slim

The tail end of '73, right after the tea party, found colonials making all types of preparations for war. They'd seen the writing on the wall and all the way up until the first shots were fired in April of '75, they hoarded arms and practiced.
The majority of my "war chest" was purchased from licensed persons (gun shops) via 4473 and background checks were conducted. I passed them. The dude that just shot up the Navy Yard also passed his background check. Are you drinking Obama's kool-aid that background checks will somehow stop people who can pass background checks from getting guns?
"Guns?"
"No guns."
"Good boy."
That's it, exactly. I look at being armed to the teeth as a responsibility for self-preservation. If/when society breaks down I won't need to wait for anyone to provide security for me and my family. I'll have the capability to do it already in place.
I honestly hope nothing ever happens. Part of the reason I collect stuff is because I enjoy the American heritage of marksmanship and I enjoy exercising our rights. If I get to be an old man sitting on a mountain of ammo and cash it out to retire comfortably than so be it. That's always preferable to war.
I only have two hands and I'll need to sleep sometime. Interested in pulling a shift or two on the perimeter?
Nobody will be my bytches. There's a lot of work that goes into lording over people. I prefer to have a loose network of like-minded folks in a mutually beneficial community. If you don't want to stick around, be my guest in leaving.
"We haven't the proper facilities to take you all prisoner."

I wish they would subsidize ammo. I find it simply amazing we pay people to watch tv and breed but we don't give out free guns and ammo.

What makes you think the US armed forces would be functional after a breakdown of society?
Satellites are no good when there's nobody monitoring the signals.
I'm baffled when our president says we need "more background checks" when these dudes are purchasing their guns legally. Only a ** would suggest a bigger government fix to a problem that doesn't exist.

I wonder if the people in the cafeteria were saying, "Gosh, it's a good thing we don't have any guns in here and only the police are allowed to be armed." I wonder if they felt safer that way?

This "grammar police" action will be the most police action I think we'll see for the next 24 hours. I have a feeling the cops are just going to kind of step back and let it sort itself out.
Mobs of this size can turn very quickly. Raising or razing will matter not in the fray.

They all look 18 to me.

I don't necessarily agree with his actions or decisions but I don't think that makes him a bad guy either.
Any of you who've been married (that'd be most of us on this site) and especially those of you who've been divorced (that'd probably also be most of you on this site) should know a domestic dispute in the middle of a divorce proceeding should always be handled with some skepticism, especially when a pseudo-celebrity is involved.

The fact that many of you immediately jumped on the "told you he was a bad guy" bandwagon revealed your leanings toward him.

Did you make sure she's 18 before you posted that?
Thanks for clarifying.
Just for fun.... do you think we should make it harder for people to have access to vote? It seems like voting is pretty easy in this country and there are lots of stupid people out there voting for some very stupid things. Irreparable damage is most definitely caused by this. Look what our elected representatives are doing on TV right now. They're ceding our superpower status to the rest of the world. Stupid voters did that.
Only in the last 50 years or so have people stopped getting married and having kids at 14, 15, 16, etc. All throughout history a woman (and a man, for that matter) were "adults" as soon as they were post-pubescent. To say we've somehow evolved past all that is peculiar to me. "Let's take thousands of years of evolution and pretend like it's not there anymore because we, as a society, have deemed it icky."
I'm not advocating we go back to those standards but to call a man a pervert because a "woman" displays her womanly features is unfounded. I didn't see a lot of folks getting upset when all those Twilight moms were "just taking their daughters" to see the movies. Physical attraction doesn't happen because some arbitrary number has been achieved.
I live near the campus of my local university. I love to watch the girls walk by. It's freaking awesome. But there's a huge difference between the freshmen and the seniors and I'd never choose the former over the latter. The thing about that is, some of you on here will say I'm gross and it's nasty that I'd look at those "girls" like that.
... then you'd watch the guys run by with their shirts off and you'd pant a little bit and fan yourself. It's OK. It happens. Don't say it's not there. Don't say it's gross. Just realize that it's a natural reaction and it doesn't stop just because of their age.

I don't necessarily agree with his actions or decisions but I don't think that makes him a bad guy either.
Any of you who've been married (that'd be most of us on this site) and especially those of you who've been divorced (that'd probably also be most of you on this site) should know a domestic dispute in the middle of a divorce proceeding should always be handled with some skepticism, especially when a pseudo-celebrity is involved.

The fact that many of you immediately jumped on the "told you he was a bad guy" bandwagon revealed your leanings toward him.

Uh? Not even sure what that means.
Getting pulled over twice for speeding makes someone, to an extent, a bad guy?
Visiting the factory where the gun that saved your life was made is probably a pretty big deal for someone. Celebrity status isn't up to him, it's up to us.
And the saving lives story has way fewer holes in it than the charges the Obama administration insisted Florid press against him.

Hopefully the battle leaves DC in ruins.

Whoops!

Hopefully the battle leaves DC in ruins.

21 children have died in 2013 for being left in the hot car, these parents are so much smarter than a parent that leaves a child with hand gun, but anti gun nuts would not care about 21 children.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2013/07/toddler_who_died_in_homewood_w.html

You think that way coz media only makes that a news.

Welcome back, Gary! Glad to hear you had an awesome time. Can't wait to see some pictures.

On a semi-related note I attended a D-Day reenactment a few weeks ago in Conneaut, Ohio. So humbled to see what those folks went through and to walk through places like that and "feel" what happened... just amazing. I wonder if every American had to walk through Gettysburg or similar if we'd own our heritage and hold tight our freedom just a bit more than we do now.

Anyway, nice to see Ukraine is a happening place. Perhaps we'll get the in-laws to meet us there for the next big vacation.


Garbled Russian, maybe. But I thought they were speaking Polish.
Kip is a smart @$$ who RUBs (pun intended!) folks the wrong way in the current events section. People who aren't married to Russians tend to be uppity left-leaning progressive types who can't respect a manly man like Kip who constantly keeps it real and calls them out on their bullstuff.
Much like the current administration handles it's "made up scandals" it was just easier for the mods here to ban him than deal with his truths on a daily basis.

FREE KIP!

How much of a burden should a homeowner have to determine if the trespasser intends to do them harm?
Can't we just assume that someone forcefully entering a home is not there to sell cookies? I'm not a proponent of shooting burglars either but there's a very thin line between a home invader and a burglar. One so thin that I believe the burden of proving "no malicious intent" should rest squarely on the trespasser and not on the homeowner. A great way for them to prove that is to stay out of homes.
The issue with legislating things like "determining whether an immediate threat is present" is there's no good way to do it. If we're obligated to take every case to trial and the homeowner is burdened with proving they were in fact in danger before they shot then we've taken away our right to be secure in our homes and now protected the trespassers' right to conduct their business without fear of being killed in the commission of their crime. The safety and security of our homes is lessened.
If we uphold a standard of "cross this line and you might get shot" then it's clear across the board. Don't want to get shot? Don't take the chance of forcefully entering someone's home.
But, where do you draw the line? Can homeowners only have a shotgun? Can they have an AK-47? And why is it that a homeowner can protect themselves in the home but if they're out driving around or walking in public they don't have those same rights?
That is illegal in all 57 states.
In order to legally shoot someone the shooter must be in fear for their life. Shooters don't shoot to kill nor wound; they shoot to stop the threat. If the intent of the shooter is to wound someone then their intent is typically aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon or a similar charge. Same with firing warning shots. Gun owners have no legal right to intend wounding anyone.
For that matter, they have no legal right to intend to kill anyone. The intent must always be "to stop the threat" and/or "to protect myself/others from immediate risk of death."
Since most of you armchair attorneys have zero clue or experience with real firearms I'll let you in on a little secret. Sometimes it's not so easy to hit the target and shooting for a wound or a kill is impossible. That's why modern training standards - especially in defense applications - tend to encourage multiple hits to the high center chest.
The quickest way to end the threat is to shoot them several times in the high center chest. You could argue a headshot would be quicker but the head is a much smaller target and your chances of missing increase exponentially. Same with the hips, thighs, buttocks, etc. The military and law enforcement train shooters to hit what they call "center mass" and they do so because it's the biggest target of relevance.
How does someone innocently end up in the wrong house?
Castle Doctrine applies the same way it does in any other scenario. If the person felt their life was in jeopardy, they had the legal right to defend themselves. A 5-year-old under a Christmas tree may cause someone to feel in fear of their life. That's a legal shooting. Is it smart? Do I agree with it? No.
But legally, if we don't protect that then we lose our protection of shooting a home invader intent on doing us harm.
Castle Doctrine, as others have pointed out, comes from the old English law of "an Englishman's home is his castle." What it means in modern day America is we have the right to be secure in our homes and person and if someone threatens that right, we're legally permitted to defend it with force.
For most states with Castle Doctrine it basically means anyone in your house can get shot with pretty much no questions asked. Obviously if it's your best buddy and you shoot him at 3:00 PM, there will be some questions. But, if it's a stranger at 3:00 AM, pretty well justified without much risk of being charged with a crime. In some states Castle Doctrine is extended to your vehicle and other states it's extended to any place at any time. (You may hear this one called "Stand Your Ground.")
Ex-military (and law enforcement) are not taught to shoot to wound. They're taught to shoot to end the threat which caused them to shoot in the first place. As a matter of fact, military folks are obligated to stop shooting an enemy combatant once that enemy is no longer a threat. If the enemy combatant is shot and wounded - and no longer presents a threat - the military even takes it a step further and is obligated to render first aid to that wounded (now) enemy prisoner of war. Laws are funny like that. As soon as their status changes our level of force or response changes and it happens instantly. Problem with warfare is sometimes there's a little overkill and while one dude may have dropped his rifle and stopped fighting his buddy right next to him is still shooting. Suppressive fire, air support, arty, etc., don't really concern themselves with status.
The only instances of military shoot to wound that I've ever even heard of are IDF soldiers firing on Palestinian "troublemakers" (those who throw rocks or molotov cocktails or whatever) with rimfire rifles. They've since ceased this policy because, too often, their "less lethal" policy of shooting people in the thighs with .22s ended up killing the target instead of just wounding them.
Kind of hammers home the point, whenever you shoot someone with a gun, you're using deadly force.

It's Bush's fault.

I've often talked with new firearms owners about the ramifications of being involved in a shooting. Few consider how utterly upside down their lives will be after defending themselves - even justly - and I encourage them to remember concealed carry isn't about "beating the bad guy" it's about saving your life.
You have to be 100% sure it's either this or death. Because stuff like this is what happens to your life after a shooting.

It's Bush's fault.

This can't be true. Everyone knows you're 5 times more likely to be hurt by your own gun than to use it to stop a crime and/or defend yourself.

A persons home is their "sacred ground", no one should ever breach that. Imo, if someone chooses to invade another persons sacred ground, whether armed or not, they also give up any and all rights given to them, including the right to live.
When a person enters another persons home illegally, whether armed or not, they immediately put the homeowners life and any other persons life in that home in danger. There is no time for a question and answer period to find out exactly what the intruders intentions are.The homeowner should have the right to use whatever force he/she deems necessary to remove the threat.

This can't be true. Everyone knows you're 5 times more likely to be hurt by your own gun than to use it to stop a crime and/or defend yourself.

It's Bush's fault.

You know the real reason. Georgie must have found him a RUB online and done traded up.

If they give people free food for doing nothing, they should give them free guns as well. Bearing arms is a right. Food.... not so much.