Friend got harassed by the police for OC

[JesseL]

Ah I see now, I wish it did work this way but it does not.

It does work that way. Just not where you live, apparently.

Like I said above, where I live it works exactly that way and it works very well.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

She is simply and completely misguided in her beliefs that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is certain they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

There. Fixed it for you.

 

[Treo]

felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

Ummmm felons, by definition, couldn't get guns legally before instacheck.

I smell a troll

 

[KP89]

JeeseL:

She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies. Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.

A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.

I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.

I will withdraw from this conversation as it has drawn it off topic, but I simply felt a reply was within regulations due to the comments in regards to rights and perceived violations.

 

[chieftain]

It comes down to a compromise where both parties hopefully can agree. It also fairly dependent on what exactly the issue is as our current social standards obviously have sway.

The civil rights abusers, here known as the anti gun left, do not compromise. Compromise is where two parties give something of value for a settled agreed value exchange.

The Anti civil rights crowd, gives nothing, their functional “compromise” is to take less of our civil rights than they originally were trying to take. That isn’t compromise, that is discounting.

Unfortunately you must make your laws based upon the lowest common denominator.

Not for an Americans we don’t. For the anti American pro socialist left, they do. That is the nature of socialism. Settling to the lowest common denominator.

I could argue that it is unfair that I cannot walk into a sporting goods store and purchase a fully functional M16, the thing is even if I would use it responsibly - the potential damage it could do when used in a inappropriate manner is of far greater magnitude then that of any gain in allowing me to purchase one in such manner.

To exercise a right isn’t about potential damage. The largest mass murder in America was caused, not by automatic weapons, but by plastic knives and such. You argument is specious and very elitist and assumes that our legal principle against preemptive restrictions to reduce civil rights. Should we place people in jail because we know they have the ability to be a mass murderer? NO. Yet you assume this with an inanimate object.

It is unfair to the majority of the people, to have to suffer the cost of that gun being used inappropriately if it could be prevented by me giving up something relatively minor.

No what is unfair and much more dangerous to the national welfare is for an elite few to decide what is minor to someone else. I think it is minor to make someone to give up their “free speech” because it “hurts” so many other folks.

Or better yet, a legal theory so deep in our ‘justice’ system as to allow known murderers loose to feed on the body politic, just because some LEO or Prosecutor made a bureaucratic error. People actually wind up dying, instead of the person who made the error suffering any consequences, some civilian who is the Criminals next victim/s does.

My owning a fully automatic weapon is no threat. Releasing a known murderer certainly is a threat, yet our legal system does it every day, and we pat ourselves on the back and say how great our system is.

We don’t want to “profile” to prevent thousands of potential terrorist deaths, but you and Sarah don’t want me to own a full auto weapon, because, I might choose to go kill many folks. There is no logic or reason for that argument. I believe it is totally driven by ideology.

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

If evil, theft, rape and murder would cease to exist there would be even less gun violence. Like all fairy tales, it doesn’t exist. It is called a fantasy. May be your goals.

My goals and life are squarely planted in the real world. Guns exist and will until we replace them with more effective weapons. That is a FACT!

She is simply guided to believe that banning certain classes of guns and implementing more restrictions will help with the current crime problems, it is very likely they would not BUT, it does not mean she is a horrible woman many people make her out to be.

I believe anyone trying to restrict another honest citizens personal civil rights is a bad person. And they keep saying they are doing it for a fantasy. I don't believe that, I believe their agenda is ideology driven. That makes sense. It is logical and reasonable, based on their actions.

Add to the fact that not only would her fantasy abuse and restrict our civil rights, she would put us and my loved ones at risk of being harmed, by the very violent crime and criminals she ‘states’ is her reason for restricting them in the first place.

I believe there is another agenda. The anti civil rights folks total lack of logic of their argument, must point to a logical reason to restrict our constitutional right to bear arms for other reasons. I look at who they have politically aligned themselves with and I can come up with an educated opinion of what it maybe.

I certainly don't have a problem with the background check system she implemented, felons should obviously not be able to get guns legally.

I don’t like felons them getting them illegally either. Obviously there is no “CONTROL” of the criminals getting weapons, because......wait for it......criminals break and ignore laws. Apparently a stretch for the Anti civil rights folks.

So it boils down to:

With gun control, the bad guys have weapons and the good guys don’t.
Without gun control, the bad guys have weapons and the good guys do too.

Which world do you want to live in?

She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies. Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.

YES! We do have two different ideologies. I believe in the American Constitution, and the concept of freemen. She doesn’t. Just who is no longer controlling themselves? Criminals? Of course! The honest American Citizen doesn't need to be controlled by elitists like her. Their very act of control is evil. She supports, proposes, and preaches evil. That is my definition of an evil person. What is yours?

So this woman wants to ‘allow’ me and my family to have to fight the armed criminals unarmed. Frankly where I went to school, that is evil personified.

A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.

Now you are discounting again. It ain’t about what could happen. Again look at 9/11, not a single fully automatic weapon in sight.

I have extensive combat experience. Frankly most folks with a fully auto M16 would inflict LESS casualties with full auto than semi auto fire. Trained operatives rarely if ever use a rifle on full auto, even in a firefight. There is a reason for that. Full auto is to positively stop the one guy, not to hit a bunch of guys at once. Again, Movies and TV promote fantasy. (we are not discussing crew served weapons here)

The local gang banger will shoot up a lot of ammo full auto, and hit, thankfully, little or nothing. The fear of full auto non crew served weapons is much mythology and little fact. Usually put out by amateurs, people truly ignorant of real combat, and folks with a political agenda.

I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.

What have you prevented by giving up your gun rights? NOTHING! What will you prevent by giving up your gun rights? According to well vetted research and increase in criminal and violent crime. Maybe that is your and her goal? What on earth could possibly be any other reason?

We have science that has proved we will have more death, rape, theft etc. if we DO give up our civil gun rights. Why would you support something so unsupportable?

I will withdraw from this conversation as it has drawn it off topic, but I simply felt a reply was within regulations due to the comments in regards to rights and perceived violations.

Good, study the subject with facts and the concept of pro American Civil Rights and the basis for the Bill of Rights. Every one of your arguments, here have been frankly wrong. And that isn’t a matter of opinion.

Sheesh!.

Go figure.

Fred

PS: As some have already stated, this may well be a troll. Sounds very ideology driven to me.

F

 

[Treo]

Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

I agree W/ the above 100%. The only problem I have is that I don't think the poster realizes that we already have a license. And it's opening words are.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ( notice it's the militia not the people that's regulated)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I said it before I'll say it again We got a Brady Troll amongst us

 

[Catherine]

Quote from KP89:

Pretty soon criminals are going to start OCing once they find out its legal, if a cop stops - them all they have to say is that they are OCing, even a felon could be OCing and the police would not know.

CCW permits have the purpose of weeding out people who shouldn't be able to do something from doing it, or at least not giving them a usable explanation when a cop stops them.

Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.

~~~~~

PEOPLE KILL - guns don't KILL. GUNS do not have a pulse nor do many other objects including CARS/TRUCKS! ALL kinds of tools and objects can KILL if they are used by a HUMAN BEING or a WELL TRAINED MONKEY TO KILL.

WHY the heck should anyone, including a peace officer, STOP anyone from open carrying if they are NOT doing anything wrong?!? SO if you carry any which way - you are a crook! Ha ha! !@#$%^&*()_+!

I have NEVER or pretty close to never read such a ______ statement on a PRO GUN BOARD!

Are you a pro gun person or are you an 'anti gun' person who wants to learn and/or contribute to this board? You remind me of a Miss P from years ago.

NO offense, but this type of post reminds me of some board people back in the 1990's and on.

If you are anti gun - welcome and I hope that YOU learn and become PRO GUN.

If you are 'pro gun' - you need to learn some more things about RIGHTS and the mere fact that it DOES NOT MATTER HOW THE HECK ANYONE CARRIES IF HE IS A GOOD GUY OR A BAD GUY. THE BAD GUY WILL DO THE DIRTY DEED WITH FULL INTENT AND NOT FOLLOW THE 'LAW'.

THE GOOD GUY FOLLOWS THE 'LAW' NO MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE LAW IS BS OR ANTI THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS BECAUSE HE IS A GOOD GUY.

A MERE PIECE OF PAPER GIVEN TO YOU BY THE 'STATE' DOES NOT MAKE YOU A GOOD OR BAD PERSON EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THE CCW BACKGROUND CHECK. YOU CAN HAVE A ZILLION CHECKS AND BALANCES AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DO A CRIME OR THE DIRTY DEED... THAT STINKING PIECE OF PAPER WILL NOT PREVENT YOU, THE CRIMINAL - WITH YOUR PIECE OF PAPER, FROM DOING THE DIRTY DEED. Gggrrrrr. (LOOK at Congress and the White House to get an IDEA of what the heck I am talking about now! LOOK around you when it comes to criminals!)

It takes a well trained MONKEY or a criminal to do the dirty deed with ANY FREAKING OBJECT! That OBJECT or TOOL or firearm can be any type and can be hidden or in FULL VIEW! The well trained monkey or criminal doing the dirty DEED - has a PULSE and can SQUEEZE the TRIGGER on the gun because the monkey or criminal has a PULSE and the OBJECT/TOOL is inanimate!

The well trained and GOOD guy/gal can SQUEEZE the trigger and DEFEND HERSELF/HIMSELF, HER SPOUSE, FAMILY, FRIENDS AND HER COUNTRY FROM A FOREIGN and/or DOMESTIC ENEMY!

THE MERE FACT whether a GUN or ANY OBJECT is CONCEALED OR OPEN DOES NOT MEAN JACK SQUAT!!! :banghead:

A criminal will CHOOSE to be a C R I M I N A L or not!

A lady who REFUSES TO BE A VICTIM WILL BE ABLE TO DEFEND HERSELF AND SO WOULD A GENTLEMAN! Personal responsibility, ever hear of it?

Wow... I need a cup of tea. I can't believe what I READ sometimes on PRO GUN BOARDS!

Geesh - no offense!

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

Another one of KP89's posts that I totally

DISagree with!

Catherine

~~~~~

QUOTE from KP89:

Yes I do believe anyone carrying a gun off of his or her personal property without going directly to an approved recreational area needs to hold a license to do so.

~~~~~

We have met an anti gun - ANTI FREEDOM PERSON here.

Gun control = control!

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

After reading more of the posts by KP89, I have come to the conclusion that he or she is working for the Brady Bunch, ugh, is an anti gun - anti freedom person or is NEW and needs to understand something called the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the RIGHTS endowed to a person by their Creator or in 'natural law' if they want to call it that. Everyone in the WORLD has those rights given to them... it is the 'state or politicians' that want to change those basic fundamental RIGHTS. (See other posts of mine - no sense in repeating myself.) :banghead:

Catherine - Armed and Female
Montana Territory

 

[RDak]

You're right Catherine.

Brady and her followers clearly favor total prohibitions of private firearms ownership. They only want the police and military to own firearms, (oh, and maybe personal bodyguards).

They refuse to listen to irrefutable facts showing firearms ownership, by law abiding citizens, reduces violent crime. They refuse to accept that self-defense, with commonly used weapons, is a fundamental, natural right.

They also refuse to address the most pressing problem with their philosophy (i.e., that, with a total ban on private firearms ownership, the seeds of tyranny are planted).

They have an irrational fear of firearms that has little to do with logic and more to do with sheep-like emotion.

I assume they would fear a tyrant as much as we do - yet their philosophy goes a long way to ensure a tyrant would eventually rise to power. Oh, maybe not in their lifetimes, but eventually IMHO. (The Founding Fathers realized this could happen and enacted the 2nd Amendment accordingly. They lived it, yet the Brady people refuse to recognize this fatal flaw in their position.)

They say "oh, that could never happen in America". I'd bet the Founding Fathers would say "oh, that could eventually happen anywhere without safeguards like the 2nd Amendment".

If that isn't evil then, at best, it is ignorant and stupid IMHO.

Edit: As to the original intent of this thread, we have open carry in Michigan but I'm still afraid of what the police would do to me if I open carried. I know that is wimpy but I'm afraid about how I would be treated. (And that's the problem with laws that mimic the Brady philosophy and mindset. Over time, it makes some of us 2nd Amendment proponents sheep and, in some ways, I've been programmed to be one of those sheep.)

And, I'm telling you, it is that same philosophy and mindset that would eventually lead to tyranny IMHO.

 

[Catherine]

Yes, it will lead to TYRANNY and in many cases we already have TYRANNY here in Amerika, errrr, America.

It will lead to a TEA PARTY one of these days too.

People, the ones with testicular fortitude, may just say to the 'STATE':

"ENOUGH is enough! What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?!"

Heck, most people still don't understand their own RIGHTS which have been perverted and stolen by the 'state'!

ALL of us have our own Declaration of Independence!

Keep your powder dry!

Catherine

 

[Deanimator]

Although I do disagree with some things Brady advocates, I certainly don't vilify her, she believes removing guns will remove violence and in some ways she is correct.

She can BELIEVE anything she wants, just like David Duke or Osama bin Laden.

When she starts IMPOSING those beliefs on others to their detriment, there's a problem.

Many people get so entrenched in their position that they never look at things from the other prospective.

I've got a political science degree. I look at other "perspectives" all the time. That doesn't mean that I have to respect EVIL perspectives, whether they come from Josef Stalin, Nathan Bedford Forrest or Sarah Brady.

 

[Deanimator]

She is hardly anymore evil then you are, you just have two different ideologies.

You mean like me and Charles Manson? We certainly have different ideologies. So he's NOT evil, right?

Sometimes people need to be controlled when they can no longer control themselves in a manor which is conducive to a positive environment.

But that's NOT what you want. You want to control people who MIGHT do something wrong, who HAVEN'T.

Most homosexuals AREN'T pedophiles. Some ARE. Does that mean we need anti-sodomy laws against ALL homosexuals to control the few?

A M16 sprayed into a crowded stadium could do allot of damage, you are correct in saying even a AR-15 with a user who has a happy trigger finger could be used to quiet a negative affect but it still can not output the amount of bullets as quickly as a gun which has FA.

And in my basement, I can make a more reliable and appropriate automatic weapon (Sten SMG) for that purpose. Does that mean that I shouldn't be able to own a sheet metal break, power tools or an arc welder?

I don't mind losing minor rights, as I understand that sometimes you have to prevent something before it happens instead of simply acting once it does.

"MINOR rights"? What's a minor right?

The right to be a homosexual?
The right to be a Jew?
The right to have no religion at all?

You're not harmed by any of those... any more than you're harmed by me owning an M16... or a water cooled .50 machinegun for that matter.

 

[Catherine]

Quote:

She can BELIEVE anything she wants, just like David Duke or Osama bin Laden.

When she starts IMPOSING those beliefs on others to their detriment, there's a problem.

~~~~~

Deanimator,

Thank you and you TOOK the words right out of my mouth.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

There are no such things as 'minor' rights.

Rights are RIGHTS! Period!

Thanks again.

Catherine

 

[kcshooter]

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

Of course, they'd also have to ban knives. And bats. And big sticks. And fists.

Violence exists. Don't let anyone tell you differently. And DON"T let anyone tell you you can't have the tools needed to even the odds when violence is headed your way. You are the only one you can count on to protect yourself and the lives of those you love. A firearm is the one tool that will allow my wife or mother to defeat a 250lb man without sustaining injury.

Would you let the gov't take away YOUR mother's or wife's to protect her life?

 

[dalepres]

Sorry I meant vilify,

If a gun ban could magically make guns disappear, obviously gun violence would cease to exist.

Read the crime stats in Great Britain. Besides the fact that guns only disappeared from the hands of law-abiding citizens, knife and even sword violence is way up, as is baseball bat violence. Banning guns didn't, and doesn't work.

Compromise sounds nice; but when you compromise with evil you still get evil.

Now I understand that you may not think Sarah Bray's goals are evil, but it is to me an inescapable conclusion. The only arguments that favor gun control come down to either willful ignorance of its effectiveness or make it a part of a larger plan to pacify and control people against their will. I don't think Mrs. Brady is particularly stupid, so that narrows it down some...

I agree. And I think that anti-gun people are, often, evil. Many of them don't want to ban guns as a means of ending gun violence. Many of them want to ban guns as a step toward subjugating the people of the United States to their will. Gun control is truly evil in its intent.

 

[dalepres]

You're not harmed by any of those... any more than you're harmed by me owning an M16... or a water cooled .50 machinegun for that matter.

You own a water cooled .50 machine gun? *Drool*

 

[dalepres]

After reading more of the posts by KP89, I have come to the conclusion that he or she is working for the Brady Bunch, ugh, is
an anti gun

Yes, you're right. At first I thought it was just more of the usual a-little-gun-control-is-ok sentiment that we get here. Now I am convinced that he's just a troll. Time to just ignore him and he'll go away.

 

[Tacbandit]

All these experts...geezzzz...can't we all just get along???

 

[Flyboy]

So then concerned citizen calls the local news, the local news puts any spin they want on this story, and dispatchers and supervisors all lose their jobs.

Yeah, no public outcry risk on that one. You obviously have no idea of the politics involved in trying to run a city's police force.

Nor do I give a tinker's damn. It is absolutely not within the proper purview of the police to harass a citizen for a perfectly legal action just to make themselves look good to the ignorant masses.

If you feel otherwise, please advise me of what legal-but-socially-undesirable habits you have (and everybody has some), and I'll be happy to drive the point home in a most personal fashion.

 

[kcshooter]

Nor do I give a damn. It is absolutely not within the proper purview of the police to harass a citizen for a perfectly legal action just to make themselves look good to the ignorant masses.

There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.

 

[Treo]

There's a difference in harrasement and sending out a unit to examine the situation. That's what the post was refering to. Read the whole thing before making a comment like that.

Said the man who didn't

jumped up and casually strolled onto the scene. There were 5 units in the parking lot dealing with a disturbance not related to this one, but two LEO's happened to see my friend walking up to the entrance and stopped him

Ummm Pot meet Kettle

 

[Intune]

kp89-

Guns have the intended purpose of killing things, I see no reason to openly display that object to anyone else.

:banghead: Nope, the only "intended purpose" of a gun is to fire a projectile.

Please, please, I beg you. Don't make it so easy, the entertainment factor is already low enough.

Have a nice gun-filled day. Y'all come back now, ya hear?

 

[kcshooter]

Said the man who didn't

Ummm Pot meet Kettle

I suggest you do the same. This had led to a tangent within the thread where we were discussing whether or not a dispatcher should tell a caller to buzz off when reporting. Again, if you can't read the whole thread, at least read the section you are refering to. Duh.