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.
So many mistakes your friend made in the situation you describe.
So should he have stayed home; check between all the parked cars? I that what you do going back to your automobile in a public parking lot?
It can happen to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Criminals do target places where the least suspecting victims are to be found.
I'm saying they seem to shit their pants when the bullets start flying and they hide with the rest of the terrorized people. Otherwise we would hear many more stories of all these 'gun nutter heroes'. Where are all these stories?
So many mistakes your friend made in the situation you describe.
So should he have stayed home; check between all the parked cars? I that what you do going back to your automobile in a public parking lot?
It can happen to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Criminals do target places where the least suspecting victims are to be found.
Yes, actually, women (especially women alone) do check the parking lot, especially on the way to, and around her own car.
I know who is in the lot, where they are, if they are coming or going, if they are male or female, if they have bags in their hands, if they look like they belong, if they are wondering around lost, if they are walking too close to me and on and on.
You have to be hyper-aware in parking lots.
I'm not saying a room full of armed people can't be effective. I'm saying they seem to shit their pants when the bullets start flying and they hide with the rest of the terrorized people. Otherwise we would hear many more stories of all these 'gun nutter heroes'. Where are all these stories?
And honestly I don't gaf if someone comes to grab your guns. That's your problem, not mine.
Yes, actually, women (especially women alone) do check the parking lot, especially on the way to, and around her own car.
I know who is in the lot, where they are, if they are coming or going, if they are male or female, if they have bags in their hands, if they look like they belong, if they are wondering around lost, if they are walking too close to me and on and on.
You have to be hyper-aware in parking lots.
/----/ That's what democRATs said when Clintoon was impeached.And he feel impeachment is like getting lynched???
So it's OK to kill the gunman after he blows away several people first? I'd prefer laws making it harder for the crazies from getting their weapons
Can we start with giving up ALL military style weapons?
/----/ "Can we start with giving up ALL military style weapons?"Can we start with giving up ALL military style weapons?
Moron wanted the chair for 5 innocent blacks,,,,prevented blacks from renting in his properties loves Duke now but some of you are good people
And he feel impeachment is like getting lynched???
Can we start with giving up ALL military style weapons?
You call it paranoid, I call it second nature.So many mistakes your friend made in the situation you describe.
So should he have stayed home; check between all the parked cars? I that what you do going back to your automobile in a public parking lot?
It can happen to anybody, anywhere, at any time. Criminals do target places where the least suspecting victims are to be found.
Yes, actually, women (especially women alone) do check the parking lot, especially on the way to, and around her own car.
I know who is in the lot, where they are, if they are coming or going, if they are male or female, if they have bags in their hands, if they look like they belong, if they are wondering around lost, if they are walking too close to me and on and on.
You have to be hyper-aware in parking lots.
And you call us paranoid for carrying our guns?
That's not my position.Yes, actually, women (especially women alone) do check the parking lot, especially on the way to, and around her own car.
I know who is in the lot, where they are, if they are coming or going, if they are male or female, if they have bags in their hands, if they look like they belong, if they are wondering around lost, if they are walking too close to me and on and on.
You have to be hyper-aware in parking lots.
Hold on! Why ... if I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to tell us that there are REAL THREATS out there in Socialist Utopia! But I know better than that, which is why I fully support your position that no one should be armed in public under any circumstances!
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.
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.
I don't know if he was serious about it or just went through the process only to make a point and story. Either way, it took months of work and waiting before he got the final decision. If people really reject their leadership, they can get a little smarter and start voting Republican again. Rudy straightened that city up real quick when he was in charge. With this commie they elected for Mayor, this is what police officers have to go through now.
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.
So should a police officer pick up a knife if someone comes at him with their fist?
Should he or she deploy a billy club if someone comes at them with a knife?
If someone produces a firearm, is a police officer going to run away?
Being a citizen, I don't have the option of arresting a threat. Nor is it mandatory that I use a non-lethal weapon, such as pepper spray. Do you even know what the "21-foot rule" is, and why law enforcement officers qualify at 7 yards with their service weapons? A person armed with a knife and intent on using it, can cover 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds and cut the living fuck out of you.
Very few police officers I know of would even attempt to disarm a person armed with a knife. I also seriously doubt that any criminals spend their time reading Sun Tzu. The fact is, police officers do not carry firearms to protect you or I: They carry weapons to protect their own lives. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia that police officers have no "duty to protect." In other words, we are responsible for out own safety.
And if police officers are entitled to have 15-round magazines in their handguns and AR-15 rifles with 30-round magazines, we are entitled to have them as well. Probably more entitled, as a criminal is more likely to perpetrate a more vicious attack on a mere citizen, as they would on a law-enforcement officer.
