moonbattery logo

Dec 31 2012

Two Options for Home Invasions

So long as the Second Amendment survives the liberal onslaught, women home alone when their houses are invaded have two options. They can rely on the authorities and hope for the best:

…or they can rely on themselves:

If “feminist” liberals gave a flying damn about women, they would want them to be able to defend themselves. But their only genuine objective is to increase their power at the expense of individual liberty.

On a tip from Ghost of FA Hayek.

23 Responses to “Two Options for Home Invasions”

  1. Grunt says:

    Amen…the second video was the better of the two, by far–a scumbag is out of the count. I’m glad the woman from the first video survived her attack,but to bad the perp who accosted her did, as well.

    I’m so sick of hearing about these cretins getting off on technicalities, or being repeat offenders…the system only worked when judiciously applied by judicious minds…not minds that look only for re-election and tenured positions.

    Happy New year, everyone.

  2. Bloodless Coup says:

    Russians Warn US Citizens DO NOT Give Up Your Guns!

  3. Whom says:

    Absolutely disgusting and horrifying. My gf has a PLR-16 with a flashlight and laser and a full 30 rd mag to defend herself with when I’m not around.

    I can’t quite come up with the right words to describe my level of disgust with the “Progressives” like Feinstein, Obama, et al.. They are beyond evil.

  4. Henry says:

    “Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.”
    – L. Neil Smith

  5. Whom says:

    ..I realize there are other options, but a great choice IMO for max firepower in a small, light reliable package:

    Personally I wouldn’t want anything less available for the females in my family to defend themselves with.

    I’m very sorry to hear the trauma these poor women went through. It makes me furious.

  6. Steve says:

    FULL VIDEO of the New Year’s Eve Massive Fireworks display from Sydney, Australia:

  7. IslandLifer says:

    “Now ma’m don’t do anything rash”. FU!! If someone breaks in to a home the hammer comes down on the pin. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you want. Intruders are met with hot lead especially if its a woman home alone. Now me on the other hand I’d probably have a little fun with him…and then introduce him to my dobermans.

  8. Alphamail says:

    Yep…..all intruders are dogfood!

  9. facebkwallflower says:

    IslandLifer — Yeah, If the “Now ma’m don’t do anything rash,” had not been said/coached advised, the many would have had bullets in him when that knob began to turn. The dispatcher knows it is a nut and the caller would be ‘rash’ to shoot if he only came to invade the house thinking she was not home. How pathetic.

  10. Laurie says:

    The “gun control” crap won’t stop until all politicians who voted for it are held criminally liable for anything that happens to a helpless innocent citizen.

    The day a politician is put to death due to the shooting of an unarmed citizen by some scumbag is the day every law-abiding citizen will be required to own a firearm.

  11. Jester says:

    A long time ago I read an article in a newspaper from the 1800s that I wish I still had. It stated an opinion that although firearms are used by men, they are essentially women’s weapons. I agree. No offense, ladies, but most women simply do not possess the upper-body strength needed to wield the average sword, spear, axe, etc. Nor are most women inclined to put in the time and practice associated with the mastery of such bloody weapons. Firearms circumvent both problems. Arm yourselves, lovelies; the time is now!

  12. Comrade Kool-Aid says:

    Comrade Chairman Hussein will smote the home invaders with his magic scepter! Guns are not needed in a glorious unicorns and rainbows utopia.

  13. True Blue says:

    There has never been a school shooting in Switzerland; even though every male citizen -EVERY ONE- owns a gun.

    Those 911 calls were very difficult to listen to.

    This year for Christmas, I asked my mother to get me something very special. I asked her to go get a CCW and a gun for her own defense; I told her that was all I wanted this year -for her to be safe.
    She almost cried over the phone.
    Listening to those women on the 911 calls, I almost did.
    Republican War on Women… like hell; Feinstein can rot in hell with her armed SS guards -my mother doesn’t have that option, and deserves every chance to protect herself.

  14. lshep-tx says:

    There’s nothing more sexy than a free feminine woman able to defend herself.

  15. Spider says:

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…

    God helps those who help themselves…

  16. TonyD95B says:

    I’ve told this story before, and it bears repeating.

    I had a friend that carried a .25 Baby Browning in her purse. She was widowed and had been given the pistol by her late husband. She carried it illegally in her purse back and forth the PA / DE border every workday.

    One summer night she came home from work and left the double front doors open to let the hose air out. Shortly after, a lowlife slimy predator that had been watching from a parking lot nearby broke through one of the locked screen doors and announced his intentions of “doing things” to her……to which she did not consent or agree.

    She held the bum for police using the .25 in one hand and dialing the phone with the other. One of the PA State Troopers that responded said he had to push her hand with the gun towards the floor carefully remove it – she would not let go.

    Four points:

    1) IN MOST CASES when a firearm is used for self-defense, NO ONE gets hurt, including the lowlife scumbag would-be rapist POS in this case. The irony of this is that it often does not show up in the statistics, and the hoplophobic gun-grabber Chuck Schumer types conveniently ignore this important fact.

    2) A commitment to personal safety and the willingness to act are important. Situational awareness and locked doors didn’t get it done; the gun was used along with 911, and she stayed clear-headed enough that NOBODY got hurt. Afterward she said she would have shot him had he made a move towards her.

    3) A lot of so-called “experts” like to lecture us about “having enough gun” and carrying the latest whiz-bang “tactical wonder-.40” in this-or-that state and/or in such-and-such a manner. They’ll go on and on about “Black Talons” and “wound ballistics” etc.

    Yes, if you actually have to SHOOT someone, all that could be important. The missus carries a .357 revolver, and I like my traditional old-school Colt Commander LW; still, there are times when I carry a Walther-clone .380 or even a Jennings .22 – and at home there is nothing as intimidating as the sound of a racking Mossberg 590 or pistol-grip 500A

    My point is, the gun that matters is the one you actually HAVE when you need it…..and, please review Point 1

    4) I don’t condone illegal behavior – as responsible gun owners (especially in the current environment) we need to stay “Clean as Kleenex” and she WAS breaking the law. In this case that was moot, since the incident happened in her own home. She had made the judgement that sher’d rather take her chances carrying than take her chances with the riffraff in the world, and her decision was the right one. If you doubt this, check my earlier post about the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Texas. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp would agree, and sometimes “the law” has nothing to do with “right and wrong”. As our Liberal pals say, “Dissent Is Patriotic!”

  17. TonyD95B says:

    “House” not “hose”, you freakin’ Grammar “Hos”!!! Hahahahaha.

  18. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    PA has adopted the Castle Doctrine.
    If I am reading this correctly
    your friend would have had the right to let that predator have it the moment he breached the screen door
    Her decision not to use deadly force at that moment turned out OK for her, but it was no more a “right” decision than pulling the trigger.
    There are two reasons for these laws written to the advantage of the potential victim.
    First is to allow the widest window in which for her to defend herself while she still could.
    And second, to provide a deterrent to the would be criminal beforehand.
    I hope she has since spent some time self evaluating whether she is even ABLE to pull that trigger.
    Otherwise the deterrent factor is lost and the gun can easily become a liability.
    Please don’t assume that I am in any way attacking her for her decisions made under extreme duress.
    Also, she does have a right to carry that gun with her.
    The Constitution says so.
    It’s just that the politicians make her personal safety illegal
    Here is another 911 call, this time from a mother asking permission to shoot an incoming dirtbag.
    I suspect that she was really just ironing out the kinks in her mind because she eventually reacted at the FIRST possible opportunity…..with NO hesitation
    Of course moonbats are outraged she did not give the criminal any “more chances”

    there are more innocent lives lost than saved by guns. So the argument is pretty much invalid, yes she wouldve probably lost her life. But she still doesnt represent whole america. Gun permissions should be very restricted
    Are you kidding in this case it was not justified are you nuts the guy had a knife and he was breaking into the house
    There’s a very real chance they didn’t realise the house was occupied by anyone, let alone a mother with a baby. Mother or not, the decision to take a life should only be made when it’s the last resort; in this case, it was not.
    Poor judgement on the mother’s part, The intruders would likely have been detered by the guns, and murder could have been avoided. It is a bad situation, what with the baby and all. But intruders should NOT be killed without question

  19. TonyD95B says:

    RE: Ghost of FA Hayek says at January 1, 2013 at 11:02 am:

    FA points out thar, “PA has adopted the Castle Doctrine.”

    Well, that’s nice – didn’t apply at the time.

    FA Goes on to say, “your friend would have had the right to let that predator have it the moment he breached the screen door
    Her decision not to use deadly force at that moment turned out OK for her, but it was no more a “right” decision than pulling the trigger.”

    Don’t take this too personally, FA, because most of it is not directed at you. In light of the fact that her twentysomething career-girl boarder (who had lived in the guest house) had been raped and nearly killed a couple of years earlier right next door, I think she showed ENORMOUS restraint.

    She was as prepared and willing to use that pistol as I am……at the same time, I don’t give a flying f#ck what the God-D#mned “Castle Doctrine” says, if you shoot someone you do not have to, under any circumstanses, you are WRONG. This is not about the laws of man, and there’s more than one Judge we’ll need to answer to. Any know-it-all jacka##es that want to “debate” that are full of s#it. Killing someone is simply not a good or desireable thing, and as a more practical matter, you do not want the lawsuit that is sure to follow.

    BTW, I support capital punishment with due process, and served my country. It doesn’t mean I have a’moral blind spot”, or that I’m ‘not mentally prepared’, or that I ‘shouldn’t carry because I lack conviction’, or “don’t have the survivors / combat mindset’. BULLS#IT. You have no idea. Frankly, I’m tired of all that gun-store cowboy talk from people that have no idea what they’re saying.

    Plus, if the crook wants to run right back out the door he came in through, it’s a lot less clean-up and drywall repair as compared to using the M590.

    With regard to FA’s statement that, “Also, she does have a right to carry that gun with her. The Constitution says so. It’s just that the politicians make her personal safety illegal”

    My point exactly. Some things that the State of Delaware and the State of Pennsylvania decides are “illegal” are not necessarily “wrong”.

    At one time I used to cross the PA/DE border SIX TIMES* each way when commuting to work. Funny how that line on a map made me go back and forth from Good Citizen to Armed and Dangerous Criminal just while going to and from the office.

    *For those that doubt – Old Kennett Road Detour, Route 52, Smith Bridge Road, Creek Road, Beaver Dam Road, then Beaver Valley Road…….all along the PA/DE “arc”. In the space of five miles, SIX crossings.

  20. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    She was as prepared and willing to use that pistol as I am……at the same time, I don’t give a flying f#ck what the God-D#mned “Castle Doctrine” says, if you shoot someone you do not have to, under any circumstanses, you are WRONG

    Keep in mind that many of these cases involve Psycho X’s who will likely keep coming back over and over…….until he does not “need” to anymore.
    And I do agree that any resulting death would be bad, however this burden should be totally placed on the perp even BEFORE he puts his crowbar to the screen door of the hysterically frightened woman .
    The zombie is not burdened by any “law” as he lunges at his victim, so neither should the victim be burdened by reviewing state and federal statutes at that last split second.
    Even if she decides to take two, three, or fifty extra shots, she should enjoy the very highest presumption of innocence and prosecutors a high burden of proof.
    The fact that prosecutors are now playing hot potato with this case
    Suggests that there is more (or less) to this case than the media propagandists are letting on.
    But what would also be horrible is to see stupid laws fashioned by dumb libs cause even the slightest hesitation, resulting in the loss of one innocent life.
    It would be better to instead conduct massive deportations of libs to their (disarmed) Communist paradises first.

    Do I take any of this personally ?
    Naw, I actually enjoy thought provoking discussion.

  21. AC says:

    Tony, can you give us a foolproof method for determining which forcible felons need to be shot and which ones pose no threat?

    If your method is wrong 1 percent of the time that means innocent life will still be lost to hesitation.

  22. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    I think I understand where Tony is coming from
    I would compare it to the Cowboy out there in the middle of the range, with his trusty 30/06 and his best Angus herd bull barreling down on him with his tail raised, and snot flyin.
    He purposefully waits with his gun sights trained in till the last possible second out of fear,
    but only a fear of loosing all the money he has tied up in that critter.
    Finally it dawns on him that he really would rather not have his carcass turned to the consistency of Jell-O

    But in this case, the human Zombie breeder in question has NO monetary value whatsoever.

  23. […] THE audios at the link. If “feminist” liberals gave a flying damn about women, they would want them to be able […]

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy