TMF

Ah, touche...

Well yes, but the OP was wanting to know about using ratshot to ward of the dogs. This is a quick way to get your HCP pulled and probably charged with animal cruelty and discharging firearm in public. You don't fire your pistol to "warn" or injure, you fire your pistol to kill in self defense. If the dog is charging and it's the individual is in fear of being attacked, by all means burn it down. But when you use ratshot for the purpose of scaring the animal or injuring it, you're entering a whole other world.

I probably would have handled this differently by cooperating with the officers, but I'm not going to say he's wrong for not wanting to. It's clear that the initiating officer had a problem with him carrying a pistol, which it's not his place to have a problem with that. He is a police officer and his duty is to enforce the law, not interject his personal opinions of the law on citizens. It seemed to me that the police officer was intent on harrassing him for no other reason than someone reporting someone carrying a holstered weapon, which is legal. I think the police officer would have given him a hard time even if the citizen had produced identification based on the officer's question of "why do you think you need to carry a weapon?" That is out of line and akin to a police officer questioning "why do you have a bumper sticker that supports Obama?" Like I said, I would have cooperated just because it's easier for me to do so, but that's my preference. I don't think the citizen was being disrespectful or argumentative, and if he doesn't want to be bothered by law enforcement when he's not doing anything wrong, well, that's his right.

Can you imagine what would happen if this occurred in the US?... Lying and telling her she has HIV in order to learn her sexual history, just to turn around and use it against her in court. She could drove drunk into a daycare center, shot and elderly person and clubbed a baby seal and the case would be thrown out, followed by all kinds of civil suits.

Just curious on opinions: 1. Do you think she was involved? 2. What are your opinions on how Italian law enforcement handled their investigation into her? My opinion, I've read a lot on this and I think she was convicted for being an American.

I agree, this is newsworthy. I'm interested simply because I find the statistics surprising. The part that concerns me has nothing to do with the story, but more for how people interpret the information, but whaddaya gonna do? I don't think the OP has any kind of agenda against guns/gun owners/HCP holders because if he did he wouldn't have come here and asked for the opinions of very pro-2A types.

Monday's crime log | The Tennessean | tennessean.com This is someone topical in regards to the OP and the fact this is in the news right now. Cliff Notes: 21 year old convicted felon shoots two people, killing one. I respect what you're doing, but keep in mind that so many Americans are idiots and don't absorb information in context. I think this is why so many people are uncomfortable with people owning firearms... stories about shootings and statistics that show they are in danger of being assaulted with a firearm. I don't think it's taken into account that the vast majority of these crimes are probably carried out by people that weren't legally in possession of the firearms in the first place. Good luck with the story, I look forward to reading it.

Chili powder can cause permanent damage? I'm not asking to nitpick or anything, but I just got some in my eyes the other day making chimichangas. I know not all peppers are created equal, but permanent damage? I just suggested using chili powder because it burned like hell for a while... made me think twice about itching my eye without washing hands first.

Wow, very interesting. Well, as a Tennessean I can't help but be somewhat embarassed by those stats. In my opinion, if we rank so high nationwide maybe we should look at throwing tougher penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes. I think Florida has the 10-20-Life (3 strikes rule) for crimes committed with firearms. A common trend I'm seeing with gun crimes in Clarksville is that the violators were ex-cons. Maybe a mandatory sentence of a few years just for illegally being in possession of a firearm could make a few of these guys think twice before strapping themselves. Then again, cocaine is a powerful drug... makes people do stupid stuff regardless of the consequences.

Me too. It's not that I'm immediately suspicious about the numbers, but it sounds like something pretty easy to for knuckle draggers like me to crunch. Simply take stats from 50 states then put them individually against their poplulation to see what the per capita is by state. I'm really curious to see, especially since I'm surprised Tennessee is so high.

That's why I stayed stoned the whole time so I didn't absorb any of the liberal message... or anything else for that matter!

Don't do it. The fact that you'd be putting ratshot in the weapon suggest you carry for the purpose of injuring the animal, not killing it. If you're trying to deter a dog use something different then a firearm. The only time you should use your firearm on a dog is to kill it in self defense, but you'd better be ready to prove it. Something as simple as a squirt gun/squirt bottle with a really good stream is enough to ward off 99 percent of dogs. Even go so far as mixing some chili powder in there to give the dog something to remember not to do it again.

Would it make sense to blame the states bordering Tennessee for allowing their residents too much access to firearms... that's what New York does, right? Just thought I'd make that joke. But seriously, that an interesting study... how "scientific" would you rate the manner in which the data was collected?

Hmmm... I guess I'm curious to have a LEO clear this up. I get that you can't be forced to show ID when just walking down the street and not committing a crime, but isn't there some sort of implied consent (?) if you get pulled over while driving that makes it a crime to not show ID to prove you're legally allowed to drive? Or is it just if you get pulled over while committing an offense (like speeding)? I don't think there would ever be a time that I would not show ID to a police officer that asks (unless he's being a real d*ck for no reason), but I'm just curious. Any experienced LEOs want to answer this one?

I saw this happen on someone's M4 at a match not too long ago. Mag not fully seated, then he fires his first round and the mag falls right out. It's a case of beer for whomever catches ya!

One of the big things to remember as well, if you're carrying and this happens it can come back to bite you if you have to draw. I'm no lawyer, but the way I understand the law to be, if you instigate/participate in an altercation you are culpable if you have to draw your weapon in self-defense. For example, if someone cuts you off and you give him the finger, then you both pull over for some road rage action, he pulls a weapon and you pull your pistol, you'd be in the wrong as much as him. Someone please correct me if I misunderstand Tennessee law here, but this is the reason I avoid confrontation when I'm carrying. I'm the same way in regard to civic duty; informing people when they do something f'ed up, but with family in the car I play the role of p*ssy schmuck. I hate doing it but people are crazy and I wouldn't want to put them in harms way.

+1. I'd also check the feed ramp. I've seen this with refurbished 1911's that require some polishing on the feed ramp or the round won't chamber all the way... especially the first 2 or 3 because of the magazine tension.

Look, as I keep saying and trying to get you to understand, there was no violation of his rights here. There was no one signing a death warrant or anything of the like. The CIA and our Military forces kill bad guys all the time. This time it happened to be a citizen. Yemen is a combat zone where the US has been killing enemies for a while now. If this had taken place in Anywhere, USA I would share your opinion, but it didn't. If any of us decide to head to a combat zone where our forces are engaged with enemy, you must understand that you could very likely killed by our forces if you align yourself with the enemy. If I'm going after bad guys and find out that one of them happens to be an American citizen, it's not going to make me fight any less. I'm trying to get you to understand that this didn't go down the way you think it did. There are different rules in combat. Like the example I used before of John Walker, an American citizen fighting for the Taliban against ally and US forces, who was shot by Northern Alliance Afghanis under the advisement of US forces. What if one of those US ground troops had shot and killed him? Would that be denying him due process? Would they need a warrant or proof of his involvement before engaging? The answer is no. This situation is exactly the same. The only difference here is that our forces don't have freedom of movement within Yemen to engage the enemy on the ground, so we use our high-speed expensive technology to make freedom hating bad guys into part of the landscape. Different category, different rules. His citizenship only would have mattered if he had been detained by US forces, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do in Yemen. And I don't believe there was any name calling or lack of decorum here. Yes I made comments about wearing tin foil hats, but look a few posts up and you'll see what I'm talking about... suggesting somehow gun owners are next? Boogeymen? We're talking about terrorists in Yemen, not Joe American sitting on his couch. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about, and it's all over this thread.

Ha! Yes, being on a pro-2A site I get used to refering to the 2nd... I meant the first; sorry for the confusion.

Roger on the "enter" thing... sometimes I get to typing and don't realize how much it is until I post. As to the tin foil hattery, yes, there are a few posts here which suggest that the government killed him because he was exercising his second amendment right. That's entering tin foil hat country. I don't think it's a huge leap in logic that someone who has so publically supported and encouraged terror attacks against the US may be a member of a terrorist organization, do you? In regards to the press I agree with you whole-heartedly. The disparity in reporting on Bush versus Obama is staggering. Unfortunately most Americans don't form opinions on their own and need Joy Bayhar to give them their opinions. This, however, has nothing to do with whether or not it's authorized to kill an American citizen involved in terror abroad. To the issue itself, if Awlaki had blown up an abortion clinic and then went abroad to avoid detention, then no, it would not be authorized to kill him. We would have to rely on the efforts of the FBI and State Department to encourage the host nation to detain and extridite him back to the US. The reason the CIA/Military was authorized to kill him is because we are at war with the organization to which he is a part of. Was this even an Executive decision? I don't know for sure; Obama is a leader so he ultimately is responsible for everything his subordinates do or fail to do, so he can take credit for this but did he "push the red button?" I would say that it's irrelevant one way or the other. From my understanding, CENTCOM was authorizing kinetic targeting of bad guys in Yemen at their level. They drop hellfires all the time on bad guys in Yemen; the President isn't personally approving those. I understand about keeping the government in check, but in this case no rights were violated in regards to free speech or due process. This was an act of war, not one of law enforcement.

Hey I'm a big fan of always asking questions and hearing different opinions. In this matter it doesn't come down to opinion at all though. I'm offering hard facts and it seems that you and a few others would rather subscribe to the theory that the government "assassinated" one of it's citizens for speaking out against them. This is not the case; not even close. Speaking out against the government in the way he did (talking about over a decade ago) will certainly get you on the radar of the FBI. Being on the radar of federal law enforcement isn't violating any rights to free speech. Once some really big planes were hijacked and 3,000 Americans lost their lives to a coordinated act of war from a paramilitary organization his category changed since he was linked to several of the militants who carried out the attacks. At this point the FBI would be incompetent to assume he is merely exercising his right to free speech; we pay them to look into people like this... in the business they call those people "suspects". Once he moved to Yemen and became an overt member of Al Qaeda, this went from a law enforcement realm to CIA/Military action. Now his citizenship means nothing unless he is captured. He is now an enemy combatant and can be killed at whim. We don't have to ask enemy to surrender; we can just kill them. The only time our Military is obligated to capture is if the enemy is clearly surrendering. These are the facts. The CIA doesn't have to provide burden of proof (such as full disclosure of intelligence) when they kill the enemy. This would undermine the efforts of an organization we really, really need to be doing their job. But, if you really need to sleep at night how about this scenario: he was killed with a known bombmaker being targeted by the CIA. There is a good chance that Awlaki wasn't even the target here. He may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time; or the right place at the right time depending on how you want to look at it. Either way, his sudden trip to Allah would have been justified. If it's your opinion that the government is out to get it citizens then that's your opinion, but these here are facts. The moment he stepped foot in Yemen to get his Jihad on he went from being a suspect in a law enforcement investigation to being a military target. It doesn't matter if he was a leader or if he was the Chai Boy. If this had taken place in Afghanistan where we have ground troops he probably would have been shot in the face by now and no one would be conjuring ACLU bullsh*t.

That setup costs more than my Dodge Ram!

Man I tell ya, I'll never tell someone they're wrong for having a different opinion, but I will tell someone they're wrong on basis of facts. It is a fact that he was a member of a terrorist organization at war with the US. Free speech has nothing to do with this in anyway at all ever, ever. People hate on the government all the time and don't get a hellfire shoved up their a**. C'mon, take the tin foil hats off folks.

His mouth didn't get him killed. His membership in Al Qaeda did. Why does no one get this?? So, if anyone here wants to go to Afghanistan and give praise to the enemy you are free to do so. The second you hop in the truck with them and become a member of said organization there is a good chance you're going to be on the receiving end of a hellfire or some other implement of death. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH CITIZENSHIP, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OR A GIANT OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO ERODE YOUR RIGHTS.

Man, I just don't see what the hubbub is about all this. I think most reasonable people can agree that we are all cool if someone is OC'ing. I think what bothers people are the ones that do it just to cause a stir, such as OC'ing at times that aren't appropriate. For example, I didn't see a gunbuster at the Chuck E Cheese the other day, but I bet if I walked in there with a pistol on my side for all to see it would probably be on the news. Would I be within my rights? Yeah, but I wouldn't have a lot of common sense. I think that's where so-called "anti-OC'ers" get into these sorta debates. I don't OC, but it's not because I'm against it, I just don't want people to know I'm armed. It seems that the OC regulars don't mind that, and that is their business. I just don't see why this is something that people get their panties in a bunch about one way or the other.