TexasCHLforum.com

http://godfatherpolitics.com/9423/robbe ... z2Kpmnsl00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There’s an alarming trend in Detroit that have some people worried. In the span of a week, two separate robberies were thwarted when the victims, who both had conceal carry permits and a gun, managed to defend themselves by shooting their attackers.

Some people in Detroit, including the one news person, are referring to the two incidences of self-defense as an alarming trend. Alarming for who?

Dear Lord, please don't let the law abiding citizens figure out it's OK to shoot the BGs. They might actually empty the prisons!

jmra wrote:

I agree it's a very alarming trend to thieves and other low lives. Sometimes we need a reminder not all low lives wear hoodies and practice their trade in dark alleys.

Yeah, some of them give speeches.

TexasGal wrote:Yeah, some of them give speeches.

It's an alarming trend to the anti-gun nuts because it shows that legally armed law abiding citizens can actually defend themselves with their legally carried guns. Kind of puts the lie to what bambam and his minions are saying.

jimlongley wrote:It's an alarming trend to the anti-gun nuts because it shows that legally armed law abiding citizens can actually defend themselves with their legally carried guns. Kind of puts the lie to what bambam and his minions are saying.

Where is the proposal that criminals should carry a liability insurance? $10,000,000 minimum coverage.

Beiruty wrote:

jimlongley wrote:It's an alarming trend to the anti-gun nuts because it shows that legally armed law abiding citizens can actually defend themselves with their legally carried guns. Kind of puts the lie to what bambam and his minions are saying.

Where is the proposal that criminals should carry a liability insurance? $10,000,000 minimum coverage.

They won't have to. The Government will just increase taxes so we can pay for that insurance for the robbers.

When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

philip964 wrote:When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

You have quite the grasp of the collectivist/progressive mindset. Are you fluent in liberalspeak?

Anygunanywhere

philip964 wrote:When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

I can honestly say that it is my intent to never wound anyone in my house.

jimlongley wrote:

philip964 wrote:When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

I can honestly say that it is my intent to never wound anyone in my house.

EASY what you say.... all forms of electronic communication is admissible..... :

you know.. thought police....

philip964 wrote:When you shoot a robber inside your house, you create a situation where either: the robber dies, so the state has the expense of burying the "victim", lots of paperwork for them, including investigations, grand juries; but mainly a human being is denied the opportunity to be rehabilitated and support the state. Or you wound the "victim" and the state through the new universal health insurance program will have to spend millions on lifesaving medical treatment and then physical therapy so that he can again regain his use of limbs etc, so that he can be rehabilitated and then support the state.

In either case by the use of a fire arm you have cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Obviously this is something they wish to limit, and so will attempt to make illegal, by banning firearms and making it illegal to injure a robber. This is the case now in England, welcome to your future under universal health care.

Sorry, but none of this is crossing my mind when my family and/or I are about to be killed by criminal scum.

baldeagle wrote:http://godfatherpolitics.com/9423/robbe ... z2Kpmnsl00

There’s an alarming trend in Detroit that have some people worried. In the span of a week, two separate robberies were thwarted when the victims, who both had conceal carry permits and a gun, managed to defend themselves by shooting their attackers.

Some people in Detroit, including the one news person, are referring to the two incidences of self-defense as an alarming trend. Alarming for who?

Dear Lord, please don't let the law abiding citizens figure out it's OK to shoot the BGs. They might actually empty the prisons!

I am sure the crooks are alarmed that their victims are not lying their like sheep. Word will get out.