Would you really pull the trigger?

[O2guy]

ba rights are privileges guaranteed to us by the constitution.

All this time I thought rights were inalienable not given by a government. Then with your definition all our rights can be taken away.

I will choose to disagree

 

[Vince49]

Answered

I don't have to wonder.I already know.

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

First one to hesitate, dies. If the situation warranted pulling your gun, would you pull the trigger? And I say dont pull your gun unless you intend to kill. I would bet 99% of you wouldnt, or hestitate too long in a real life situation. I say most gunowners are just gun collectors and target shooters(and there is nothing wrong with that). You carry a deadly weapon. Are you prepared to kill a human with no hesitation? I am sure this will **** some people off, but like I said, 99% of civilians carrying firearms aren't prepared or willing to actually kill someone.
There is a question on another thread asking about mandatory training for a LTCH. Most will say, hell no, its my right. Well in real life, I think it should be mandatory. It's common sense to me. Anybody allowed to carry a deadly weapon should be trained and required to prove that they are.
I am sure I will get responses to this from all the internet John Wayne wannabe's who most likely would freeze like a deer in headlights if I came at you with my weapon drawn and pointed at you.
Ok, let me have it. Thanks.

74.3 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Just as an aside, you're totally disregarding prior military and LEO that have had years of training, who are now civilians.

Over confidence and underestimating a possible foe are generally a bad idea, 63.8% of the time.

 

[ReSSurrected]

rcflyer-

Not that your opinion of me or your assessment of my willingness to survive matters to me in the least, but yes, without a doubt, I can and will pull the trigger, and I will continue to do so until I am satisfied with the level of incapacitation (shoot them all the way to the ground). 100% fact.

One of the most important lessons taught in military training is that it's always "you vs. him". Hesitate, you don't go home. He does.

It's no different on the street. If someone has demonstrated that they intend to make you a victim, the only response is resistance by greater force.

Lastly, I'm not exactly sure of the true intent of this post of yours. I feel like jsharmon7 pretty much hit the nail on the head with his assessment of it. Reading through a few of your other posts, YOU sound like the "John Wayne type". Tell us please, how many times exactly have you been in a situation requiring you unholster?

My guess is you're one of the Bambi's in the high beams you have so much disdain for.

 

[Osobuco]

ba rights are privileges guaranteed to us by the constitution.

All this time I thought rights were inalienable not given by a government. Then with your definition all our rights can be taken away.

I will choose to disagree

The inalienable rights you refer to are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - not the Bill of Rights - there is a difference

Unfortunately, many other rights can be modified with an ammendment or by the order of the supreme court.

Doesn't anyone read the constitution?

If you are gonna offer opionions on the definitions therein please read up first. I am sorry to sound like a jerk but I'd bet 99% of gun owners never read the constitution in it's entirety, the bill of rights or subsequent ammendments not to mention intro constitutional law. One of my pet peeves is ignorant people blowing smoke - no offence.

 

[L-W-R-C]

One of my pet peves is ignorant people blowing smoke - no offence.

one of my pet peeves is arrogant people acting like they are the smartest person ever and everyone else is inferior.

 

[Garb]

Maybe that is because when the Bill of rights were written there were no cars.

I am not arguing with the BOR. Just pointing out the error in your definitions and logic. sheesh

Does the Constitution or Bill of Rights mention horses, ponies, donkeys, camels, wagons, carriages, ships, canoes, kayaks, or any other form of transportation? No it does not.

 

[Osobuco]

Does the Constitution or Bill of Rights mention horses, ponies, donkeys, camels, wagons, carriages, ships, canoes, kayaks, or any other form of transportation? No it does not.

sorry, I was being facetious. I should know better on a chat room.

 

[PatriotPride]

I thought we were getting better about ignoring people who go on ridiculous rants. Yeesh. Homo Habilis discovering his opposable thumbs says what?

 

[Osobuco]

I thought we were getting better about ignoring people who go on ridiculous rants. Yeesh. Homo Habilis discovering his opposable thumbs says what?

sorry, I was being facetious. I should know better on a chat room.

 

[finity]

Well, the definition of privilege is: "any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people."

So I have to respectfully disagree, there is no difference as you suggest based on well accepted definitions. rights are privileges guaranteed to us by the constitution.

As I said in my original post. I need to deliberate a bit further on this one. I try my best to think things through very thoroughly before offering a kneejerk response.

Oh crap! Now you've gone & done it.

While the word "privileges" was used by the Founders to be closely related to "rights" in some instances they were very adamant about the fact that those "rights & privileges" were not granted by any document or any government. They were in existence prior to the writing of the Constitution or the Bill or Rights. The only reason that the BoR was even added was because of the peoples concern that a government would ALWAYS, as proven time and again throughout history, trend toward tyranny. They wanted it to be perfectly clear that there are just some things that a government can NEVER mess with. Remember, though, they also put that other Amendment in there that said that there were other rights that may not have been specifically listed but nonetheless are retained by the people.

Do you think that just because a government doesn't list something as a right (say, freedom of religion) that it is truly not a right just by virtue of the fact where someone happened to be born?

 

[PatriotPride]

sorry, I was being facetious. I should know better on a chat room.

Wasn't directed at you, but thanks for playing.

ETA: I suppose I should clarify for those of you in the audience that are nursing a hangover: my comment was directed at the OP. Carry on.

 

[finity]

74.3 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Just as an aside, you're totally disregarding prior military and LEO that have had years of training, who are now civilians.

Over confidence and underestimating a possible foe are generally a bad idea, 63.8% of the time.

Yes & I've read that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.

I don't know if I believe it or not though.

 

[Garb]

sorry, I was being facetious. I should know better on a chat room.

Ah it's all clear to me now. You are one of those people who will argue with someone and "correct their errors" and then when they actually do correct yours you say "golly gee I was only joking, no need to take me so seriously guys."

 

[Osobuco]

Oh crap! Now you've gone & done it.

While the word "privileges" was used by the Founders to be closely related to "rights" in some instances they were very adamant about the fact that those "rights & privileges" were not granted by any document or any government. They were in existence prior to the writing of the Constitution or the Bill or Rights. The only reason that the BoR was even added was because of the peoples concern that a government would ALWAYS, as proven time and again throughout history, trend toward tyranny. They wanted it to be perfectly clear that there are just some things that a government can NEVER mess with. Remember, though, they also put that other Amendment in there that said that there were other rights that may not have been specifically listed but nonetheless are retained by the people.

Do you think that just because a government doesn't list something as a right (say, freedom of religion) that it is truly not a right just by virtue of the fact where someone happened to be born?

I know - I know - by bad. Should know better than to discuss things of such complexity on a chat room. I respectfully withdraw all my posts in this regard. God bless you all. - I'm going to the range!!!!!!!!

 

[SubicWarrior1988]

Yes & I've read that 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.

I don't know if I believe it or not though.

 

[Lobo]

"Hey, you're all a bunch of pansies who would wet yourselves if faced with a life or death situation. Only me and the other 1% of the real men on this website have the guts to defend ourselves. I know I titled this thread as a question, but I really just wanted to insult all of you and let you know how much more of a bad mofo I am than all of you. I don't know anything about any of you, especially your backgrounds and levels of training but I know how awesome I am and can therefore assume you're inferior. You should just head back to the range with your plinkers and leave carrying a gun to the professionals."

Hahaha I love this thread!

I think this pretty much sums it up!

I'd like to think of myself as a 1%'er. I'm like Shaft. One bad mofo......

 

[paddling_man]

Does the Constitution or Bill of Rights mention horses, ponies, donkeys, camels, wagons, carriages, ships, canoes, kayaks, or any other form of transportation? No it does not.

Hey, hey, hey?! Leave my kayak out of this!!


OP- I am admittedly low-speed, high-drag.

I've posted before about folks who become adept in different martial arts, stating that I've known many who had wonderful form but had no concept what it felt like to take a punch in the mouth. I've become a fan of the concept with krav maga and kali-silat: you've got to know how it feels to be take a punishing hit to know how you'll react. The best streetfighters don't deliver the most devastating blows - they're the ones who keep coming back at you for more after taking a hit.

Are the interwebz loaded with folks who live vicariously through online personae? Sure. (What's that country song? "I'm so much cooler online?") In the midst of this there are a multitude of tested-and-proven experts who can help you along. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As to the arrogant, presumptuous tone of your initial post, I quote a post from you on another thread.

After having almost every caliber as a carry gun I have decided to go to 22lr. I am buying a Taurus 94, 9 shot snubby as my primary carry weapon. Also ordered a Puma 1911 22lr for $248.00. I can shoot all day for pennies and put a bad guy down just as effective as with bigger calibers. Do you think you can survive 9 well placed 22's? Thats the advantage of a 22. Lots of practice, cheap. I am doing the same with rifles. S&W M&P 15-22 AR. Only big bore I am keeping is my Mosin Sniper in 7.62. Just a great and cheap gun to shoot. My 2 cents, thanks.

With wisdom like this, the credibility of the original post is somewhat tempered.

 

[E5RANGER375]

After having almost every caliber as a carry gun I have decided to go to 22lr. I am buying a Taurus 94, 9 shot snubby as my primary carry weapon. Also ordered a Puma 1911 22lr for $248.00. I can shoot all day for pennies and put a bad guy down just as effective as with bigger calibers. Do you think you can survive 9 well placed 22's? Thats the advantage of a 22. Lots of practice, cheap. I am doing the same with rifles. S&W M&P 15-22 AR. Only big bore I am keeping is my Mosin Sniper in 7.62. Just a great and cheap gun to shoot. My 2 cents, thanks.

thats an unsafe presumption to think you will have time to make 9 shots with a .22 as your attacker is possibly bareling full speed into you, or firing back.

better start excercising that finger, lol

 

[Lobo]

I am humbled.

I didn't realize that I was dealing with an obvious professional who possesses the tactical wisdom and knowledge to rise above the "pretenders" and master the superior defensive capabilities of the Taurus .22 snubby. I'd bet that 99% of the people here aren't smart enough to appreciate the legendary fight-stopping qualities of the .22 long rifle at snubbie velocities, and the long, proven track record of Taurus revolvers in combat and on the street.

Does the Pentagon know about this? I am outraged that they are wasting billions of dollars on 9mm and 5.56 ammo, when the .22 long rifle works just as well! A couple bricks of CCI's from Wal-Mart could equip an entire platoon!





Wait for it........