The gun is the great equalizer. With it, the smallest woman can best the largest man.

Charles,

I'm not trying to start an argument... however if I understand you correctly the guy in the story never knew you had a gun?

If so then would the story have played out exactly the same if you had been unarmed?

first and foremost.......I NEVER DISPLAYED MY WEAPON! at least to his vision. when shots rang out i went to truck racked round in, and crouched behind my gmc with safety off and muzzle pointed at source of noise, finger on slide!

2nd im not stupid and i DO NOT GO INTO CAMPS UNARMED TRYING TO START POO!

.45 was in my north face down jacket(red) right pocket with my freeking finger ABOVE the trigger and safety off, round in pipe, when i walked into his camp

had he made a sudden move for anything IT WAS GONNA BE OVER!

since this imbecile had NO REGARD for the safety of others and wanted to escalate matters............i backed off to vehicle, entire time .45 pointed at his direction, removed .45 from pocket getting into vehicle and backed slowly away from campsite noting lic plate and then when safe wrote lic plate down on hand in giant numerals/ letters, proceeded all of 1 3/4 minutes to camp, picked up bill johnson, gave plate number to armed(rifles and pistoles in the open) crowd and left to call 911.

had i walked in to his camp with SOCOM .308 w/either 20-30 rd clips, one in pipe,safety off...............there were 2 ways this would have ended:

1) chewey from la puente vato loco FACE DOWN WITH SOCOM DOING BRAIN SCAN IN HIS EAR UNTIL COPS GOT THERE..........or

2) chewey from la puente vato loco going for any weapon because HE NOW FELT THREATENED, and a hell of alot of sudden 168 gr boat tail hollowpoints flying in his precise direction to permanently discourage him from ever pulling that crap AGAIN!

all night long i was congradulated by fellow campers for what i had done. to the point of it kind of being bothersome. i just did what i had to do, to defuse a real bad situation. i aint a cop, dont want to be a cop, but I SURE AS HELL AINT GONNA GET SHOT OR ALLOW ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER TO GET SHOT !

its almost 4pm here and my blood pressure is still elevated from sat evening.

looking back it was surreal as hell, and i honestly cant think of any better way to of handles this. going in with SOCOM surely would have lead to gunplay. he would not have stood a fly turd of a chance to get to or draw a weapon on me. as it was he wasnt gonna get a chance to draw or retreive a weapon. all he was gonna see a split second before he was vaporized was A HELL OF ALOT OF 700 fill NORTHFACE DOWN FEATHERS MOVING REAL FAST OUT OF MY RIGHT POCKET and then .45 was coming out and i was going into combat crouch position for rest of rounds.

i cant get drunk enough to make this POO UP!

only hindsight with SOCOM that makes sense is coming up from behind him and ordering him to the ground with rest of LYNCH MOB campers behind me. i was first out of camp after glimpsing white truck. camp next to us ran for cover than started yelling and came over to me to see if i was okay being closest to rounds, after that it became a mission, and i was a robot looking for the source. i cant explain it any better nor do i think i could have done any better.

will see if this even makes court. be it federal or county. hell cops look at shootings now like stolen newspapers or fender benders, they dont care. remains to be seen what the hell happens. today is columbus day so fed holiday, no call back from federal officer, no call back expected from sheriff until deputy shows up back on shift thursday am.

im going home tonight.............inhale a cold juan, grab g/friends .38 smith, clean it, oil it, polish it, put it away, and then grab my SOCOM and clean it, oil it, and polish it and put it away and then look at my socom case and make sure it has cleaning kit/swabs/oil/magazines (5/10/20/30rds), spare parts kit,extras, doo dahhs, SO ITS READY TO GO ANYTIME I GO CAMPING HUNTING FISHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME!

reason for SOCOM.................its not as black and evil looking as my REDDOGTARGETSUPPLIES.com accurizzzzed HK-91!!!!! hahahahahahaha

zeiss z-point red dot solar powered scope is the perfect companion for this SOCOM! my visa card is TWITCHING!

"traveling with a gun under the seat" is illegal here in MI, so that's one of the reasons I have a CPL (concealed pistol license). The CPL allows me to legally carry and I usually do so when I'm traveling in the Porsche. With the unemployment rate rising here in MI, foreign cars attract a lot of negative attention from the "plastic testicle hanging from the bumper Dodge Ram types". Between those idiots and the "baggy pants, sideways baseball cap wearing" types, I have to stay on my guard...

Funny video clip but extremely inaccurate...

http://www.tv.com/video/15055/dances-with-wolves?=tv&tag=show_summary;video;thumb

This article talks about the kind of thing I'm seeing more of...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/13/economy.violence.ap/index.html

"plastic testicle hanging from the bumper Dodge Ram types".


Holy crap!, I saw one of these trucks in Saginaw this weekend at a Hobby Lobby.
It had Canadian plates.
What a dork.


I'm pretty sure my wife said" that guy must have a small weiner".:eek:

Wayne,

Did you see my post #80? That well-written article sums up my reason(s) for carrying a gun.

Is there any need to expand on this?
Does anyone feel they are protected by the police/state/w.h.y to the extent that they do not need to take responsability and measures for their own safety?
As an aside are Madonna's shoes more discreet than my usual specialist handbag carry;)



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1224036873.jpg

Yes, I read the article Art. I understanding more of the reason why better but still don't know that it's the right thing for me.

Wayne,

Yep, but it isn't for everyone, that's what I like, we have the freedom to choose. Just like old Porsches, they're not for everyone.

Rick,

Good point. However this leaves Domino's with a settlement problem since the drivers rights were violated. Leaves everyone in somewhat of a dilema. However those organizations that want to stick their noses into rights issues are going to need to be ready for the consequences. Just my opin

LMAO! But it does illustrate, rather comically, the reason vs. force comparison. You know the older Shatner gets the funnier he gets, maybe it is the self deprecation in his character. He must be having fun.

not so sure - the law does not say that his employer cannot put add'l requirements on him

unfair? maybe so

Funny how that works. Any employer that would venture to restrict our other "rights" would soon find themselves in some very hot water.

I have always found the left's position on this particularly frustrating, as inconsistent as it is. They will go to the mat on certain "rights" and yet they (at best) simply ignore this one, or are in strident opposition to it.

In their world, everyone has the "right" to an abortion, gay sex, health care, equal opportunity, etc. And nine out of ten of the Bill of Rights. But no one has the right to provide for their own defense? An employer can over ride that right?

It is an interesting dilemma for the employer. If they deny a right than would a case be made that they denied the individual their rights? I know there are limitations on political speech at the work place, but the right to protection against a crime? I am sure we will hear more about this in the future. I wonder how California is going to deal with this one? There is a question regarding the right to "bear" arms out there. Heller alluded to this but did it answer the question? I wish I were an attorney sometimes.

I would suggest that limitations on activities such as political speech in the workplace have all passed muster on one very simple premise: To engage in them, you are using time and/or resources that should be devoted to doing whatever it is that employer pays folks to do. Even things that are merely a distraction in the work place, such as inappropriate atire, can be argued to reduce productivity. There are valid business cases for restricting activities and distractions that impact the work being done. Employers should have the right to restrict these things.

Being armed, however, does none of that. A CCW holder does not (cannot, by law) display the weapon. There is no reason for anyone in the office, or shop, or what have you, to even know who is armed. Under those circumstances, no employer can ever make any sort of business case based on lost productivity. There is nothing going on that will affect the employer in any way.

Remember, this is an inalienable right - that of being armed in the name of self defense. If an employer does not "like" that, I would opine that his arguments fall into the same catagory as not "liking" gays, blacks, hispanics, women, Democrats, etc. There can be no case made for excluding those folks from employment. Why is it employers can make a case for excluding those who choose to exercise their right to be armed? I just don't get it.

uh no -- they pass muster on the premise that the owner OWNS the business!!


it's HIS!

capitalism, anyone?

no rights are absolute -- all can be overridden in certain circumstances
- s. ct. has said that the closest any right comes to absolute is.... [drumroll] no, not freedom of speech -- the petition clause

2nd - riggts usually run against the govt. - that's why we have a Const. -- not against other persons -- some rights are statutory of course

and last, but NOT least -- that is your right to gay sex - not mine

Uh, no... If that were the case, we would see business or property owners still having authority over a broad range of things; things they have long since lost authority over. Don't get me wrong, I am all about property rights and the rights of business owners to run their business as they see fit. However, that has to be balanced against the rights of American citizens. Property and business owners are not above our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, or our laws.