| Author | Message | |||
     Uwgriz |
Not disagreeing with you, just more commenting on Tramp's situation. | |||
| Admin |
Peter (Blublak), Let me get this straight. It is your opinion that if someone breaks into my home or onto my property and commences stealing from me, that I am not permitted by law to use whatever force is necessary to prevent the theft of my property? So according to your idea of the law, a thief is guaranteed the ability to walk up my driveway ingoring my verbal threats and admonitions for him to depart, hotwire my truck in front of my very eyes and drive it away? LOL!!! Not in Texas my friend. I don't "pack heat" as per the title of this thread. I don't even keep a loaded gun in the house. But I would have ZERO compunction shooting and killing anyone who truly threatened me or those special to me. Anyone who breaks into my home is a true threat to me and those special to me. Anyone who pulls a knife on me demanding my wallet is a true threat; if I were carrying a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill. From what I hear, if you are truly threatened, you are much better off to kill the criminal than just wound him. Too many hand wringing bleeding heart liberals have totally screwed up our criminal justice system. THEY are the reason violent crime has become such a problem in some cities. Rocket, Six times more likely to be a victim of violent crime in London than NYC. Did that little bit of information not penetrate your brain? People like you who make excuses for such a problem are part of the problem. Suggest you become part of the solution. LA has the same problem. In years past the authorities tried compassionate interaction (winning hearts and minds) in gang infested high crime areas. They are now realizing that just don't work. No different than giving terrorists a seat at the UN, instead of opposing the problem we legitimize it. BIG mistake. I sure do like shooting guns though.  Don't know why that should be illegal. WAY more people are killed by drunk drivers. And the point that all the anti-gun weenies fail to recognize is that guns do indeed save lives. It's a joke really, the liberal press reported on an incident at a college where a man with a gun was subdued by a student. The article never said anything about the student using his own gun to do the subduing. No, can't have guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens being portrayed as a viable means of self-defense. In closing, a picture is worth a thousand words, so the following video must pretty much say it all concerning the views of the anti-gun weenies here.
| |||
| Tramp |
nice work, admin! and remember, keep a nice cheap ol' 870 rem. or a 500 mossberg about (ithacas are wunnerful)- little ballistic tracing to weapon, little aiming required, and they sure do make a purdy flame and baboom at night, when discharged toward would-be criminals  | |||
| Blake |
If the above avi won't play, then save it to disk and be sure it has the .avi file type and then play it using quicktime movie player. Enjoy. | |||
| Blake |
FYI, the above video shows none other than the Rocketman himself putting an assault weapon through its paces. | |||
| Aesquire |
Sorry, Blake, That's not an Assault weapon. Nice plinker though. In NY, you do indeed have to watch them hotwire your car & drive away. You can call the police, who will come over in a few days to take a report, maybe. If you try to fight with the bozo in your driveway, You are liable. Texas may be more rational. NY law requires you to run, hide, etc. if possible to avoid confrontation. ( the fact that every police officer I have discussed the subject with tells me to never, ever, wound a burglar, just speaks to the sue 'em mindset. Killing in self defense is an absolute last resort. ) Shoot someone with out the threat of lethal violence to yourself or others to justify it, you go to jail. And, you should, most times. That's why a 14th century battle axe is my primary poke around in my dark house when asked to by the better half. Never runs out of ammo, quiet, and I have a better chance of getting it back from police impound, after the grand jury. | |||
| Firebolt020283 |
rick, do they sell just the upper portion of that .50 if so that is awsome i could have a 2 in one rifle (and assault rifel or a wall buster)  | |||
| Newfie_buell |
No one said anyone was an Anti-Gun Weenie!!! I am sorry Admin but what was an intelligent discussion all of a sudden turned into an unprovoked dig at Rocket. With Video to back it up. No big deal, Rocket shot an assault gun. In my opinion. So apart from being labelled an Anti-Gun Weenie I would like to point out that in younger years with my own father we hunted Ptarmigan, rabbit, grouse, duck and many other types of small game. Hell I love a good skeet shoot, the argument or discussion here was "Packing Heat", my questions were basically for those who "Pack Heat" would you really use it? Like stated before "Guns are indeed valuable tools, when used properly and with respect" If you do use deadly force are you prepared to face the consequences, emotionally, criminally and monetarily? Let's not let this discussion turn into a flame war???? One other question - Who exactly is the Admin? We can't log in on the Anon without being exposed. | |||
| Tramp |
ptarmigan, spruce grouse, i love those northern upland game birds. 'sepcially those willow ptarmigan | |||
| Outrider |
If you do use deadly force are you prepared to face the consequences, emotionally, criminally and monetarily? Newfie...That is the best post on this whole thread. | |||
| M1combat |
If you need to use deadly force and DON'T, are your wife and children prepared to be brutally beaten, raped and killed just after you are killed trying to dial 911? If you need to use deadly force and DON'T, Are YOU prepared to ask the murderer to politely refrain from stabbing you 88 times? Just curious... I'll prepare to use deadly force and hope I don't have to. I'll have the option though. Keep your options open. No sense in burning bridges I always say  . | |||
| Daves |
Or, more importantly, If you needed to use deadly force and you didn't,couldn't or wouldn't, could you live with the consequences? Oh and for the guy spitting in my wifes face on the street, well let's just say we'd both be kicking his •••! I'm a pretty easy going guy, haven't been in a fight in a long time but one sure way to get me to go into a butt kicking,headbusting rage is mess with Kandie. I guess I'm just an ole fashioned guy. | |||
| M1combat |
Way to be Dave . | |||
| Daves |
Jeez M1 I guess you posted while I was typing! | |||
| CJXB |
If you do use deadly force are you prepared to face the consequences, emotionally, criminally and monetarily? I think anyone in a real situation of real defense of themselves or loved one’s would be more than willing to face the consequences !! I don’t think negatively, and believe for most of us that situation would never occur, but as M1 and Daves says if your ever unlucky enough to be in that situation could you live with yourself if you didn't ??? I have a friend in Arkansas who is an auditor that traveled from one courthouse to another auditing them, and frequently had to work late. It isn’t always safe to be a woman out alone after dark in Arkansas (other places as well). Her husband taught her to use a gun, made her get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, bought her a small gun and she carries it in her purse. She’s a very polite, petite, non-aggressive person and has never used it, probably never will, and if she ever did it would only be in self defense. But the piece of mind it gave her husband and herself has been invaluable !! No one will convince me that in some situations it's wrong to have the choice to carry a weapon, anymore than they will convince me it’s always the right situation to carry one either, but I do believe in the right to choose !! There are folks who feel as strongly as you do about carrying a weapon that riding motorcycles is dangerous and believe only fools ride and it should be outlawed for the fools’ own good !! Thank God for our right to choose, potentially dangerous or not !! CJ | |||
| Mutt2jeff |
If you need to use deadly force and DON'T, are your wife and children prepared to be brutally beaten, raped and killed just after you are killed trying to dial 911? Bingo, well put M1. | |||
| Firebolt020283 |
aww look at the "old " gentalman  just messing with you dave | |||
| Tramp |
CJxb said: "Thank God for our right to choose" whooooaaa- that's another issue entirely | |||
| Firebolt020283 |
well i know what its like to have to use dealy force (though in a war time situation it still applys to the after efects) and i know that it is hard on you afterwards, but i may have saved my own life as well as my battle buddies as well by doing so. If i was in the same or simular situation in every day life i would do the same thing. would i be emotionally upset afterwards? yes probly so cuz im a kind hearted person but i will still pull the trigger if my or my freids or familys life is in danger. | |||
| Blake |
Sorry Newf. You know me. I call it like I see it. Hand wringing and vascilation over the legality of owning or even carrying guns fits perfectly with my definition of "weenieness." However, it may take some of the sting out of my comment to inform you that to certain design engineers I am affectionately known as "the stress weenie." I accept that title. What confuses me is the absence of any logical rebuttal to the points raised in my "why allow people to own guns/knives/bats..." or others like M1's post above. All I hear is a bunch of emotional hand wringing. Here's the deal. If in the unlikely case that I am compelled to decide it necessary to shoot someone and am able to find my guns and get them loaded in time to do so, I am 100% willing to deal with the consequences. What business of yours or anyone's is it to worry about my or anyone's ability to handle the consequences of shooting someone? You can be darn sure that if I am compelled to shoot someone, the consequences of that action will not enter into the equation. The equation will involve preserving my life and that of my family against a real and dire threat. All else is secondary. And for the record, my anti-gun weenie comments were not directed at anyone in particular here. Admin is me. I cheated and used that login so I could upload the big file, but forgot to leave a signature. My bad. Now go shoot something; you'll feel better. | |||
| Blake |
Patrick, Sorry, you are wrong. That is indeed an assault weapon and was formerly banned by law. Note the size/capacity of the clip. | |||
| CJXB |
whooooaaa- that's another issue entirely You have a choice to "pack heat" or not if it's lawful (or not?), to use deadly force or not given the right circumstances (you can run and hide and hope for the best?), to ride a motorcycle even though it could be potentially dangerous !!?? Sorry for the tangent !! CJ | |||
| Blublak |
Peter (Blublak), Let me get this straight. It is your opinion that if someone breaks into my home or onto my property and commences stealing from me, that I am not permitted by law to use whatever force is necessary to prevent the theft of my property? Blake, this is not my opinion (as I thought I had made clear in my post) this is law. My opinion does not play into this at all, my post was not about opinions but about facts and applicable case law primarily in Virginia (where I have most of my experience). So according to your idea of the law, a thief is guaranteed the ability to walk up my driveway ingoring my verbal threats and admonitions for him to depart, hotwire my truck in front of my very eyes and drive it away? LOL!!! Not in Texas my friend. Uh, Blake.. This is from the Texas Penal code… § 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. And skipping down to the part about your truck.. § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Not having any experience administering Texas law, I read that as pretty much the same thing Virginia law says. Lethal force is a last resort and must only be applied when you are left with no choice and are faced with a lethal threat to your self , If the threat is only to property that can be replaced, you are not justified in using lethal force. I don't "pack heat" as per the title of this thread. I don't even keep a loaded gun in the house. But I would have ZERO compunction shooting and killing anyone who truly threatened me or those special to me. Anyone who breaks into my home is a true threat to me and those special to me. Anyone who pulls a knife on me demanding my wallet is a true threat; if I were carrying a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot to kill. From what I hear, if you are truly threatened, you are much better off to kill the criminal than just wound him. Once again, you misread what I wrote. I never said anything about ‘shooting to wound’. I said ‘SHOOT TO STOP’. That is, stop the threat. When there is no threat, there is no need to continue shooting. Trust me on this. I have some experience in this matter. Too many hand wringing bleeding heart liberals have totally screwed up our criminal justice system. THEY are the reason violent crime has become such a problem in some cities. Oh, and please I am far from a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ type. Like a lot of people in my line of work, I’m a professional that has to deal with the law and the ramifications of ones actions. There are a lot of folks out there that use more of a ‘head in the sand’ approach to dealing with crime. I have a less, romantic view of perpetrators of violent crime, like some others on this board, I’ve seen too much of it. My personal responses to these topics were never discussed, perhaps another time, over something cool and relaxing. Not wanting to engage in a ‘flame war’ with anyone.. but let me comment on another of your posts from this thread. Patrick, Sorry, you are wrong. That is indeed an assault weapon and was formerly banned by law. Note the size/capacity of the clip. By BATFE definition, that was a 9mm pistol, not an assault weapon being fired in the video. By press and anti 2nd amendment types it’s an assault weapon. A true assault weapon is capable of selective fire, by definition a machine gun. The features you are talking about, the large capacity magazine, Muzzle cover (and several others that don't appear on that firearm) was banned by a law that didn’t do anything to effect machine guns. In all reasonable states they are still legal to own and shoot (at the range). Remember, in certain jurisdictions there are ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ type firearms. Generally, all ‘offensive’ firearms are assault weapons or selective fire in nature, often they are also designed to fire accurately at ranges over 100 meters. In other words, if you’re using it for self defense, why? You’re far enough from a threat to get away or take cover and call for help. Most states don’t take kindly to use of ‘offensive’ firearms for ‘defensive’ purposes. Ok, end of my lengthy discourse.. Hope this helped clear things up for everyone that may have misunderstood my post on use of deadly force. Later, | |||
| Aesquire |
Formerly banned, yes, however, the "a" word is and was a propaganda tool by the anti freedom, anti constitutional groups. The location of the clip, ( can't be changed by design ) as well as it's capacity, ( which can be changed ) put it under the "Clinton Gun Ban". A decade later, it's magically fine. Calling my M2L a "chopper" does not make it so, calling a Tec9 ( I'm guessing ) an assault weapon, don't make it so either. If I referred to the terrorists in Iraq, those who are either Bathist thugs, or imported islamo-fascists, as "Freedom Fighters" you might find that terminology distasteful, and possibly insulting. It would be as much a lie as calling a magazine for a .22 rifle that held 11 rounds an assault weapon. ( which was "legal" pravda the last decade. ) Sorry if I come off strident here. I do get your point, I did laugh, and I'll try not to be a jerk about it. I'd love to try the tool in question. Thanks for the forum. Dang I type slow. Just saw the above post & agree. (Message edited by aesquire on November 17, 2004) | |||
| Tramp |
uh..fellers- just 'cause a weapon's got selective fire it doesn't make it a a mchine gun. mg is a really overused term erronoeously applied to semi-autos, such as "assault rifles". if it's got a short muzzle and a a pistol grip (w/or w/o detachable buttstock) and it's full auto capable, it's a 'submachine gun' machine guns are those which actually require a separate tin (nonunit magazine) with which to feed articulated strands of ammo. mgs typically have bipods if not tripods. anything which uses a unit clip and is full auto is either a submachine gun or an automatic rifle. advance apologies for hair-splitting, but it gives me bad goose-bumps when i hear a nice automatic rifle being referred to as an mg. clip contained in receiver, full or selective sear: "automatic rifle" eg: M14, AR 15/M16 ser., M1 carbine, m1 garand, SKS/AK ser., ruger 10/22, SAR, mini-14 (Galil-clone), HK 93, etc etc.. same as above with pistol grip and short muzzle with either clip-fwd or grip-clip: "submachine gun" eg: thompson (numrich or original) sten, MAC ser., uzi,you get the pitcher... big ol' auto or semiauto which requires separate ammo tin with band feed and usually a bipod: "machine gun" eg m60,BAR, vickers, GE mini, etc.... | |||
| Blake |
Peter, Like I said... "Not in Texas my friend." Thanks for proving my point on two counts. The idiots who wrote law that prevents a man from protecting his property are the bleeding heart liberal fools of whom I speak. What a joke. We had a man down the road a piece whose home was repeatedly burglarized while he was at work. He started going home for lunch to check on things after like the 5th burglary of his home. Of course on one occasion he did indeed run into the thieves. Took out his rifle and killed the thief/driver who was attempting to flee the scene. Justifiable homocide. Texas ROCKS! Don't mess with Texas. | |||
| Unibear12r |
Tell me about it. Cali is the epitome state for illogical gun law.  | |||
| Unibear12r |
Great definition Tramp and a fun subject to split hairs on! Just (I think) that throughout its history the M.G. has sometimes had a magazine. The Lewis gun comes to mind.  | |||
| Blake |
Not an assault weapon. Okay. Sheesh! Gun snobs. How about this one....  | |||
| Blake |
First prize to whoever can name all three blokes in the pic above, attendees of that event excepted. |
Assault Force Rocket