Armed Citizens

[deadhead1971]

This may have been poster here. I can't remember.

This is the best repository of self-defense articles.

The Armed Citizen (http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/)

In the search box at the top right, you can type in your state--spell out state no abbreviations

[wyntrout]

I wonder if California prosecuted any of the defending homeowners. I tell my wife and everyone that if you have to shoot, shoot until the assailant is down. One of the worst things you can do is shoot once and then see if that worked. It's harder for the BG to walk through the bullets and take the gun away from you. Besides, he's going to be pissed then, and he has your gun!:eek:
:59:
Wynn

[Vinikahr]

I wonder if California prosecuted any of the defending homeowners. I tell my wife and everyone that if you have to shoot, shoot until the assailant is down. One of the worst things you can do is shoot once and then see if that worked. It's harder for the BG to walk through the bullets and take the gun away from you. Besides, he's going to be pissed then, and he has your gun!:eek:
:59:
Wynn

Two in the chest and one the head that should stop the threat: "I was in fear for my life your honor!":59:

[Vinikahr]

This may have been poster here. I can't remember.

This is the best repository of self-defense articles.

The Armed Citizen (http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/)

In the search box at the top right, you can type in your state--spell out state no abbreviations

Thanks, tagged!:59:

[Chief Joseph]

Wonderful site. And to think, all those people defended themselves without the "expert" training so many snobs in the conceal carry community purport. Thank god for the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the libs and the gun snobs.

[Raoul]

Good read.

[Bawanna]

Two in the chest and one the head that should stop the threat: "I was in fear for my life your honor!":59:

If carrying a 380 or a 9 would 2 mags in the chest and 1 mag in the head be overkill? "I was like totally scared out of my wits your honor, while my fine motor skills were like out the window my training got me past all them mag changes".

[Vinikahr]

If carrying a 380 or a 9 would 2 mags in the chest and 1 mag in the head be overkill? "I was like totally scared out of my wits your honor, while my fine motor skills were like out the window my training got me past all them mag changes".
LOL:biggrin1::roll:

[deadhead1971]

just bumping this thread back in the spotlight

The Armed Citizen (http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/)

[jlottmc]

Oops, sorry your honor my trigger finger started spazing and I dumped every magazine I had. That adrenaline dump just got me twitching I was SOOOOO scarred...

[wyntrout]

I don't remember when or where, but I remember some woman shot her husband(I believe) something like 12 times or more. That sounded kind of reasonable until it was pointed out that she used a 2-shot derringer.

In too many cases the victims don't shoot soon enough. In a fight to the death(you don't know otherwise) fighting "fair" doesn't make sense because second place sucks. I would rather be safe than sorry. Shoot first and don't stop until you have to reload... or the perp' is lying down for the last time... for sure.
Wynn:D

[qshipglide]

If carrying a 380 or a 9 would 2 mags in the chest and 1 mag in the head be overkill? "I was like totally scared out of my wits your honor, while my fine motor skills were like out the window my training got me past all them mag changes".

What you need is a 30 round single stack mag. No reloading to explain to the cops or court. Think we could make some $ off that idea?

[henshao]

What you need is a 30 round single stack mag. No reloading to explain to the cops or court. Think we could make some $ off that idea?
Sure. But you couldn't market the mag holder as a 'pouch.' More of a 'scabbard.'

[OldLincoln]

Hmmmm.... does the 10rd limit for states like CA apply in the home?

[Bawanna]

I always interpreted that CA law and everywhere for a little while as a limit of 10 spare mags on your belt, not 10 rounds per magazine. Always worked well for me. Of course if your carrying a rifle which I would be if I was trying to survive in CA it would be 10 mags each. I'm sure it's in the fine print of the constitution that everyone is trying to bend the meaning of.

[OldLincoln]

No the law states 10rd magazine capacity, but you can carry as many mags as you want. I know, really dumb but that's what it is. If really practiced in a siege you could have 10 mags laid out and shoot 100rds just like you had 5 20rd mags.

My problem is that even 10rd mags are heavy in the 45 color, plus they kinda stick out of my pocket a tad. I went to 3 7rd mags instead, so I only have 22rds of .45 to knock the BG down.

In Fresno if I shot like the local PD that may not be enough. But I like to think if I shoot at somebody in his doorway at least I won't be hitting the house next door or a car. It took 7 of them shooting 66rds to stop 1 drunk BG in his doorway. Now that's embarrassing!

[deadhead1971]

The Armed Citizen Site is back up after months of being off-line due to lawsuits...

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[aray]

The Armed Citizen Site is back up after months of being off-line due to lawsuits...

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/


Really? Hadn't noticed it had been down - wasn't keeping up with their fine articles as I should. (Shame on me.)


In July 2010 (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/armed-citizen-closes-site-named-in-infringement-suit), a frivolous lawsuit (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=184201) was filed against The Armed Citizen alleging (http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuit.asp?id=61278) copyright infringement. This was one of hundreds of lawsuits filed by a group of copyright trolls known as Righthaven. TAC was in good company, since the Second Amendment Foundation, the Second Amendment Sisters and the Drudge Report were also sued. In order to escape a prolonged and potentially bankrupting legal battle, TAC's owners settled and, believing that success is the best revenge, used donations to rebuild the website.

Well that really stinks. I hate lawyers. Especially copyright trolls and ambulance chasers.

[aray]

More:

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/


Righthaven LLC -- a bottom feeding legal outfit -- has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post to sue 'mom and pop' websites, as well as nonprofit (http://www.oneandonlycampaign.org/), political action (http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/), public interest (http://www.nobodycases.com/), writers (http://www.margaretsoltan.com/), and forum board (http://www.democraticunderground.com/) operators for copyright violations. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue hundreds and thousands of these websites and counts on the fact that many are unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court. Nearly all cases are being filed in a Nevada Federal Court and must be fought in this jurisdiction. You are not safe from Righthaven if you are out-of-state.

Here are the list of 2010 victims. It's so long I'll have to break it into mutiple postings:

Out of an abundance of caution I have deleted the complete list of victims. That can be found here: http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

[aray]

More victims:

Out of an abundance of caution I have deleted the complete list of victims. That can be found here: http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

[aray]

More:

Out of an abundance of caution I have deleted the complete list of victims. That can be found here: http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

[aray]

Last batch. Comments to follow.

Out of an abundance of caution I have deleted the complete list of victims. That can be found here: http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

[aray]

Now, why did I post all of that? To make the impression these sharks are serious and no web site, depsite its size, is safe.

Even our beloved kahrtalk I fear could come under the attack of these trolls, seeking money from small sites without the legal deep pockets to defend themselves.

I won't reproduce the below page but it might be worthwhile to check out the following link on how to avoid lawsuits from this scum:

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/p/avoid-righthaven-lawsuit.html

[aray]

Now, why did I post all of that? To make the impression these sharks are serious and no web site, depsite its size, is safe.

Even our beloved kahrtalk I fear could come under the attack of these trolls, seeking money from small sites without the legal deep pockets to defend themselves.

I won't reproduce the below page but it might be worthwhile to check out the following link on how to avoid lawsuits from this scum:

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/p/avoid-righthaven-lawsuit.html

Looks like there is another (relatively) inexpensive out:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/