KY: 92 year old WWII Vet thwarts Home Invader

...Sam Colt made them equal.

more likely John Browning or Eugene Stoner?

I've got one of those lever action Henry H001's in .22LR. That's a reliable piece right there, rimfire or not.

until my mom sold it when I went in the Air Force. I was looking for a replacement lever action .30-30, my favorite rifle round. but am disappointed in the new Marlins. The Henrys are looking much better.

...for pistols, Bartolomeo Beretta. And for rifles I also like the Beretta BM-59.

...I always say, "Depend on the rifle, but bring a pistol as well. For that matter, bring a few friends with their rifles and pistols."

On the other hand one of those perps woke up on the wrong side of the dirt, and the other two are gonna face some hard time.

Good on a 92yo...and to think we used to have a poster that wanted all elders firearms removed.

...of folks from which guns may be confiscated, those who would object by shooting and those who wouldn't. It's a wise to consider that fact before proceeding.

Who will not go quietly into that good night.

We all know the rest of that saying

Sorry for the loss of life. Congratulations on a solid defense.

Semper Fi,

What good would making it double-illegal do?

BTW - Guns are quite easy to make, as is ammunition. Metallic cartridges are well over 150 years old. Not cutting edge engineering. Your frequently expressed idea of stopping all manufacture would fail. Illegal guns would be easily made. The Sten gun of WWII was designed to be made with the tools of a common bicycle shop of the times.

Sooo much better for everyone to have the supply brought down to that kind of trickle.

Why would you want modernly machined finely mass produced product to flow into commerce?

Exactly what antisocial interests do you represent anyway?

Think before you post.

... are typically automatic (since they are easier to make than semi-autos)

... have no mechanical safeties

... have no serial numbers and are therefore untraceable -- AND

... if they became the only available weapons they could quickly be mass-produced by enterprising machinists to fill any available demand.

Child pornography.

How does society respond when enterprising pornographers begin mass-producing that?

... I can't see how child pornography and firearms are related (except maybe in your mind).

For one thing -- the raw materials to produce them are entirely different.

They are related because they are both things which are dangerous in and of themselves.

American society condemns one and treasures the other.

Unjustifiably.

Child pornography of course has ZERO redeeming values. Guns, on the other hand, were used to successfully found the United States of America. Guns have a useful purpose, child pornography does not.

afforded these respective kinks under under the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

And the latter actually causes great bodily harm and death!

Astounding.

... are you arguing in favour of 1st Amendment protection for Child Pornography?

Cause, I'm not OK with that.

are able to cause great bodily harm and death. That does not mean they are not useful tools. Guns by themselves do not harm anyone. Child pornography simply because of its existence is harmful.

Human beings are inherently harmed by the simple making of child pornography.

That it exists, when it exists, is PROOF of that harm.



The same can not be said of guns.


Fail this time, just like every other time you've attempted to make the comparison, and regardless of which screen name you posted it under.

Like with like.

"A thing harmful in and of itself."

Child pornography, is PROOF that harm has been done. Its NOT that the thing is necessarily harmful in and of itself, it is that it CAN NOT exist without harm to someone, somewhere.




Guns on the other hand, CAN and DO exist, and to the great majority of them in America, no harm can be atributed. Their mere existence is NOT proof of harm to anyone, anywhere.





You'll note I added graphical representations of different types of fruit, to aid your comprehension.

It is the future harm presumed likely to occur from its continued existence.

Future potential harm.

A thing considered dangerous in and of itself.

Exactly like guns and ammunition.

But guns and ammo are unjustifiably regarded to be sacrosanct.

They have special status as springing from some imaginary "right."

What a sham. It's just political indulgence of that particular personal kink.

Your opinion is noted.

"It is the future harm presumed likely to occur from its continued existence."

There is little to no "future harm" resulting from CP. The real tangible harm has already been done.

Your differing opinion, while an ignorant one, is one that you're entitled to. I dunno that I'd be so proud of it that I'd be wearing it like a badge of honor, however...

"A thing considered dangerous in and of itself. Exactly like guns and ammunition."

Except that the facts are, that guns and ammunition are NOT harmful in and of themself. If they were, the roughly 300 million gunss in private hands in America would translate into FAR FAR more than the 30 thousand-ish gun deaths (including suicides) seen annually.

And yet, they just don't. So right there, we have quite a contrast between your opinion and reality.

"But guns and ammo are unjustifiably regarded to be sacrosanct."

I'd just bet that particular perception on your part, keeps you awake at night.

"They have special status as springing from some imaginary "right.""

Theres nothing imaginary about it. ALL rights belong to the people. The right you refer to, shares a layer of constitutional protection, however as one court united to rule - it does not depend on that instrument for its existence.

If it were not for guns at one point in this countrys history, you might not be here to run off at the spigot about them.

"What a sham. It's just political indulgence of that particular personal kink."

I think just about everyone here, is united in thinking that if theres a personal kink anywhere here to be noted, its the control freakishness, which shares many characteristics with the anti-abortion people,
the anti-porn crusaders, the temperence movement, and the drug war culture, which manifests itself in the written, spoken, and expressed attitudes of the self-appointed gun hating "for your own good" types.

P.S. next time, don't you think you could work in "bullets in their hides" somewhere, or maybe the "modernityshuffle"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=31605

Killed in ambush/drive-by
He could of put on body armor before he got his mail. His murder was not facilitated by his age.

The OP posts an anecdote that shows that old people can defend themselves with a firearm. It doesn't mean that every old person can do so, just that it's a possibility when you have a gun.

Then Loudly comes along and posts a counter-anecdote, as if a single example of a person failing to protect themselves with a firearm means no one should ever try or even be given the opportunity to try.

No one claims that having a firearm means you will always prevail during a burglary or assault. But people should have the choice whether to try or not.

The point is that the ex-con who shot him for no reason other than spite had access to a gun and ammunition.

Because of the sheer abundance of the product and our seemingly infinite public policy tolerance of it.

Also, I thought it was a poignant coincidence that both stories came from the same Kentucky county.

Inquiring minds want to know...

the criminals just wanted to express their right to remove his property and were being perfectly civil until he chose to escalate things.

Proud liberal gun owner here!!!