Home invader repellent.

If courts don’t stop no-knock home invasions, bullets and other means would have to. Given the extreme danger posed to lawful people by violent police invasions, it’s no wonder many households have moved from shotguns to rifles for defense. The same tools work for stopping non-unionized criminals who merely pretend to be police or just barge in without bothering with an excuse.

This entry was posted in ammunition, rifle, rkba, self-defense, weapon and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Home invader repellent.

  1. April says:

    This is a great ad. It is easy to relate and understand by being a non-human subject. What are stacked-up friends, is that a common phrase I’m unfamiliar with? Maybe “There’s 49 more stacked and ready for your friends”?

  2. Leslie Bates says:

    Given the stack formation as depicted the twenty round mag for the FAL should be sufficient for taking down the initial entry team. Drum mags may be cool but I believe in the KISS principal.

  3. anonymous says:

    “many households have moved from shotguns to rifles for defense.”

    How many househoulds is that?

    And please cite a source.

    • Oleg Volk says:

      That’s “most people I know personally”. In the mid-90s, shotguns were very common. Now rifles are very common. Expectations of body armor is a big part of that.

    • Bobby says:

      Anon, Im currently scratching my ass, Do you want a citation for that as well?

      Some people take this internet argumentative crap too far.

  4. Joe S. says:

    Anon. Oleg correctly states his opinion based upon his avalable information. I’m also certain that he would agree this is subjective as well and he is stating an opinion. Being in LE I have negative to mixed feelings about NKW but will conceed that there are rare instances where such a proceedure is warrented. I would be intrested in seeing data on criminals doing dynamic entry compaired to SWAT doing same with NKW. It probably won’t make me feel any more comfortable but would be worth knowing.

  5. Thomas Laye says:

    I don’t have a study of criminals but if you go to the Cato Institute and search there you will probably find something.

    If nothing else read the Rodney Balko study, , for why, and how many people have been “accidently” killed in botched SWAT no knocks and other raids.


  6. Pingback: Incendiary Image of the Day: Say Hello to Oleg Volk's Little Friends Edition | The Truth About Guns

  7. junyo says:

    I’m sorry, this sounds great in theory, but ask Philadelphia MOVE, Randy Weaver, or David Koresh how well repelling the initial assault works out. Inflect casualties on the cops and your life is effectively forfeit. So talking about no-knock raids ignores the over arching problems of the militarization of law enforcement, and the general over criminalization of society.

    @Thomas Laye: Radley Balko

    • AJ says:

      That may be so. But, if enough people start answering no-knock entries with a hail of lead, maybe the tyrants that be will re-think the whole thing.

    • Bob Raod says:

      Actually, considering the Branch Davidians shot the Feds to a stand still, then let them walk away, all I see is that adequate warning (through silent alarms and such) means that the element of surprise is lost and once lost (without the ambusher’s knowing) the results are usually devistating.

    • Bobby says:

      This argument is essentially stating the LE’s lives are worth more then the people that are often killed accidentaly in these illegal raids.

      • junyo says:

        ‘Well maybe if more police got shot in raids then they’d rethink the tactic.’ When has that EVER happened? When have the police been shot at, and just said, ‘Ah well, this guy’s too tough for us’, packed up and gone home? Assuming you survive the initial assault, they cordon off the area and pump in bodies and firepower. They can’t afford not to; letting you live after shooting at one of them is effectively the same thing as a drug dealer letting you live after you’ve stolen from him – it just encourages more people to do so. If you’re especilly lucky or skilled, you can survive the initial contact and get mobile before you’re pinned. But ultimately no matter how hardcore you think you are, sooner or later, it’ll come down to being surrounded and overwhelmed, with the complicit media pumping out how you’re a crazed militia madman who murdered/tried to murder these fine officers, one of whom has a telegenic wife and new baby. And so your noble death/incarceration accomplishes nothing beyond a few seconds of irrational visceral satisfaction, followed by the freedoms of everyone else getting abridged. Simple pragmatism, it’s not a net win in most cases.

        My argument recognizes the objective reality of the universe we live in. The police have tried very hard to differetiante themselves from mere ‘civilians’, and virtually any action can be justified by ‘officer safety’ so yeah, their life IS more valuable than yours or mine. And that’s the real battle, which needs to be defined to have any hope of victory. The point of being prepared is to survive. A ‘noble’ death is still death. Waiting until you’re in a gun battle with law enforcement in your living room means you’ve already made/had imposed upon you a tragically bad series of choices. The smart battle is upstream, preventing the idea that routine no-knock raids upon the civilian population is an acceptable way of running a country. That the caste system that has been created is acceptable. That the police can act with virtual impunity shielded by sovereign immunity. Bravado about how anyone coming into your house is going to face a wall of lead and how many bodies you’re willing to trade is counterproductive, because the guys purchasing ninja suits (with your money) can point to stuff like this as to why they need the ninja suits, even for the law abiding populace.

        Just because you have a capability doesn’t mean it’s productive to advertise that capability.

        • Oleg Volk says:

          Real capabilities aren’t advertised, only the intent to use all means available to resist. Lawful people have no expectation of justifiable police intrusion, only freelance criminals pretending to be cops or rogue cops pretending to be lawful cops. So real cops would gain much by knocking on the door or calling by phone and stating their case over trying to kick the door down and getting shot at.

        • Rick says:

          If LE is coming to get you for a ‘weapons violation’ like not having the ‘proper registration’, then you could be and probably will be going away for 10 years or more. If you are 55 or over, that may mean the rest of your life. Your are already on dead ground so don’t worry about their siege. You’re already dead before they even arrived. So fight like you are on dead ground because you are.
          There was just recently a man from Colorado, driving in I think South Dakota, pulled over by the Highway Patrol there, found ‘unregistered weapons’ and is now doing the hot squats in the Federal gray bar hotel. He got 10 years. At his age, its life.
          Dead ground.

  8. Paul Koning says:

    I’ll copy the pointer that I also posted on that other website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 — and thanks to Stephen Halbrook for the reference and background, in his brilliant book “That every man be armed”.
    Re Weaver and Koresh: weren’t their lives forfeit before they ever shot back? Did Weaver shoot back, in fact? But if they did, I would argue they made their choice to die like men and not like sheep.

    • paulr says:

      Paul, its been a while since I’ve looked at the Randy Weaver timeline but I believe that he (or a friend, son??) fired upon the po-po when they were ambushed and/or flushed by his dog.

      • Oleg Volk says:

        FBI shot his dog. Randy’s son shot the FBI critter. The rest of the FBI critters shot the kid. That whole event was a no-win mess from the start.

        I don’t claim that resisting intruders is always survivable, only that it’s reasonable to try.

        • JohnH says:

          Or to simply inflict as much pain as possible. That ultimately is the purpose of the 2nd, that the people be armed, so that in the event it is nessicary for the people to defend themselves with arms from the government; the government will find itself in the unenveinable position of enforcing it’s will upon the people through force.

          How many people do you know who trust the government? Nixon, though Watergate, Reagan (or his handlers) through IranContra, and now Obama through Fast and Furious, everyday undermine the governments credability. Every MOVE, Waco, Weaver incident does nothing but inflame the wrath of the people.

          It is very likely that the ’94 AWB would still be in place had it not been for Clinton and company seeking to further it’s cause through murdering the Branch Davidians. While the “Borg” might wish the people to believe that “resistance is futile”, and some certainly believe that; a great number of thinking Americans witness these events and see them for what they are… gross misuse of government powers to further a few individuals political agendas.

          It is also interesting to note that since the murder of a Marine in New Mexico and the Indiana legislature passing a law making it plain that a person can use deadly force to resist illegal arrest, we’ve been hearing less about NKW’s on the news.

        • greenmeanie says:


          The initial FUBAR op was US Marshals. They shot the dog first, the kid sot one of them (he died on scene) and they shot the kid.

          LATER on the FBI showed and Sniper Lon Horuchi shot the wife as she was turning around to go back in the front door.

        • AJ says:

          Not resisting is no guarantee that it won’t be fatal.

  9. JohnK87 says:

    That’s the hard spot about no-knock warrants on the wrong house- it doesn’t matter if it’s the wrong place, if they are cops and you fire at them you will be dead soon. If they are not cops you could be dead or wishing you were dead soon. Which one it is you won’t know and if you wait that extra second you lose the choice. Oh, and you get to make that decision when being woken out of a sound sleep with an adrenaline dump.

    I personally think that the militarization of police and common use of SWAT teams for serving warrants has become a “hammer seeking a nail” situation. It would require legislation requiring, at a minimum, a specific warrant declaration of why such a level of force is required AND why there is not another option. The vet gunned down in his hallway in Arizona could have been picked up on the way to or from work, with no need to place his family or his neighbors in danger.

    • Paul Koning says:

      I think this is a case where enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights is all that is required.
      The Constitution speaks of searches, and search warrants. It does not speak of assaults and invasions.
      There simply is NO Constitutional authority for no-knock warrants of any kind, ever, anywhere, period, full stop. Any judge issuing such a thing, and any policeman executing such a thing, should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and sent to federal jail for 10 years, as provided by that law. For that matter, any judge who pulls such a stunt also should be impeached for perjury (having falsely sworn to uphold the Constitution).

    • Weston M says:

      John that’s one of the arguments for why this militarization is occurring: that the budgets supporting all this paramilitary equipment (and maintenance for federally supplied surplus equipment such as armored vehicles) must be justified: and how better to justify it than to use it.

      When you are trained as a soldier, drilled endlessly in shooting drills and dynamic entry, why do you think they’re just going to do things the easy way? Where’s the glory in that? They’d rather be “tough on crime”, but what they don’t realize is that as often as not, they’re being “tough on freedom”.

  10. sean says:

    I think it’s pretty fool hearty to think you’re going to survive a NKW raid…..if you put up a fight. Odds aren’t that great if you acquiesce. Personally, if I were to be the unfortunate VICTIM of such a raid, I’d only be hoping to cash in on the 3:1 odds defenders generally have over invaders. A slave mindset is one that capitulates when your own government chooses to visit violence at your own door. 5

  11. Pingback: Firearms Thread - Page 246

  12. ignifer says:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
    Aleksander Solzhenitsyn- ‘The Gulag Archipelago’

    • Rick says:

      Excellent taste of true Socialism at work making the world ‘safer’ for that utopia the left all craves because they don’t want to work for it. Just have it provided by the state like everything else.

  13. LivingInExile says:

    I agree, but how in the world do we put that genie back in the bottle? In a better world this is exactly what the ACLU should fight and there should be high profile suits for civil rights violations. Make it a federal case…

    Indiana that just passed a law “allowing” residents to shoot officers if the office entered the house unlawfully.

    Love the quote from the news piece..

    “Police officers in Indiana are upset over a new law allowing residents to use deadly force against public servants, including law enforcement officers, who unlawfully enter their homes. ”

    Part of me is astonished that this is a NEW law.. Was it illegal to shoot a “public servant” entering your house illegally before? If so, why?

    I ‘m afraid this will continue until we leave that awkward stage that Ms. Wolfe spoke of.

    • Weston M says:

      This new law was in response to a state supreme court ruling, in a case where a police officer illegally entered a home and the homeowner resisted (iirc, no firearms were deployed) and they hauled the man off to jail for assaulting a police officer or somesuch…..the state court ruled that citizens have NO RIGHT to defend themselves against illegal entry by a government agent. As you can imagine, that pissed people right the hell off, and not being an Indiana resident myself I hope that this new law is a model for the nation

Comments are closed.