View Full Version : And Arizona Makes Three!
ZonieDiver
04-16-2010, 23:12
Governor Brewer has signed it into law! Arizona now joins Vermont and Alaska in allowing 21+ people to carry concealed without a permit.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Brewer-signs-bill-to-allow-concealed-guns-without/ay_4ZJIFpUypn3FcbxvC7w.cspx
Smokin Joe
04-17-2010, 00:08
This is such a double edged sword....
armymom1228
04-17-2010, 06:45
:DI really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc ---
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun? Seriously, ever see the
I'm just sayin' -- shouldn't there be some IQ test, or even a test that requires you to demonstrate that you can toast a pop-tart without looking at the box?
I'm being quite facetious, here, but I'm also serious. Help me out here...thoughts?
yeah... I would rather turn a kid loose with a gun before I turn _him_ loose with his male body parts.. that "gun" is just as, if not more dangerous.. :P
uh counselor...shouldn't there be an IQ test before we turn a barrister loose on the world, just sayin'......;)
In all seriousness... why you *you* have a problem with someone open carrying thier personal firearm? Va. has had open carry for a long time. I don't see anything in the news that says it is a problem there.
http://opencarry.org/ will give you more info.
Why open carrylaws work. (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/15/why-open-carry-gun-laws-work.html)
maps showing more info on open carry (http://opencarry.org/maps.html)
More info at opencarry dot org
Last hard class
04-17-2010, 06:51
Six hour drive to Phoenix. Ice chest full of road pops. Listening to Roland the Headless Thompson gunner on the way. After arrival, I am just going to walk down the street and start shoot'n stuff.
Just kidding.
While I am all for guns. Guns for all without proper vetting is bothersome. I do not know the AZ laws as they pertain to aquiring the weapon in the first place.
Dozer523
04-17-2010, 07:00
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument here...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc --- Help me out here...thoughts? Well, then, you've come to the wrong place.yeah... I would rather turn a kid loose with a gun before I turn _him_ loose with his male body parts.. that "gun" is just as, if not more dangerous..
I never killed anyone with MY body parts. (My eye sight is a little dimmer and she did call out to God, but nobody died. -- I guess cuz her Dad didn't find out.:eek:)uh counselor...shouldn't there be an IQ test before we turn a barrister loose on the world, just sayin'......;) Ladies . . . :( (BTW I think they call em the LSAT and the Bar Exam) just sayin'
While I am all for guns. Guns for all without proper vetting is bothersome.
...and the constitution says gun owners should be vetted where? Maybe we need to progress the meaning of the constitution a bit, because, after all, we are now much more technologically advanced and a bit wiser than the founders. I mean...with what we have nowadays, they would absolutely believe in some type of government control over who gets to have a gun or not if they were alive today, right? Would they really change the principals they stood for and articulated so well in those two documents (DOI and Constitution)?
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...
Let's see...bloviate on intelligence and gun ownership...ask for thoughts...but preface it all with a comment that you dont want to argue the constitutionality of who should be able to own a gun. Hmmmmmmm, maybe I got your post wrong? I am a bit slow on the uptake sometimes. PLease 'splain it to me a little more so I can understand.
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...
Go ahead, show us all how smart you are...:munchin
Last hard class
04-17-2010, 07:18
...and the constitution says gun owners should be vetted where? Maybe we need to progress the meaning of the constitution a bit, because, after all, we are now much more technologically advanced and a bit wiser than the founders. I mean...with what we have nowadays, they would absolutely believe in some type of government control over who gets to have a gun or not if they were alive today, right? Would they really change the principals they stood for and articulated so well in those two documents (DOI and Constitution)?
I certainly am not advocating changing the constitution or the principles it protects. I believe everyone should have the right to bear arms. I just think some mandatory training on how to use them and/or a proficiency test makes sense. It's that 1% I worry about. The reality is, there are some pretty dim bulbs out there. You wouldn't want them on your team. You wouldn't even want them in your army. I don't want them walking down the street with a concealed weapon.
Just my opinion.
armymom1228
04-17-2010, 07:26
just sayin'[/COLOR]
Dozer, I was just joking....
Kyobanim
04-17-2010, 07:42
Sounds like a good deal for everyone. . .including those who got their guns through illegal means.
NousDefionsDoc
04-17-2010, 07:57
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process.
Yes, it should be responsible gun ownership. But you punish people when they have proven to be irresponsible, not because you think they are going to be.
CCW classes and licensing do not prevent stupid people from carrying. They only have to be smart for a couple of hours.
It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
DJ Urbanovsky
04-17-2010, 08:04
Laws only "work" because of the law abiding. You know, since criminals don't give a shit about the law, and have already been illegally carrying guns for a long time.
I'd like to see the state offer some kind of a free safety course if they don't already, and really push for getting those people who are going to carry educated.
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process....
...It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
And there you have it. Well put. The words "Shall not be infringed" is not conditional (at least not until you get into the whole deal of convicted felons).
Last hard class
04-17-2010, 08:24
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process.
Yes, it should be responsible gun ownership. But you punish people when they have proven to be irresponsible, not because you think they are going to be.
CCW classes and licensing do not prevent stupid people from carrying. They only have to be smart for a couple of hours.
It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
I surrender! This is not a torch I want to carry.
What can I say? My mother taught sociology at Kent state in the 70's. My father tried to beat the liberal out of me but I guess it didn't completely take.
I still like a grape ne-hi.
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun?
Many morons ages 16 or older can get a drivers license and we don't prevent them from driving. Cars are as deadly as a loaded gun and probably cause more injuries and deaths each year.
Seriously, ever see the directions on the back of pop-tart box?There are seven steps...yes seven on how to prepare your toasted pastry. How to unwrap it, place it lovingly in the toaster, depress toaster button....and the same person that requires those instructions can have a handgun.
A safety course like hunters safety 'might' have some merit, but it is no guarantee. Just like passing the BAR doesn't guarantee you'll be an ethical lawyer.
I'm just sayin' -- shouldn't there be so me IQ test, or even a test that requires you to demonstrate that you can toast a pop-tart without looking at the box?
We do, it is Form 4473
I'm being quite facetious, here, but I'm also serious. Help me out here...thoughts?
No matter how hard you try, you can't save people from themselves.
The Reaper
04-17-2010, 09:13
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc ---
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun? Seriously, ever see the directions on the back of pop-tart box? There are seven steps...yes seven on how to prepare your toasted pastry. How to unwrap it, place it lovingly in the toaster, depress toaster button....and the same person that requires those instructions can have a handgun.
I'm just sayin' -- shouldn't there be some IQ test, or even a test that requires you to demonstrate that you can toast a pop-tart without looking at the box?
I'm being quite facetious, here, but I'm also serious. Help me out here...thoughts?
Can you explain the concept of a "slippery slope" counsel? How about defining the limits on an inalienable right?
If you look at most of the anti-gun, limited carry states, they once had much less restrictive laws. Then the laws gradually became more restrictive, until they virtually limited possession and carry to the political elite. Requirement for an IQ of 90 or higher becomes 120. Four hours of training becomes eighty. 50 rounds fired becomes 500. $20 application fee becomes $1000. Sheriff "must approve" applicants meeting requirements changes to "may approve". You know, small stuff becomes big stuff and next thing you know, it is out of reach of the general public. For their own good of course, they are not smart enough to realize what is good for them.
Should we incarcerate or neuter people with sub-normal IQs because they might do something stupid? They might burn their houses down cooking Pop Tarts. Maybe we should refuse to sell them ovens, cars, barbecue grills? How about the illiterate? Can't read the instructions in English, can't be trusted to prepare them safely. No Pop Tarts for you. Preventative fire safety. They damn sure shouldn't be allowed to vote. That is even more dangerous. Why let repeat offenders out of jail? You can have a pretty high degree of certainty that they are going to offend again. Just keep them locked up. Or execute them. Call it pro-active crime control.
Maybe there are seven steps shown for preparing a Pop-Tart because of lawyers. Some idiot burned his house down and decides he and his attorney can make money on it. Have you looked at a step ladder lately? You can hardly find a clean place on it without a warning decal.
TR
I think all this focus on "handgun safety" is wrong headed and plays into the Left's desire to eviscerate our right to bear arms. The subtext is always that handguns and other firearms are "dangerous" and "evil" and must be treated like radioactive materials or something. We aid them with this argument when we use their language.
How about a CHL class focused on "handgun lethality"? I.e., how to handle the thing properly, how to avoid hurting yourself or others accidentally, the true nature of GSW's, but above all - how to rapidly and without fail put rounds into the CNS of a threat under stress when required.
Real handgun safety means awareness on the part of criminals that someone nearby with a CHL will absolutely, positively snatch the life from their useless body if they commit a violent act.
My view from a Castle Doctrine state, YMMV.
I think all this focus on "handgun safety" is wrong headed and plays into the Left's desire to eviscerate our right to bear arms. The subtext is always that handguns and other firearms are "dangerous" and "evil" and must be treated like radioactive materials or something. We aid them with this argument when we use their language.
How about a CHL class focused on "handgun lethality"? I.e., how to handle the thing properly, how to avoid hurting yourself or others accidentally, the true nature of GSW's, but above all - how to rapidly and without fail put rounds into the CNS of a threat under stress when required.
Real handgun safety means awareness on the part of criminals that someone nearby with a CHL will absolutely, positively snatch the life from their useless body if they commit a violent act.
My view from a Castle Doctrine state, YMMV.
Well said.
mojaveman
04-17-2010, 09:40
There are a lot of nut jobs in our society who regardless of any rules or regulations are going to carry concealed weapons anyway. If a law abiding citizen wants to carry a firearm for protection that's fine with me.
I got mine. :D
The Reaper
04-17-2010, 09:44
NORMAL550GIRL:
Let me offer one additional question.
Let's say that you suddenly find yourself being stalked and threatened by a former boyfriend, 6'3", 245 pounds or so, who you left because of his physical abuse.
Do you think your local LE can guarantee your personal safety, or lock up the threat forever??
Refresh yourself on the procedures to purchase and legally carry a firearms for personal protection in your area. I would actually encourage you to go buy a pistol, and see how much paperwork is required. Then try to get a CCW. Most libs and anti-gunners I know have no idea how difficult it is.
How many gates and restrictions do you think are reasonable for you to be able to protect yourself in the above scenario?
TR
greenberetTFS
04-17-2010, 09:46
Can you explain the concept of a "slippery slope" counsel? How about defining the limits on an inalienable right?
If you look at most of the anti-gun, limited carry states, they once had much less restrictive laws. Then the laws gradually became more restrictive, until they virtually limited possession and carry to the political elite. Requirement for an IQ of 90 or higher becomes 120. Four hours of training becomes eighty. 50 rounds fired becomes 500. $20 application fee becomes $1000. Sheriff "must approve" applicants meeting requirements changes to "may approve". You know, small stuff becomes big stuff and next thing you know, it is out of reach of the general public. For their own good of course, they are not smart enough to realize what is good for them.
Should we incarcerate or neuter people with sub-normal IQs because they might do something stupid? They might burn their houses down cooking Pop Tarts. Maybe we should refuse to sell them ovens, cars, barbecue grills? How about the illiterate? Can't read the instructions in English, can't be trusted to prepare them safely. No Pop Tarts for you. Preventative fire safety. They damn sure shouldn't be allowed to vote. That is even more dangerous. Why let repeat offenders out of jail? You can have a pretty high degree of certainty that they are going to offend again. Just keep them locked up. Or execute them. Call it pro-active crime control.
Maybe there are seven steps shown for preparing a Pop-Tart because of lawyers. Some idiot burned his house down and decides he and his attorney can make money on it. Have you looked at a step ladder lately? You can hardly find a clean place on it without a warning decal.
TR
Here,here,very well put.................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Team Sergeant
04-17-2010, 09:53
Many carry here anyway, permit or no permit. You think the all the illegals are putting in for permits? We get a few shootings/killings a week, most are done by illegals. We have the most kidnapping and home invasions in the country, again, illegals. Anothe stat, one half of ALL illegals come through Arizona. With stats like that make you wonder how many American Border Patrol agents have been "purchased"?
I like the idea of an armed society is a polite society.
Most PD will treat you as if you're carrying anyway.
Those of us with permits are allowed "reciprocity" those without are not. This is a state law, not a fed one and was a misdemeanor at that.
Now joe citizen can be armed just like jose illegal. :D
ZonieDiver
04-17-2010, 10:02
It has mostly all been said, but to reiterate:
1) a lot of the morons already carry concealed - permit or not.
2) all CCW classes are NOT created equal. I've seen some permitted people that scare the crapola out of me.
3) I am sick to death of having my rights limited because of the actions of morons.
<rant off>
Utah Bob
04-17-2010, 10:39
There are thousands of citizens carrying concealed firearms. Some states have competency requirements. Some do not.
The simple fact is that the number of incidents where legal gun toters did a bad thing with their firearm is infinitesimal.
...and the constitution says gun owners should be vetted where?
My first thought exactly.
GratefulCitizen
04-17-2010, 11:47
I really ( I mean really) don't want to get into a 2d amendment argument hear...and obviously the posters on this site are in a class by themselves when it comes to understanding gun safety...responsibility and intelligence etc ---
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun? Seriously, ever see the directions on the back of pop-tart box? There are seven steps...yes seven on how to prepare your toasted pastry. How to unwrap it, place it lovingly in the toaster, depress toaster button....and the same person that requires those instructions can have a handgun.
I'm just sayin' -- shouldn't there be some IQ test, or even a test that requires you to demonstrate that you can toast a pop-tart without looking at the box?
I'm being quite facetious, here, but I'm also serious. Help me out here...thoughts?
I like your thinking.
Let's take it a step further.
A great many citizens are killed every year in vehicles.
There is no need for this.
Driving should be restricted to professional drivers (like me).
Everyone else can call a cab, use public transportation, and order stuff over the phone/internet.
Your local UPS driver would be happy to deliver your stuff to your doorstep.
The Teamsters would be happy to meddle in standards for national transportation, much like the AMA and ABA meddle in standards for the medical and legal professions.
Peak oil and trade deficits would be thwarted in one fell swoop.
Countless lives would be saved.
We would all be far richer and safer for it.
Think of the children.
All of you untrained amateurs are just time bombs waiting to get someone killed.
Leave it to us pros. We know better.
I await your rebuttal.
99meters
04-17-2010, 12:00
An armed society may be a polite society, and, a polite society would make my job a lot easier. However, if I respond to an active shooter call like in VA and every 21 year old kid has a gun, who do I shoot? Somebody will step-up and try to be a hero, the sad thing is, most cops will take that hero out.
When Joe armed-society decides to protect himself, is he going to look at his target and beyond, is he going to keep his finger out of the trigger guard as his muzzle passes my wife and kid, I hope he does... because if he f@$Ks up, I wouldn't
I'm for the 2nd, but just letting anyone 21 and up by a gun and carry, I don't know.
Open carry...... maybe
40yrs - good to go
30yrs - 39yrs most have a job
21yrs - 29yrs most be fulltime student or married or home owner, or....
You QPs vet guys all the time to keep the Rambos out.....right? I only want vetted guys matching my right to carry conceal.
GratefulCitizen
04-17-2010, 12:11
I only want vetted guys matching my right to carry conceal.
What standard would you have fellow drivers meet?
How many injuries/deaths do you see due to lack of judgement + firearm?
How many injuries/deaths do you see due to lack of judgement + vehicle?
armymom1228
04-17-2010, 12:41
conceal carry prequal questionaire (http://app1.licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/firearms/prequal_questions.aspx)
Google "how do I get a conceal carry license your state" type in your state name instead of 'your state'. The info is not hard to find. It took me 3 seconds of typing to find the prequal info for florida.
What TR/TS/ZD/Ub all said. Plus this. If anyone thinks that the LEO's will protect you with a legal restraining order in place, think again. I can cite time and again, incidents with a restraining order in place. The cops rarely do anything until the victim is laying there dead in a parking lot. Then all you hear on the TV is, "gee we didn't realize........"
I have a major problem with people who infringe on my right to bear arms. What many of those same people seem to be ignorant of,is the simple fact is that we delete one constitutional right. Next week we go for another. Lehsee, will that be freedom of religion or speech, or right of peaceful assembly.
Utah Bob
04-17-2010, 12:43
An armed society may be a polite society, and, a polite society would make my job a lot easier. However, if I respond to an active shooter call like in VA and every 21 year old kid has a gun, who do I shoot? Somebody will step-up and try to be a hero, the sad thing is, most cops will take that hero out.
When Joe armed-society decides to protect himself, is he going to look at his target and beyond, is he going to keep his finger out of the trigger guard as his muzzle passes my wife and kid, I hope he does... because if he f@$Ks up, I wouldn't
I'm for the 2nd, but just letting anyone 21 and up by a gun and carry, I don't know.
Open carry...... maybe
40yrs - good to go
30yrs - 39yrs most have a job
21yrs - 29yrs most be fulltime student or married or home owner, or....
You QPs vet guys all the time to keep the Rambos out.....right? I only want vetted guys matching my right to carry conceal.
I was a cop for 30 years. I must disagree.
1st, if there are armed citizens at the incident, by the time you arrive the incident will most probably be over.
2nd, How many documented cases are there of ccw holders being shot by the police in error or abusing their right to carry? Hardly any.
3rd, whenever anyone, especially in law enforcement, says they support a specific right and then tacks a "but" on it I get nervous.
mojaveman
04-17-2010, 12:50
Fifteen years ago I was living in a rural unincorporated area of my county on a few acres of land that I owned. If I made a 911 call from where I lived I'd be lucky if I saw a deputy within an hour. A gang of young white trash meth-heads began burglarizing homes in my area and hit my place three times. Because of the actions of myself and a few of my neighbors we caught the dirtbags redhanded. In less than 72 hours they were released from jail. A few nights later they were standing in the road in front of my house and threating me with serious bodily injury. I immediately bought a nice automatic handgun and kept it under my pillow when I slept. Because I often got home from work at night late and had to drive down a long unlit dirt road I also carried it with me in my vehicle, but in a locked container per Kalifornia law.
Sometimes one is forced to carry...
I would also add the case Warren v DC (http://gunowners.org/sk0503.htm). The courts ruled that the police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT CITIZENS!! This is the case where three women were tortured, raped and sodomized for hours as the police drove past the house but would not respond.
If the police have no duty - who will help you?
if I respond to an active shooter call like in VA and every 21 year old kid has a gun, who do I shoot?
The closest threat?
armymom1228
04-17-2010, 13:40
A I only want vetted guys matching my right to carry conceal.
Define 'vetted"? only "guys"?:rolleyes:
TrapLine
04-17-2010, 13:44
As much as I do not necessarily like the idea of some people out there having guns, I am much more afraid of a government that will trample the constitution. I feel I have a much better chance of defending myself and my family from some moron with a concealed hand gun than the government that decides the 4th amendment is as debatable as the second has become. Free societies come with dangers, but the last time I checked many here have sacrificed much for that freedom, and I appreciate it.
As an LEO that works in this state I must say that I am thrilled that this passed and am not concerned about people suddenly running wild with concealed guns and shooting people. AZ already had open carry, the gun just couldnt be concealed, and there have not been the problems that the libs fear. Just like TS said the bad guys are carrying guns concealed anyways.
Derek
Green Light
04-17-2010, 14:36
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun?
That applies only if you really believe that the American public is mostly morons. Americans are not. From my own experience, I'd put the average gringo up against the average Englishman, Swiss, French, German, Italian, whatever. We're not only smarter but an American has the God-given right to defend himself, family, property, or neighbor. Those other folks don't. We have the freedom to choose, those other folks can't. Period.
The reason we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is so we won't end up like Europeans. Fortunately, we taught them a thing or two in 1917 and they haven't bothered us since. :eek: :D
dfirsty, I've had a AZ permit since 02 (still do) I didn't see any mention in the article regarding DV offenses? (meaning b4 the bill was passed a person would be denied CCW and LEO's would be fired. Oh yeah, that is a Federal Law)
As far as the not well enough trained and saving life and limb, focusing on poorly trained Drivers would save a lot more limbs and money. I'm sure their aren't any here but I have seen more trained LEO's muzzle swept by their comrades than I care to mention, and have had to redirect a few muzzles myself. Something I do not really appreciate.
2nd applies to everyone, including dumdass's.
Team Sergeant
04-17-2010, 15:38
dfirsty, I've had a AZ permit since 02 (still do) I didn't see any mention in the article regarding DV offenses? (meaning b4 the bill was passed a person would be denied CCW and LEO's would be fired. Oh yeah, that is a Federal Law)
As far as the not well enough trained and saving life and limb, focusing on poorly trained Drivers would save a lot more limbs and money. I'm sure their aren't any here but I have seen more trained LEO's muzzle swept by their comrades than I care to mention, and have had to redirect a few muzzles myself. Something I do not really appreciate.
2nd applies to everyone except felons and domestic violence offenders, including dumdass's.
I would highly suggest that if you do not want to get "swept" by a muzzle you get out of playing with guns and stay away from those that do.
You going to yell "timeout" when confronted by a bad-guy pointing a weapon at you? And what happens when someone shoots past your nose about an inch, deliberately?
It irritates the crap out of me when someone like yourself, a civilian, preaches his "expert" weapons opinion concerning those that make a living protecting others.
What do you intend to do about the few million bad drivers that have accidents each year?
Take it somewhere else.
Team Sergeant
Green Light
04-17-2010, 15:56
dfirsty, I've had a AZ permit since 02 (still do) I didn't see any mention in the article regarding DV offenses? (meaning b4 the bill was passed a person would be denied CCW and LEO's would be fired. Oh yeah, that is a Federal Law)
As far as the not well enough trained and saving life and limb, focusing on poorly trained Drivers would save a lot more limbs and money. I'm sure their aren't any here but I have seen more trained LEO's muzzle swept by their comrades than I care to mention, and have had to redirect a few muzzles myself. Something I do not really appreciate.
2nd applies to everyone, including dumdass's.
What you're talking about isn't self defense. If you're in a crowd that has weapons out (i.e. LEOs) you, my friend, are in the wrong place. I let LEOs do their job - they're the pros. Once they get there, my need to defend myself has ended. If they're sweeping you, you are probably in the way. And if it looked like that to you, you're probably mistaken. I've had more than a couple of rounds fired over my shoulder by the guy in back of me. No sweat if that's what you do for a living.
Utah Bob
04-17-2010, 17:19
What you're talking about isn't self defense. If you're in a crowd that has weapons out (i.e. LEOs) you, my friend, are in the wrong place. I let LEOs do their job - they're the pros. Once they get there, my need to defend myself has ended. If they're sweeping you, you are probably in the way. And if it looked like that to you, you're probably mistaken. I've had more than a couple of rounds fired over my shoulder by the guy in back of me. No sweat if that's what you do for a living.
Exactly. People who don't use guns daily in their occupation get real freaky about being "swept". I see it all the time with weekend shooters in competition matches. When the shit hits the fan, the shit hits the fan. I've been swept and swept a few myself. I'm still breathing.
craigepo
04-17-2010, 17:39
But does it bother anyone that any moron can get a gun?
The weird thing about this country is that the folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution thought that our citizens should have a lot of rights seldom before bestowed on a populace: a right to bear arms; the right to a press free from governmental censorship; the right to choose one's own religion; the right to speak freely without repurcussion; the right to be secure in one's home and person; the right for a person to have 12 random citizens pass judgment on his case.
Can you imagine the kings/tyrants of antiquity granting their subjects these rights?
Can you imagine attempting to subjugate a populace that enjoys these rights?
Clearly, none of these rights are absolute. However, our constitution contains these rights for a reason---to keep our citizens from suffering the same fate of tyranny that has afflicted most prior civilizations. In my opinion, to hold that any such right is not as important as another is derogatory to the entirety of our rights, and runs contrary to the Founders' plan to keep us free.
Utah Bob
04-17-2010, 18:27
But, you know, if there is one, just one, true moron with an IQ of 10 with a gun --he's going to come live next to me and my kids --(that's just the way my life seems to work):D
And perhaps that's why you need one too.;);)
AngelsSix
04-17-2010, 20:04
Many carry here anyway, permit or no permit. You think the all the illegals are putting in for permits? We get a few shootings/killings a week, most are done by illegals. We have the most kidnapping and home invasions in the country, again, illegals. Anothe stat, one half of ALL illegals come through Arizona. With stats like that make you wonder how many American Border Patrol agents have been "purchased"?
I like the idea of an armed society is a polite society.
Most PD will treat you as if you're carrying anyway.
Those of us with permits are allowed "reciprocity" those without are not. This is a state law, not a fed one and was a misdemeanor at that.
Now joe citizen can be armed just like jose illegal. :D
LMAO!!:D
I think it's good - for the reasons pointed out. The bad guys are carrying anyways.
I'd recommend getting a permit just to be able to walk in to a gun store and walk out with a new purchase same trip. Also, AZ's permit has decent reciprocity and is easy to obtain, and if you're an AZ resident, you'll need it to carry in the states that only honor permits from the state of residency anyways.
Team Sergeant,
Sir, did not intend to irritate anyone and am sorry if I did. I have supported every state law enforcement association I have lived in, including Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers both actively and financially.
Please excuse me for not responding to your other comments as I cannot, and shall refrain from making any future comments regarding weapons or tactical related subjects.
"What do you intend to do about the few million bad drivers that have accidents each year?"
Not much, but the point was; they are more of a danger in my expert driver view than law abiding citizens carrying weapons. (have raced Formula Ford, F2000, and F Mazda, and certified by CA court as an expert driver)
LEO's, please accept my apology if you were offended by my poor choice of comments.
What some of you are advocating is punishing people because you think they are stupid or will do something stupid in the future. Oh, and protecting them from themselves with legislation. Typical liberal thought process.
Yes, it should be responsible gun ownership. But you punish people when they have proven to be irresponsible, not because you think they are going to be.
CCW classes and licensing do not prevent stupid people from carrying. They only have to be smart for a couple of hours.
It is a right. If they screw it up, you take it away from that individual. Not the group and not because you think you are smarter than they are.
NDD, I agree 100%. Unfortunately, there are officers in my department, who have supposedly had training, that if it were me and them to go in a door, I would tell them to watch the door, I'll be back. No amount of training can fix what isn't there.
That being said, I applaud these states for their stand and allowing their citizens the right to protect themselves.
Smokin Joe
04-17-2010, 23:50
My ONLY objection to it is that it takes a tool out of the toolbox for the LEO'S out there. That tool was a misdemeanor offense. Not that big of a deal, as you can always find a reason to take someone to jail, but it was a slam dunk on the gang bangers I used to jack up.
However, that is no longer my problem, as such I guess I have no more objection.
brokenvan
04-18-2010, 00:15
This thread is interesting. All of the QPs have expressed support for Arizona's new law without tacking on a "but" or any other condition, whereas almost all of the non-QPs/civilians have thrown on some sort of condition for this law.
As for the vehicles vs guns debate, I found this source with data from 2006:
Vehicle deaths per 100,000: 15.0
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=118&cat=2
Firearms related deaths per 100,000: 10.2
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2
DC leads the firearms related at 20.6 per 100,000.
All that being said, I support Arizona's new law, no strings attached.
And a little food for thought...in states with open carry, most don't require a permit to open carry. According to opencarry.org, 14 states require licensed open carry vs 28 states that allow non-licensed open carry. Openly carrying or carrying concealed, you're still carrying a gun. The responsibility of knowing the gun laws and when deadly force is authorized falls on the individual regardless of how it's carried.
I would highly suggest that if you do not want to get "swept" by a muzzle you get out of playing with guns and stay away from those that do.
You going to yell "timeout" when confronted by a bad-guy pointing a weapon at you? And what happens when someone shoots past your nose about an inch, deliberately?
It irritates the crap out of me when someone like yourself, a civilian, preaches his "expert" weapons opinion concerning those that make a living protecting others.
Stay safe.
99meters
04-18-2010, 05:01
The idea of throwing up vehicle deaths vs gun deaths as a argument for conceal carry or any type of carry makes no sense to me. The # one killer or teeagers in the US is auto accidents, about 6000 each year. Drivers 16-19 have 4x the death rate of drivers 25-29. For some reason young folk do not handle responsibility and power too well. To just give any 21 year old the right to by a gun and carry it scares me.
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
Irishsquid
04-18-2010, 06:21
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
You're right...gun-carry is far more important. I'd give up my truck and start walking LONG before I'd give up my RIGHT (Not privilege, and thankfully not subject to your opinion,) to carry a weapon and defend myself.
As an aside, a 21-year old with a gun doesn't scare me nearly as much as a 16 year old with a car. I think that is the point everyone here has been trying to make.
The second amendment is the right that guarantees all the others...don't forget that.
For some reason young folk do not handle responsibility and power too well. To just give any 21 year old the right to by a gun and carry it scares me.
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
There are plenty of young folk that handle it just fine... what age can you enlist in the military again?
Tell me what age would be suitable for young folk to be allowed to exercise their rights. Older than 21? So, is 25 ok? Please say yes, I just turned 25. The 1st Amendment is more powerful and requires even more responsibility than a gun IMO so I guess the young folk shouldn't get that right either. Let's raise the voting age too.. the young folk screwed the pooch the last time around.
18 is when you are an adult - you should be able to vote, drink, carry a gun, join the military. If you can't handle it, then guess what? You fail. The bill of rights was not written to protect us from ourselves.
It's funny how people in "todays world" are scared to grow up / let their children grow up. I guess when people aren't leaving their parents house till their 30's, people in their early 20's are still seen as children.
Goddamn I need to try some yoga.
Question deleted by user.
The Reaper
04-18-2010, 08:53
The idea of throwing up vehicle deaths vs gun deaths as a argument for conceal carry or any type of carry makes no sense to me. The # one killer or teeagers in the US is auto accidents, about 6000 each year. Drivers 16-19 have 4x the death rate of drivers 25-29. For some reason young folk do not handle responsibility and power too well. To just give any 21 year old the right to by a gun and carry it scares me.
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
I bought, owned, and carried a pistol since I was 18.
At no time while carrying it have I had any irresistable urge to act irresponsibly.
How about the hundreds of thousands of American teenagers as young as 14 carrying rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, grenade launchers, cannons, bombs, flamethrowers, etc., 24/7 throughout our nation's history? Does that bother you as well? Were they irresponsible in their carry?
Should the other inalienable rights in the Constitution be age-restricted or require training and testing to exercise?
Why can you operate a motor vehicle on the public roads at age 16 (or younger), vote to elect our leadership or join the military at 18 and carry a machine gun, but you cannot be trusted to drink a beer or carry a concealed weapon till age 21?
TR
The idea of throwing up vehicle deaths vs gun deaths as a argument for conceal carry or any type of carry makes no sense to me. The # one killer or teeagers in the US is auto accidents, about 6000 each year. Drivers 16-19 have 4x the death rate of drivers 25-29. For some reason young folk do not handle responsibility and power too well. To just give any 21 year old the right to by a gun and carry it scares me.
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
At 18 they are old enough to vote, old enough to be sent overseas to eliminate bad guys and sometimes sacrifice their lives.....all at the wee age of 18. And if your old enough to vote and die for your country your old enough to do anything else the world presents.
I don't know many people that don't have guns, most where hunting by age 5 and none of them have ever been injured or inflicted injury with a firearm. However 3-5 have been killed in vehicle accidents and several others seriously injured.
SCARED.....do you have that same feeling about handing a 16 year old the keys to car on Saturday night so young lad can haul his friends to the movies?
I would bet money that 80% of persons on this board have driven under the influence at least once, and 20% know of at least one person who has driven under the influence. And 100% know someone who has been injured, killed or arrested as a result of driving under the influence.
How many know someone who has been injured or killed due to accidental discharge or hunting accidents? I don't know one. Anyone gone drinking and hunting?
The point being, the people I know are more responsible with their firearms than they are with there vehicles....or at least that is my perception.
What SCARES me is people that have the illusion that a car is any less dangerous than a gun. My observation is that people are frightened of things they don't understand, feel they cannot control or a lack of self confidence with.
As for functioning in today's world, things are more dangerous by day and so is the need for self defense. In my former crime free little Utopia, theft is up, suicides are up, the gas station gets robbed more frequently and the CERT team blasted a lady a few weeks ago.
The dissenting views of some members of this forum, of all places, show the success of the Left’s the propaganda campaign since the 70’s. In the early days of my life, this subject would never have been raised…or conceived. :(
Pat
This thread is interesting. All of the QPs have expressed support for Arizona's new law without tacking on a "but" or any other condition, whereas almost all of the non-QPs/civilians have thrown on some sort of condition for this law.
Well, I suspect there are a number of civilians following the thread that, like myself, support it but don't feel like they have anything else useful to add. So I'll speak up to be counted.
I'm surprised we haven't even started on young folk and motorcycles yet.. :D
armymom1228
04-18-2010, 09:59
Originally Posted by brokenvan
This thread is interesting. All of the QPs have expressed support for Arizona's new law without tacking on a "but" or any other condition, whereas almost all of the non-QPs/civilians have thrown on some sort of condition for this law.
Well, I suspect there are a number of civilians following the thread that, like myself, support it but don't feel like they have anything else useful to add. So I'll speak up to be counted.
Oh hel no, I am with the QP's on this one. NO reservations here. Open carry supporter all the way.
AM
BlackHills
04-18-2010, 10:01
Bravo for Arizona.
Wyoming had a similar bill in the Legislature this year, it was passed by the House but didn't make it out of the Senate Committee (mainly due to time restraints). I expect to see it introduced again next year.
Team Sergeant
04-18-2010, 10:27
The idea of throwing up vehicle deaths vs gun deaths as a argument for conceal carry or any type of carry makes no sense to me. The # one killer or teeagers in the US is auto accidents, about 6000 each year. Drivers 16-19 have 4x the death rate of drivers 25-29. For some reason young folk do not handle responsibility and power too well. To just give any 21 year old the right to by a gun and carry it scares me.
As for functioning in todays world, transportation needs and gun-carry needs don't share the same importance.
You don't get it do you......
Vehicles are just tools like guns, in the wrong hands they can be dangerous, more so than guns. We require everyone to pass a drivers "test" and yet we lose thousands a year due to stupid people.
Guns are no different, responsibly starts at home and rests with the individual.
I was carrying and shooting a machine gun at 17. What say you now?
Team Sergeant
The dissenting views of some members of this forum, of all places, show the success of the Left’s the propaganda campaign since the 70’s. In the early days of my life, this subject would never have been raised…or conceived. :(
Pat
Hell, in High School would brings gun and knives to school and no one thought anything about it. We even had a shooting club in. Every kid had a pocket knife in grade school.
99meters
04-18-2010, 11:03
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun.
The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit. At least with the permit some helpful guidlines are provided (eg. if a cop ask for ID, provide ID and permit). It prevents you from being "placed" face down in the street, having a knee across your neck, disarmed, cuffed, and then questioned.
Maybe the 21 year olds in Vermont and Alaska are able to work their problems out in a mature way without resorting to violence, but the kids in the neighborhoods that I patrol work things out a little differently. Most go to their car and then come back to resolve issues (TX you can carry when traveling). Every thug has one in his car. They are a lot of shitbags out there that don't have a criminal record...(as yet) that can buy guns. I don't want them to have the right to carry concealed.
Cops aren't killed every year by the guy wearing two six shooters strapped to each leg. It's the ones we don't see.
Let all the ninjas carry open and vet the guys/gals carrying concealed.
The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit.
I believe they already do and will continue to do so no matter what restrictions and guidelines you 'attempt' to enforce.
Maybe the 21 year olds in Vermont and Alaska are able to work their problems out in a mature way without resorting to violence, but the kids in the neighborhoods that I patrol work things out a little differently. Most go to their car and then come back to resolve issues (TX you can carry when traveling). Every thug has one in his car.
I don't believe behavior is related to geographical location, I find it related to parents and up bringing.
They are a lot of shitbags out there that don't have a criminal record...(as yet) that can buy guns. I don't want them to have the right to carry concealed.
And a lot of shitbags with and without criminal records are allowed to reproduce as well.....and we allow that.
Cops aren't killed every year by the guy wearing two six shooters strapped to each leg.
I don't know about that, but I am pretty sure they have been killed with difficult to conceal Long Guns from time to time though...
Anevolution
04-18-2010, 12:12
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun.
The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit. At least with the permit some helpful guidlines are provided (eg. if a cop ask for ID, provide ID and permit). It prevents you from being "placed" face down in the street, having a knee across your neck, disarmed, cuffed, and then questioned.
Maybe the 21 year olds in Vermont and Alaska are able to work their problems out in a mature way without resorting to violence, but the kids in the neighborhoods that I patrol work things out a little differently. Most go to their car and then come back to resolve issues (TX you can carry when traveling). Every thug has one in his car. They are a lot of shitbags out there that don't have a criminal record...(as yet) that can buy guns. I don't want them to have the right to carry concealed.
Cops aren't killed every year by the guy wearing two six shooters strapped to each leg. It's the ones we don't see.
Let all the ninjas carry open and vet the guys/gals carrying concealed.
99m:
I hope you represent a very small percent of LEO's in Texas. You sound like a scared man, to me. Maybe you should stay off the street, far away from all of us bad guys under 30 without records, who Carry conealed. :rolleyes: I don't see why you would put someone on the ground with your knee in their back for CCWing. Nor do I understand your logic of because you can see the weapon your safe. OC or CC you still have a gun and can use it. FYI never move to Va we don't have to say weather or not were carrying unless asked 21 or 81.
Head:
Please tell me it's not 25. I would have to wait another 4 months or so untill I can carry again. :mad:
V/r
Anevolution
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun. The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit. At least with the permit some helpful guidlines are provided (eg. if a cop ask for ID, provide ID and permit). It prevents you from being "placed" face down in the street, having a knee across your neck, disarmed, cuffed, and then questioned.Maybe the 21 year olds in Vermont and Alaska are able to work their problems out in a mature way without resorting to violence, but the kids in the neighborhoods that I patrol work things out a little differently....[snip...]
So...a piece of paper makes all the difference to you? A permit actually means something when it comes to stop and frisk?
Badges? We don't need no stinking Badges!
The reason would you be putting me face down on the ground with a knee in my neck is not because of a piece of paper, but rather because of some stupid actions/behavior I might be engaged in that caused you to stop. The permit check would be secondary to the reason you were stopping to hassle me (gawd...I'm just kidding) in the first place. It is absurd line of thought that a piece of paper makes ANY difference to the guy that needs the knee in the neck.
BTW...my opinion is that permits are there as a source of revenue for the State...not as a public safety measure to ensure someone is competent to carry. If it was...they would be free. There is no qualification in GA other than age and verification that you are a good citizen (read: no felony rap or other crime that resulted in foreiture of your right to possess firearms).
The Reaper
04-18-2010, 15:17
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun.
The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit. At least with the permit some helpful guidlines are provided (eg. if a cop ask for ID, provide ID and permit). It prevents you from being "placed" face down in the street, having a knee across your neck, disarmed, cuffed, and then questioned.
No disrespect intended, but I am stunned that you think the bad guys are not carrying concealed right now, and are waiting for permission to do so.
Do you not already assume that any stop you make is a potential shooting incident? That is the way the Highway Patrol and the Police Academies in NC ran training for stops the last I heard.
I also think there is huge hole in your logic if you think that the open carry may be the only gun being carried, and as long as it is in the holster, there is nothing further to worry about. You keep watching the right hand and the holster, and he kills you with a concealed back-up gun in the left hand.
All I can say is wow.:eek:
TR
Defender968
04-18-2010, 17:50
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun.
The problem is the good and bad will take the opportunity to carry concealed without a permit. At least with the permit some helpful guidlines are provided (eg. if a cop ask for ID, provide ID and permit). It prevents you from being "placed" face down in the street, having a knee across your neck, disarmed, cuffed, and then questioned.
Maybe the 21 year olds in Vermont and Alaska are able to work their problems out in a mature way without resorting to violence, but the kids in the neighborhoods that I patrol work things out a little differently. Most go to their car and then come back to resolve issues (TX you can carry when traveling). Every thug has one in his car. They are a lot of shitbags out there that don't have a criminal record...(as yet) that can buy guns. I don't want them to have the right to carry concealed.
Cops aren't killed every year by the guy wearing two six shooters strapped to each leg. It's the ones we don't see.
Let all the ninjas carry open and vet the guys/gals carrying concealed.
99meters, I'm going to have to throw some more wood on the fire, in your theory the thugs can already buy guns because they've not already been hemmed up correct… but you don't want them to be able to carry concealed…well what stops that same thug from getting the permit and carrying legally now if he's got no record already? The answer is nothing save maybe the hassle of filling out the forms, maybe the thugs in your AO wouldn’t bother, the smart long term thugs in my AO would, same way they never have expired tags/insurance/registration…no reason to give me an easy reason to make the stop and hem them up.
As for open carry, I'm not a huge fan, I don't think it should be illegal, but you and I know that open carry presents some other huge issues, one of which TR brought up, another I can think of is when someone is carrying openly and not in the mindset to protect that weapon at all times....that's not to say they can't defend their weapon, but if he/she's not on their game 100% of the time and a thug wants that weapon, he's going to get it, why advertise it and make them a target for thugs that are likely much better trained than they are, that simply leads to more violent crimes and more guns on the street IMHO. Personally I don't recommend open carry to any of my family/friends though it is legal in the states they live in.
It sounds to me like you work in a dangerous area, got it, but as others have said thugs aren't following the laws regardless of what they are, so why hamper the law abiding citizens? As I've said before I am all for concealed carry, though as I've said I favor requiring a class for non-military/non-LE applicants, but were it up to me, that class would be extremely inexpensive or free, and the permit would also be extremely inexpensive or free, so long as you're not a felon and you want to carry I'm all for it.
Just another LEO's .02
Irishsquid
04-18-2010, 19:43
Ok.... let me make myself clear. I'm against conceal carry for anyone 21 and up no permit needed (see original post). Open carry of hand guns would not be a problem, and everyone and their aunt should own a long gun.
And now I'll make myself clear. I do not like the press. At all. I still fought for, and fully support the freedom of the press. Make sense? Likewise, whether or not I'm a gun-owner or concealed carry advocate, it's in our bill of rights. Shall not be infringed. Doesn't matter if you like it. Doesn't matter if you agree with it. Shall not be infringed. Anything less than unrestricted carry for law-abiding citizens is unacceptable.
99meters, as an LEO myself, I understand where your confusion sets in. I have seen it many times in the cadets and rookies I have trained who had no prior military experience or had not grown up with the presence of firearms. The one thing I think you are not understanding is that most states now have "Anti-gang" laws, most of which state the mere possession of a firearm by a known gang banger is madatory prison time. This does not include the standard federal prohibitions against felons (which most gang bangers are), people who have been deemed mentally incompetent and those convicted of domestic violence offenses.
Because of these, a gang banger SHOULD not be carrying open or concealed, period. If you are intentionally attempting to find a way to charge a legally licensed CCW permit holder with a misdemeanor charge, I think you are way off course. In 12 years, I have never had a problem with a CCW holder. These are not the people you need to be worrying about. They may not know the muzzle from the hammer or the difference between a magazine and a clip, but they do have the right to protect themselves and their families to the best of their ability. As you should well know, our job is not usually to save someone from getting shot, but to pick up the pieces and arrest the perpetrator of a crime.
As was stated in earlier posts, you are trained to approach EVERY vehicle as if the occupants intend to do you harm. Not in an aggressive or rude manner, but in a tactical mindset, prepared for any scenario. Once you have determined no threat exists, you lighten your approach, but never your mindset. Never let yourself go to condition "White" or even "Yellow" when you are in contact with anyone. The presence of a firearm should never surprise you as you should always expect it.
dr. mabuse
04-18-2010, 21:22
*
SparseCandy
04-18-2010, 21:24
Well, I suspect there are a number of civilians following the thread that, like myself, support it but don't feel like they have anything else useful to add. So I'll speak up to be counted.
Agreed. I am for both open and concealed carry without permits. Heck, I'd support dueling coming back as long as we set aside places for it to occur where bystanders wouldn't get hurt - maybe it would stop some of these drive by's that end up killing innocents. :)
mojaveman
04-18-2010, 21:51
I didn't think 18 yo's can roam around the base ( or in the barracks) at will with loaded weapons [/QUOTE]
When I was 18 I was carrying a loaded M1911A1 on my side. I guess someone had enough faith in me to let me do that. We did have a few accidents though, but they were mostly with guys who just weren't competent with firearms. They were also teenagers and were assigned to other positions like permanent CQ runner where they were not allowed to carry anymore. I guess some 18 year olds can handle that responsibility and some can't.
The old-enough-to-vote argument is wobbly; 18 yo's didn't get the vote because they (as a group) are known for their superior jugdement and discernment, correct?. In Texas, an 18 yo can get a CHL with current/recent military service.:D
The carry-a-machinegun-in-the-military argument leaves out the issue that the 18 yo's were trained/monitored to use deadly weapons in an appropriate fashion vs the 18 yo's that couldn't handle the responsibility. I didn't think 18 yo's can roam around the base ( or in the barracks) at will with loaded weapons so there is a control factor there vs an untrained, armed 18 yo waltzing around the mall in Scottsdale.
IMHO.
You missed the point. The only argument needed for carrying is the fact that it's our damn right to do so. These points were merely corollaries.
Just like voting... gun carry shouldn't be based on superior judgement and discernment. I'm more worried about all the college kids who simply cast their votes based on who MTV is endorsing - that is more of a threat than any amount of teens with guns.
The military argument has nothing to do with the carrying of guns... if the government is willing to place the burden of defending of the Constitution upon the backs of 18 year olds, then they need to recognize that 18 year olds are deserving of the rights provided in that document.
How about the argument that an 18 year old who is caught carrying concealed will be charged as an adult... even though he wasn't adult enough to legally carry concealed?
dr. mabuse
04-18-2010, 22:02
*
dr. mabuse
04-18-2010, 22:15
*
Irishsquid
04-18-2010, 22:47
I look at the 18 yo diddy-bops in the mall, and they're (IMHO) not the same as the 18 yo's that completed basic. :munchin
You must not know the same 18 year old brand-new Soldiers I know. Given my choice, I wouldn't trust many of them with a weapon. Good thing it's not my choice...it IS their damn right.
Head, with respect, you missed my point entirely.
Re-read my post. I said "agree with QP's" did I not? I'm not new to guns nor am I a novice to CHL issues sir.
I'm out to win converts, do you not understand this?
I don't disagree with you at all, I am merely suggesting a better approach than the "it's our damn rights" argument.
You call them corollaries, I call them weak arguments.
You said, " How about the argument that an 18 year old who is caught carrying concealed will be charged as an adult... even though he wasn't adult enough to legally carry concealed?"
That's not an argument, that's the sometimes screwy legal system for you. Change the law.
The common-sense approach/argument regarding our gun rights, letting people be responsible for their actions if they screw-up, and taking the good with the bad is sufficient without all the weak "corollaries", IMHO.
:confused:
I'm not going to waste my time arguing about what an argument is and who is missing whose point... :rolleyes: Take it easy.
dr. mabuse
04-18-2010, 22:52
*
dr. mabuse
04-18-2010, 23:00
*
Head, sorry I was wasting your time by trying to clarify my position. I sometimes forget who's yard I am in and who's opinions are valued most here (said w/o sarcasm).
Your position is now perfectly clear.
Now, would that be a little example of passive/aggressive behavior?
I am merely suggesting a better approach than the "it's our damn rights" argument.
Like what? You reduced some very good, conservative thought down to, “the it's our damn rights" argument? What argument other than it is in the constitution does anyone need?
Oh…maybe you meant, “I don’t’ have any good arguments myself…and I want to be entertained so…dance, Monkeys. ”
Your contribution to this thread up to the point you decided we weren’t doing a good enough job was...Hog Nuts. (Said without sarcasm)
99meters
04-19-2010, 04:24
Please don't send me PMs telling me how sorry you feel for me, or how much you wish I never had a gun and badge. You don't know my "Kind" and what the hell does my religion has to do with me being against conceal carry for everyone. And for F##k sake don't tell me about your kid defending my rights in the ME ....... I'm protecting yours right here.:mad:
Two things ....... people seem to be offended by me saying I'll have my knee across their neck if they don't declare they carry concealed during a field interview, and they believe somehow that I want to take their very rights I swore to protect.
I think all should have the right to bear and keep arms. However, I don't see how carrying concealed is related to being necessary to the security of a free state.
TR, you should be stunned that I think the bad guys are not carrying concealed, if that was my belief. I know they are, and for this simple reason if I am conducting a field interview and that person doe's not tell me they are carrying from the get go and I spot something that looks like a gun..... you know where my knee is going. All you good citizens who are offended, you don't have to worry. I work night shift and I patrol a real shitty area, so there is no way you would be caught dead in a neighborhood like that at 2am with a gun on you.
Those with tatical experience know action beats reaction every time. If you are in a high crime area and you spot a concealed gun on someone, what do you do? I shout gun!! and me and every cop with me goes guns out. If everyone and their mama starts to carry conceal you just f@#ked up our OODA.
If everyone carry open we can make the right ajustments. If there is one we will assume there is two. Expect your field interview to start with "sir please interlock your fingers and place your hand above your head" (my beat at 2AM).
People carry guns for two reasons to protect themselves or to hurt others (well maybe three, the CDI factor). In my line of work if you are trying to conceal a gun from me I think you are trying to do me harm. If you only want to protect yourself then carry open.
I think all should have the right to bear and keep arms. However, I don't see how carrying concealed is related to being necessary to the security of a free state.
[snip].
Let me break it down for you Barney style...That snippet you quoted is part of what is called a pre amble, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Does not mean that you have to be a practicing member of a militia to have the right to own a gun. Does not say you have to carry unconcealed to exercise that right. Necessary to the security of the free State is the ability to form a militia should the situation warrant it. ...and then we have that little bugger of a phrase there at the end that says, "shall not be infringed." Kinda sounds non negotiable to me.
From a LEO perspective concealed carry is an obvious job-related safety issue. But back to your comment on the knee-neck issue. Were you referring to using the knee-in-the-neck technique because someone does not have a permit...or because someone was possibly engaged in criminal behavior and may pose a threat to you? I know the answer…I hope.
BTW…if you don’t ask…I’m not telling, so what about the line, “You have anything on you that I need to worry about?” as a good first question to break the ice with your selected field interviewee. I guess the way you posed your initial response to that scenario was probably not well explained. Seemed a bit draconian to me.
From a LEO perspective concealed carry is an obvious job-related safety issue. But back to your comment on the knee-neck issue. Were you referring to using the knee-in-the-neck technique because someone does not have a permit...or because someone was possibly engaged in criminal behavior and may pose a threat to you? I know the answer…I hope.
BTW…if you don’t ask…I’m not telling, so what about the line, “You have anything on you that I need to worry about?” as a good first question to break the ice with your selected field interviewee. I guess the way you posed your initial response to that scenario was probably not well explained. Seemed a bit draconian to me.
Don, in NC, if you have a CCW permit, you must state so and that you have your weapon with you on first contact with an officer. The line you use about having anything on you is what I use all of the time and it works well. You can judge by the reaction whether they are lying or not.
99meters, the "knee on the neck" routine is a sure way to wind up on CNN, being used as an example of police brutality. There are many other ways to subdue a subject. You also have to remember, the tactics used in a military operation and during police contacts are very different. Military don't have to worry about reasonable suspicion and probable cause. What happens if you run into a store owner at 2am in your neighborhood who is carrying a gun because he is closing his store and knows the character of the neighborhood? Are you going to put a knee in his neck out of the blue because you saw what you think is a gun? If that store owner carries open all of the time, a thug knows he has a gun he carries with him because he sees it all of the time, the thug sets up an ambush and steals the gun. Now the thug has another gun.
Personally, I do not want everyone to know I have a weapon on me. I will conceal my badge and weapon to the best of my ability. Open carry draws too much attention.
Green Light
04-19-2010, 08:51
I read in a book once (Cardinal of the Kremlin I think) that the old KGB did two different types of foot survellance, close and loose:
Extremely close surveillance - basically in your back pocket. They wanted you to know that they were watching you. It kept you from doing anything because you knew you had your "friends" with you at all times. It was basically preventative.
I think of open carry as similar. Of course, you're right - there's times when you don't want your weapon on display, but you're either advertising "don't mess with me" or you're thinking where you're going isn't appropriate for open carry (church, etc).
But rdret1 is correct, open carry does make you stand out in a crowd unless you're in a crowd of folks carrying on their hips. I'd rather blend in and not be noticed.
dr. mabuse
04-19-2010, 09:08
*
99meters
04-19-2010, 09:13
Don, maybe I should no have dumped it all together like that. There is no definitive resolution by the courts as to what rights the 2nd Amendment protects. An oversimplified take on US v. Miller would suggest "individual rights" are protected by "state rights" because its the civilian population that would make up the militia.
This is neither here or there, as you pointed out it has nothing to do with carrying concealed. You are also right about conceal carry being a job-related safty issue for LEO. What can I say, maybe my motives are selfish.
Rdret1, I see the wisdom in your words, and honestly, I would hate to put my family and department through something like that. But sometimes back-up is 5 min out, the scene is not secured, you have to disarm, and then holster to cuff and keep scanning. When it's all coming at you that quickly that knee across the neck/upper back sometimes give the most control in the shortest amount of time.
Wow, whoa, O.K., where do I start? Down the rabbit hole we go.....point by point. [snip]
Don doesn’t say a whole lot too often, and in your little retort you’ve doubled my “quote count” for the last 4 years. Thank you.
I see you jump over Head, lecturing and talking down to him when you brought nothing to the fight to start with. Your first line from your first post on this subject…
“Agree with QP's. I just wish we could get some better/stronger arguments though. These are so old and perhaps have too many holes.”
Then you go on to bloviate about how each argument is weak. Then in subsequent posts ask “what don’t you understand” like you are talking to a 12 year old. Maybe it’s just your writing style, but you come across to me as condescending, and elitist. You kinda rubbed me wrong. I’m sure it works both ways.
I am not going to go line by line nit-picking your post. That is 5th grade lunchroom crap. Big picture is…you got called on attitude and don’t like it. Oh well…
And if you can’t believe a QP would say that stuff…you probably haven’t been around too many. I can’t believe a chancre mechanic is getting this wound up over a little criticism. Now back to the discussion.
Have anything to support your beliefs we should/should not be able to carry that we haven’t covered yet?
Don, maybe I should no have dumped it all together like that. There is no definitive resolution by the courts as to what rights the 2nd Amendment protects.
I know this will probably make you angry, but frankly I'm appalled that you're a cop in Texas. Luckily, most here do not seem to share your low view of the public or our rights. Every time I've been asked to provide ID by a LEO, I hand them my CHL on top of my DL and they invariably ask if I'm carrying. I say yes and ask if they need to secure it, and they always say something along the lines of, "No sir, you're just fine." I have never been stopped by a LEO while carrying, even when printing enough for a trained eye to spot it. I even had one let me off of a speeding ticket, saying, "Your good guy card got you a free pass today. Drive safe."
You seem to have difficulty telling the bad guys from the good, and I'll bet that sooner or later that attitude gets you in trouble. Stay safe.
Sacamuelas
04-19-2010, 10:36
All you good citizens who are offended, you don't have to worry. I work night shift and I patrol a real shitty area, so there is no way you would be caught dead in a neighborhood like that at 2am with a gun on you.
This makes no sense to me. Actually, there is NO WAY I would be caught WITHOUT a gun in the above listed situation. You described PERFECTLY the reason why I do carry concealed.
FWIW, I always indicate to a LE officer when I have a weapon at a traffic stop and would if I were ever questioned for something criminal. I give my CC ID and driver's license out when I get pulled over for speeding.
Slantwire
04-19-2010, 13:41
I work night shift and I patrol a real shitty area, so there is no way you would be caught dead in a neighborhood like that at 2am with a gun on you.
If your neighborhood is as described, I wouldn't be caught dead there WITHOUT a gun on me.
If everyone and their mama starts to carry conceal you just f@#ked up our OODA.
So you adjust your TTPs. ROEs change, it happens.
In my line of work if you are trying to conceal a gun from me I think you are trying to do me harm.
So you adjust your assumptions. Maybe someone tries to conceal from a thug, not you.
AngelsSix
04-19-2010, 15:55
I didn't think 18 yo's can roam around the base ( or in the barracks) at will with loaded weapons .
When I was 18 I was carrying a loaded M1911A1 on my side. I guess someone had enough faith in me to let me do that. We did have a few accidents though, but they were mostly with guys who just weren't competent with firearms. They were also teenagers and were assigned to other positions like permanent CQ runner where they were not allowed to carry anymore. I guess some 18 year olds can handle that responsibility and some can't.
Age has absolutely nothing to do with a competence level. Incompetence can be clearly seen at all ages; the average age of a DUI offender in most states is 30 years old. More than 80% of DUI's are male and until recently in most states they were Caucasian, now Hispanics have taken over that statistic.
I have witnessed plenty of negligent discharges in my time in the military, as I am certain others here have. Again, age isn't a factor. Take a look at the Canadian Brig Gen that had a negligent discharge in Kandahar.
AngelsSix
04-19-2010, 16:06
I know this will probably make you angry, but frankly I'm appalled that you're a cop in Texas. Luckily, most here do not seem to share your low view of the public or our rights. Every time I've been asked to provide ID by a LEO, I hand them my CHL on top of my DL and they invariably ask if I'm carrying. I say yes and ask if they need to secure it, and they always say something along the lines of, "No sir, you're just fine." I have never been stopped by a LEO while carrying, even when printing enough for a trained eye to spot it. I even had one let me off of a speeding ticket, saying, "Your good guy card got you a free pass today. Drive safe."
You seem to have difficulty telling the bad guys from the good, and I'll bet that sooner or later that attitude gets you in trouble. Stay safe.
Glad you said it before I did.
I'd like to see the state offer some kind of a free safety course if they don't already, and really push for getting those people who are going to carry educated.DJ--
How would such a program work?
What would the "push" look like?
GratefulCitizen
04-19-2010, 20:05
I'm protecting yours right here.:mad:
...I'll have my knee across their neck if they don't declare they carry concealed during a field interview, and they believe somehow that I want to take their very rights I swore to protect.
Haven't walked a mile in your shoes, and have had way too many violent encounters of my own to second-guess someone else's perceptions on the matter.
That being said, if you went somewhere outside your jurisdiction and someone addressed you with your own words, what would be your reaction?
There are many states and cities into which I don't venture because I don't like their laws.
If Arizona's laws make you uncomfortable, nobody will force you to visit.
Several years ago there was a big issue about a Texan who killed two trespassers.
Texas has the laws their citizens want. Arizona does, too.
That event was discussed at length here with similar themes to this thread.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16372
Given your leanings on concealed carry, I'm curious to know what your opinions are regarding Title 2, chapter 9, section 9.42 and 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code.
It would seem to pose a far graver threat than a few more people carrying concealed.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
There is no definitive resolution by the courts as to what rights the 2nd Amendment protects. An oversimplified take on US v. Miller would suggest "individual rights" are protected by "state rights" because its the civilian population that would make up the militia.
.
You need to check District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS found the 2nd Amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms for lawful purposes absent any connection to a "militia" or other state sponsored organization. It is interesting it took this long, since as far as I am concerned, it is written in plain english.
99meters
04-19-2010, 22:27
Every time I've been asked to provide ID by a LEO, I hand them my CHL on top of my DL and they invariably ask if I'm carrying. I say yes and ask if they need to secure it, and they always say something along the lines of, "No sir, you're just fine."
Thanks for making my point.
99meters
04-19-2010, 22:29
FWIW, I always indicate to a LE officer when I have a weapon at a traffic stop and would if I were ever questioned for something criminal. I give my CC ID and driver's license out when I get pulled over for speeding.
Thanks for making my point.
What can I say, maybe my motives are selfish.IMO, there is no 'maybe.'
In this thread, you've laid out how you would deprive certain groups of law abiding Americans of their rights as citizens. For what purpose? For your peace of mind and for your sense of safety.
Irishsquid
04-19-2010, 23:37
And why should I have to declare to ANYONE that I am carrying a weapon? When you become an LEO, you should understand that your life is now at risk. You don't take the job because it's safe. Reminds me of the Soldiers who think we should call in an airstrike every time we take fire. God forbid we should do our jobs instead, right? My job as a Soldier would be much easier, if I was willing to deprive Iraqi citizens of their rights...and I'd be a lot safer...but I didn't sign up for a safe job...I signed up for a good job.
We may screw with your OODA loop, but umm...who said the job was easy? Are you never supposed to have to update your TTPs?
Demanding that American citizens give up their rights, or accept restriction of their rights, in order to make your job easier, is not kosher...at all.
GratefulCitizen, love that Texas Law, not much gray area there :D
charlietwo
04-20-2010, 00:12
Originally Posted by 99meters View Post
if I respond to an active shooter call like in VA and every 21 year old kid has a gun, who do I shoot?
The closest threat?
hehe... couldn't help but laugh at that one... ZINGER!
99meters
04-20-2010, 00:53
Sigaba & Irishsquid, what right is it that I am infriging on, the right to carry concealed or the right not to tell a cop you are armed:rolleyes:.
You don't have to tell me that you are carrying a gun during a field interview. However, if I have to discover it (totality of circumstances), I also won't say much. If you ever use your gun to defend yourself, don't give the dispatcher a detailed discription of youself. Just stand there with your gun in hand until the cops show up and exalt in your right to defend yourself.
Texas has changed what traveling means as it relates to guns. Before it meant going between counties, now it just means driving. If you have a car you can have a gun.
This has change our conceal law. All you have to tell an officer, you are traveling or simply going from house to car and you can have a gun with you. It is almost impossible to get a D.A. take Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon (UCW) charges. It's a free pass to carry concealed.
This may seem like no big deal to some, but it is for some cops. Often times when you run a person NCIC/TCIC on a traffic stop you are only get the local stuff, you are not getting a thorough criminal background. That means sometimes felons put their glocks back under their seats and drive off. Before, if that person/felon did not have a CHL we could take that gun and get UCW charges.
There a quite a few reasons why I am against conceal carry for everyone. However, trying to convince others of the value in my reasons has proven to be a fools's errand.
Guns for everyone!!, job security for me and my knee :D
Irishsquid
04-20-2010, 01:12
So, rather than changing procedure, or a law that may be difficult to change, you'd just restrict the rights of people to carry a weapon? Yes, I see CCL requirements as a restriction. I always hate hearing about the myriad of little pointless laws officers have in their "toolbox," to screw people over. If you need to pull that stuff...why not instead put that effort into lobying to have stiffer penalties for the real offense? If you think I'm a drug dealer, but you can't prove it, you can always just put me up on gun charges, right? Personally, I think that's kinda shitty...a person could, instead, spend time building an actual case against a person, instead of using laws which could EASILY be used against any member of the general public, and which DO infringe on the rights of the people.
Personally, I don't have a CCL. I DO carry a weapon in my truck. Would you confiscate my weapon, if you were allowed to? If so, you're just one more person enabling the destruction of the second amendment. If not, what makes me different from a person you WOULD confiscate a weapon from? The fact that I have a military ID?
Edit: I know my wording is harsh. For that, I apologize. I know you guys do a difficult job, and I don't envy you that job. I just wonder when the insanity will stop. If *they* passed a law saying you had to confiscate ALL weapons, would you enforce it?
Thanks for making my point.
That's all you have to say? I could care less about your OODA loop or whether a pile of Texas state laws and SCOTUS decisions provide enough clarity on our rights to you. The people, our legislators and courts have spoken - and we are carrying concealed. Get over it or get another job.
By the way, here's something for your OODA loop. You're on a website dedicated to individuals who go abroad and fight for the rights of people who have lived with a "knee on their neck" for their entire lives, yet you've made it pretty clear that you don't share some of our basic values here at home. That's some pretty poor situatonal awareness and, no, your safety is not more important than my liberties - that's part of the deal whether you're a cop or a soldier. If you have not fully internalized that, you're in the wrong line of work.
armymom1228
04-20-2010, 07:08
Awhile back Australia banned guns from its citizens. Only criminals and police legally have guns now. The crime rate, unsurprisingly, went up.
WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
source here (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html)
AM
Don, maybe I should no have dumped it all together like that. There is no definitive resolution by the courts as to what rights the 2nd Amendment protects. An oversimplified take on US v. Miller would suggest "individual rights" are protected by "state rights" because its the civilian population that would make up the militia..The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years; except, such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of the state.The above is from the Colorado Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1. That tells me every able-bodied man 18-45 needs to own an assault rifle.
Article II, Section 13, the state Bill of Rights also guarantees the right...
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
It seems to me that Colorado (and from my recollection as a former resident, Wyoming, Nevada and Utah) have clarified the grey areas.
lonewolf726
04-20-2010, 14:23
99meters,
Judging by the posts you've made in this thread, I think you should change your screen name to "Pac Man". Watch the movie "Colors" for an explaination...
Just my personal opinion...
DinDinA-2
04-20-2010, 20:59
That's all you have to say? I could care less about your OODA loop or whether a pile of Texas state laws and SCOTUS decisions provide enough clarity on our rights to you. The people, our legislators and courts have spoken - and we are carrying concealed. Get over it or get another job.
By the way, here's something for your OODA loop. You're on a website dedicated to individuals who go abroad and fight for the rights of people who have lived with a "knee on their neck" for their entire lives, yet you've made it pretty clear that you don't share some of our basic values here at home. That's some pretty poor situatonal awareness and, no, your safety is not more important than my liberties - that's part of the deal whether you're a cop or a soldier. If you have not fully internalized that, you're in the wrong line of work.
JATX...Well said!
99meters...In case you have not noticed, you are hitting your thumb with a hammer.
Triman19
04-20-2010, 22:09
Good Evening,
Forth those who care here is a true story. Long story made short, I was en route to a friends house in the middle of a fairly very rural area. Only a few homes were close together, within 50 yards of eachother. I really do my best to stay situationally aware, call it part cop part soldier but I do. Its roughly 1900 and as I crest a short incline I see a brand new RV, maybe a thirty footer. In this area people cannot afford such expensive things; sparks my interest. I flip the bitch parking across the road near an old barn, the ones that say "chew pouch." Turns out vehicle has no mud or dirt on tires, but the license plate was dirty... odd. I see two large shadows 150m ahead of me clearly peaking into a detached three car garage. I call for back up and no shock-its gonna be a bit I am told.
Not believing in lone wolf tactics as I am just not that well trained, or that stoopid, I wait for back up and in the mean time start writing down what I see. People, vehicles, the surroundings ect. At this time three men varrying in age from 20 to about 63 , if I remember correctly, approach from my vehicle--neighbors. They each had a long gun and two had pistols. We agree to take action eventually scucessfully and safely apprehending these morons.
Couldn't get them for Burglary but got them for an F3 B&E. By the way the RV was stolen...shock I know.
Point is: tax paying, hard working, voting American citizens did not save my butt, they actually saved a NEIGHBORS ass. Think about it, they did not defend their home, the defended thier community. What did the judge say? He said and I can quote as I was there, "We need more people who are willing to stick their necks out and defend themselves and their community."
Back up, having them there would have been helpful. Pissed off neighbors with an old .70 cal?? Priceless. To all the anti carry weenies, liberal or not.. grow a pair and wake up. Criminals do not care if you are home or not and they sure as hell could care less if your **children** are home with you. Pull your heads out and get a clue.
By the way, who ever said that permits do not matter or change anything, you are 100% correct. They just generate revenue for the state.
TR- why aren't you lobbying this issue for those who support it? I think you would do quite well, Sir. ;)
PS- Yes stoopid people can carry a weapon. I don't like it either but maybe they will end up being a moving target. If stoopid people can carry, and old blind elderly can drive...where does it stop? When I pull someone over -if I actually have to- I just ask if they carry. Bangers and other criminals I do not ask...its the one time I can assume they are and I am usually right.
Good Evening
Good Evening,
Forth those who care here is a true story. Long story made short, I was en route to a friends house in the middle of a fairly very rural area. Only a few homes were close together, within 50 yards of eachother. I really do my best to stay situationally aware, call it part cop part soldier but I do. Its roughly 1900 and as I crest a short incline I see a brand new RV, maybe a thirty footer. In this area people cannot afford such expensive things; sparks my interest. I flip the bitch parking across the road near an old barn, the ones that say "chew pouch." Turns out vehicle has no mud or dirt on tires, but the license plate was dirty... odd. I see two large shadows 150m ahead of me clearly peaking into a detached three car garage. I call for back up and no shock-its gonna be a bit I am told.
Not believing in lone wolf tactics as I am just not that well trained, or that stoopid, I wait for back up and in the mean time start writing down what I see. People, vehicles, the surroundings ect. At this time three men varrying in age from 20 to about 63 , if I remember correctly, approach from my vehicle--neighbors. They each had a long gun and two had pistols. We agree to take action eventually scucessfully and safely apprehending these morons.
Couldn't get them for Burglary but got them for an F3 B&E. By the way the RV was stolen...shock I know.
Point is: tax paying, hard working, voting American citizens did not save my butt, they actually saved a NEIGHBORS ass. Think about it, they did not defend their home, the defended thier community. What did the judge say? He said and I can quote as I was there, "We need more people who are willing to stick their necks out and defend themselves and their community."
Back up, having them there would have been helpful. Pissed off neighbors with an old .70 cal?? Priceless. To all the anti carry weenies, liberal or not.. grow a pair and wake up. Criminals do not care if you are home or not and they sure as hell could care less if your **children** are home with you. Pull your heads out and get a clue.
By the way, who ever said that permits do not matter or change anything, you are 100% correct. They just generate revenue for the state.
TR- why aren't you lobbying this issue for those who support it? I think you would do quite well, Sir. ;)
PS- Yes stoopid people can carry a weapon. I don't like it either but maybe they will end up being a moving target. If stoopid people can carry, and old blind elderly can drive...where does it stop? When I pull someone over -if I actually have to- I just ask if they carry. Bangers and other criminals I do not ask...its the one time I can assume they are and I am usually right.
Good Evening
En Inglés por favor. That gave me a headache.
Pat
The Reaper
04-21-2010, 05:42
I think that citizens should be allowed to carry concealed with or without permits.
At the same time, we need to keep the discussion here professional. If you disagree with someone, just say so and state your case.
No need to get personal.
Thanks for your cooperation.
TR
Dozer523
04-21-2010, 06:34
I think that citizens should be allowed to carry concealed with or without permits.
At the same time, we need to keep the discussion here professional. If you disagree with someone, just say so and state your case.
No need to get personal.
Thanks for your cooperation.
TR Just keep 'em out of schools!:eek:
Can someone explain why a police officer's personal safety during a field interview or traffic stop is more important than mine?
Can someone explain why a police officer's personal safety during a field interview or traffic stop is more important than mine?
You are just a citizen.
Now back to work, there are a couple of welfare families waiting for their money. (Notice I did not use pink)
Ooops, I'm a bit behind my own darn self. Back to work.
Triman19
04-21-2010, 16:34
Can someone explain why a police officer's personal safety during a field interview or traffic stop is more important than mine?
Your safety is just as important if not more than a police officers.
The Reaper
04-21-2010, 17:50
Just keep 'em out of schools!:eek:
My son was attending a Primary school in a less than nice part of town.
My wife was the PTA Treasurer and was running around the Fall Festival with a bank bag and several thousand dollars in cash.
The local police officer they hired to keep an eye on things was trying to keep warm near the concession booth.
I went back to the car, and yes, I did violate the law and arm myself, concealed. My wife introduced me to the cop and I told him to take it easy, I would be keeping an eye on her myself.
Funny thing, that gun never caused me to want to shoot anyone or do anything stupid. But it was a comfort to have it there if I needed it.
TR
Deputy Dinkheller - Requiescat in pace... :(
99meters
04-22-2010, 01:28
Funny thing, that gun never caused me to want to shoot anyone or do anything stupid. But it was a comfort to have it there if I needed it.
TR
Disclaimer: TR, I not posting this as argument against conceal carry. Its just an example of a guy with a gun that felt a little different than you did.
Last Sunday a CHL holder shot and kill a man he believed was following him arter they had a traffic altercation. It turned-out they live six blocks apart(reason for same travel).
He alleged the guy punched him. IMO still no need to kill the guy, but this is Texas he may get off.
If I(on duty) shot someone for punching me I would have to do some years. And the kitkat is no place for cops.
Brush Okie, I read your post yesterday before it was edited. I am not taking this stuff personal (if reason for edit). If I wanted to be liked by ALL, I would have became a Fire Fighter :p.
Yes, I do get my jollies throwing people in jail. I think I'm doing a good thing. Finding lost puppies and helping old women cross the street would not do it for me.
Irishsquid
04-22-2010, 01:35
this is Texas he may get off.
I certainly hope not. I'm a huge fan of Texas, and I love the fact that I can defend myself here...but if I'm not mistaken, Texas DOES have some law about "appropriate use of force," or some such...
99meters
04-22-2010, 01:54
Can someone explain why a police officer's personal safety during a field interview or traffic stop is more important than mine?
It is not. Your safety is number one.
If you are capable of defending your self with a gun, why not carry open. If you can't protect your gun side or read what's going on around you, you should not carry a gun.
Whenever I put on my batman belt I know I've just made myself a target. Our lives are all worth the same, let's share the security a gun can provide along with the attention in brings.
Irishsquid
04-22-2010, 02:03
It is not. Your safety is number one.
If you are capable of defending your self with a gun, why not carry open. If you can't protect your gun side or read what's going on around you, you should not carry a gun.
Whenever I put on my batman belt I know I've just made myself a target. Our lives are all worth the same, let's share the security a gun can provide along with the attention in brings.
1) Texas doesn't allow open-carry. That's a non-option for me.
2)Second, I'm not an LEO...why should I "make myself a target?"
That said, if Texas allowed open-carry, I'd still do it, target or not.
On a lighter note :munchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNpSMmwdSyM&feature=related
Bet he's still wonderin' where the taste of concrete and sulfur came from...
The point? There will always be dumb ass's no matter what you do...Example: the powers at be even considered requiring prescriptions for tylenol because so many idiots where ODing on them, give me a break... It really pisses me off
our liberties are limited because of persons unable to control themselves, read or follow directions, or want to force their views on everyone else.
"right to bear arms" means just that, doesn't refer or infer that it be displayed, not automatic, how many rounds it can hold, having a can(SP) on one, or where you can carry.
The idea of just standing there and letting some loser take my life because I'm unable to fight back is not the way I want to go, and imagine most other law abiding citizens feel the same.
Dozer523
04-22-2010, 04:38
Funny thing, that gun never caused me to want to shoot anyone or do anything stupid. But it was a comfort to have it there if I needed it.
TR I was just kidding TR. How well I remember. . .
Last Sunday a CHL holder shot and kill a man he believed was following him arter they had a traffic altercation. It turned-out they live six blocks apart(reason for same travel).
He alleged the guy punched him. IMO still no need to kill the guy, but this is Texas he may get off.
If I(on duty) shot someone for punching me I would have to do some years. And the kitkat is no place for cops.
It is my understanding that civilians such as I are not held to the same use of force standards as law enforcement officers; however, there are still some limitations. In my CCW class, the use of appropriate levels of force was emphasized.
A brief look at the Texas statute LINK (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/LS-16.pdf), on page59, seems to suggest that Nguyen used excessive force, even if he was "punched".
In the incident cited (if this is, in fact, the incident) I would be surprised if Nguyen doesn't experience some time in a Texas prison.
I suspect this is the incident: Link (http://www.khou.com/home/Missouri-City-police-Man-fatally-shoots-neighbor-in-road-rage-incident-91510469.html)
MISSOURI CITY, Texas— Two strangers who lived blocks from each other in Missouri City had a brief encounter Sunday that ended with one of them dead.
Roberto Jaimungal, 31, had been to the grocery store when he crossed paths with Vanson Nguyen, who was headed home from church.
Police believe Jaimungal screeched to a stop behind Nguyen at a red light on Lexington and Brightwater, just missing him. Both men drove away.
Jaimungal’s fiance, Lauren Johnson, said Jaimungal was unloading groceries in the upscale Lakes of Brightwater subdivision when Nguyen pulled up.
"He asked, ‘Why did you follow us?’" Johnson said. "As soon as he said that, I heard gunshots."
Johnson called 911.
"Please, come on now. Please," she pleaded to the 911 operator. "He’s outside in the street. I’m in the street with him. It’s like he’s on his last leg. Please come on. Please. Please."
It was too late.
"I lay down beside him. He was still breathing when I was lying on the street with him," Johnson said. "Then they said there’s nothing more we could do for him. I watched him go."
While police rushed to the scene, Vanson Nguyen also called 911. According to police, Nguyen told the operator he’d just shot a man after the man approached his vehicle and started punching him.
"The call was very calm in nature," said Missouri City Police Capt. John Bailey. "We have developed solid evidence that discredits the suspect."
"I don’t know what sparked this," Johnson said. "I just don’t know what could bring someone to follow someone home and pull a gun on them."
Jaimungal had a job interview this week. He worked in IT. He was outgoing and enjoyed being in the spotlight, according to relatives.
Nguyen was the band leader at his church, Vietnamese Alliance, according to his family. He was on his way home from a band practice.
Nguyen has a concealed handgun license. His family says he’s a business owner and carried the gun for protection.
Nguyen’s bond was set at $80,000.
Green Light
04-22-2010, 09:40
Guerrilla band? :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
04-22-2010, 10:18
It is not. Your safety is number one.
If you are capable of defending your self with a gun, why not carry open. If you can't protect your gun side or read what's going on around you, you should not carry a gun.
Whenever I put on my batman belt I know I've just made myself a target. Our lives are all worth the same, let's share the security a gun can provide along with the attention in brings.
I think that a law abiding non-LEO's rational for concealed carry is the same as an off-duty LEO or detective's. Why would a non-law abiding person bother with the paper trail of a legally obtained gun for CC?
Thanks for serving to protect those living in an area with a high crime rate and good luck.
Welll, yes, but I think LEOs are required to carry on or off-duty although 99meters can say whether I'm wrong or not.
Law-abiding citizens will always do what they're supposed to when it comes to the law..... it's not them people like me and 99meters worry about.
And for my part -- it's not the criminals...criminals will always have guns - they work outside the law anyway.
What I worry about is the same guys who get Rotweilers or Pit Bulls because they're big, scary, and therefore cool --with absolutely no sense of responsibility to do what they're supposed to in order to take care of the dog/s. So the poor things starve to death. (maybe this just happens a lot in Detroit, but it seems to happen every darn day here)
I call it the "it's all about me" factor.
Do I want to take away anyone's constitutional rights? Nope. (shhh, Don, it's okay, I'm not going there)
There isn't really anyway to correct this problem either, since TR made a good point about that B*tch the Slippery Slope. (god, I hate her)
Yep...be careful...I am watching and waiting.:cool:
Utah Bob
04-22-2010, 13:36
Welll, yes, but I think LEOs are required to carry on or off-duty although 99meters can say whether I'm wrong or not. Not necessarily. Depends on the department's policy
Law-abiding citizens will always do what they're supposed to when it comes to the law..... it's not them people like me and 99meters worry about.
And for my part -- it's not the criminals...criminals will always have guns - they work outside the law anyway.
What I worry about is the same guys who get Rotweilers or Pit Bulls because they're big, scary, and therefore cool --with absolutely no sense of responsibility to do what they're supposed to in order to take care of the dog/s. So the poor things starve to death. (maybe this just happens a lot in Detroit, but it seems to happen every darn day here)
I call it the "it's all about me" factor.
Do I want to take away anyone's constitutional rights? Nope. (shhh, Don, it's okay, I'm not going there)
There isn't really anyway to correct this problem either, since TR made a good point about that B*tch the Slippery Slope. (god, I hate her) Yes. It is a slippery one. Doesn't always look like it though, and some people don't see it.
I have seen 99meters' argument before during my 30 years in law enforcement. I didn't buy it then either. I never feared people. I was always cautious. Once you let the government decide which "type" of law abiding citizen can carry so as to "protect" everyone, what will they decide on next?
Freedom is messy and dangerous sometimes.
99meters--
Your comments suggest that you would subordinate citizens' civil liberties to public policy. Is this preference based entirely in your experiences as a LEO or do you also draw from some trajectory of American political philosophy?
Defender968
04-22-2010, 16:10
Welll, yes, but I think LEOs are required to carry on or off-duty although 99meters can say whether I'm wrong or not.
I believe that would completely depend on the department, I'm not aware of any in my AO who require it, though most I have dealt with do encourage it.
AngelsSix
04-23-2010, 04:57
I believe that would completely depend on the department, I'm not aware of any in my AO who require it, though most I have dealt with do encourage it.
Most departments will ask that you carry off duty, but not all require it. If you carry your service weapon off duty, you should be carrying your badge and dept issued ID as well, which puts your "under the badge" and therefore you are expected to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. Most officers I know carry off duty, they typically will keep a civilian CCH for that. My old department didn't require you to carry, however, most of us did. We were required to qualify with our "off duty" or "backup" to the same standards as we did for our service weapons.
Dozer523
04-23-2010, 06:48
99meters--
Your comments suggest that you would subordinate citizens' civil liberties to public policy. Is this preference based entirely in your experiences as a LEO or do you also draw from some trajectory of American political philosophy? Let's switch the word "policy" with "safety". We are talking about a policy to ensure safety, right? Does the question still remain?
Do Civil Liberties trump all? (ie. Freedom of Speech to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.)
PedOncoDoc
04-23-2010, 07:17
Let's switch the word "policy" with "safety". We are talking about a policy to ensure safety, right? Does the question still remain?
Do Civil Liberties trump all? (ie. Freedom of Speech to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.)
I'm no lawyer so please correct me if I'm talking out of turn.
There are laws on where you can lawfully discharge your firearm. It's not illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre if there actually IS a fire. Just as it is legal do discharge your firearm in self defense if there is risk of loss of life or limb. Possessing the firearm and actively using it are 2 different things.
Just my $.00000002...
I'm no lawyer so please correct me if I'm talking out of turn.
There are laws on where you can lawfully discharge your firearm. It's not illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre if there actually IS a fire. Just as it is legal do discharge your firearm in self defense if there is risk of loss of life or limb. Possessing the firearm and actively using it are 2 different things.
Just my $.00000002...
True dat!
PedOncoDoc
04-23-2010, 08:06
POD & Don: So ok, are you saying that you would be all right with laws that tell you when and where you can discharge the weapon...as long as your right to own one is unfettered?
So even if there was a law that said you can own and carry a handgun all you want, but it can only be discharged at a shooting range -- you would be ok with that?
No sarcasm intended either, I'm really curious.
Training/recreational shooting is different than self defense. Those activities are regulated by law in most suburbs and cities. I'm not aware of any law forbidding a law-abiding citizen from trying to stop an agressor with a legally posessed firearim given appropriate circumstances, regardless of the location (gun-free zones excluded, unfortunately.)
Recreatonal use is separate from use in self defense - there should be regulations on the former for public safety. You can't go shooting pop bottles in a mall parking lot for shits and giggles, but if Joey Thug comes at you with a weapon in same said parking lot and you stop him it is a completely different set of circumstances. If you hit an innocent bystander at a range or in self defense you will face legal consequences and probable lawsuits.
In arguments like this, I think people dance around the real issue. When you get down to brass tacks… isn’t it an argument over honesty and truth? Some people have very deep seated, principled beliefs in saving humanity thru legislation. They just can’t bring themselves, however, to tell the truth about who they are and what they believe. These principled people remain silent on the matter of ideology, which reduces everyone else to trying to connect the dots and figure it out. When they do…it is refuted and thrown back as right wing conspiracy theories.
Lots of Socialism talk going on in America today…but not a whole lot of people “manning-up” and carrying that mantle. Let one of the “big boys” in the administration say, “I believe socialism is the key to America’s future…” Guess what…that would be the last liberal democrat elected to office for quite a while. But I digress…back to the discussion…
Big Nanny-State Government (read: Socialism) is not consistent with our founding principles as outlined in the DOI or constitution. I haven’t read much of anything in either document that “forces” anyone to do much of anything (excepting the 16th Amendment). The 16th (ratified 1913) was the first amendment that endowed a positive authority on the Government. “Congress shall have the power…”. By the way, anyone know who was president in 1913? A progressive? Then, all of the sudden, we see in the 22nd, 24th and 26th. “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Gives a bit of wiggle room for Government intrusion, does it not?
As a side note…I would like to know what in the heck did we do from 1776 to 1913 to raise funds to operate the Government. Oh, wait, maybe we didn’t need to do much because it wasn’t as large and bloated as it is today. Took 137 years to figure out they needed to tax folks. 97 years later we all believe federal income taxes are one of life’s two certainties. It is hard to keep this rant solely on concealed carry because all of this is inter-twined in ideological dogma.
If you want big Government…say it. If that means curtailing God-given rights in the interest of an enlightened belief in public safety…go for it. Want Socialism? Shout it from the mountaintop. Simply admit it and lay out your plan for fixing America. See who jumps on board.
The Reaper
04-23-2010, 08:29
I thought that we had pretty much beaten this horse to death.
You are presenting the appearance of drifting into trolling.
I certainly hope that there is a point to all of these questions (allegedly for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding), or I am going to have to hold you in contempt. Hopefully, your point is going to be quickly evident.
TR
__________________
Ok fair enough -- but those are all qualifications to gun ownership aren't they? Restrictions -- "you can do this, but you can't do that"
And to reiterate a point that Don made a while ago -- there's nothing in the Constitution regarding any of those qualifications.
So where does that leave us, then? Some qualifications are ok, and others aren't ?
...and that has been the progressive way of wresting control over the people. Legislate it. Yes...some qualifications are OK and others aren't. There is this whole thing about Professional qualifications vs. civil rights. Doctors and lawyers are good examples of required qualifications...having to receive a qualification in order to vote, voice your opinion, practice a religion, or carry a gun is quite another thing.
“-A persons moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves-”
~Ted Nugent~
The Reaper
04-23-2010, 08:36
My point is this: civil liberties need to be treated the same for everyone. If there is unqualified gun ownership, fine. Then there is unqualified freedom of speech as well.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Are we unclear on the meaning of "keep" and "bear" now?
TR
“-A persons moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves-”
~Ted Nugent~
Oh, snap!!
BTW...Did you hear the Nuge use the word "Metastasize" on Beck the other day? I was like, "Dayum...that was 4 syllables. Didn't know many 2nd amendment supporters that could use a word like that in a sentance." (Just for clarification...everything after "I was like," was total sarcasm...);)
Green Light
04-23-2010, 08:49
POD & Don: So ok, are you saying that you would be all right with laws that tell you when and where you can discharge the weapon...as long as your right to own one is unfettered?
So even if there was a law that said you can own and carry a handgun all you want, but it can only be discharged at a shooting range -- you would be ok with that?
No sarcasm intended either, I'm really curious.
That legislation would be one thing. But the common law is also there that allows a citizen the right of self defense, more than likely in all 50 states. SCOTUS, especially the right leaning justices, have held that there is "natural law" and that IIRC is part of it.
Oh, snap!!
BTW...Did you hear the Nuge use the word "Metastasize" on Beck the other day? I was like, "Dayum...that was 4 syllables. Didn't know many 2nd amendment supporters that could use a word like that in a sentance." (Just for clarification...everything after "I was like," was total sarcasm...
Just now saw it...LOL...nice:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfYbwEwjGrY&feature=related
It is not. Your safety is number one.
If you are capable of defending your self with a gun, why not carry open. If you can't protect your gun side or read what's going on around you, you should not carry a gun.
If my safety is truly number one, then why would I find myself facedown on the concrete with a knee on my neck (and explain how that happens without any injury, please) for merely not telling you I was carrying a firearm, especially if I never presented any kind of threatening action towards an officer? Are you protecting me from you, from myself, or from the concealed weapon jumping out of its holster all on its own and firing at you?
As for weapons retention, if no one knows I'm carrying one, how would they know to try to take it? Consider the concept of hiding in plain sight. I'd submit that by keeping it concealed and not letting anyone know I'm carrying, I'm in fact 'protecting my gun side'. Further, if the weapon is under a cover garment and in a holster, it makes it much harder for a potential snatcher to grab and free the weapon, vs. carrying open (especially as AFAIK there are no requirements for a civilian to use a retention holster when carrying open).
Food for thought.
But that means Pastor Phelps has a God-given right to free speech and therefore an unfettered right to shout his filth to the mountain tops.
Those are not God-given rights, they are granted by the U.S. Constitution to all citizens.
I also don't think anyone is asking for "unfettered" ownership, everyone on this site (and most other places) agree that owning a gun comes with rules and responsibility. The same goes for public speaking.
Peregrino
04-23-2010, 13:35
Those are not God-given rights, they are granted by the U.S. Constitution to all citizens.
I also don't think anyone is asking for "unfettered" ownership, everyone on this site (and most other places) agree that owning a gun comes with rules and responsibility. The same goes for public speaking.
The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 thru 10 of the U.S. Constitution) does not "grant" rights. It prohibits the government from abridging certain rights assumed by the founders to predate government. God-given is the "short-hand" used to convey the universality of the "right".
Dozer523
04-23-2010, 13:37
As long as we always talk in absolutes --
I can absolutely have a gun anywhere, anytime, and use it anyway I want as long as I don't hurt someone who is innocent
and
I can absolutely say anything I want, anytime, anywhere as long as I don't hurt anyone who is innocent
or I can absolutely do anything I want anywhere, anytime, anyway as long as I don't hurt anyone who is innocent
-- makes civil society a little tough. In fact, makes civil society impossible because these viewpoints are selfish.
It amazes me when I read posts stating the Plain Honest Men (read the book) who met to fix the Articles of Confederation and compromised their way to the Constitution of the United States would write something so inflexible.
Do I have a car? Yeah. It's inspected and licensed and so am I.
Do I have a business? Well, no but if I did it would be licensed
Do I have a profession? Yeah, I'm a teacher and I've been inspected and I'm "certificated".
Do I have a dog? Yes, she is inspected and licensed.
Why do I submit to these intrusions? because it makes the society in which I live better for all.
Green Light
04-23-2010, 13:44
Those are not God-given rights, they are granted by the U.S. Constitution to all citizens.
I also don't think anyone is asking for "unfettered" ownership, everyone on this site (and most other places) agree that owning a gun comes with rules and responsibility. The same goes for public speaking.
You are wrong, grasshopper. Whatever is granted by the government may be taken away by the government. The framers of the Constitution all believed, no, knew that these were
"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . ."
It's on paper, signed by elected representatives of the 13 United States. There is nothing that says that these were originated with the government. Instead, our founding documents clearly state that the rights already resided with the people. The people delegated the rights they already had to the states. The states and the people, through the constitution delegated some of those rights to the national government.
The 9th Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Not all rights are enumerated, therefore the constitution (and therefore the government) is not the grantor of rights.
The 10th Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This says unambiguously that the rights don't come from the Constitution, and if the Constitution doesn't give the government the right to do something in writing, then those rights are retained by the people, each of us, unless we have given this right to the state in which we live.
Read the documents, grasshopper. Read the Federalist Papers. Find out what the intent was. And fear any government that claims to the fountain of rights - it will one day take them away when it becomes expedient.
Read the Federalist Papers. Find out what the intent was. As the Federalist is a collection of essays arguing in favor of the Constitution's ratification, is it on its own a good resource for discerning the intent of that document?:confused:
Why do I submit to these intrusions? because it makes the society in which I live better for all.
I think Dozer makes a good point. One can do a remarkable number of things, if they're willing to do the paperwork. For example, BATF has procedures that would permit an individual to manufacture explosives ( LINK (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5400-7.pdf) ).
Perhaps the problem is a breakdown in the consensus of what actually makes the society better for all. If a society moves from one that emphasizes independent action and responsibility toward something else, then the consensus will also change. We can see this with firearms. Accepted practice in the early 1960's and today seems very different, at least from my perspective. Unfortunately, each group views a given problem through the lens of their particular views of what improves the society - and I'm not sure that any amount of discussion can overcome the barrier.
I'm under the impression that the shift away from independent action is ongoing, and perhaps accelerating. If true, that may indicate further pressure on individual rights - whether God given, Constitutional, or otherwise. I cannot say I like the trend, but that doesn't change anything.
Green Light
04-23-2010, 14:11
As the Federalist is a collection of essays arguing in favor of the Constitution's ratification, is it on its own a good resource for discerning the intent of that document?:confused:
Any of the writings of the framers are good. Both pro and con. It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it. There are those who believe that it is a "living, breathing" document. I disagree. For if that were true, that document could mean anything you want it to, thus becoming meaningless. If they had meant it to change meaning over time, they wouldn't have allowed for amendments. Instead, it would have ended with "Whatever." :D
Perhaps the problem is a breakdown in the consensus of what actually makes the society better for all. Did this consensus ever truly exist? If so, when and where?
IMO, much of the rancor in American political, social, and cultural discourse comes from the complaint that "things aint the way they used to be." Yet, what is our collective understanding of "the way things used to be"?
Dozer523
04-23-2010, 14:37
Any of the writings of the framers are good. Both pro and con. It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it. It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it and why they wrote it. They were tasked to fix the Articles of Confederation that had some very basic flaws . . .
No single person in a position of leadership
No power to raise operating funds
No means of compromise. All the states had to agree to anything and everything. (NY was a bitch when it came to proposals that threatened their financial supremacy, RI was always sweating that they were gonna get ripped cuz they were so little, VA and PA complained they were getting gyped cuz they were bigger, SC was always bearing a watchful eye on the Slave issue.)
There are those who believe that it is a "living, breathing" document. I disagree. Not me, it has a raspy wheeze sometimes and a racing heartbeat too but it is very much alive for me. For if that were true, that document could mean anything you want it to, thus becoming meaningless. Not 'YOU' but "WE". And therein lies it's meaningfulness. If they had meant it to change meaning over time, they wouldn't have allowed for amendments. Instead, it would have ended with "Whatever." :D 'Whatever" would have made High School more fun. But they did end it with amendments. Not a process for amending, but specific amendments -- changes, additions. Ben Franklin, was pleased to answer the question regarding the sun on the speakers chair as "rising not setting" when the convention closed. And when asked what was created didn't someone say something like " A Republic, if you can keep it"?
Did this consensus ever truly exist? If so, when and where?
Perhaps the word consensus does not provide the right nuance. Maybe the fields of history, anthropology, or sociology could provide it.
In essence, societies come to some point where most people shrug, grumble, and conclude they would rather go along with the situation as it is rather than fight. For lack of a better term, I've used consensus.
We saw this with the original constitution. No doubt, some Tories did a lot of grumbling. Likewise, there was some sort of consensus in 1866 - after one side decided that surrender was preferable to continutation of the conflict. We have a workable consensus today, with rare exceptions duly noted. And, we will know when consensus fails because open conflict (and not merely with words!) will engulf the society.
IMO, much of the rancor in American political, social, and cultural discourse comes from the complaint that "things aint the way they used to be." Yet, what is our collective understanding of "the way things used to be"?
That would be an important element. Another element, perhaps even more substantial, would be those who say "Things would be so much better, if only we changed...something."
Just as you suggest, American society seems to have experienced the interplay between these opposing forces since inception. It is my perception that we're seeing more interaction between views today than was the case in the early 1960's and late 1950's. This begs the question of how to quantify, measure, and compare such things. I don't know. But perhaps an historian could illuminate the path? ;)
The Reaper
04-23-2010, 17:01
Do I have a car? Yeah. It's inspected and licensed and so am I.
Do I have a business? Well, no but if I did it would be licensed
Do I have a profession? Yeah, I'm a teacher and I've been inspected and I'm "certificated".
Do I have a dog? Yes, she is inspected and licensed.
Why do I submit to these intrusions? because it makes the society in which I live better for all.
Those rights are neither detailed, nor inalienable.
As soon as you allow "reasonable" restrictions and controls, you have lost control. You might struggle along for a while, but eventually, the privileges you enjoy will be further and further restricted and taxed. Look at what remains of private firearms ownership in England.
Would you trade all of your freedoms to make society better for all?
Maybe you would trade a few of them?
What if the ones you would trade do not coincide with the ones I would surrender?
Would you trade your freedom for security?
TR
Perhaps the word consensus does not provide the right nuance. Maybe the fields of history, anthropology, or sociology could provide it.From my reading of your post, a more suitable word might be "hegemony."
In essence, societies come to some point where most people shrug, grumble, and conclude they would rather go along with the situation as it is rather than fight.With respect, this interpretation of history is deeply flawed and has been thoroughly discredited in both American and European historiography. Someone has always been pissed off about something and has sought to change the existing order. That these challenges are constantly overlooked testifies to the enduring political power of historical memory--and amnesia.
Just as you suggest, American society seems to have experienced the interplay between these opposing forces since inception. It is my perception that we're seeing more interaction between views today than was the case in the early 1960's and late 1950's. To me, the first question is "From where does this perception come?" To what degree is it rooted in your education, your personal experiences, your family history, your socialization and acculturation, your political views, and your own frame of mind as you journey through your life?This begs the question of how to quantify, measure, and compare such things. I don't know. But perhaps an historian could illuminate the path? ;)FWIW, I'm not a big proponent of a quantitative approach to history. History is a humanity, not a social science. Thinking in terms of "quantity" too often leads to a trade off in which grappling with questions centering around the complexities of the human condition suffers.
Moreover, I am ever more skeptical of the propriety and utility of using "history" as the foundation of policy decisions and political choices.
YMMV.
Short and to the point, well said Green Light
To me, the first question is "From where does this perception come?" To what degree is it rooted in your education, your personal experiences, your family history, your socialization and acculturation, your political views, and your own frame of mind as you journey through your life?
Yes - you would want to know what lens I used. Sounds like qualitative research.
FWIW, I'm not a big proponent of a quantitative approach to history. History is a humanity, not a social science. Thinking in terms of "quantity" too often leads to a trade off in which grappling with questions centering around the complexities of the human condition suffers.
And I like to take the warp and woof of the tapestry of human experience and reduce it to an index number. :D
Moreover, I am ever more skeptical of the propriety and utility of using "history" as the foundation of policy decisions and political choices.
YMMV.
Perhaps. But if we ignore the past, what shall we found our decisions upon?
Transitioning to the original topic...
If history offers examples of governments that function badly from the perspective of the governed, should we not consider the possibility that any government might devolve? And hence, that some trends might lead to an undesireable end?
It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it and why they wrote it. They were tasked to fix the Articles of Confederation that had some very basic flaws . . .
No single person in a position of leadership
No power to raise operating funds
No means of compromise. All the states had to agree to anything and everything. (NY was a bitch when it came to proposals that threatened their financial supremacy, RI was always sweating that they were gonna get ripped cuz they were so little, VA and PA complained they were getting gyped cuz they were bigger, SC was always bearing a watchful eye on the Slave issue.)
[snip] (Couldn't figure how to include quote within quotes...I'm a moron.)
Not me, it has a raspy wheeze sometimes and a racing heartbeat too but it is very much alive for me. Not 'YOU' but "WE". And therein lies it's meaningfulness. 'Whatever" would have made High School more fun. But they did end it with amendments. Not a process for amending, but specific amendments -- changes, additions. Ben Franklin, was pleased to answer the question regarding the sun on the speakers chair as "rising not setting" when the convention closed. And when asked what was created didn't someone say something like " A Republic, if you can keep it"?
Got to respectfully disagree with those comments I highlighted. When you go to the "got look at it thru the optic of..." you get into a big time subjective argument. Thru the optic of a modern day progressive, or thru the optic of a modern day conservative? Words mean things.
I, a conservative, agree to a point the constitution is a living and breathing document. A fiery liberal will absolutely believe it too...'cause it suits their end. It is "living" because of the ability to amend. There is an enormous responsibility with adding anything to the document...if not, why have we only 27 amendments in over 223 years? It doesn't happen often. There is a good reason.
Think about it …there is a difference between a Car, Dog, and Business license…and a professional certification. The former are means of generating revenue for government (nobody gets to sue the State for licensing a dog that bites, or a car that is a pile of shit.) …the latter is a profession that may affect the well being of another. Big difference to me.
GratefulCitizen
04-23-2010, 20:14
My point is this: civil liberties need to be treated the same for everyone.
Disagree.
Let each State decide where they think the limits should be.
Let the feds butt out.
People will vote with their feet (provided they are allowed to leave a given State).
This country is big enough for all of us, we don't need one-size-fits-all solutions.
Nobody is wise enough to know exactly where to draw all the lines (certainly not the federal gov't).
Fortunately, we have 50 laboratories in which to figure out what works best.
There is a reason the Constitution placed many restrictions upon the central government, and few upon the States.
craigepo
04-23-2010, 21:15
I, a conservative, agree to a point the constitution is a living and breathing document. A fiery liberal will absolutely believe it too...'cause it suits their end. It is "living" because of the ability to amend. There is an enormous responsibility with adding anything to the document...if not, why have we only 27 amendments in over 223 years? It doesn't happen often. There is a good reason.
The terms "conservative" and "living and breathing document" are mutually exclusive, especially in a Constitutional context. The ability to amend the Constitution does not make it "living and breathing" and in fact just the opposite is true; having to amend the document to change or add amendments necessarily means that the words within the Constitution contain arguably immutable definitions.
One must have a logical way of defining the words and phrases within the constitution, or they are meaningless. Defining them with the Drafter's intent in mind is, IMHO, logical, as the result should be very close both to what the Drafters/Founders intended, as well as the understanding of the document as ratified by not only the original 13 colonies, but by every state that has joined the union since.
A problem with the "living and breathing document" school of thought is that, if the Constitution is ever-changing, how often do our rights change? Answer: whenever the Supreme Court and Congress says so.
Disagree.
Let each State decide where they think the limits should be.
Let the feds butt out.
People will vote with their feet (provided they are allowed to leave a given State).
This country is big enough for all of us, we don't need one-size-fits-all solutions.
Nobody is wise enough to know exactly where to draw all the lines (certainly not the federal gov't).
Fortunately, we have 50 laboratories in which to figure out what works best.
There is a reason the Constitution placed many restrictions upon the central government, and few upon the States.
The main problem with this is , if every state did their own thing, especially concerning civil liberties, you wouldn't have 50 states and one country, you would have 50 countries, each doing things differently. As a good example, look at state firearms laws. What is legal in one state, and maybe federally, is illegal in another. Cross state lines, thinking you are good to go, and next hing you know, you are under arrest. Some sontrolled substance laws are facing the same dillema, California for example, with the marijuanna issue. There must be commonality on the more important issues. Local ordinances for small, quality of life issues like noise ordianances or such may be fine, but otherwise, we wind up with small fiefdoms all over the place, never knowing what is legal and what is not.
(Disclaimer: No kidding...as I was typing last night, somewhere around 2145, I was actually thinking, "I hope this post is coming across coherently...'cause I have had waaaaaaaaaaaay too many to try arguing in this thread. [5 min break] Yup...work of art.")
The terms "conservative" and "living and breathing document" are mutually exclusive, especially in a Constitutional context. The ability to amend the Constitution does not make it "living and breathing" and in fact just the opposite is true; having to amend the document to change or add amendments necessarily means that the words within the Constitution contain arguably immutable definitions.
One must have a logical way of defining the words and phrases within the constitution, or they are meaningless. Defining them with the Drafter's intent in mind is, IMHO, logical, as the result should be very close both to what the Drafters/Founders intended, as well as the understanding of the document as ratified by not only the original 13 colonies, but by every state that has joined the union since.
A problem with the "living and breathing document" school of thought is that, if the Constitution is ever-changing, how often do our rights change? Answer: whenever the Supreme Court and Congress says so.
That is my point. To an extent. The whole term “living and breathing document” is a way for liberal minded individuals try to show how progressive and intellectual the Founding fathers were. The term actually comes from the “living constitution” argument which was championed by great Americans like…wait for it…Woodrow Wilson.
As far as using the term “living and breathing document” in this thread is concerned…I use it because everyone has heard the term before and, I think, tie it to the amendment process.
I agree the constitution can be changed…I submit, however; the change is not willy-nilly, whatever is best for [name your political ideology here] to take away/curtail enumerated rights. It is a responsible, thoughtful, careful, process used only when absolutely necessary. Slavery abolished….awesome example. Prohibition…not so much.
This is an argument over beliefs in basic tenets of conservatism. Self reliance, self responsibility, small Government among them. Where do you stand? (Not "you" craigipo or dozer, but "you" rhetorically). I believe in an unfettered, unvetted right to bear arms. I believe in that because I believe in conservatism. I don’t think I could say, “I am a conservative…but I believe Government knows best when it comes to everyone’s best interests”. Those two thoughts are truly mutually exclusive.
6.8SPC_DUMP
04-24-2010, 06:00
If you feel that some of the major founding principals of the Constitution haven't been maintained - isn't being pro-state rights your last refuge to potentially enjoy them?
James Madison said "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Hamilton was against the Bill of Rights but explained in The Federalist No. 84: "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
W. Wilson wasn't looking at what Hamilton said in The Federalist No. 30: Concerning the General Power of Taxation (Dec. 1787) when the Federal Reserve was voted in (1913).
"It has been already observed that the federal government ought to possess the power of providing for the support of the national forces; in which proposition was intended to be included the expense of raising troops, of building and equipping fleets, and all other expenses in any wise connected with military arrangements and operations. But these are not the only objects to which the jurisdiction of the Union, in respect to revenue, must necessarily be empowered to extend. It must embrace a provision for the support of the national civil list; for the payment of the national debts contracted, or that may be contracted; and, in general, for all those matters which will call for disbursements out of the national treasury. The conclusion is, that there must be interwoven, in the frame of the government, a general power of taxation, in one shape or another.
Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish."
......
"It may perhaps be imagined that, from the scantiness of the resources of the country, the necessity of diverting the established funds in the case supposed would exist, though the national government should possess an unrestrained power of taxation. But two considerations will serve to quiet all apprehension on this head: one is, that we are sure the resources of the community, in their full extent, will be brought into activity for the benefit of the Union; the other is, that whatever deficiences there may be, can without difficulty be supplied by loans.
The power of creating new funds upon new objects of taxation, by its own authority, would enable the national government to borrow as far as its necessities might require. Foreigners, as well as the citizens of America, could then reasonably repose confidence in its engagements; but to depend upon a government that must itself depend upon thirteen other governments for the means of fulfilling its contracts, when once its situation is clearly understood, would require a degree of credulity not often to be met with in the pecuniary transactions of mankind, and little reconcilable with the usual sharp-sightedness of avarice.
Reflections of this kind may have trifling weight with men who hope to see realized in America the halcyon scenes of the poetic or fabulous age; but to those who believe we are likely to experience a common portion of the vicissitudes and calamities which have fallen to the lot of other nations, they must appear entitled to serious attention. Such men must behold the actual situation of their country with painful solicitude, and deprecate the evils which ambition or revenge might, with too much facility, inflict upon it." Link (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa30.htm)
Welll, yes, but I think LEOs are required to carry on or off-duty although 99meters can say whether I'm wrong or not.
Law-abiding citizens will always do what they're supposed to when it comes to the law..... it's not them people like me and 99meters worry about.
And for my part -- it's not the criminals...criminals will always have guns - they work outside the law anyway.
What I worry about is the same guys who get Rotweilers or Pit Bulls because they're big, scary, and therefore cool --with absolutely no sense of responsibility to do what they're supposed to in order to take care of the dog/s. So the poor things starve to death. (maybe this just happens a lot in Detroit, but it seems to happen every darn day here)
I call it the "it's all about me" factor.
Whether the LEO's state/department mandates off-duty carry or discourages it is an interesting topic, but my point was on the of method of carry used in that situation: concealed vs. open.
How can we classify the "it's all about me factor" people, that you fear?
Don't they have as much of a right to liberty as anyone, unless they confessed to or were found guilty by a jury of their peers, of a crime?
FWIW I got a pit because I like their general demeanor around friends and family. If she's not trust worthy around small animals or running vacuum cleaners I should act accordingly.
The same with making sure if you carry a knife it's within state guidelines and only used in a situation where that's called for. Bringing it out while breaking up, or dealing with an unarmed scuffle/argument isn't just unethical/illegal, it goes against my and most others' instincts/morals.
Hopefully this alleviates some fear you have about having to "watch your six" (literally AM:eek:). PM me if you would like the link to renowned self defense instructors who have advice for women.
odoylerules
04-24-2010, 09:04
I'm for the 2nd, but just letting anyone 21 and up by a gun and carry, I don't know.
Open carry...... maybe
40yrs - good to go
30yrs - 39yrs most have a job
21yrs - 29yrs most be fulltime student or married or home owner, or....
Sorry to butt in, and that I am late responding, but this quote really rubbed me wrong. I am between 21 and 29, have no interest in getting married or having kids, and live near the nation's capital, so owning a home is an unrealistic goal for me to have at this point. Since I work full time, I am not a full time student.
Should I not be able to carry concealed because I like being single, rent a room and have a job?
ZonieDiver
04-24-2010, 09:36
(Disclaimer: No kidding...as I was typing last night, somewhere around 2145, I was actually thinking, "I hope this post is coming across coherently...'cause I have had waaaaaaaaaaaay too many to try arguing in this thread. [5 min break] Yup...work of art.")
I've instituted a "PWI" rule - "Posting While Impaired" at my computer! Upon the second, I must stop even reading, for I'll read something interesting that "forces me" - in my obfuscated state - to think, "Hell, I am okay to post!" Then I find myself wearing out the "edit" button. :D
But, you are right - it was "a work of art"! Well, said!
Green Light
04-24-2010, 10:57
It is important to read the Constitution through the optics of those who wrote it and why they wrote it. They were tasked to fix the Articles of Confederation that had some very basic flaws . . .
No single person in a position of leadership
No power to raise operating funds
No means of compromise. All the states had to agree to anything and everything. (NY was a bitch when it came to proposals that threatened their financial supremacy, RI was always sweating that they were gonna get ripped cuz they were so little, VA and PA complained they were getting gyped cuz they were bigger, SC was always bearing a watchful eye on the Slave issue.)
Not me, it has a raspy wheeze sometimes and a racing heartbeat too but it is very much alive for me. Not 'YOU' but "WE". And therein lies it's meaningfulness. 'Whatever" would have made High School more fun. But they did end it with amendments. Not a process for amending, but specific amendments -- changes, additions. Ben Franklin, was pleased to answer the question regarding the sun on the speakers chair as "rising not setting" when the convention closed. And when asked what was created didn't someone say something like " A Republic, if you can keep it"?
But they did provide two ways to change the Constitution in Article V:
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It says nothing about SCOTUS, changing times, personal tastes, etc causing the Constitution to change in fact or practice.
Dozer523
04-24-2010, 14:44
I've instituted a "PWI" rule - "Posting While Impaired" at my computer! Upon the second, I must stop even reading, for I'll read something interesting that "forces me" - in my obfuscated state - to think, "Hell, I am okay to post!" Then I find myself wearing out the "edit" button. :D
But, you are right - it was "a work of art"! Well, said! Sort of the Trust Your Knees When Drinking Rule?
Never drink sitting down. Your butt will always say "Sure, have another!! We're GTG."
Always drink standing up. Your knees will interupt with the truth. . . (Drink it and we're goin' down.)
The subjectivness of Art.:D
GratefulCitizen
04-24-2010, 18:45
The main problem with this is , if every state did their own thing, especially concerning civil liberties, you wouldn't have 50 states and one country, you would have 50 countries, each doing things differently. As a good example, look at state firearms laws. What is legal in one state, and maybe federally, is illegal in another. Cross state lines, thinking you are good to go, and next hing you know, you are under arrest. Some sontrolled substance laws are facing the same dillema, California for example, with the marijuanna issue. There must be commonality on the more important issues. Local ordinances for small, quality of life issues like noise ordianances or such may be fine, but otherwise, we wind up with small fiefdoms all over the place, never knowing what is legal and what is not.
The only way to get everything uniform is an all-too-powerful central government.
The unintended consequences of this aren't worth it.
In practice, a state would tend to imitate whatever was working elsewhere.
If a state has laws which attract law-abiding citizens and drive away criminals, neighboring states would have to change their laws or risk exchanging desirable citizens for undesirable ones.
We've seen this principle in practice when it comes to economics.
Higher state tax rates drive away the productive while excessive social welfare programs attract the unproductive.
Team Sergeant
04-24-2010, 18:48
The terms "conservative" and "living and breathing document" are mutually exclusive, especially in a Constitutional context. The ability to amend the Constitution does not make it "living and breathing" and in fact just the opposite is true; having to amend the document to change or add amendments necessarily means that the words within the Constitution contain arguably immutable definitions.
One must have a logical way of defining the words and phrases within the constitution, or they are meaningless. Defining them with the Drafter's intent in mind is, IMHO, logical, as the result should be very close both to what the Drafters/Founders intended, as well as the understanding of the document as ratified by not only the original 13 colonies, but by every state that has joined the union since.
A problem with the "living and breathing document" school of thought is that, if the Constitution is ever-changing, how often do our rights change? Answer: whenever the Supreme Court and Congress says so.
You forgot FDA in that sentence.;)
Perhaps. But if we ignore the past, what shall we found our decisions upon?I'm not advocating that we ignore the past. I'm saying we should be mindful that our understanding of it is incomplete and will always be so.
IMO, history will serve us best today if we allow it to inform our debates over politics and policy and stop far short from making broad statements like "history shows that..." or comments about "the lessons of history."
Transitioning to the original topic...
If history offers examples of governments that function badly from the perspective of the governed, should we not consider the possibility that any government might devolve? And hence, that some trends might lead to an undesireable end?To me, the dilemma posed by your questions is that it suggests an approach to an examination of the past that results in a work of history that offers a judgment.
Should history serve this role? Or should history enable people to make their own judgments?
Dozer523
04-26-2010, 06:25
If you feel that some of the major founding principals of the Constitution haven't been maintained - isn't being pro-state rights your last refuge to potentially enjoy them? Didn't turn out that way for South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, or Tennessee.
Nice try, though.
Concealed or not...legal or not...registered or not...and so it goes...
Richard
Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence
AP, 25 Apr 2010
Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.
Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops.
The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire.
Fritchey says Chicago has had 113 homicide victims this year. He says the police department has done a commendable job, but its resources are stretched thin.
Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis says he appreciates the lawmakers' frustration and willingness to help, but doubts the National Guard is the best answer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042503518.html
Peregrino
04-26-2010, 08:18
Concealed or not...legal or not...registered or not...and so it goes...
Richard
Another shining example to add to the argument supporting victim disarmament zones.
"And so it goes." :rolleyes:
Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence
AP, 25 Apr 2010
Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.
Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops.
The request comes amid a recent surge in violent crime, including a night last week that saw seven people killed and 18 wounded, mostly by gunfire.
Fritchey says Chicago has had 113 homicide victims this year. He says the police department has done a commendable job, but its resources are stretched thin.
Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis says he appreciates the lawmakers' frustration and willingness to help, but doubts the National Guard is the best answer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042503518.html
I really don't understand how this happens. I mean with the Chicago gun ban, no one has guns right?
Maybe Chicago just needs an influx of more community organizers. :D
greenberetTFS
04-26-2010, 12:24
Born and raised on the SW side of the city,sure am glad I'm gone...........:mad::(:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
The only way to get everything uniform is an all-too-powerful central government.
The unintended consequences of this aren't worth it.
In practice, a state would tend to imitate whatever was working elsewhere.
If a state has laws which attract law-abiding citizens and drive away criminals, neighboring states would have to change their laws or risk exchanging desirable citizens for undesirable ones.
We've seen this principle in practice when it comes to economics.
Higher state tax rates drive away the productive while excessive social welfare programs attract the unproductive.
I didn't mean everything had to be uniform. As you stated in a roundabout way, commonality tends to happen over time. Right to carry is a good example. It started with one state and has made its way to several. Economics I consider a quality of life issue. States like Texas have done well with no state income tax, instead relying on a consumption tax, which BTW I would think would be the way to go federally. Other states want to tax anything they can think of in order to raise revenue.
When criminal law is involved, vs civil law, a mish mash of 50 seperate entities can only cause chaos for interstate travelers. Small differences would not be a problem, but major differences would IMO.
Green Light
04-26-2010, 15:02
The federal government sat on its hands too long. The states will protect their sovereignty if required (that's why each state has its own army and air force). AZ is protecting its citizens who are being terrorized by unfettered transborder criminals (Poncho Villa anyone?).
GratefulCitizen
04-26-2010, 22:33
When criminal law is involved, vs civil law, a mish mash of 50 seperate entities can only cause chaos for interstate travelers. Small differences would not be a problem, but major differences would IMO.
Agreed.
The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.
The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.
What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?
When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.
Agreed.
The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.
The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.
What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?
When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.
Look out...you might find a tinfoil hat in your future.
15316
In all seriousness...very nice post.
Agreed.
The problem is not in the principle.
The problem is in the unintended consequences.
The federal government often exercises great authority with the best of intentions.
Once a precedent is set, future office holders may not have the best of intentions.
What worries me most about the concentration of power is this:
what type of person/personality has the ambition to hold offices of such immense power?
When we delegate limited powers to various offices, and load them with difficulty, it tends to attract those who have the heart of a servant.
When we delegate "kingly" powers to various offices, it tends to attract the tyrannical-minded.
I think the current mood of the country illustrates the resistance someone like that will encounter, at least until the "youth" have been "taught" differently.
Utah Bob
04-27-2010, 07:26
The federal government sat on its hands too long. The states will protect their sovereignty if required (that's why each state has its own army and air force). AZ is protecting its citizens who are being terrorized by unfettered transborder criminals (Poncho Villa anyone?).
Pancho probably had a poncho.;)
Alas, even a cavalry regiment stationed outside of town didn't prevent Senor Villa from f***ing up Columbus NM.
Dozer523
04-27-2010, 07:54
Pancho probably had a poncho.;)
Alas, even a cavalry regiment stationed outside of town didn't prevent Senor Villa from f***ing up Columbus NM. During DMVS training we paid 'em back. During a map check near Columbus, (late 80's) The conversation went like this:
"That is not where we are."
"I think so."
"I don't think so, go ask that guy."
"What makes you think I speak Spanish? You ask him."
"Hola, Senor. donde' esta Mexico?"
"Mexico? Aqui Mexico."
"Mount up! Gimme That map. Follow me."
6.8SPC_DUMP
04-27-2010, 16:38
Didn't turn out that way for South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, or Tennessee.
Great point about the horrors of secession/civil war and the Southern states hadn't even lost their right to the slave trade yet.
Now when some people from states whose laws I like (TX for ex.), talk about wanting to seceded from the US; it's because of having laws like MA's universal healthcare or NYC's gun laws forced on them.
Isn't the FDA just the President's claimed legal justification to dictate food intake - not the body making the decision on implementing it?
Didn't the EPA serve the same function for Obama's Cap and Trade regulation as it was originally purposed?
If being pro states rights not the best answer to balance the divisions of government: what would be a better method?
99meters
04-28-2010, 04:06
Is this preference based entirely in your experiences as a LEO or do you also draw from some trajectory of American political philosophy?
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/html_5fee0ea8-4750-11df-9e30-001cc4c03286.html