Cmdr. Gravez0r
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 427
A copy of EFAD, or the Cookbook maybe?
So how would you define ‘heavily armed’?
- Thread starter yokel
- Start date
- Status
A copy of EFAD, or the Cookbook maybe?
Loosedhorse
member
Okay, this was a tongue-in-cheek thread from go!
But let's set a few things straight:
Every personal defense instructor I've ever taken a course from or read has recommended a back-up gun for non-LE CCWs: 2 is one and one is none. So 2 guns is appropriately armed for us, not heavily armed. (You one-gunners are "hopefully armed.")
A guy hunting red squirrels with a Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG is heavily (and stupidly) armed. A guy with 5 handguns and loads of ammo who decides to shoot out stoplights is heavily (and dangerously, and Oh, G-d, I hope only temporarily) armed.
And an armored cav soldier armed with a M1A2 Abrams, and a Trident sub driver armed with 192 475-kiloton W88 warheads, are both armed just like Goldilocks' chair: JUST RIGHT!
Are we clear?
But let's set a few things straight:
Every personal defense instructor I've ever taken a course from or read has recommended a back-up gun for non-LE CCWs: 2 is one and one is none. So 2 guns is appropriately armed for us, not heavily armed. (You one-gunners are "hopefully armed.")
A guy hunting red squirrels with a Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG is heavily (and stupidly) armed. A guy with 5 handguns and loads of ammo who decides to shoot out stoplights is heavily (and dangerously, and Oh, G-d, I hope only temporarily) armed.
And an armored cav soldier armed with a M1A2 Abrams, and a Trident sub driver armed with 192 475-kiloton W88 warheads, are both armed just like Goldilocks' chair: JUST RIGHT!
Are we clear?
OP
OP
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
Thanks for the input, but you're wrong.
If you accept the premise that the Second Amendment is intended as a non-peaceful means whereby the ordinary citizen can put the brakes on tyrannical governmental abuses that violate God-given and constitutional rights, and not merely about thwarting common street criminals and crazies or hunting game, then we are not quite 'appropriately' armed, much less heavily armed.
If you accept the premise that the Second Amendment is intended as a non-peaceful means whereby the ordinary citizen can put the brakes on tyrannical governmental abuses that violate God-given and constitutional rights, and not merely about thwarting common street criminals and crazies or hunting game, then we are not quite 'appropriately' armed, much less heavily armed.
never_retreat
Member
Walking with a limp.
No wait thats normal.
If you have guns that are tow behind.
No wait thats normal.
If you have guns that are tow behind.
Loosedhorse
member
Wrong's a big word, my friend!
Hint: the "IMO" helps us not miscontrue your attitude toward others, and their reasonable opinions.
As my CCW does not allow me, for example, to march around the grocery (in my state) with a loaded, slung 12 gauge (which I would actually prefer for self-defense, though it's a bit heavy) without being jailed--rather rapidly jailed around here, I would think.
Tell you what: anyone who wants to try it here, and after being arrested, try out the 2A argument with the police and the sentencing judge--let me know how the appeal works out! I'll be rooting for you!
As for me, it's "appropriate" to stay out of jail, so "appropriately armed" should take that into consideration.
So it is you, friend yokel, who are wrong (if we have decided to use that word): anyone with a gun who is up to no good (shooting traffic lights counts) is "too armed" for my tastes, and anyone who is illegally armed when they could reasonably have been legally armed is out of bounds, too. The situation and the person count.
IMO. And I appreciate your comment.
Hint: the "IMO" helps us not miscontrue your attitude toward others, and their reasonable opinions.
As my CCW does not allow me, for example, to march around the grocery (in my state) with a loaded, slung 12 gauge (which I would actually prefer for self-defense, though it's a bit heavy) without being jailed--rather rapidly jailed around here, I would think.
Tell you what: anyone who wants to try it here, and after being arrested, try out the 2A argument with the police and the sentencing judge--let me know how the appeal works out! I'll be rooting for you!
As for me, it's "appropriate" to stay out of jail, so "appropriately armed" should take that into consideration.
So it is you, friend yokel, who are wrong (if we have decided to use that word): anyone with a gun who is up to no good (shooting traffic lights counts) is "too armed" for my tastes, and anyone who is illegally armed when they could reasonably have been legally armed is out of bounds, too. The situation and the person count.
IMO. And I appreciate your comment.
Loosedhorse said:
A Reasoned analysis...
So you ascribe to the notion then that the government - that the constitution prohibits from infringing our right to keep and bear arms (that's what the 2nd says regardless of what all the slick willie, word twisting, nanny state supreme court justices might think and have ruled) - gets to turn a right into a priveledge by getting to choose who can bear arms and what arms they can bear?Loosedhorse said:
Is that what you believe - people have to get PERMISSION to exercise their RIGHT to go armed?
One definition of "heavily armed" is "armed with one or more heavy weapons". A "heavy weapon" or "heavy arm" is one that isn't a "light" or "small arm".
And from typical definitions of "small arms", that would imply that being armed with a "heavy" machinegun/mortar/rocket launcher, any other crew-served weapon, an arm so "heavy" a single person can't carry it, or an arm with a bore of 20mm or more would count as "heavily armed".
In keeping with the Foxworthy approach (good idea, Billll!):
You might be heavily armed if:
... instead of a carry permit, you need a trailer permit.
... your reloading press is a log splitter.
... your gun cleaning kit includes a garden hose.
... a "nice" range is one with an impact zone over international waters.
... the money you save on Pelican cases goes into winches and rigging.
... your shooting buddies have nicknames like "Loader" and "2nd Assistant Gunner".
... you use ammo crates instead of cans.
... the range rules include "shooters are responsible for towing away burned-out vehicles"
... recoil isn't an issue, but "sustained rate of fire" is.
... you use your wife as a "forward observer".
And from typical definitions of "small arms", that would imply that being armed with a "heavy" machinegun/mortar/rocket launcher, any other crew-served weapon, an arm so "heavy" a single person can't carry it, or an arm with a bore of 20mm or more would count as "heavily armed".
In keeping with the Foxworthy approach (good idea, Billll!):
You might be heavily armed if:
... instead of a carry permit, you need a trailer permit.
... your reloading press is a log splitter.
... your gun cleaning kit includes a garden hose.
... a "nice" range is one with an impact zone over international waters.
... the money you save on Pelican cases goes into winches and rigging.
... your shooting buddies have nicknames like "Loader" and "2nd Assistant Gunner".
... you use ammo crates instead of cans.
... the range rules include "shooters are responsible for towing away burned-out vehicles"
... recoil isn't an issue, but "sustained rate of fire" is.
... you use your wife as a "forward observer".
cpttango30
Member
Good lord I was thinking the same way. Most of the time I go to the range I take 2 centerfire rifles, my 1911, 2 22lr pistols, and 2 22lr rifles and at least 200 rounds for each with about 1000 for the 22lr. . What would some call that ready for the zombies to attack?
OP
OP
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
No dur!
As fulfilling as it is to make fun of people for stating the obvious, we should at least be aware that doing so properly can be (and is) an integral part of many noble endeavours.
But outside the realm of argument, stating the obvious is one of the most basic elements of small talk, which is almost always the first step towards having meaningful conversation with another human.
SamG.
Member
This is heavily armed http://www.warboats.org/images/jpg/GrayMay/pbl-full.jpg
woodybrighton
member
carrying five handguns and shooting at street lamps then tell the arresting officer
about his "secret " hopefully won't be armed again
he can have all the weapons he likes just nobody let him have any ammo
about his "secret " hopefully won't be armed again
he can have all the weapons he likes just nobody let him have any ammo
Seems to me that this Bozo didn't get arrested for "being armed" but rather for shooting out traffic lights.
Now, shooting out traffic lights is unlawful and forms prima facie "intent."
The arrest of Bozo for unlawful shooting out of traffic lights ADDITIONALY provides "probable cause" to search his person, vehicle, domicile, curtilage, etc. And, having been arrested for shooting out traffic lights and putatively forming the "intent" to shoot said lights, the scope of search encompasses items concomitant to the formation of said "intent."
And so the arrest is not about being armed. The arrest is about forming the intent to do unlawful acts, carrying out said acts, and gathering the related arms inherent in carrying out these unlawful acts.
I'll venture that RKBA never comes up in the court procedings -- neither from the prosecution nor from the defense.
Now, shooting out traffic lights is unlawful and forms prima facie "intent."
The arrest of Bozo for unlawful shooting out of traffic lights ADDITIONALY provides "probable cause" to search his person, vehicle, domicile, curtilage, etc. And, having been arrested for shooting out traffic lights and putatively forming the "intent" to shoot said lights, the scope of search encompasses items concomitant to the formation of said "intent."
And so the arrest is not about being armed. The arrest is about forming the intent to do unlawful acts, carrying out said acts, and gathering the related arms inherent in carrying out these unlawful acts.
I'll venture that RKBA never comes up in the court procedings -- neither from the prosecution nor from the defense.
Last edited:
OP
OP
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
I think that we can all agree that 'heavily armed' in this context amounts to nothing more than engineered media sensationalism and hyperole.
Catch phrases such as this are written for a dramatic effect, are usually blown way out of proportion, and usually only make people worry, fear, or cringe rather than inform.
And we, as a culture, love it.
Catch phrases such as this are written for a dramatic effect, are usually blown way out of proportion, and usually only make people worry, fear, or cringe rather than inform.
And we, as a culture, love it.
Fisherman_48768
Member
I don't consider myself heavily armed until I have to wear two pair of suspenders and wide gun belt to hold up the iron.
mikitsubizunizu
Member
One can wish...
Heavily Armed to me is this:
On the street or outdoors: Carrying two or more handguns which fire rounds of at least 9mm in diameter (Though I think 11.43x23mm is more fitting) that hold at least 10 rounds and a rifle of at least 8mm in diameter and/or shotgun of at least 18.53mm (Slug or dart) that each hold at least 5 rounds. Must carry at least 150 round for each handgun, 40 shotgun rounds, and 60 rifle rounds.
At home: Having access to at least 5 handguns, 2 or more must be a magnum revolvers, and the rest must be automatic. At least 2 large caliber rifles and 2 shotguns (Any shot type), one of those being semi automatic. Where applicable, small grenades and flamethrowers are also acceptable. Must have access to at least 500 rounds for each handgun, 450 for each rifle, and 200 rounds for each shotgun. If you have a flamethrower, 3 extra tanks of fuel and compressed air. At least 4 grenades in total if you have access to that hardware.
At a range (at least 10 lanes): Bringing enough handguns/rifles for everyone there to have two and 300 rounds for each without counting what they brought.
That's what I consider being the bare minimum for heavily armed being a civilian. Having one automatic weapon that fires a rifle round larger than 7.62mm in diameter puts you well ahead of that in my view.
Heavily Armed to me is this:
On the street or outdoors: Carrying two or more handguns which fire rounds of at least 9mm in diameter (Though I think 11.43x23mm is more fitting
) that hold at least 10 rounds and a rifle of at least 8mm in diameter and/or shotgun of at least 18.53mm (Slug or dart) that each hold at least 5 rounds. Must carry at least 150 round for each handgun, 40 shotgun rounds, and 60 rifle rounds.At home: Having access to at least 5 handguns, 2 or more must be a magnum revolvers, and the rest must be automatic. At least 2 large caliber rifles and 2 shotguns (Any shot type), one of those being semi automatic. Where applicable, small grenades and flamethrowers are also acceptable. Must have access to at least 500 rounds for each handgun, 450 for each rifle, and 200 rounds for each shotgun. If you have a flamethrower, 3 extra tanks of fuel and compressed air. At least 4 grenades in total if you have access to that hardware.
At a range (at least 10 lanes): Bringing enough handguns/rifles for everyone there to have two and 300 rounds for each without counting what they brought.
That's what I consider being the bare minimum for heavily armed being a civilian. Having one automatic weapon that fires a rifle round larger than 7.62mm in diameter puts you well ahead of that in my view.
doc2rn
Member
Wow I was hoping to see the M1A2 photo again on this one, but you all truly believe heavy weapons don't count.....interesting.
mikitsubizunizu wrote:
"Small" grenades? So the Dutch V.40's or maybe M84's fit the bill, but an M34 would be too big?
I'm gonna read that as 3 extra tank *assemblies* already fueled up and pressurized, as the M2 and M9 series have integral tank assemblies. Keeping pressurized flamethrowers inside a house would probably be more of a LIABILITY, since most building materials don't stop bullets. The sheer amount of heat generated from the stream, and the proclivity to drip flaming fuel makes them a poor choice to use from inside a residence anyhow. You'd probably be better off storing them in a shed, with the option to command-fire them like a fougasse.
FWIW the US switched to nitrogen for their flamethrower propellant early on; IIRC the Germans stuck with hydrogen which gave poor range. Anyhow, most civilians use nitrogen in their flamethrowers.
Actually, a backpack flamethrower *does* make you "heavily armed". If you'd ever worn one you'd know how badly they impair your mobility. I'd definitely classify them as crew-served, since it would be (even more?) suicidal to use one without support.
Molotovs are the more likely scenario, if you're in that much of a desperate situation. Again, houses don't provide much cover, and once an incoming bullet shatters your stash of Molotovs you're gonna have a problem...
BTW I once asked Randy Weaver in person why he testified that he felt the 20,000 or so rounds in his house weren't enough. He basically said he was just being antagonistic with his reply. Obviously it didn't take many incoming rounds from non-"heavy" weapons to ruin *his* day.
OOOXOOO wrote:
I believe that's called a "Technical".
"Small" grenades? So the Dutch V.40's or maybe M84's fit the bill, but an M34 would be too big?
I'm gonna read that as 3 extra tank *assemblies* already fueled up and pressurized, as the M2 and M9 series have integral tank assemblies. Keeping pressurized flamethrowers inside a house would probably be more of a LIABILITY, since most building materials don't stop bullets. The sheer amount of heat generated from the stream, and the proclivity to drip flaming fuel makes them a poor choice to use from inside a residence anyhow. You'd probably be better off storing them in a shed, with the option to command-fire them like a fougasse.
FWIW the US switched to nitrogen for their flamethrower propellant early on; IIRC the Germans stuck with hydrogen which gave poor range. Anyhow, most civilians use nitrogen in their flamethrowers.
Actually, a backpack flamethrower *does* make you "heavily armed". If you'd ever worn one you'd know how badly they impair your mobility. I'd definitely classify them as crew-served, since it would be (even more?) suicidal to use one without support.
Molotovs are the more likely scenario, if you're in that much of a desperate situation. Again, houses don't provide much cover, and once an incoming bullet shatters your stash of Molotovs you're gonna have a problem...
BTW I once asked Randy Weaver in person why he testified that he felt the 20,000 or so rounds in his house weren't enough. He basically said he was just being antagonistic with his reply. Obviously it didn't take many incoming rounds from non-"heavy" weapons to ruin *his* day.
OOOXOOO wrote:
I believe that's called a "Technical".
SCKimberFan
Member
Loosedhorse
member
Perhaps we need another thread, Werewolf--
Well, uh, yes. I ascribe to the idea that what you describe is what I call reality. I ascribe to the notion that my country's highest court just said I have a right to a firearm because of my right of self-defense, but that certain restrictions on that right may be legal. Kinda like my other rights.
I ascribe to the notion that if I don't like the laws, I can work to change them or protest them. And I ascribe to the idea that if there were NO reasonable avenue for a law-abiding person to arm himself to defend life and family, I might just have to break that law.
I have in fact, rather than go outlaw, availed myself of the opportunity to go LEGALLY armed by obtaining a license to do so, as required where I live.
I understand that there are those who feel I am wrong to do so. I would encourage any who feel that "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" (I mean licenses) to follow the example of Martin Luther King: flout the unjust law openly, and promote change with the ensuing sympathy generated as we follow you through the media, being unjustly prosecuted (or shot) by a tyrannical government.
Gosh--how'd we even get here? All I meant to say (back on topic for just the tiniest moment) is that the term "heavily armed" may actually have a meaning (i.e., not just hype and hyperbole), but that meaning would depend on context, specifically, who are we talking about, and what mission does he have.
That's all.
Well, uh, yes. I ascribe to the idea that what you describe is what I call reality. I ascribe to the notion that my country's highest court just said I have a right to a firearm because of my right of self-defense, but that certain restrictions on that right may be legal. Kinda like my other rights.
I ascribe to the notion that if I don't like the laws, I can work to change them or protest them. And I ascribe to the idea that if there were NO reasonable avenue for a law-abiding person to arm himself to defend life and family, I might just have to break that law.
I have in fact, rather than go outlaw, availed myself of the opportunity to go LEGALLY armed by obtaining a license to do so, as required where I live.
I understand that there are those who feel I am wrong to do so. I would encourage any who feel that "We don't need no stinkin' badges!" (I mean licenses) to follow the example of Martin Luther King: flout the unjust law openly, and promote change with the ensuing sympathy generated as we follow you through the media, being unjustly prosecuted (or shot) by a tyrannical government.
Gosh--how'd we even get here? All I meant to say (back on topic for just the tiniest moment) is that the term "heavily armed" may actually have a meaning (i.e., not just hype and hyperbole), but that meaning would depend on context, specifically, who are we talking about, and what mission does he have.
That's all.
wyocarp
Member
retgarr, that is the response of all. Appearently he needed something more because he got caught. If he was heavily armed, I'd hate to hear what they would say about me most of the time. I just recently had a friend tell me that what I'm prepared for isn't going to happen.
I'm heavily armed if I'm walking slightly leaning to the right because of the weight of the gun on my right hip.
I'm heavily armed if people think "she REALLY needs a better belt".
I'm heavily armed if I need to get a better suspension on my Honda because the current factory setup just won't quite carry the load.
Not as good as Fiftyguy's list, but in the spirit of trying to derail the derision going on......
Springmom
I'm heavily armed if people think "she REALLY needs a better belt".
I'm heavily armed if I need to get a better suspension on my Honda because the current factory setup just won't quite carry the load.
Not as good as Fiftyguy's list, but in the spirit of trying to derail the derision going on......
Springmom
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked