Do you carry your Handgun chambered? Why, Why not?

[DOM]

This topic is going to be too hot.

[tirpassion]

This topic is going to be too hot.

Hello DOM,
Please share your viewpoints also in the context of your environment. We would surely like to know about more.

best regards
tirpassion

[DOM]

This topic is going to be too hot.

Hello DOM,
Please share your viewpoints also in the context of your environment. We would surely like to know about more.

best regards
tirpassion

as stated earlier always carry chambered.
ive seen most people carry a non chambered weapon.
Whats the point. They are only carrying a few useless kgs. The response time should be minimum.
How does one plan to reach for a weapon..............get a good grip at it......... pull it out.......... and then CHAMBER it . And all this when you have a .30s sleek barell ( HERE IN PAKISTAN 90 % BAD GUYS USED TT) pointed at you.

This all is alot when all you can hear is your heart pumping and feel your hands shaking.
Simple things can be complicating in such a situation.

By the time a person even gets his gun, the gunner pointing at you can get alarmed and they are not planning to do nothing i assure you. An entire 7 round mag can be emptied while one plans to chamber his weapon.

Be mentally prepared, thats the key ( in my opinion)

MAY BE I AM WRONG BUT 70 % PEOPLE IN PAKISTAN LOVE TO CARRY CHAMBERED PISTOLS


Let me share you my personal experience. At sharah e faisal, entering to Tipu Sultan sultan road, from dunkin donuts, i was talking on my cell phone, with half of the window down, my sixth sense alarmed that a bike (with two persons) has started following me, since i was talking on phone so didn't bother, when i tried to take left turn (towards KMCHS), they hit on right front fender, when car was dead slow, I stopped the car (that was my mistake), and asked them whether everything was alright, (while i was still in the car), the guy sitting on the back of bike suddenly grabbed my shirt and asked for the mobile / valet, the other person had the cHINESE 636 (with hammer up). I said okay okay wait wait, day raha hoon, day raha hoon and i started looking for my mobile which i placed on dashboard near cig. lighter of car. While i was picking my phone, looking at their face, both of them had an eye contact with each other, that was the time i pulled out my gun. The guy sitting on back shouted, bhaag iss kay paas TT hai. They ran away, i rushed from there keeping gun in my hand afterwards i put that on front seat, reached home, then i observed that there was a bullet in a chamber.

i beleive Never pull out your weapon, unless you and your family are in a safe position. Just a display of gun will force the other to fire at you.

[tirpassion]

Thnaks for your detailed reply DOM. I really appreciate.

best regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

You are too intelligent and knowledgeable not to understand the pun in my statements.

Neither your language was punny nor any emoticon was used. How can one understand?

I will obviously defend myself even with my teeth and claws.

Sure you can use your "teeth and claws" for your self defense. Please note that nobody is compelling you to use "teeth and claws" only. It is your freedom and liberty to choose your mode and manner of self defense. Similarly it is nobodies business to compel me to use "teeth and claws" only. It is my freedom and liberty to choose the mode and manner I would use for my self defense. I would use the best possible tools for self defense i.e. the gun. If tomorrow it is ray gun, I will use ray gun. Even High Courts of my country are supporting my choice(may read this judgment http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 64#p147708). There is no reason why I should give up my choice.

In broader terms look beyond, are you really free? Do not you have any invisible shackles around you?

Discussion is not about if there exist shackles or no shackles, the discussion is about if these shackles are right or not. If you note my earlier reply at http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 30#p161755 you will find that I have already said that this is the slippery slope. Molestation is done under the garb of frisking. Therefore the need to be extra vigilant. In other words the price of freedom and liberty is eternal vigilance. The moment this eternal vigilance stops, the downward slide begins, it is then extremely difficult to stop it. Also it may not be instantly visible to the people at that very moment, but surely becomes visible to the coming generations. If you read this "Politics of Obedience" http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf you will get an idea how tyranny begins with the co-operation of people obtained usually under some excuse.

Please do not give any hasty reply.

I am not giving any hasty replies. On the contrary your replies appear to be hasty instead since they have been edited repeadetly as an after thought

Over 1100 Jews bought by Oskar Schindler chose the slavery. Some of them who are still alive and their descendants still thank Schindler and will continue to do so.

Only 1100 Jews, going by your example, we can forget the millions that went to gas chambers merely because it is morally pleasing to your personal convictions that even though they had the right of self defense in theory but did not have any means to implement that right in practice? Also merely because it is morally pleasing to your personal convictions, we can forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully equipped German divisions (about 8,000 men supported with tanks and armored vehicles) for nearly two months. But regardless of your personal convictions, the fact remains that there is a difference that arms can make to the basic freedom and liberty of people.

Probably you are not aware that the same Hitler was able to quickly overrun most of the Europe where the citizens were already disarmed by their governments and same Hitler refrained from invading Switzerland where almost every citizen was armed. Let us not continue arguing about "restrictions" on freedom and liberty done for so called "safety" of people as history of civilization is witness to the fact that disarming people under any color or pretext is always done to safeguard those who are enemies of freedom and liberty.

There is no difference between a criminal putting a knife to your neck to control your freedom and liberty from a government legislating to disarm you to control your freedom and liberty. In both cases you are a victim who is being controlled. In the first case under threat of knife and in the second case under threat of prison sentence. In both cases you have not violated any right of anybody else.

‘‘The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. ... and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.’’— Saint George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court 1803

"Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle

Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Akbar, Shaista Khan, Aurangzeb, Shivaji, trader of liberty etc are all there.

They were not "traders" but fighters for their own freedom and liberty. Among those who failed, they lost their freedom and liberty. Among those who succeeded, they they protected their freedom and liberty. This fight is always going on all through the ages everywhere. Tyrants(it can be monarchs, dictators, corrupt governments of any type including "democratic") always try their best to take away the freedom and liberty either by sudden force or by slowly and steadily fooling the people over a long time. If you read the essay of Boetie in the link given above you will get an idea.

You talked about rationality (constitution, IPC, rights, acts, stopping enemy should, must etc. etc. ) but came back to the ideology also with Rousseau. So you are also talking of an emulsion. So where are we different?

Please not the context in which it was quoted i.e comparision of monkey in the zoo(slavery) and monkey in the forest(freedom). Everyone is free to make his choice, Rousseau made his choice, he preffered to be a monkey in the forest rather than monkey in the zoo.

The bridge I talked about earlier is the bond created by the stabilizer.

It surely does not mean that until this bond is created, people do not have any right to freedom and liberty. Conversely if freedom and liberty is taken away, surely it is not going to build bridges either. This is exactly why the freedom and liberty has been guaranteed equally for all under the Constitution.

you quoted the same without the 'For you' part

Both with and without "For you" does not change the message that you are trying to give. In both the cases, message I am understanding is you are happy giving up(trading) your freedom and fundamental right. And my reply to it was to this only, that these sacred freedoms and rights ought not be up for negotiations or trade.

I do not see where an apocalyptic violation was made to my fundamental rights as a whole.

You will not be able to see just as most people are not able to see. I tried to illustrate it with a small example of monkey in the zoo. If you are able to understand its message correctly, you will surely be able to see. A monkey who has been deprived of his basic freedom and liberty and put into cage recently will be able to "see it" the most. His children who are born in the cage of the zoo will not be able to "see it". Neither those children who are transferred from one cage to another will be able to "see it". I hope you are able to understand the point I am trying to convey. Also if you note one of my reply above in this post, I have mentioned that it may not be instantly visible to the people at that very moment, but surely becomes visible to the coming generations. The process is very slow but steady towards downward decline.

If you are defending freedom and fundamental rights as a whole (that is what I understood), right to self defense with the equipment of your choice which you are vouching for, is not the only right to defend.

You have understood correct that I am defending defending freedom and fundamental rights as a whole and not in isolation. Arms ensure the very basic freedom, liberty. I would again request you to refer to that story about the monkey in the zoo, he lacks the basic freedom and liberty but his "other" fundamental rights are taken care of, subject to the pleasure of zookeeper. Any day zookeeper can decide to take away whatever is remaining of life or liberty of the monkey at pleasure. Monkey can do nothing except screaming(freedom of speech). Remember freedom of speech(or any other fundamental right for this matter) loose their force if you are unarmed(basic freedom and liberty gone, like that of a prisoner). In other words when State has more power than the people, the people can forget about asserting their rights like citizens and learn to be at mercy of the State like slaves. Is this what you are supporting? It needs to be understood that if the intentions of zookeeper are really pios and noble, then he would not be putting the monkey in the cage in very first place. Same test applies to the intentions of any government anywhere.

"Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Sallust, Roman historian, c. 40 B.C.

‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’ — U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

There are more fundamental rights which are violated (as you have cited earlier) since long and they need immediate attention. Right to property has been removed from the fundamental rights very carefully.

Is the following any different from what you are saying or what has happened ?

"The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it." -- James A. Donald

Right to work and right to health will also help our population immensely.

Right to work or right to health flow from right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In other words a person may chose to enjoy this right to life and liberty or not, nobody can compel him. At the same time he cannot sue the government for not defending him, for not spoon feeding and baby sitting him etc. He is free to defend or not defend himself, free to work or not work, free to take care of his health or not take care of his health, he is free to save money or blow it away, he is free to create as many babies he wants and increase the population from (300 million to 1.2 billion in short span of 60 years, example of our country) or could have planned them according to his financial means and kept his and his future generation's situation under manageable level and control. In this same country there are people who have manged themselves well financially and others who have not. Now tell me where is the problem? Who decided to give up the control about his own life and liberty in first place?

[tirpassion]

Dear Goodboy mentor,

I edit surely my English and try to make the sentences as dignified as possible to meet your standards for example but never my viewpoints. You will find editings in my posts quite often sometimes immediately sometimes a bit later. Sorry, I am losing touch with the language. I will not take that as a personal attack but somewhere it is not very... there I am blocked with English. Quelquepart, ce n'est pas très sain, if you want in French. But, very strangely, I anticipated that, the day I added a point a couple of hours after writing the post.

Somewhere, I said that i believe in you. You might not do so in my case, it is your choice.

Finally, you have understood that I understand you and I DO SO SINCE longtime and I have also written it down many a times. I would like you to accept that opinions vary and if you think you are right please do not think that the other is wrong. As I have understood from your posts I am in the role of Trader of liberty and you the liberator. Yes, if you think so. I am paranoid and you are pragmatic. Yes, if you think so. I accept and assume my role. I will not make any judgements on you because I do not know you. Where is the problem in it? (I have borrowed this question from your posts )

As, I said, i would not like to elaborate more on the subject because we will go nowhere. A debate has to be ended cordially somewhere. I am taking the initiative. Neither of us will be wrong. Nobody will be a winner or a loser.

Trying to have the last word or last laugh if a sign of arrogance - tirpassion
How about this quotation?
You can also leave me this last post to prove me arrogant.

Let me tell you something. I do not intend to hurt. I always appreciate a hi and a hello in the beginning and a kind note in the end. Since when writing one is not in front of the other, the courtesy part passes through some courteous letters. Emoticons also help a lot to understand the mood of the writer. I missed one. I really goofed up. Since you are in the position of the moderator, it is even more important. This is just my opinion.

best regards
tirpassion

[coolaman]

carrying a empty chamber handgun...is similar carrying a stick...when u need it u need it.

[goodboy_mentor]

I really goofed up. Since you are in the position of the moderator, it is even more important. This is just my opinion.

Please, please, I am very sorry if any of my unintentional words or expressions hurt your feelings somewhere. Nowhere I had such intention If you can point out anything that you feel that I should not have written, please let me know I will edit it off immediately. It appears for some reason you came under a wrong impression somewhere, I am not a moderator nor do I believe in suppressing any free debate and discussing at all. It is just that I love debate and discussion for the sake of it, nothing more.

[winnie_the_pooh]

goodboy,

I would love to know how you carry your handgun.

[tirpassion]

i beleive Never pull out your weapon, unless you and your family are in a safe position. Just a display of gun will force the other to fire at you.

Hello DOM,
I really appreciate your wisdom again. You imagine the situation that the aggressor is also armed with a gun, hence in equal terms.

I will also be interested to know, if you do not mind to explain, why you did not shoot the 2 persons dead in spite of feeling an imminent danger to your life. Does the Penal Code of Pakistan allow it as in the Indian Penal Code?
If yes, by doing so, you could have made sure that those two criminals would never attack anyone again.

best regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

I would love to know how you carry your handgun.

Please read this http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 45#p161894

[winnie_the_pooh]

I carry my 'IOF junk' un-chambered. However I also spend some time ( when I am free and alone) practicing drawing the pistol,chambering a round and aiming it while standing in front of the mirror.Takes a fraction of a second to do that.Another benefit is that you soon realize where to place your holster on the belt. IF I have to pull out my pistol,I will be firing it the moment I have cocked it.

I have removed the magazine safety and intend to remove the manual safety and pin the grip safety.

[winnie_the_pooh]

Please read this viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16984&start=45#p161894

That still does not answer my question,"How do you carry your handgun?"

[tirpassion]

Thanks Goodboy mentor,

I appreciate. In fact, I felt a dry, indifferent and 'don't care' type of tone in the beginning. Thanks for clarification.

best regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

Please read this viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16984&start=45#p161894

That still does not answer my question,"How do you carry your handgun?"

I see what you mean. It is always safest to carry your handgun in your holster. Anyways why are you asking this question? Going by your posts, you do not seem to be someone who is unfamilier with firearms. If you mean the question of this thread "Do you carry your Handgun chambered? Why, Why not?" then it needs no further explanation as the crux of the question is already very well answered in this post http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 45#p161894