TMF

Okay, so you agree that any LEO who enforces any firearms laws is an oath breaker, yes? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You're right. 99% of police in this country are comprising their morals by violating their oath and enforcing unconstitutional laws. I don't see why you're all picking on this guy. By the logic exhibited here you should be cursing every LEO you see, because at some point he likely enforced a law which could be interpreted as unconstitutional in regard to 2nd Amendment rights. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sheriff's can do that without worrying about losing their job. Mid level public information officers will be immediately fired. I'm sure thus man's kids and wife would appreciate that. Geez Louise. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    So the public affairs officer for a PD should be an expert on law to the point that he can refute laws passed by the legislative and executive branch of his state government?   What in the hell was this guy supposed to do?  Answer the phone and say, "yeah, this law sucks and we ain't gonna enforce it"?  I mean, really?    I'm surprised that you would even suggest that considering you were in the military.  Do you recall PAO guidance?  At all?  From what I recall, we weren't allowed to make ANY statements to the press or anyone else on behalf of the US Army, DoD or federal government unless there was expressed permission to do so.  I mean, crap.  When I was in the military there was all kinds of stuff the government did and passed and I didn't like it.  But if I were to get a phone call at my place of work and asked my opinion on DoD policy, which would suggest I was speaking on behalf of the US Army, and I answered the call with my personal opinion and that made it out into the world via social media, television, internet.... my ball sack would be used by the CoC as a dartboard.    Now, this poor bastard is getting beat up because he didn't admit that this is a stupid, unconstitutional law?  This poor guy.  For all we know he goes home and posts on internet gun forums about what BS these new laws are.  You expect the guy just to throw it out there for the first wackado that calls so he can lose his job?   I tell ya, if every cop ever was to publicly speak about bogus laws that get passed then there would be no good cops left.  Just the aholes that everyone bitches about.

And a sheriff can say just about anything he wants with his only fear being from voters. You expect a public affairs officer to write a resignation every time the legislature passes a law he/she might disagree with? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not what I was saying. If you believe that all law enforcement in CT are oath breakers if they enforce this law, how can you not believe that 99% of LEOs aren't oath breaking traitors if they enforce similar laws in every state in the country? And what was this guy supposed to do anyway? Publicly denounce the law and lose his job, just to appease you? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So when someone is arrested for modifying a weapon to make it fire as a machinegun, or turns their rifle into a prohibited weapon under the NFA, the arresting officer is guilty of following an illegal and unlawful order? In my opinion, the NFA is a violation of the Constitution and so is the requirement to register them with the ATF. In fact, if you work out the logic, most states, to include ours, has unconstitutional gun laws. That would make the vast majority of law enforcement to be oath breakers and without honor. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think there is any question that one would be in reasonable fear for their life if attacked by a moose like this. I absolutely would have put it down if attacked. However, this serves as an example of why people who carry a firearm need to exercise caution, rather than be bolder, in order to avoid a situation where deadly force is the only option. Another poster pointed out that he wouldn't have been so bold if he was unarmed. I guess we don't know that for sure, but I'd say it is a fair assumption. Either way, just as if the moose was a person, you don't get to provoke a situation with the intention of ending it with deadly force. I agree that this man was in fear for his life. I also think it is clear he provoked the situation because he figured he could shoot his way out. For that, he is responsible for the outcome. His reward should be whatever fines or jail time is associated with that. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Better suspend those dirty Micks wearing green on St Patty's day too. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Makes you wonder what folks like these have on their mind when they do this. Is it just playing pretend, or are they waiting for the right opportunity to commit robbery or rape, or attempt to gain sexual favors for letting a girl off on a warning. It just so happens that the last two people in Clarksville that reported these incidents were people who knew it didn't smell right. Chances are these punks have done this before with people that didnt know any better. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is the third one we've had in Clarksville in recent history. Definitely pay attention, and tell your ladies to pay attention, especially at night. One can imagine how this would have gone if the person who was pulled over was a young woman who was ignorant of the indicators that this guy was a phony. http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/20140227/NEWS01/302270022/Fort-Campbell-M-P-charged-impersonation-after-fake-traffic-stop-Clarksville Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is done in order to seat the rear of the cartridge against the rear of the mag housing. It's because when you're carrying your mags in your web gear, it can get knocked around quite a bit and the first round in the mag may shift forward, which will prevent proper seating of the mag when loading, as the front tip of the round is getting caught on the mag well. Not something you want to deal with when you're doing a mag change for real. Has nothing to do with springs though. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it makes you feel any better, I've seen kids in places where they don't have access to violent music/TV/video games and they were more evil in their actions than any kid I've ever seen in the states; far worse than this story here. It may be hard to think back, but boys between the ages of 10-14 are some of the evilest little things out there. They are at an age where they're being hit with hormones that are out if control while trying to fit in to a social construct resembling a pack of wild chimpanzees, and their ability for empathy isn't quite developed. Really, if you want to see the true nature of what humans used to be before society was established, observe a group of boys that age who aren't being supervised. It is nothing new. The key here is having good parents who teach their kids right and wrong so they will make better choices. But peer pressure is a mofo. It ain't easy for a kid that age to overcome that and I think we forget what that was like. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But this snowmobiler was in a place he had a legal right to be and used reasonable force to stop a clear and present deadly threat. This is nothing like the Zimmerman ca..... oh wait. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You do realize how much I'm chuckling to myself how the same statement could be applied to HCP holders who do the same thing, then end up in court. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never cop bash, but MP bash? Heh, got pulled over on Ft Campbell doing 33 in a 35 because the MP was convinced it was a 25. He argued with me about it (and was a total ass) went back to his car, then came back and let me go with a "warning" to slow down. Couldn't even admit he was f'ed up and apologize. That is anecdotal, of course, but I've never had a positive experience with MPs. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I always worry about a knife in my carry on. The same hiking backpack I use is the same one I take as carry on, so I comb every inch of it before I go. I got caught in a foreign airport with ammo that was in one of those internal side pockets that no one uses. I had been using it as a range bag. Needless to say, after talking my way out of getting thrown in a 3rd world prison in check my stuff thoroughly every time. I can see, though, how folks could make simple mistakes. Firearms are a sensitive enough item that it doesn't make sense one would lose track of it in the first place, but I don't agree that it should be a major crime if it is just an honest mistake. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course you can't. That's the whole reason why they are raised to make the right decisions on their own, so you aren't beating your head against a wall when they're teenagers. Kids are still gonna mess up, but who they are as a person is already set by the time the hormones take over. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't deny that all men are severely flawed by our drive to penetrate every female within striking distance, but there is a huge difference between bad boys and good guys. I have enough experience in this department to not only know the difference, but to know the personalities and raising of girls who also know the difference. Some are single moms with several kids from several dads, and I predicted that stuff back when I was 15. Some are married with a stable family and a good husband. Like I said, there are common denominators and there are indicators. Looking back I'm pretty amazed at my abilities of observation, that in the few cases that I was ditched in favor of the guy with the big mud tires and lift kit, I was being done a favor, and I knew it. Then there were the good ones, who had parents that weren't up their daughter's ass about being home by a certain time or not doing this or that. They trusted their kid because they knew they had done their best in the limited time you get to do that. You can't suddenly teach a teenager right from wrong and how to make good choices; that starts when they're still in diapers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The difference here is teaching your young ones to make the right choices in the absence of guidance versus making their choices for them. I have some experience in this department. The observations I made while going through middle/high school in a community that was much like the original Footloose gave me enough insight to understand how my kids would be raised. I think that people confuse good parenting with reactionary parenting rather than proactive parenting. Once they are teenagers, and you are having to react to unwanted behavior, you're already working against the power curve. The point is to raise them properly and manage from a distance once they become their own people. I have no illusions of cracking down the hammer when my daughter is a teenager. I know what right looks like and there is (9/10) a common denominator in achieving that. Most places in the world a person is an adult at 16. I intend on treating my kids the same when by the time they reach that age, for better or worse. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Then let me say once again, why would you bring it up as an argument to prove that CT law enforcement would conduct door to door confiscations? I get that this is circular, and mildly entertaining, but you are the one who attempted to use Katrina as an argument yet you are the one getting pissed i keep pointing it out as an unrelated incident. You are the one who brought it up. I'll make it easy for you. Katrina has nothing to do with any of this. It is an anecdotal incident carried out by a dozen grunts who had no grasp of the Constitution. They were not elected to office. They do not have any bearing on the past, present or future of law enforcement. It is as relevant as a story about people being unconstitutionally disarmed in the 1830s. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ha, okay. I give up. Apparently what happened in New Orleans has bearing on CT law. I get it now. I'll go get my kit and start training guerrilla forces to attack government targets. I have a white board with a CARVER matrix ready to go. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, I'm referring to your original posts which started all this. Once again, do your rules only apply to me? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Okay, I'm curious why you don't take your own advice.  Does it only apply to me?   And why would I bring it up "over and over" again?  Because you brought it up in your posts, "over and over again".  You did.  Repeatedly.  If it is irrelevant to the point you're making I'm very confused why you would continue to bring up the Katrina issue.  Did the words just sound poetic enough or rhyme?  I don't get it.  If it doesn't support the argument you're making against why we won't see door to door confiscations in CT, then why keep posting about it?  Seriously.  That is a direct question that you have not given a direct answer to.  You've only sidestepped it and talked about how I marginalize you by using the words "conspiracy" and "theory" in the same sentence or the use of "tin foil" (although I have yet to use it).  So, direct question.  Is there a direct answer, or am I the one being obtuse here?

    No, I'm not wrong.  Why would you argue that door to door confiscation would take place in CT, then use the Katrina thing as an example if you weren't arguing that they were linked?  I don't know why you would bring it up at all unless that was your argument.   I've acknowledged everything in your posts, genuinely and thoughtfully.  I don't think I've used the term "tin foil" in any of my posts, so I'm confused why you keep repeating that, over and over and over again.  My only assumption, at this point, is that you realize that you're making no sense and can only argue that "I just don't get it" and that there is something wrong with "me" rather than my argument.  My argument still stands.  It is valid.  You have failed to point out the flaw in my logic.