Way to go homeowner!

[The B]

Jammer isn't used to people not taking spoonfuls of his BS. He's used to doe-eyed faces and polite chuckles coming from the noobs that attend his $30/head CCW classes after-hours at the local gun shop every second-Wednesday. What he doesn't realize is that being an "instructor" and bad epigrams about gun packers being cowards nets him nothing in the presence of the two types of people he's most likely to encounter here- experienced gunslingers and armchair commandos. Neither of which tolerate pontification from unknown and anonymous internet personalities to begin with, insults or not.

Having a unique perspective doesn't make you right... and in this case, it just makes you uniquely betarded.

 

[gunnails]

Epigram derives from the Greek epigramma -- "in-scribed". It is a short
meaningful statement or saying that is often insightful and can provoke deep
thought.

 

[bikejunkie]

Epigram derives from the Greek epigramma -- "in-scribed". It is a short
meaningful statement or saying that is often insightful and can provoke deep
thought.

I think someone owes us $5 for breaking that word out...

 

[tracop]

It seems to me that Jammer has taken a lot of heat for being a level headed gun owner. I've read some good points about protecting property, but I've read mostly snarky comments that feed the anti-gun perception of gun owners being red-neck idiots that want to shoot first and think never. Jammer is not the enemy. He's probably the guy that can relate to the leftist anti-gunners in just the right way to convince them that bubblegums aren't the only people that own guns. We need him around.

 

[Crispy]

He's probably the guy that can relate to the leftist anti-gunners in just the right way to convince them that bubblegums aren't the only people that own guns. We need him around.

I for one will will let the NRA deal with the leftist anti-gunners for the most part. I do not need someone to relate to them by saying that people that carry guns because they are afraid, contradicting themselves on several points, and confusing people with questions that highlight questionable tactics of a LEO to empower themselves (especially in the capacity of an instructor).

 

[Jammer Six]

As it happens, I'm married to a card-carrying, ACLU member, far-left, PhD. Ivory Tower Liberal. Note the capital L. Characterizes herself as a Barking Moonbat, and is very proud of it.

The first time I took her shooting, almost twenty years ago, now, she came out of the range and said "wow! I love to shoot, but I don't think I should be allowed to!"

It became a joke.

I never tried to change her mind, I just answered questions, and lived my life.

The other day, she referred to my new Ruger as "hers".

When I pointed out the contradiction, she said "let me clear that up for you. When I wish to be a Barking Moonbat, anti-gun, ultra-liberal, the Ruger is yours. When I wish to be gun owner, it's mine. You may use it whenever you wish. Any questions?"

You can say what you want about liberals, and usually, it doesn't reflect on the liberals, it reflects on you. Our house runs on mutual respect, example, discussion, citations and intellectual curiosity.

We've learned to recognize those of you who will never be capable of being part of this cycle.

Liberals change, we change.

Carry on.

 

[iusmc2002]

As it happens, I'm married to a card-carrying, ACLU member, far-left, PhD. Ivory Tower Liberal. Note the capital L. Characterizes herself as a Barking Moonbat, and is very proud of it.

The first time I took her shooting, almost twenty years ago, now, she came out of the range and said "wow! I love to shoot, but I don't think I should be allowed to!"

It became a joke.

I never tried to change her mind, I just answered questions, and lived my life.

The other day, she referred to my new Ruger as "hers".

When I pointed out the contradiction, she said "let me clear that up for you. When I wish to be a Barking Moonbat, anti-gun, ultra-liberal, the Ruger is yours. When I wish to be gun owner, it's mine. You may use it whenever you wish. Any questions?"

You can say what you want about liberals, and usually, it doesn't reflect on the liberals, it refle
cts on you. Our house runs on mutual respect, example, discussion, citations and intellectual curiosity.

We've learned to recognize those of you who will never be capable of being part of this cycle.

Liberals change, we change.

Carry on.

So now the question is, does she carry your cajones in something cool, like a velvety-blue Crown Royal bag? Or is a more natural hemp-fibered, organically-grown, non-GMO satchel? Mine are in the wife's purse, sure. Right next to her .45. No flip-flopping on her part, she's got her gun and my balls. Always

 

[Blitzkrieg]

So now the question is, does she carry your cajones in something cool, like a velvety-blue Crown Royal bag? Or is a more natural hemp-fibered, organically-grown, non-GMO satchel? Mine are in the wife's purse, sure. Right next to her .45. No flip-flopping on her part, she's got her gun and my balls. Always

Mine packs a .357 magnum S & W and her nick she got at work years ago is "Blondie" after Clint Eastwood in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

 

[greydog111]

It was that. He went to jail, I got my car back, and I can sleep just fine, because I knew ten years before he was born that I'm a stone-cold coward.

Cops carry weapons because they need them. The rest of us carry them because we're afraid.

Cowardice is one of the most successful survival strategies going, and I never lie to myself.

With due respect for a complete stranger, Grow a Pair! Healthy fear motivates us to not become food for the preditor. A coward is only a target for the scum of society! Greydog.

 

[greydog111]

As it happens, I'm married to a card-carrying, ACLU member, far-left, PhD. Ivory Tower Liberal. Note the capital L. Characterizes herself as a Barking Moonbat, and is very proud of it.

The first time I took her shooting, almost twenty years ago, now, she came out of the range and said "wow! I love to shoot, but I don't think I should be allowed to!"

It became a joke.

I never tried to change her mind, I just answered questions, and lived my life.

The other day, she referred to my new Ruger as "hers".

When I pointed out the contradiction, she said "let me clear that up for you. When I wish to be a Barking Moonbat, anti-gun, ultra-liberal, the Ruger is yours. When I wish to be gun owner, it's mine. You may use it whenever you wish. Any questions?"

You can say what you want about liberals, and usually, it doesn't reflect on the liberals, it reflects on you. Our house runs on mutual respect, example, discussion, citations and intellectual curiosity.

We've learned to recognize those of you who will never be capable of being part of this cycle.

Liberals change, we change.

Carry on.

Holy carp Batman! Sleep with one eye open. Sounds like a seriouslly dangerous spouse!

 

[greydog111]

You cannot judge someone by what they did if you weren't there.



I think what old Jammer Six is trying to tell us is that he would rather have you guys call him a coward then have to plug someone for stealing his car. I commend him for using restraint and good judgement and holding his opinion on his situation rather than giving in to the armchair quarterbacks of these forums.

You don't shoot someone for stealing, you shoot someone because you felt that you or another was in danger of serious bodily harm or death (i.e. in fear of your life).



"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."-Sun Tzu, Art of War

The question now becomes, "how did you get "Jacked"? Did he sweet talk you out of your car or use some sort of force to make you comply? Did you mitigate the situation by lying on your back with your belly exposed like a small pup? No one takes my car except by force or they will suffer the consequence of force reapplied in the opposite direction.

 

[greydog111]

Im not saying you should shoot the guy stealing your rig but what if he did and the drunk, drugged up *** caused an accident getting away and killed an innocent family on the road or even made a school bus flip over and kill all the helpless little kids. Or mabe he used the rig to go kidnap and rape someone. I would be wondering what if....... you never know how far the ripples of your decision might go or who they will effect.

It's called, "cause and effect". For every action, there is an opposite reaction. Either percieved or unseen, but, nevertheless a reaction.

 

[JGRuby]

There's no requirement to be an unwilling participant. If I'm very deliberately chasing someone down to arrest them, I can still shoot the bubblegum out of them if, when I get to them, they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest, for instance.

If you are chasing someone down and you start shooting before they do then you had better be prepared to prove that you were being threatened especially if the individual did not display thier weapon or threaten first. If you shoot someone in the back good luck proving self defense. If you beleive differenelty good luck in court - you may be recieiveing an extend stay. This macho stuff has no place in gun ownership unless your a battle zone.

James Ruby

 

[The B]

If you are chasing someone down and you start shooting before they do then you had better be prepared to prove that you were being threatened especially if the individual did not display thier weapon or threaten first. If you shoot someone in the back good luck proving self defense. If you beleive differenelty good luck in court - you may be recieiveing an extend stay. This macho stuff has no place in gun ownership unless your a battle zone.

James Ruby

Did you actually read what I wrote/you quoted?

 

[JGRuby]

Yes I did - I even quoted you on it apparenty you are having a problem either stating what you mean or accepting what you wrote.
Simply chasing someone down does not provide the justification for shooting someone unless you have been threatened , a person running away is hardly a threat. Finding out after you shoot at or hit him that he is armed is not self defense it is initating a situation.
James Ruby

 

[The B]

Yes I did - I even quoted you on it apparenty you are having a problem either stating what you mean or accepting what you wrote.

James Ruby

Nothing you wrote had anything to do with what I wrote. I gave an example of black-and-white legal conduct- your "reply";

If you are chasing someone down and you start shooting before they do then you had better be prepared to prove that you were being threatened especially if the individual did not display thier weapon or threaten first. If you shoot someone in the back good luck proving self defense. If you beleive differenelty good luck in court - you may be recieiveing an extend stay. This macho stuff has no place in gun ownership unless your a battle zone.

reads as though responding to someone who suggested the things you state in your reply.

---

Let's break it down:

If you are chasing someone down and you start shooting before they do then you had better be prepared to prove that you were being threatened especially if the individual did not display thier weapon or threaten first.

If you'd read what I said, I specifically stated:

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

So how does your above comment address mine?

---

Next sentence:

If you shoot someone in the back good luck proving self defense.

Once again, I said:

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

So where does "shoot someone in the back" come into the conversation? Only where you inserted it.

---

Continuing:

If you beleive differenelty good luck in court - you may be recieiveing an extend stay.

Once again, what I actually said was:

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

Given my statement regarding the perpetrator using lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest, what exactly, is it that I believe "differently?"

---

Continuing:

This macho stuff has no place in gun ownership unless your a battle zone.

I'm afraid I don't accept your premise- I don't believe I must be a "battle zone" to have a "place in gun ownership." I believe, as a free, well-intending, law-abiding citizen, that any lawful act I commit needs no justification from you. The law provides a mechanism for citizens to take care of business, and we're perfectly justified in using that mechanism.

---

Rather than bother to read and comprehend what I wrote, you took some imagined "macho stuff" pretense and ran with it. What you need to do is just STFU, and read more/post less.

 

[The B]

Yes I did - I even quoted you on it apparenty you are having a problem either stating what you mean or accepting what you wrote.
Simply chasing someone down does not provide the justification for shooting someone unless you have been threatened , a person running away is hardly a threat. Finding out after you shoot at or hit him that he is armed is not self defense it is initating a situation.
James Ruby

Are you blind? How does:

they use lethal force to resist my lawful citizen's arrest

have anything to do with what you just wrote?

 

[Jammer Six]

Just for giggles, and because it will help weed things out, what would you do, stud, if I pointed a weapon at you and told you I was placing you under a "lawful citizen's arrest", and to lay down, right now?

 

[bemoored]

Just for giggles, and because it will help weed things out, what would you do, stud, if I pointed a weapon at you and told you I was placing you under a "lawful citizen's arrest", and to lay down, right now?

You've just put your finger on something I've read often that has never made sense to me from otherwise seemingly logical authors who blithely toss out scenarios in which one holds an offender at gunpoint until the police arrive. So if the offender chooses to simply walk (or run) away, what is one to do, murder them?

Perhaps the intention is to give holding them at gunpoint a shot, and perhaps the offender's evaluation in the moment is that you shooting them down is just likely enough despite the consequences for you that in some cases the offender will acquiesce, I dunno. What am I missing?

 

[Jammer Six]

One of the things they miss is that a lot of folks carry weapons.

And it would be a bad idea to try to hold them at gunpoint, and the other thing they miss is that when a cop holds someone at gunpoint, there's an end in sight. He gets them handcuffed, in his car, and that'll do.

There's no such end for a civilian.

I never take anyone who talks about citizen's arrests seriously.