TGO David

Correct. Forgive me for failing to more properly state that there are TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES. The odds of either happening are contingent upon variables that, while wired to the gills with adrenaline and suffering from post traumatic stress, I am not going to take chances on. That's why my lawyer gets paid the big bucks. I'll get right on that. If they have a class in common sense, maybe you can enroll and then we can telecommute together.

Are you getting talking ads on this site??? If so, your computer already has spyware / adware on it and you need to get that addressed promptly. Some malware sees banner ads on sites like this one and overwrites those ads with their own. Some of their own can be pretty pornographic. One of our other members had that happen to them once before and asked me why we were letting those kinds of places advertise here. For the record, we only allow people or companies that offer goods and services relevant to the firearms community to advertise. If you're seeing anything other than that, you have a problem.

I've made my case very clearly in this thread already. Until you come back with some explanation of what the 3rd possible outcome is in a justified shoot where you elect to keep your mouth shut (i.e. 1. Get taken to jail, 2. Not taken to jail, 3. ______ ? ) I have nothing further to add.

Firefox + AdBlock Plus.

I'm waiting on the 3rd option. If you elect to exercise your right to remain silent, the police will either take you to jail after a self defense shooting, or they won't. That is pretty damn 50/50 to me. Maybe the 3rd option is that the officers will sit with you on your couch and watch television until your lawyer arrives.

I'm guessing about three months, give or take. :-\

That's not the angle you want to take here, jack. http://www.tncivilsociety.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=469#p3652

Whether or not you go to jail after you inform the police that you're going to keep your mouth shut is up to them. Whether or not you stay there for a long piece of your life is up to the court and will depend in some degree to what you said when you had diarrhea of the mouth. As I have said before, and as you seem to be intent on ignoring, you need to resign yourself to the following facts: Exercising your right to remain silent may land you temporarily in jail. Exercising your right to remain silent is important if you want to give your attorney a chance to review the situation and decide what course of action is in your best interst. Waiving your right to remain silent could land you in jail for a lot, lot longer. You need to have these discussions with yourself and decide what you are going to do before you ever decide to strap a firearm onto your person and carry it for your self defense. If sitting in jail for a few hours train-wrecks the plans for your life, you might want to reconsider carrying a gun. Or at least be willing to take the 50/50 gamble that anything you say to the police (things that can and will be held against you in a court of law) might put you away for a really, really long time no matter how innocent you are.

You either will go to jail or you won't go to jail. Did you pull some third option that none of us know about straight from your ass? Is the third option that you will be exiled into the barren wasteland to wander the rest of your life? Does it involve foot rubs and ice cream cones? What in the name of all that's good and holy is the 3rd option??? I'm waiting with baited breath!!! I didn't ignore anything. And for that matter, you conveniently ignored the accusation that you are a quote-****er. You know, someone that ****s with people's quotes to make them suit their own agendas.That's wonderful that you have taken a class or two. AWESOME. Now go back and talk to your instructors and find out if they advocate telling the police everything you know on the scene, immediately following a good shoot. If they do, demand a refund. If they don't, you need to pay closer attention next time so that you're getting your money's worth. And don't mind the age thing. I was a 23 year old know-it-all once and I grew up and realized that half the **** I thought I knew back then, I didn't. Now that I'm 36, I have successfully weeded out a lot of misinformation and am more confident that what I know now is actually pretty ****ing accurate. By the time I'm 60, I should be a god damned genius. I have family who has spent time in prison because they cooperated a little too much. Does that count? My lawyer has an amazing ability to pull people's asses out of the fire so I'd say he is pretty magical. The DA isn't some all-powerful being. He has to make a case against you and has to make that case stick. Do you want to go up against him alone or do you want a competent attorney on your side?That's the choice here, sport. Go it alone and make a big statement to the police at 2am while some guy's laying face down in a puddle of blood on your kitchen floor, or play it safe and get a pro on your side before you start running your mouth. Call me a wimp, but I'm going to go with the attorney.

And for the record... If some miscreant breaks into my house and I shoot him dead inside my house, when the police arrived I would probably say something like this: Officer, the deceased broke into my house. He was uninvited, I was in for for my life and that of my family so I shot him. My firearm is in my holster on my right hip and is loaded. I am more than willing to cooperate with your investigation but I insist on speaking to my attorney first for my own sake. That is all that I am willing to say about this shooting until I have my attorney present. Chances are, a good cop will recognize the situation for what it is and my statement included enough information to clarify that it was a self-defense shooting and I was the victim of a crime in progress. The officer may at his or her discretion elect to take me to the police station for detainment until such time that they receive a statement from me via my attorney or with my attorney present. They would be well within their rights to take me in. I've just killed a person, be it in self-defense or not. Perhaps they will elect to let me stay at home with my family and then come make a statement later. Perhaps not. Either way, they aren't getting anything more than that from me without my attorney's involvement. Shooting the guy who was attacking me or my family in this situation was Part 1 of the protection of my loved ones. Protecting us from loss of freedom (mine), loss of income (mine), loss of home and property (ours) and from incarceration (mine) is Part 2 of the self-defense plan. Part 2 is my attorney presenting the facts in a light favorable to the case that it was a justified shoot and keeping ME out of prison. Anyone who fails to think about Part 2 is setting up a potentially bad scenario. You just took care of your and your family's immediate health and well being by using deadly force to protect them. Why are you failing to do the same regarding your legal well being?

I'm trying to figure out why you would want to spend $600-ish on an upper that requires even more expensive ammunition than the 5.56 upper.

I will never understand people who think that spending 24-48 hrs sitting in the local clink while they wait to speak with their attorney is such a horrible outcome. Comparing the wait to make a statement after getting legal counsel, to the potential risk of spending the next 20 years behind bars with a permanent felony record because you misspoke, or couldn't accurately remember the exact facts of the encounter because you were completely jacked up on adrenaline, etc... it seems like the obvious, prudent choice is to express your desire to cooperate after you see your attorney, and then keep your mouth shut. But I'm sure your experience at 23 years of age far outweighs that of the vast number of professional law enforcement officers cum personal defense trainers / expert witnesses / legal consultants who agree with what I've said. Ultimately, it's your life sport. If you want to risk it because of an overwhelming need for catharsis after a good shoot, then tell the nice officers all about it. You've got a 50% chance it will go well for you. You also have a 50% chance it won't.

How many of those stories stated whether or not the justified shooter made a statement to the police? I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, or you're just not thinking it through. You're basing your disagreement with me on what you have read in the paper. Second hand information at best. More likely third hand. I'm basing mine on what two police officers told a class full of students. Officers who do this stuff on a daily basis. Edit... Furthermore, my statement that you will spend some time in jail is in respect to the practice of keeping silent beyond what I outlined. If you keep your mouth shut until your attorney is present, you will spend time in jail. If you talk, you might not. Or you might not until the DA gets hold of your case and decides to make you an example for political reasons. ANOTHER EDIT... And if you're going to quote me, quote the whole damn thing and don't edit it to fit your purposes. I had to go back and make sure I hadn't omitted part of my thoughts when I typed it out, and lo and behold I hadn't. You just chose to post the portion that made your argument seem sensible. The original statement was this: You conveniently omitted everything in red. That sort of fact-skewing is what puts good people in prison for an otherwise clean shoot, and is why I don't make statements without an attorney present. It is also why anything you read in the paper should be taken with a spoonful of skepticism. Quotes are easily shortened or reworded to take on completely new meanings, as evidenced by the sort of crap you just pulled there. [EXPLETIVE] !!!!!

The beer aisle could be the "battery" ... a liquor store an "armory" ... can coozies are "holsters" ...

My wife owns a Kenmore. I bet she didn't know I even noticed that.

A small Nashville area gun dealer uses a rather derogatory statement about a larger Winchester area gun dealer as his signature on his forum. To the effect that, "That ****ing douche bag can't find his ass with both hands, i seriously doubt he is going to find you a SP-101 or any other non-uber tactifool firearm" despite the fact that the dealer had at least one in his case at that time. The statement in question was actually made by another member of this forum, on that forum, and has grown legs and seems to have a life of it's own now. So whenever the SP101 is brought up, hilarity now ensues.

The question regarding SP101's is whether you are capable of finding it with both hands. Are you? (it's an inside joke)

Sadly that seems to be the case on the Internet at large, but I think we should strive to be better than that here.

The focus of this article was taking the media to task for historical revisionism. The problems with Academia would span volumes.

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism. An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America: I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know. This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration. It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans. What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay. The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating. They end up worse off than before. This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them. Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.) Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending? I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate." Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed. As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury." These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing. If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama. If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis. There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.) If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression. Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper. But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to. If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate. Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned. Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naiveté time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing. Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months. So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means? Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for? You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles. That's where you are right now. It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there. If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices. Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door. You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way. This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion. If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie. If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard. You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Daily: Glock 19 with 15rd mag in Comp-Tac MTAC holster Spare 15rd mag in Comp-Tac offside holster Hornady TAP 147gr 9mm SOG Flash II serrated tanto or Gerber Fast Draw #G07161 knife.

THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, RIGHT THERE. And for what it's worth, and it should be worth quite a bit given that I paid $250 to hear it in a class, there are current law enforcement officers on this forum who also teach civilian defensive firearms classes and they recommend the exact same thing. Keep your mouth shut! You will get to spend some time in the jail cell, but that's just part of the game. ANYTHING that you say can and will be used against you. It's better to sit quietly in the jail cell and allow someone far more skilled at the game (i.e. your attorney) to do the talking for you. Anyone who does it any other way is a damn fool and I don't care how many people that rubs wrong. Part of carrying a handgun for self defense is accepting that if you ever have to use it, the cops will get involved and that you will have to spend a little time under their care while the facts of the event are sorted out. If you can't handle that, then you don't need to be carrying a gun! Your statement on the scene should be no more, no less than: Officer I was in fear for my life and/or the lives of my family members. Point out any relevant evidence. (The knife, gun, axe, chainsaw, etc. that the attacker was using is located there.) My firearm is located [give location] and is [loaded/unloaded]. Please secure it. I will gladly make a statement to assist your investigation, but only after I have my attorney present. Optionally, #6 -- I don't feel well and request that you call an ambulance and have me taken to the hospital immediately. I'm afraid that I may be having a panic attack, heart attack, etc.

You're my mole inside the DNC... we need you to stick around!

I really don't understand why people post silly questions like this on gun forums. One would think that a person who has gone through the process of building and assembling their own rifle, and who has navigated the murky process of getting their NFA tax stamp, probably knows better than to shoot their rifle toward a neighbor's house. Being that the target is hanging from a sawhorse, one would probably also think that the target was meant to be portable and that this photo was taken not on the firing line but back at the guy's home.

So where's the expose on what Obama has spent on clothing? I've seen pictures of Palin prior to her pick as the Veep candidate. Her wardrobe looked like the pages of a Lands End or LL Bean catalog. Obama has always looked like he stepped off the page of GQ or Ebony.