Gunning Granny Goes Out In A Blaze Of Glory In Gun Fight With Three Thugs

I have talked to at leastc15- 20 LEO in Florida this last year and asked their opinions on law abiding citizens being armed.

All basically said same thing, they perfer citizens are armed and the majority perfer open carry over conceal cary as it deters crime even more...

We will NOT go quietly into the night!

That's what I'm talking about! In the American states they encourage it.
The 2nd is null and void here in N.J.
 

Thomas Jefferson told all peaceful men to take there long guns
with them on there nightly walks.

Who am I to disagree with him.???
 

DnD:

Oh - you mean the time when the US Constitution was written?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Have you read The Art of War? Written a few thousand years ago - used by the US Military today...
 

DnD:

Oh - you mean the time when the US Constitution was written?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Have you read The Art of War? Written a few thousand years ago - used by the US Military today...

Just as dangerous now as then if not more so....

We will NOT go quietly into the night!
 

DnD:

Oh - you mean the time when the US Constitution was written?

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo

Have you read The Art of War? Written a few thousand years ago - used by the US Military today...

Yes...the time the Constitution was written....Africans were enslaved....Life expectancy was in the late 40s...

Things are different now....LIFE is different now..People are different now.

Sometimes "dated" philosophy ISNT that way to go....Just because it made sense 200 years ago, means Nothing today
 

No, this woman was killed for pulling a gun and being second best shot.

Interesting take. And you have people who agree with you.

Yes, that's what i'm saying. In this case, this type of situation the numbers don't lie. You are better off just cowering down (as you put it) and letting the thugs take what they are after. Your one and only job in this situation is to survive. Period! The statistics tell us our best chance of surviving is by offering no resistance. They do so by an overwhelming margin.

Now I understand from your use of the word cower and in your aggrandizement of the situation to one of national pride that your ego won't let you do that. You've confused doing the smart thing with cowardice. There is no answer for that other than law enforcement disagrees with your answer.

lastly, though you believe that giving up is cowardice, history is full of examples where doing just that was the smart move. it's called live to fight another day.
Giving up is a personal decision...nothing more. So is standing your ground. I see nothing wrong with giving in, though, in my mind, standing your ground is the correct thing to do for a couple of reasons. 1. If you live, you will have deterred a crime, and also maybe taught a lesson to the would-be criminal. 2. You have upheld your responsibility to society. If you give in, you encourage that criminal to do it again, to some other poor soul. In effect, you have maybe saved yourself, at the expense of others. Same thing goes with gun ownership. My guns protect me, and my friends and family. But, they also may protect people I've never met. On the other hand, the person who refuses to own guns, can protect no one...not even themselves...in tough times, they're a hindrance to survival.....just one more deadweight that responsible people have to worry about.
Jim
 

Yes...the time the Constitution was written....Africans were enslaved....Life expectancy was in the late 40s...

Things are different now....LIFE is different now..People are different now.

Sometimes "dated" philosophy ISNT that way to go....Just because it made sense 200 years ago, means Nothing today

The constitution was written by men who owned slaves
L.C.
 

Yes...the time the Constitution was written....Africans were enslaved....Life expectancy was in the late 40s...

Things are different now....LIFE is different now..People are different now.

Sometimes "dated" philosophy ISNT that way to go....Just because it made sense 200 years ago, means Nothing today

No where in Constitution is the word slave or slavery written until the 13th admendment.

We are a Constitutional Republic.... This country and our liberties guaranteed to us was founded on and based on our Constitution and it is just as valid now as 200 years ago.


We will NOT go quietly into the night!
 

No where in Constitution is the word slave or slavery written until the 13th admendment.

We are a Constitutional Republic.... This country and our liberties guaranteed to us was founded on and based on our Constitution and it is just as valid now as 200 years ago.


We will NOT go quietly into the night!

I wasnt referring to the Constition in particular, Just using it as a Reference for the time period.

And as much as i would love to have people care about or feel the way they did in the past, the majority could careless, which is the reason this country is the way it is
 

No where in Constitution is the word slave or slavery written until the 13th admendment.

We are a Constitutional Republic.... This country and our liberties guaranteed to us was founded on and based on our Constitution and it is just as valid now as 200 years ago.


We will NOT go quietly into the night!

There is no doubt that Benjamin Franklin owned slaves; his newspaper in the 1730s
often featured slaves for sale. Most black servants were slaves, fully owned property
of the master, while many white servants were indentured

George Washington, the first President of the United States, owned over 200 slaves for practically all of his life.

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877). The Civil War General.........:icon_scratch:


So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president. That would be while the constitution was written without any amendments.
 

Last edited:
George Washington owned more than 200 slaves
Thomas Jefferson owned more than 100 slaves
James Madison owned and sold slaves all his life
James Monroe owned 30-40 slaves
Andrew Jackson owned about 160 slaves
Martin Van Buren owned at least one slave
William Henry Harrison had several slaves
John Tyler had slaves
James K. Polk had 15 slaves
Zachary Taylor owned more than 100 slaves
Andrew Johnson owned 8 slaves
Ulysses S. Grant freed his slaves..........probably had something to do with his appointment by Lincoln.

13th amendment wasn't written until January 31, 1865 and enacted December 6, 1865
 

Last edited:
How is it you can speak for all Police Dept.? Are you in Law Enforcement?
I have see plenty of sheriffs Dept . In the American states that is not Jersey,
encouraging there citizens to be armed.

Pay attention - the comment wasn't directed at being armed - it was resisting during an armed robbery.

And, though i'm not law enforcement, my son is. He's a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida. Right now he's a helicopter pilot in his department's aviation unit. But among other things, he is also assigned to his department's version of a SWAT team, though they no longer call it that. He is also a Marksman who gets to qualify with all sorts of really cool weapons.

But you are right, i shouldn't speak for all law enforcement so I'll only say what the Florida Police Academy and his department say to do in an armed robbery: If you are off duty don't intervene. Intervention usually leads to escalation. Escalation to injury or death to innocent victims and bystanders.


My understanding is that officers are not barred from intervening but better have a damn good reason for doing so. Even in situations with a positive outcome, the officers are subjected to intense scrutiny during the investigation. And if it goes wrong? The professional price is usually officer's least concern.
 

There is no doubt that Benjamin Franklin owned slaves; his newspaper in the 1730s
often featured slaves for sale. Most black servants were slaves, fully owned property
of the master, while many white servants were indentured

George Washington, the first President of the United States, owned over 200 slaves for practically all of his life.

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877). The Civil War General.........:icon_scratch:


So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president. That would be while the constitution was written without any amendments.

What does this thread have to do with slaves?
 

I wasnt referring to the Constition in particular, Just using it as a Reference for the time period.

And as much as i would love to have people care about or feel the way they did in the past, the majority could careless, which is the reason this country is the way it is

I stand corrected, my apologies...

We will NOT go quietly into the night!
 

Pay attention - the comment wasn't directed at being armed - it was resisting during an armed robbery.

And, though i'm not law enforcement, my son is. He's a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida. Right now he's a helicopter pilot in his department's aviation unit. But among other things, he is also assigned to his department's version of a SWAT team, though they no longer call it that. He is also a Marksman who gets to qualify with all sorts of really cool weapons.

But you are right, i shouldn't speak for all law enforcement so I'll only say what the Florida Police Academy and his department say to do in an armed robbery: If you are off duty don't intervene. Intervention usually leads to escalation. Escalation to injury or death to innocent victims and bystanders.


My understanding is that officers are not barred from intervening but better have a damn good reason for doing so. Even in situations with a positive outcome, the officers are subjected to intense scrutiny during the investigation. And if it goes wrong? The professional price is usually officer's least concern.

So your saying police are instructed not to intervene, LOL even more reason for all citizens to be armed...

We will NOT go quietly into the night!
 

Treasure Hunter:

In 1789 we were a tiny nation huddled on the narrow shore of a hostile continent. We had recently defeated the most powerful nation on earth. A national that would invade us less than 25 years later and burn the White House. We are actively fighting those who came to America first - our longest war (not, as is so often written, Afghanistan).

Today the United States is the most powerful military power on earth. We enjoy domestic tranquility - for the most part.

We are far safer today than the folks who founded this wonderful country.

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
 

native floridian:

That's how Gen. Washington won the Revolution. I'm sure you've read "He never won a battle. He just won the war."

Good luck to all,

~ The Old Bookaroo
First you say you don't want to take everyone's guns, only the bad people's. Now you make a comment like this.. kinda makes it difficult to believe ANYTHING you post. Some of the anti gun folks have admitted that their ultimate goal is to eventually take them ALL. You make comments like this one.. Like the old saying about how to eat an elephant. One little bite at a time. So... is the ultimate objective to consume the entire elephant ? Of course it is. Is there a correlation ? I don't know but I have my suspicions... Your comments regarding gun control are extremely contradictory. Like the one right above this little box on post 79 as well as the one I quoted here. I suspect you're not being completely honest when you say you only want to take them from the bad guys but that's just my opinion based on what you post. How about it man.. I don't hide behind smoke when I state my feelings on the subject. Why don't you lay ALL your cards on the table..
 

Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top