Anti-Gun Zealots Must Reconcile Their Rhetoric With This, Or Concede That Their Adversaries, And All Citizens, Have A Right To Protect Themselves

In Macon, Georgia, a coordinated mob of teens attacked a Walmart like a scene out of “Dawn of the Dead.” Surveillance cameras revealed this:

The Macon Telegraph reports that a group of about 50 teens swarmed the store and began destroying property, apparently for the fun of it. A customer in a motorized scooter was pulled from his seat and dragged on the floor, police say.  17-year-old Kharron Nathan Green entered the store at about 2 a.m. last Sunday morning and flashed “gang signs.” At his signal, a group of about 50 people, apparently teens or a bit older, charged into the store. They departed when police arrived. Green, was the only one arrested, not because he was the ringleader, but because he is an idiot. He returned to the scene of the crime to fetch a dropped phone.

That nobody was seriously hurt or killed is moral luck, nothing more.

Is it relevant that all of the teens appear to be black? Sure it is, though many news outlets—like the Macon Telegraph, in fact— didn’t think so, because that creates inconvenient implications. For one thing, it was very relevant to any police officer trying to deal with the onslaught, as having to shoot one of the mob if he was aggressive would have the cop branded as a racist killer  and possibly railroaded into a murder trial by the Georgia equivalent of Marilyn Mosby.

I wasn’t going to comment on this, except that a good, smart, moderate friend whom I respect greatly posted comments on his Facebook page mocking a call-in radio show’s listeners who asserted that we “need more guns – in our churches, our restaurants, our malls, our movie theaters, our schools, our offices – everywhere – to ensure the safety of us all.”  “Fucking insanity, ” he concluded. Really, my friend? Funny, I was going to reconsider some of my contempt for the woman who was shot by her own gun (by her child) that she brought into an Idaho Walmart. Most of my criticism was based on the reckless lack of gun safety she displayed–that stands—but some was aimed at what I termed the foolishness of carrying a gun into a Walmart at all. About that, viewing the video, I am no longer so sure.

If  I cannot trust the government to keep wild crowds of lawless teens from attacking me and my family during a peaceful attempt at shopping, if the authorities and the media are going to side with the criminals rather than law enforcement should an illegal act end in the death of a black teen, if at any moment a potentially violent mob can do what it did in Macon thanks to an official culture and a biased media that makes them feel simultaneously invulnerable, entitled and angry, if “Black Lives Matter” is going to become a sanctified philosophy justifying institutionalized anti-white rhetoric and hate, then I have a right to protect myself as I, not some smug gun-hater or well-intentioned anti-gun zealot, see as necessary, without having to jump through hoops and navigate an anti-gun bureaucracy.

And gun rights advocates should use this video as openly and aggressively to press their point as the anti-gun forces have exploited Sandy Hook and Charleston. If teens contemplating a terror exercise like the one in Macon believe the odds are high that there will be someone in the targeted mall, office, store or home legally carrying a firearm and trained to use it, they might think twice.

They should be forced to think twice, even if the reason has to be me.

OK, Second Amendment foes: tell me why I’m wrong.


92 thoughts on “Anti-Gun Zealots Must Reconcile Their Rhetoric With This, Or Concede That Their Adversaries, And All Citizens, Have A Right To Protect Themselves

    • Uh-huh. Would it also be racist to note that if someone shot the punk—can I call him a punk?—who organized this right between the eyes during this rampage, I wouldn’t shed single tear? Because #beingabletoprotectyourselffrommobsmatters

  1. You know I’m a 2A supporter, so here’s why I won’t use the video: The response is that “Teens will be Teens and stupid. You don’t want armed people who are untrained making decisions and putting their racist tendencies into this situation. Property damage is temporary, bullet holes are for life.”

    When I went through my gun safety class, the best line I took away from it was “When you shot, your intent is to kill. If you don’t want to kill, then you shouldn’t pull the firearm. What are you willing to kill for? Are you going to end someone’s life to protect a TV? I wouldn’t. I would only end someone’s life if my life was on the line.”

    Those were very poignant words for me. This situation doesn’t show that we need guns, but that random things happen that we can’t control. What would be awesome is if this video showed a group of gun carrying folks watching, being witnesses to the property destruction, not doing anything than being good witnesses and sticking around afterwards to give their reports to the cops. Carrying a gun doesn’t make you a crime stopper. It makes you prepared to defend your life.

    • And how do you know a mob like this isn’t going to kill you, when you see it harming a guy in a handicapped vehicle? I see nothing wrong with shooting looters, or protecting property with deadly force. None at all. How about firing a gun in the air and announcing, “move peacefully out of the store: the next person who tries to steal or break something will be shot. Last warning.” Is that unreasonable?

      • With a gun, you’re prepared and you keep yourself prepared to defend yourself and others throughout the situation. If you need to put someone down, do it. But realize what you’re doing it for – do it to protect yourself. Not some big corporations insured property. (Hint: It’ll cost Walmart more money to clean up the blood and brain matter than to file a property insurance claim.)

        • Yeah, but you’re ignoring the context. In this instance, there is NO REASON to assume this mob is out for vandalism or theft. NO REASON to wait until you are being pounded to decide.

          • If a mob comes running into a store like that, and maybe I’ve seen too many horror movies, I think we should assume the worst. Why should any law abiding citizen assume that people who behave like this aren’t capable of anything and everything?

            • It is as if there is quietly being pushed this standard that says, “You aren’t allowed to think about whether or not you need to defend yourself until you are actually on the verge of being killed anyway – never mind that doesn’t leave you much time to stop the event”.

              There is a wide wide wide gulf between that standard and the strawman that “well, the other alternative is allowing wild cowboys to just shoot willy nilly and say they felt threatened”, though the argument is that there isn’t a wide gulf between those options.

            • Jack – I think people, regardless of their past actions, are capable of anything and everything. I agree whole heartedly that we should all carry and be prepared. Your thesis was that this video was proof of that and it should become an advertisement. I’m simply refuting that it should be an advertisement. I say that because it makes for a poor ad. The situation as it is, no one died. Where they in danger? Yes. Did people get injured? Yes. If someone was present and had a gun would they have been justified in putting one or more of the mobbers down? Yes. Would that presence of gun resulted in more death or less? Likely More.

              Hence, any situation where the probable conclusion is “more death” is a bad advertising situation. Aurora Theater is a good example of how a good guy with a gun could have saved lives resulting in Less death (and court costs.)

              (Thanks Tex for participating, but let’s keep this one sub thread open for Jack’s response.)

                • And there’s your true character. No ethics. No courtesy. Just a rogue. Feels good to be the bad boy, eh? Ohh… so sexy!

                    • What? 6 threads of going back and forth with you in one forum and you couldn’t just leave me a small space to interact with one of the other forum members? Ego much? Self centered? God Complex? What is it with you?

                  • You must not be from around here, feller. Tex here pretty much runs the place, ya see. It’s just kinda the way folks is round these parts. And he’s pretty handy with these here ethicsal things. So if you aren’t willin to deal with Tex, you might oughta think about just skedaddle-in on back ta where ya came from. For your own good.

                    • Here’s the issue:

                      Tim can be relied upon to give well thought out discourses.

                      He can generally be relied upon to engage people in good faith.

                      But, I will not, I WILL NOT, suffer a smug chump waltzing around insinuating that they possess some gnostic grasp on things that some implied ignorant lay person can’t achieve and therefore they need to “internalize it and chew on it for a day”.

                      No, sorry, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they think about what they post until they show they don’t. I expect the same. I will aggressively hammer their arguments as I expect them to do mine. I do not insult intelligence until a very valid reason occurs. That did not occur in the case of Tim’s snark below that started this conversational plummet.

                      Sorry, I’m simply not going to suffer unjustifiable smugness, and I will respond in kind and with excess, tit for tat it may be, because allow it once, and it will happen again.

                    • It should also be very clear, that I do my best, though I slip at times, to keep my aggressive responses towards “smug-assery” limited to the threads in which it occurred, as you’ll note, though Tim continued the smug condescension with such lines as “Hold up, son”.

                      But, it’s safe to assume any adjacent threads were already contaminated at that point and didn’t represent any new introduction of college-frat style snark.

                    • And I wish I had the brain to run a blog on my own and engage tirelessly, because there is nothing I love more than discussions and I love when multiple individuals seeks ways to hone, edify, clarify, bolster or demolish each others’ arguments, one reason I bristle when people cry about receiving a response from an unexpected source is because I expect and INVITE the same – something I think is reasonable to assume EVERYONE to expect on a forum run publicly.

              • You are arguing consequentialism and you are also equating the lives of those doing wrong with the lives of those not doing wrong. A flawed argument.

              • So, your theory is that the reasonable response to a mob is to wait until it can be determined whether said mob intends violence against persons instead of just property damage? That’s the message you want sent?

                • I don’t know about theory as much as “well established law”.


                  Traditional Self Defense

                  The law governing self defense does not excuse any violent act just because another person struck the first blow or made a violent threat. Traditional self defense laws require a person who is being attacked or threatened with imminent attack to act reasonably and
                  * retreat if possible without taking any physical action, and
                  * use only the amount of force reasonably necessary to fend off the attacker.

                  Retreat if possible

                  If an able-bodied man raises a fist or hits another able-bodied man, under traditional self defense laws the victim must walk away if possible. If the victim is charged with a crime and claims self defense, the jury must consider whether the victim had a reasonable opportunity to retreat and did not take it. If the victim could easily have left the room or walked away from the offender, the victim’s use of physical force might not constitute self defense. To support a successful self-defense argument, the evidence must show that the victim could not retreat—for example, that he could not get away because the attack was ongoing, he was trapped with the aggressor behind a locked door, the aggressor blocked the exit, or the victim tried to leave or walk away and the aggressor followed him.

                  Reasonable force

                  If the victim could not retreat, the jury usually next must consider whether the victim was reasonably in fear for his physical safety and whether any force the victim used was reasonable. The test is often whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would be afraid and would act as the defendant did.

                  Under traditional self defense laws, the act of brandishing or using a gun is evaluated like any other use of force. The primary question is whether using a gun was reasonable or reasonably necessary under the circumstances. A victim cannot instantly pull a gun and shoot an attacker who raises a fist or slaps or punches the victim without trying to fend him off in some other way, because this amounts to using more force than was reasonably necessary to stop the attack. If a person uses deadly force to fend off an attack, he must have been in fear that he was about to be gravely injured or killed. The victim also must have had a reasonable basis for fearing for his life, such as dealing with an aggressor who was pointing a gun, wielding another deadly weapon, or acting in a way that could cause death or serious bodily harm.


                  To which I know you’re going to ask about “Stand Your Ground” laws. Glad you asked!


                  As many as 32 states recently have adopted “stand your ground” laws that expand traditional self defense laws and extend the castle doctrine to confrontations outside a person’s home.

                  The stand your ground defense may apply and permit a victim to brandish or use a firearm, depending on state law, in the following situations:

                  Beyond the house. If a person is confronted in his vehicle or on his residential property including the driveway, swimming pool area, or land around the home, he may respond with a firearm.

                  A public place. If an aggressor uses force or threatens violence against another in a public place, the person being attacked or threatened has no duty to choose an apparent safe way to retreat, and may instead use the amount of reasonable force necessary to fend off the attacker.

                  So – as you can see, with this kind of information apparent to me, I’m not sure I understand why people are advocating for using a gun when they don’t perceive a direct physical threat, let alone actual assault. In our very on topic story above (the original article), the man in the wheelchair who was actually assaulted and assuming because he was knocked out of a wheelchair that he could not escape due to physical limitations, he would be justified (and I would recommend) in using a firearm to defend himself. (…or someone else coming to his defense using a firearm.)

                  Other uses conducted by bystanders who were not directly threatened or who did not witness a threat to other people, I don’t believe a firearm would have been needed to use. Yes, I advocate for each one of them to be armed (carrying their firearm), but I am not advocating for them to brandish or discharge their firearm.

          • Wait – are you saying that if you were near the front of the store and you saw 5 then 10 then maybe more people running into the store that you’d open fire immediately and start picking off as many as you could? Or are you in a round about way trying to agree with me that people should be armed and ready to face a threat as soon as that threat turns towards them? Yes – the guy in the wheelchair that got knocked over and dragged had good reason to pull a gun and maybe even use it. But I saw plenty of others that were standing around waching the mob go by.

            If it’s the former situation, then I don’t think you’ve given credible and serious consideration that the “mob” is actually a group of people fleeing the next coming of Godzilla and seeking shelter. Or a tornado. Whatever.

              • I didn’t respond to Jack. I responded to you. To which you said “NO REASON to wait until you are being pounded to decide.” Which assumed I had said somehting close to that, which is NOT what Tim said. (yes, I’m using 3rd person now because I’m better than you.) (j/k, lighten up)

                • And out comes the “but people would act like wild cowboys and start shooting willy-nilly” argument.

                  False dichotomy and NOT what I said.

                  Context matters. And the context is this video, NOT the scenario you made up.

                  • Hold up son. I said be armed, be prepared, realize why you’re firing a gun. I’ve also said, use a gun to protect yourself and others. Wait until you perceive a threat to yourself or others and not just property.

                    You said, I quote: “In this instance, there is NO REASON to assume this mob is out for vandalism or theft. NO REASON to wait until you are being pounded to decide.”

                    So, I said, “Be sure.” You said “Be Willy-nilly”. It’s right there. Context matters and the context is in your writting, NOT the knee-jerk defense you’re confused ADHD addled peanut brain concocts from a fiction that never existed.

                    If you can’t have a level, respectful conversation without your medications keeping your chemically imbalanced brain in check, then please ignore my posts and let me have my intellectual discussions with my friends.

    • Yet, the individuals in this scene WERE attacked. They have absolutely no reason to assume the mob, acting like that, is only there for property damage or theft.

      The situation the mob created is one in which EVERY rational individual should assume is one designed to inflict maximum harm on the people. To assume otherwise is to invite a completely unanswered death.

    • Interesting though that your Carry Class taught you to shoot to kill.

      They specifically said when someone is trying to harm you, your family, or for those so inclined, your property, you aren’t shooting to kill, you aren’t shooting to wound, you aren’t shooting to scare away. You are shooting to *stop*.

      The result of stoppage – be it death or wounding or scaring away, is just moral luck.

      • I think our lessons from carry class jive and my point stands. It doesn’t matter if your intent is to wound someone or fire a warning shot into a ceiling – if you fire a gun, a real possibility is that someone dies.

        With that said, if someone is stealing a TV, carrying it out of a store – are you going to pull a gun on him? Are you going to shoot him? Are you going to be okay if he bleeds out? Over a TV?

        • I don’t know if I would shoot to protect someone else’s property because there are too many unknowns, especially in the case of a store. There’s a very good likelihood I’d shoot over my property.

          Sorry, the thief is the bad actor here, not me, and making a relativistic evaluation between someone who is minding their own business and someone who wants to disrupt someone else’s life. Sorry, it being “over a TV” doesn’t change what the criminal has decided to do to my home which contains my family and my livelihood and our lives.

          • The intent is there exclusively for you. If you would be mentally jacked up and seek counseling because you killed someone when you only intended to wound or scare them, then you have a duty to yourself to only use a gun for situations you can mentally cope. I don’t mean “intent” for legalistic purposes. Internalize this and chew on it for a day.

    • One armed security guard could have stopped this mob. Pulling an unarmed handicapped person off a scooter and dragging him around constitutes assault. Where was the security guard? Hopefully the idiot will spill the beans on his lowlife friends.

    • “…but that random things happen that we can’t control.”

      Nope, sorry, there was nothing random about this at all. It was planned, it was coordinated, it was organized. It was successful.

      It was crime.


              • Michael, there is a vast difference between an Army of Occupation and an Army used to enforce the laws of a nation. The difference would be between the Army of the US, right now and the Army Of The British Empire during colonial times. British soldiers were actually used to oppress any form of dissent and did so cheerfully. A fictionalized but probably accurate description of a British soldiers opinion of the colonials is contained in Harry Coyle’s ‘Against All Enemies’, Prologue.

                • But there is a logic to it.

                  2 ingredients for increasing likelihood of cultural change in your enemies:

                  1) completely bringing their Core prostrate and utterly annihilating that Core

                  2) occupying their land as a generally administrative but occasionally punitive basis for *at least* a generation, preferably 2 or 3.

                  Success: Philippines, we occupied for 50 years
                  Germany, Japan- almost an equal period.

                  Failures- practically everywhere else, we missed one or both necessary requirements.

                  • But we’re arguing apples and oranges. Posse comitatus is in place specifically to prevent a tyrant or dictator from using the Army to enforce his dictates, passed off as law. Armies of Occupation, while effective, are not domestic, and the Civil War was defined as an armed rebellion.

                    • We need the Army for pacification, not law enforcement.

                      The only way to achieve pacification is through the fear of force. And the people will not fear the use of force until soldiers gun down some thugs openly, proudly, and without remorse. After, that, people everywhere will fear force, and behave themselves

  2. It seems to me that there’s something of a continuum here. In the best case (i.e., when the country is fairly calm and large-scale mob violence is rare) the protection benefits conferred by an armed populace don’t hold up in common sense analysis when measured against the drawbacks (accidents, criminality, the occasional high-profile shooting spree). On the other hand there are times like today (or, heaven forbid, the late 1960’s and early 1970’s) where massive social disruption and mob violence convulse the country and, unless one has extreme left political sympathies, personal defense is very, very, very important. The question then is this: understanding that the country will have both periods of peace and periods of unrest, which particular danger should policy guard against? I agree with you, Jack, that having the ability to defend oneself against the mob outweighs the tragic incidents that inevitably occur when lethal force is widely distributed through the populace, but someone less attuned to mobbish incidents (or more sympathetic to the aims of the mobbers) could easily take the other side.

    • “criminality, the occasional high-profile shooting spree”

      These are irrelevant objections to law abiding citizen ownership of firearms, as law abiding citizens don’t do these things and the outright banning of firearms won’t end these things either.

      • Absent large-scale confiscation I think you’re right – and that’s why I come down (albeit softly) on the side of an armed populace. However, a lot of people who don’t like the idea of an armed populace just don’t understand gun culture at all and are rather repulsed by the objects themselves (I have more than a few friends like this). While they’re more than willing to mouth the bromides that “of course no-one is coming to take away your guns” and get their yuk-yuks, I don’t think they’d really be all that displeased if there was some sort of mandatory buy-back program that radically reduced the number of guns floating around the general populace. That sort of (blatantly unconstitutional) program, if pursued with enough vigor, probably would reduce incidents of gun-crime and mass-murder. It wouldn’t drop either to nil, and the benefits would be vastly outweighed by the drawbacks, but I think it would almost certainly make some dent.

    • Does the Army have enough soldiers to have a personal armed security detail for every American?

      If not, an armed populace is the only way to go.

  3. Could you imagine the fireworks if someone WAS armed and shot one of those teens? Would #Moblivesmatter? This is beyond the pale…. America has collectively gone insane.

    • I don’t think it would be Moblivesmatter. It would still be blacklivesmatter with the usual suspects out spinning arguments that mob violence is a legitimate aspect of “black culture” that ought to be tolerated…

      • It’d be the same as we saw during the Baltimore riots. “Black people are getting shot in the streets and you say nothing, but someone’s property gets damaged and suddenly you’re all up in arms…that’s, cold-blooded, inhumane, and racist to boot!!”

    • Against 50? Nothing. Maybe attempt to rescue people being assaulted, but only if he felt comfortable doing it…. Is there any way to know if there was an armed looter?

  4. This is nothing new. Has anyone else seen the similar flash mob riots, so called, in Philly? Same deal. What would Martin Luther King say about this? Charles? Beth? The legacy of slavery? Institutional racism? What would Cornel West say? President Obama? Bill DeBlasio? Do these children, so called, look like their children? This kind of stuff is really depressing.

    • Welcome Walmart shoppers. Did anyone notice how well dressed all those oppressed kids were? They all drove away in cars. 2 AM? Why aren’t they home in bed sleeping?

  5. I think it is an essential error — one more often committed by pro-gun-control advocates — to point to any extraordinary event to justify gun policy. No gun law, from the most restrictive to the most permissive, is going to stop all crime; we should be crafting policy that does the most good for the greatest number, within the strictures of the Constitution. This event is such an outlier so as to not even weigh on the scale. It’s the same thing with Sandy Hook and the like on the other side of the argument. No gun policy is going to stop those aberrant events, so rallying around them always backfires on gun control advocates.

    Plus, these kids weren’t going to “think twice” if there had been more permissive gun laws — Georgia already has concealed carry, doesn’t it?

    • It’s a very good point: quite possibly they didn’t think at all.

      Let me revise to say that if one or more of these mobbers were shot while running amuck, the NEXT group so inspired might well think twice, or perhaps have only 20 participants rather than 50.

      The possibility that someone may have a gun is a deterrent, and the certainty that noone will is a provocation. Note that the Charleston Church was in a no-gun zone. So was Sandy Hook Elementary.

      • But it’s pure speculation that that had any bearing on the shooter in either case — we’re not talking about rational minds here. Lanza was fixated on the elementary school for reasons that had nothing to do with it being a gun-free zone. Plus many mass shootings are murder-suicides, indicating that the prospect of an armed bystander wouldn’t trouble the shooter overly much. The efficacy of gun free zones can be debated, but I don’t really think that most mass shooters are taking that into account.

        In any event, as I said, mass shootings are hard to predict or defend against, even when there are armed personnel around. Gun policy should be about lowering overall crime, which requires striking a balance between preventing guns from getting into the hands of those who will use them for ill, and keeping them in the hands of those who would do good. That then requires what we mean by “do good,” and what policies will preserve that while reducing crime. Banning hunting rifles, for example, is stupid because they’re rarely used in crime and usually used for legitimate sport (or sustenance). Getting rid of handguns would likely have an enormous effect on crime, if we could do it, but would come at a serious and probably unconstitutional cost; but surely there’s a middle ground to be found there. We as a country just don’t seem very intent on finding it.

        • 1) Pure speculation, absolutely.

          2) Of course there’s middle ground. The problem is that reasonable middle ground will not accomplish the zero gun violence objectives that the anti-gun zealots, who just plain hate and fear the things, believe is Nirvana. Listen to the underlying assumptions of the average anti-gun advocate, and you realize that gun banning is the only way to achieve their goals, and that they really don’t understand why anyone rational doesn’t see that as the correct goal, because they do.

    • And that’s the troublesome side of it isn’t it?

      That these kids aren’t “thinking”.

      But, should civilized society, composed of people who DO think about these things or at least have instinctively Internalized not doing these things be held hostage to the “unthinkers” (or should I say, bad people)?

      That is to say: If Johnny Civics, an 18 year old who DID internalize the lessons of his parents and the lessons of his Civics teachers that rioting and looting is bad, is confronted by an wild mob of 18 years olds who DIDN’T do so, does he have to sit back and possibly die because poor Frank Rioter who “just doesn’t know better” is doing something that may threaten Johnny’s life?

  6. This might be a propitious time to recall David Mamet’s thoughts on the subject, which I noted here:

    My favorite quote:

    “Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things. But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws? The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.”

    • Doesn’t armament rest on a similar assumption that all (or most) people are basically qualified to make good decisions when presented with the ability to deal death rapidly and (comparatively) easily?

      • In an extremely qualified way, one that narrows the citizen’s decision making opportunities to:

        1) When their lives or the lives of third parties are reasonably perceived as threatened. Some states include a property protection ability as well.

        Though some would then expand on the term “reasonably perceived” to make the argument, that aha, we are enabling wild cowboys to just blaze away with aplomb as long as they parrot the phrase “I’m in fear for my life”. But that is, at best a strawman that very very rarely manifests.

        2) whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of securing rights, among which are Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government (but this is a collective effort).

  7. I think the whole thing about not that dangerous and shooting over a tv went out the window when they pulled the handicapped man off his chair. They didn’t know his health or ability to breathe without support. Saying he should have to be armed also to defend himself from the mob while he’s being pulled down like a pack of wild dogs? Where’s the empathy for him? He’s not some faceless rich owner, but their neighbor. Managing a trip to the store is already enough to juggle without suggesting a gun should be added.

    As soon as they pulled him off the chair it stopped being harmless fun and ONLY property damage. Any argument above about non-violent mobs doesn’t apply anymore once they attacked the handicapped man.

    • I think they did it because they knew that if anybody in the mob was shot or killed Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would be down there asap shouting “No Justice, No Peace”, the security guard would immediately fired for using “poor judgement” and have to move to Idaho after his trial.

  8. I don’t own a gun.

    My house was burglarized couple years back. I didn’t give much thought to what was taken from me. However, Caveman, my cat, was missing. He came walking down the street an hour later, in great distress. That’s when my blood began to boil. Examining him, I found him unharmed. He was simply traumatized by the break-in. It was right then I vowed that if any real harm had been visited on Caveman, I would have procured a gun and shot that mother fucker dead. (I knew the culprit.)

    Don’t fuck with those who are dear to me, or I will fucking kill you, or die trying. Simple, yet complex, and damn the torpedoes.

  9. If I were the governor, I would mobilize the National Guard and have it place Macon under a complete lockdown, with orders to shoot anyone who causes even the slightest of disturbances. The only way to get people to behave in an orderly fashion is to make life the price of disorder. we need to instill the fear of force to ensure civilized conduct.

    • Here in Holland things are different. Evidently if someone breaks into your house and you harm him you are liable criminally and in damages. Brilliant. They also have a King who owns large tracts of Manhattan island to this day, as well as large parts of an oil company.

      And by the way, our neighbors (from Texas, A&M grads) were broken into and had their computers stolen.

  10. The Wal Mart incident certainly should embolden any groups like ISIS who might want to strike soft targets inside the U.S. So many to choose from…

    What would it take? Two Wal Marts? Three? Five? to be hit around the country simultaneously, with a “Tunisian tourist beach-clearing operation” – a lone gunman or bomber, or two or three, suicidal, suddenly mowing down shoppers – before all Wal Marts across the country are either (1) shut down indefinitely or (2) kept open in selective sites with “greeters” and other security forces hired to operate like Seal Team 6 or the old Blackwater rowdies?

    We will probably be finding out very soon. Sometimes I wish the terrorists were stupid enough to take out bunches of the lousy political officeholders and candidates who make jihad so easy. America NEEDS cleansing.

  11. Jack: I’d suggest that you have Tex blocked when he tries to post multiple times just before the cock crows! First, he must fax you a sworn statement that he has gulped down at least three cups of black coffee and is thus in a semi-sane and not-too-irascible condition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.