More like glorifying the deaths of two murderous sub-human animals that got what they had coming to them.....but as I said in our PM conversation, good day and farewell.

Shooting in Butte , Montana
Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien Home Invaders:

Butte, Montana November 5, 2007

Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.

It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins, she is still alive.

Now that is Gun Control !



Thought for the day:



Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

No running from anything. Never felt the need to run from anything with or without a handgun. I'm just refusing to deal with morons.

I missed part of this little gem. In case you've never picked up a Bible or a history book, people HAVE BEEN killing each other forever. In case you missed it, I said that people are to blame for killing each other. With a gun, a club, a knife, a rock, or with their bare hands, PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT KILL EACH OTHER. A GUN IS JUST A TOOL THAT IS USED TO CARRY IT OUT. JUST LIKE A KNIFE, JUST LIKE CLUB OR A ROCK, IT'S STILL PERSON ON PERSON NO MATTER WHAT TOOL THEY USE.


Bold, italics, and underlined might drive it home. I doubt it, but maybe.

How did I contradict myself? Of course, expecting a rational answer from the antigun crowd is a lot to ask for so I don't know why I'm asking. If you don't want to carry a gun, don't carry one. The bottom line is, the statistics in states where concealed carry is allowed speak for themselves. Violent crime dropped in EACH AND EVERY STATE shortly after passage of concealed carry laws. If you want to be an unarmed victim that is up to you, I choose not to be. And with that, I'm done with this topic and after all of my transactions are complete, this site for all I'm concerned. I won't be a part of the gutless majority who won't take responsibility to protect themselves and insist on infringeing on the rights of those that do. Good night.

Absolutely not. Allowing ALL students to carry a firearm would be a problem, considering the age restriction on handguns is federally mandated at 21 years old. Allowing someone with a concealed carry permit, who has passed a criminal history check, proven his or her proficiency with a firearm, it is a falacy to believe that shootings would go up. As a matter of fact, if you care to check statistics, states that have passed concealed carry legislations have seen a DROP in violent crimes to include gun related crimes. I have seen a case in Texas where a permit carrier has been involved in a violent act outside of self defense. The numbers simply don't support it.

Beautiful autograph. I still hate the Yankee's, but very nice all the same.

OK. No twisting here, if that's what you're assuming. Let's play a simple game of pretend.

Pretend for a moment that you are a person considering a mass shooting. I know this is a stretch, but play along. You have you're weapon of choice and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in which to carry out your attack. Now it is a simple matter of choosing WHERE to carry our the attack. Are you more likely to carry out an attack at a place where you KNOW there are NO guns present, or are you going to carry it out where there MIGHT be a gun present and someone MIGHT have the ability to stop you from doing what you are planning to do? I think I know your answer before you post it.

Here's some things to think about when you begin to infringe on my right to defend myself.

The heinous shootings by young people at public schools around the country have predictably renewed calls for more gun control. This is a fact. What the gun control lobby isn't looking at is the bigger picture. The only thing that the gun control lobby see's is the immediate effect that gun control has. People who wish to follow the law and abide by their policy are no longer able to have or purchase guns. Wonderful, everyone is happy, Clinton and O'Bama are walking hand in hand down the street, the sun is out, the birds are singing and all is good.

What they don't see is the entire picture. The criminals are still capable of possessing and getting guns. They now have an entire new populice of law abiding and UNARMED citizens to victimize.

It's a lot like the story of the broken window. Everyone sees the broken glass and knows that the local glass cutter is going to have business and money to spend. The unseen side of the picture is the person who owns the window is a victim by having to spend money getting new glass instead of spending the money on something that betters their situation.

This is from an article that I found on the subject.

"The failure to look for the unseen does not stop there. After each mass shooting, we hear recited the statistics on how many people are murdered by gunshot each year. The implication is that without guns, the total murder rate would be reduced by that number. We are also reminded of how many accidental shootings occur (the firearms accident rate, however, has been falling), and are led to believe that if legal gun possession were severely restricted, fewer people would die each year from gunshots. Not true.

To be sure, some people who were killed might be alive today. But some who were not killed might have been. How so? It might come as a surprise, because it gets no publicity, but people use guns defensively (often without firing them) two and a half million times each year. As John Lott of the University of Chicago Law School points out, this number includes incidents in which mass shootings are prevented or curtailed and in which mothers thwart car-jackings when their children are in the cars.

Writes Lott in the July/August 1998 issue of The American Enterprise: “On the surface, [school shootings] seem to present a strong argument for restricting private gun ownership. But the truth is, guns wielded by private citizens have saved lives in such incidents, including some of the recent ones.” He reminds us that the shooting spree at a Pearl, Mississippi, school earlier this year might have taken more victims had an assistant principal not retrieved a gun from his car and used it to hold the student assailant until the police appeared. A similar thing happened to end the student shooting incident at Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

The deaths that do not occur because lawful people have guns cannot be seen and therefore are not entered in the plus column of the ledger. If guns are banned, lawful people, not criminals, will be denied a key method of using force—in defense of self and others. Thus, more may die at the hands of criminals than do today. "

Here's another example. Suzanne Gratia Hupp was a newly license chiroptractor in central Texas. On October 16, 1991, her parents took her to lunch at Luby's in Killeen Texas. Mrs. Hupp normally carried a handgun in her purse, but because it was illegal at that time, she did not take the gun with her to lunch for fear that she might loose her new professional license. While eating, a man named George Hennard Jr. drove his pickup through the front of the business and began shooting. 23 people were killed, including Hupps parents, and another 28 were injured. A widely publicized fact was that Hennard was armed with two Glock Model 19's and had enough ammunition on him when his attack was stopped to fire another 100 plus rounds. Mrs. Hupp was spared only because she was in a position of cover, her table knocked over in the frenzy of people trying to avoid dying. She is also convinced, that from this same position of cover, had she been carrying her then illegal firearm she could have stopped Hennard long before he killed 23 people.

The only reason Hennard did not get the chance to fire the hundred plus rounds of ammunition that he still had was because the Central Texas Area Chiefs of Police were having a luncheon at the Sheraton Hotel 100 yards away from the Luby's. A kitchen employee fled from the back door of the business and happened to see several marked police cars at the Sheraton and summoned help.

There is also an all to willing dependence on the police for help. Does anyone have any idea what the officer to citizen ratio is per capita in their city at any given time. I live in a town of over 3,000 people. There is only ONE officer on duty at any given time. In Lubbock where I work, the population is over 205,000 people. The average number of officers on duty at any given time is at a ratio of somewhere between one officer per twentyfive hundred people. So where is a cop when you need him? The answer most likely is "nowhere near where he is needed."

People have an almost profane indifference to the need to defend themselves. As someone in a previous post said, a room full of people with mace and karate could take a shooter down and they're right. He also brought up a problem in that theory, the shooter is likely to shoot two, three, and possibly more, of these people who are coming to take him down. The problem is, who is going to volunteer to get shot so the others can take the shooter down? I'm willing to bet that there's not a whole lot of people applying for that position.

Anyways, the original question still remains. Would you, if you were planning a mass shooting, take your chances with unarmed victims or victims that may or may not be armed?

It still makes no sense. How many class room's, even on the largest college campus, has a class room that seats enough people for "1000's" of students, let alone a 1000 students old enough to have a gun permit. The Rose Bowl perhaps, but that is far from a college class room.

Do you honestly believe what you just said? You're talking about 1,000's of students going on a shooting spree! The point is this. If a nut case comes onto a college campus with a gun and starts randomly gunning people down, a licensed handgun owner carrying concealed has the opportunity to save lives. If someone begins randomly killing people in my general vicinity putting my life and worst yet, the life of my family, in danger, you're <profanity removed> right I'm going to use my legally carried firearm to protect those around me. And should it ever come to that, I will NEVER be in a court room, the Grand Jury who reviews the case will see that it was justified self defense and it would NEVER get to a court room.

Also, I think some serious study of universal gun laws are in order. Does anyone here know the legal age to purchase a handgun? It's 21. That is to purchase a handgun and the ammunition for it. Granted, not everyone takes the legal high road to gun ownership, just ask your local teen age gang member. But in order to legally own a handgun by federal law you have to 21 years old. That means that the VAST MAJORITY of college age students are exempt from this conversation to begin with. Your arguement of "1,000's" of students going gun crazy makes no sense what-so-ever.


Where do you draw the comparison to "pardoning" the eight students involved in the kidnapping and beating of that girl come from? There is no comparison at all. Those eight people viciously attacked someone for no reason. We're talking about using firearms in self defense.

I am sitting here looking at an entire gun cabinet full of them. Three shotguns, two deer rifles, two .22 rifles, and eleven handguns. Granted, eight of the 11 handguns are collectors items, four over 100 years old. Am I capable of becoming a killer? Yes I am CAPABLE. What stops me from doing it? Commons sense and a respect for my fellow citizen. Those who use firearms to kill are the same people that would use a knife, a club, or some other weapon to kill if guns did not exist. There is something in their mind that is not right. There's something within them that holds no value in human life, often times not even their own life. It is those people that I protect myself against. It is those people that I followed the law and got a gun permit for. I want the ability to defend myself against those people.

While I agree that a bullet is effective, so is a car and a baseball bat. What I don't see is anyone banning the right to drive a car to a baseball game.

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, SENATOR KENNEDY'S CAR DOES!!!


Seriously though, people have been killing each other since the dawn of humanity. We started with rocks and clubs and evolved to knives, axes, arrows, and eventually guns. The only constant that has remained the same since the dawn of time is the HUMAN element. Do you honestly believe, that if guns suddenly disappeared that we would stop killing each other. I think it's fullish to believe that we would.

The last three paragraphs make an interesting point.

People don't stop killers. People with guns do

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By GLENN REYNOLDS

Wednesday, April 18th 2007, 4:00 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Print Email Suggest a Story
On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn't allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. "Why couldn't we meet off campus today?" she asked.

Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.

In The Roanoke Times last year - after another campus incident, when a dangerous escaped inmate was roaming the campus - Wiles wrote that, when his class was evacuated, "Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself."

Wiles reported that when he told a professor how he felt, the professor responded that she would have felt safer if he had had a gun, too.

What's more, she would have been safer. That's how I feel about my student (one of a few I know who have gun carry permits), as well. She's a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I'd want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer.

Virginia Tech doesn't have that kind of trust in its students (or its faculty, for that matter). Neither does the University of Tennessee. Both think that by making their campuses "gun-free," they'll make people safer, when in fact they're only disarming the people who follow rules, law-abiding people who are no danger at all.

This merely ensures that the murderers have a free hand. If there were more responsible, armed people on campuses, mass murder would be harder.

In fact, some mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens. Though press accounts downplayed it, the 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School was stopped when a student retrieved a gun from his car and confronted the shooter. Likewise, Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 fromhis truck and ran to the scene. In February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun.

Police can't be everywhere, and as incidents from Columbine to Virginia Tech demonstrate, by the time they show up at a mass shooting, it's usually too late. On the other hand, one group of people is, by definition, always on the scene: the victims. Only if they're armed, they may wind up not being victims at all.

"Gun-free zones" are premised on a fantasy: That murderers will follow rules, and that people like my student, or Bradford Wiles, are a greater danger to those around them than crazed killers like Cho Seung-hui. That's an insult. Sometimes, it's a deadly one.

To all that voted no, if you prefer to be an unarmed victim when a mad mans bullets start to fly that is on you. As for me, I prefer the ability to fight back, the ability to STOP the attacker before he takes more victims or makes me one. I do not carry a gun and go out looking for trouble, I carry a gun to protect myself and my family. Do not assume to infringe on my right to do so. If you lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for yourself, again, that is on you.

Absolutely, positively yes! The criminal and the mass shooters prefer unarmed victims. Maximum damage before any response by law enforcement. I know several college students that carry without a permit for that specific reason. They are legal with their permits off campus but illegal while on campus. What are they supposed to do enroute to and from school? Stop at a corner drop box and put their firearm in there so they can carry on campus? Of course not. The people who have taken the time to get their permits and go through the background checks have shown their responsibility as citizens while out of school. What leads people to believe that they are any less responsible while on campus or at their jobs. I have a concealed carry permit. I carry at work (in my truck) and everywhere else that I go.

I think that you can make friends here. Maybe not in a traditional sense, but there's definately an opportunity. I don't know if it's possible to make a good friend, or a best friend here. I think that takes some personal, face to face, interaction. One thing a site like this will do that helps build friendships, is that it tests honesty. You will find honest members here and I think that honesty is trust is invaluable assets in a friendship.

Good luck. Nice Big Ben autograph.

I have it scored in favor of kooljazz based on the last round. I love Tiger Woods and would die to have that autograph, but who could deny Sweetness? The in person autograph basketball was a real treat too. Those two rounds plus round 2 swung it to kooljazz by a point.

Tiger Woods appeared to be a mere mortal after completing the first round of the Masters. After shooting a first round of even par 72, Tiger finds himself four shots off the lead in a tie for 19th. His round was punctuated with an Eagle on the par 5 15th after suffering back to back bogies on 13 and 14.

Trevor Immelman and Justin Rose lead the tournament after rounds of 4 under par 68. Other notables include Jim Furyk with a 2 under par 70, and Phil Mickelson with a 1 under par round of 71.

The most notable low finisher of the day was Woody Austin with a round of 7 over par 79. The top 44 players will make the cut to the weekend.

This will be an interesting Masters. Does Tiger have enough magic to take home his 5th green jacket? After a disappointing 2007, does Mickelson? Or will it be a first time green jacket winner this year? What do you guys think?

Nice helmet. It might be 1 AM CDT. I should be in bed right now, but I took the day off and slept until almost noon. Now I can't go to bed.

Welcome to the site.

I'm with everyone else. Round 1 was definately aceecards. Round 2 has to go to kooljazz. That's guys last name looked like someone spilled a can of alphabets.

$5 million right now, no education to know how to handle the money, or wait two to three years, establish myself as a college player and possibly IMPROVE my draft position for MORE money.....hmm....think I'll wait a couple of years.

All are for trade as well.

WOW. Looks like you guys had a heck of ride. We got some hail and wind last night and wind and dirt today. Winds in the mid 30's with gusts to 60 all day. Luckily, this is west Texas so there are very few trees to blow away.

By the way, with the exception of the damage, looks like a beautiful neighborhood.