"War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9

[slide]

We're supposed to know what or who we are shooting at even if in our homes. I personally don't think drugs s/b illegal or that no knock warrants are ok. Neither is the issue here.

The only issue is if we are ok to shoot DEA (etc.) agents who break down our doors in a wrong address no knock raid. I say no because we need to be able to identify who we shoot at - not just shoot away at anything which moves. Any fool can ID that the person at the end of his sights is a police or DEA by the way they look and act. Therefore, there isn't a justification for shooting, IMO.

 

[BenW]

I suspect the chance a bunch of home invasion losers will take the time and trouble to dress up like a SWAT entry team is probably less than a SWAT entry team hitting my house by mistake.

Though if it's the middle of the night, they don't have to dress up like a SWAT team. They just have to start yelling "POLICE!" as they kick your door in. The average citizen would probably hesitate long enough to give the home invaders an advantage.

I know this is always a difficult subject, but in my opinion the best option is finding a way for LE not to have to do no-knocks and ensuring clear laws are in place to protect a person's right of home defense. That way it becomes common knowledge that anyone breaking down your door is always a bad guy (no matter how they dress or what they yell on their way in) and that you have a clear legal right to defend yourself.

 

[GD]

We had a no knock early morning drug raid several years ago in Topeka. A police officer was killed by the home owner. Even though the guy was a drug dealer, the way the raid was conducted, called in to question as to whether the invaders were police officers or competitive drug dealers. The jury decided that the guy was only defending himself against what he perceived to be a threat. It is not right that police do this late night invasion to put a person off guard. It is even more wrong that they break in yelling, with masks on, and identifying marks on their back rather than on front. I expect more from our police in a civilized society. Yes, even if it means an occasional criminal goes free.

 

[SomeKid]

I say no because we need to be able to identify who we shoot at - not just shoot away at anything which moves.

Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

 

[fjolnirsson]

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

That's what Jefferson would say.....

 

[GRB]

I have to wonder, do you even have any comprhension of: what is a no-knock warrant, how long they have been available to law enforcement (not nerw for sure even though all the fuss is new), what is invloved in getting one as opposed to a regular search warrant, and the tactics used when effecting one? I have been out on several no knock warrants during the course of my 26 year carrer. I said several, which is somewhat more thana few - I did not say manay. Most warrants are not no-knock. When they are though, what is invloved is a swift assault on a front door (or other entry way) and a speedy spotaneous entry during which the law enforcement officers usually announce themselves in loud voices. This is not the movies or covert ops teams. As to your question,m she would not have much of a chance to get that gun if it was indeed a no-knock warrant being effected and that would be a good thing because it would keeop a gun out of the hands of a criminal (if she was in fact the target of the warrant) and it would keep the defenders of law and order from harm. That mistakes are sometimes made and the wrong house gone into, well that is a sad thing and it should beaddressed but, to try to put down the no-knock warrant is a sad commentary on this forum.

 

[carebear]

What does the no knock gain in absolute terms that a standard search warrant cannot?

The one thing I keep hearing is it prevents evidence from being destroyed. But it's a search warrant, prior to an arrest or conviction, which means a presumed innocent civilian is being attacked with incredible force to prevent a couple ounces from going in a toilet? Sewers can be blocked, water can be shut off. Even if the evidence is destroyed, it isn't like the bad guy will give up crime, go back some other time.

Arrest warrants for known armed, violent repeat felons (or even first timers) make more sense, but they have to be outside and vulnerable at some point. Take them down then, away from their "arsenals". Alternately, cut off the water and food and starve them out. No risk to an innocent non-LEO that way.

What appears to be happening is that the tool of SWAT and no-knocks, which used to be very uncommon, for hostage situations and the like, is being used as a convenience instead of more creative solutions.

 

[Phyphor]

or 3) Shooting Federal officers is A-OK, just make sure to have a rifle, so they die properly!

Perhaps not the best image to evoke.

Wow, I'll bet THAT line set off a red flag or 3,000...

 

[slide]

Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.

We're not facing a 'determined enemy' but instead weak often badly debilitated losers who aren't in for a fight. They are easy smash and grab types. When they meet resistance, they flee. No whacked out druggie is like portrayed on TV as supermen able to run through gunfire to get their fix.

They are, as a class, pathetic and weak.

 

[mustanger98]

Well, as I understand it, some Federal agencies and some in the legislative branch and some Presidents have wanted us to forget what Jefferson and all the other Founders said. The last 30 years, and particularly the Klinton admin how shown a lot of this type of behavior. I don't know about ya'll, but I'd like to think things are getting better. But, we have to work on smaller gov't and getting rid of the DEA, BATFE, IRS, etc as the nearly purposeless entities they are. This is not done through warfare and it's not done overnight, except if maybe Congress suddenly passed a bill none of us can really see them passing at this point.

No-knock warrants... well, I've heard of them around here, but I haven't heard of imitation no-knocks by the local gangstas. An aquaitance of mine is the assistant DA here and he goes on those too. We run into each other in town and get to talking guns and such. We're both armed citizens. No problem there. The sheriff- and I'm a constituent- has been helpful to us a time or two. No problems there either. I don't want to have to shoot it out with thugs only to find out they're my neighbors- who devote their careers to a safer community- because somebody made a mistake on a no-knock warrant. I'm sure my friend the assistant DA understands self defense in the home too.

While I'm talking about the assistant DA, he told me one time that crime related to methamphetamines is rampant around here. I recall we agreed it's smart to be ready to defend one's home, family, and person. A shotgun and buck is good in it's place. Slug are good in their place. A sidearm or rifle are each good in their places. But as several have said, the mind is the real weapon. I don't like the "Us vs. Them" debate either. To my mind, Citizens (as opposed to "subjects") and LEO/Peace Officers should be on the same page and working together for a safer community. LEO's need to come off of their "we're above them" attitude, because they work for us and they're subject to the law too. LEO's need to calm down and quit seeing everybody who isn't wearing a badge as a criminal because to my mind, most of us are on the same side.

I prefer to not do Us vs Them. I mean just who is Us and who is them? Most folks do the LEO and civilians.

You got Moral and the UnMoral. I mean one cannot tell always from the Roster.

I've been taken for something I was not. So has persons whom wore a uniform.

I agree. It's easy to mistake someone for one way or the other because people have a bad tendancy to "color code" so many things. It's kinda like mistaking a King Snake for a rattler or a Corn Snake for a Copperhead.

I could prabably philosiphize on this a while, but I think I'll quit before I ramble too much.

 

[fjolnirsson]

I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door

You may think it's silly, but it has happened, and does happen.

 

[mustanger98]

You may think it's silly, but it has happened, and does happen.

This comment kinda reminds me of that one time... it was my sister, our Daddy, and me... we went out behind the house so she could shoot her .38 snubbie and we could get an idea how best she could defend herself against break-in by common thugs in her small appartment at the time. She made fist sized groups at 7yds, but when it came to the distance to the front door and matters of losers hopped up on crap, she was huffy and mad at me and saying I "keep makin' up stuff". She shut up on that when Daddy told her those predators I spoke of were "out there" and I didn't make 'em up. In any case, best to know how to deal with stuff instead of accusing anybody of "making stuff up".

 

[outofbattery]

So on one hand you make posters showing LEO's armed with belt fed weapons and in all sorts of ninja poses and then you show the need to be armed against them.Play both sides against the middle,perfect

 

[CentralTexas]

Right, so if me and some guys throw on black face masks, and stormtrooper helmets, you will be able to identifiy us?

As to the greater question, killing government agents, one should look at it this way. When the Founding Fathers shot at Redcoats, they shot at government agents. When government agents stand for oppression, tyranny, and are stomping on our rights, shooting them is not simply morally ok, it is our duty as free men.

You said it brother!
CT

 

[Phyphor]

I think most of the scenarios people gen up for self defense is silly. The idea that burglars will put on Halloween costumes and then break down a door is as silly as needing a 14 shot semi-auto handgun in a street confrontation.

The first situation has happened before, after all, what crook wants to be recognizable? Costumes tend to help that.

As far as the ammo capacity of a firearm, what's with the 'you don't need that' way of thinking? I'd prefer having too much ammo as opposed to 'not enough. '

We're not facing a 'determined enemy' but instead weak often badly debilitated losers who aren't in for a fight. They are easy smash and grab types. When they meet resistance, they flee.

Except for the few that don't. Then what do you do?

No whacked out druggie is like portrayed on TV as supermen able to run through gunfire to get their fix.

They are, as a class, pathetic and weak.

The problem with painting with such a wide brush is those little spots you tend to miss. You have to hope for the best, and plan for the worst, that way, when things really do go rodeo, you're probably gonna make it.

 

[Old Fuff]

Oleg:

Perhaps you need to revise the text a little:

When you cannot tell if it's the Authorities or a Home Invader who's kicking in your door...

or

When you can't tell if it's the Authorities or a Home Invader who's kicking in your door...

You don’t have to explain the particular firearm (rifle/shotgun/handgun) because the issue is self-protection against illegal invaders, no matter who they are.

I agree with your basic premise - when the authorities kick in a door, they must be ABSOLUTELY SURE they have the right one and are making a legal entry, or pay serious consequences. The real problem is that this hasn't the case very often. Here, the consequence for making a mistake is usually a pay-off by some liability insurance company.

 

[carebear]

slide (and others),

I'm all for recognizing that we typically aren't facing DeNiro's guys from HEAT on our way to the store.

But there are criminals out there who have more actual practice at violence than us. It is, for what it's worth, their JOB. They DO practice shooting and they can read the same books and watch the same videos as us. They can get training from unscrupulous pros and former military, some gangs send guys through uncle sam's finishing schools for just that reason.

We don't want to overestimate the opposition but we shouldn't underestimate them either.

Particularly because either way, cowardly incompetents or stone killers, they'll be controlling the time, place and numbers when the balloon goes up.

 

[slide]

Well, as I understand it, some Federal agencies and some in the legislative branch and some Presidents have wanted us to forget what Jefferson and all the other Founders said. The last 30 years, and particularly the Klinton admin how shown a lot of this type of behavior.

I'll grant you that clinton was on the job when Waco occurred, but you can't say he's bad and the others are good or even neutral. We hear a lot of whining about the PATRIOT ACT from libertarians today, but it was only an extension of RICO which was enacted and supported under Reagan. We lost a lot under Reagan and the Bushes. I think even more than under clinton whose major act was the AWB which has gone away now. However, the restrictions we suffered under the R's are still with us.

 

[slide]

slide (and others),

I'm all for recognizing that we typically aren't facing DeNiro's guys from HEAT on our way to the store.

But there are criminals out there who have more actual practice at violence than us. It is, for what it's worth, their JOB. They DO practice shooting and they can read the same books and watch the same videos as us. They can get training from unscrupulous pros and former military, some gangs send guys through uncle sam's finishing schools for just that reason.

We don't want to overestimate the opposition but we shouldn't underestimate them either.

Particularly because either way, cowardly incompetents or stone killers, they'll be controlling the time, place and numbers when the balloon goes up.

Geez, I work with these guys. They don't practice and they are pathetic. Try taking a lot of drugs and then spending money on that stuff instead of decent food or clothing and see what occurs to your physique.

There are reasons these guys go for women. First, women tend not to be alert to threats or potential bad situations. Second, they don't react very fast when things start going badly for them. Third, they are weaker than the guys or at least are conditioned not to fight back very much. Instead, they plead or bargain.

Criminals practicing with weapons? Is this some sort of James Bond scenario? Where do you get your info? It sure isn't from my area.

 

[mustanger98]

The problem with painting with such a wide brush is those little spots you tend to miss. You have to hope for the best, and plan for the worst, that way, when things really do go rodeo, you're probably gonna make it.

I tend to agree with planning for the worst while hoping for the best. General Norman Schwartzkopf (sp?) said then while analyzing the situation at Pearl harbor, that if you plan for the worst, you're better off when the worst doesn't happen than you would be if you'd done nothing and the worst happened. Of course, in that case, they didn't know what to do but they knew they had to do something which is better than nothing.

If things really do go rodeo, you don't go for your gun. (When your only tool is a hammer, all the problems start lookin' like nails.) You jump on 'em and dig in with the spurs, ride 'em to the ground and hogtie 'em. That by itself oughta make 'em wonder what just happened. (You probably gotta be a cowboy to understand what I just said. )

 

[mustanger98]

I'll grant you that clinton was on the job when Waco occurred, but you can't say he's bad and the others are good or even neutral. We hear a lot of whining about the PATRIOT ACT from libertarians today, but it was only an extension of RICO which was enacted and supported under Reagan. We lost a lot under Reagan and the Bushes. I think even more than under clinton whose major act was the AWB which has gone away now. However, the restrictions we suffered under the R's are still with us.

I didn't say the others were good, bad or neither. I said over the last 30 years, there's been a lot of this going on. I said Klinton in case somebody said something like "yeah, name one..." for lack of an example. Like Bill O'Reilly always says, give examples. I did. I'm not disagreeing with you either. Reagan and the Bushes have done things I agreed with, but all politicians, including the Bushes and Reagan have done things I disagreed with. Granted I'd rather see a sincere likeable guy in the President's position, but we the people must stand ready to politically defeat the intollerable legislations before they become law and be sure our legislators and President understand how We the People take a dim view of being screwed over and out of our Rights.

 

[mustanger98]

There are reasons these guys go for women. First, women tend not to be alert to threats or potential bad situations. Second, they don't react very fast when things start going badly for them. Third, they are weaker than the guys or at least are conditioned not to fight back very much. Instead, they plead or bargain.

Criminals practicing with weapons? Is this some sort of James Bond scenario? Where do you get your info? It sure isn't from my area.

Actually, women are just as strong as men. Thing is, while most men are stronger from the waist up, most women are stronger from the waist down. It's not totally a matter if who's stronger, but who knows how to use their respective strengths. That said, hand to hand combat is not a good idea when you can have a weapon to keep the bad guys outside arm's length and preferably further away than that. I do agree that many women don't react very fast when it all goes downhill, but neither do a lot of men. This is just a matter of one idividual to the next. There are plenty of people, men and women, who are conditioned to passive reactions and bargaining and it's been proven that these reactions can get you killed.

While the average meth/crack/pot loser is probably not practicing with weapons, I wouldn't rule out some criminals practicing and using their weapons to devastating effect. But I also agree most of us aren't dealing with DeNiro's guys, at least not daily. Who said anything about James Bond? That's a whole 'nuther topic and you'll have to take that stuff up with Ian Flemming to know what he was thinking besides selling novels.

 

[slide]

The biggest problems with women are that they aren't vigilant, they don't react to a bad situaton developing (I can't believe this is happening to me) and once they do realize things have gone to *#&#&, they don't resist with full force.

I don't believe your contention that women are stronger than men from the waist down. Were you making some sort of sex joke?

 

[mustanger98]

I don't believe your contention that women are stronger than men from the waist down. Were you making some sort of sex joke?

No sex joke. No joke at all. This is something I've heard numerous times in different places, especially at the gym, that men and women have different patterns of strength (different muscle groups in different areas) and if each knows how to use their respective strengths, they can gain advantages in different ways. While some men can pick up and pin down most women with upper body strength, some women (if they develop their lower-body muscle groups as many cannot develop the upper body groups the way a man will) they can rapidly outrun and outdistance some men in a flight situation whereas they might well not win unarmed in a fight situation.

If you had read my entire post, you would probably have realized most of what I just said without me having to re-explain it.

All the above said, the mind is the weapon (Rambo), the gun is a tool (Shane), and it's a hard heart that kills(Gunny Hartman).

 

[GRB]

I guess I never realized before just how anti any form of government is this site and many of its members. I wish you all well after you overthrow the government and have to fend for yourselves each man for himself ebcause you obviosuly will not have any trust in government. I thought this place had been full of practical people not extremists, I have now seen otherwise, and it goes to the very essence of this site. Goodbye.