In high school our school resource officer was an Iraq vet. He told us about the time when he was in Iraq helping to train the Iraq police. They kept stressing to the police to keep their fingers off the triggers unless they were going to shoot. Well they were driving down the road and one of the Iraq police officers had his finger on the trigger of his ak. They hit a bump the gun went off and hit a 10 year old kid in the ass lol. The kid was fine but the village people apparently demand repayment for it and then threatened the American troops.
haha my government is stripping me of my rights what so ever though are they . i pitty you if you live in fear of your own elected government
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1810, topic:21032”]
Who’s more important to you the royal family or your own? If London is so safe why do they get armed protection. But citizens are denied that right.
[/quote] because the queen is more of a target than me .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1810, topic:21032”]
And while your grappling with him he can easily knife you. We’ve been over this.
[/quote] you can easily be blown across your living room whats your point ?
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1810, topic:21032”]
Doubtful. Ive seen a fat brit with a pink shirt that said sex pistol on it yelling at my brother while he was fishing. He kept screaming get the fish why aren’t you getting the fish. He clearly had no concept of what fishing was. And if they see you hold a fish bag then swamp you demanding they borrow a fish to take a picture of.
Oh heres a good one. A brit saw some otters in a river and asked my fathers friend what kind of animal they were. My fathers friend said they were Utah river chickens and the brit believed him.
[/quote] US tourists are well known for being the thickest , most obnoxious and loud tourists on this planet 
thats why your country has the reputation it has
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1810, topic:21032”]
Ok whats wrong with that statement?
[/quote] if you cant see whats wrong with the statement you’re not worth my time .
use your brain and think about it and get back to me when you figue it out
Sure because elected governments have never done anything like that before.
So the queens safety is more important to you then your own families? If the people in power are demanding we give up our rights to own guns for protection i just ask that they practice what they preach and do the same.
I know my own house better than them. I would have the advantage because they would have to come through a door or window mean while i could keep my weapon aimed at the entry point. And since hollow points are allowed in America i wouldn’t really have to worry about it going through a wall or going through my attacker and hitting a bystander.
Fun fact our vice president told people to shoot through their doors if they thought there was an intruder on the other side. A guy followed the vice presidents advice and he’s now in prison for life.
Yeah the ones picking London as a vacation spot must be pretty thick 
Tell me whats wrong with it? Please? Other wise ill just take it as you don’t have a proper counter argument.
happens near enough everyday .
my personal favourite was an afgan soldier blind firing round a corner . at the time it wasnt funny as his rounds were all nearly hitting us .
i was behind a wall with my one of my blokes calling in Apache support and i hear this round wizz past and hit the wall about a metre from me . so we have hit the floor screaming "contact to the rear "
which is when i have seen this AK dangling round the corner of the door to a compound firing away rounds going fucking everywhere . when he went to reload i ran over and nearly shot the fucker myself , screaming at him as he looks at me with the face of
"what have i done "
now its funny to think about but at the time he could of done some serious damage
And to think we left those kind of people running the place.
not here they have not , im free to do and say what i please , where and when i please .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1814, topic:21032”]
So the queens safety is more important to you then your own families? If the people in power are demanding we give up our rights to own guns for protection i just ask that they practice what they preach and do the same.
[/quote] no , what im saying is i dont have people all over the globe that would love to kill me … she does
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1814, topic:21032”]
I know my own house better than them. I would have the advantage because they would have to come through a door or window mean while i could keep my weapon aimed at the entry point.
Fun fact our vice president told people to shoot through their doors if they thought there was an intruder on the other side. A guy followed the vice presidents advice and he’s now in prison for life.
[/quote] what happens if your gun jams and he shoots first . dead meat .
i also no my house better than the knife man meaning i can ambush him quite easily with a blunt object and deal with the threat .
truth is we both have the same chance of failure as we would both be fighting
someone who has an equal footing in weapons but a disadvantage in environment
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1814, topic:21032”]
Yeah the ones picking London as a vacation spot must be pretty thick
[/quote] not going to argue with you there
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1814, topic:21032”]
Tell me whats wrong with it? Please? Other wise ill just take it as you don’t have a proper counter argument.
[/quote] so you’re telling me you cant see nothing wrong with two groups of people facing eacother firing forward at an enemy in the middle ?
If you take care of your gun and buy and its not shit quality it shouldn’t be jamming you. He would have to go through my door with me already ready.
And what if you missed or he grabbed your weapon or it didn’t hurt him enough? If i put a hollow point round through someone they’re going down and not getting back up again.
They would be on higher ground firing down into onto the road where the troops would be at. So they wouldn’t run the risk of shooting each other. I already thought of that. Most ambushes in the American civil war, French and Indian war, Revolutionary war, ect happend with two groups firing at one group on a road in the middle of them. These ambushes were often quite successful. It would also give the group being ambushed next to no cover from either side. They’re on both sides of them and above them. Like fish in a barrel. And i would like to state again im not claiming this is something i could pull off. I don’t shoot often enough to asses my own shooting ability. The last time i shot was august and it was mainly pistols.
Well sorry i consider my family more important to me than president. Presidents and queens can be replaced your family members cannot. If i’m going to be disarmed i want my leaders disarmed as well. And why would someone want to kill the Queen? What important role does she have in your country besides being worshiped by idiots?
Don’t you live in London?
I thought they were bringing it back?
true most of the time , but guns jam .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1819, topic:21032”]
And what if you missed or he grabbed your weapon or it didn’t hurt him enough? If i put a hollow point round through someone they’re going down and not getting back up again.
[/quote] what if you miss and he shoots you ?
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1819, topic:21032”]
They would be on higher ground firing down into onto the road where the troops would be at. So they wouldn’t run the risk of shooting each other. I already thought of that. Most ambushes in the American civil war, French and Indian war, Revolutionary war, ect happend with two groups firing at one group on a road in the middle of them. These ambushes were often quite successful. It would also give the group being ambushed next to no cover from either side. They’re on both sides of them and above them. Like fish in a barrel. And i would like to state again im not claiming this is something i could pull off. I don’t shoot often enough to asses my own shooting ability. The last time i shot was august and it was mainly pistols.
[/quote] be the shittiest ambush known to man . an ambush is typically done with 3 groups .
1 group allows the target to pass
2nd group engages target
3rd group engages any targets that attempt to get past going forward
1st group engages targets that attempt to turn back
in the middle of the three groups is the kill zone , all 3 groups remain on the same side of the target.
once the target is successfully engages all 3 units advance and clear the area
can you imagine the propaganda value of the queen being killed by say ISIS ?
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1819, topic:21032”]
Don’t you live in London?
[/quote]Yes which is why i wouldnt argue
in them times all the soldiers walked in a tight group , now days that doesnt happen modern units walk staggered with large spacing between each soldier
Well everyone this is the 1776th comment of our glorious thread. It is also the year that gave birth to the greatest nation in existence. I would like to thank the British like @TheDivineInfidel for failing to beat farmers in a fight. Our great nation today exists because of our great skill in battle and your incompetence.
God bless America!
had stoppages quite often , pretty easy to sort but they happened .
your weapon sits in a case rarely used , how can you be sure it will fire every time ? you cant
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1824, topic:21032”]
Well then i assume i would either wounded or dead. How ever i would still have a chance to bring him down even if i’m shot. Again i have almost every advantage in this situation.
[/quote] he has the same advantage when he goes down .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1824, topic:21032”]
Then what happens when they simply run away because theres only one side guarded. Historically there have been plenty of ambushes like im saying and they worked
[/quote] look ive explained to you how a modern ambush is carried out by every single military force on the planet , if they run then you follow with caution to avoid being caught in a snap ambush .
you tactic is stupid . dangerous and not used by any force on the planet
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:1824, topic:21032”]
But it was an insult to London… So you’re agreeing with my insult…
[/quote] you dont get English humour do you haha . we do nothing better than taking the piss out of ourselves
FUCK YOUR FREEDOM
never engage from high ground , much easier to spot and harder to shoot down . generally you want a level suface or one where you are slightly lower than the road
as for the mines and traps they are generally left out but yes if you had a while to set it up you could set some up but 9/10 we dont bother
I suppose you have a point there. How ever when i get a pistol i plan to use it often.
Not if i’m behind cover or get lethal hit right off the bat. And if he face armed resistance as soon as he went into a house theres a good chance he might just bail and try to run before the cops get there.
Why is it dangerous?
I don’t mean straight down. In my mind they would be on a a hill only around 20 feet tall and around 50-100 meters from the road. And the woods would offer the ambushers good concealment. Im basing this off of terrain that i see often in the mountains near where i live.
possibility of hitting your own blokes . someone hiding on a hill is easy to spot even in tree etc .
you want to be level or slightly lower so you’re not in their field on view as they walk