Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Nice to see the mall's "no weapons" policy is working!

  1. #1
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Gun-toting robber hits Wet Seal store at East Towne Mall
    A woman with a gun robbed the Wet Seal store at East Towne Mall Friday night, Madison police reported. Police said the woman entered Wet Seal, 21 East Towne Mall, just before closing time, displayed a handgun, and robbed the store of an undisclosed amount of money.
    She then fled on foot out the back door into a courtyard area.
    No shots were fired or injuries reported.
    The suspect was described as a black female, 18 to 25 years old, 5 feet 4 inches to 5 feet 6 inches tall, 100 to 115 pounds, wearing a brownish leather or velour jacket, blue scarf, blue gloves, and blue jeans.

    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  2. #2
    Regular Member Beau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    East of Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    672

    Post imported post

    They do work.

    They insure that a criminal will live to see another day. We wouldn't want to take from them the oppurtunity to rob someone else would we? Next time she might actually get to kill the person she is robbing. But she and people like her must be protected.
    Colorado Gun Owners - COGO
    http://www.ColoradoGunOwners.com

    A discussion forum for Colorado Gun Owners.

    Colorado Firearm law.
    http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
    Lexis Nexis: Colorado law pertaining to firearms.
    Title 18, Article 12

  3. #3
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    cowering, in the restroom.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322

    Post imported post

    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    Isn't that an oxymoron? I mean, they have no duty to protect you. They are only there to "capture" shoplifters.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    cowering, in the restroom.
    In their little office calling the cops because it's not their jobs to really do anything but be visible.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    cowering, in the restroom.
    In their little office calling the cops because it's not their jobs to really do anything but be visible.
    yes, if i was an unarmed mall security guy, I would be in a restroom blocking the door or lockable closet. If I had one of these I might go on the offensive...
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran GlockMeisterG21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pewaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    637

    Post imported post

    Glock34 wrote:
    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    cowering, in the restroom.
    In their little office calling the cops because it's not their jobs to really do anything but be visible.
    yes, if i was an unarmed mall security guy, I would be in a restroom blocking the door or lockable closet. If I had one of these I might go on the offensive...
    I think I'd be running to my car to get the M4 out of my trunk.....hehe.
    “The 1911 pistol remains the service pistol of choice in the eyes of those who understand the problem. Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair.” — Col. Jeff Cooper, GUNS & AMMO, January 2002

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    GlockMeisterG21 wrote:
    Glock34 wrote:
    McX wrote:
    Someone has to ask it: So where was mall security?
    cowering, in the restroom.
    In their little office calling the cops because it's not their jobs to really do anything but be visible.
    yes, if i was an unarmed mall security guy, I would be in a restroom blocking the door or lockable closet. If I had one of these I might go on the offensive...
    I think I'd be running to my car to get the M4 out of my trunk.....hehe.
    You might get mistaken for a terrorist & wasted by the SWAT team, doing that...them guys get really amped up. once you leave the mall, if you can get out... stay out, you might live longer.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    If you have your weapon in the trunk of your car and save the day.You will be fired the next day for having a weapon on mall property.You would know that employees would not be allowed to bring firearms to work.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    721

    Post imported post

    32HR MAG wrote:
    If you have your weapon in the trunk of your car and save the day.You will be fired the next day for having a weapon on mall property.You would know that employees would not be allowed to bring firearms to work.
    Unfortunately, anybody who goes back into a life-threatening situation in WI has forfeited their self defense abilities, in the eyes of the law. Because you put yourself in harms way when you had previously retreated. The "reluctant participant" idea or "ability to retreat" no longer applies if you go back in.

    Other states will be different, but in WI, cops are the only people who can legally go into a life-threatening situation and still use force, in the eyes of the law.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    32HR MAG wrote:
    If you have your weapon in the trunk of your car and save the day.You will be fired the next day for having a weapon on mall property.You would know that employees would not be allowed to bring firearms to work.
    Unfortunately, anybody who goes back into a life-threatening situation in WI has forfeited their self defense abilities, in the eyes of the law. Because you put yourself in harms way when you had previously retreated. The "reluctant participant" idea or "ability to retreat" no longer applies if you go back in.

    Other states will be different, but in WI, cops are the only people who can legally go into a life-threatening situation and still use force, in the eyes of the law.
    2 fingers in the eyes of the law! :P

  13. #13
    McX
    Guest

    Post imported post


  14. #14
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    smithman wrote:
    32HR MAG wrote:
    If you have your weapon in the trunk of your car and save the day.You will be fired the next day for having a weapon on mall property.You would know that employees would not be allowed to bring firearms to work.
    Unfortunately, anybody who goes back into a life-threatening situation in WI has forfeited their self defense abilities, in the eyes of the law. Because you put yourself in harms way when you had previously retreated. The "reluctant participant" idea or "ability to retreat" no longer applies if you go back in.

    Other states will be different, but in WI, cops are the only people who can legally go into a life-threatening situation and still use force, in the eyes of the law.
    Smithy.. You better find that law and cite it for us, because I think that's not correct.

    One cannot, generally speaking, instigate a situation and claim self-defense, but there is no law prohibiting you from putting yourself in danger to defend another person. In fact, under the law you have the same right to defend another person as you have to defend yourself.

    Chapter 939.48(4) "A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person."
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.

    I do not believe you have a duty to withdraw or retreat, You are able to stand your ground in WI.
    But it always looks better for your claim of self-defense if you attempt to withdraw IMO.


    Wisconsin State Statute 939.48 -- Self Defense and the Defense of Others:
    (1.) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another
    for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes
    to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The
    actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the (unlawful) interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to herself.
    (2.) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a.) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self defense against such attack, except when the attack, which ensues, is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force
    intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant, unless the person reasonably believes that he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailants. (b.) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c.) A person who provokes an attack, whether
    by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
    (4.) A person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful
    interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person in privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the third person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.


    Wisconsin State Statute 939.45 -- Privilege: The fact that the actor's conduct is privileged, although otherwise criminal, is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any of the following circumstances:
    (2.) When the actor's conduct is in defense of persons or property under any of the circumstances described in 939.48 (Self-Defense and the Defense of others) or 939.49 ((Defense of Property and protection against retail theft): or
    (3.) When the actor's conduct is in good faith and is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of a public office; or
    (4.) When the actor's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest.


    Wisconsin State Statute 939.49 -- Defense of property and protection against retail theft:
    (1.) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with that person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of the defense of one's property. (2.) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person
    reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's
    employee or actor.


    939.22(4) Definition of "Bodily Harm" : "Bodily Harm" means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.


    939.22(14) Definition of "Great Bodily Harm": "Great Bodily Harm" means bodily
    injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.


    939.22(32) Definition of "Reasonably Believes"; "Reasonably believes" means that the actor believes that a certain fact situation exists and such believe under the circumstances is reasonable, even though it may be later found to be erroneous.


    939.22(38) Definition of "Substantial Bodily Harm": "Substantial Bodily Harm" means bodily injury that causes a laceration that requires stitches; any fracture of a bone; a burn; a temporary loss of consciousness, sight, or hearing, a concussion, or loss or fracture of a tooth.


    939.23(3) Definition of "Intentionally": "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result. (4.) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result.



    Edited to add;
    I remember a few 2-3 decades back there was an incident in Racine or Kenosha where a small fender-bender angered one of the drivers so much he started swinging a friggin sword at people, he killed 2 people, injured others, and was still going aftermore of the people that weretrying to stop him,
    A guy in traffic that witnessed this horrific sight removed his legally transported shotgun from the trunk, loaded it, and took care of the problem by shooting the killer swordsman. The good Samaritanwas arrested, charged, and found guilty of murder for defending others against the guy that killed others right on front of him. This was over 30 years ago, and I believe the self-defenselaws have changed his successful prosecution for murder by defending others.
    the public saw him as a hero, the prosecutor saw him as a cold-blooded murderer, I also remember news reports about disparity of force, and how stupid it was to arrest the guy that stopped the attacking clown with the sword.

    Does anyone else remember the news reports of that incident? Maybe it can be found on microfiche at a local library??

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, ,
    Posts
    155

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    be in reasonable fear of harm
    I have no reason to doubt these 4 elements are correct but the one element quoted above is what scares me the most. People are inherently stupid so what may seem reasonable to some, others will see as wrong, wrong, wrong no matter the circumstances. I have no faith in what a jury will conclude on anything, and I have no faith that police/prosecutors will do the proper thing.

    Thus, I would only take the minimum steps required to extricate myself from a situation. And if I so chose to do anything more than this I know I would be exposing myself exponentially to a corrupt and inept system.

  18. #18
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    gbu28 wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    be in reasonable fear of harm
    I have no reason to doubt these 4 elements are correct but the one element quoted above is what scares me the most. People are inherently stupid so what may seem reasonable to some, others will see as wrong, wrong, wrong no matter the circumstances. I have no faith in what a jury will conclude on anything, and I have no faith that police/prosecutors will do the proper thing.

    Thus, I would only take the minimum steps required to extricate myself from a situation. And if I so chose to do anything more than this I know I would be exposing myself exponentially to a corrupt and inept system.
    This refers to the reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man think your actions were justified. It doesn't matter if you think they are or not. What matters is if can you convince a jury that what you did and how you did it are reasonable. For all those who like to disparage training, this is where it is invaluable. You learn how to do things correctly and within the law. It is still pretty easy to screw things up when it comes to making judgment calls in a matter of seconds (or fractions of seconds) but at least you have that foundation to go on.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    The elements ofcommon law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil and attempt to withdraw.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    comp45acp wrote:
    gbu28 wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    be in reasonable fear of harm
    I have no reason to doubt these 4 elements are correct but the one element quoted above is what scares me the most. People are inherently stupid so what may seem reasonable to some, others will see as wrong, wrong, wrong no matter the circumstances. I have no faith in what a jury will conclude on anything, and I have no faith that police/prosecutors will do the proper thing.

    Thus, I would only take the minimum steps required to extricate myself from a situation. And if I so chose to do anything more than this I know I would be exposing myself exponentially to a corrupt and inept system.
    This refers to the reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man think your actions were justified. It doesn't matter if you think they are or not. What matters is if can you convince a jury that what you did and how you did it are reasonable. For all those who like to disparage training, this is where it is invaluable. You learn how to do things correctly and within the law. It is still pretty easy to screw things up when it comes to making judgment calls in a matter of seconds (or fractions of seconds) but at least you have that foundation to go on.
    All the training in the world does not mean you will be able to persuade a jury.
    As I stated before, I am all for optional training, not mandated training. As far as performing reasonable actions, practice makes perfect, sometimes.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.

  22. #22
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.
    Maybe you will be so kind as to take a break from repeatedly reminding us how much you dislike firearms training, and tell us what value, if any, you see in firearms-related instruction.

    I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation, e.g., shooting while moving, handling malfunctions, gun retention, shooting from barricaded positions, low light shooting, shooting under stress, and so on. Do you think there's any value in enhancing those skills through instruction? Or do you not believe that instruction is likely to improve one's gun fighting skills and odds of prevailing in a fight?

    I may even be able to instruct a novice regarding elementary gun handing; for example-- how to unload a firearm without the chambered round falling to the ground like it does-- twice-- in your video.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.
    Maybe you will be so kind as to take a break from repeatedly reminding us how much you dislike firearms training, and tell us what value, if any, you see in firearms-related instruction.

    I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation, e.g., shooting while moving, handling malfunctions, gun retention, shooting from barricaded positions, low light shooting, shooting under stress, and so on. Do you think there's any value in enhancing those skills through instruction? Or do you not believe that instruction is likely to improve one's gun fighting skills and odds of prevailing in a fight?

    I may even be able to instruct a novice regarding elementary gun handing; for example-- how to unload a firearm without the chambered round falling to the ground like it does-- twice-- in your video.
    I have taken 4 gun related classes, Action pistol, Advanced action pistol , a carbine class & a Concealed Carry Class all very informative.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Shotgun wrote:
    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.
    I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation,
    I may shoot in a self-defense situation and even possibly in a hunting situation but I pay the government for combat shooters, cops and soldiers.

    The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Our State Constitution states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes. I wonder if armed combat is a lawful purpose?

    Because it seems acceptable to divide citizen gallus-snappers from merely legally armed citizens, I'll mention a conversation I had with some legally influential neighbors. They agreed with each other that a hunter would probably not be charged for an accidental shooting of a non-hunter not wearing blaze-orange. This after I related cutting my Christmas tree, after paying my neighbor for cutting it from his tree lot, and seeing blaze-orange clad strangers in the same lot.

    You are welcome and free to make any video you wish and with as archly focused content as you deem appropriate. It may be a bit like grammar that some eschew as I do niceties of gun handling beyond LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET. It's been a while since Phil told me how many have viewed the video but you are the first to comment on my failings.



  25. #25
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    I wonder if armed combat is a lawful purpose?
    Combat shooting per se is neither lawful or unlawful. It depends entirely upon the circumstances. One can certainly hunt unlawfully too. If you don't believe me, see what happens if you take a shot at a bald eagle.

    When you shoot in self-defense, you are not shooting for recreation or sport-- it is a combat engagement. Self-defense is a lawful purpose. In a military context, combat shooting is a lawful purpose whether done offensively or defensively.

    I'm curious, in what manner do you "pay the government" for combat shooters?

    Again, the question: Do you or do you not see any potential benefit in instruction and training? It's a question about training in general, not mandatory training. I also oppose mandatory training, although there is a little part of me inside that would love to see firearms training required in public schools, just as they are required to provide certain amounts of instruction in mathematics, English, history...

    An ignoramus with nothing intelligent to say has the same right to speech as the finest well-educated orator, but to whom would you rather listen?

    And what sort of person carrying a gun would you rather be around?




    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •