[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by John Rambo

Thats a very good summary. It also reinforces the original point of the militarization of our police forces. I'm not saying anything about them being the boogey man or Gestapo, I'm just saying our police have become way more militarized, and thats an alarming trend.

"More militarized" is a comparison, and you have to tell us what you're comparing it to. The first real world problem you'll have is that for many places and time, the police were/are the military. The second is that Barney and Andy are fiction.

Next issue is defining "militarized". Clothing? Non-issue. Weapons? I've got plenty of photos of cops with real machine guns, and those date to the 1910s or earlier. Mission? Nope---killing people and breaking things remains distinctly different than arrest, even today.

[whoops dude]

Originally Posted by Glotin

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where was the unreasonable search or seizure in this video? He was asked for his ID. They did not demand it and did not detain him for not producing it. We as a people have a right to keep and bear arms but there are certain criteria to being able to keep and exercise that right. If this was a perfect society, first we wouldn't need weapons but secondly no one would use them in any criminal acts. But since this isn't, the police ask for id to make sure you aren't a felon or try to determine if you are mentally ill. Two reasons for which you cannot own or posess a firearm. The police did nothing wrong here.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Yeah, but interactions with OC zealots are seldom positive.

That, unfortunately, seems to be true.

I wish we had more...a lot more...regular people open carry as they went about their business and fewer...far fewer...who did it in an intentionally confrontational and belligerent manner.

[pizza_pablo]

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

foolish man needs to learn his lesson.

liberties only apply when

1. socially appropriate and
2. when the police are comfortable

You are kidding, right?

If not, please provide some other liberties, that fit your criteria.

[cole]

Originally Posted by Bren

No, I wouldn't. That is WHY I'm against these nutjob activists, or the shooting-newbs on Glock Talk who think, since they got there first gun last year, they can go out and stir things up and be a "hero" to other shooters. Misguided pro-gun "activists" are a worse enemy to us than any anti-gunner.

These people put your gun rights at risk, by making more and more people who don't carry guns afraid of those who do. There is no Supreme Court decision saying you have a right to carry a gun, yet, so all it takes is some negative public opinion to lose the "privileges" you have and to get restrictions on where you can carry. As we've seen in California, these nuts can stir up the ;legislature and alw enforcement to the point of introducing bills to make open carry illegal, so you lsoe the right to do it when you actually need to.

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

I'll come out and say it: If it came down to a choice between having only OC or only CC, I'd vote for only CC. If the question was framed as either keeping the status quo, with both OC and CC legal in some places, but illegal in others or outlawing OC but getting CC in all places with nationwide reciprocity, I'd pick CC.

And, FWIW, the idea that it's not "honorable" to CC is one of the stupidest things I've heard an OC activist give as a reason for OCing.

I agree. Nothing in 2A explicitely provides for OC. Nothing. It's been interpreted as such by those who choose to, and some States choose to allow it. It remains open for interpretation, which in America, as a united nation of laws, means the supreme court has yet to rule on it. To CC is to "bear". To OC is to "bear". Even to not legally permit OC or CC, but having a gun at home, or that must be left in the car, could be legally considered to "bear" under 2A. And, like it or not, these decisions, when push comes to shove legally, come down to the supreme court, who are part of the Federal Government establishment.

IMO, the OCers that cram their agenda down the public's and police's throat threaten both OC and CC. This is 2011 America. Post-Columbine, and all the other occurances that remain symbolic in the public's mind. Hollywood and the media (republican- or democrat-controlled) continue to, and long have, perpetuated a negative, sensationalized image of guns. We can't go back in time. Public perception will not change on this point. Hundreds of years of history support this claim because denial and semantics aside, guns are, and have always been, a symbol of power via their implicit threat of death or the explicit action of death itself. It's naive or a lie to think otherwise. They are not an abacus, a pencil, an iPone, or a Leatherman. OC causes unneeded public concern at times CC will/does not. IMO, people need to be real and live in 2011 America.

p.s. Before folks get all in a twist about "2A is my right" so I can OC or CC, please consider 13A, 14A, 15A and 19A as MUCH larger precedents in what "rights" are vs. what they once were. And, 18A and 21A, as well as "the ban", not to mention the Acts of '34, '68 and '68, to show what the Feds giveth they can (because they have) taketh away, or can just taketh away regardless of 2A. IMO, the "cram it down your throat" OC camp needs to add those little tidbits of reality, and history, to their clearly full cup.

[Dukeboy01]

Originally Posted by cole

IMO, the CCers that cram the point down the public's and police's throat threaten both OC and CC. This is 2011. We can't go back in time. Public perception will not change on this point. Guns are, and have always been, a symbol of power via their implicit threat of death or the explicit action of death itself. It's naive or a lie to think otherwise. They are not pencils, or iPones, or a Leatherman. IMO, people need to be real and live in 2011.

Just for clarification, did you actually mean OCers when you typed CCers above?

Thanks.

[pizza_pablo]

Originally Posted by cole

I agree. Nothing in 2A explicitely provides for OC. Nothing. It's been interpreted as such by those who choose to, and some States choose to allow it. To CC is to "bear". To OC is to "bear". Even to not legally permit OC or CC, but having a gun at home, or that must be left in the car, could be legally considered to "bear" under 2A. And, like it or not, these decisions, when push comes to shove legally, come down to the supreme court, who are part of the Federal Government establishment.

souce: dictionary.com
bare

2    [bair] Show IPA
verb Archaic . simple past tense of bear.



bear

1    [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear·ing.
verb (used with object) 1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.

2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.

3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.

4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.

5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.

6. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.

7. to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.

8. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.

9. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.

10. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.

11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.

12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.

13. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.

14. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).

15. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.

16. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.

17. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.

18. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.

19. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.

20. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.

21. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.

22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.



I don't see how leaving a gun at home or in a vehicle could be considered "to bear".

[cole]

Originally Posted by pizza_pablo

...
I don't see how leaving a gun at home or in a vehicle could be considered "to bear".

Now, if only the Supreme Court would reference dictionary.com in a ruling. Get what I'm sayin' yet?

p.s. look up these words:
Freedom
All (men)
Equal
Then apply your dictionary.com definition prior to 13A, 14A, 15A and 19A. Again, get what I'm sayin' yet?

[cole]

Originally Posted by Dukeboy01

Just for clarification, did you actually mean OCers when you typed CCers above?

Thanks.

Good catch. Yes. Corrected. Thanks.

[nelamvr6]

Originally Posted by glockurai

One more genius who gives the rest a bad name. Sure he doesn't have to show ID, but is it that hard? Isn't it understandable what the officers are doing?
Sometimes a bit of courtesy and cooperation helps the 2A cause overall.

Sure it's much more convenient (especially for the cops) to not insist on a warrant before your home is searched...

Isn't it understandable what the cops are doing? They want to search your house, and getting a warrant can be a lot of trouble...

I'm using hyperbole, of course, but I'm hoping you get my point.

At the end of the day, it may very well be that the only rights we end up with are those that we insist not be abridged.

[nelamvr6]

Originally Posted by glockurai

So LEOs are hated oppressors?

Unfortunately, now a days, frequently. Yes.

Certainly not always. But far too often.

[Glotin]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

There's a record, but the chance that anyone you deal with would discover/have access to it is vanishingly small. The record is a QC record, maintained to make sure that LE isn't abusing the system by making unauthorized checks. Inspectors General/Internal Affairs/system administrators are the only one's who generally see that portion of the database.



Yeah, but interactions with OC zealots are seldom positive.

Thanks for the info. How about the FBI running a Security Clearance background check?

[BamaTrooper]

Originally Posted by Toorop

Why shouldn't the man exercise his rights? I am glad the Founding fathers didn't cooperate and courtesy when dealing with the hated British.

But at least they made sure the slaves stayed in their places.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by Glotin

Thanks for the info. How about the FBI running a Security Clearance background check?

The Feebs get so deep into your knickers that they'll know your preferred brand of toilet paper. (They also do very few background checks in the system. Most go out to contractors. You sure they're doing yours? Not hugely important, just making conversation.)

That you were run is a very minor point. In my shop, every victim, witness and suspect is run. Names that come up in connection with an investigation get run. Every driver on a traffic stop is run, and most passengers. You're going to be one blade of grass on a golf course. Likely, they'll ask you if you have been arrested. They'll check the base databases to see if you're a suspect or have warrants. They'll do a bunch of stuff with interviews, but seeing if your name's been put through NCIC is not very informative.

<-----Formerly the subject of several SBIs, and interviewed in many other checks.

[Mister_Beefy]

Originally Posted by pizza_pablo

You are kidding, right?

If not, please provide some other liberties, that fit your criteria.

I'm not kidding, I'm sarcastically mocking the GT LEOs that hate open carry by anyone that's not them.

[Mister_Beefy]

Originally Posted by cole

I agree. Nothing in 2A explicitely provides for OC. Nothing. It's been interpreted as such by those who choose to, and some States choose to allow it. It remains open for interpretation, which in America, as a united nation of laws, means the supreme court has yet to rule on it. To CC is to "bear". To OC is to "bear". Even to not legally permit OC or CC, but having a gun at home, or that must be left in the car, could be legally considered to "bear" under 2A. And, like it or not, these decisions, when push comes to shove legally, come down to the supreme court, who are part of the Federal Government establishment.

IMO, the OCers that cram their agenda down the public's and police's throat threaten both OC and CC. This is 2011 America. Post-Columbine, and all the other occurances that remain symbolic in the public's mind. Hollywood and the media (republican- or democrat-controlled) continue to, and long have, perpetuated a negative, sensationalized image of guns. We can't go back in time. Public perception will not change on this point. Hundreds of years of history support this claim because denial and semantics aside, guns are, and have always been, a symbol of power via their implicit threat of death or the explicit action of death itself. It's naive or a lie to think otherwise. They are not an abacus, a pencil, an iPone, or a Leatherman. OC causes unneeded public concern at times CC will/does not. IMO, people need to be real and live in 2011 America.

p.s. Before folks get all in a twist about "2A is my right" so I can OC or CC, please consider 13A, 14A, 15A and 19A as MUCH larger precedents in what "rights" are vs. what they once were. And, 18A and 21A, as well as "the ban", not to mention the Acts of '34, '68 and '68, to show what the Feds giveth they can (because they have) taketh away, or can just taketh away regardless of 2A. IMO, the "cram it down your throat" OC camp needs to add those little tidbits of reality, and history, to their clearly full cup.

by this logic if a man rapes a woman a second time, it's no longer a crime because a precedent has been set.

this, folks, is why we must be vigilant in the monitoring of our government.

because bad gun laws are like potato chips to our political overlords. once they pop, they can't stop.

[Patchman]

Mr Beefy, don't forget to remind them that you're the one who coined the phrase that "if it's legal, it's always appropriate."

[Ummagumma]

Originally Posted by Glotin

I have a question that maybe the LEOs can help me out with: Does it show up on any database when your ID is run for warrants? For instance, the next time my clearance needs to be reviewed could they see that my ID was run and for what?



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



I've never open carried, but the next time I go home that will be my only option, so I might OC vice being unarmed depending on the situation.

My feeling on the issue is that the more people are exposed to guns the more comfortable they become with them. I've taken a number of first time shooters who otherwise might have had anti-gun views to a range and they've always walked away with a new perspective that is much more gun friendly.

I would think that every time someone who is afraid of guns has a positive interaction with someone who is carrying one it's going to alleviate some of that nervousness.

I'm not defending this guy or the way he handled the situation at all, but I don't think all OCing should be lumped in with this example.

I disagree. Displaying gun in public is not like taking someone to the range. Being exposed to someone openly carrying a gun - which is not a universally accepted public behavior in most places, gun friendly or not - does not make anyone comfortable. Just the opposite. I am all for gun rights, even though I am not carrying myself, but if I saw someone hell bent on displaying his weapon on a public street, I'd wish I had mine just in case. This, to me, is not a behavior of a reasonable, non-threatening person. And an unreasonable person with a gun is a bad combo.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Mr Beefy, don't forget to remind them that you're the one who coined the phrase that "if it's legal, it's always appropriate."

Well, let's remember that he only applies that to legalities and rights that he supports. I believe it was Westboro that he found despicably inappropriate, even where legal (and making their antics illegal would be just fine by him).

I'm sure he'll be along to address the nuances.

[Patchman]

No, no, no. If it's legal, then it's ALWAYS appropriate.

No if, and or but about that.

[Sam Spade]

Ah, got it.

Wait---the cops in the video: weren't their actions legal, and therefore appropriate?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy

I'm not kidding, I'm sarcastically mocking the GT LEOs that hate open carry by anyone that's not them.

I don't think that is an accurate statement. When protecting the community in uniform, the GT LEO's carry a firearm in the open on a duty belt.

But, when dressed in civilian clothes off duty, most conceal carry.

[Patchman]

LEOs? The phrase "if it's legal, it's always appropriate" doesn't apply to no stinkin' cops.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

I disagree. Displaying gun in public is not like taking someone to the range. Being exposed to someone openly carrying a gun - which is not a universally accepted public behavior in most places, gun friendly or not - does not make anyone comfortable. Just the opposite. I am all for gun rights, even though I am not carrying myself, but if I saw someone hell bent on displaying his weapon on a public street, I'd wish I had mine just in case. This, to me, is not a behavior of a reasonable, non-threatening person. And an unreasonable person with a gun is a bad combo.

What qualifies as "hell bent"?

[W420Hunter]

Originally Posted by whoops dude

How did you get his rights being restricted from that post? No one was hindering his right to carry, they just wanted to see his id. no harm, no foul.

So are you trying to say we no longer have the right to walk down the street with out having to show our papers?