Jump to content

Walt of Destiny

Premier Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    845

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Walt of Destiny

  1. Posted

    Once again things go south. There is a legitimate question here which is "what's the best way to go through a routine traffic stop so that you and the LEO can part as friends and go on with your respective days"

     

    These discussions then lead to "what if I have an unlicensed nuclear reactor and I spit on the cops shoes?"

     

    There are an infinite number of what ifs which one would think would be outside the scope of the thread. But I was wrong.

     

    In general, unless you're looking for trouble or have a mammoth chip on your shoulder you will be OK every time out to 6σ probability.

     

    Best thing is to look at the interaction from the cop's point of view. Put yourself in his shoes and act accordingly. Which, as usual, boils down to three simple rules:

     

    1) use your best judgement

    2) don't be an asshole

    3) shut the fuck up

     

    As Zeke says, there are no absolutes. The rules are really guidelines and have interpretations. Generally contingent on rule #2. Because if you break rule #2 you've already broken #1 and most probably are incapable of following rule #3.

     

    As a codicil to the rules, there is one caveat, don't blame the cops, laws or politics for your stupidity.

     

    To lighten the mood a bit, this is one of my favorite comedians talking about his interactions with NYC's finest:

    (Warning it's 7 minutes long.)

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  3. Posted

    5 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

    That is a decent sized kidney stone.

    Having passed north of 20 myself (hooray sponge kidney disease :bad:) I feel your pain.

    Ya man. Nasty little fucker. Got them about twenty years ago when I was lifting heavy. Creatine and lack of hydration caused them for me. Every year I get one. Puts things in perspective. 

     

  7. Posted

    Maybe someday, Spongebob. 

    The coolest thing is you get a blackout upper with a 10.5 barrel and pin a "reflex" mount on it that is 4 inches long and then pin a 7 inch can to that and you only need one stamp. Looks cool as hell too. A girl could dream. 

    The law states that anything that reduces the report of a firearm is a silencer.  Then there was a video of a Glock being fired in a swimming pool. Guess what, it reduced the report. So the pool is a silencer! Off with their heads!

    Actually law states that his has to be mobile, so all you pool owners don't have to file a form 1...

  11. Posted

    ive hit far worse

     

    There's an old story that Mickey and the boys, when they would get in slumps at the plate would find the biggest woman they could find to have a go. They called them "slumpbusters" they said it worked every time...

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Taking a blasé security attitude by using Tapatalk

     

  15. Posted

    13 minutes ago, louu said:

    That's awesome,

    I guess I should clarify, this is going to sound mean but thats not my intention. Believe me when i say im laughing while im typing this. When im on this forum and I say operators, pretty much what I'm talking about is the guys on this forum that know everything but don't shoot matches and they pay thousands of dollars to go to a class that they will never need because they can't carry a gun. I'm talking about police officers, swat team guys, anyone who carrys a gun for work. People who dont shoot matches and think they are a better shooter than someone who does. I'm talking about the keyboard commandos that know everything and no one here has ever actually met. I'm talking about the guy who labels himself an operator and brags about it. The few real operators I know will never talk about that stuff, hell one of them almost never says a word. Now Don't go getting your panties all wadded up I would love to shoot with any of you, I'll even let you look at my guns lol.

     

    Now I get it and I know exactly what you mean...

    IMG_9080.JPG

  16. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Maksim said:

    Good point, but the Video referred to LEO... so yes.

    The few "operators" I do know, do successfully combine survival and have a VERY good marksmanship ability.   Would they be top dog in a 3 gun match?  No... but they would not really be held back. 

    The the opposite would hold true, no? Bring a top notch 3-gun guy to the raid on the bin laden compound and he'd hold his own? 

    The only issue is that if he didn't he'd most probably be FUCKING DEAD.

     

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    35 minutes ago, Vlad G said:

    So .. all the marksmanship teams of all the military branches that attend all the major 3gun matches? All the guys I met with missing limbs and eyes and other injuries obtained during the recent unpleasantness that shoot 3gun ? All the LEO/swat people I meet shooting matches?

    You mean all those guys who then take what they learned back to their Units to teach others?

    I guess their experience is not real. 

    This argument creeps up like every 6 months and it is an idiotic conflict we should not be having. The tactical and competition fields are different but symbiotic and complimentary.  We can all learn from each other and the smart people on either side do. When the tactical world is now getting all sorts of moist over Roland Specials, they forget that 10 years ago they were dismissing gamers with their comp'ed and red doted pistols. Never mind that the competition world debugged and developed the hardware that they are lusting over today, and they it has been decades to evolution to bring it current state. Never mind, that the race rifles of two decades ago are now the hotness of the tactical world with free floated handguards, low power variable scopes, offset sights, etc. The average competitor I know shoots more in a year the most LEOs do over their entire career, the gear you trust your life to, competitor have worn out and broken and provided feedback to the manufactures in how to make it better. 

    Gents, with respect...

    the OP cited "operators". Not LE. I took that to mean MILITARY SO, Delta etc and in the LE realm, SWAT, Hercules and the like. I didn't take that to mean retired, WWs, and others that continue their affinity for tactical situations by competing in 3-gun matches etc. 

    If the challenge is for current "operators" such as QRF, SEAL or RECON operators, then I must stand by my statements. 

    If you are going to go to your nearest donut shop and challenge any LE in attendance then I'm with you.

    I'm not casting aspersions on your local LEOs, but as you all state, higher level competitors intensely practice, I assumed the challenge would be to "operators" that have similar commitment to their training and equipment. 

    • Like 3

  18. Posted

    This one is bad. 

     

    One night a serial killer drags a woman through the woods, The woman looks up and cries to her captor, "I'm scared" to which he responds: "you're scared? I gotta walk out of these woods alone..."

  20. Posted

    Sorry guys. No comparison. Nor should there be. Anything that takes a life or death situation and makes it anything less than a life or death situation is plain apples & oranges. 

    Anyone with any real experience wouldn't entertain the "challenge".

    Kids that are great on racing video games,  get the "wins" to uplevel their cars and such,  think they are drivers.  They shit themselves in the passenger seat taking a turn at 8/10ths. I realize one is a video game and one is real life. That's not the camparison I'm making. It's the competitors attitude that always discounts the "I can die here, today" thought process. 

    I agree that competitive 3-gun shooters are next-level pros. The John Wick 2 movie does a great job showing the tactical advantages of 3-gun training. But C'mon. I could be wrong and frequently am. 

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    1 hour ago, Sig said:

    Just to be clear I did not cite the case to specifically support "reasonable deviation." I wanted to expand the scope to just the "reasonable" standard alone. I wanted to encourage people to think about how everything is open to interpretation with or without mitigating circumstances. In my opinion firearm laws should be clearly defined so that there is very little room for argument. Ideally, the cases that are being argued in our court systems should be those rare long shot exceptions to the rule. The majority of circumstances, however you choose to set the stage, should be clearly defined. If laws aren't clearly defined it allows for inconsistent or disparate application of the law. Yes, there are many cases where someone actually did the crime but the defense had a better argument. But, this is exactly how responsible gun owners get their lives ruined and jail time for minor nuances of the law that are "argued" better by The State of NJ than some criminal defense lawyer you just spent your entire life savings on.

    I understand, but one aspect of a case cannot be examined without context of the whole incident. 

    Griz noted that "reasonable" is the wildcard and for a good reason. We all hate the Graves act because it takes all judicial perogative out of the process. The reason our system of laws uses judges and not a checklist to determine guilt or punishment is because each case is unique and the circumstances can dictate a departure from the black and white "letter of the law". So "reasonable" is purposefully left to a judge or jury to determine in each case. 

    One other, maybe intended, consequence of these "guidelines" or mandatory minimum sentences is that it concentrates the power over defendants in the prosecutorial realm. In essence it politicizes the process and puts transgressions of "administrative" regulations, like the possession of a 16 round magazine, without a weapon,  ammunition, a crime being committed or criminal intent, into the same section as a gangbanger's conviction for actual criminal actions on the prosecutor's  resume. Feeling safer yet? 

    Reference Mr. Preet Bharara and his crusade against corporate malefeasence or Eric Schneiderman and his overt attacks on DJT and the 2nd amendment. 

    Getting back to our armed-behind-the-bank-snoozer. The cop had every reason to be suspicious. I may be a burger flipper but I would still have been reasonably suspicious. In the decision, which I read, the cop's spidey senses started tingling when he saw the car and the defendant didn't do himself any favors the the subsequent contact. He was irresponsible and probably a threat to minimally the cop. You can't use anything in this case as example of anything related to a guy going to the range, being a responsible gun owner, and stopping to take a pee. 

    This guy was a douche. I don't wish this crap on anyone. But he did everyting wrong. The criminal defense attorney on the original case didn't have a lot to hang his hat on. 

    So to put a bow on it, remember "Death Wish?" (Boy there's a movie begging for a remake) after Bronson got a taste of vigilantism he went for a walk after dark in Central Park swinging an expensive camera. Of course there was somebody ready to mug him. He was asking for it. Just like sleeping behind a bank at 3 am with firearms in plain view and a loaded glock, on your way from Maine to Texas by way of Readington, NJ. 

    Reasonable suspicion? Fuck yea. Even for a burger flipper. 

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    Re: State v. Renninger

    Not a good case to support not taking a piss on the way to the range. The guy was an idiot, asshole or criminal with really bad judgement, a sketchy story and incomplete documentation for the car as well as multiple license plates. 

     

    Remove the firearms from the equation. He's still broken  the three simple rules. 

    Bad judgement

    was an asshole

    and didn't keep his mouth shut  

    who thinks this guy, ostensibly traveling from Maine to Texas, in a car that's not his, sketchy paperwork with guns on his back seat and a loaded handgun, should be stoping behind a bank to take a snooze? 

    Shit man, a Florida neighborhood watch member would have shot him...

    the 2nd amendment isn't a defense for stupid. 

    The 1st amendment may be, but that's a horse of another color entirely. 

    • Like 4

  24. Posted

    3 hours ago, Zeke said:

    What is your solution?

    Any current solutions are nothing more than "feel good" steps. What they do only infringes on civil liberties and stop no committed believer that is willing, nay—planning,  to die.

    This is not a problem of security, it is a problem of ideology. Not Islamist ideology, but progressive ideology. We have in the EU a permissive "the more the merrier" mindset that has sown the seeds of jihad. 

    It is interesting that some progressives here decry the building of a border wall. Some compare it to living in east Germany before the wall was taken down. They forget that they build walls to keep people in. We build them to keep people out. Additionally, there are at least 3 European countries currently building fences to control the "refugee's" unimpeded access to their countries. 

    While we try to see these Islamists through 21st century lenses, they look at us through medieval sensibilities. Until we take off these lenses, we are nothing more than sheep waiting for the slaughter. 

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    Gents, 

    i am fortunate enough to own a trucking company that does business pretty much across the country.  During the time after the nice attacks we were contacted by DHC. This was the communications omto my many clients:

    "Gents, 
    We were visited by two agents from the Department of Homeland Security today. The unannounced visit was to do a cursory "audit" of our rental agreements with our 7 truck rental providers. It was a preliminary contact visit due to some credible threats they believe could spur attacks using trucks similar to Nice France, during the holiday season in Manhattan. The purpose of the visit was to put us on notice that rentals of "van" body trucks will be strictly vetted beginning the 21st of November through the first week of 2017. 

    We were one of the first visited since we hold several "hazardous" materials permits that require background checks and security clearances. We were given a contact number for us to call prior to attempting to rent any vehicles beginning next week. They were very clear in  explaining  that they will not necessarily approve all rentals. All outstanding rentals have to be returned this weekend and reprovisioned on Sunday.we currently do not have any in this area. 

    We do not foresee any problems. But we wanted to inform you of the situation. We were asked to keep the information on a need to know basis and I explained that we needed to inform the leadership at our clients. They agreed begrudgingly. We ask that it doesn't become common knowledge as most of my staff does not know and we are compartmentalizing this information. 

    We are in a new world gentlemen. I'm hardly ever surprised but this was unexpected. 

    Let's keep our fingers crossed for an uneventful holiday season. 

    Regards, 

    Walter"

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...