I can understand that. To me this rifle is purpose built for fun while being functional for home defense. With that, I want it to look fun and to poke fun at the liberal anti-gun crowd. I won't be parading this in public save for the range. I will not be carrying this on the job (though with some of the customers I deal with I wish I could). If anyone does have the stupidity to be facing this gun it will be in my home. And to be blunt my intentions will be clear, I'll shoot first and I will shoot to kill. So the dust cover is meant to be both fun and truth. Considering the very small chance I'll have to use my rifle in a home invasion I seriously doubt that I'm at risk for an offensive saying on my dust cover coming back to haunt me. I don't carry designer ammo in my EDC for the reasons stated above, just plain JHP in regular pressure to avoid any "He was looking to shoot someone" arguments. My home defense? Different story for a different situation.
As I said, I understand the arguments against having sayings like this and to an extent I agree with it. I'm just tired of being politically correct and want to express my sentiments in a way that has the least amount of risk of coming back at me.
Heck, it's your build have fun with it. I think you oughta take a sharpie and write "up yours" on every bullet. MURICA!
Oh I wasn't arguing, just stating my opinion. My wife doesn't let me have one at home so I come here with it.
Just remember if you are ever in a situation a lawyer will be crawling over ever post you make on here and the web also. Personally I think the No Step on Snek is probably one of my favorites I have seen. That and Spikes Snowflake. My son saw one of the Calico Jack Pirate ones in our LGS the other day and wants me to build one with it. Parley/Plunder/ARRRR
Many times I start to write things and then remember you can never take it back once its on the net. Its always best to never open yourself up to an unneeded situation and GOD forbid if you are in a bad situation. There is no need to pour gas on the fire. At the end of the day you are putting your fate in the hands of 12 people.
Many times I start to write things and then remember you can never take it back once its on the net. Its always best to never open yourself up to an unneeded situation and GOD forbid if you are in a bad situation. There is no need to pour gas on the fire. At the end of the day you are putting your fate in the hands of 12 people.
That’s why I’m amazed when I read people’s posts saying they plan to “shoot to kill.” That should never be anyone’s intent in a self-defense situation, not least of all because the law empowers an attacked person to “use lethal force,” but does not empower anyone to try to kill an attacker. I know there will be people who read this and think I’m just being pedantic, but no. There’s a very big difference legally, even if it doesn’t sound like there is practically.
The only reason I will ever use force, including lethal force, is to stop a threat that legally justifies the use of force. Lethal force may be the most effective way to do that, but causing death would never be my goal. All I care about is that the threat ends. I don’t ever want to kill someone.
EDIT: Clarification below.
Last edited:
How else would I shoot? To maim? To injure? How can I tell if the threat is stopped? Shall I ask "Hey, have you had enough or are you still going to be a threat to me and my family?"
Oh I’m not saying you should not use the most effective means to end a threat. Certainly, going out of your way to try to only injure an attacker is not an effective way to stop their attack. Defending yourself with a weapon in a way that’s likely to stop an attack unfortunately requires causing wounds that are likely to result in death. But death is not the goal. It’s just sometimes the outcome. When the threat stops, your use of force must also stop, even if (or especially if) the attacker is still breathing.*
In my last post I was referring to people who go around talking about “shooting to kill” in a way that really says “if someone attacks me, I’m going to make sure they pay for it with their life.” That’s what we call “murder.” We’ve all heard those guys talk. They’re more interested in being badass than understanding the concept (and limits) of legally justified use of force. But sometimes some of us who aren’t so ignorant and do actually have a good grasp of justified force will use the phrase “shoot to kill” as a sort of shorthand for shooting in such a way as to physically incapacitate an attacker, likely resulting in their death. The problem with that is when the general public, a DA, or possibly a jury, hear “shoot to kill,” they will hear “make sure he’s dead,” not “make sure he’s stopped.” They will hear “murder,” not “self-defense.” So it’s wise to choose your words carefully to avoid any misunderstanding about your intent. Perception is reality to many people, unfortunately.
I am certainly willing to cause injuries that may result in death when that’s necessary and legally justified to stop an attack, but like I said in my last post, I don’t ever want or intend to kill someone. All I would ever set out to do is stop an attack.
* I’m not suggesting a victim should check for signs of life after defending against an attack.
Similar threads
