still have rights to fight for.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001modified on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:45 PM
She was horrified by the actual people. All of our neighbors. Some folks that have a hard time working a garden hose are toting weapons around. That is the horrifying part, like I said in your other response I don't want to take anyone's rights away, I just want to make sure they are responsible enough to deal with a fire arm. You are not allowed to just purchase a car and drive without going through some fairly intensive training and practice. Why should you just have to fill out a slip of paper to get a permit to carry a lethal weapon?
-
No, but forcing people to purchase health insurance might be. I'm not saying it's "bad," "immoral," or "wrong." I'm saying it might be against the constitution for the government to force people to make a purchase. And if the SCOTUS agrees, then they'll just have to reword it to something like "Tax rate for everyone goes up by $X, but if you have health insurance, you get a $X tax credit." Same effect, but without the legal ambiguity. EDIT: It's just that little piece of the health care legislation that one judge found unconstitutional, not the whole thing.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)
