First, I'd like to say that I TOTALLY understand and agree with the fact that we all have rights and don't want to lose them. However, I keep seeing many posts about how an officer confronts someone open carrying and the person refuses to cooperate. I saw another post about a hotel asking someone to show their CCW permit. Again, I TOTALLY understand that you don't have to and they have no legal grounds, but why wouldn't you cooperate and just get it over with? I'm really curious as to why it's such a big deal to so many of you not to cooperate. It's not like they're going to take your rights away from you and you're not incriminating yourself in any way by cooperating. The situation would be much easier if you just answer the questions and move on. Now, if they won't stop hassling you after you've cooperated, then I could see the point of refusing to cooperate further. So, is there something I'm missing?
I know that I’ve not posted here before, but that doesn’t mean I am unfamiliar with the topic. I've been quite involved and observant of this matter for many years, and have learned that, "The main problem with this argument is, “Denial”. "
The, “tells” are all there, including disparaging remarks, and ad hominem attacks. People would rather blame someone else than face their own fears.
People who question such behavior aren’t going to be convinced because in truth, they know the answer, but just don’t want to face it. Evidenced is the main thrust of the argument against. That being “fear”.
Here’s more. As an example, croute pointed it out in his very first post. Yet, rather than accept that it’s a valid reason for, he (and this is common throughout the opposition, not exclusive to croute) tries to use it as an argument for opposition. Their reason for compliance is “Fear”. Yet, THAT is the very reason to not comply, and for the most part why so many have decided to take a stand. We’ve so devolved as a society that we accept without any apprehension that the coercion involved in such matters is not just accepted, but also “expected”. “It’s easier” (Why? It shouldn’t even matter.). “I’d rather avoid the hassle.” (Again, it shouldn’t be a factor). “It will only lead to more loss of rights” (as if you really have those rights when you’re so afraid of loosing them that you can’t be satisfied with just making your own decision on the matter. And again, it shouldn’t be a factor). The very fact that we (as a society in general) expect this sort of thing is an acknowledgement of that fear (regardless of our wanting to admit/accept it). It is human in nature to turn ones fear onto someone else for blame/criticism instead of facing one’s own fear (this argument goes both ways). That of course is the foundation of bigotry (disparage, rather than deal with one’s personal fears (often of the unknown or unfamiliar)), and/or insecurities (which is just another manifestation of fear).
You want to know “Why” people stand up? Use all the disparaging, misguided labels you want, but it’s for the very reason that you yourself (not to be mistaken as an individual assessment, but only in general terms), disparage it.
Of course, those reading who disagree will not understand, and I wouldn’t expect them to. That’s the thing about denial. The really deep denial is not even perceivable until you come out of it. Until then, you’re controlled by that fear. And, “fear” is one of the strongest motivators.
Now to address the officer (thank you for your service) from Dallas. I find it very interesting that there was/is an actual law that allows an officer to detain someone without reasonable suspicion when the Supreme Court of the USA ruled such action unconstitutional many years ago. I don’t doubt that there are laws requiring people to ID themselves once detained, but to say, “…any reason” is a little broad. I suspect that if the officer does not properly articulate RAS, that any evidence later would be considered fruit of the poisonous tree. Of course, most officers don’t have to worry about that since the burden of proving innocence is so great (gee, another indicator of that, “fear”).
Of course, there's always someone who will feel so threatened by my statements that they'll feel compelled to disparage me (often times just plain bullying), without even caring that doing so will only prove me right (there's those ad hominem comments again.)Think about it. If I'm wrong, then you won't be so insecure as to care enough to do so, and doing so would be nothing more than bullying. If I'm right, then the only reason to attack has already been explained.
"Flame on."
