East_TN_Patriot

No, no... don't bother.  All people want to hear is that the fight is already lost, the country is coming apart at the seams, the Republicans are secretly scheming against us, and gun confiscations by FEMA and the UN are scheduled to begin on July 1st of this year.  Coolheaded logic no longer makes any difference when it relates to the 2nd Amendment.  The entire Congress could pass a law declaring absolute prohibition against all gun control and people would still scream and yell about it being a veiled attempt to get 2nd Amendment supporters to let their guard down while they cart in the FEMA trucks.

Odd that people aren't even bothering to look at this article.  I would think that people would be interested in seeing what the side of the political spectrum who typically pushes gun control has to say in support of gun rights.  Like I basically said in the last thread I started similar to this about academic research, I'm not sure why I bother.   :shrug:

If they wouldn't want to say it aloud, would that really be the kind of group you'd want to affiliate with? If anyone wants to see a list of militia organizations in Tennessee, just check the Southern Poverty Law Center website. They have compiled a detailed list of "patriot movements" in all 50 states including militia groups, Tea Party groups, and political groups including GOOH. Yes, truth be told, many of us are being labeled as dangerous radicals just like the Klan, Skinheads, and Sovereign Citizens.

I would suggest that what you see here is not a support for gun control, but a struggle between establishment Republicans and the libertarian leaning group that is seeking to dismantle to statist wing of the GOP.

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html "Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence. Guns – certainly the personal firearms that are in question – carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect. (Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right.) But guns are not agents of history. They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence. Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter. Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them."

I too prefer PMags because of their durability and the other little features, but I also have plenty of aluminum mil-spec ones.  I usually grab them from Brownell's since their in-house mags seem to be very well made for the price.  Mako Group sells E-Lander mags that are steel magazines made in Israel.  The price seems reasonable, but I have read that some people are having problems with them reliably locking into the lower receiver.  The remedy is to use a Dremel tool to shave a fraction of an inch off of the top of the notch on the mag that catches the mag release.  If I recall correctly, the problem was encountered in specific brand lowers, but I don't remember which brand(s) it was that had the problem.  Overall, the reviews are decent on those mags.

Like gregintenn said, if he decides to do work and I can afford his price, I have a Seecamp he can work on for me.

Not only is it ugly and shameful, I simply see no practical reason for putting a Garand in a tactical stock like that. It's the same to me as the Mosin tactical stock. I just don't see what benefit you expect to get from it.

That doesn't matter. The electoral college votes in accordance to the voters who do vote. One can make an argument that the "winner takes all" nature of the electoral process is unfair, but the Founding Fathers put the electoral college process in place or a reason and I strongly believe it would a gravely serious mistake to do away with it.

Ok, fair enough. I didn't read your first statement that way.

Well, here is some data provided by DHS in response to the Senate request.  Based on the limited data here, the DHS has used approximately 360 million rounds over the past three years.  Averaging those three years and adding that in for a couple of other years, that is over 600 million rounds in a five year period.  The current DHS appropriation request was for 1.6 billion rounds over 5 years.  This would mean that they are tripling their ammunition acquisitions over 5 years.  It is possible they are trying to keep a stockpile on hand and/or purchasing more for additional personnel that have been added.     http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=9cde768f-bb3a-4fd9-8176-1745c21519c2

  OK, and it's also commonly discussed in defensive firearms classes, law enforcement classes, and gun-related publications.  Heck, when I was in law enforcement, we were trained to always yell "STOP RESISTING!" and/or "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" and practiced it regularly.  The instructors told us that even if we didn't have time to say it before a defensive shooting, scream it afterwards so that witnesses will remember the words even if they don't remember the order of events.  At the end of the day, all that matters is whether your words match what the physical evidence says.  You seem to suggest that discussion of this topic is evidence of deception.  Quite the opposite.  We are discussing the proper way to handle the immediate aftermath of a self-defense shooting including what amount of information to give to the 911 operator and the responding officer. We have a constitutional right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during a police interrogation as part of a criminal investigation, which is exactly what a homicide investigation is.  It is the responsibility of the police and the prosecutor to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and we have no obligation to assist them in this endeavor.  Don't lie, don't give the police or 911 operator any more information than is absolutely necessary without a lawyer, and be sure your shooting was absolutely an action of last-resort.  If you do those three things, you should be fine.

    OK, who is ultimately making this decision?  Ultimately it is a jury of normal people like you and the people you go to church, football games, PTA meetings, etc. with.  What do you think a normal person serving on a jury would think?  If you were on the jury, what would YOU think? Even if you choose not to administer first aid, something that might be quite reasonable given the circumstances, most certainly any significant delay in calling 911 will most certainly be viewed negatively.  Would I render aid?  Perhaps, but I have 10 years of law enforcement training in my pocket.

To echo and expand on what the others are saying, the instructor was trying to get you to take a deep breath before you call 911 and say something that can be used against you later.  When I was in law enforcement, my plan following a shooting was to call for assistance, render aid, and immediately call my PBA lawyer (fortunately I never had to put that plan into action).  If you are involved in a shooting as a CCW holder, go ahead and plan on talking to the police and the district attorney, possibly multiple times.  Also, plan on getting sued by the bad guy/gal or their relatives.  The rules governing evidence in a civil trial are different than a criminal trial.  The point is that anything you say, including during a 911 call, can be used against you.  Also, consider that courts generally give excited utterances credibility because it is assumed that people won't have the time to make up a story while they are emotionally keyed up.  However, if you wait too long to make that 911 call, you are almost certain to be held civilly liable and possible criminally liable as well, which I presume was the point of your original question.   Work on this scenario in your mind because mental preparation is important here as in the actual defense situation.  This is also the reason why people need to be absolutely certain that the use of deadly force was absolutely essential.  If you really believe the shooting was absolutely necessary, you are less likely to say anything that would suggest otherwise.     As far as the actions of the police, generally, upon arrival at the scene anticipate being approached at gun point, placed on the ground, and handcuffed until the officers can get control of the situation and determine that everything is safe.  It's not personal, so don't take it that way.  You may be Mother Teresa's first cousin, but all the officers know upon arrival is that you shot someone.  The officers may or may not take an initial statement at the scene, but they will likely transport you to the police station for a more in-depth interview.  I would request an attorney before making any detailed statement beyond the very minimal information to establish the shooting as a self-defense shooting.  The 911 call should be pulled by the investigator and added to the evidence related to the case.  

I understand what you are saying, but at some point one has to be able to decide on what is accurate and what is not. It seems that all too often, the answer is "whatever fits my opinion." Do I believe them to tell the truth? Generally yes, and by "truth" I mean simple facts. Interpretation of those facts is quite a different issue completely. The question is, why would they lie about how many rounds were fired? And who picks the number? If they were simply going to make up random information to ban guns, then why do it that way? Why not say the kid converted a civilian AR style rifle to full-auto, fired hundreds and hundreds of rounds into the victims, and had even converted the Saiga into a full-auto shotgun? Why not dozens and dozens of rifles in his home "arsenal" along with tens of thousands of rounds stockpiled? Might as well throw some bomb-making materials in with it as well. Why say he left rounds in each magazine? Why not that he fired all 30 rounds, but didn't get to use all of his magazines because the heroic police showed up and saved the day? Do you think that a media that can't tell the difference between a semi-auto and machine gun, a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor, or a magazine from a clip would be smart enough to construct a false scenario that involved tactical mag changes and short-loading mags for better reliability (a practice I call BS on anyhow)? The problem is that the BS detectors out there are set way too high, so all they get are a bunch of false positives. If all one ever does is specifically seeks out BS, then they are guaranteed to find it somewhere. That's the reason for my point about a single early news report that says no rifle was used. Any other time, folks would be chalking that up as just another case of the media jumping the gun to get their story out there first. However, here, that single news story is being held up as absolute truth and evidence of a fleecing by the government because all other stories since, and official law enforcement reports say the opposite. It's not that the early news story was inaccurate, it's that everyone else is lying. Let's change your BS detector to a metal detector and say you are looking for buried treasure on a beach that some guy on TV said was buried there. You are so certain that there is treasure on that beach, you set the sensitivity of your metal detector as high as it will go so you don't miss a single gold coin buried in the sand. So off to the beach you go with your metal detector set on high and when you get there, you start looking right where you "know" the treasure had to be buried because that's where you would have buried it. Of course you get a hit, dig a hole, and find an old can. In your mind, you say that is proof treasure exists because people who bury treasure use cans too. Then you run to the next spot you think is a good hiding place and do the same thing. Then it's off to the next spot, and the next, and no matter where you look you get a hit from your metal detector, but all you find are old bits of metal and the occasional old penny (surely the people who buried the treasure there *must* have put some coins out there to throw you off their trail). After days of this, you've run all over the beach, collected a nice pile of useless junk, and no treasure. What you fail to realize is that there is no treasure and the story was created by some hack who uses the story to dupe people into buying metal detectors, and you see your useless junk as a pile of evidence that treasure exists. All the while, you miss the gold Rolex that someone dropped near the waterline while they were out sunbathing. That's the same thing you get when the BS detector is set way too high. You waste time and energy chasing down ghosts while you miss the important stuff.

No, the report about the handguns was a media report. The official police report said he used a Bushmaster AR style rifle, a Glock 10mm handgun, and a Saiga was found in the trunk of his car. http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284 Also, it's quite interesting to see how many folks are working very hard to make the official reports inaccurate. If you find yourself trying to create scenarios to prove someone wrong, then you should probably take a step back. The math I get says he fired a maximum of 161 rounds (as was mentioned by OS earlier). The kid was crazy. He loaded up a bunch of magazines, went to the school, and hot up the place. There's nothing else to this story except for the details related to those facts. No conspiracy. It's also quite interesting to see how people will constantly say the media is corrupt, irresponsible, and inaccurate, but here, early media reports made in the heat of the moment as the story unfolded are 100% correct and corrected reports are fabricated. Again, when you have to do this much work to make the story fit what you want it to be, it's probably time to step back.

PMC 9mm FMJ for $69.99 per 50 round box??? Am I reading that right??? http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/AMM-426

Unfortunately, I read and hear comments from gun owners who indicate they would respond the same way under similar circumstances, including some on TGO from time to time. When you encounter those people who immediately respond to a scenario with "I'd just shoot the SOB" think of this story.

Based on the first few minutes, it should be interesting to see how he backs up his argument. I'll watch the rest tomorrow.

Live and learn. I am absolutely positive even professional knife makers have days like that.

So in other words, his video message is that the Llama Mini Max is a great pistol if you wrap the grip with Velcro so it will fire, but only do that on the firing range, not for actual defensive carry. Simply brilliant. Makes me want to run out and buy two of them.

Your meme is simply inaccurate. Critical thinking means you question "reality" and apply objective logic to uncover evidence through some degree of scientific discovery in an effort to confirm or refute what you or another presents as "truth." Conspiracy theorists do not examine circumstances objectively or seek accurate evidence. They are quite the opposite. They approach every circumstance with a preconceived view of reality and categorically select bits of information that fit their preconstructed narrative. Where information is absent, they replace it with speculation, which is again specifically drawn from their preexisting worldview. In the face of irrefutable evidence showing they are mistaken, they simply retort with more conjecture and/or proclaims that the evidence is fabricated, thus providing further "evidence" of their conspiracy. Take the original video in this thread. What piece of information would be sufficient to convince the filmmaker that those vehicles are not part of some vast government conspiracy? What piece of evidence would convince the 9/11 "truthers" that the attacks were not carried out by the US government? That type of skepticism is not an exercise in critical thinking.

Wife and I tried to watch it one night based on all the rave reviews from friends. We couldn't take more than 15 minutes. Absolutely one of the worst shows I've ever seen.

Um... :screwy: EDIT:  Was he being serious or was that supposed to be humor because I think it was supposed to be serious with some humor built in.  If so, that scares me.

Tonight the WATE News posted a question regarding Texas passing a law allowing teachers with carry permits to carry in the classroom. If you are a Facebook user and are interested, go to the TGO page and leave a comment. I left mine. :-) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=553502694682390&set=o.326818560669197&type=1