TexasCHLforum.com

We can't have naked men going around trying to choke dogs. There should be a law.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 5447.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How's the dog...?

Max

"...The intruder was hit once but continued to put up a fight..."

The homeowner was probably using one of them sissy .22's or a .380. If he'd used a manly .45 or perhaps a 20mm, there wouldn't be no more fight left in him...naked or not.

Oldgringo wrote:"...The intruder was hit once but continued to put up a fight..."

The homeowner was probably using one of them sissy .22's or a .380. If he'd used a manly .45 or perhaps a 20mm, there wouldn't be no more fight left in him...naked or not.

Why stop there?

wonder if bath salts were involved?

There had to be some serious pharmaceuticals involved. That and some poor marksmanship.

Have y'all wondered how this might have played out if the culprit had been a naked woman?

Lets be careful where this one might drift folks.

Old Gringo,

... lucky dog...?

Sorry Longtooth, I had to. I'll shut up now...

Maxwell wrote:Old Gringo,

... lucky dog...?

Sorry Longtooth, I had to. I'll shut up now...

You're in trouble now, Maxwell. We can't have no innuendo....

Oldgringo wrote:"...The intruder was hit once but continued to put up a fight..."

The homeowner was probably using one of them sissy .22's or a .380. If he'd used a manly .45 or perhaps a 20mm, there wouldn't be no more fight left in him...naked or not.

The linked article makes no mention of the caliber used by the victim. It doesn't even state whether it was a handgun or long gun. It only says that the attacker was shot in the foot. The victims problem wasn't the caliber of choice, of which we are assuming wasn't a .45, but was his marksmanship. I don't remember seeing many range targets awarding 10 points for a hit to the foot. If you're jacked up enough to attack a rottweiller while naked, a shot to the foot with with any caliber handgun isn't going to accomplish much.

"The person was naked, on the front porch choking his dog," said police spokeswoman Napier Velazquez. "That's when the resident shot him in the foot."

daveboyd wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:"...The intruder was hit once but continued to put up a fight..."

The homeowner was probably using one of them sissy .22's or a .380. If he'd used a manly .45 or perhaps a 20mm, there wouldn't be no more fight left in him...naked or not.

The linked article makes no mention of the caliber used by the victim. It doesn't even state whether it was a handgun or long gun. It only says that the attacker was shot in the foot. The victims problem wasn't the caliber of choice, of which we are assuming wasn't a .45, but was his marksmanship. I don't remember seeing many range targets awarding 10 points for a hit to the foot. If you're jacked up enough to attack a rottweiller while naked, a shot to the foot with with any caliber handgun isn't going to accomplish much.

"The person was naked, on the front porch choking his dog," said police spokeswoman Napier Velazquez. "That's when the resident shot him in the foot."

Maybe the dog was in the middle and the foot was the only shot he had. Then again, maybe he was just a bad shot. On the other hand, he didn't shoot the dog by mistake.

My guess is that the naked perv was trying to find a window to peek into and found himself staring down the muzzle of a large canine. I can't fathom why someone would chose to get naked and wrestle with a such a large breed.

Too many innuenos... Just.. bite... my... toungue...

I can hear my mother's voice now: "Max! Just shut up already!"

JJVP wrote:We can't have naked men going around trying to choke dogs. There should be a law.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... 5447.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just keep wondering who sissied-out a rottweiler to the point that the guy was able to get it in a chokehold without losing limbs.