# What I Carry



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

My POU on what I carry:
The 9mm handgun in its full size configuration has very high capacity before a reload. In my case living in a region where a coat or jacket is wearable up to 9 months a year allows me to conceal a 92a1 with 20 round mec-gar mags or my P226 TACOPS. For my own reasons there are times when I want high capacity.
The 357 mag revolver. Mine are all ruger. When I want raw power. GP100 4 inch. An SP101 3 inch when I want a smaller package. An LCR for pocket and BUG.
The 45 cal. When I carry a smaller gun. Ultra Carry II. Smaller gun with a lot of punch even though lower capacity. If I'm going to carry smaller its a .45 or .357
At home, the beretta or the sig wears a light and is always at hand
In the car, My SP101 and LCR are available in a chest rig that I modified. A revolver because if SHTF I don't like hot brass bouncing in my face, of the windshield etc
This is what I carry and a little about why. Why because I live in Minnesotastan. Bill Clinton brought the middle east to my front door. ISIL recruits arrested every month.

The 9mm serves me best in a high capacity role. The marketing gurus that have continually shrunk the 9mm handguns are brilliant. But for my purpose in 9mm I stick with full size high capacity(17+1 or 20+1)
When I need deeper concealment I go to a physically smaller gun (so capacity is decreased). When I choose a smaller gun I prefer 45ACP single stack 1911's. For example a 7+1 capacity Ultra Carry versus a single stack (7+1) 9mm. To take that further, at 5 or 6 rounds in the gun I am very comfortable with my trusted .357 revolvers


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

bg18566 said:


> My POU on what I carry:
> The 9mm handgun in its full size configuration has very high capacity before a reload. In my case living in a region where a coat or jacket is wearable up to 9 months a year allows me to conceal a 92a1 with 20 round mec-gar mags or my P226 TACOPS. For my own reasons there are times when I want high capacity.
> The 357 mag revolver. Mine are all ruger. When I want raw power. GP100 4 inch. An SP101 3 inch when I want a smaller package. An LCR for pocket and BUG.
> The 45 cal. When I carry a smaller gun. Ultra Carry II. Smaller gun with a lot of punch even though lower capacity. If I'm going to carry smaller its a .45 or .357
> ...


Where's the little about why part?


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

You define the term *HEAVILY ARMED*


----------



## Donn (Jul 26, 2013)

Let me preface my comments assuring you I mean no disrespect. If this is what you figure you need to roll,,,, by all means do your thing. My question, have you ever had to draw and discharge your weapon in an SD situation? No what if's, no just in case, real life. My guess is, like most of us, never. Consider this. Should that day come, and you need to employ lethal force, a prosecutor or defense attorney trying to make his/her bones could take one look at your ordinance and portray you as some kind of a cowboy, looking to shoot someone any time you leave the house. 
Just sayin.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I read his post as his choices based upon weather conditions or other factors, not that he carries all of these arms when leaving his home. Perhaps he'll step in and verify this.

I suspect most of us carry only one sidearm when out and about. I'm also sure that some carry two, with one being a BUG. I also imagine most of use probably do not carry an extra mag or two, though again I'm sure some do. It all comes down to perception... what you believe to be both proper and best for your specific circumstances.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

For me is a EDC gun only one part of defense. The passive defense is as important than a active.
Situation awareness. Knowing what is going on around you and where the people are etc. Just watch people going in and out of WalMart on their parking lot than you know what I mean. The most of them don't even know where they are not even talking what going on around them. They would run with open eyes in a knife, if there is one and no one takes it away. 
I saw last week a MalMart buggy rolling behind a lady on Wallis parking lot. The buggy made a terrible noise even I could hear it ratteling down the parking lot and it draw my attention for the next drive lane. I was watching the baggy hit the lady from behind even when a other lady on that parking lane shout out to her she should be ware of the baggy behind. Now think that would be someone that snitching her purse. She would be hit out of the blue, but if she would know what she is doing, where she actually is and what going on right this moment around her, the buggy would never have hit her. 
The same is with a perpetrator. They look foir people like that lady. Thy never attack someone that looks like is aware of his/her surroundings.

Coming down to a EDC gun, I carry in the summer single stacks or a small 32 revolver. Where I live is it not even to dream to wear a full sized gun. I wear concealed for many reasons and even if TX goes back to constitutional carry I still carry concealed for many reasons.

I'll think, based on experiences in war zones with civilian unrest, that 8-10 rounds are enough for shooting. A perpetrator attacks you because s/he thinks you are a easy target. They want your wallet or your car and they don't want to much attention drawn, not for a longer time. They like to threat you get your car keys and run off with the vehicle or the wallet or what they desire. That's the plan, the bad news is only that some of them want to shoot you for some reason too.

If you are able to fight back, shoot or have a different possibility to fight back, has 2 outcomes in an attack. First the people around you becoming aware something goes on. Perpetrators don't like this attention and 200 witlessness. And they fear that it draws attention to people that carry a weapon ad or a civilian police nearby that they didn't recognize before. In England where weapons are illegal, man woman carried a whistle and many perpetrators on parking lot in fact were running off. Not anymore since the British Government protects criminals if they belong to a African race or are Muslims. But it shows that a noise alone could make a difference. A noise with the threat for a attacker to get harmed even death even more.

If 8 rounds and a 8 round reload carefully and selective shot at a attacker didn't help, than help you god. Just saying. 

Home invasion, burglary is a different sorry and much more dangerous because the burglar know where s/he go and expect fight backs.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

'Sounds' like a decent selection. I also assume that you either carry one of these, according to your mood, or that you live in the midst of a civil war.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

If you watch the news, how many terrorists have been arrested in the US this year? All but a few live 2 miles from me, Minneapolis/St Paul in Minasotastan


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

bg18566 said:


> If you watch the news, how many terrorists have been arrested in the US this year? All but a few live 2 miles from me, Minneapolis/St Paul in Minasotastan


Well.........given your location I might also be inclined to bring along more than just "fundamental" armament. Stay safe.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

Sorry. Forgot to finish the post. Check the last line.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

I carry 2 of my weapons at all times. And reloads. Some what based on weather as in the dead of Minnesotastan winter.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Depending also where you live.
In the area that I live in, rural not so much strangers around, even in WaliMart or Hardware Store mostly the same faces, a single stack is plenty. Why? Well a lot in my area carrying and that summarizes to a good amount of bullets.  
Going to town a 12 round clip in the gun, one on the belt should keep the air clear.

Well - if you live in Kosovo, or in the US in a area where political correct protected criminals housing, well - that is a different story.. but than is it better and healthier to move anyway.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

No I am not a cowboy. You would never pick me out of a crowd. I certainly avoid trouble and will go out of my way to avoid a fight. After I retired from the military I would have never dreamed these people would be brought here. (see edited post). As a civilian I have never even had to draw my weapon. In my prior career I can assure you I know how to end the fight and hence my choice of weapons.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> bg18566
> After I retired from the military I would have never dreamed these people would be brought here.


I had the same shock. But the liberals think that is cool and just. They think if you are too lazy to go to Syria, lets bring Syria to us.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> I had the same shock. But the liberals think that is cool and just. They think if you are too lazy to go to Syria, lets bring Syria to us.


Do TRY to make sense, PT111. 

If you want less immigrants, that's fine- let us ALL go back to the countries of our ancestors and leave the original inhabitants of these parts in peace. This country was founded by rejects from their home countries. Let's not be shy about that. Now that you've "got yours" you want to stop others? Niiiice.....


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

SailDesign said:


> Do TRY to make sense, PT111.
> 
> If you want less immigrants, that's fine- let us ALL go back to the countries of our ancestors and leave the original inhabitants of these parts in peace. This country was founded by rejects from their home countries. Let's not be shy about that. Now that you've "got yours" you want to stop others? Niiiice.....


I have no problem with good people coming here. These new political refugees are not "immigrants" . Our government saw fit to relocate them here by the tens of thousands. There are good people among them. However there is a large majority that have no intention of assimilating into our society. The have already tried to impose sharia law in parts of the twin cities. When they were relocated here we did nothing to improve their circumstances. Poverty and no education breed terrorism. Thats the new reality in my backyard.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> SaiDesign
> Do TRY to make sense, PT111.
> If you want less immigrants, that's fine- let us ALL go back to the countries of our ancestors and leave the original inhabitants of these parts in peace. This country was founded by rejects from their home countries. Let's not be shy about that. Now that you've "got yours" you want to stop others? Niiiice.....


Me as an immigrant myself want more controlled immigration not more immigration with less control or no controll at all. That is the difference and not your liberal brabelbrabel and finger-pointing if you don't like the topic "Now that you've "got yours" you want to stop others? Niiiice".

Is it that liberals hate People like me that have worket for their privledge to live here while liberals like to support slavery of the undocumented? Is it slavery that makes liberals like undocumented immigration? Yes sir slavery, because what happen with that so called undocumented Latinos? They end up in US sweat shops and work for 2-3 Dollars an hour.

I am for controlled immigration and a immigrant status that stops slavery. That is the difference between liberals and conservatives in reality. Served in the US military for almost 20 years, but a non US citizens, I had a hard time to live in the US. No liberal will support me that for sure. I needed 1 year for a green card and 14 months for a work permit. That's the legal way. 
Undocumented Latinos are welcomed by liberals and opened the doors for all kind of social aid and don't tell me it is not so. If I know something about the US than is it immigration, because my whereabout depend on it. Is it because of slavery and cheap labor that liberals like to support? The behavior and the liberal fighting for illegal immigration could lead to such a assumption. We non Latinos and non Muslim immigrants get fast shot up when it comes to a immigration discussion, because liberals don't like what we have to say about it.

The problems with "legal" means in Liberals words documented (lawful) immigrants is: First they are not black, and are educated, than they have proven no criminal record and they are not authentic Muslim (liberals call them not authentic, they call them fundamental or extreme because they ignore the facts about Islam and live in a daydream but any given soldier that comes back knows what I am talking about). Do U have a single glow what that means? No? I bet you don't know. I bet you don't even want to know it makes your daydream TV view go away.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

goldwing said:


> Where's the little about why part?


I forgot to finish the thought at the end of the post. Now edited to include the why


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

Donn said:


> Let me preface my comments assuring you I mean no disrespect. If this is what you figure you need to roll,,,, by all means do your thing. My question, have you ever had to draw and discharge your weapon in an SD situation? No what if's, no just in case, real life. My guess is, like most of us, never. Consider this. Should that day come, and you need to employ lethal force, a prosecutor or defense attorney trying to make his/her bones could take one look at your ordinance and portray you as some kind of a cowboy, looking to shoot someone any time you leave the house.
> Just sayin.


No I am not a cowboy. You would never pick me out of a crowd. I certainly avoid trouble and will go out of my way to avoid a fight. After I retired from the military I would have never dreamed these people would be brought here. (see edited post). As a civilian I have never even had to draw my weapon. In my prior career I can assure you I know how to end the fight and hence my choice of weapons.


----------



## bg18566 (Apr 24, 2015)

bg18566 said:


> No I am not a cowboy. You would never pick me out of a crowd. I certainly avoid trouble and will go out of my way to avoid a fight. After I retired from the military I would have never dreamed these people would be brought here. (see edited post). As a civilian I have never even had to draw my weapon. In my prior career I can assure you I know how to end the fight and hence my choice of weapons.


For further clarification: In my younger days I was a Boy Scout, in fact I was an Eagle Scout. What did that teach me "Be Prepared".
As a young adult I enlisted in the military. After serving 5 enlistments I retired. I served all over the world.
 The biggest lesson I learned in decades of service was "Be Prepared".


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Do TRY to make sense, PT111.
> 
> If you want less immigrants, that's fine- let us ALL go back to the countries of our ancestors and leave the original inhabitants of these parts in peace. This country was founded by rejects from their home countries. Let's not be shy about that. Now that you've "got yours" you want to stop others? Niiiice.....


The original inhabitants were four-legged and winged critters. The bipeds migrated from Asia.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

bg18566 said:


> I have no problem with good people coming here. These new political refugees are not "immigrants" . Our government saw fit to relocate them here by the tens of thousands. There are good people among them. However there is a large majority that have no intention of assimilating into our society. The have already tried to impose sharia law in parts of the twin cities. When they were relocated here we did nothing to improve their circumstances. Poverty and no education breed terrorism. Thats the new reality in my backyard.


Sounds as though you and I have a lot in common with the current suite of social and political problems infesting our nation... from both within and without.


----------



## Spike12 (Dec 10, 2008)

IN keeping with the original post's question???

I carry a S&W Series E commander size 1911. I don't always carry it under cover of a coat or shirt. In this small town, most places I go know me (I avoid corporate chain stores), know I carry and enjoy my company and business. I've had discussions with my bank about those stupid little 'No Gun/knives' stickers like the hospitals have and they agreed that it was a poor idea to have them. Basically, unless it's someplace stupid enough to have one of those stickers I'll just wear an over shirt. But the places like the restaurant, hardware store, etc that know me, I'll open carry. I've never had anybody get excited or comment directly to me.

I have had people (today in Wendy's it happened again) comment that were very happy to see somebody carrying. 

Why? 1) I'm too old to run 2) I'm a vet and my oath hasn't run out 3) As a man of this society I feel I have an obligation.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

The main differences liberals and conservatives have on immigration questions are that liberals want to let in anybody that will eventually become Democrats, whereas conservatives want to let in those who will assimilate into American society and become tax-payers. It is foolish to import the world's poor, unless they are capable of contributing to the economy and willing to accept and obey our laws, but it is insane to import radicals who wish to change the country into what they fled from in the first place.


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

bisley said:


> the main differences liberals and conservatives have on immigration questions are that liberals want to let in anybody that will eventually become democrats, whereas conservatives want to let in those who will assimilate into american society and become tax-payers. It is foolish to import the world's poor, unless they are capable of contributing to the economy and willing to accept and obey our laws, but it is insane to import radicals who wish to change the country into what they fled from in the first place.


well said!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

bisley said:


> the main differences liberals and conservatives have on immigration questions are that liberals want to let in anybody that will eventually become democrats, whereas conservatives want to let in those who will *become republicans*. It is foolish to import the world's poor, unless they are capable of contributing to the economy and willing to accept and obey our laws, but it is insane to import radicals who wish to change the country into what they fled from in the first place.


fify.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I think you just said (by editing my post) that anyone who immigrates and becomes a contributing citizen will likely become a Republican. I think I agree with that, in general terms.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> I think you just said (by editing my post) that anyone who immigrates and becomes a contributing citizen will likely become a Republican. I think I agree with that, in general terms.


Well, in truth, I intended to imply that Republicans were fine with immigrants as long as they'd vote Republican. The main thing was that Reps are not against ALL immigration, just that comprised of people THEY don't want.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

What I don'tr understand on Latino immigrants is, that they flee, escape under life threatening condition a system and a political society and have noting faster to do to make sure the US becomes the same.
But we had that in Germany too. The wall broke down and they came over. They immediately voted for the communists, actually for a system that they had just overcome.
They wanted the money, the Deutsch Mark but not to work for it.

It is really interesting to watch. They always believe "This time, this time it will work" and it's end since 4000 years the same.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Well, in truth, I intended to imply that Republicans were fine with immigrants as long as they'd vote Republican. The main thing was that Reps are not against ALL immigration, just that comprised of people THEY don't want.


Any sensible person would restrict immigration to legal immigration that favors those who have skills and are most likely to adhere to the laws of the land. Accepting local customs would also be nice, too, rather than creating another entire culture that attempts to do away with what already exists. When you allow people in that use up more taxes than they pay, you destroy capitalism and promote socialism.

Apparently, liberals mostly believe that capitalism is more evil than socialism, and that all the gains made under it are ill-gotten, and must be distributed to the world until everybody is equally mediocre. Never mind that history proves that some nation is going to fill the void, and that they will always be less benign than America has been throughout history...I mean, who but the USA has ever conquered countries and then given them back?


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

Here is a 3rd opinion on politics in the USA today. 50 years ago Democrats were funded by hard working blue collar workers and Republicans were funded by hard working small business men and women. Today the Republican party is funded by huge business interest, many of which have no interest in what is best for our country and the Democrats are embracing every extreme group that has a dollar to donate. It is what it is, how do we fix it?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Greybeard said:


> Here is a 3rd opinion on politics in the USA today. 50 years ago Democrats were funded by hard working blue collar workers and Republicans were funded by hard working small business men and women. Today the Republican party is funded by huge business interest, many of which have no interest in what is best for our country and the Democrats are embracing every extreme group that has a dollar to donate. It is what it is, how do we fix it?


Repeal Citizens United, so the $$ flow stops from big business, and have term limits on ALL politicians, so the old and set-in-their-ways fogies get recycled. Start a third party to mix things up a little.


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Repeal Citizens United, so the $$ flow stops from big business, and have term limits on ALL politicians, so the old and set-in-their-ways fogies get recycled. Start a third party to mix things up a little.


Problem is, the people who would have to approve these changes are the vary people these changes would probably do away with. GOOD LUCK.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Greybeard said:


> Problem is, the people who would have to approve these changes are the vary people these changes would probably do away with. GOOD LUCK.


No arguments - but that is how it needs to be fixed.

Do you have a better idea? :watching:


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> No arguments - but that is how it needs to be fixed.
> 
> Do you have a better idea? :watching:


No arguments either. I feel like we are in a catch 22. The problem is really how we fund our political process and the ones responsible for fixing the problems are the ones benefiting from the statuesque. Of course campaign finance reform and term limits are the answer. Question is, how do we get our elected representatives to vote for it?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Agree. I don't see the Republicans fixing this, as they benefit more than the Democrats - but I don't see the Dems fixing it any time soon either since my money is on them being totally out of the power circuit for a while.


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Agree. I don't see the Republicans fixing this, as they benefit more than the Democrats - but I don't see the Dems fixing it any time soon either since my money is on them being totally out of the power circuit for a while.


Agree. The Democrats have lost their base with the demise of the blue collar worker in this country. Big business will probably rule things for the next x amount of years. But, one thing is for sure, nothing stays the same, change is inevitable and this too will pass.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Greybeard said:


> Here is a 3rd opinion on politics in the USA today. 50 years ago Democrats were funded by hard working blue collar workers and Republicans were funded by hard working small business men and women. Today the Republican party is funded by huge business interest, many of which have no interest in what is best for our country and the Democrats are embracing every extreme group that has a dollar to donate. It is what it is, how do we fix it?


You are way out of date if you still think Democrats finance their year round campaigning with donations from all of their special interest groups.

Al Gore sold out to foreign 'big money' in 2000. The best known contributor was George Soros, who financed moveon.org, but since then it has been a 'secret' bidding war. Do you think all of this money-raising by Hilary Clinton was only to enrich her, personally? Just because you can't find out where their money comes from, don't believe that the various minority groups have the millions needed to run the Democrat machine that never sleeps. Hell, the union dues, alone, dwarf the funds collected from corporations, by the establishment Republicans, to elect their 'moderate' candidates. Anything their leaders don't steal goes directly to the DNC.

The only candidates who have to scramble for financing are the grass roots conservatives and Libertarians, who often run as Republicans simply because they are the only competitive party that allows intra-party debates to help select their nominee. Unlike the Democrats, they still allow anyone to compete in the primaries. The Democrat leadership selects their candidates and uses their lap-dog media to destroy anyone who opposes them. Terry McAuliffe was the architect for this sell-out of the party, and his reward upon retiring as DNC chairman was to have the governorship of Virginia bought for him.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Greybeard said:


> Agree. The Democrats have lost their base with the demise of the blue collar worker in this country. Big business will probably rule things for the next x amount of years. But, one thing is for sure, nothing stays the same, change is inevitable and this too will pass.


Can but hope....


----------



## Greybeard (Mar 17, 2013)

Bisley said:


> You are way out of date if you still think Democrats finance their year round campaigning with donations from all of their special interest groups.
> 
> Al Gore sold out to foreign 'big money' in 2000. The best known contributor was George Soros, who financed moveon.org, but since then it has been a 'secret' bidding war. Do you think all of this money-raising by Hilary Clinton was only to enrich her, personally? Just because you can't find out where their money comes from, don't believe that the various minority groups have the millions needed to run the Democrat machine that never sleeps. Hell, the union dues, alone, dwarf the funds collected from corporations, by the establishment Republicans, to elect their 'moderate' candidates. Anything their leaders don't steal goes directly to the DNC.
> 
> The only candidates who have to scramble for financing are the grass roots conservatives and Libertarians, who often run as Republicans simply because they are the only competitive party that allows intra-party debates to help select their nominee. Unlike the Democrats, they still allow anyone to compete in the primaries. The Democrat leadership selects their candidates and uses their lap-dog media to destroy anyone who opposes them. Terry McAuliffe was the architect for this sell-out of the party, and his reward upon retiring as DNC chairman was to have the governorship of Virginia bought for him.


So it is all big business.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Bisley said:


> <snip>
> 
> ... their candidates and uses their lap-dog media to destroy anyone who opposes them..


The Bush Years And What A "Lapdog" Press Really Looked Like | Blog | Media Matters for America

Just to show it goes both ways.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Greybeard said:


> So it is all big business.


Yeah, pretty much, until someone gets elected who didn't spend a hundred million dollars bashing their opponent. I still think it is remotely possible for a populist candidate to be elected, if he can stir up enough people on 2-3 main issues. Voters are mostly resigned to choosing the 'least bad' candidate that the two parties offer up, and that usually translates into big money buying enough last minute TV time to swing it one way or the other, with negative advertising. But, a candidate that could break through that cynicism with a simple, solid message that was delivered with sincerity, might still squeak by. If that doesn't happen soon, we will finish our slide into economic oblivion and become as corrupt as almost every other government in the world...we are almost there, now.


----------

