HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » KY: 92 year old WWII Vet ...

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:11 PM

 

KY: 92 year old WWII Vet thwarts Home Invader

http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/news-northern-kentucky/Boone-County-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder/-/13608792/16463942/-/b33lt6z/-/index.html

VERONA, Ky. -
One man is dead and two more are behind bars after an attempted home invasion Monday morning.

Police said a man broke into the basement and entered the first floor of a Boone County home in the 15000 block of Violet Road in Verona just after 2 a.m.

The homeowner, Earl Jones, 92, was awakened by a noise in his basement and grabbed his .22 caliber rifle. When the intruder came through the door from the basement, Jones fired a shot, police said.

He immediately called his neighbor, who then called 911.


A .22? That's some pretty good shooting under stress. It also sounds like a one-shot stop to me. Pretty wild.

A 92 year old stands no chance against anyone in a stand up fight of any kind, even with a can of beans/soup in tow. 3 able-bodied young men broke into his home and he did what was necessary. The firearm is the equalizer for the physically weak. Gun controllers would have this honorable veteran at the mercy of the thugs that broke into his home. I'm sad that the intruder has perished, but I'm happy the homeowner lived through the experience unscathed.

What's more Progressive than giving power to the weak at the expense of the strong? In this case, firearms were a tool of equality.

38 replies, 4753 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply KY: 92 year old WWII Vet thwarts Home Invader (Original post)
rDigital Sep 2012 OP
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #1
gejohnston Sep 2012 #2
rDigital Sep 2012 #5
gejohnston Sep 2012 #8
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #9
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #10
Grave Grumbler Sep 2012 #3
ileus Sep 2012 #4
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #11
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #6
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #12
DWC Sep 2012 #7
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #13
Loudly Sep 2012 #14
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #15
Loudly Sep 2012 #16
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #18
Loudly Sep 2012 #22
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #23
Loudly Sep 2012 #24
Jenoch Sep 2012 #25
Loudly Sep 2012 #27
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #29
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #30
Jenoch Sep 2012 #32
beevul Sep 2012 #33
Loudly Sep 2012 #34
beevul Sep 2012 #35
Loudly Sep 2012 #36
beevul Sep 2012 #37
era veteran Sep 2012 #17
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #20
Loudly Sep 2012 #21
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #28
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #31
rDigital Sep 2012 #38
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #19
liberallibral Sep 2012 #26

Response to rDigital (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:20 PM

1. ...the moral is...

...Sam Colt made them equal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to discntnt_irny_srcsm (Reply #1)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:24 PM

2. depending on the rifle

more likely John Browning or Eugene Stoner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:51 PM

5. Maybe that Henry guy...

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:15 PM

8. I used to have a Marlin

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:18 PM

9. And in some parts...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:21 PM

10. BTW...

...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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to rDigital (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:50 PM

4. Saying "home invasion" is hateful...you've offended me.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:25 PM

11. There are two kinds...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:55 PM

6. There is a man

 

Who will not go quietly into that good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:26 PM

12. That man deserves an award.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 04:58 PM

7. "Never mess with an old person..."

 

We all know the rest of that saying

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

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DWC (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 05:26 PM

13. +1 :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Loudly (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 10:27 PM

15. It was already illegal for the killer to have a gun.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 3, 2012, 11:27 PM

16. I would be very pleased to choke manufacturing down to such workshop specimens.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #16)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:34 AM

18. Home-smithed weapons ...

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #18)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:37 PM

22. Two words:

 

Child pornography.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:41 PM

23. With very few exceptions ...

 

... 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:52 PM

24. Easier to produce and brought down with zero tolerance.

 

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

American society condemns one and treasures the other.

Unjustifiably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:48 PM

25. I believe you have a warped point of view about guns.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:19 AM

27. Confine your analysis to the disparate constitutional protection

 

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

And the latter actually causes great bodily harm and death!

Astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:53 AM

29. So ... just to be clear ...

 

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

Cause, I'm not OK with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:19 PM

30. I'm wondering how he proposes to convince 1/4 of all Americans that they are perverts...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:46 PM

32. Of course the use of guns

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 01:39 AM

33. As you've been repeatedly told, shares...

 

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 08:54 AM

34. A thing harmful in and of itself.

 

Like with like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 12:51 AM

35. Only in your biased mind.

 

"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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #35)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:39 AM

36. Proof that harm was done is not the reason CP is banned.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #36)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 01:10 PM

37. Your opinion is noted.

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 09:49 AM

17. Apples and oranges

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 12:00 PM

20. You see, here is a perfect example of why anecdotes don't work for the anti-gun crowd.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #20)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 10:35 PM

21. Not the point. The old sheriff was ambushed. I don't blame him for that.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:46 AM

28. I made my point, though.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loudly (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:21 PM

31. Do you plan to eliminate guns before or after you eliminate heroin and cannabis?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:45 PM

38. They think if they remove guns, violent crime will drop. Ignoring reality.... nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Mon Sep 10, 2012, 11:57 AM

19. How rude of him

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:09 AM

26. GOD BLESS THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!

 

Proud liberal gun owner here!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread