Illegal pistol saves elderly couple and great-grandchild

Forums: Guns, Chicago
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536098/201006021837/A-Gun-For-Grandpa.aspx

Quote:

Second Amendment: Chicago is deciding whether to prosecute a great-grandfather and Korean War veteran under its handgun ban. He refused to be a victim, and now there's one less armed thug roaming the streets. What's the problem?

If the 80-year-old vet living on the city's West Side didn't have the gun the city said he shouldn't have, he and his 83-year-old wife and 12-year-old great-grandson might have joined those victims of gun violence about whom gun-control advocates constantly chirp.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,259 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@gungasnake,

The only problem was the one faced by the bad guy.

That was his LAST problem.

David

0 Replies

The predators just HATE IT,
when the victims fight back.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

What part of illegal don't you understand?

4 Replies

@ebrown p,

He won't be tried. And if by some miracle he is. He won't be convicted. I'll bet someone $100 right now

0 Replies

Its better to get tried by 12 men
than carried by 6.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

What part of illegal don't you understand?

The law was illegal, Mr. Brown.

It violated the Supreme Law of the Land.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

What part of illegal don't you understand?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't YOU understand? Or do you really just view the US constitution as a bunch of bullshit promulgated by a bunch of dead white guys??

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Its better to get tried by 12 men
than carried by 6.

Always, David?

I'm thinking that that sentiment doesn't fit in with your belief in the afterlife that people who have experienced near death experiences describe.

I've also been thinking about what 'life' in prison (as in a life term) is really like and really means.

But I'm glad these people were able to save themselves and their great-grandchild. Who the hell cares if it was 'legal' for them to do it the way they did?

That reminds me of a story that just happened over here- not with a gun, but with a knife. Knife crime is the big problem over here.

This eighteen year old boy walked in on this 52 year old man attacking his 40-something year old mother in her kitchen and the boy picked up a knife and killed the attacker. Unfortunately, he hadn't arrived soon enough to save his mother, as she later died as a result of her injuries sustained before her son had arrived to try to save her.

Can you believe that there was some question as to whether or not this boy would get charged for killing that man who was attacking (and ultimately killed) his mother in her own house? Fortunately, reason prevailed and he was released without charge. But I can't believe that there was even any question in the matter.
Can you imagine trying to save a loved on, ultimately failing and losing that person to violence and then facing possible imprisonment for using a weapon against the person who took the life of your loved one?
There's something seriously wrong there.

1 Reply

@aidan,

David wrote:

Its better to get tried by 12 men
than carried by 6.

aidan wrote:

Always, David?

I'm thinking that that sentiment doesn't fit in with your belief
in the afterlife that people who have experienced near death experiences describe.

Y not? How not?

aidan wrote:

I've also been thinking about what 'life' in prison (as in a life term)
is really like and really means.

But I'm glad these people were able to save themselves and their great-grandchild.

In South Bend, Ind., Tony D. Murray broke into a home occupied by Sue Gay,
an 80-year-old grandmother and her 11-year-old grandchild.
The intruder held a jagged box cutter to the grandmother's neck,
at which time the 11-year-old ran upstairs where he retrieved a .45 revolver.
The 11-year-old returned, pointed the gun at the intruder, and shot and killed him.

"The young man reasonably believed his grandmother and himself to be
in danger of dying," the South Bend police said.
"It was clear to us this was a justifiable homicide.
He did what he had to do."

aidan wrote:

Who the hell cares if it was 'legal' for them to do it the way they did?

Perverts; jurisprudential perverts.
Knowing that we share (or shared) the world with commies n nazis
and with people who believe that a 6 year old boy shoud live his life
in slavery merely because such was his dad's desire,
observation of ambient perversity does not surprise me.

aidan wrote:

That reminds me of a story that just happened over here- not with a gun, but with a knife. Knife crime is the big problem over here.

This eighteen year old boy walked in on this 52 year old man attacking his 40-something year old mother in her kitchen and the boy picked up a knife and killed the attacker. Unfortunately, he hadn't arrived soon enough to save his mother, as she later died as a result of her injuries sustained before her son had arrived to try to save her.

Can you believe that there was some question as to whether or not this boy would get charged for killing that man who was attacking (and ultimately killed) his mother in her own house? Fortunately, reason prevailed and he was released without charge. But I can't believe that there was even any question in the matter.
Can you imagine trying to save a loved on, ultimately failing and losing that person to violence and then facing possible imprisonment for using a weapon against the person who took the life of your loved one?
There's something seriously wrong there.

Yes; government represents evil instead of good; twisted around.
The people of England pay their taxes in support of evil.

In the face of that, a man still has to do what he has to do,
as this fellow DID, and let the law be damned. The law was outranked by decency.

David

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

What part of illegal don't you understand?

What part dont you understand?
The intruder used a gun.
The intruder used that gun to fire at the homeowner first.
The homeowner had a legal right and a moral duty to defend himself, his family, and his home.
And since the 2nd amendment gives people the right to keep and bare weapons, how do you even remotely think the homeowner was in the wrong?

Are you so anti-gun that you think a person does not have the right to defend themselves, or do you just think criminals should have more rights then homeowners.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
What part of illegal don't you understand?

What part dont you understand?
The intruder used a gun.
The intruder used that gun to fire at the homeowner first.
The homeowner had a legal right and a moral duty to defend himself, his family, and his home.
And since the 2nd amendment gives people the right to keep and bare weapons,
how do you even remotely think the homeowner was in the wrong?

Are you so anti-gun that you think a person does not have the right to defend themselves, or

do you just think criminals should have more rights then homeowners.

I think he wants to be politically correct, MM.

David

0 Replies

Illegal pistol saves elderly couple and great-grandchild

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know