TMF

[quote name="theconstitutionrocks" post="1105252" timestamp="1391372800"]Well I look at it like this...If there is a possibility of having to use a pistol, that means you are possibly going to get shot at. If that is the case then you (IMHO) either need to be mobile and get the hell out of the area, or, if you can't readily do that, either have body armor on to mitigate the threat (which if a rifle and all you have is IIIA you are pretty much F*****), or to be able to hole up in an area where you have the element of suprise and a narrow open approach. [/quote] Well in that case I'd better throw a K-pot on and wear that everywhere too. Ya never know, I guess. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ No, there were multiple people who called the police, so that suggests to me that it was more than one house.Besides that, who cares who the operator is or how old he is? If they were 8 or 80 I'm still shooting the f'ing thing down if it is peeping in my windows. Why is that amusing to you or anyone else that folks would have a problem with a PEEPING TOM? Do you have a wife and children? I can't see how anyone with a wife and kids would not see this as a huge deal.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I forego the armor in lieu of dual wield pistols. You can only take so many attachments and perks so I prefer the extra firepower, since I'm more focused on getting the score streak. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Lowbuster" post="1105062" timestamp="1391342477"]What brands do you consider solid?[/quote] I've never bought any before, just been issued a few different kinds. The ones that were army issue were solid. A year or so before I got out I was issued a med kit which was a non-standard unit purchase and the shears that came in it were garbage. I couldn't believe that they were included in there or expected to be used for anything. I don't think they'd cut through a belt. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Go figure, no shears. That's one of them items I couldn't be without in my medkit. Get you a good solid set that won't bind from extreme grip pressure when cutting something rigid. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="BigK" post="1105034" timestamp="1391317839"]I can't believe someone hasn't sold tickets to a pirate hunting cruise yet. Can you imagine, a boat full of skinnies moving in on what looks like a normal cruise ship or cargo ship, but 100 lucky ticket buyers pop up over the deck rail with ARs, sniper rifles, and such. Call me what you will, but I'd buy a ticket...just saying.After about a dozen successful cruises, the would-be pirates would trade their AKs for fishing poles to make a safe and an honest living.[/quote] Oh I'm sure amnesty international would throw a fit and the UN would figure out a way to get you and imprison you for life. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think a lot of these kits marketed nowadays are designed by former action people or wannabe types who get wrapped up in the idea of 'combat loadout' and put a lot of things in there that sound cool, but aren't intended for use in an environment where there is immediate care. Guaranteed, if there is a shooting there will be lights and sirens coming towards you. In combat you might be hours, even days from receiving care. That's when doing some of these field expedient procedures makes sense, since the worst that could happen is the patient dies, gets infection or has a permanent medical condition related to field treatment by a knuckle dragging trigger puller. Not too many cons there if the likelihood of death without field expedient treatment is likely, due to proximity to care. But in our setting, in the US, the chances of 1) being wounded in such a manner or treating someone wounded in such a manner is incredibly slim (unless it is part of your job such as police, fire, EMT, postal worker, stripper...) and 2) the chances of being in such a situation and being hours or days away from care is practically nil. I have a trauma kit in the truck to deal with the big ones, such as airway and bleeding, like j tubes, nasal trumpets, tourniquets, curlex, ace wrap.. . Those will kill you quick. I also have things like chest seals and quick clot, but not so much because I have intention of using them, but I just don't have anywhere else to put them. The last thing I would do would be to introduce some of the crap I have into a patient if I know an EMT is gonna be there short order and the work I did is only gonna complicate things for the doc when he gets to the hospital. So take some of the stuff in that kit with a grain of salt. All the wizz bang stuff is good to have in a SHTF environment, but for the stuff you would encounter and how you would treat it should be the simple stuff; bandages and airway. Heck, even for SHTF it won't do you much good, since if you're treating many of the ailments that cool stuff is designed for the patient is gonna die anyway. On another note, of the EMTs out there, have any of you actually treated or are aware of a colleague treating a sucking chest wound with needle decompression? I'm just a knuckle dragger, but I figured that'd be something that could wait until the doc stuck a hose in the patient. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="dralarms" post="1105008" timestamp="1391314606"]Trust me tmf, If I shoot something down there wont be enough left for csi las vegas to recover. I'll keep shootin until it's just a piece of scrap. The sob won't fly it over my property again (hypothetical of course).[/quote] I was more referring to the remote station that controlled the device. I have strong suspicions that these civilian owned devices do not record data on the actual vehicle, for a number of reasons. If they did, I am beyond certain that someone who was up to no good wouldn't have the video recorded on a device that wasnt in his control. Which goes back to what I was saying: there is no way to prove that the guy recording questionable/illegal images while flying on your property. Any evidence of that would be in the control of the operator and could be deleted or encrypted loooooong before an officer took control of it, leaving the only video evidence being innocuous footage which fit the violator's cover for action. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I wouldn't use that for its intended purpose unless you get some formal training. A bit more complicated than running an IV. Well, not exactly more complicated, but a lot more you can do wrong. The bright side is that, unless you're on the battlefields of Afghanistan, the knowledge of how to treat a tension pneumothorax with a needle decompression is pretty pointless. You'll never be that far from care to require it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1104757" timestamp="1391282821"]Folks can fight this technology all they want; but it is going to happen. The FAA has already authorized drone testing and when technology companies chomping at the bit to use this technology and open new markets; I’m sure Congress will be pressured to speed the FAA up. It will open up new markets with tens of thousands (if not more) jobs waiting. That’s a big incentive. There are already laws banning the neighborhood pervert from looking in your windows with his UAV. And with everything on video; it’s pretty easy to enforce. We shouldn’t miss out on this technology because someone can abuse it any more than our guns should be banned because someone walked into a school and shot a bunch of kids. [url="http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/tech/innovation/beer-drone-faa/"]http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/tech/innovation/beer-drone-faa/[/url][/quote] No, it isn't easy to prove squat. If this drone is just relaying the video feed to a remote control it may or may not be recording anything. In fact, what do you think the first thing a perv is going to do if they suspect they're getting approached by law enforcement? Delete. And you can be sure if their video goes to a memory card of some kind that will be encrypted and hidden where no simple beat cop or local computer forensic guy would ever have hope of finding, let alone decrypting. You seem to think pervs are all stupid and wouldn't have a cover for action. They, like most criminals think their crimes through, especially if they spent the cash on a hovering video drone. Looking at roof tops for future solicitation sounds like a great cover for action. This isn't about fighting technology, this is about violation of privacy by perverts and peeping Toms. I could care less about drones and RC aircraft. I'm just not going to have someone's camera flying around my property taking video of my wife and kids. Ain't happening ever, ever. It ain't about owning the airspace above my property. It ain't about trespassing. It ain't about just disliking technology. Anyone with a wife and young kids can understand that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1104729" timestamp="1391278850"]TMF….. You are ratcheting this up several notches above what it is. We were discussing a story where a drone was over Smyrna and the operator said he was checking roofs because that was his business. My point was that a simple viewing of the video will prove or disprove that. Or Dave and his neighbor making the decision his other neighbor must be a pervert for flying a quad around the neighborhood simply because there are pools in the area. He thinks he is justified in shooting it down. Again, a viewing of the video will prove or disprove that. If you see an aircraft obviously looking in your windows; do what you have to do. But to say that you would start shooting at anything flying around simply because you think it may be viewing your family is ridiculous. Being arrested for a criminal act against an innocent person or their property isn’t protecting your family; quite the opposite.[/quote] No, I think you miss the point completely. So what he is checking roof tops? That isn't for me to immediately know. It is an intrusion into my family's privacy to fly into my yard with a recorder going. The only difference between this and someone entering my property with a camera running is actual trespassing. We can sit here and debate what trespassing is or isn't, but the act of willfully breaching my privacy remains and I'm not inclined to immediately believe the person isn't a peeping Tom; same as if someone is in my bushes looking through my windows. He may be a tree trimmer for all I know, looking to get work sculpting thr hedges. Don't matter, I'm still gonna beat his ass bloody. In some places that is aggravated assault. To me that is protecting my family. I don't much care what anyone says, law or otherwise. I'm gonna do what I'm gonna do to protect my family when I see a clear and present violation of them. You're convinced that means the world will end, as I'd be tossed in jail with a felony charge. That may be, but if I had to bet one way or the other, I'd say I'm gonna walk away from it fine. And really, I'm not upping anything a notch. It is clear that there was much concern over this since so many people called the police and the police chief wanted information regarding it. To me that tells me the kind of flying this guy was doing. It isn't on the residents to immediately assume that this guy is inspecting roof tops. Perhaps it turned out that way, but what matters in court is whether you acted reasonably with what you knew. The only thing I would know at the time is that there is a peeping Tom attempting to exploit my kids. If it turns out to be different, oh well I guess. Not my problem. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are shooters on some ships now. Pirates get to guess which ones. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RC aircraft flying in my neighborhood? Don't care. RC aircraft flying over my house? Don't care. RC aircraft outfitted with camera loitering over my property, clearly taking video? This equals peeping Tom, and an active violation of my kids' right to privacy. The next obvious step is to shoot it down. I don't care what any cop, judge, jury, congressman, president, lawyer or Internet person has to say. You use video equipment to exploit my family and I will destroy it immediately. That simple. I don't care the repercussions. That isn't the damn point here. You can damn sure bet if I found some pervert outside my house peeping in with binoculars it would be a much greater crime than vandalism I'd be committing, and somehow I'd be just peachy with that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1104629" timestamp="1391267294"] These things have cameras on them when you shoot those down they will be recovered and used as evidence. If they are coming down looking in your windows or hovering outside your kids windows you may be fine. But if this is a guy looking at roofs as a business and the video shows that; you are probably going to be convicted of a felony. Kids (and adults) put cameras on RC stuff all the time. You can’t shoot them down because you have kids in your house. If vandalism is over $500 it’s a felony in this state.[/quote] Well, I don't suppose that changes anything. It's not up to me to investigate someone's intent when they're violating my privacy. I'm just going to act on the best information I know. Like I said, good luck finding 12 people who agree I didn't act reasonably based on the circumstances. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="CQB Elite" post="1104338" timestamp="1391207381"]Years ago I flew from FL to St Louis for a hunting trip in Illinois. On my return trip there was an elderly lady going thru TSA next to me. They found her fingernail clippers and took them away. TSA's version of Paul Blart started lecturing her about why she couldn't take them on the plane. She kept telling him to put it back in her bag. I thought she was going to punch him in the throat.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk[/quote] While going through Paris/De Gaul years back I watched a poor old lady lose it on France's version of the TSA. It was sad and funny at the same time. She had been collecting hotel lotions from her hotel apparently and had a few dozen of those little bottles in her purse. They took her off to the side and started removing all the contents of her purse in front of hundreds of passengers, which was so humiliating she started to cry. They called in for more security and now there were half a dozen frog agents around her with one attempting to console her and she blurts out at the top of her lungs, "I hate the French!" The reaction of those Franco-douches was hilarious. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="~48_South~" post="1104602" timestamp="1391263755"]Would be a risky move to say the least,if a person is flying fpv it would be extremely easy to prove he was innocent of any wrong doing since they are recording and could easily prove he was not spying(if he wasnt) add to that all units are equipped with gps and it makes it rather easy to find the location in which it went down and if you were caught or admit to destroying the quad you could easily be out of pocket for thousands just for the drone then throw in the legal fees and what not. I have family that owns several hundred acres with a big creek running right through the middle of their property,anyone can apparently come down the creek as they please and not be trespassing as long as they are in the water from what we've been told. I can imagine if they dont own the water that flows through their land you dont own the airspace above your property. I know FPV is a growing hobby,and is also being implemented by realtors as well to get images and videos of properties they are selling that couldnt be achieved any other way. Not saying I agree with it or dont,I just wouldnt shoot it down unless I was seriously concerned that the person operating it is infact up to no good and am confident enough that Im willing to bet several thousand dollars on it.[/quote] I'm okay with that. I don't need to ask a person what their intentions are if they're sitting in a parked car outside my house, looking through the windows with binoculars. Perhaps their intentions are pure, but I'm not taking the time to find that out; I'm just gonna make it stop. Same with a peeping Tom with a camera... even worse when you think about it. I don't know what he is recording, I just know he is over my property taking photos in an area I have a reasonable expectation of privacy for myself and my kids. Good luck finding 12 people who all agree I didn't act reasonably considering the circumstances. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1104607" timestamp="1391264971"]I doubt that felony vandalism and discharging a firearm charge would end well for anyone; so much for your HCP. I’d hate to be a kid with an RC helicopter or plane in you guys neighborhood. [/quote] Felony vandalism is pretty steep. I'd like to meet the DA who charges someone with felony vandalism while someone is flying a video recorder over a house with young kids. That would be less wise than shooting down some peeping Tom's flying camera. Either way, I'm okay with that. I'm not kidding when I say I'd shoot it down. If I have to explain that to a jury I'm certain I can articulate that I acted reasonably, as a father preventing the exploitation of his kids. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would shoot it down and say it was spying on my kids. Let them come and put me in jail or take me to court. Bet I don't lose a dime. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't care what the testimony was, if I was a juror they couldn't beat a guilty verdict out of me. This would be like selling rubbers to hookers. Who cares what they're gonna do with it? Not my business. Or how about someone that buys 30 cans of whipped cream? Seems suspicious like they might be using it for the nitrous oxide, but who's business is that? Maybe they're hosting a kid's party and need lots of topping. Maybe they're having an whipped cream orgy. Who cares? How does that make a business liable if they're going home and huffing nitrous. As for this case, maybe the shop owner thought they were extreme preppers. It doesn't matter anyway since he didnt make the drugs and had no intent to help make them. Stupid stupid stupid times we live in. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm confused. Wouldn't a carbine length handguard extend past the gas block on a pistol length gas system? Seems to me the choice would be a FF handguard/rail at carbine length would fit over the gas block and expose a little bit of the barrel. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the question right. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Uh oh. Looks like you need to buy these quick before the Feds buy them all. DHS purchases 1.2 billion "domestic anti-personnel" rounds: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/01/dhs-ammo-purchase/ Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="Spots" post="1103575" timestamp="1391092243"]You see the same thing around military bases alot. Most of the time its someone who is irresponsible and needs beer money for the weekend. I find it funny that someone called in about a guy putting body armor in the trunk, and that the news acts like there is no reason for a civilian to have body armor.Tapatalk ate my spelling.[/quote] The ones I see selling around Ft Campbell all the time are most certainly by turds who stole a buddy's body armor. I hate thieves in the military. Should be hung. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="BryanP" post="1103547" timestamp="1391086825"]The argument doesn't hold. Barbara Streisand tried it when she went to court to try and keep photographs of her huge home off of the internet. Photos taken by paparazzi in helicopters. You do not own the airspace over your home. Every time we come up with new technology, or in this case new applications for existing technology, we have to feel our way through what is and isn't acceptable and/or legal. I'm sure criminals in the late 1800's thought it was totally unfair that they could be identified by this newfangled fingerprint tech.[/quote] You are correct, but if there is a violation of privacy I think that would be different. Posting aerial photographs of a house wouldn't be an invasion of privacy, unless Babs was naked in her pool when those pictures were taken. Plus we're talking about what would be admissible evidence in court, not whether someone can post a picture of your house on the interwebz. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="dralarms" post="1103540" timestamp="1391085215"]So what you are saying is joe blow down the street owns 300+ acres and decides to go on a killing spree, leaves no evidence, takes the bodies back to his farm and buries them in a field. A cop helo, or drone, flys over sees the fresh dug plots of ground cant use that to get a search warrant to go check it out? I don't buy it[/quote] Well, like I said, I'm not convinced it's unconstitutional. But to play devil's advocate here, I would say that it doesn't really matter what the cops do, it matters what is admissible in court. Your example is kind of extreme and leaves a lot of stuff out. Did the cops specifically fly over this person's house in order to record evidence sans warrant? Or was there a police helo just flying along and see someone digging graves? Those are both questions that would have bearing here, if indeed such an act was unconstitutional. I mean, to paint a similar scenario, let's say that a cop suspected you of murdering a bunch of people so he came to your house to investigate. You didn't answer the door so he jumps over your privacy fence to look around. He discovers a bunch of freshly dug graves. Is that cop gonna arrest you and recover the bodies? You bet. Are the lawyers gonna get the evidence thrown out and see you walk free? I dunno, but they have grounds to try. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quote name="dralarms" post="1103536" timestamp="1391084597"]Ok. First according to fox news there was no search warrant. But, to me it's the same thing as them flying over my property looking for pot. If it's out in the open its fair game. That's just like you riding down the road and a cop sees you through your window and can see you have no seatbelt on. Or around here I hear it all the time on the scanner, a le calls in to central saying I just saw so and so and his license is revoked and he is driving on such and such street, initiating stop, verify dl status. He has already stopped the guy before he has confirmation that his dl is revoked.[/quote] I think there is a compelling argument for the reasonable expectation of privacy on one's own property, especially when that property is so large it can't be surveilled without aircraft. I dunno. I'm not convinced this is unconstitutional, but I think there is a compelling argument there for folks smarter than me to take on. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk