Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And of course all those Texans are going to park their guns at the door because guns are NOT ALLOWED in the Walmart. Riiiiiight. You've clearly never been to, or lived in Texas. Guaranteed there were plenty of gun toting 'heroes' in that Walmart all running for the nearest exit as soon as the shooting started. All those guns, I guess in the end they were just cowards after all.
And where were all the gun-toters in Dayton (or was it TOLEDO)? Nobody could have pulled out their weapon in those 32 seconds it took police to take out the shooter? More cowards with guns?
So ... the next time some raving lunatic liberal raises the argument "If We Allow Everyone to Carry a Gun, It Would Be a Wild West Shootout!" as the reason people should not be allowed to carry guns, can I count on seeing YOU standing up in a very public way (ala David Hogg) to shout, "THOSE WILD WEST SHOOTOUTS NEVER HAPPEN!!!" ??
I just want to know if I can count on you to be consistent.
I had guns before I ever heard of the NRA or voted for any party. The safest place in the world right now is under my roof.
And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.
I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.
But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.
My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.And there you have it.......another anti-gun loon who has a psycho-sexual fixation on guns as a substitute for the penis. This seems to be a common mental disorder with these types....and really needs to be addressed by a psychiatric professional.
You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.
Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?
Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.
However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.
But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.
So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?
You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.
Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.
Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.
If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.
I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.
What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.For no rational reason whatsoever.My ruger 1911 45 only holds 8. You can buy an extended mag that holds 10. Your semi auto handgun holds 15? Yea, I would probably ban the manufacturing of that capacity mag.
Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.You can keep the ones you have though. I just want to stop a future nut from being able to dole out max carnage.
Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.
You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.
And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.
As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.
Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.
Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.
The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.
Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.
Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.
So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.
You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.
Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.
The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.
If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.
What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.For no rational reason whatsoever.
Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.
Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.
You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.
And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.
As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.
Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.
Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.
The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.
Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.
Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.
So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.
You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.
Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.
The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.
If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.
Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.
You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.
When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible
Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.
Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.
I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.
But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.
And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
President Trump does have a concealed carry permit. But he would never shoot someone on 5th Avenue, the Secret Service would do it for him.
Now let's see if you take me literally.
Because they are only pretend fierce brave men. In reality they are chicken shit cowards.In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.
You reasoning is flawed.
For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?
And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.
I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.
But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.
I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.
But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.
And I haven't heard on inkling of where the CCW application for NYC has been taken to a Federal Court. I have hear a lot of crying and sobbing about it. I don't think it's right but I don't live in NYC and won't lift a finger to help someone that won't help themselves.
What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.For no rational reason whatsoever.
Absent confiscation of "high capacity" magazines, they will remain available to everyone - thus, your nonsensical ban will accomplish nothing.
Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.
You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.
And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.
As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.
Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.
Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.
The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.
Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.
Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.
So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.
You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.
Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.
The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.
If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.
Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.
You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.
When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible
Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.
Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.
I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.
But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.
Stupidest excuses as usual. School shootings? Rosd rage shootings? Work shootings? Concert shootings? Work ppace shootings ? Domestic shootings? Kids accidentally shooting their family members? And so much more....So Mr smart why the US is one of the worst countries when it comes to gun homicides, mass shootings ? There are millions of guns. Why the US is the most fucked up? There is not a day when I don't turn local news and there isn't someone who killed someone....lately is more family violence than gang violence or work violence . The last country I visited the worst crime they had on TV was a shooting in a work place in the US. The irony !!!!
So homicides and violent crimes don't count in your world. How convenient for you!
You know where else your "method" would help? London, England! They can quit counting all the murders committed with knives and machetes!
I do appreciate your efforts in helping me get great exposure for these facts as often as possible!
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online
UK is violent crime capital of Europe
That only stands to reason.....at least with those of us on the right. Helpless people in Europe have no way to defend themselves. They are targets of crime just like elderly people are in the US.
The difference is that most people here have the ability to defend themselves if they desire. At least in my state, if a helpless 90 pound female is being followed by an aggressive male, and she's prepared for an attack, that 200 pound muscle bound gorilla may be going home on a gurney with the sheet draped over his head. That doesn't happen in Europe.
So ... when I leave my "home" I should be vulnerable to a deadly attack at the ATM, at a restaurant, while driving in my car or cycling through a public park, etc.?
Don't even PRETEND to be that stupid.
Why would I pretend to be that stupid. You are much more stupid and you don't even need to pretend. Most states have the CCW laws. Even the most regulated states and cities in the nation allows CCW. And it's already been proven that the safest people on the public streets with a gun is the CCW carriers. The most unsafe are the fruitcakes like you.
CCW laws are only as good as the laws that protect the shooter. I don't know if my license is good in the commie states like NY or California. But even if it were, I would be deathly afraid of using a firearm in those states because the laws are written to protect the criminal, and not the victim.
In my state, I have no fear of using my firearm if needed. The laws that were written during and after the CCW laws enacted do protect me when I need to use deadly force. In fact, they are written in my favor.
CCW programs were forced on states that refused to have them by the Supreme Court. But that ruling doesn't mean the state has to be on the side of the victim, or that obtaining a license is guaranteed.
John Stossel Denied Carry Permit in NYC
NYC complied with the Heller V ruling. What he didn't say was the reason he was denied. He just said he was denied. They had to give a reason. What I suggest is that this issue be taken back to the Federal Courts. According to the Heller V ruling, the word "Reasonable" must come into play. If the system is "Unreasonable" then it can be contested in court using the very ruling that they are using too justifying denying and allowing him too have a gun in his home.
The problem I see here is, the NRA and others pick the wrong fights. This sounds like a fight they should pick instead of the frivolous ones they keep picking. Picking the wrong fights is designed to keep you stirred up and angry. IF NYC has an unreasonable system for CCW then pursue it in court hard. Case in point. If some like Rump can get a CCW with his comment about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it then they should NEVER turn Jack the Ripper down for a ccw.
Using a metaphor is not grounds for refusing a CCW.....but then again, who knows with commie states.
I imagine you can find Stossle's entire process and results in detail if you look for it. I do know it's in one of his books. I also know of the hoops they made him jump through and the costs involved in his attempt to get a license. It is, by design, to discourage people from even trying. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly, it cost him over a thousand dollars, and he still never got it.
But back to my point: just because the courts said they must allow citizens to carry firearms, doesn't mean they have to make it easy. Nor does it mean the state will protect you in the event you have to use deadly force.
This needs to be dragged to the Supreme Court, since they already ruled in Murdock V Pennsylvania that you can't be taxed on the exercise of a Right.....not to forget the 14th Amendment, Poll Taxes and Literacy tests......
Stupidest excuses as usual. School shootings? Rosd rage shootings? Work shootings? Concert shootings? Work ppace shootings ? Domestic shootings? Kids accidentally shooting their family members? And so much more....So Mr smart why the US is one of the worst countries when it comes to gun homicides, mass shootings ? There are millions of guns. Why the US is the most fucked up? There is not a day when I don't turn local news and there isn't someone who killed someone....lately is more family violence than gang violence or work violence . The last country I visited the worst crime they had on TV was a shooting in a work place in the US. The irony !!!!
So homicides and violent crimes don't count in your world. How convenient for you!
You know where else your "method" would help? London, England! They can quit counting all the murders committed with knives and machetes!
I do appreciate your efforts in helping me get great exposure for these facts as often as possible!
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online
UK is violent crime capital of Europe
That only stands to reason.....at least with those of us on the right. Helpless people in Europe have no way to defend themselves. They are targets of crime just like elderly people are in the US.
The difference is that most people here have the ability to defend themselves if they desire. At least in my state, if a helpless 90 pound female is being followed by an aggressive male, and she's prepared for an attack, that 200 pound muscle bound gorilla may be going home on a gurney with the sheet draped over his head. That doesn't happen in Europe.
I do live in a multi-family unit.My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.I'm not the one who needs to load up on these phallic symbols every time I leave the house.
You are projecting. Medication and therapy can help you accept your physical limitations.
Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?
Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.
However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.
But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.
So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?
You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.
Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.
Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.
If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.
I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.
When you live in multi-family units, you have no choice but to run into these characters.
Only if you make it so. When you boil it down to the basic elements, what you have is FEAR.Because they are only pretend fierce brave men. In reality they are chicken shit cowards.In El Paso, there were probably a lot of guns there yet the people there fled, ducked, froze, etc.. Not a single on pulled their weapons and confronted the shooter. And don't tell me that there weren't a lot of guns in that Walmart. It's Texas for crying out loud.
You reasoning is flawed.
For what reason do YOU think most of those armed citizens did not pull their weapons?
It's a lot more complicated that that.
Stupidest excuses as usual. School shootings? Rosd rage shootings? Work shootings? Concert shootings? Work ppace shootings ? Domestic shootings? Kids accidentally shooting their family members? And so much more....So Mr smart why the US is one of the worst countries when it comes to gun homicides, mass shootings ? There are millions of guns. Why the US is the most fucked up? There is not a day when I don't turn local news and there isn't someone who killed someone....lately is more family violence than gang violence or work violence . The last country I visited the worst crime they had on TV was a shooting in a work place in the US. The irony !!!!
So homicides and violent crimes don't count in your world. How convenient for you!
You know where else your "method" would help? London, England! They can quit counting all the murders committed with knives and machetes!
I do appreciate your efforts in helping me get great exposure for these facts as often as possible!
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.
Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online
UK is violent crime capital of Europe
That only stands to reason.....at least with those of us on the right. Helpless people in Europe have no way to defend themselves. They are targets of crime just like elderly people are in the US.
The difference is that most people here have the ability to defend themselves if they desire. At least in my state, if a helpless 90 pound female is being followed by an aggressive male, and she's prepared for an attack, that 200 pound muscle bound gorilla may be going home on a gurney with the sheet draped over his head. That doesn't happen in Europe.
So what? That's part of living in a free society where self-defense is permissible. Hundreds of people drown every summer, but we don't outlaw swimming pools and forbid people from swimming in the lake.
Point is, other violent crime is higher in many countries that outlawed firearms. In England, they are having a huge problem with knives. Women there have absolutely no way of protecting themselves from an aggressive male attacker.
Strangers do not appear out of nowhere. You only think they do because you aren't fully aware of your surroundings. Does that happen to you a lot? Strangers appearing out of nowhere, accosting you in the parking lot? If so, you must have a big ol' MAGA bullseye painted right on your ass.What? Just because you were able to buy one in 1980 doesn't mean a crazy gun nut will be able to get their hands on one moving forward. Chances are the gun nut will just go with what he can get his hands on at the gun store. And that will be 10 round mags.
Oh, and it's illegal to sell yours to anyone. So you can keep what you got but not sell it.
You're speculating. Your comment is false. What you are saying is if we don't confiscate what you have then gun nuts will be able to get their hands on them. Not true. Not true at all. Banning the sale of 20 round magazines will take 20 round magazines out of most gun nuts hands.
And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.
As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.
Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.
Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.
The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.
Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.
Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.
So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.
You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.
Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.
The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.
If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.
Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.
You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.
When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible
Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.
Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.
I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.
But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.
I'm not talking about a bar argument, I''m talking about getting attacked, such as going to your car in a parking lot somewhere and being accosted by a stranger out of nowhere. You don't know his or their intent, so you protect yourself even if it means using deadly force. If you use anymore force than necessary to stop your attacker, then you move from self-defense to felonious assault.
For instance: I'm at a bar and somebody takes a punch at me. I nail the guy and he's out cold on the floor. The establishment summons police, and witnesses describe the account. If the guy doesn't need medical care, they arrest him and tell me to have a good night.
Same exact situation, except after I disable my attacker, I grab him by his hair and start beating his head into the bar. At that point, I'm in the process of a felony. I went from victim to attacker.
Strangers do not appear out of nowhere. You only think they do because you aren't fully aware of your surroundings. Does that happen to you a lot? Strangers appearing out of nowhere, accosting you in the parking lot? If so, you must have a big ol' MAGA bullseye painted right on your ass.And banning the sale of 20 round magazines also takes that ability away from the law abiding citizen who may, one day, have to defend himself or herself from somebody with a 20 round magazine.
As we on the right understand, having limits on capacity size is only one step in the long game of virtual gun confiscation. If you don't believe that, I'll tell you what: I'll support your magazine size law, if you can get the Democrats to sign a Contract with America. In that contract, it would state the Democrats will never bring up the issue of guns again win, lose, or draw if we support limits on gun magazine size.
Do you really think the Democrats in the House would go for that? Of course not. Because again, it's one baby step in their long game.
Using your logic, regulating a 20mm anti aircraft gun is just as wrong in case you have to defend yourself from someone with an armored vehicle with a M2 mounted on it. Pardon me if I choose not to live in that neighborhood. You may want to live there. I know of only one place on Earth that has no laws and it would be perfectly legal and that would be Yemen and how is that working out for them.
The only real question here is where do we put the limits. Where do we draw the line. To date, the Federal Courts have drawn the line at 15 rounds. No matter where we place the limit, there is always going to be someone jump up and scream that they demand the next higher number or higher.
Now about that fantasy about your home being invaded by, let's say, 10 bad armed guys. You have an AR with 3 30 round mags. Those 10 bad guys are similarly armed. Maybe in a Rambo movie could you expect the good guy to survive that encounter but it's just a movie. The best outcome by directly confronting those bad guys would be to go down fighting. While that sounds heroic, it's not the best option. Take it from a Military Person, sometimes withdrawal is a better option.
Next you are going to say, they have all the exits covered. No matter what I say, you will come up with a scenario where you will have to fight. We are right back inside that movie. But let's say it happens. If you are that worried I suggest you build a nice little safe room that can't be easily breached and blends in with a wall. They aren't there to probably kill you. They are there to steal from you or kidnap. Sit in that safe room with your defensive weapons and stay quiet. And call the Cops. Let them get shot, it's their job. They have a unit called Swat that does that for a living and they don't have any limits to their weapons.
So we place a limit. limits have to be placed because some moron will go hog wild if they aren't. Again, the only real question is, where will those limits be placed. I agree with the Courts except I might place the limit at 20 because some weapons look might funny with the shorter 15 round mag. And 5 rounds one way or the other really isn't that big a deal. So I don't see the world coming to an end with the limit set at 15. The Sun will come up in the Morning, The Seasons will go on and so will I.
You don't assume anything when confronted by armed attackers. They may beat you to death, force you to disclose where valuables are hidden at, and if you don't have enough, kill you because they thought you were holding out on them, or simply because you are a witness that can identify them in court.
Unless you agree to a fight with somebody, and are attacked, you have no idea what their motive is, so you take no chances. It's the same as getting attacked without a weapon. You always expect the worst.
The use of a deadly weapon is the same as not using a deadly weapon. Years ago when I was studying for my blackbelt, I asked my instructor what might happen to me legally if I used one of the five methods to kill another person? With that, he said since I have no idea what their intent is, use them. Because self-defense ends at the point you disabled your attacker from further attack no matter how you did it. Until that point, it's legally self-defense.
If people in my area start to get attacked by airplanes, then I'll look into anti-aircraft weaponry. But thus far, it's been criminals with guns, and yes......big magazines. So I don't think there should be any limit on magazine size because for one, it won't stop one shooting, and two, it won't make any difference in the amount of casualties or deaths. What it does do is advance the commie narrative of virtual gun and ammo confiscation.
Okay, if it won't make any difference on way or the other, what is wrong with placing a limit of 15 rounds for the mag? If the odds are overwhelming, withdraw. Tactical Withdrawal is a sound Military Tactic. And since you actually painted a Military Scenario then one would think using sound military tactics would be the best option.
You used that fact you earned a Black Best, Babyson. Here are some tips you missed.
When your enemy is hitting you here, don't be there
Control the Situation
Avoid the Confrontation if possible
Use only enough force to end the situation. That is part of controlling the situation. If you have no control over the situation then get away from the situation. The person that imparted that to me was a 3rd Don with enough awards and accolades to fill a wall in a decent sized living room.
Then there is Kelvinkis Rules from the New Centurian
If a bad guy picks up his hands, you pick up a knife
If a bad guy picks up a knife, you pick up a club
If a bad guy picks up a club, you pick up a gun
If a bad guy picks up a gun, you pick up your feet and get the hell out of dodge.
I suggest you get a copy of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. If you are going to prepare for war, II suggest you learn from the Brightest and the Best.
But if your home is in a potential war zone then use your Martial Arts training and remove yourself and you family from a situation you really have no control over.
I'm not talking about a bar argument, I''m talking about getting attacked, such as going to your car in a parking lot somewhere and being accosted by a stranger out of nowhere. You don't know his or their intent, so you protect yourself even if it means using deadly force. If you use anymore force than necessary to stop your attacker, then you move from self-defense to felonious assault.
For instance: I'm at a bar and somebody takes a punch at me. I nail the guy and he's out cold on the floor. The establishment summons police, and witnesses describe the account. If the guy doesn't need medical care, they arrest him and tell me to have a good night.
Same exact situation, except after I disable my attacker, I grab him by his hair and start beating his head into the bar. At that point, I'm in the process of a felony. I went from victim to attacker.
I do live in a multi-family unit.My insurance doesn't kill anyone. And I've said many times, I don't need that kind of insurance. Caravans of vehicles (or even one) have never driven into my driveway and spilled out hordes of home invaders to steal all my shit and kill me. I am not attacked in public because I know how to keep myself from being a target. I have kept myself safe all over the world, and right here on the CA/MX border.Let me ask: do you have house insurance? If you rent, renters insurance? Do you have healthcare insurance, or car insurance?
Guns are nothing more than insurance. You have it just in case, but never expect to actually use it. Having insurance is not a symbol of anything but responsibility and protection. If you want to drive with no insurance, I don't care, just don't tell me I can't have auto insurance, and please don't drive around me either.
However, if some incel GOP nutter decided to drive out here and shoot the place up and I got caught in the crossfire, well, then that would be that. I will not live my life in fear of crazy people. I do not care to live my life afraid of the world and I'm not into paranoia.
But if I did need a killing weapon, I'd prefer a bomb, or maybe a grenade. Something I can throw in the general direction of the danger. My hand-eye coordination is not that great and if I'm going for the kill, I'll need something that delivers an easier kill shot.
So you think that you throwing a bomb or grenade would be more effective than a bullet that travels at a speed of 2,500 feet per second? Did you ever consider somebody can see you throwing such an object and simply move away? Or shoot you before you even had a chance to pull your arm back?
You know who else thought they were invincible to crime because they knew how to keep themselves from being targets? All the people who were victims of a criminal attack.
Don't get me wrong, I understand how you think. I thought like that too when I was a kid. Then I came home from work one Saturday and found my apartment broken into. I knew the people who did it as well. Very dangerous people. So that's when I purchased my first gun.
Through channels, I let the people who broke into my house know I was armed, and I was ready and waiting for them. I even told them I had a friend come over from time to time to remove my car and take it home with him to give the appearance the apartment was empty just so I could get a chance at putting the robbers in a body bag. They never came back since.
If you ever read any of the hundreds of stories of people using a firearm to protect themselves or others, you'd see they too did what they could to stay out of that situation. Many times these self-defense acts take place during the day, in good neighborhoods or areas not known for criminal attack.
I don't associate with any very dangerous people. It's one of the ways I keep myself safe.
When you live in multi-family units, you have no choice but to run into these characters.
