JBT's in my neighborhood. Grrr!!!
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
Heh, by the way, we're still off topic.
The issue still isn't whether open carry is, or is not, a good idea.
The issue is whether police officers may harrass citizens who aren't breaking the law. The question is whether an officer is bound to uphold the actual law, or whether it's okay for a LEO to just start ragging on anyone who's doing something the officer doesn't like to see.
pax
Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark - Mapp vs. Ohio
The issue still isn't whether open carry is, or is not, a good idea.
The issue is whether police officers may harrass citizens who aren't breaking the law. The question is whether an officer is bound to uphold the actual law, or whether it's okay for a LEO to just start ragging on anyone who's doing something the officer doesn't like to see.
pax
Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark - Mapp vs. Ohio
HonorsDaddy
Member
Oh. My. (expletive deleted). God. I do not freaking believe i have to address this unmitigated bullsqueeze on THIS board.
Never mind the documented fact that many property owners kept cannon on their land.
Even today there are people which have in their private collections some pretty serious stuff - and by serious, i mean large artillery and armor.
Oh wait - never mind, you already did in your mind. You dont like it - and we should just accept that.
You disgust me sir.
Ok - Rant mode off. Getting back on topic now.
Flintlocks and any other form of weapon.
I would like to direct you sir to the war of 1812 in which privately owned naval vessels were pressed into service repelling the English. These "weapons of war" were most certainly armed with much more than flintlocks. This alone destroys your argument that heavy ordinance was not privately owned.
Never mind the documented fact that many property owners kept cannon on their land.
Even today there are people which have in their private collections some pretty serious stuff - and by serious, i mean large artillery and armor.
Next comes the craptastic line about a massacre by muzzleloader. Do i really need to remind you, my friend, that the gun is not the criminal and how it could be misused is irrelevant?
No it hasnt. Its still the same place, and people still want the same things. There are just more people and better technology, but we dont want to get into an existential discussion of the human condition.
No sir you are not. That said, I retract my previous statement. You only APPEAR intelligent, and you are a lost cause.
The limits i set are simple my friend. Do not misuse your firearm, and you have nothing to worry about. Misuse it and commit a crime, and you go to jail for a very long time - if you dont just find yourself meeting St. Peter.
I'm not addressing this. There are far better people on this board than myself to educate you on this topic.
Doubt it - you have to have one first.
Thats because you havent been listening. Perhaps you should consider it this way: Rather than require others to provide an argument for open carry, perhaps you could present a single legitimate one against it?
Oh wait - never mind, you already did in your mind. You dont like it - and we should just accept that.
You disgust me sir.
Ok - Rant mode off. Getting back on topic now.
AGREED!!!!!!!!
Bad Cops, no donut.
We have our share of LE's that like to threaten out here in Kali. I've run into one or two in my past. Last one was bout 8 months ago. Jerk gave me a ticket and threaten to throw me in jail when I "challenged" his authority.
I ended up giving his sargent and captain a call and gave them an earful and threatened to go to the mayor about my treatment. Funny how the ticket just "disappeared".
Getting off the subject, but I had a buddy that was killed in the line of duty a month ago. sh*tbag gangbanger is hopefully getting ass-slammed by every one and their mother in prison right now. Reminded me most cops are good honest people trying to do a crappy job for crappy pay. And these "bad cops" are a small percentage
NineseveN
member
You obviously have no clue what the second amendment is about. have you even read the constitution? everything about your tone, your language and your argument screams "anti". You even use some of their propaganda talk about criminal misuse of firearms.
Criminals misusing firearms has nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch, nein, not on friggen thing to do with the second amendment. neither does hunting, sporting purposes or resonable control/restricitions/limits, noe of that has any place in this discussion unless you're an anti.
Those that would trade some of their liberty for safety deserve neither. But you wouldn't understand that I suppose. The only argument for open carry needs is that it is a right. period, end of story. We don't have to justify free speech, do we? So why this, and to whom? To you? Get real. You want to infringe upon that right because you are afraid of guns and you want to decide who gets to have them, carry them and what guns they have and can carry. You are an anti, plain and simple. Nothing wrong with showing your colors kid, but call a spade a spade.
Mauserguy
Member
My guess is that the first cop was a jerk, or ignorant of the rules, and it took the second cop to rescue him. I bet that the second cop was just saving face for the first guy.
Mauserguy
Mauserguy
I have to say i am dissapointed in many of you, what is popular or acceptable etc. is not the issue. The mans rights are, I live in Texas where we are illegally denied the right to open carry and i would love to open carry. All of you who do not like it or have a desiree to please the sheeple are no different than the "git to the back of the bus types" previously mentioned.
NineseveN
member
LEO's asking questions is fine. I'm not bothered if a cop comes by and asks what I am doing walking the city streets alone at 3am. But it should end there. When I calmly explain that it's a hot summer, I am just out for a stroll and I live a couple of blocks away, it should end there. When I am washing my car with a .45 on my hip, a cop can swing by and say hi, make their presence known and I am okay with that. but at that point, don't ask what I am doing with a gun on my own property like it's a crime.
It is not okay for an officer to say they don't have to honor a permit or a law or a right. Those jerks need to be booted down into the janitorial ranks at the local coal plant. They are simply not the material needed t make a police officer.
Last edited:
HonorsDaddy
Member
Tsonda
Welcome aboard.
Sorry you had to see the uglier side of some of the posters here so early.
Welcome aboard.
Sorry you had to see the uglier side of some of the posters here so early.
The Real Hawkeye
member
If you are concerned that people are afraid when they see open carry, you should want more of it. The more times people call the police because someone is open carrying legally, and then are told by the police that there is nothing that can be done because the person was within his rights to do it, the more accepting the sheeple will eventually become of it and of guns in general. If there is only concealed carry, as far as the sheeple are concerned, there is no such thing as authorized carry, because they don't know anything about it, and it is never brought to their attention.
Flyboy
Member
Ah, I see. Carrying guns is fine, as long as it's only the right people carrying.
Sir, I suggest you look up, in no particular order: Tennessee's "Army and Navy Law," New York's Sullivan Law, and you might also look up the term "Niggertown Saturday Night Special," though most of the bigots have dropped the first word from the phrase.
Your position smacks of ivory-tower elitism in ways Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein exemplify: congratulations, you seem to have learned well from your local leadership. I am not rightly able to comprehend the arrogant state of mind that spawns such a worldview.
As pax has pointed out, you would think wrong. To your reading list, I would add "letters of marque and reprisal," which are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. They're specific to privately-owned warships, pretty much by definition. I would also mention that land weapons were also privately owned: towns would often chip in to buy cannon, and wealthy landownwers frequently contributed significantly, if not buying their own outright. Further, even some (government) Navy vessels were "uprated" by their captains, who bought extra cannon with their own money to outfit their ships.
Two more things for your reading list: The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist. You'll find that they go a long way toward correcting your deficient understanding of American history and politics.
Pax, to answer your claim that this is off-topic, you're mostly right; however, I'd argue that this attitude, and finding a means to correct it, is in fact at the very heart of the matter.
Tylden
Member
This is America folks. The law is the law, and rights are rights, and America has never been and never will be a "cookie cutter" society. There are people who are pro-gun, anti-gun, open carry, concealed carry, republican, Democrat, etc etc etc. As long as the man is within the confines of the law, he has done nothing wrong. I live in an open carry state and do so frequently due to some sort of discreptancy on my record that prevents me from carrying concealed (at least until this is straightened out) but thats another thread. I am perfectly legal to carry open, but also required by law to act responsibly with a firearm (which I do). I realize that some LEO's and some sheeples may not like it, but that doesn't mean I"m going to give up my right to carry to make them more comfortable. Same applies here....the man was well within his rights to carry openly and unless he does something that causes alarm, the police have no reason to confront him other than to confirm he has a license which is required in that state.
CARRY'IN
member
OK, if you say I am, I guess I am. Thanks for enlightening me. How I can support CCW, be a CCW holder, be an ardent firearms ethusiast, and be an "anti" is kind of confusing to me, but oh well.
HonorsDaddy
Member
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Personally, i dont think you're an anti. I think you're worse.
You're a gun owner who only wants the right kind of people - i.e. those of whom you approve - owning a gun.
That makes you an elitist and a bigot.
NineseveN
member
Feinstein owns a gun and has a CCWP.
Quack.
Flyboy
Member
So, ErikF, what did you end up doing?
cracked butt
Member
I would add troll as well.
Technically not true. She is an "honorary" marshall and hence can carry concealed. But she doesn't have a CCW like you or I.
She did once, but got so much slack for it, she gave it up and "worked" out another way of legally carrying. Hyprocritical Elitist Bi-atch.
Gentleman. Lets agree to disagree. Some Pro RKBA see no problems with open carry, others do. Let's not be divided over this.
So everyone put pull their panties out of bind and relax.
CARRY'IN
member
Takes alot more than this crowd to get my panties in a bind. I have been dealing with good ole boy clubs my whole life. Them good ole boys who want to walk around town like Wyatt Earp are the reason RKBA is in trouble in the first place. I can only tell them it is not appropriate to walk around this country with a gun on your hip; ask your fellow citizens, not your fellow gun nuts. They will tell you it is not welcome. And if you refuse to respect their rights, they will just take away yours. I support concealed carry and the RKBA; you may think you support it, but I believe you are your own worst enemy.
cracked butt
Member
I didn't know that people had the right to not be offended.
berettashotgun
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,149
Right is right and wrong is wrong.Bitchin about a firearm and using the cop-out EXCUSE of the "Offensive" nature of sidearms is retarded. Offensive is on every television channel every hour of the day is the decency standard is in effect, last I checked decency was the forgotten "RIGHT" that my children and extended family deserved. No member of my family has any qualm with an AMERICAN citizen/subject(?) exercising a right, but I personally am infuriated over the indecent activities of the "beautiful" people. They're the real idiots.Conditioned response is what the left are after, any of you fellas with gun shy women need to empower the ladies with the confidence of exercising a GUARANTEED RIGHT.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
No offense but, what does someone from San Francisco really know about gun rights in the free world?
0007
Member
Game, set, match to: Derby FALS
grimlock
Member
Wait a minute here, fellas. Let's think this through.
Carries concealed and has no problem with that.
Seems elitist, doesn't want "the wrong people" carrying.
Tends to quote gun grabber distortions in arguments.
Lives in San Francisco.
Senator Feinstein, is that you?
Carries concealed and has no problem with that.
Seems elitist, doesn't want "the wrong people" carrying.
Tends to quote gun grabber distortions in arguments.
Lives in San Francisco.
Senator Feinstein, is that you?
- Status
