What will you do when the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood?

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

But this thing, looks like it drives like a Cadillac!

--Bullwinkle

[pedroh 21]

I got a new plan, I'm going to leave bottles of hooch strategically around my property. Perhaps kegs? Industrial strength!

40 ouncers of high octane Malt? It's been a ghetto favorite for years. King Cobra, Magnum, Colt 45? AKA: The Brick. It will knock you out in a New York second. Liquid crack.

Which one is your favorite?

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issu..._forty_fury.htm

steel reserve packs a punch.. I haven't tried the other ones..

I'm a big fan of Baltika beers. It packs the same punch as The Brick without the social stigma of the ghetto attached to it. #9 is really amped up at 8% alcohol, but I prefer #5, #7, and #8. I aquired a taste for them on my many trips to Belarus and Russia throughout the years. Fortunately I have a Russian deli near my house that stocks all of the Baltikas. За ваше здоровье!

ahh.. I should look for those in the delis round here.. thanks for the tip.. although in NC I think they wouldn't care if they saw me drinking Schlitz or a king cobra rofl

[Shad and Dani 3]

Get out the Sig Sauer 40 cal of course! If they smile, they become a target!

[slim 1,530]

How many people possess the modern equivalent of the Gatling gun in their homes these days? Oh, that would be no one

Au contraire, mon frere. Back in '76, the Gatling gun (and all guns for that matter) were relatively inaccurate, had a relatively short effective range, and actually, contrary to what you've seen in all those movies, had a relatively low rate of fire. Translated for all you "non-2A supporting people" (a.k.a. worthless chopf@#ks) - The guns didn't shoot a lot of bullets very fast and couldn't hit their targets very far away.

Here in my house, as I type this, I have a rifle capable of firing HUNDREDS of aimed shots in less than a minute out to distances of over 500 yards. Technically, we could say I could hit a "man-sized target" once out of every two shots all the way out to 550 meters. That's what we call "maximum effective range of a point target." With that very same Rifle (notice I capitalized it now?) I can hit a "vehicle-sized target" out to 800 meters. I can get really creative and probably dump somewhere around 400 rounds per minute into a crowd, all the way out to about, oh, say 1000 yards?

Comparing apples to apples, the Rifle that I have sitting in my house is WAY better than any Gatling gun Custer could've fielded on that day. Comparing apples to oranges, and rioters to juicers, my Rifle would chew up a mob faster than you could puree some OJ.

And, by the way, my Rifle is nothing special. It's not all "tricked-out" or "fancy." It's your standard, run-of-the-mill, Colt AR. (Which Colt no longer calls the AR since "non-2A supporting chopf@#ks" have deemed "the black rifle" an "assault weapon.")

so back to the main point, that it's foolhardy to engage with an overwhelmingly superior numeric force. That's even supposing that what you say is true. Without going back in time and trying it out well, we don't know what the outcome would be, pure speculation is not really the good basis for a hypothesis, particularly if you life and that of your family is at stake.

Well, if we jump in our time machine and start shooting men on horseback with semiautomatic weapons from long range, I'm pretty sure they'd change their minds. We can also say that if Will Smith, in I am Legend, encountered rioting mobs of men, (and not zombies) the Claymores (notice they're also capitalized?) would've been highly effective in stopping their advance.

When someone's family is at stake, often times there's no hypothesis, only action (or reaction.) What I find completely outrageous about America now is that we've let ourselves become a society where the life of someone who's doing an illegal act is more important than the life of someone who is abiding by the law. Plain and simple, if a riot is going on and the rioters have burned down every house on your street, possibly raped/killed your neighbors, etc., then why is it so wrong to shoot them?

Why do people now have more of a right to burn down your house than you do to protect it?

Clearly, the person with the tank is the person to hide behind.

Unless his neighbour owns a bomber

Tanks and bombers are actually very vulnerable to large numbers of people on foot. They're also somewhat ineffective against targets mixed amongst civilian populations and urban areas.

They too, could disperse a riot, however, a riot consists of large numbers of people on foot and often times the only way to disperse a crowd (and save the resources around you) is to shoot several of them with small-arms.

[justashooter 430]

custer's big mistake was in leaving the gatling guns on post. he decided that their wagons and caissons were too slow on the trail. if he had been in posession of one gatling, history would read differently.

How many people possess the modern equivalent of the Gatling gun in their homes these days? Oh, that would be no one so back to the main point, that it's foolhardy to engage with an overwhelmingly superior numeric force. That's even supposing that what you say is true. Without going back in time and trying it out well, we don't know what the outcome would be, pure speculation is not really the good basis for a hypothesis, particularly if you life and that of your family is at stake.

hundreds of thousands of Americans like Slim posess semi-auto military style rifles. there are approximately 3.5 millin of them in the US in private posession. this qualifies the type as "in common use", so protected by the Heller decision (SCOTUS) from prohibition. thousands like me also posess belt fed GPMG (general purpose machine guns) to go with our military style semi-auto rifles. many of us have hundreds of guns and hundreds of thousands of rounds of major caliber ammo in our homes. there are 250,000-300,000 legal machine guns in the US in private hands, and about 10% of them are GPMG type. it's just a hobby.

i got into the hobby years ago when i moved into a management position and my shop tools started to get cold. i began refurbishing surplussed military rifles that had been scrapped by foreign countries, and were sold in parts and pieces, missing key components, so technically scrap. kind of like clock repair, but more fun. if you know what you're doing, you can also make a pretty penny in the process by connecting those who have with those who want. the scrap pieces themselves are unregulated, so may be traded freely.

eventually (2004?) i designed the bending jig that makes it possible for someone to build an AK47 from scrap parts and the hood of a plymouth valiant, or any other suitable piece of sheet metal. i published the plans/dimensions/method and sold a few prototype examples. within months several vendors were offering comercial production for sale. from this seed bloomed an industry that has facilitated the private assembly of over 200,000 parts kits of the AK type, without serial numbers or government oversight. imagine the hell i took from undercover fed.gov guys for publishing...

as for engaging a numerically superior force, well that's been done many times with success. from the time of sparta through the American civil war, topography has been used as a limiter on the presentation of the superior force. since the civil war ( and even before) technology has been a force multiplier that has allowed small numbers of men to destroy entire armies. the best modern example on large scale is the nuclear weapon. on a smaller scale, a "little bird" with twin miniguns is damned invincible and can destroy an entire company between re-armaments. on the smallest scale, a man armed with a semi-auto rifle is equal to 4 men armed with bolt action rifles. the garand/mauser action in WW2 europe demonstrated this time and again. in the first war early subguns found their way into enemy trenches and were unstoppable if supported by ammo carriers.

whether you like it or not, cleo, America is still full of guys with big guns.

we still stand between you and your government to guarrantee that the rights you take for granted today are here tomorrow.

it's what the second amendment is all about. duck hunting has nothing to do with it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Slim what is your basis for this idea that people have no right to protect their property?

A number of states have laws permitting people varying degrees of proactivity in terms of defending your own property.

In general though whether actions are considered legal or illegal is dependent on a reasonable use of force. Stabbing someone 30 times in the back as they're on the way out the door with your TV is not reasonable.

[almaty 19]

I got a new plan, I'm going to leave bottles of hooch strategically around my property. Perhaps kegs? Industrial strength!

40 ouncers of high octane Malt? It's been a ghetto favorite for years. King Cobra, Magnum, Colt 45? AKA: The Brick. It will knock you out in a New York second. Liquid crack.

Which one is your favorite?

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issu..._forty_fury.htm

steel reserve packs a punch.. I haven't tried the other ones..

I'm a big fan of Baltika beers. It packs the same punch as The Brick without the social stigma of the ghetto attached to it. #9 is really amped up at 8% alcohol, but I prefer #5, #7, and #8. I aquired a taste for them on my many trips to Belarus and Russia throughout the years. Fortunately I have a Russian deli near my house that stocks all of the Baltikas. За ваше здоровье!

one of my favorite beers.. i always buy 3-4 bottles every time sanita and i go to the global food...

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Slim what is your basis for this idea that people have no right to protect their property?

A number of states have laws permitting people varying degrees of proactivity in terms of defending your own property.

In general though whether actions are considered legal or illegal is dependent on a reasonable use of force. Stabbing someone 30 times in the back as they're on the way out the door with your TV is not reasonable.

I don't know that Slim was making that arguement. There is definitely constitutional and legal grounds that permit self-defense of persons and property. However, in the name of "public safety", public agencies seem to feel their need to "do their jobs" supercedes your rights to do yours.

Case in point: I live in an area that is subject to flood. Years ago, we had a severe flood that blocked access, and indeed, flooded many homes. The county and state authorities issued a voluntary evacuation, and once the flood waters receded, they blocked all access to the area for folks wanting to return to their homes, even those unaffected by the flood, other than temporatily not being able to access their property because of high water. After eight hours of heated discussion, and a near riot, they relented and allowed bonafide residents to enter the area.

But what happens when the "authorities" either won't, or can't protect you, or your home? Ultimately, that is a personal choice. Actions do have repercussions, and the same authorities will evalutate your actions later.

--Bullwinkle

Edited January 30, 2009 by Rocky_nBullwinkle

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Slim what is your basis for this idea that people have no right to protect their property?

A number of states have laws permitting people varying degrees of proactivity in terms of defending your own property.

In general though whether actions are considered legal or illegal is dependent on a reasonable use of force. Stabbing someone 30 times in the back as they're on the way out the door with your TV is not reasonable.

I don't know that Slim was making that arguement. There is definitely constitutional and legal grounds that permit self-defense of persons and property. However, in the name of "public safety", public agencies seem to feel their need to "do their jobs" supercedes your rights to do yours.

Case in point: I live in an area that is subject to flood. Years ago, we had a severe flood that blocked access, and indeed, flooded many homes. The county and state authorities issued a voluntary evacuation, and once the flood waters receded, they blocked all access to the area for folks wanting to return to their homes, even those unaffected by the flood, other than temporatily not being able to access their property because of high water. After eight hours of heated discussion, and a near riot, they relented and allowed bonafide residents to enter the area.

But what happens when the "authorities" either won't, or can't protect you, or your home? Ultimately, that is a personal choice. Actions do have repercussions, and the same authorities will evalutate your actions later.

--Bullwinkle

Surrounding your property with claymore mines goes pretty far beyond what most people would consider a reasonable self-defence.

Short of society breaking down entirely (Mad Max style) - I'm not sure I understand this desire to stay and fight to defend "stuff" if you have the opportunity to get your family out of harm's way. Surely in extreme situations - the safety of you and yours should be the ultimate priority. Granted that it isn't always possible - but I don't think the US is at a point where there is the sort of rampant lawlessness where armed gangs roam the suburbs looking for people to rob, rape and kill. I think that's (just a little) hysterical.

Slim seems to be of the belief that its unfortunate that we've somehow suppressed our inner barbarian and that presumably things would be better if people were prepared to take violent action at a moments notice. When that student went nutso at Virginia Tech and started blasting away with pistols, he made a claim about how the body count wouldn't have been as high had the people involved fought for their lives to stop the guy.

[Peikko 1,575]

Slim what is your basis for this idea that people have no right to protect their property?

A number of states have laws permitting people varying degrees of proactivity in terms of defending your own property.

In general though whether actions are considered legal or illegal is dependent on a reasonable use of force. Stabbing someone 30 times in the back as they're on the way out the door with your TV is not reasonable.

I don't know that Slim was making that arguement. There is definitely constitutional and legal grounds that permit self-defense of persons and property. However, in the name of "public safety", public agencies seem to feel their need to "do their jobs" supercedes your rights to do yours.

Case in point: I live in an area that is subject to flood. Years ago, we had a severe flood that blocked access, and indeed, flooded many homes. The county and state authorities issued a voluntary evacuation, and once the flood waters receded, they blocked all access to the area for folks wanting to return to their homes, even those unaffected by the flood, other than temporatily not being able to access their property because of high water. After eight hours of heated discussion, and a near riot, they relented and allowed bonafide residents to enter the area.

But what happens when the "authorities" either won't, or can't protect you, or your home? Ultimately, that is a personal choice. Actions do have repercussions, and the same authorities will evalutate your actions later.

--Bullwinkle

Surrounding your property with claymore mines goes pretty far beyond what most people would consider a reasonable self-defence.

Short of society breaking down entirely (Mad Max style) - I'm not sure I understand this desire to stay and fight to defend "stuff" if you have the opportunity to get your family out of harm's way. Surely in extreme situations - the safety of you and yours should be the ultimate priority. Granted that it isn't always possible - but I don't think the US is at a point where there is the sort of rampant lawlessness where armed gangs roam the suburbs looking for people to rob, rape and kill. I think that's (just a little) hysterical.

Slim seems to be of the belief that its unfortunate that we've somehow suppressed our inner barbarian and that presumably things would be better if people were prepared to take violent action at a moments notice. When that student went nutso at Virginia Tech and started blasting away with pistols, he made a claim about how the body count wouldn't have been as high had the people involved fought for their lives to stop the guy.

I don't really care what they think is an appropriate response. I just wonder if this 'angry mob' is likely to be made up of unarmed nutcases, as seems to be the suggestion. I'll do the running and I don't give a flying monkey if some people think that's unmanly

I find it hilarious actually that anyone takes the 'my gun's bigger than your gun' style argument seriously, in a thread like this, as if I am going to respond to any of it seriously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"My gun is bigger than yours"

How could I miss that psychological subtext

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

I find it hilarious actually that anyone takes the 'my gun's bigger than your gun' style argument seriously, in a thread like this, as if I am going to respond to any of it seriously.

Often, the bluster is meant to convince the one doing the blustering, not those in the audience. I have watched first hand, that the Rambo types are the first to fold when the world gets scary. It's the quiet, determined types that come through just when you need them.

--Bullwinkle

Edited January 30, 2009 by Rocky_nBullwinkle

[natty bumppo 297]

How many people possess the modern equivalent of the Gatling gun in their homes these days? Oh, that would be no one

Au contraire, mon frere. Back in '76, the Gatling gun (and all guns for that matter) were relatively inaccurate, had a relatively short effective range, and actually, contrary to what you've seen in all those movies, had a relatively low rate of fire. Translated for all you "non-2A supporting people" (a.k.a. worthless chopf@#ks) - The guns didn't shoot a lot of bullets very fast and couldn't hit their targets very far away.

Here in my house, as I type this, I have a rifle capable of firing HUNDREDS of aimed shots in less than a minute out to distances of over 500 yards. Technically, we could say I could hit a "man-sized target" once out of every two shots all the way out to 550 meters. That's what we call "maximum effective range of a point target." With that very same Rifle (notice I capitalized it now?) I can hit a "vehicle-sized target" out to 800 meters. I can get really creative and probably dump somewhere around 400 rounds per minute into a crowd, all the way out to about, oh, say 1000 yards?

Comparing apples to apples, the Rifle that I have sitting in my house is WAY better than any Gatling gun Custer could've fielded on that day. Comparing apples to oranges, and rioters to juicers, my Rifle would chew up a mob faster than you could puree some OJ.

And, by the way, my Rifle is nothing special. It's not all "tricked-out" or "fancy." It's your standard, run-of-the-mill, Colt AR. (Which Colt no longer calls the AR since "non-2A supporting chopf@#ks" have deemed "the black rifle" an "assault weapon.")

Umm .... let's be a little careful with the above paintbrush ... ok?

In '76 there were already BPCR (Black Powder Cartridge Rifles) that were quite capable of accurately hitting targets at 500+ yards. As an example, the Creedmoor Range on Long Island conducted matches at 800, 900, 1000 yard targets. These were usually single shot rifles, Remington Rolling Block, Trapdoors, '69 Sharps, '74 Sharps, Ballards, etc. These rifles used metal sights (aperture front & rear) with windage & elevation adjustments. It took a little skill to judge distance and a little practice to become proficient. I've shot the rifles of this era out to 1200 yards and find them extremely accurate. The rate of fire may not be "up to snuff" with today's designs, yet a person can accurately shoot one round every 10 seconds.

Oh ... the cartridges used in 1876 included:

.44-77 (introduced 1869)

.40-90, .40-100 (introduced 1873)

.44-90, .44-100, .44-105 (introduced 1873)

.44-100 (introduced 1876)

.45-70 (introduced 1873 and still in production today)

.50-90, .50-100, .50-110 (introduced 1872)

(designation: first digit caliber, second amount of black powder)

(bullet weights ranged from 300-550 grains depending on caliber and load)

There are lots of people still shooting these old rifles and even modern reproductions at silhouette matches (targets smaller than "man sized") with extreme accuracy (note: many people do not use optics on their rifles)

Edited January 30, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[natty bumppo 297]

Forgot to add a reference to todays rifle matches using 120+ year old rifle designs:

Silhouette matches will have targets out to 500 yards.

Creedmoor matches maintain the 800, 900, 1000 yard targets.

[AlHayatZween 2]

i am buying a new Judge gun made by tarus..shoots 45 longs and 410 shells...a pistol...

WAIT. Deano is a gun owner??????? :crying:

you didn't know that?

No. Nobody told me and I trusted this man with my mental health....

just consider it an incentive to take the meds he prescribes.

I am broken hearted. Nothing will be the same. I will join the rioters now. :crying:

come on sister it could be worse..at least i am on the side of the Party..and youa re late for you ak-47 training by the way

sidenote..sanita showed me some pixs of her in high school ..breaking down and then putting back an ak-47 under 2 minutes....it was taught in school...

It is okay, Ms. Len. You can still own guns and be a good upstanding person.

Good sidenote.