Leaderboard

A few thoughts....   The "free ride to Camden" video is typical Yeager. At least he is consistent. I do agree with his opinion that it is way too easy to sit behind your computer and talk smack about someone. If you don't have the balls to put your REAL name in a thread, or say the same thing to the guy in person, you should STFU. The "issue" I would take from it is his description of "a little thing in Iraq..."  I don't know man, I would say that to the families of the KIA, it's still a pretty big fucking deal!   Regarding that fateful day; I haven't, nor will I ever try to MMQB his actions. I wasn't there. Like many have said, stuff goes sideways and things get wonky pretty fast in combat. Who knows if the outcome had been different if he hadn't brain-farted the transmission, or if he hadn't "gotten off the X" What I DO know is his AAR comments immediately following the ambush (you know, the one where everyone fucked up, and he was the only one that did the right thing" are arrogant and tasteless at best.  (My opinion, and one that I am more than happy to share with him in person) I also feel that the way he has shown little compassion for the KIA is classless.  (Again, my opinion that I am willing to share in person)   Do I think Yeager dropped the ball that day?  Who cares, it doesnt matter. What does matter is that men he called Brothers In Arms are dead. Is it possible that those KIA are dead by their own (in)actions? Sure, quite possible. Do you blast them in the AAR and then open source to anyone that will listen?  Nah, sometimes you honor your dead with silence and respect. *Make sure that TTPs are reviewed and lessons learned. But honor those men, and don't use them as a way to self promote.   Other thoughts on Yeager- - James, while abrasive and too "in your face" for my liking, does make valid points from time to time. Is he always right? no.  Is he always wrong? nope.  Like you should do with any person or trainer you come in contact with; take what you need from him, and dump the rest.   - James is one hell of a fundraiser for many pro-gun, pro 2A, and pro youth shooting sports programs. His support of the Friends of NRA is amazing.  I personally appreciate his hard work and financial support of these programs.   - Finally, at least one person mentioned the word SOLDIER when referring to James in their post. For the record, James is not, nor has he ever been a Soldier, or any other form of US Servicemember.  He is not a "Veteran" of the Armed Forces.   *Edited to fix some spelling oversights.

We have been very fortunate that the folks who engage in these types of rampages seem to be uniformly incompetent in the use of their weapons.

I guess this video here just gets thrown right out the window: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEGtkHRyFWE.  So the lesson is always seek to de-escalate potentially violent situations and deter crime, unless your manhood is being challenged on the internet, because then you need to become macho dude and fight anybody who calls you a coward.  Check.  Way to send a message of consistency and credibility.  I'll remember that next time I'm deciding which instructor I want to spend my money on.   

He could be a nice, soft spoken, really awesome and humble guy in person. That matters not one whit when he specifically cultivates a particular image in public. For better or worse Yeager markets himself as the aggro-douche one sees in his videos. That will appeal to some and turn others off. Can't fault anyone for their opinions of Yeager's online persona.

The SKS is a FINE rifle if you use it as it was meant to be used.  Stripper clips are FAST if you train with them.  I've seen people who can use them right and can put AIMED fire down range just as fast.  The SKS might edge the AK out on accuracy.  Both suffer not from design but piss poor ammo.  If you do go with the SKS, stay away from pimping it out.  Nothing looks or performs any sadder than someone who starts a Cheaper than Dirt wish list for their SKS.  Tapco=Crapco.  Detachable magazines on a Siminov is a joke.  Even when they work, they don't work well so if you don't want to put forth the effort to train with 10 round stripper clips, save the pain and aggravation and just get an AK.  They work right.  

  This gun won't do anything that a DPMS, Bushmaster, etc won't do and it wants three times the money for it.  You buy this gun because you like the hype that is BCM or Haley.     As for building your own AR, its a friggin AR.  Its not a precision bolt gun.  Not too terribly much that a guy with average skill and minimal tool set can screw up.     As for the training coupon, I have NO NEED to train with Haley.  He knows what he is doing but 90 percent of the populace doesn't need that type of training.  It would be worthless.  

[quote name='Clod Stomper' timestamp='1355202938' post='858275']Self-driving cars? Meh... That's fine for most "drivers". Would make it safer and less stressful for the rest of us. But, if we don't have flying cars by then, I'm building my own. Will[/quote] Self driving cars? F- that! Even in 2030, if it doesn't have a manual transmission, I don't want any part of it.

I saw the title of this thread and wondered what jackhole called Chuck Yeager a coward. I was about to get a case of the ass.

You and many people jump to assumptions about this situation. None of us where there except the OP and none of us know what the circumstances where in this interaction at all that is a fact. The Monday morning quarterback comment is for people who want to tell others how do their job after the fact. If you can do it better then get hired and do it. Just having a HCP doesn't make you a saint or even a good person believe me I've seen some people who should be in prison and gang members with a HCP. While at the same time I've known several good people and even family members that are HCP holders. I even have one myself. If you are disarmed and don't believe there was a justification then complain. But don't jump to conclusions about someone else's situation unless you where there. Now in my experience I have never disarmed a legally armed HCP holder. I give them credit due to my experience and interactions with the many I have encoutered. I don't want to disarm them just like I wouldn't want to be disarmed. But if in a situation I have articulable facts to explain I may have been in reasonable fear to disarm the person during our encounter it will be done. Hopefully that never has to happen but if it does I will do what I am legally allowed to do to ensure the safety of myself and the other person and conduct the business at hand. Now I don't assume automatically HCP holders are threats due to that fact alone they are treated like anyone else I encounter and will continue to do so unless they make the situation change.

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1354826927' post='856009'] You missed what I was saying. As a trainer. I'm not going into combat with anybody.[/quote] Oh, ha, I thought you were talking about what he did in a previous life. I will say though, I would prefer a reserved, yet confident instructor as opposed to a loud mouth, self aggrandizing tool. The tool act works fine with folks that don't know any better, but is annoying as hell and a distraction to training for those that do.

Bravo to this deputy for knowing and defending a citizen's constitutional right against a bureaucrat. [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-G8k44m3VE&feature=g-hist"]https://www.youtube....&feature=g-hist[/url] Disclaimer: I am not a fan of Alex Jones and I don't listen to his radio program.

TCA says otherwise.

I love the comments down below. "Thanks Syria TV for pimpin my ride"

It would be better then my truck for small arms fire.

According to Websters 1828 dictionary's definition of the word "BEAR"  "To wear; to bear as a mark of authority or distinction; as, to bear a sword, a badge, a name; to bear arms in a coat" Bearing arms in a coat is CONCEALED CARRY. Congress uses the 1828 dictionary as a standard for interpretation as words change meaning over time.  According to this word in the Bill of Rights we have a right to carry concealed or otherwise NOW. Any state or fedgov restriction on such is an infringement and is unconstitutional. Why do we have to beg for a "right" from a bureaucrat while we already have the protection in the Bill of Rights? Tell me that.

I just love the guys who think just because they've been careless with their firearms that everyone else has been. Classic projection. 

Terrible tragedy, and punishment enough with the loss of a son that the father is responsible for.  Prayers for the family for the lifelong guilt they will carry.  Let it be a lesson for others.  Everyday in a gun shop you can see many violate the 4 gun rules and nothing is said.  We all need to insist that everyone follow those rules in our presence.  NO EXCUSES.  You can see it with hunters and shooters at all levels  Complacency is the enemy and we ALL must follow the rules and practice what we preach.  I'm sorry for the loss, but the father had to violate 3 rules:  Always treat every gun as if it was loaded.   Never point it at anything you are not willing to shoot.   Keep your finger OFF the trigger until you are on the target and ready to shoot.  Unfortunately someone else will still have to re-learn the rules somewhere....sometime.

Pretty neat from an ingenuity stand point. From a practicality standpoint, that is a lot of work invested into a contraption that will be chewed apart by one AP belt from a PKC. That remote weapon system set up would be better served from a static ambush position with the operator off site. Very low tech and can be sacrificed and replicated easily.

Well if we are going to call it "primitive weapons" season, then shouldn't it be only a spear or a club? Where do you draw the line? Remember the old argument that compound bows should have their own season and traditional archery should be left alone. Then along came crossbows and eventually they got added to the "archery" season. What impact has that had? The way I see it is that we get more people in the woods.    I don't care what Cabela's says or any muzzle loader website. The fact is that it is much easier to shoot consistently with a centerfire cartridge than it is from a powder charge topped by a sabot feed into the muzzle. It is faster to reload with a centerfire. There is a distinct difference. The is also a distinct difference between a sidelock and a 209 inline. Just like there is a difference between an open sights 30/30 and a hopped up 300 WIN MAG. Choose what you want to hunt with or what you have available. No one forces a hunter to choose a 209 inline. Use what you want. If you choose a sidelock, why does that need a special season? To reduce the number of hunters during that season? Certainly it's not entirely correct to lump inlines in to the centerfire category.    Honestly, I would vote for a South Carolina type season. Everything opens on the same day and it all closes the same day. I hope every hunter that goes to the woods kills his limit each day and I hope everyone that is able hunts. I hunt archery during gun season because I choose to. Hunt with what you want. I have killed deer on public land with a bow in late December. It's not that much of a disadvantage if you a bow hunter.  :2cents:

The opinion actually addresses the idea of New York-style laws versus those in more gun friendly states, and appears to leave the door open for both to exist.  My 50,000 foot takeaway read: the 7th is saying that an outright ban precludes ANY opportunity for a citizen to carry a gun for self defense, and thus they deem such a ban to be unconstitutional.  The degree to which states regulate firearm possession outside the home, however, is left to the states as long as it stays short of an outright ban.

The hose in the 4th pic has to be a crew served hookah pipe.   "Loader ready!"   "Fire"   "Ahh"   Dolomite

I totally agree. It is the same thing as folks who spend hundreds of dollars on fancy knives when any $30 Kershaw will do the job just as well. It is all hype. And as long as folks like Hinderer can make a buck off of them, more power to them.

ive notice many of thse stories end up being someone who has used guns for a long time... do long time gun owners get too comfortable around guns?  ive even heard of cops leaving their loaded guns laying around small childern.  it seems  the importance of safety just slips their minds.

Yeah if you make a habit of putting your finger on the trigger of your firearm when not aiming at something you are willing to destroy that happens.

Not when he's an open book. He has another recent vid where he boasts in his douchy rep.   ;)

  I would still disagree with him.  I have taken several SI courses using my Nighthawk Custom Talon 2011, and had absolutely zero problems.  I also took one using a Glock 34.   I don't know this guy from Adam, but what little I have seen from him on his Youtube videos, I can safely say he is an a$$hole and too full of himself.  I have thought about training at TR, but now that I know who runs it, there is no way.  I would not want to train with a person like that.  I don't care how good he is or what his credentials are.  A little humility would do this guy wonders.

Well, anyone who carries a .40 is a retard.   JUST KIDDING   He also doesn't like 1911s for carry purposes either and I disagreed with him vehemently until I took a two-day fighting pistol course at Tactical Response and my very pretty, and VERY expensive 1911 that was supposedly designed specifically for reliable carry, choked so badly that I had to switch to another gun before lunch on the first day.   He IS opinionated...he IS abrasive...he certainly CAN come across as a bit of a self-appointed, tin-plated dictator with delusions of god-hood BUT, he's also a good guy IMHO which is why his school is one of the schools I spend money at to train.

This is "earth shattering" because its coming from the 7th. The Illinois legislature is already considering carry laws; this could help it along. I don't have time to read all 47 pages right now, but it looks promising for Illinois and possibly a case to go to the SCOTUS.

    I seriously doubt it.  The Heller opinion is pretty clear about the state's having the authority to regulate firearms and this opinion (p. 16) suggests that it is reasonable to assume that states can regulate the carrying of arms.  I'll read this thing more closely when I'm not so busy but I find it interesting they use Massad Ayoob as a source.  

  He is also very misinformed.   That said, for those that still carry Black Talons, I ask... 1.  Do you really want to carry ammo that is 20ish years old if you don't have to? 2.  Especially when there are better performing choices, clearly, out there (Gold Dot, Ranger-T, HST)?

I deleted your current Benefactor invoice.  BUT... you've got enough on your plate right now.  This one is on me.

I have given one or two DUI's when someone was under .08. It's what we call the "DUI per say" and truthfully one of the only reasons I do it is because 1. They did show some impairedness 2. They most likely had some other charges like domestic assault 3. And of course the minor child in vehicle, repeat offender, or other zero tolerance violations. The way I see it if I would charge someone with public intox I would charge them with carrying a weapon while intoxicated. I just can't imagine only because someone smells of alcoholic beverages charging them with being armed. The smell may very well have been from the night before.

MSRP is $2200ish....that's not the street price.  Comparable ARs are right around that range of $18-2kish.  As someone stated, you can build it for close to $1900.....and thats without the cerakote, training coupon, people who actually know how to build an AR correctly rather than a guy tinkering at his work bench, and most importantly - the FET.   While high, the price is not outrageous.    Mall ninja?  Please.  That's reserved for all the DPMS, Bushmaster, etc guns with fake optics, Mako grips, UTG rails, chinese lights and lasers, and a Walmart bipod :rock:   It's not for everybody, obviously.  But you can't deny that it is a quality weapon, built with quality parts, by a quality company with a known standard of success. 

Meh. Another AR built by a trainer for all the fanboys, nothing new.

I agree. How about a PROPER primitive weapon season to run from the first to last Sunday in January. Longbows, recurves and un-scoped, roundball shooting, sidelock muzzleloaders only.

Get a donkey

Non-chlorinated brake cleaner is what I use to clean my weapons, followed by Mobil One Synthetic for lubrication and preventing rust.

I don't know this guy, or know his qualifications, but I thought this was a good video and the information is presented well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sC3u9TZnSEc

Phil Valentine said it elloquently yesterday. He asked if guns are bad, why do we give police officers guns? I just can't wrap my head around the theory that anyone with a gun can suddenly go crazy and start shooting people; anybody, that is, but an LEO.

[quote name='EB-SF' timestamp='1354842162' post='856147'] It's all about being able to define "reasonable fear" in court. I can sit on the stand and produce 100s of cases where LEOs were shot and killed. I can testify that I had a reasonable fear that that gun COULD kill me. No court in the land will disagree with how "I" perceived the situation. [/quote] Well it's not reasonable fear that the law requires... it requires a reasonable belief that disarming is necessary to protect the officer, or other individuals. I contend that an officer can not have a reasonable belief that disarming is necessary for all permit holders. That if they hold such a belief it is no longer reasonable and therefore the disarming is no longer lawful. Clearly if a department has a policy that all permit holders will be disarmed, that doesn't pass the smell test for a reasonable belief under 39-17-1351t. If there was a criminal penalty for violating 39-17-1351t, would one be able to charge and convict this park ranger, very unlikely... But it sure would be nice to have some balance to this bad law, in case an officer does go overboard and clearly violates this law. Or even better yet, remove the disarm part unless their is an arrest altogether. If an officer is fearful of a permit holder who hands them a permit without being asked during a traffic stop, maybe they shouldn't be on patrol anymore... Permit holders just don't pose a serious risk to officer safety.... TN Permit holders are convicted of felony's at about the lowest rate of any group out there... lower than police officers, lower than members of the military, lower than the population as a whole. I'm not saying there is never a need to disarm, that there can never be a reasonable belief... but clearly this law is abused today a lot, and if the choice is between continued abuse, or prohibiting officers from disarming altogether, then I'd side with doing away with the law altogether.

[quote name='sventvkg' timestamp='1354844796' post='856177'] This INFURIATES ME. What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in the 2nd amendment don't these Govt. gun grabbers not understand. I'm suck of it. Beyond sick of it...that form you have to fill out when getting your handgun permit in this state is nothing short of an abomination of the very fundamentals of the 2nd amendment and what our founders outlined as our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS that can't be infringed by Govt. My definition of what we live under is Tyranny.[/quote] [quote name='sventvkg' timestamp='1354844851' post='856180'] He had NO SUCH RIGHT. He had rule of and unconstitutional law ruled constitutional by a fraud. PERIOD.[/quote] Go get 'em, Spartacus! Btw, I assume you put your money where your mouth is -- NRA and TFA member, for example? - OS

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1354841449' post='856140'] TCA 39-17-1351t While it is true we're violating the law even with a permit [u](which is another topic that we should be pushing for a single word change in the TCA from defense to exception[/u]), this law drastically limits the ability for the officer to disarm a permit holder, compared to a non-permit holder found with a loaded firearm. So, explain to me how an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm every permit holder they come across? Unless the officer has that reasonable belief every time they disarm a permit holder, they are acting unlawfully. I contend that departments who have a policy to always disarm permit holders are acting unlawfully, and most likely officers who disarm all permit holders are likely acting unlawfully as well. But, you'll notice there is no criminal penalty for violating 39-17-1351t, which is part of the problem. Just another question to the OP, was this a federal park ranger? Or a state ranger? I'd be curious if they are somehow cross certified as TN law enforcement officers, because if they aren't (federal park rangers), then they would appear not to be covered by 39-17-1351t. [/quote] It's all about being able to define "reasonable fear" in court. I can sit on the stand and produce 100s of cases where LEOs were shot and killed. I can testify that I had a reasonable fear that that gun COULD kill me. No court in the land will disagree with how "I" perceived the situation.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1354807132' post='855852'] Please point me to the disarming law you are talking about. Also, every single person in the state who has a firearm on them, HCP or not, is breaking the law. Dolomite [/quote] TCA 39-17-1351t [quote][color=#333333][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when [b]the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals.[/b] The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.[/size][/font][/color][/quote] While it is true we're violating the law even with a permit [u](which is another topic that we should be pushing for a single word change in the TCA from defense to exception[/u]), this law drastically limits the ability for the officer to disarm a permit holder, compared to a non-permit holder found with a loaded firearm. So, explain to me how an officer reasonably believes it is necessary to disarm every permit holder they come across? Unless the officer has that reasonable belief every time they disarm a permit holder, they are acting unlawfully. I contend that departments who have a policy to always disarm permit holders are acting unlawfully, and most likely officers who disarm all permit holders are likely acting unlawfully as well. But, you'll notice there is no criminal penalty for violating 39-17-1351t, which is part of the problem. Just another question to the OP, was this a federal park ranger? Or a state ranger? I'd be curious if they are somehow cross certified as TN law enforcement officers, because if they aren't (federal park rangers), then they would appear not to be covered by 39-17-1351t.

[quote name='Spots' timestamp='1354771453' post='855616']As I said before, the man who is gonna shoot you at a traffic stop isn't gonna show you his hcp, and let you take his weapon. [/quote] [quote name='Spots' timestamp='1354771453' post='855616'] To bad [u][b]most officers [/b][/u]will never have to answer for their reasons for doing most of what they do. I may seem jaded or upset, but I've seen one to many police officers [u][b]flip on lights to run the red[/b][/u], speed to nowhere in the cruiser that they drive home on the tax payers dime, and basically abuse the power given to them by the citzen. This is not meant as a blanket statement and I have the utmost respect for those honest LEO's who don't take an oppurtunity to step on your toes when they get the chance. But I have the utmost contempt for those that do things because they can, not because they should. And I will not support officers who do such things, including disarming an honest citzen who has done nothing wrong, [u][i][b]just so the officer can get a warm and fuzzy[/b][/i][/u]. [/quote] This is probably a waste of time, but here is my two cents anyway. How do you know what a person is going to do on a traffic stop? Because I’ve done thousands of them and I don’t know. Go work the streets with a cop and let us know if you think their discretion should be taken away. I had a couple come in and make a complaint on me because I turned on my overheads, blew a light, shut them off and continued on normally. They called me in and had me explain to them why I did it and played them back the communications tape. They were embarrassed at the results and apologized for making accusations. Unfortunately you don’t always know what’s causing what you see. You see it and assume the worst; others (like me) see it and give the cops the benefit of the doubt. I openly support my local Police Officers, Troopers, and Deputies and appreciate the job they do. [img]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Web%20Stuff/patriot.gif[/img]

[quote name='Daniel' timestamp='1354771363' post='855615'] It has been more than some"one." I agree with Pole a few posts up. I have seen the video and besides the neutral bit which really doesnt matter in the end as the other two vehicles were mobility kills from the start his actions at the time werent the problem. It was the after the fact #### talking dead guys. [/quote] They were definitely in the killzone of a rehearsed ambush. Putting the lead car in neutral was fail one IMO. IIRC from the report, what was really scathing was the AAR/report saying that Yeager broke contact by himself without the element establishing some sort of fire superiority. He then positioned himself in such a manner that he was unable to effectively render supporting fires for his element (proned out on the median). He self admittedly had no idea where the contact was coming from and didn't do anything to address this. The other team members had to identify the distance, direction, and descriptions. Again, IMO - it's not that he ####ed up. That happens. Its the stuff that happened after the fact that damned him in many eyes. I don't MMQB guys in combat. I understand that things go sideways, sometimes in the worst way. But we need to be brutally self honest in the AAR's.....not passing the buck onto dead men. But Yeager will continue to be Yeager

It has been more than some"one." I agree with Pole a few posts up. I have seen the video and besides the neutral bit which really doesnt matter in the end as the other two vehicles were mobility kills from the start his actions at the time werent the problem. It was the after the fact #### talking dead guys.

Here's a feeble picture. Turns out that Able didn't really have the gun in stock, so in a panic, I hit the Bass Pro. They have them on sale right now, even tho it doesn't show on their web site. The guy at the counter didn't even know they had them, and had to dig it out of the back room. Able was cool about the order cancellation. I paid a little more money, but didn't want to get caught up in the Obama frenzy and wind up with NO gun. The picture doesn't do it justice. Nice shootin' iron! [img]http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac195/mikegideon1/IMG_0829a.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Erik88' timestamp='1354584319' post='854547'] pouring water into a bag is cooking? [/quote] "HOT" water! And yes, my wife definately considers that COOKING!

IMO ... and again, this is just my opinion. Agreements don't mean sh*t when SHTF. Its sounds good in theory, but outside of close family, I don't want anyone knowing what preps we might have or where we live. Unfortunately - People don't keep their mouth shut.