Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Lordhat posted an overblown populist article talking about the great oppression of the authorities? Shock. It was a year old and wrong? Doubleshock.

Hats!

The authorities are being oppressed!
We must stop this!

While this Article is old, I still have to tell a story.


I have a friend who recently bought a Gun. He bought it because he wanted to protect his family in case something were to ever happen. But he does not know if he could pull the trigger to harm another Person, Because it's against his Religion to take someone's life. While I wanted to tell him that rule is within every religion, I didn't want to come off as an ass.

He was hoping he could get a loud enough gun so he could fire it in the air and scare away and assailants.


I told him to sell the gun right then if he had no intent to use it to end someone's life if someone were to pull a weapon on him and make it clear they had all intent to end his.


There are only three reasons to have a gun out of it's home, When you are at the range, when you are maintaining it, and when someone has a weapon drawn on you and intents to use it.

All firing in the air/into the ground does is show them you will not shoot them and they can walk up, take your gun and use it on you. You should NEVER have to pull your weapon on another person, but if you do (AKA in a situation were the other person is armed with intent to harm you) make sure you take them out.

This is a "with great power comes great responsibility" thing. You have the power to save your life, but should only use it in the most dire of straits, when your life is actually on the line and there is no other option.

No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.

Yes, we want everyone who has a gun to have no idea how to present it, spend no time dryfiring, and build no useful skills outside of cleaning it and punching paper. That way when you clumsily yank out your firearms you can have little to no muscle memory jerk the trigger you are barely familiar with and miss your intended target endangering your neighbors and family. You know if you make it out of your shirt since you never practiced your draw in your day to day clothes. You give out fantastic advise, where are you instructing people in firearms training? The Brady Institute?

He means larking around with the gun like Travis Bickle.

That sort of giddy goat acting causes plenty of accidents with guns.

AustonT wrote:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:

No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.

Yes, we want everyone who has a gun to have no idea how to present it, spend no time dryfiring, and build no useful skills outside of cleaning it and punching paper. That way when you clumsily yank out your firearms you can have little to no muscle memory jerk the trigger you are barely familiar with and miss your intended target endangering your neighbors and family. You know if you make it out of your shirt since you never practiced your draw in your day to day clothes. You give out fantastic advise, where are you instructing people in firearms training? The Brady Institute?

No, using his idea would be a fine way of owning a firearm. He did say to take it to the range, so one would have the understanding of its functions and know how to use it correctly. The only problem I have with his statement, is the weapon that is USED for home defense purposes, SHOULD bring it out, and so dry runs when safe, of the danger spots in your home and practice a simple drill so you can quickly, quietly and easily bring the weapon out, load it and have your plan in action with no problems what so ever. Thats the only thing Lur Tae missed IMO

purplefood wrote:If they threatened him after he had his gun out then clearly they mean him some kind of harm if they felt he wouldn't use it.
Why the hell would you threaten someone holding a gun?

Again:

He escalated the situation. We do not know if the truly meant him some kind of harm. You can infer whatever you want from the situation, but the fact of the matter is that there's a reason the police and military have to train individuals to shoot at other human beings. It is not something which comes easily to us, but can be negated by training and reflex.

The bloke sounds like a fething idiot.

Crack on and slot someone if they are in your house, or even actually making an attempt to get into your house, kicking a door, breaking a window.

gak, even if they are actually on your porch maybe. But this feth head went aways to trying to make himself look like Charlie big spuds when it was unnecessary.

If they are just loitering NEAR your house, call the cops and turn the TV up a bit. No need to go wind them up with your AK like you think your fething Rambo.

But... what if he WAS Rambo?

"GET OFF MY LAWN!" *fires a minigun in to the air* "My name is John Rambo, and I approve this message."

If he was Rambo he would have flown his manoeuvrable helicopter into within 6 feet of the ground and then rammed it into a main battle tank rather than fired one of its many air to ground missles at it, just for a laugh.

Its funny because its true...

How did the excellent Rambo, turn into the ridiculous Rambo 3 anyway!? Did he give the franchise to his grandpa to write?!

mattyrm wrote:If he was Rambo he would have flown his manoeuvrable helicopter into within 6 feet of the ground and then rammed it into a main battle tank rather than fired one of its many air to ground missles at it, just for a laugh.

Its funny because its true...

How did the excellent Rambo, turn into the ridiculous Rambo 3 anyway!? Did he give the franchise to his grandpa to write?!

I don't know if it's impressive or sad but Sly has always been involved in the writing process of Rambo. He gets writer credits put I think of him more as an editor. The difference between First Blood and every other Rambo flick was that First Blood was more of a small town thriller than an action movie. And Let's be honest; still the best of them. Apparently the next Rambo if there is one will be like Taken, but replace France with Mexico, and Liam Neeson with Sly.

As an aside I probably haven't watched Rambo3 in over a decade if he flies the Hind like I remember it's actually not very maneuverable; it actually turns like a friggin pig, but it is moronic to fly an airplane into a tank. Even if it is a Hind.

I live on Long Island, so a few things I can add to this:

This article is for real.

The threat of gangs is very real here. Near NYC, LI is overshadowed by a much larger metropolis that spills over with narcotics and gangs. The good news is is there is little violence because the local police wash their hands of the infestation, merely arresting the violators who do the most harm. Schools have a serious drug problem, the welfare system is overtaxed (don't ask how that ties in with gangs), and people feel threatened by the city's influence.

An equally concerning issue at hand is gun ownership.. Nassau County has enacted tougher gun laws recently, but Long Island is more Republican and Conservative than NYC and therefore no wehere near as restrictive in their gun laws. There has been a spike in gun purchases here by concerned citizens. My friend being one of those gun purchasers, he needs to get another 1 ton safe to keep his growing supply of guns secure that his family owns.


He also thinks a zombie invasion is imminent, so I don't often lean on him for sage advice, but take it for what it is worth; there are enough people here who distrust Obama and fear for their lives that this incident here was going to happen inevitably. The local shooting ranges are packed day in and day out by people shooting guns, and your average conservative here laments how society has degenerated.

Guns don't mix well with that mentality.

If it really was MS 13 your gun laws are irrelevant. They might even have good old fashioned full auto AKs and RPGs direct from your local former communist paradise.

It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?

The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"

Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?

The gangsters would exterminate them? NYC prosecutors are more interested in removing firearms from citizens than keeping them safe? Maybe just simple bribery of the powers that be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"

Son, I like what you've done here.

Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?

1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"

Son, I like what you've done here.

And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.

AustonT wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?

1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"

Son, I like what you've done here.

And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.

Just because he's black and has a gun is enough for the cops to brand him as a gangster?
So is there any official reports that NYPD was bribed? the MOST RECENT ones.
this is 2012 not 1932.

Lone Cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?

1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"

Son, I like what you've done here.

And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.

Just because he's black and has a gun is enough for the cops to brand him as a gangster?

Haven't been to America have we?

This world is getting crazzy, where the bad guys get justice.

Would it be too much if i put up an Turret mounted Auto-Cannon infront of my house?

SilverMK2 wrote:
The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses

Son, I like what you've done here.

I second that.

Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.

Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.

Why should an AK-47 be illegal? (assuming it's not an automatic weapon)

He probably had an AK-47 because the news reported it that way and they usually don't know gak about guns (or report the worst possible gun they can get away with).

Local news here talked about Wal-Mart selling M-16s when they were really selling AR-15s.

No, he actually had an AK. don't ask me how but the news got it right.

Well, there is always the off chance that he has the license for a fully automatic. My guess would be that it is a semi-auto though.

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.

Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.

Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.
A hand gun or two would suffice in protecting a home. Heck i could understand a shot gun. but an AK-47 is just stupid.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.

Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.

Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.
A hand gun or two would suffice in protecting a home. Heck i could understand a shot gun. but an AK-47 is just stupid.

And the First Amedment doesn't mention the internet either.

I could be wrong but I believe the last time an NFA class III was used in self defense was the late 80's. It was an HK employee with a Ruger he bought to product compare. Waxed some 1%er. Also fired warning shots.

exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.

your right to free speech is overkill.