Good for her. If the libs had their way, she would have been a victim with no way to protect herself. A shame she didn't take them out.


A California homeowner foiled an attempted home invasion Thursday when she grabbed her shotgun and fired near the suspects.

Police say two males broke into a home nearby and were able to steal a few items before targeting the 59-year-old’s home.

Carla, who did not provide reporters with her last name, told MyFoxLA.com that she woke up when her dog started barking.

She said she saw one man in her backyard and another waiting by the car. Carla’s 90-year-old mother was also inside the home at the time, MyFoxLA.com reported.

Dressed in her nightgown, Carla grabbed her shotgun and fired at the ground near one of the suspects.

“Hopefully this is going to tell these guys you know, I’m not a sitting duck,” she told MyFoxLA.com. "I've got a gun and I know how to use it," she said.

“You have to at some point in time, take responsibility yourself for your own safety and that’s all I was doing,” she said.

Police say neither suspect was shot and were able to flee in a white sedan. Police have only released that they are described to be Hispanic.

Authorities reported that there have been at least four home invasions in the area in recent months.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/08/cal...olice-say/

This has nothing to do with politics.

Leftists trying to make owning a firearm illegal and overturning the second amendment is what is going on. That is political.

(02-08-2014 11:59 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Leftists trying to make owning a firearm illegal and overturning the second amendment is what is going on. That is political.

I saw none of that in your article. You are attempting to inject politics into a story that isn't about politics.

(02-08-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 11:59 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Leftists trying to make owning a firearm illegal and overturning the second amendment is what is going on. That is political.

I saw none of that in your article. You are attempting to inject politics into a story that isn't about politics.

If the left got their way, the woman wouldn't have had the shotgun to protect herself. Surely, even you can understand the point I am making. Of course, being a lib, you refuse to admit the agenda of the left concerning guns.

(02-08-2014 12:08 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 11:59 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Leftists trying to make owning a firearm illegal and overturning the second amendment is what is going on. That is political.

I saw none of that in your article. You are attempting to inject politics into a story that isn't about politics.

If the left got their way, the woman wouldn't have had the shotgun to protect herself. Surely, even you can understand the point I am making. Of course, being a lib, you refuse to admit the agenda of the left concerning guns.

No one is trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment.

(02-08-2014 12:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 12:08 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 11:59 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Leftists trying to make owning a firearm illegal and overturning the second amendment is what is going on. That is political.

I saw none of that in your article. You are attempting to inject politics into a story that isn't about politics.

If the left got their way, the woman wouldn't have had the shotgun to protect herself. Surely, even you can understand the point I am making. Of course, being a lib, you refuse to admit the agenda of the left concerning guns.

No one is trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment.

I love how "progressives"/authoritarians don't even understand their own arguments. Granted, it's all about being on the "winning team" with most of them, but nonetheless, it's pathetic.

Here's a little veritas for you. They're (You're, undoubtedly) all about closing the "gun show loophole" (which doesn't exist) with "universal background checks". You'll jump all over it not existing, so let me shed light on that as well. If you buy from a dealer, you already go through a background check. If you buy from a private seller, that is no different than buying from your father or through the classifieds. So what on earth does that have to do with a gun show?

Answer: Nothing. "Gun show loophole" is just a buzz word used by idiots to strike fear into other idiots. Just like "military assault weapons".

Fundamentally, universal background checks are completely useless without a registration. Study history, and you'll learn that all around the world and already beginning to happen here; with registration -- comes confiscation.



Confiscation = trying to reverse the 2nd amendment. What part of "..shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

(02-08-2014 12:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment.

That's rich.

ERC, why the left thinks guns are the issue flies over my head.....

....having said that, it would still be more fun to blast their knees and carve 'em up like a gobbler on thanksgiving using a 6 iron....

She should have aimed higher.

Im liberal and left and not trying to take your guns. Increased regulation does not = removal

My idea of gun control

(02-08-2014 02:17 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Im liberal and left and not trying to take your guns. Increased regulation does not = removal

Regardless of what you believe personally, those in charge of your party want the 2nd amendment, and believe they can take it by selling it incrementally. First they want UBC, then they'll say "Well, we got UBC, but that doesn't really work without a national registry."

From there, they would be free to ban and would have the means (a national registry) to come take whatever, whenever.

That isn't just rhetoric, that is the playbook from which gun confiscation has been executed all across the world.

(02-08-2014 02:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 02:17 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Im liberal and left and not trying to take your guns. Increased regulation does not = removal

Regardless of what you believe personally, those in charge of your party want the 2nd amendment, and believe they can take it by selling it incrementally. First they want UBC, then they'll say "Well, we got UBC, but that doesn't really work without a national registry."

That isn't just rhetoric, that is the playbook from which gun confiscation has been executed all across the world.

From there, they would be free to ban and would have the means (a national registry) to come take whatever, whenever.

Then I ask that posters refer to these people as "anti gunownership legislators that happen to be liberal" rather thsn "leftists" or "liberals". We're a diverse bunch.

(02-08-2014 02:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 02:31 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-08-2014 02:17 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Im liberal and left and not trying to take your guns. Increased regulation does not = removal

Regardless of what you believe personally, those in charge of your party want the 2nd amendment, and believe they can take it by selling it incrementally. First they want UBC, then they'll say "Well, we got UBC, but that doesn't really work without a national registry."

That isn't just rhetoric, that is the playbook from which gun confiscation has been executed all across the world.

From there, they would be free to ban and would have the means (a national registry) to come take whatever, whenever.

Then I ask that posters refer to these people as "anti gunownership legislators that happen to be liberal" rather thsn "leftists" or "liberals". We're a diverse bunch.

Fair enough.

joe biden was right? Who'da thunk it?

(02-08-2014 02:38 PM)EagleX Wrote:  joe biden was right? Who'da thunk it?