Posted on 12/01/2013 7:43:55 AM PST by Kaslin
“As a victim you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t...”
WRONG!
Here’s the corrected version:
“As a victim you are damned if you do and dead if you don’t...”
Better in court than in a coffin or the vegetable ward.
Thanks
Under Obama/Holder, this kind of stuff has grown legs.
Actually, the common usage for Condition 1 is for the firearm, most commonly described for a 1911 variant SA, a round chambered, hammer cocked and safety on.
As far as your 'lawyer' comment goes, all I can say is that if you're so worried about bullets and lawyers, you probably shouldn't carry at all then.
As for reaction times, distances between perpetrators and intended victims, yes, things happen all too quickly, and you can get in a proximity situation where your weapon doesn't matter. That's why my first inclination mentioned was to cross the street when it looked like proximity would be a problem which you ignored. Further, although TM and GZ weren't technically in a knockout scenario (beatdown is more like it), GZ did have one in the chamber ready.
You can have your opinion and under your description, you are correct. However, your implied conclusion leads one to believe that they shouldn't carry at all because you just cannot defeat the perpetrator in a knock-out game scenario.
And, there is at least one reported instance (even threaded here) where that tenet has been shown invalid.
Well said...
Well, if you look at it that way, sure...But you have to know why I said it like that...
Drawing the lines where you try to determine who is the “victim” in a shooting incident is largely dependent upon where you are at the time of the shooting...(State-wise)...
My money would be on him smiling looking up and on the warm side, if he is smiling.
Nope. It is just going to get you into a lot of trouble with the law.
Actually, the common usage for Condition 1 is for the firearm, most commonly described for a 1911 variant SA, a round chambered, hammer cocked and safety on.
[textbook answer]
As far as your ‘lawyer’ comment goes, all I can say is that if you’re so worried about bullets and lawyers, you probably shouldn’t carry at all then.
[Bullsh!t!!! Your analysis is 180 degrees off...An NRA Board of Directors friend of mine, who lives a few miles from me and we shoot together quite often made that comment, he works with Cox and the legal team in that organization, and the comment is actually more anecdotal, than a reason to carry or not carry a firearm for LAWFUL self-defensive purposes]
As for reaction times, distances between perpetrators and intended victims, yes, things happen all too quickly, and you can get in a proximity situation where your weapon doesn’t matter. That’s why my first inclination mentioned was to cross the street when it looked like proximity would be a problem which you ignored. Further, although TM and GZ weren’t technically in a knockout scenario (beatdown is more like it), GZ did have one in the chamber ready.
[Ok, so you have it in your mind to change the side of the street you walk on if you see a bunch of black people walking in your general direction??? Is that out of “fear”??? Or is it based upon the news and the flavor of the month they are pushing, which is causing you to shift tactics???]
You can have your opinion and under your description, you are correct. However, your implied conclusion leads one to believe that they shouldn’t carry at all because you just cannot defeat the perpetrator in a knock-out game scenario.
[Absolute horse-buscuits on that...Again, your analysis is way off of what I was implying...But thats ok, thats why we are discussing this, and I am doing my best to clarify any ambiguities I may have stated...]
And, there is at least one reported instance (even threaded here) where that tenet has been shown invalid.
[You’re talking about that “one” recent instance where the “victim” who was attacked by one of the black “bored” youths, shot the suspect twice, in response to their attack...Yep...That sure was taking charge and defending yourself after the fact...
OK, lets look at that...Do we have any information (details) about the distance, position of the shooter, were they on the ground, did they get up after the strike, how many rounds were actually discharged??? I have not heard ANY details about the conditions of that response other than the condition of the black kid who got shot twice, once in the upper chest and once in the leg...I honestly would like to know, other than what has been spoonfed to us through those local news outlets that actually bothered to report it...I suggest we both take another look at that information, and revisit with that at that time...]
Point of order: “Never assume I propose ANY measure for anyone to not be able to carry a firearm for lawful self-defensive purposes, according to the state laws they reside in...”
We have seen many instances where these shootings go both ways in Grand Jury proceedings...Most, if not a significant number get “no-billed”...But there have been a few, where a liberal DA takes the person who defended themselves through a ringer, because of the manufactured political and racial slants put on by those entities, along with the media getting everyones bowels in an uproar about the whole thing...
Be glad that you live in a state that values and understands your unalienable right to keep and bear arms as YOU see fit...If you do not, I do have sympathies for that condition, one that may, or may not be, easily remedied...
You’re a defeatist with expertise by association it seems. Your opinion doesn’t really matter to me.
“When the economic problems hit the fan someday down the road; it will only get worse.”
You bet; sounds like you’re in a safe place. Good for you!
“...but I’ve never been in Cambridge.”
You’re not missing anything. I live next to it and ignore it’s existence.
“I spent a week in Boston once, 30 years back, had a great time in Fanell Hall Area; didn’t seem like a dangerous place; always wanted to go back again.”
Fanuiel Hall is nice; it’s been redone since you were there.
Prayers for your nephew and stay warm.
Or as Texas D.A. Johnnie Holmes, a true-blue Texas John Law, once said in the middle of just such a controversy in Houston, "I'd rather face a grand jury five times a day than go before the medical examiner once."
They're feeding it -- stoking it, more like.
They want violence, and they want it to be Charlie Cracker's fault. Because then whatever happens next to Charlie Cracker (they think) will be arguably his fault. They want a fight and think they can win; what they want is vindication a priori before they throw their opening bid.
That’s the reason for his “gun control”, shutting down America’s only lead smelting plant, a “civilian” defense force and hardened security facilities all over the Country
(for his Gestapo Goons from TSA, NSA, ATF, Homeland Security, etc. to act out of.
America, Christianity and western civilization has never been in greater peril than it is under this goon and his stool pigeons.
I wouldn’t say in peril...
I would say there is a concern that our basic, unalienable rights are being challenged, and the people we should be expecting to fight for us up in that cesspool, are failing miserably...
So that leaves us, the people to make the decision...
What are YOU prepared to do about it??? And, what are you willing to sacrifice to achieve the goal of protecting and securing those unalienable rights...
Unalienable, meaning a right that is granted by an authority higher than ANY government instituted amoung men...
Pretty simple decision if you ask me...;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.