TMF

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354882913' post='856354']TMF LEO's had ample evidence including two recorded messages from my voicemail. This message threatened individuals as well as a group. 4 others besides myself spoke to law enforcement about the message and the individual's mental state and history of violence. Each officer said they wish there was something they could do but their hands were tied because he hadn't acted on the threats.[/quote] Well I don't know what to tell you. If the threats were clear as you described and officers didn't act on it, they sound like lazy/incompetent LEOs. The law supports arresting and charging a person who makes death threats. It happens here in clarksville quite frequently.

[quote name='FIST' timestamp='1354848050' post='856229']I would trade that X5 off if I could just find a guy with an MSAR. .[/quote] Ha, if I had two MSARs I'd let one go for that X5.

[quote name='graycrait' timestamp='1354844898' post='856183'] If you like the X-Five but really like .45 ACP I would recommend you try out a Sig 220 SAO in .45ACP. The best handgun shooter I have ever seen (ex-Army, cop and now FBI SWAT) carries 1911's every day but tells me that if you want to have the equivalent of a $3K 1911 just buy a Sig 220 SAO. [/quote] To be honest, I'm not crazy about carrying a .45, I just like the platform I carry it on. With that said, I carry my 4 inch 1911 OWB and concealed and find it pretty comfy. I think I could get away with carrying the X5 concealed, but would like to see it an inch shorter sans rail. If that weapon exists I'll be putting up my Kimber and Glock for sale, because I won't need them for anything anymore.

I heard you're recently down an X5. I got to shoot that again today. It's the only pistol that has made me consider getting rid of my 1911.

[quote name='1morethan8' timestamp='1354835566' post='856083']Many of you may not know this, but believe me... some will. A soldier(or veteran) who runs his mouth telling everyone who will listen... just how smart they are, how bad ass they are, how many they've killed, how rough of a time they had,or how great they are... are total BS!! I know this for a fact. The ones who are the "real deal" don't say a word... because they don't have to. They want to forget... but can't.[/quote] "No sh**, there I was, in the Valley of Nodangtwat, surrounded by 3,000 Taliban fighters and all I had was an MRE spoon... Was I scared? You're damn right I was scared.... scared one of those little bastards would get away!" Seemed appropriate for this thread.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354836432' post='856091']I guess it really doesn't matter what the law says if no officer is willing to pursue it. [/quote] Officers need evidence, going back to the whole due process thing. Trust me, I've been down this road, and I have learned that you need to provide an officer with real evidence as opposed to "he said, she said" if you want something done. In my case the a-hole was dumb enough to admit his crime the first time, but the second time around I got nothing. I don't blame the law for a lack of action. It is one of the drawbacks of living free. The onus is on me to catch the SOB next time and provide the evidence to a court so I can see his rights taken away.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1354828054' post='856018'] All I've seen is the internet show. Never seen the guy run a class.[/quote] I'm assuming it's like this, only in person.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1354826927' post='856009'] You missed what I was saying. As a trainer. I'm not going into combat with anybody.[/quote] Oh, ha, I thought you were talking about what he did in a previous life. I will say though, I would prefer a reserved, yet confident instructor as opposed to a loud mouth, self aggrandizing tool. The tool act works fine with folks that don't know any better, but is annoying as hell and a distraction to training for those that do.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1354810426' post='855877'] Cocky isn't a bad trait in what he does for a living. [/quote] Absolutely it is a bad trait. Not that I think of him as anything more that a war tourist, if I found myself in a situation where he would be the person watching my back I would would rather sit and watch radios. His attitude is the epitome of douchey tough guy which is what gets people killed; either because he discovers he isn't as tough as he thinks he is when the metal starts flying, or he does stupid stuff to get his fight on. He is bad news. Trust me, I've dealt with his kind before. They are dangerous in a combat zone.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354806298' post='855845'] Death threats are not a crime according to my hours of conversations with multiple local law enforcement agencies. It is simply "free speech". [/quote] No it isn't. It is against the law to threaten to kill another person.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354803711' post='855825'] Not talking about anything remotely resembling what you are saying. I am talking about people who are under care from a mental health care provider suffering from psychosis. You guys are quite oblivious to what really goes on in the mental health care arena. I say when you start making death threats your rights should be infringed upon.[/quote] Death threats are a crime and, therefore, can be handled in a court of law. I don't disagree with you there. You just don't seem to understand what the laws are.

[quote name='crimsonaudio' timestamp='1354802463' post='855811']What do you think is going to happen? Is the cop going to shoot you at random after he disarms you? Or at that exact moment will you be attacked by a roving band of baddies who decided to attack you with a cop standing there? I understand ideologies, but why get bent about this? I don't get it.[/quote] I don't get too bent up about this one, but I don't agree with this being a standard operating procedure; that is to say I don't believe that a person should be disarmed and have their serial run every time they have an LEO encounter. One reason is based in principle. Yes, it is the officers discretion, but the law says he must have reasonable fear for his or your safety. I believe this is intentionally left vague so that officers can exercise discretion. I think that's great, but I don't agree with that being abused. I would say that it was not the intention of the law to have officers ALWAYS disarm and HCP holder. The other issue I have with that is safety. I don't like handing a person a loaded weapon. I further don't want someone handling MY loaded weapon and unloading it if they have no idea how it works. This is how accidents happen. Not all officers are knowledgeable of ALL firearms and how to safely unload them. For example, I have several LEOs in my family. At the reunion this year we were all on the property shooting, and my cousin (who has been a city cop for 4 years) tried to handle a 1911. I'm convinced that if I handed him a loaded 1911 and told him to unload it he would shoot himself or, at a minimum, have a ND. Just my thoughts on it. If an officer told me to make it safe or simply moved it to another part of the car I would have no issue. I want the officer to feel safe as can be, but not at the expense of proper rights or gun safety.

So, he made a video to counter claims of him being a coward? Will he now make a video to counter claims that he is a flaming douche-tard, or is there enough substantiated evidence of that to prevent an argument?

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354737641' post='855339'] The problem is there is no "due process" to be pursued in the cases i am speaking of. I'm not neccesarily speaking of Vets here. A mentally unstable person, currently under mental health care, with a violent criminal history, in the middle of deep psychosis and making death threats to everyone around them can not be touched by anyone until they act. When they then go and shoot up a theater, school, or church everyone wants to no why no one noticed the warning signs. That's just plain stupid.[/quote] That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a persons rights being decided by a paper pusher in the VA. That is not right. And you are incorrect. Someone with a "violent criminal history" is not allowed to own a firearm. This decision is made in a courtroom, where it should be.

[quote name='monkeylizard' timestamp='1354730651' post='855289']That's true, but when looking at budget numbers and having to come up with a way to handle the style of wars we fight today, it's conceivable that the Navy will opt for a force mixture of carriers and mini-carriers. We [i]might[/i] have open massive war sometime, but we [i]do[/i] have the smaller theater stuff going on now and in the near future. Full on carriers are sometimes an inefficient method for doing that. Would we be better served to have smaller ships with fewer crew running flight operations for UAVs? Another advantage of a carrier + UAV carrier is that the carrier can continue to have its full complement of manned, heavily armed aircraft without having to cede valuable space for the UAVs. Ideally we'd have a full setup of both, but budgets will dictate otherwise. We'll either lose carriers to UAV carriers, or we'll never develop UAV carriers, instead having carriers perform both roles. I don't know how the $s work out either way. No idea how much it would cost to develop and build a UAV specific carrier vs. another Ford class ship, or the operating costs for either over X years. It just seems that smaller ships with smaller crews would be cheaper, but not if that's supplemental to carriers instead of replacing them.[/quote] That all makes sense. I really don't know what the right answer is. That is up to the egg head strategists at the Pentagon and the Generals who weigh whether or not the budget for a capability is worth fighting for. In better economic times we wouldn't be forced to choose. On another note, the second part of your post sets the plot for the latest Call of Duty game.... set on the USS Obama.

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1354725397' post='855258'][color=#222222][font="Arial","sans-serif"][size=2] If you aren’t mentally stable enough to handle your daily affairs you aren’t stable enough to have weapons. About the only way to get weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable folks these days is to get them AFTER they have committed a violent crime. There is absolutely no protection from people who are mentally unstable but aren’t institutionalized. [/quote] You're right. Due process is a pesky thing, isn't it? We should do away with that and strip a person's rights away preemptively without the involvement of due process. Freedom is simply too dangerous.

[quote name='peejman' timestamp='1354732877' post='855309'] That makes the outrage a little more sensible. Physically unable is one thing, mentally unable is something very different. The article specifically states "declared mentally incompetent". I interpret that as similar to my great aunt who had Parkinson's and mild dementia and couldn't care for herself anymore. [/quote] I'm sure that the majority of these cases are folks who are elderly and suffering from dementia, but "mentally incompetent" to the point of requiring a fiduciary could be someone in a coma, severely disabled from injury or someone hospitalized from severe depression. The VA has to authorize someone to take the benefits, so "mentally incompetent" could mean a range of things. Either way, the decision to bar someone from purchasing a firearm should not be made by a third rate clerk in the VA. That's what courtrooms are for. If a judge wants to make that call based on the recommendations of doctors, then fine. But to have your rights decided by a third party is criminal and un-Constitutional.

[quote name='peejman' timestamp='1354673176' post='855036'] Someone enlighten me if I'm reading the article incorrectly... It says taking away gun purchasing rights to those who have been declared mentally incompetent. That goes way beyond not being able to balance a check book. [/quote] It appears that this happens when the VA appoints a fiduciary to manage disability payments. This could simply be someone who is in poor physical condition, such as being hospitalized for a non-mental condition. Regardless whether this is due to a mental condition or not, this is an additional restriction that ONLY targets veterans. How would you feel if you were permanently barred from purchase because a third party had to file paperwork to authorize your spouse to collect your paycheck because you weren't physically capable of doing so and they went ahead and forwarded your info to the FBI? Not cool if you ask me. I don't see why vets should be subject to additional scrutiny above an ordinary citizen. I'd reason to bet that the majority of VA patients affected by this are elderly veterans, not newly separated Servicemembers, which would explain the high numbers with few challenges.

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1354661874' post='854949']Probably way before then.[/quote] Perhaps. I would like to see it change, but I doubt it will come from a judge. I guess they aren't barred from owning a weapon. They will just show up on NICS, which will prevent them from going through a dealer, but not private sales. Still, it is a defacto ban, similar to the BS one that prevents 18-20 year olds from purchasing a handgun from a dealer but not from a private seller.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1354658827' post='854927'] Agreed. This is the VA, though the Veterans Administration is an element of the administration and the Secretary of the VA is susceptible to political pressure from the White House. With an over-reaching, often lawless White House, I'm pointing out a "logical" progression. I too would like such medical-status decisions to be adjudicated through the courts, until the leftists capture them as well. The [b]United States Department of Veterans Affairs[/b] ([b]VA[/b]) is a government-run military [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran"]veteran[/url] benefit system with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet"]Cabinet[/url]-level status. It is the United States government’s second largest department, after the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense"]United States Department of Defense[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs#cite_note-1"][1][/url][/sup] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs[/quote] I gotcha, Obama is the man in charge of the VA now, but the VA started doing this when Obama was still handing out basketballs at Chicago community centers and Slick Willie was getting hummers in the Oval Office.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1354647000' post='854813']This is a demonstration of just how frightened the administration is of veterans with guns, and by extension citizens with guns. Frightened. So, how long before it comes to this?: If you do not worship the God-Emperor Barack Hussein Obama and agree with all elements of his agenda without reservation, then there must be something wrong with your thought processes and therefore we must administratively deprive you of arms.[/quote] Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this has been in effect for quite sometime. Only now is it coming up as an issue. Obama has nothing to do with this. This is the VA.

[quote name='JAB' timestamp='1354647627' post='854824'] Not to go too far off topic but, unless I am mistaken, when Hitler/the Nazis adopted the Swastika they screwed up and got it backward - so that the Nazi flag actually had a [i]reversed[/i] Swastika. Kind of fitting in that the Swastika meant 'life' and, I believe, was sometimes used as a mystical symbol of protection so that a 'reversed' one would technically mean death, destruction and, I guess, evil.[/quote] Ha, I was just making a joke. Regardless what the original denotations are for the swasticker, the current connotations will forever trump that. Kinda like rainbows. Rainbows might be awesome to put on my truck, but everyone would think I'm a homo. Gays own rainbows now. Nazis will forever own swastickers.

This is already how it works now as far as I know. I don't see how it is legal considering that these men are being deprived of their Constitutional rights without a court ever being involved. Any smart, lawyery folks know how that works?

[quote name='TLRMADE' timestamp='1354600260' post='854683']Anybody else see this? Thoughts? Next Trayvon Martin case? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_E9vvC2K0[/quote] I would say not. Although I believe that Zimmerman holds responsibility for the outcome of his incident, he still has an argument for the use of deadly force for self defense. This guy here fired into a car full of people, and so far there is no evidence they were armed. I think he is screwed, and most likely should be. The fact he's sitting in jail right now tells me that there is significant evidence supporting his guilt and a jury is gonna put him away. Removing all race crap from the equation, he looks like a very bad person who did a very bad thing. A shame that it will, once again, be turned into a race issue rather than an idiot issue.

[quote name='Murgatroy' timestamp='1354585442' post='854560']I am pretty sure that Rick discussed and was willing to kill them almost immediately. Didn't he have that discussion with Lori before he even struck the deal with them to split the food and give them their own cellblock? That is what I keep coming back to. He was willing to write them off before they had the chance to cross him.[/quote] I don't recall, but if you're right I guess that puts him close to the line. I guess the big thing I see separating them is that Rick sees it as a duty and a burden to be in charge, where the governor seems to see it as power. Plus he goes out of his way to kill any rivals. Once again, very political.