73-87chevytrucks.com
General Site Info => General Discussion => Topic started by: Irish_Alley on December 31, 2011, 06:01:41 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-marine-veteran-shot-craigslist-robbery-used-fingers-172856828.html
-
Just goes to show that every law abiding citizen should know how to use a firearm, and carry one all the time!
-
I so agree Blazin !!
I've had my concealed weapons permit for about 6 years now and my wife just got hers last year. I'm not out to hurt someone, but I'd darned sure out to protect myself and my loved ones.
This would have been a unique situation since the bad guys took the property and started running. In my state, my gun would have been useless since the bad guy was fleeing. I can't shoot them in the back just since they have my property. I can only use a weapon if deadly force is being threatened against me.
Regardless, I've been out on many Craigslist deals where I'm glad I carry.
I remember going to look at a possible "rust free" cab to purchase that was far out in the country, down a long lane, meeting two guys I only conversed with through emails. I just had a bad feeling about it. While I'm laying down on the ground looking under the cab and up on the tire checking out the firewall I kept a weary eye on where both guys were at. It seemed one guy kept on wanting to get behind me. It was a bit scary, the cab sucked and I got out of there fast.
You NEVER know who you're dealing with on the internet. Always try to meet in a public place or at least go in two's when you're making the transaction.
I'm glad the man in this news story survived.
-
Reading story's like that makes me so mad. They have passed so many laws that protect the criminals and not the people who are innocent. Try that 60 or so years ago, I think the outcome would have been very different.
-
cash and jewelry + craigslist = safe :o no?
-
The fact that this guy brought his kids with him too ..... let's just say he's more than lucky.
-
Yeah bringing his kids was pretty dumb!
If you can't shoot them in the back, you shoot them in the foot, when they turn around see whats happening, thats when you shoot them in the forehead! In this case I think them shooting first would warrent return fire! I carry all the time. If its a place I can't carry its locked up in my vehicle so its there when I come out.
-
the minute you see them with a gun, in middle of a robbery, you shooting them is fair game. Remember, you fear for your life--that's all that matters in law.
I, too, carry. I can't stand how many times people think it is the police's job to protect them. No, it is YOUR job to protect YOURSELF! People need to stop being such helpless victims! You are not helpless, the constitututional amendments, the first ten being the Bill of Rights, guarantees that.
Crime rates would go down if criminals know more good guys are carrying than bad guys.
Stand up for yourself people! I'd think a Marine, with his war-time experience, would know that.
People need to put more of their destiny in their own hands and stop hoping and wishing and fantasy thinking.
Sorry for the rant. But, people cannot pretend criminals are not out there. I know there are.
-
I understand the sentiment. In California it seems if you're a criminal you can sue the victim if you break a nail.
Reading story's like that makes me so mad. They have passed so many laws that protect the criminals and not the people who are innocent. Try that 60 or so years ago, I think the outcome would have been very different.
This may seem a little harsh, but my Aunt told me a story a few years ago: When she was little, a couple of kids from the South Bay area came into town and beat a local boy to death. Posse caught up with them on the West side of the Valley & lynched 'em. Frontier justice wasn't all that long ago.
-
You are not helpless, the constitututional amendments, the first ten being the Bill of Rights, guarantees that.
If the constitution "guarantees" that then why do permits exist to carry?
-
If the constitution "guarantees" that then why do permits exist to carry?
Permits do not exist to carry. Permits exist to 'conceal carry'. Put it this way, if someone is violating your constitutional rights, you have a Federal court case you can sue for remedy.
You are guaranteed to be able to conceal carry if you meet requirements: not a convicted felon, no restraining order against you, not a mental subject, or otherwise restricted by a circuit court (violent misdemeanor, history of domestic abuse, etc.). The permit is a checking system and something to show the authorities when a situation takes place. Just like your driver's license that must be shown when pulled over or an accident. That license shows you took a test and are correctly registered. You meet the easy requirements to be able to enjoy the 2nd amendment, you get a permit and can conceal carry. Now each state differs slightly. In Va, it used to be up to the judges' discretion years ago. Now, it is stipulated, either one meets the creteria or one doesn't--not up to the judges anymore. Washington DC just lost a supreme court case because they tried to limit people from conceal carrying. They lost. A citizen can carry in D.C. now. The supreme court just last year interpreted the 2nd amendment in a much more loose interpretation. You don't need to be part of a militia (taking the phrase literally).
A citizen who has not tarnished him/herself, and (if your state requires) can pass a simple test or take a short class, you can obtain that permit.
If you are not restricted by the points mentioned above and can't get a permit to "conceal" carry, something's wrong. Advice, hire a lawyer.
Now, all of the above pertains to a 'conceal' permit. Anyone, unless individually restricted by court, can open carry. Just don't conceal it without a permit. I, as a L.E. officer, cannot question people when they open carry, because that would be infringing upon their Federal rights. I cannot 'seize' someone (4th amendment), even momentarily, to question them due to Federal US code 42 section 1983 lawsuits. However, if i have info that they are a felon or have an open restraining order against them, I can run their info through the computers while 'seizing' them for the checks (with probable cause).
When open carrying, the weapon will still work just fine in the crime example posted by Irish--even better because the criminals would see that and not try anything. I see people open carry quite often--nothing wrong with it. It seems it has gotten socially taboo nowadays, which I can't stand because criminals get nearly free reign now.
All this said, there are limitations to any right. You don't have the right to liberty if you are caught comitting a crime. You don't have a right to life if you are convicted of taking another and your state subscribes to the death penalty. States can differ slightly, but, as a general rule, you cannot carry in school property, airports, an establishment serving alcohol, churches, etc..That is why there are endless federal court cases having to always interpret the 'right' because states like to see what they can get away with.
-
You meet the easy requirements to be able to enjoy the 2nd amendment
I didn't see any requirements when I read the constitution.
-
You meet the easy requirements to be able to enjoy the 2nd amendment
I didn't see any requirements when I read the constitution.
Really? You must be a U.S. citizen, you must be 18 to vote, etc..... The Constitution is not the U.S. Code. The Constitution is the 'basis' of our government. Let me rephrase, you are guaranteed certain rights, unless you mess them up yourself. Let me give a grade school lesson here. The first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution establishes Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. So, yes, there are requirements to rights as adapted by the three branches of gov't written within the Constitution. All laws cannot be possibly covered in the U.S. Constitution, but, as a democracy, we have laws to fine tune certain rights, like weapons on airplanes or gun carrying for felons. When I say the Constitution guarantees certain rights, I assumed those reading know we live in a democracy with three branches to government, as set by the U.S. Constitution.
Are you saying a serial murderer should rightfully carry a weapon? Are you saying limits should not be in place to enjoy certain rights? Are you saying because it is not in the U.S. Constitution, one can carry a weapon on an airplane?---they didn't have planes in 1787 upon ratification of the Constitution. Guess what, you do crime, you have very limited 4th amendment rights. You do crime, you have very limited 2nd amendment rights, though it is not written out in the Constitution. If you have issues with the Constitution, run for political office and see about changing it...that is if you haven't messed up your right to do so.
But this is getting off topic. My point is this, unless you messed up your rights yourself, those who are 21 years old or over can legally carry a weapon. In so doing, one limits the possibility of being a helpless victim.
-
SgtDel, you missed my point and then added inconsistencies. That's fine I suppose, but I do agree with you on one point, if one is able, buying a gun AND learning how to use it is very helpful. Do so before they "finetune" that right away.
-
added inconsistencies? hmmm, been working the field for over 20 yrs. States do have some differences on carrying and they try to push what they can get away with, but, that is why there are so many federal court cases and rulings that usually sink state laws. There is a certain political party that feel that no one should carry a weapon and if that party keeps putting Supreme Court Associate justices on the bench, problems will result and they could very well chip away at those rights. But, my consistent point remains, with the exception of few self-imposed individual restrictions, every U.S. citizen atleast 21 yrs old can carry and should carry. Crime rates will decrease if that happens. That has not changed within our constitutional rights.
Restricting law abiding citizens with more laws does no good for society--only does good for people who dont care about the law.
-
Restricting law abiding citizens with more laws does no good for society--only does good for people who dont care about the law.
Very well put!
-
every U.S. citizen atleast 21 yrs old can carry and should carry. Crime rates will decrease if that happens.
Not sure I agree with this one little bit. My best friend was shot in the head and killed by someone who lost his temper. With the amount of people who drink, get into domestics, argue over parking spaces, lines at dmv, the wrong order at Mcdonalds etc...yeah let's reduce the amount of knuckleheads who don't need to be carrying.
-
yep the world today is full of knuckleheads. I just can't stand to see people complain they can't do anything but be helpless victims. Society today thinks everyone else should do everything for them, even count on others to defend them. We are becoming a helpless society who can't think for themselves. And, criminals love that. Sorry, going on a rant again. I need to stop doing that.
There will be those who's testosterone increases because of something he may be carrying, then do stupid stuff, but, i still say crime rates will decrease when the criminals' advantage is equalized. Their easy prey is just too easy for them right now. If more carry, the criminals will need to find a new career or have a deathwish. ;) Perhaps it is I with a pipedream. I do wish there were more good guys carrying. Call it 20 yrs in my career, but, I can't stand to see criminals get free reign of the streets-- Maybe I've been trained too well and have the right mentallity for what i do, but I hate criminals with a passion-people need to stand up to them.
-
I've always said that we don't need anymore gun laws what we need is tougher laws for the criminals. For example: What is going to happen to the criminal from the first post? The thief that grabbed it and ran like a coward, then instead of taking what might be coming to him for being a cowardly thief he tries to kill the man. I bet he will go to jail for a little while then get out and still think he is a tough guy and repeat the process. That was a violent crime that needs severe punishment to ensure it won't happen from that coward again. In my mind I wish the marine drew his weapon at the same time and removed the thief from the gene pool permanently. Then again the way some courts work he probably would be considered a criminal too.
I know someone that had that happen. He went to visit his girlfriend. They notice out the window that somebody was getting in his truck. She calls the police, he goes out to stop the guy. When he got to his truck the thief had his hands on his deer rifle taking it out of the gun rack. When he grabbed him the guy tried to get away. While he was trying to keep him there until the police show up they start fighting. The thief looses. He thought that he did good keeping him there until the police showed up and arrested the scumbag. He didn't loose his gun, the bad guy got arrested right at the scene of the crime. Well he ended up in court paying out a settlement because he used excessive force and to top it off he lost his guns because they said it was a violent crime against the thief. The thief got let go with conditions of good behavior.
End Rant
I just think the punishment should be for the criminal and not the weapon used. In the case of guns it would directly effect someone like me with no criminal record that owns, uses, carries firearms.
-
I agree about removing that scumbag from the human gene pool.
I would never be afraid of shooting someone if I knew I, or some innocent person, was in iminent danger of severe injury or death. This is what defense weapons are for. A criminal display of a weapon is grounds for self defense, up to and including deadly force. This has been held up in court and case law time and time again. Any half-brained attorney can easily find numerous case laws on this act. If an attorney doesn't see it this way, he should be disbarred after he's fired from the case. Will you have to explain your actions? Absolutely! At least I will be alive to be able to explain and not a dead helpless victim.
Now, each case is different. You state, "While he was trying to keep him there until the police show up they start fighting. The thief looses." That is an important factor in the case. If the property owner starts wacking on him after he is subdued, yes, he is using excessive force...more force than was required to subdue the situation. That becomes a violent assault based on temper. I don't know the factors in the case, but, for him to have to pay a settlement, there is more to the story. It is no different from police wailing on someone after the threat is contained. You cannot do that.
-
My point with that is was the thief would not have gotten the crap knocked out of him if he did not go on that property, break into the truck, and try to steal the man's rifle. If thieves thought that they would probably get beat on or shot than they might not steal. Would it be different if the thief hit him and he said that he felt that he was in iminent danger of severe injury or death and shot him rather than hit him twice as hard twice as many times. Picture the rifle as one of your children getting taken, you would have a hard time holding back and using just enough force to hold the guy no matter how many times he swung at you. Anyway I was agreeing with the fact that if more people where armed then criminals would be fewer. Criminals should be taking the extreme risk of getting hurt badly or killed if they decide to commit a crime against another human being.
-
i hear ya. back in the day there was this thing called vigilante justice...sometimes i think we need to go back to that to teach these scumbags a lesson. They'd send the posse out with the rope and as soon as they found him--let's just say that that would be the last crime they'd ever do.
The law sometimes protects the wrong person when common sense takes a back burner and the letter of the law is followed. i grew up in the country and it'd sure be nice to take matters in your own hands...it was done that way quite often, then all these lawyers came in to the scene.
-
I say its alot easier to hold an unconscious person until the police show up than a conscious one that keeps trying to run away!!!!!
-
Here are a few random thoughts triggered by this thread:
Vigilanteism isn't really the answer either. But, lets just say that if someone commits a crime, they should lose all rights guaranteed by our Constitution and laws, as regards the consequences of their offense. In other words, our laws should be strictly interpreted to protect and support those who endeavor to live ethically and decently, who obey the law, and who support free society. At the point one crosses the line into criminality, he/she should lose his/her rights and the protections enjoyed by those who choose to be ethical and are socially motivated. Civilization is created, it doesn't just randomly occur by happenstance. The sincerity of not harming another who has not earned it, but neither withholding wrath when due is a display of character and integrity that should not be despoiled or soiled by legal manipulation and melodrama that is the current trend in our courts. When something occurs that is not okay, whether locally or on a grand scale, the social response should be to squelch it in a way that restores order and firmly communicates the unacceptableness of the transgression. Sometimes that calls for placing heads on pikes, but not as a matter of routine for that might usher oppression.
Courage, moral fortitude and freedom founded this Country. The perpetuation of such was intended by the authors of our Constitution and many of our laws (not all), and, I believe, pervades the hearts of moral and just men. It takes courage to be ethical and manifest integrity in the shadow of mass fixed opinion. I've heard it said that you can learn a lot about a society by studying its laws. Hence, the wholesale passing of yet more laws is not any remedy and constrains a society to bursting. Which, if you back away sufficiently and look, is the direction we are headed after only a couple of hundred years. Now, I wildly digress into drum beating and perpetual debate....
As others have aptly stated, poor judgement culminated in the shooting incident that precipitated this thread. It was an unfortunate circumstance. Good judgement paired with even temper and integrity produce a willingness to fight back when necessary and is perhaps our greatest protection.
-
He broke Rule #1 of gunfighting
-
He broke Rule #1 of gunfighting
not bringing a gun ;)
-
That's right ;)
Without getting into politics and vigilante justice, etc. and other viewpoints, the very first thing that popped into my mind when I read the article that I wanted to share was a piece of advice that I heard once:
Don't go to stupid places, with stupid people, and do stupid stuff.
Following that advice will prevent almost any problem. When stupid stuff comes to you, and the choice to avoid it is not offered, at least be prepared. I carry, but I agree with Vile that there are alot of people that shouldn't, just like there are alot of people that should not drive.
-
Hear, hear.
-
I can't stand how many times people think it is the police's job to protect them. No, it is YOUR job to protect YOURSELF!
Not in California, thanks to Gov Brown. We cant open carry anymore and unless youre a friend of the Sheriff, you arent getting a CCW. Outside my home, my gun has to be locked up during transport.
-
Beastie that's how Pennsylvania is to. when i get the pistol I'mlooking at I'mjust going to fill out the permit to carry it.
-
someone needs to start a federal lawsuit against California for constitutional rights violations. There is a reason i don't live in California or Massachusetts. I want to protect myself and not pay 90% of my pay to taxes.
-
someone needs to start a federal lawsuit against California for constitutional rights violations. There is a reason i don't live in California or Massachusetts. I want to protect myself and not pay 90% of my pay to taxes.
You'd have to sue every state, local ordinance that doesn't allow permit free concealed like vermont, alaska and I think a new one.
Texas doesn't allow open carry either, it's even against the law to PRINT with a CHL.
-
this is why i like de you can open carry and being LE we can carry across state lines which if you know delaware if you travel more than 1/2 hr in any directions you leave the state well south is a little bit longer but still its not to hard to leave
-
we can carry across state lines which if you know delaware if you travel more than 1/2 hr in any directions you leave the state well south is a little bit longer but still its not to hard to leave
Irish, you are covered by this Federal law passed in 2009, which I referred to in something something I posted in December about my "fun week at work" about going to training to become a certified L.E. firearms range instructor:
H.R. 218, allowing active and retired Law Enforcement officers to conceal carry in any state in the Nation, no matter the state's laws (except on private property depending on the owner or schools). This is a giant step in a good direction allowing qualified, trained, honest people to not have to worry about being harrassed when carrying. http://www.njspba.com/Documents/FAQ.Right2Carry.pdf
I can't tell you how happy I am with this. There used to be a 'brotherhood' understanding, but, some states couldn't be counted on to honor that. Now it is Federal law, I carry in every state I go in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
http://www.philadelphiaarcheryandgunclub.com/HR218.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s1132enr/pdf/BILLS-111s1132enr.pdf
-
I have a friend who was getting robbed one night. He went out to confront the thief with his Glock in his hand. The thief had the guy's flat-panel TV in his hands when my friend found him. My friend aimed at the guy from behind the wall in his hallway and shouted for him to get on the ground. The thief quietly set the TV down, stood up and pulled out his gun. The two exchanged rounds before the thief ran away wounded. My friend had taken a shot through the hand. It's been several years since and he's had multiple reconstructive surgeries and lots of physical therapy. He's happy that he can grab the clutch on his motorcycle again.
I think one of the greatest American myths is that violence is always easy and always solves problems. We think it will be like the movies where the "bad guys" will not be well concealed and will not be able to hit us and all the bullets will bounce off the catwalk steel while we vanquish them mightily, undeterred. I'm not convinced. The moment my friend pulled out his gun, he turned the situation into a life and death struggle. It's silly to think that someone so desperate, drugged out, whatever to break into your house when you're home is going to lay quietly on the ground while you call the police. He's going to fight for his life. You would do the same. My friend has been through years of agony and astronomical medical bills, but thank God he saved his TV.
Was it worth it?
-
My friend has been through years of agony and astronomical medical bills, but thank God he saved his TV.
Was it worth it?
Hey Doc, don't limit it to just that one break in. Who knows, the guy may have robbed 999 houses and stole a few million bucks worth of property before he was ever challenged. I am sure it wasn't just this one time. If you isolate it to just this one incident, the anwer is no, it wasn't worth it to save a TV. However, the criminal may have even killed before. If the shot was better, the property owner could realistically have saved many lives by getting rid of the criminal once and for all. Even wounded, the criminal would have to go to an E/R and they must report gunshot wounds and they apprehend the criminal. If you turn the other way, the criminal will continue his ways. I have preached before, if no one stands up to criminals, they will just continue to do this over and over and over again. Is that the world you want to live in? If libs keep restricting law abiding citizens through more gun control laws, that is the world we will all live in. Kudos to anyone who is fed up and trying to stop a crime in progress with proper defense. It is unfortunate that the property owner got hurt. There are many more cases where the property owner didnt get hurt and the criminal didn't get away scott free. You can't take one incident and have that reflect the outcome of all these instances. No one knows how any one incident will transpire. Is it a risk? you bet.
This is similar to the politicians trying to put an end to high speed chases. Sometimes a high speed chase will result in an innocent driver getting hit and perhaps killed. However, most of the times law enforcement is successfull in the apprehension of the criminal once a chase begins. So, what is the alternative? Whenever a crime occurs, if the criminal gets in a car and pulls away fast, the cops just park their car and wave goodbye to the criminal? Do you know how many crimes will then take place? There will be crimes all over everywhere. All the criminal would have to do is go fast in a car and they, by law, will be allowed to go on their merry way to commit more crimes.
After the bombing at Pearl Harbor, should we have just turned away because going to war would mean the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers? Afterall, it was just a few ships and several hundred soldiers. Like a TV, we can just get replacements. Guess what? We went to war and before 9/11 we were never attacked by foreign invaders since.
So, it wasn't just one TV. Turn your back and next thing you know, Crime would be the safest, most lucrative career of all and 90% of people would become criminals. I am sure that is not what you want. I cannot subscribe to your discussion to just let the guy go with your TV. He'll be back tomorrow for something more. Heck, he may even get get a newer TV because he knows that house will need a new one and the owner doesn't fight back.
You drive to your local store and buy a loaf of bread. On the way back you get in an accident and total your car. Was your car worth that loaf of bread?
-
My point is that it's foolish to believe that when you wield violence you won't be met with equal and possibly superior violence. When you pull out a gun, the stakes instantly become life or death and you should think carefully before escalating any situation to that level. Until you've been there, you have no idea how accurate your aim is going to be. Or if you'll even be able to remember to turn off the safety before you pull the trigger. (I know a police officer who was being fired on in a living room and was so rattled he couldn't figure out how to open the sliding glass door to escape.) If you are a split second slower than the guy you are trying to kill, you're the one who's dead (or worse). Even if you aren't hurt, you're absolutely going to spend some time answering an officer's questions or going downtown for interrogation or being the subject of a formal investigation. You're going to have a report written about you that will be put in some police file for later subpoena. And you'll be a jittery mess for at least the rest of the day. Then you'll have to clean the gore off your living room walls. If things don't go well, you could end up in court. Yes, you can fight and get a good lawyer and maybe win, but you'll still be paying that lawyer's bills out of your own pocket. When you sit down and think out all the possibilities, they're all pretty bad. I'm not saying you can't carry a gun or that you can't use it. It just seems pretty clear to me that when you pull out a gun, you're are setting some pretty momentous events into motion and you don't have a lot of control as to where they lead. Maybe you need to set them in motion, but you should count the cost before doing so. That's all I'm saying.
No, I don't want to live in a world where criminals run amok. But the fact is that I do. What's worse, I live in a country where people fantasize about gunning down necklace thieves, but think it's just fine when Wall Street gamblers destroy the world economy, enlarging the pool of desperate people who will be tempted to steal necklaces. Or where banks forge documents so they can throw families out of their homes. Or where powerful corporations are free to buy our politicians. Or where we pass laws like the NDAA and HR 645 and no one seems to mind. This is genuine and true evil that we should be fighting. Why aren't we talking about gunning those guys down in the street? (For the NSA censors: I'm not advocating this.) Surely it's a million times worse to steal someone's house and destroy their life through fraudulent foreclosure than it is to steal a TV. I think the great failure of our time is that we think killing the criminals in the street will fix things when the criminals in Washington and corporate boardrooms are stealing so much more than the street thugs ever could.
Let's become better aware of what's really happening in this country. Then let's stop thinking that violence will fix all our problems and think more about constructive solutions.
Thanks,
-
snooz i do agree with you on the criminals who arnt steeling out of our homes but are steeling from the government. but just because the government fails to protect itself doesnt mean im not going to protect myself and my house. just one person cant fight d.c. but one person can fight a thief in their house or property. i understand your thoughts on just because you have a gun it doesnt mean you will win, but it kind of bring the who flight or fight theory into play. if i can draw my weapon and aim down the sights that kind of throws the flight part out now its all fight. but that doesnt mean my wife who can shoot any weapon might freeze up when it calls for action or even if she dose draw she might not be able to fire or take a human life. the thing is no one knows how they will react till the time comes. if they freeze up hopefully it will be before they decide to draw. When our government fails, I know since I have a weapon I might have a fighting chance to survive. rather if its for hunting or protection I want as many as I can
-
Great points Doc. It's not a decision to take lightly.
Surely it's a million times worse to steal someone's house and destroy their life through fraudulent foreclosure than it is to steal a TV.
There is a difference in the scenarios. Bankers aren't coming into your home with loaded weapons and ready to kill.
And, there is an equal if not better chance the criminal firing back will freeze up, shake, whatever. Goes both ways. I say this because if you carry, chances are you have spent time at a firing range and practiced and practiced and know something about your weapon. A criminal practicing?--not so much. Most are felons and cannot be caught w/ a weapon and definately don't live in a country setting w/ 10 acres to practice in their back yard. This is a generalization, i know, but that's what i believe.
But, again, you raise good points. If someone is not too sure of themself, i don't want to hear a news report where a property owner was killed defending his family with a gun. That gives more ammo to the politicians to ristrict us that much more. But, I have heard too many instances where a criminal kills an entire family that don't have a gun in their home, just because they can recognize him in a lineup.
You think you live in a crime infested country now? Try living in a country where only the bad guys carry and no one will stand up to them.
I can't do anything about politicians selling out their votes. It is a crime, true. I would love to see outsiders become congressmen and president. I'd love a line-itme veto.
However, there are things I can control: No bank is going to take my home, i never borrow more than i can afford and I chose a career that is stable for a very good reason. And, I can choose to defend myself and may family because of the great 2nd amendment and I have trained myself to be pretty efficient and have the self confidence to do what I need--I have been in very touchy situations and I believe I have prevailed in each case for a reason. Self defense doesnt just happen. It takes effort and knowledge and lots of training. I will not stand by and pretend there are not those who will try and take my life without a second thought.
-
Great points Doc. It's not a decision to take lightly.
Surely it's a million times worse to steal someone's house and destroy their life through fraudulent foreclosure than it is to steal a TV.
There is a difference in the scenarios. Bankers aren't coming into your home with loaded weapons and ready to kill.
Well, technically they do when they bring in the sheriff to evict you, no? And just try shooting him and telling your side in court. :LOL:
Dr_Snooz: I've seen the videos of Lindsey Graham going nuts in congress over the NDAA telling US citizen they better be scared. Of course he should be drug tested, but also he needs to check history, they'll come for him soon enough, when he asks for a lawyer, they'll tell him to shut up. Do you watch Alex Jones?
Yes, we have a bigger danger and more losses from "official" criminals with titles, badges, and positions than unoffical ones. I've never read Dante but I'm sure there's a level for those.
-
Thanks guys. I'm honestly terrified by the legislation coming out of Washington lately. Of course the bankers aren't going to come armed to your home. They are going to send the sheriff. If you're foolhardy enough to fire on him, they'll send the SWAT team, then the National Guard. You can't buy enough guns to fend them off. And they aren't going to come because you’re a mass murderer. They're going to come because you're providing "material support to terrorism," whatever that means. And that's the phoney baloney they are using today. God knows what it will be tomorrow but at some point, they will come because you made disparaging remarks about the government on a web discussion board. Maybe you’re not breaking their laws today, but they keep changing the laws. The president just signed the NDAA. It’s another law in the war on terrorism. It allows the president to lock up US citizens without charges and without trial for as long as he wants. The legislation was being written specifically to exclude citizens until Obama asked Congress to change it to include citizens. This is wildly unconstitutional, but Congress made the change without hesitation. It’s strange that there has been no terrorist incident for 10 years, Osama Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda has been declared “operationally ineffective.” Yet we aren’t winding down the war on terrorism. We keep peeling away civil liberties, declaring more wars, committing more war crimes, locking up more people and incinerating civilians in Afghanistan. HR 645 is stalled in the House, thank God. If it passes, it will require Homeland Security to build detention centers on military bases around the country specifically for American citizens. This is what’s happening in our country. Our liberties are being stolen a little more each day. The Constitution is being trampled. Our economy is being looted. Most people are completely unaware. We’re hunkered down waiting for the crook to come through the back door when tyranny and fascism are headed right through the front door.
-
As a deputy for 20 years, i have set up and performed many evictions. Many people I have evicted several times...they just go from one apt to another and never pay a penny and it takes about 3 months to see the conclusion of an eviction process because the laws favor the residents, not the landlords.
But, I have spoken to many landlords and ask them when i see the same defendant, "Let me guess, Johnny said he doesnt have a reference because he lived with his sister?" They say 'yes, how did you know?". Same ole story. these landlords rent to people with no references at all. So, they deserve to lose money and give them a place to stay for 3 months without them paying a penny.
Then there are those making under $50,000 who a few years ago qualified for a $300k home. It's usually those mortgages where they pay interest up front b4 paying on the principal. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. A dip in the economy then they are upside down in the mortgage they couldn't afford to begin with. They, too, deserve to lose their house. Then they cry foul because they didnt know what the mortgage said. What? I remember when i got my mortgage on my house, i was 23 and read every little sentence and asked. I remember signing my name like 30 times in closing documents. Yet these people are saying they were tricked. Hey, they signed those documents. They are adults. If you let the bank do that to you, I'm surprised you are smart enough to have a heart beat, which of course takes no thinking at all.
-
I'm not going to defend people who knowingly took loans they couldn't afford, but they aren't the only ones being hurt. If you take out a stupid loan, you get foreclosed on and sent to tent city. No big. You get hurt, but no one else. The larger problem is the banks who knowingly made these loans. If you are a normal (ie: not Too Big To Fail, Wall Street type) banker and you make these kinds of loans, you'll very quickly be out of business and rightly so. It's your job to make sure that you are lending to worthy borrowers. Wall Street, however, found a way to off-load the risk of their stupid loans. They bundled them into CDO's, somehow got them rated as high-grade and then sold them off to suckers. They pocketed massive fees and left others holding the bag. It was great for them until the crash when they themselves ended up with big piles of this crap on their books. They were instantly insolvent and should have gone out of business. The perpetrators of this massive fraud should have been dragged off to jail forever. Instead, Uncle Sam rushed billions to their rescue. The Fed rushed trillions more so these clowns could stay in business. They are doing fine, but everyone else has not been so lucky. Most of the really awful loans have long since been foreclosed upon. The people being foreclosed on now are the better borrowers. These are people who read the notes, crunched the numbers and made good decisions. What they didn't anticipate was losing their jobs and not being able to find new ones after Wall Street destroyed the economy. In this case, the good are being devastated along with the bad. The only ones coming out of this smelling like roses are the very bankers who gamed the system and destroyed the economy. Obama somehow passed a "reform" bill that hasn't reformed anything. He's in the pockets of the big bankers. His reform moves some regulatory chips around, but the central problems that caused the collapse remain. It will all happen again. It's just a question of when. There will be millions more innocent people lose their jobs, homes, whatever. Only the bankers will win this game.
It's all completely rotten, but if you make a stink, we have the NDAA and HR 645 to make you disappear.
-
You know how they say history repeats itself, well it did. Look at the great depression and
today. If you think about it we are worse off today then we where then. Back then WWII pulled us out of it and president Roosevelt also made the CCC camps. Today we are left on our own to get through this. I'm lucky I've got a job that deals with stuff everyone uses. If your not prepared Your going to fail. Fact is we all know our government is crooked and if we replace them all tomorrow the new ones would be just as bad in a few years