What will you do when the riot reaches your neighborhood?

[700 LTR 223]

The sickening part is the rioters have the backing of the Leftist run media like ABC News. Black kids getting shot to death in Chicago takes a back seat to Bubba Wallace and his noose. The protestors need to march through the streets of Chicago if Black Lives really matter. Its all political BS.

 

[Nickbau5]

this thread just has a bit of a glow around it, seems like a whole "oh hello fellow firearm owners, it is I, fellow firearm owner, how extreme would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky". Just kinda seems like a way for people to paint gun owners as trigger happy nutjobs.

 

[DadSmith]

If someone comes on my property uninvited they usually get meet by my Flat Coated Retriever all 85lbs charging at them. Then I grab my Ruger PC Carbine 9mm and head out as well. I will ask what they are doing and or what they want. If its I tell them to leave immediately. No one has refused to date.

 

[700 LTR 223]

would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky".

The idea of peaceful rioters is pretty wacky!

 

[churchmouse]

this thread just has a bit of a glow around it, seems like a whole "oh hello fellow firearm owners, it is I, fellow firearm owner, how extreme would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky". Just kinda seems like a way for people to paint gun owners as trigger happy nutjobs.

Define peaceful rioters please.

And yes many of us have stated as fact we would just watch "Peaceful" protestors passing by. Why would we be pointing a weapon or even distract them from their cause if being peaceful.

 

[GMediC]

Define peaceful rioters please.

Rioting as seen on CNN

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Snapdragon]

this thread just has a bit of a glow around it, seems like a whole "oh hello fellow firearm owners, it is I, fellow firearm owner, how extreme would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky". Just kinda seems like a way for people to paint gun owners as trigger happy nutjobs.

You lost me at "peaceful group of rioters".

Protesters are protesters, and rioters are rioters. From what I have seen so far, they are not even the same people.

 

[indytoe]

WOW. 23 pages in this thread -- but I'm worried, and surmising that everyone missed the trollish "selective editing" done on the statute of which EVERYONE SHOULD BE FAMILIAR, to wit:

IC 35-41-3-2, which in relevant part reads:
Sec. 2 . (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.  By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed.  Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.  The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.


(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185 .

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.  However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and


(2) does not have a duty to retreat;


if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.  No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.  However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.  For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff;  and

(B) until the aircraft takes off;


(2) in the airspace above Indiana;  or

(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands;  and

(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.



(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.


(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.


(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle;  or

(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.


(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;

(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action;  or

(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully;  or

(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.



(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully;  or

(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties;  and


(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS LAW BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS, LOCK UP YOUR WEAPONS UNTIL YOU DO. You are a danger to yourself and others, otherwise.

 

[Nickbau5]

It seems many people missed the joke in my post...the "peaceful rioters" was in the quotations of a person coming in and trying to incite divide or to make "gotcha moments".

 

[2A_Tom]

WOW. 23 pages in this thread -- but I'm worried, and surmising that everyone missed the trollish "selective editing" done on the statute of which EVERYONE SHOULD BE FAMILIAR, to wit:

IC 35-41-3-2, which in relevant part reads:
Sec. 2 . (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.  By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed.  Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.  The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.


(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185 .

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.  However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and


(2) does not have a duty to retreat;


if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.  No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.


(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.  However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.  For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff;  and

(B) until the aircraft takes off;


(2) in the airspace above Indiana;  or

(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands;  and

(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.



(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.


(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.


(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:
(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle;  or

(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.


(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;

(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action;  or

(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:
(A) acting lawfully;  or

(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.



(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
(A) acting unlawfully;  or

(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties;  and


(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS LAW BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS, LOCK UP YOUR WEAPONS UNTIL YOU DO. You are a danger to yourself and others, otherwise.

Crappie is that you?

 

[JCSR]

Crappie is that you?

This will not turn out good...........

 

[Tombs]

this thread just has a bit of a glow around it, seems like a whole "oh hello fellow firearm owners, it is I, fellow firearm owner, how extreme would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky". Just kinda seems like a way for people to paint gun owners as trigger happy nutjobs.

Maybe in other states. Fed posting is usually about trying to get you to admit to breaking the law.
In indiana, once someone enters your property unlawfully, they're taking their life in their own hands.

 

[Route 45]

this thread just has a bit of a glow around it, seems like a whole "oh hello fellow firearm owners, it is I, fellow firearm owner, how extreme would you fine fellows go if a peaceful group of rioters came to you, would you open fire on them? That sure is wacky". Just kinda seems like a way for people to paint gun owners as trigger happy nutjobs.

Imagine if the founding fathers' main concern was optics.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Imagine if the founding fathers' main concern was optics.

Back then they didn't have optics, no red dots, just fixed iron sights

 

[2A_Tom]

I had never thought about it, but you are correct. How in sight ful.

 

[Nickbau5]

Maybe in other states. Fed posting is usually about trying to get you to admit to breaking the law.
In indiana, once someone enters your property unlawfully, they're taking their life in their own hands.

always stay noided for fedposters, and it could be trying to goat people to say that they'd open fire on people on streets, they've been getting craftier lately

 

[Nickbau5]

Imagine if the founding fathers' main concern was optics.

true, but the founding fathers also knew not to give the crown more reasons to hurt collateral citizens and to rat out spies

 

[Route 45]

Back then they didn't have optics, no red dots, just fixed iron sights

I don't think you understand the scope of my observation.

 

[Route 45]

true, but the founding fathers also knew not to give the crown more reasons to hurt collateral citizens and to rat out spies

How'd that work out?

 

[user1]

IT does not matter what you THINK you will do in your hypothetical scenario, what does the Law in you State allow you to do.....!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many do not live far out of town. Justification doesn't work for a mob. Maybe 5 out of the entire crowd are committing the felonies; you can't open fire on the group.

I thought about this last night and am truly at a loss of what I would do. I believe if things get worse, this is what we will see and no amount of firearms will help.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk