Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
By asking questions,by having a resonable discussion to a question asked,trying to explan one way or the other is infringeing on the rights of someone.
By asking questions,by having a resonable discussion to a question asked,trying to explan one way or the other is infringeing on the rights of someone.
Did you ask questions? I must have missed that, I also missed the reasonable discussion, and the question asked. There was no trying to explain why one way is better, it was only saying one way was bad. Same old carpola...
Ohhh wait I forgot about the insinuation you made towards me. Was that the questions you are talking about?
What questions was asked the very frist one heres the quote from the the frist post.
"From time to time, the issue of carrying with an empty chamber vs one in the pipe comes up and gets quite a bit of responses, some of which can be heated. So I thought that this posting might be of interest to those who either carry like this or are thinking about doing so. As always comments are welcome."
The question I asked you was did you carry a empty chamber as a working LEO.
Seems to fit with the frist post.
I can say I nevered carried with a empty chamber when I was working. Why would I promote something differant where legal and the firearm was safe to use that way.
You or anyone else can carry any legal way they want nobody here is saying other wise.
After getting the information people are free to do as they see fit.
WalkingWolf didn't you read that line , your a bit touchy.
In a lots of your other posts you make lot ref to being former LEO or are you just playing a wantabe one.
Southern Boy, sorry i disagree with one of your comments where you state kept your comments (biases) out!! you only pushed one article saying keep one in the chamber!! i see which way you are sitting on the fence...SO no your post was not a FAIR contribution to the on going discussion but rather a rehash of your bias...
shall we put it in another context...a brand new thread reader decides this is his very first thread to read...they are expecting a balanced discussion on a subject yet finds your post and article which states 'one should be kept in the chamber' w/o any discussion of the rational for not maintaining one in the chamber. Therefore, you have skewed their perception and no matter what anybody says...he read it here first and assimilated it and preaches it to all who will listen...all from your 'unbiased post'
bottom line Southern Boy, you have ingratiated your biases and eliminated the 'freedom' the new reader should have experienced in making up their own mind.
Firearm Instructor...do you now understand the difference...advise was not asked but rather a biased slant was presented w/o a counter.
wabbit
ps: Firearm Instructor...when giving advice...do you present the counter or from a perspective...or from the perspective 'what are you dumb' why would you carry a firearm w/o one chambered? i personally suspect your response is the latter...sigh
There was no questions, only claims of questions in the articles, there certainly were no questions in the thread. Only comments as to why condition 3 is bad, and those doing it are bad people. My former employment has nothing to do with the thread or the OP and was a childish ignorant stupid asinine attempt at insulting. You should grow up, I believe it is unsafe for immature adults to carry.
Let me remind of the title to the thread "Reality bites" pretty much sets the tone and direction of any debate, and the bias nature of both the OP and first posters.
Did you intend to end that sentence with a question mark, or is it simply a statement of how you see things? If it is a statement, then I ask - are you here to infringe on somebody's rights? I'm not - and if you are, you're doing a very poor job of it because I haven't noticed that to be your intent. I'm here for the "discussion" - the open exchange of thoughts, ideas and opinions. And, if a person who feels their right(s) have been infringed upon by something someone else posted, they then have the right to either ignore the post or respond to it. (Although many of us try, we are often less than perfect in the way we explain some of our thoughts, ideas and opinions.) Pax...By asking questions,by having a resonable discussion to a question asked,trying to explan one way or the other is infringeing on the rights of someone.
Your contention that I am trying to stifle anyone is bovine scatology. In fact I against stifling people and telling them how to do whatever they do. I am for free choice to carry. I did not point to any one specific type of carry as others have, and try to tell them it is unsafe, or whatever CACA. Again it is none of your business how other people carry, or mine. YOU are attempting to stifle MY free speech to get the message out that those who would infringe on others rights in any fashion should "BUGGER OFF!"
Hope that clears it up for you...
Personally I don't know any LEOs that carry there duty weapon with a unloaded chamber.
... I carried "Israeli" style ...
What is "Israeli Style"?
tyc
Since everyone seems to be ignoring this question, I'll give it a shot: "Israeli" style is carrying with an empty chamber which makes it necessary to rack the slide on an automatic as you draw. From what I have been told, it was because some of the early Israeli pistols were notoriously unsafe with a round in the chamber.
Modern firearms, for the most part, are safe with a round in the chamber (semi-automatic) or a round under the hammer (revolver).
Did you intend to end that sentence with a question mark, or is it simply a statement of how you see things? If it is a statement, then I ask - are you here to infringe on somebody's rights? I'm not - and if you are, you're doing a very poor job of it because I haven't noticed that to be your intent. I'm here for the "discussion" - the open exchange of thoughts, ideas and opinions. And, if a person who feels their right(s) have been infringed upon by something someone else posted, they then have the right to either ignore the post or respond to it. (Although many of us try, we are often less than perfect in the way we explain some of our thoughts, ideas and opinions.) Pax...
Thanks for the info.
We can carry fully loaded openly no permits necessary, but must have a permit to carry "loaded" in a vehicle or to conceal a loaded firearm, from my recollection a magazine inserted into your firearm is considered loaded even with nothing in the chamber.
In my attempt not fall on the wrong side of the law before I got my government permission slip (something I really resisted doing, but caved due to the inconveniences not possessing one created) I too carried without one in the chamber.
I agree with you though that the berating of others for how they care is tiresome and unnecessary.
(10) "Loaded" means:
(a) There is a cartridge in the chamber of the firearm;
(b) Cartridges are in a clip that is locked in place in the firearm;
(c) There is a cartridge in the cylinder of the firearm, if the firearm is a revolver;
(d) There is a cartridge in the tube or magazine that is inserted in the action; or
(e) There is a ball in the barrel and the firearm is capped or primed if the firearm is a muzzle loader.