Washington LEO Encounter - Page 2
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46

Thread: Washington LEO Encounter

  1. Quote Originally Posted by elkster23 View Post
    I respectfully disagree. Your logic about a cell phone and wrist watch lacks merit. I think in informing the LEO you are being respectful and honest. To my knowledge the has never been a LEO killed by cell phone or wrist watch, therefor I wouldn't share that with them. I have quite a few LEO acquaintances and have run this question by them. Their opinion is they want to know.
    Has there ever been a cop shot by a gun that the person told them at the beginning of the encounter that they had a gun? Yet, why is it, some police insist on handling the gun and disarming the subject as soon as the subject tells them about it?

    I think part of the reason we see the infringement upon the 2nd Amendment that we do (think California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Chicago) is because we, as gun owners, are insistent that guns are somehow different than any other tool. The gun is only an object, only a tool. My cell phone is a tool that I wear to use when I desire to communicate with the internet or with other people. Cell phones are also tools that terrorists use to detonate bombs with. Why don't we regulate cell phones the way we regulate guns?

    Knives are used to kill people every day with and children hurt themselves with knives every day. Why don't we have background checks and licenses required to sell knives like we do guns?

    Why is it not illegal to own or possess an automobile if you have a DUI conviction?

    More people are killed by drunk drivers every year than killed by gunshot. Why is it legal to possess car keys in a bar, yet in some places illegal to possess a gun in a bar?

    Why is there this fascination with the gun being different than any other tool or object? The gun doesn't kill cops. Criminals kill cops. Yet, even we as gun owners, wholeheartedly throw our support behind the false idea that a gun is dangerous to a cop. My gun, in its holster, is no more dangerous to the cop then the cell phone in my pocket or the watch on my wrist. Yet, when the gun starts getting unnecessarily handled - the risk goes up. Yet we see examples everyday of when someone tells a cop about a legally possessed gun, the first thing the cop wants to do is unnecessarily handle the gun, INCREASING the risk to EVERYONE involved, and possibly innocent bystanders who aren't involved.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by elkster23 View Post
    I respectfully disagree. Your logic about a cell phone and wrist watch lacks merit. I think in informing the LEO you are being respectful and honest. To my knowledge the has never been a LEO killed by cell phone or wrist watch, therefor I wouldn't share that with them. I have quite a few LEO acquaintances and have run this question by them. Their opinion is they want to know.
    ....or a pilots license. Not a very well thought out analogy. The fact that the OP thinks either of the above have any direct corolation to being as dangerous as a gun, it is in his own mind.

    Ask an officer what his thoughts are. Not to say in OP's hands there is any difference, which I am sure there is not, but unless he was actually flying when he was stopped, I don't think just the license itself would enable him to fly into a building.

    As far as his 'right to privacy', OC'ing is a blatant example of the contradiction. It is far more private to CC, although I see no problem in whatever you want to do. Just don't tell me how private you want to be and in the same sentence tell me you OC.

    KK

  4. I notice, Keykutter, you fail to answer a single question I raised. For example, guns are so "dangerous" that some states make carrying a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol illegal. More states make it illegal to carry a gun into a bar because guns are so "dangerous". Yet many times more people die or are injured on our highways every year from drunk drivers than do from gunshots. So why is it illegal to carry a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol or into a bar, but it is not illegal to possess car keys? Aren't the car keys much more dangerous and cause more injuries and death than guns do? Why single the guns out? Would you support laws that make it illegal to possess car keys where alcohol is served including places like Applebees where you would just be there to eat a meal with your family?

    We make it illegal for a person convicted of any felony to possess a gun, because the gun is so "dangerous". And yet, there is not a single state that I know of that makes it illegal for a person convicted of felony drunk driving to possess or own a car. Yet, it's illegal for that same person to possess a gun, because the gun is so "dangerous". Since more people are killed by cars than by guns, shouldn't we make it illegal for felons to own cars?

    A guy assaults his wife or a wife assaults her husband with a phone, or with a knife, or a baseball bat, or not even any weapon at all, so we take away their ability to legally possess a gun for life, because the gun is so "dangerous". Yet the same person can walk into Wal Mart and buy a phone, bat or knife with no regulations at all.

    Why? Because guns are so much more dangerous objects than everything else, right? We have enough problems with the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun groups spreading such propaganda. Do we really need to affirm such nonsense?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #14
    As much as I agree with your premise, I am not the one to answer these questions nor is anyone else on this forum.

    You are preaching to the choir. What ought to be right, according to the constitution is not right in the eyes of the uneducated.

    Unfortunately, the uneducated are the ones who got us into these mess as well as the ones who are afraid we will take the power from them.

    You come here asking rhetorical questions, in this company anyway, and you expect answers to what we all know are ridiculous questions, again, in this company.

    I don't need to answer your questions as just by the fact of me participating here, you already know them.

    The people you need to convince and ask these seemingly rhetorical questions to are the one's restricting your, our right's, but then again, you, in your position , can't do much of that, can you?

    So, as we have established, your questions are rhetorical, but my single question has gone unanswered.

    Again, how can you profess to insist on privacy in your life yet you taunt the very people who want to take your guns by OC'ing?

    Fine with me if you want to OC, I don't care. Fine with me if you want to deal with your legislators about these problems of carrying being threatening to some folks. But don't say you want to remain private. That ship has sailed and until this country makes some major changes, you are going to put some people on edge.

    Now, I agree with the fact that they should not feel on edge but most folks don't know how to tell a bad guy from a good guy, they just know that a guy with a gun has been known to shoot people. All my dispayling of my gun is not gonna change their minds and I especially am not wanting to test an LEO by having him find out by himself that I am carrying and trying to hide it from him.

    Most may not care but the one who freaks out and pulls me out of my vehicle and throws me on the ground is gonna piss me off.

    You seem to be living in a world where you WANT things to be the way they should be. Carrying a gun is just something that everyone assumes you are doing anyway. That would be great.

    I'm afraid that my world is based in a little more reality and the fact that I am carrying a gun just might surprise someone.

    I don't care much for surprises and I'm not gonna test the general public and assume that they do, especially not the general out of the box LEO. I feel, as awkward and wierd for you this seems, is that my letting an LEO know that I am armed is just a show of respect for the uniform and would start things off on the right foot. It may well bite me in the ass some time down the road but I have come out ahead in times when I was respectful than times when I came across with an attitude of superiority, in any social situation.

    So, I get your point, I think your questions are especially unwarrented on this forumbut we're just gonna have to disaggree. The general public is not ready for Dodge City, yet!

    KK

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Keykutter
    Again, how can you profess to insist on privacy in your life yet you taunt the very people who want to take your guns by OC'ing?
    1. I don't taunt anyone with my gun. I wear my gun in the manner which I have reasoned out to be the most effective method of preventing a criminal attack against myself and my family by looking at historical statistics and research. Most of the people who feel "taunted" by my gun and get their panties in a bunch about it carry concealed firearms themselves.

    2. My right to privacy while open carrying is simple. It means that I have the right to carry my gun without the government asking who I am, why am I carrying a gun, and insisting on taking my gun from me while we talk "for officer safety" - until such time as there is actual, reasonable and articulable suspicion to indicate I am committing a crime. The mere act of carrying a gun does not create reasonable and articulable suspicion of anything, at least in my state.

    I simply value my privacy and do not wish to discuss anything about my gun with a police officer during a stop for something completely unrelated to my gun.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #16
    And there ya go. It's all about you!

    KK

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Keykutter View Post
    And there ya go. It's all about you!

    KK
    The last time I read the Bill of Rights, that IS exactly who they WERE written for.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

    Kind of sounds like "all about me" too, doesn't it?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. #18
    This conversation has nothibg to do with the Gov't. It has to do with living in a civil society where not everyone, even though we would like them to, hold the same values and standards as we do.

    Your OC'ing may be considered by them to be 'taunting', although that is also not the subject we were talking about.

    My only real issue was your professing to want to be private but have a decided lifestyle that is ;in your face'.

    Either way is good with me, I don't care. But the fact remains, in TODAY's society, 'in your face' OC is not the way to achieve privacy.

    So your 'all about you' is my 'don't give a crap about what the people around you think'

    Although you should be permitted to have it your way all the time, society, and they may be wrong in your eyes, may be uncomfortable with your frame of mind.

    Me, I'm all about fitting in, especially when I'm running a business and the town has a gossip phone tree.

    You, in your position, here today, gone tomorrow, you can act the way you want. Grow some roots someday and see what happens then.

    KK

  10. It would present an interesting scene indeed if my gun was in anyone's face. I wear mine on my belt.

    Sometimes standing up for what is right means not fitting in. Rosa Parks would have fit in just fine in the back of the bus and not caused any ruckus at all.

    But to each their own.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    1. I don't taunt anyone with my gun. I wear my gun in the manner which I have reasoned out to be the most effective method of preventing a criminal attack against myself and my family by looking at historical statistics and research. Most of the people who feel "taunted" by my gun and get their panties in a bunch about it carry concealed firearms themselves.
    Let me clarify and expand on what Keykutter is saying.

    The people that Keykutter states you are taunting are not the CCers here on the site. They are the 40% of Americans that favor gun control. You know, the democrats and liberals... remember them? The percentage may be different in Washington so please let us know the percentage there if you wish. Do you think that because you OC they suddenly do a 180 and go from gun hating to wanting to give you a hug and join the NRA? No, they still hate guns, despise you, and you are taunting them.

    Keykutter please correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe he is saying that he understands that you are taunting them and that it can blow back into our faces. They see someone CCing and know nothing. If anyting your OCing motivates the 40% to do more to try to bring about additional gun control.

    Edit
    California is an example of what I am saying. Gun owners OCed firearms legally because they had no other option. The anti-gun crowd responded by banning OC. They had no other choice, you do.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast