This is the HIGH ROAD isn't it????????

[Freedomv]

Police are the lowest form of government that the public has to deal with on an everyday basest. They represent the government that has dictated to you what you are going to do from the moment of birth in this country and will dictate what will be done with your estate and remains after you die.
Laws, laws and more laws. Regulations, guidelines and timetables rule our lives. Many people resent authority. Who is the first line for the enforcement of these laws?
The police officer.
Does he care what the law is or if it might be unjust? “I don’t make the laws. I just enforce them.”
We all know that police officers are all individuals and come from different backgrounds with different experiences and ideals etc. Some may make judgment calls and bend the rules (laws) or be flexible, while some may not. (Letter of the law & the intent of the law) Others may misuse & abuse their positions of power & authority, which reflects on the honor and integrity of their fellow officers. I have had dealing with all types of officers. Some were out right thieves working with the local J.P. in a small southern town. Couple of “Good Ole boys”, the stereotypes of southern justice. Others display so much common sense, honesty, integrity and decency they could be poster boy for the profession.
It is sad that an experience with the worst will be remembered far longer than an experience with the best.

I believe that the forgoing is in part why people bash law enforcement. The reason they do it on this forum is because there is a lot of reference to law enforcement and police activities here and it gives them a platform to use and to be heard. (So to speak) Just my thoughts
Vern

 

[dave_pro2a]

You criticize those who dare to criticize, what a shock.

You sit in judgement and ridicule those who believe our freedoms are being erroded. Again, big shock.

Don't confuse frustration at the status quo, or shame, dismay and anger over the militarization of the police force, with 'bashing' LEOS. Try being a free thinker and don't assume so much.

BTW I've never seen anybody advocate drug use on a gun board. I have heard people criticize the consequences of the war on drugs (prohibition). Personally I believe that any clear-thinking, freedom loving American ought to be disgusted at how our rights have been erroded in the name of 'safety' (and in the name of the WOD).

Essentially, lighten up man... it's the internet.

And if we start locking threads because "all the facts aren't known" -- then ALL threads would be locked.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

High Road, Cop Bashing, War On Drugs

In general, I find THR a genial place with ample courtesy. Thank you.

Cop bashing? I see occasional embittered posts by people who hold a grudge from an earlier incident (or incidents) in their lives. I have been blessed to have been availed of training and understanding that helps me get past events that would otherwise leave me bitter, having a grasp of my own responsibilities in the matter and knowing that my attitude, my emotions, and my condition are entirely of my own making.

Not everyone has achieved that bit of enlightenment. It doesn't help to smack them with a trout for it. The knowledge that anger isn't a right and that anger does not confer special rights isn't something you can impose on the understanding of another.

War on drugs? Rather large credibility gap. I would have to say that the apparent prosecution of said WoD is fraught with gaping inconsistencies. Laws are passed that make outrageous abuses possible, but which completely fail to address causes, sources, or even the primary logistics of the drug trade.

I mean, how serious can you possibly be about stopping the flow of "introspection-assisting pharmaceuticals" if you repeatedly and doggedly refuse to secure the most blatant and obvious routes of infiltration?

If motive can be construed from observed action, I would have to say that the stated motives of the declared WoD are . . . inconsistent with observed conduct of agencies -- or lack of it.

The officers on the ground find themselves in the unenviable position of trying to interdict a river of contraband while they are only permitted to view creeks and trickles, and the chemical invasion proceeds unabated.

They further find themselves with rules of engagement calibrated to worst cases rather than majority cases, never knowing what or who is on the other side of that door.

While it's easy to fault them, they aren't making the rules, they're just trying to keep up with a capricious politically-driven body of arrogant legislators and other elected officials out to make a name for themselves or to exert control over what they conceive to be "the rabble" that is the public who hired them.

You can never eliminate social habits at the point of a gun. It has to be done through upbringing and education. You have to discourage dangerous and violent aberrant conduct through force, either threatened or applied, but it is folly indeed to attempt to enforce social norms that way.

The officers of my acquaintance are hard-working guys trying to improve their world under conditions for which I, myself, would have no stomach.

If the laws are bad, our only remedy is to toss the idiots writing them and replace those miscreants with honest public servants -- if we can find any.

In the meantime, the officer on the ground is, to the best of his ability, on our side. The usual disclaimer about exceptions applies.

The High Road is an invitation to rational and reasoned discussion of arms, the reasons for arms, the use of arms, and the defense of the rights concerning arms.

I'm happy it's here. I hope my contributions are worthy.

 

[1911 guy]

THR a haven for miscreants?

All the sudden THR is full of miscreants and ne'er-do-wells? Sorry, I don't see it. I'm not on very many forums, so I can't say about everything that's out there. I visit here, 1911forum and muzzleloadingforum. This place is tops for knowledge, experience and, usually, civility. The other two are really good, too. This is better. Oleg and moderators do one heck of a job.

Having stated my opinion of THR, I also realize that whether any of us are allowed to stay or THR even remains open is up to Mr. Volk and, by delegation, his moderators. I do get frustrated at some of the threads that get closed when things don't look well for a certain group of people, but hey, I'm allowed to get upset. They are allowed to do what they see fit as long as Oleg agrees.

As far as accusing members here of illegal activity, that's going a little far. The mods enforce a policy of not advocating such activity and have edited/deleted posts for it in the past. Some previous members are no longer allowed on the board for repeatedly advocating such behavior. Think GunKid.

Now if you don't like a view point expressed by a poster, respond to them rationally. If they fly off the handle, that's their problem. You tried to discuss it. I've done that several times in the last few days on a particular topic (try PM, it doesn't clutter the original post) and have yet to be very disappointed.

Don't expect everyone to agree with you. There are a lot of people around here, all of us with diferent experiences and mindsets. If we all did agree, what would be the point? We'd look at the screen, say "Yep" and log off. Not everyone has to agree with you. Or me. Or Oleg, for that matter. He allows a great deal of discussion on a site that he could easily edit the living daylights out of because he owns it and could allow no topic or discussion that went against his personal opinions. He's proven over and over again to be much bigger than that. We have an example to follow. Allow disagreement. Don't like it? Read a different thread.

 

[1911 guy]

The sacrificial post.

I'm posting this seperate from my last post because this may well get edited or deleted. Fine. I want to say it, mods may want to get rid of it. Read my last post. Them's the breaks.

The original post reeks of an elitist attitude that exudes an air of "How dare you question us? We are the police!" This is the U.S.A. Anyone has the right to question anything they damn well please.

Threads have been locked in a most expeditious way the last two days on a particular topic that merits discussion. If it were a CCW shoot, the comments would be something like "For what we know now, it seems like a good/bad shoot. Anyone have more details?" As it is, nobody is allowed to supply details due to premature thread lock. I'm complaining about it, the mods can listen or not. Read my last post again.

The seperate issue raised by the original post is what fuels topics like these. Claiming that you are above reproach simply by nature of a job you chose just begs for scrutiny. Trust and honor are earned and learned, not handed out with a baton and blue shirt. If you'll search posts by me, you'll find that I've said over and over that 99.99 percent of police officers are good people trying very hard to do their job to the best of their abilities. It's the "you will respect my authority" types that catch heat. Don't be one of them and you'll be fine.

 

[GRB]

I must say that I have NEVER seen a post on the "High Road" that advocated illegal drug usage. Are you sure that you haven't been surfing "High Times" instead?

Maybe you don't read enough of the posts - especially the ones that are anti-war on drugs.

 

[GRB]

I must say that I have NEVER seen a post on the "High Road" that advocated illegal drug usage. Are you sure that you haven't been surfing "High Times" instead?

Maybe you don't read enough of the posts - especially the ones that are anti-war on drugs. As for your insulting implication that I may be high or reading High Times magazine, no that is not what I choose to read. I much prefer Outdoor Life.

As for statements like this:

The original post reeks of an elitist attitude that exudes an air of "How dare you question us? We are the police!"

maybe you had best read some of my other posts, like all of them here and at places like The Other Side of Kim forums. I am a law enforcement officer, yet I often question other law enforcement officers when they go overboard. The elitist are actually those who post the crap about which I wrote in my initial post within this thread. If you cannot see that attitude expressed in the posts about the 92 year old woman who was shot, then I believe, with all due respect, you are either the elitist of which you speak or are blind.

 

[coyote_jr]

Ok who farted?

 

[TeachMe]

Maybe you don't read enough of the posts - especially the ones that are anti-war on drugs.

Umm, how does being against the War on Drugs equal promoting drug use? That just doesn't make any sense.

And just to prevent more assumptions let me clearly state that the statement above does not imply any opinion on the War on Drugs.

 

[1911 guy]

Tried to PM.

Sorry to post this in open forum, Glenn. Clicking on your username doesn't give me the option of sending a PM to you.

Maybe you don't read enough of the posts - especially the ones that are anti-war on drugs.

So now disagreeing with the status quo is wrong? Man, I'm very glad you weren't making the rules a few hundred years ago. I rather prefer the way a handful of "miscreants" shaped things. You know, being rebellious and all.

maybe you had best read some of my other posts, like all of them here and at places like The Other Side of Kim forums. I am a law enforcement officer, yet I often question other law enforcement officers when they go overboard. The elitist are actually those who post the crap about which I wrote in my initial post within this thread. If you cannot see that attitude expressed in the posts about the 92 year old woman who was shot, then I believe, with all due respect, you are either the elitist of which you speak or are blind.

If I misunderstood what you wrote in the original post, my apoligies. If that's the case, please re-read it and make it more clear so others don't make the same mistake I did. If, however, the post reads exactly the way you want it to, you are a bit off base. Questioning things and not believing what you are fed through the media is hardly elitist. Thinking that someone is entitled to more credibility than another based on their station in life or their occupation is very elitist. If you want to discuss this further, please PM me and allow PM's from me, if you can. I've got a hunch we can agree on a lot of things, but trusting someone just because they happen to be a police officer isn't one of them.

 

[baz]

Maybe you don't read enough of the posts - especially the ones that are anti-war on drugs. As for your insulting implication that I may be high or reading High Times magazine, no that is not what I choose to read. I much prefer Outdoor Life.

Being anti-war on drugs is not the same thing as being for illegal drug use. That you have not conceded the distinction is probably keeping many from taking your point of view seriously. Pointing out how that the militarization of police tactics has led to numerous mistakes is not the same as "cop bashing." At times, it may seem as if a few who post here seem to presume that cops are always JBT's, but the mods will quash that kind of posting pretty quickly. And being an open forum, anybody gets in, so that is gonna happen from time to time. But to equate all those who question the war on drugs as favoring illegal drug use, or who those who question the wisdom of paramilitary police tactics in a free society as being cop haters suggests that you've got a chip on your sholders that you need to take a look at.

A great champion of freedom who died just days ago said this about the war on drugs:

You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society. You are not mistaken in believing that drugs are tearing asunder our social fabric, ruining the lives of many young people, and imposing heavy costs on some of the most disadvantaged among us. You are not mistaken in believing that the majority of the public share your concerns. In short, you are not mistaken in the end you seek to achieve.

Your mistake is failing to recognize that the very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore.

Read the whole thing here. If, after reading it, and maybe after taking a look at the map linked above, you are not willing to acknowledge that there may be a rational basis for opposing the war on drugs as presently executed, then you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

 

[stevek]

I have family in the LEO community, and am generally highly supportive of them. What bothers me is the increasing para-military functions/methods being used. I understand the need for SWAT, but it seems to be seeping into the attitude of the patrol cops also. Also, here in the PRNJ, most police look at you as though you have 5 eyes if you try to talk to them about concealed carry. They seem to think that they are the only ones that can be trusted with firearms :banghead:

 

[Marshall]

Read the whole thing here. If, after reading it, and maybe after taking a look at the map linked above, you are not willing to acknowledge that there may be a rational basis for opposing the war on drugs as presently executed, then you are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

There may be a rational basis for massaging how the war on drugs is executed. Beyond that, I disagree with most of what I read in the article.

 

[MrTwigg]

What I am about to write is intended to stimulate a decent, on topic, mannerly discussion of the topic. If you cannot or will not discuss it that way, please do not.

This is the HIGH ROAD isn't it???????? Yet I see an awful lot of posts advocating drug usage (at least through implication), killing cops, hating cops, taking the word of reporters or relatives of someone who has been wounded in shootout with police over the word of the police as if gospel.

I agree partly on this statement. I do far more lurking here than posting. While I would not call it "an awful lot of posts" but I would agree there are enough of them for an avid reader to note.

You probably would not take the word of those same people as anything but trash if you knew it was a CCW guy involved in a shooting, so why take the word of these people before you know all the facts, heck before you know even a handful of the facts that would tend to lend support one way or the other? For instance there was a thread on the 93 year old who shot a few cops then was killed by cops herself earlier today, it was a disgrace. I guess that is why it was closed down, but I have to wonder, just what type of folks are being attracted to this site with jump to conclusion, hate cops, druggies are right, types of attitudes

It’s too easy to make anonymous statements, on the internet anyone can be an instant expert. People will post things they would never say to another person’s face.

What is up with all of that? Since when has this become an 'Us Against Them' thing, when them is just law enforcement. Has this site become a haven for miscreants, law breakers, illegal drug users, and those who want to support the scum of the earth over those who would make our country a better palce to live (and by this I mean anyone who truly wants to make it better in a moiral and right way)?

I used to allow myself to get upset and actually angry reading some of the crap that slips by (or is tolerated) the moderators here. This is why there is an “ignore feature” built into the forum software. Once I figure out who the trolls are I simply ignore them.
In all fairness to the Mods on this site I have found this to be one of the better moderated sites, I could name two or twelve sites which are far worse. (But I won’t.)

Or am I missing something here; is it just a group of kids on here, or those who act like kids, who want to mouth off on every topic as part of the macho, bad mouthing, hate mongering in crowd?

You just hit the nail on the head.

What kind of attitude is it that folks on these forums want to portray to the rest of America as gun owners?

From what other folks are saying about what sometimes goes on here, it isn’t good. Start browsing some other forums of your choice and draw your own conclusions.

I thought this place was a forum in which the users agreed to keep things on The High Road, or in other words on a moral standing above the vile, bad mouthing type of thing found on some other sites.

There are those here who do and thankfully they are still in the majority.

I really do not understand why people come here to do what, in my opinion, is pretty much welcomed at other sites that are less reputable than this one strives to be! Maybe someone can explain that to me without going overboard.

Trolls and anti’s love to drag everyone down to their level. There have been times when I’ve sat down to post a rebuttal, then revised it because I said things I know I shouldn’t have and when I do try to get my comments posted I find the thread locked, or on other forums, deleted.

I try to contribute in a positive way, and I make good use of the ignore list.

My overall take on THR is favorable, I don’t want to sound like I’m kissing up here, but the Mods are doing their jobs well while permitting the expression of out first amendment rights. This is a good place, but it could be better.

 

[ezypikns]

I listen calmly and respectfully to all viewpoints.....

I can't help it if you knuckleheads don't agree with my superior reasoning.


Maybe if we didn't get outraged so easily?

 

[CornCod]

In my posts of "The High Road," I have been very critical of various trends and attitudes in policing. I have noted at times some of the unfortunate people that sometimes work their way into law enforcement. However, I think that my criticisms of police in modern day America have been reasonable and don't amount to "bashing." As part of my studies for a masters degree in Criminal Justice, I did my thesis on certain aspects of the militarization of police and in my classwork I read and studied a lot about the role of police in society. So, no one can say that I came to my more critical position on the role of police in a bigoted or unthoughtful way. In my 16 years as a probation officer and 3 as a child abuse/neglect investigator I have had occaision to work a lot with the police and saw both the good and bad.

Many years ago I was one of those persons who used to automatically bridle at any criticism of the police. I used to think police critics were a bunch of hippy, pinko anarchists. Now, I take a more nuanced view. I am critical of the police, but I won't be joining any Mumia Jamal marches either!

 

[robertbank]

It seems to me THR represents and reflects the general population. As a Canadian I have a different view or take on some topics then you might find south of the line BUT what sets this Forum apart from others is the tolerance for various points of view.

The is the only gun forum I know of where comments regarding the ineptness of GWB got further than "Thread Lock". Offering an opinion that the "War on Drugs" has almost as big an industy as "Drugs Usage", is not in itself a suggestion supporting drugs. Commenting on your distain of some of the New Orleans police officers who left their posts during the flood is hardly "Police Bashing".

Our societies have become very complex, the rise of large urban cities is a comparatively new human experiment with challenges we are just now trying to cope with. Guns, Crime, Police, Drug use, are all topics that have risen with this challenge and the answers are not clear.

THR seems to handle general discussions on these topics as they relate to firearms as well as most and significantly better than some.

Take Care

Bob

 

[baz]

There may be a rational basis for massaging how the war on drugs is executed. Beyond that, I disagree with most of what I read in the article.

But the point is that on some issues, reasonable minds may differ. So I wasn't necessarily expecting agreement with the view that we should decriminalize drug use, but merely acknowledgment that a reasonable case exists for decriminalizing drug use. If you still disagree with that -- then all hope for rational discourse is at an end.

Herein lies the problem with too many discussions like this, whether it involves religion, politics, or pretty much anything: the refusal of one or both sides to acknowledge that sometimes a matter is not beyond reasonable doubt, or one such that reasonable minds might differ. 'Tis why we have democracy (or a Republic, if you prefer). Sadly, most discourse these days degrades quickly because one side or the other assumes that anyone who disagrees with them must lack the good sense that God gave a dog to come in out of the rain. While I will be the first person to say that's often the case -- as in maybe with some moonbats -- the issue at hand (militarization of police tactics, whether the war on drugs is good or bad) is one where we need to be listening to both sides, because if we don't, the problem is just going to get worse.

 

[BryanP]

I post here and I agreed to nothing.

Yes, yes you did.

When you created an account on this message board you clicked "I Agree" to a list of terms and conditions. You may not have bothered to read them, but you did agree to abide by them.

 

[grampster]

Regarding the WoD. Several years ago, William F Buckley devoted an entire issue of his National Review to that topic. The conclusion, after being debated by some of the best minds in America, and mostly conservatives at that, is that the WoD is more than a dismal failure. The whole nasty business ought to go away as the WoD has done more to corrupt our society, our country, as well as waste billions and billions of tax dollars, change the way the police conduct business, erode the BoR, and interfere in the practice of medicine and pain, than the drugs themselves. To continue to have a debate about that is more than worthwhile. To doggedly refuse to admit that there might be a better way is more of a problem imho.

I'll try and find a link to that issue if I can. Some of you are better at 'puter stuff, so feel free to help out.

Found it. Feb 12, 1996 issue. You can also google National Review, War on Drugs. Second topic is War on Drugs is Lost.

 

[Pgrl]

Although I really can't imagine what the result would be if we did legalize drugs, those of you that think we should: do you really want your cardiac surgeon, your LEO, high on meth or even marijuana? Maybe you say it's fine if it's on their own time -- well, their 'own' time is rarely theres' and they often have to go in on emergencies. We often hear of criminals committing crimes when 'high' on an illegal substance, therefore I can not believe that legalizing drugs can lead to less crime. Locally, we had a 80-some year old lady who was raped by someone high on a substance, who luckily was 'saved from what I can only guess would be death' while she was being dragged to her car (BG took the keys) because she hit her medical alert button when she heard her glass window being shattered. Do we think the BG would have done it sober? Maybe, but I think less likely. Drugs alter thinking, and not for the better.

 

[ilbob]

Although I really can't imagine what the result would be if we did legalize drugs, those of you that think we should: do you really want your cardiac surgeon, your LEO, high on meth or even marijuana?

How is an MD on dope any worse than one that is drunk? There is no reason that we have to change the standards of conduct expected of a particular profession just because we might decide that the WOD has failed.

I don't believe anyone can look at the WOD and not come to the conclusion that it is anything but a dismal failure. That is just the way it is. It is not a suggestion that everyone go out and toke up.

My guess is that those that want to use illegal drugs now would probably continue to use them if they were decriminalized in some way. I doubt any significant number of additional people would just up and decide to become drug addicts.

Look at the nearly 100 year old WOD and point to any significant victory. You can't. It is one bad idea after another, none of which have worked. These days you can't even tell what the purpose is.

Is it to reduce drug usage? Complete failure.

Is it to reduce crime associated with the drug traffic? Complete failure.

Is it to reduce the negative impacts of drug use on society in general? Guess what - total failure again.

It is time to take a very serious look at what it is we want out of this whole mess, and try to salvage something.

 

[Biker]

Very well said, Bob. Well said...

Biker

 

[Derby FALs]

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

What the WOSD has accomplished.

"If its purpose is to make criminals out of one in three African-American males, it has succeeded. If its purpose is to create one of the highest crime rates in the world -- and thus to provide permanent fodder for demagogues who decry crime and promise to do something about it -- it is achieving that end. If its purpose is de facto repeal of the Bill of Rights, victory is well in sight. If its purpose is to transfer individual freedom to the central government, it is carrying that off as well as any of our real wars did. If its purpose is to destroy our inner cities by making them war zones, triumph is near."

 

[javacodeman]

Who's morals are we using?

Hopefully, mine I've recently posted the following on my blog:

With the election outcome and my recent purchase of some handguns, I've been pondering government in general and government from a Christian view point. I've boiled my thoughts on government down to one main principle and two supporting principles:

1. Government should protect its citizen's freedom foremost.
2. Government should accomplish this by
a. Protecting citizens from outside entities (other countries' armies, terrorist, etc.)
b. Protecting citizens from each other

All laws, taxes, fees, statues, governmental bodies, etc. should support principle #1, #2a, or #2b. Laws should only restrict or limit principle #1 for a #2a or #2b principle and this should only happen in circumstances where all other avenues have been explored and proven ineffective.

For example, I have recently taken up exercising my 2nd constitution amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. Many would have you believe that guns are evil tools used by evil people and that a #2b type law should be enacted to remove guns from all citizens at the expense of principle #1. Not only do I disagree with this trespass of principle #1, it has been shown time and time again to not work. I would propose in its stead a total arming of the American people. Places in Georgia and Arizona have tried this resulting in a dramatic drop in violent crimes. We should also look to history to see that Germany, Russia, and Cambodia enforced citizen gun bans prior to and enabling the genocides of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

A second place that my principles of government take me is slightly uncomfortable for me as a Christian. People are evil. Most laws are there to hedge in our evil natures. There is no question that any act of evil that harms a fellow citizen should be outlawed by government. (Murder, for example would be evil, while self defense would not be evil.) That leaves two categories of evil acts still not addressed: mutual acts of evil by consent of all parties (gambling, committing sexual sins of both homo and hetero type, etc.) and acts of evil against oneself (using drugs, overeating, committing suicide, viewing pornography, etc.). My principles of government certainly suggest that laws against gambling, adultery, and drug use should be done away with to uphold principle #1. Part of me says that this is okay and that it is the Church's (not the government's) job through the power of Jesus Christ to write God's moral law on the hearts of a country's citizens. Besides, a law against overeating is ridiculous and would put restaurants like Ryan's out of business . On the other hand, an argument can and often is made that the latter two forms of evil acts do not affect only those involved but also the offenders' family, friends, and acquaintances. It is certainly true that America's ability to protect itself would be severely weakened if all of the citizens were strung up on heroine.

In spite of difficulties that might arise, I do not retreat from my overarching principles of government. I do believe that careful choices must be made in the fleshing out of laws of #2a and #2b type and laws that protect a citizen from him or herself.

I am still working with these ideas to make them absolutely correct and consistent; I will post more as more becomes clear to me.

I hope my thoughts on government (to include LEOs) are HIGH ROAD enough. Would you classify me as a NEO-CON?

java