Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
No one said they weren't right for being there...they were wrong for the way they treated the LAC.
Sheesh. Who else is going to get stupidly anal in this thread?
I dunno, depends on how many more people decide to try and piss on the Constitution.
OK. The person responsible for the police in your town, whether the chief, mayor, whoever is responsible for the actions of the PD as a whole, has ordered all policemen in your town to not respond to any reports of people carrying guns, since open carry is legal in your state, because he does not want you to be offended or feeling that his police are jack-booted thugs. Someone calls the PD and says that someone is flashing around a gun in the park. The police do not respond, assuming that it is just some Dudley Do-Right worrying about some guy who is legally open carrying. 10 minutes later the guy uses the handgun in question and murders a dozen people. Two of those people are your wife and your child. Would you feel better about it knowing that his rights were not violated by the police?
OK. The person responsible for the police in your town, whether the chief, mayor, whoever is responsible for the actions of the PD as a whole, has ordered all policemen in your town to not respond to any reports of people mowing their lawns, since mowing is legal in your state, because he does not want you to be offended or feeling that his police are jack-booted thugs. Someone calls the PD and says someone is mowing their lawn, and they don't respond assuming it was dudley do-right worrying about some guy who is legally mowing. 10 minutes later he uses the mower to maim and kill your wife and child. Would you feel better about it knowing that his rights were not violated by the police?
Just because you hate law enforcement doesn't mean that every time they answer a call that you don't agree with they are wrong. I fully believe in the Second Amendment, and wish that my state did have open carry. But if some Goober is in the town park, which is about 50 yards from my house, and is purposely flashing around a weapon in hopes that he will be confronted by the police, I can assure you that I will be very pissed if the police do not confront him when I call.
I'm sorry but maybe you don't understand what "hate" is. I do not hate the police, so how about you stop lying and insulting to try and get your point across? Think that's possible for you? So..unless you were in that park, you are just lying some more about what the MarkedGaurdian was doing...unless of course you were in that park? Were you? Did you see him flashing his gun around? Do you really think police would approach someone who was "flashing his gun at others" so casually? Apparently he WASN'T doing that, because the officers approached him without guns drawn. Ever think about that?
No, Goober did not start the video until the cops arrived, because he didn't want anyone to see what he had to do to draw attention to his weapon. But he was doing more than just waiting for someone in the park. No one would have noticed that he was carrying if that is all he was doing. Whatever he did, he made sure that someone called the cops.
Please do share the crystal ball you seem to have that is all knowing that allows you to someone know exactly what happened. Gosh I could make a fortune off that talented piece of magic!
And if I was that person in the park, having lost my mind or something and acting strangely with a weapon, I would expect to have the cops called on me. Just like the guy in the video did.
The cops handled it wrong. I said that. But they were right for being there.
Nope.. understanding and respecting the private property owner's right to make the rules on/in his property doesn't make us arrogant elitists for advocating respecting the property owners right.Wait... weren't you the one advocating not carrying into a business when the owner posts a "no carry allowed" sign in the other thread?
(I agreed with you, by the way).. so does that make both of us arrogant elitists for advocating respect for a property owner's wishes? How does that scenario differ from what I quoted above?
Few things are absolute.
two words....douche-bag or is that one?
WOW- there are TWELVE pages of good arguments but I'm gonna keep it simple and quote my first post on this thread....the guy still is a GIANT----
two words....douche-bag or is that one?
The guy is an idiot and should put his phallic symbol away before it goes off prematurely. He was there with his AR-15 for one purpose only and he accomplished that while hurting the majority of gun owners. If he was actually meeting a girl at the park, I'm sure her sole purpose was to film the beatdown by the police that he was doing his best to instigate.
Whenever a thread based on a video of some gun issue comes up around here, we all ostensibly try to view the scenario through our own eyes and discuss it from that perspective. If I believe the guy's rights in the video were violated, which I think is beyond question that they were, I will respond as though they were my rights being violated, because in the bigger scheme of things, they are, or they at least have that much more potential to be when cops get away with violating rights anywhere in this country.
With that in mind, let me be perfectly clear: I don't give one good hemorrhoid-bustin' crap that someone else thinks I'm being "stupidly anal" when arguing in defense of my rights. That's not to say that you intentionally directed that line at me personally, but since Firefighterchen and I have argued this thread from exactly the same perspective right on down the line, I'm taking it as such. I find the assertion that Firefighterchen was being any kind of anal when talking about asserting constitutional rights, or talking about cops' obligation to uphold and adhere to them, to be pretty stupid in and of itself. You simply must know by now that I don't think you're stupid, but in the context of this discussion, and directed at who you directed it at for the innocuous banter he offered in rebuttal to a post of yours, was a stupid thing to say. Sheesh, indeed.
And the hits just keep on comin'.....You've got it backwards. The state passes a law making open carry fully, 100% legal for all who have no felony or mental health restrictions preventing them from legally owning/carrying. The state is the one who passed down the policy to the local cops. Any Chief, Mayor or whoever that issues edicts counter to that law, such as stop and demand papers on anyone reported open carrying, is issuing orders above his pay grade, or more to the point, above his authority. It has nothing to do with not offending anyone, or protecting his LEOs from being seen as JBTs, it has to do with upholding his oath of office to faithfully enforce the laws of both the United States and his own state/local jurisdiction.
This is just surreal, fstroupe. "Flashing around" a weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the video we're discussing, and I'll bet my next paycheck that in the State of Oregon there are myriad laws that cops would be 100% justified in investigating the violation of if that had been the case. But it wasn't.
**Edited out reply to this quote after review because I misread it the first time around. Sorry about that if you already saw it fstroupe.
If it was my wife, she'd have taken the sicko out. No, I mean the guy in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, not Irritating Guy in the video. Link Removed
Firefighterchen hates law enforcement, or was this intended for me? He has expressed support for LE several times in this thread. I have not. I could live without 'em just fine, but even at that, I don't hate them, I only hate when I see them abusing their authority, or more accurately, when I see them imposing dictates on law-abiding citizens under the false color of authority, and that's what was happening here.
But even if I did hate LEOs in some personal sense, are you saying that just because of that character flaw of mine that they will always be in the right when dealing with me? You're not making any sense here fstroupe.
You couldn't prove it by this post.
Why? So you could be a Dudley Do-Right too?
We don't have open carry in Bama either, but there is a movement to git 'r done. I myself prefer concealed carry, but if I can ever help the guys who want to carry openly, I'll be there for them because their rights are my rights are your rights are everybody's rights, and they should always be supported even when you have no intention of exercising them yourself.
So are we still talking about your imaginary Goober in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, or the Goober in the subject-video? Because with all the wishes for the guy's death, the name-calling and the derision for deigning to stand up for his rights, I'm having a hard time following what this post of yours has to do with anything if not the OP video?
Ah, OK, we're talking imaginary Goobers. Because absolutely nothing like what you describe here happened in the 15-minute video of a guy legally open-carrying his weapon, holstered, not bothering a soul, when no less than four cops started hassling him and within 15 seconds, after only one sentence uttered by the video-Goober, was determined to be one of those who wanted "to make things difficult."
Why hasn't it occurred to any of you anti-Goober types that the guy in the video expected the cops to do their jobs and leave him the heck alone since he wasn't doing anything illegal? It seems everyone who has criticisms to offer of the activist has said he went looking for a confrontation with the cops. How do any of you come to that conclusion? Because he had a phone that takes crappy, grainy video? Who doesn't have one of those these days? Because he knows the law and deigned to cite it to the cops who were harassing him? The nerve, huh?? I mean, the nerve of that gun rights activist to know his own place and to have the audacity to recite the cops' place to them! Well, he might've actually recited their place to them if one of 'em hadn't ordered him to "stop talking." Link Removed
I carry two video cams with me everywhere I go. One dedicated cam, and a better'n fair one that does HD recording in my phone. I take videos of everything from butterflies and bees outside my back door, to performance tests of my knives and guns, to extreme weather, to concerts, to truly idiotic stuff of me and my wife just laughing and having fun together. I drive more than 1,000 miles per week between personal and work, week in, and week out, and as such, if I wasn't such a danged good driver, I'm more likely than most to have encounters with cops, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if/when I ever do, it'll be videotaped. If they go from simple curiosity about why I'm carrying into actually illegally detaining me because they don't like my attitude or my irritating voice or whatever, I hope I'll do a better job than Irritating Goober-Guy did in the video of asserting his rights, but regardless, assert mine I will, and they'll either get the message and leave me alone forthwith, or their Chief of Police and/or Sheriff, the County Commission and/or the Mayor, the State Bureau of Investigations, the District Attorney and the State Attorney General will all get a copy of the video along with every YouTube viewer I can direct to my channel, and I'll do everything I can to call attention to their false detainment under color of authority. Stupidly anal is, as stupidly anal does, and that clearly defines the cops in the OP video much better than it defines Irritating Goober-Guy or anyone standing for his rights in this thread as far as I'm concerned.
"Being there" and detaining the guy are completely separate issues. They very easily could've been there without saying a word to the guy, and they had absolutely no legal justification for "investigating" through direct contact why he was engaging in a perfectly legal activity. They initiated the "debate." They initiated having to suffer through hearing his irritating voice. They initiated the illegal detainment. Goober-Guy did absolutely nothing wrong throughout the video.
Blues
That wasn't what I said. The statement is valid in logic. You have the right to jump off a bridge. That doesn't mean you should. I also have the right to open carry. That doesn't mean I should, but I sure as heck can if I want to, and so should you. You're reading things into that statement that weren't there.Thank God the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed except for what Rhino, Otis, the cops in the video, the Brady Campaign, or anyone else who disagrees says shouldn't be done".............
The statement:That wasn't what I said, but nice try. The statement is valid in logic. You have the right to jumo off a bridge. That doesn't mean you should. I also have the right to open carry. That doesn't mean I should, but I sure as heck can if I want to, and so should you. You're reading things into that statement that weren't there.
I agree with that. I don't necessarily agree that you should deliberately go looking for such confrontations or provoking such arguments. Yes, I know we disagree about whether or not that happened here, But I'm just saying that as a general rule I don't think that should be done.Some folks do not do well when involved in a confrontation concerning rights with the police or even with ordinary folks that don't like guns. That is not anything derogatory about those folks.. it just means they aren't able to handle the hassle. And actually, I admire those folks who understand that standing up to a heated confrontation is beyond their ability and try to avoid getting involved in situations they are unable to handle. Again... that is not derogatory... it is actually a compliment for those wise enough to know their limitations.
However... I do firmly believe that if everyone avoids the hassle of standing up for their rights and not allowing anyone.. LE or other people... to intimidate them into not exercising their legal rights then it won't be long before there are no rights. It really is that simple since a right unexercised is a right that is lost.
Again, the lack of support wasn't because he was sticking up for his rights. It was because he was deliberately looking for a confrontation and provoking a debate. Maybe the ridicule and insult was excessive. That could be a matter of opinion. And if any of that was due to a disagreement with open carry, then I'm on your side with opposing it because I do not oppose open carry at all.And I also believe that those who aren't able to be on the front lines would do well to support those that are... because if those on the front lines lose... we ALL lose. And when enough folks see open carry and it becomes commonplace people will stop becoming nervous at the sight of a legally carried gun... and there won't be any hassle. But someone has to do it first to make it happen.
So.. I cannot understand why some concealed carriers ridicule and insult open carriers who suffer the slings and arrows as they fight for the right to bear arms... because they don't just fight for the right to open carry.. they fight for the right to bear arms openly and concealed since any "win" for open carry is also a "win" for concealed carry.
It's in our state constitution. It was actually there well before concealed carry passed, so we're lucky in that regard.In many States printing or accidental exposure while concealed carrying is not an issue because............... open carry is legal so an exposed gun, even if exposed briefly, is not illegal. Y'all can thank open carry for that. But if you don't support open carry then it won't be long before printing and accidental exposure becomes a crime.
Absolutely.We really are all in this together....
Actually, you don't have the right to do as you please on someone else's property, so that isn't restricting a right. But rights can and do get restricted based on what is acceptable. The old 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' is probably the most common example that people cite. Rights are restricted when they cause harm to others. But as for Bikenut's comment, he was responding to me because he mistakenly thought something I said was advocating that a right should be restricted by what someone else thinks isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable".Wait... weren't you the one advocating not carrying into a business when the owner posts a "no carry allowed" sign in the other thread?Anyone who believes that a right should be restricted by what someone else thinks isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" and therefor "shouldn't be done" is an elitist who arrogantly believes their values and standards should control of the rights of others.
(I agreed with you, by the way).. so does that make both of us arrogant elitists for advocating respect for a property owner's wishes? How does that scenario differ from what I quoted above?
Few things are absolute.
I'm not saying he should have the knowledge of an attorney, but if he's out to provoke a confrontation and debate, you'd think he'd know his subject better than what he did. He didn't appear to know the statutes and seemed completely unaware that police would be required to respond to what would be inevitable complaints from the public. You could possibly make the case about him being nervous, but he's apparently done this numerous times in the past, so nerves might be a bit of a stretch at this point. Anyway, that's just an appearance thing. The guy might know the book backwards and forwards, but he most definitely didn't come accross that way. He needs work on his presentation at the very least.I have seen people complain that the activist did not know enough about the law. Why should everyone that is open carrying legally be forced to have the legal knowledge of a lawyer just to exercise their rights
I wasn't applying that standard. You added that yourself. I wasn't being judgemental at all.The statement:
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
Carries with it the personal standards of the person uttering it and is a judgmental statement.
"Just because you can doesn't mean (I think) you should."
The statement itself contains the I think implication because it is, in and of itself, a judgmental statement.I wasn't applying that standard. You added that yourself. I wasn't being judgemental at all.Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The statement:
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."
Carries with it the personal standards of the person uttering it and is a judgmental statement.
"Just because you can doesn't mean (I think) you should."
I don't believe jumping off a bridge can be ,optically compared to OC... Nope, too much of a stretch for me.That wasn't what I said. The statement is valid in logic. You have the right to jump off a bridge. That doesn't mean you should. I also have the right to open carry. That doesn't mean I should, but I sure as heck can if I want to, and so should you. You're reading things into that statement that weren't there.
Optically? I wasn't doing anything "optically" so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I wasn't comparing anything to OC either. I was stating a principle. Actually I didn't state it at all. Someone else did. I just said it was valid in logic, and it is. Do you really think you should do everything you have a right to do? Should you go out and beat your car with a sledgehammer? You certainly have the right to, but that doesn't mean you should. Please tell me where that logic is faulty. There was no extra context added to the statement. No hidden agenda. Nothing implied. No added baggage. It wasn't in reference to OC, CC or chimpanzees. It was merely a statement of principle, or an axiom if you will.I don't believe jumping off a bridge can be ,optically compared to OC... Nope, too much of a stretch for me.
Optically? I wasn't doing anything "optically" so I'm not sure what you mean by that. I wasn't comparing anything to OC either. I was stating a principle. Actually I didn't state it at all. Someone else did. I just said it was valid in logic, and it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?