Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police - Page 6
Page 6 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 219

Thread: Ordered to ground at gunpoint for open carrying by cleveland heights ohio police

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by chudak25 View Post
    Everyone is saying that if OC was a common practice, this would not have happened! I have something for you guys to think about, if OC was common practice in some area, and the BG's know this, what is to stop them from walking around with a gun at their side? How would the police tell the difference then? I know that does not give the COPS the right to stop anyone with a gun, but if you were a COP, how would you tell the difference? Just a thought I had and wanted to see what people would say!
    OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.

    BTW, there are parts of the country where OC is common practice.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  2.   
  3. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.

    BTW, there are parts of the country where OC is common practice.
    I totally agree with you that we do not take away the right to OC because a BG might blend in. My only thing on that is if you are a COP that might make your job somewhat more dangerous because you obviously can't stop every person with a gun, or do profiling. I guess they would have to rely more on the description of the suspect and do it that way instead of "oh he looks like a criminal".
    As for the argument that if a convict is released back into society, it does make sense that if someone thinks he/she is no longer a threat and they are released from jail, so why not allow them to carry weapons, vote and all that?! I guess if someone is afraid they would re-offend or deemed high risk, especially for gun violence type of criminals, maybe keep them locked up longer by increasing their sentences, say life time or until someone sees a difference in them and can certify that this person is no longer the same criminal that went in. Because if they are a high risk to society then why are they out in the first place, if they can't get a gun through the legal channels, there are plenty of other ways to do it! So good points, thanks for bringing those up, never really thought much about that before!
    "You must prove you feared for your life. Pee in your pants."
    -Someone on this site!

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by chudak25 View Post
    My only thing on that is if you are a COP that might make your job somewhat more dangerous because you obviously can't stop every person with a gun, or do profiling.
    I don't think any more dangerous than his job already is. If he is simply observing and notices someone OCing, he would do well to stay alert for the possibility that the OCer is a BG who would pull his gun on the cop. Not likely, but he must stay alert non-the-less.

    I guess they would have to rely more on the description of the suspect and do it that way instead of "oh he looks like a criminal".
    I think that sums it up pretty well. Since OC is perfectly legal (in most states), it cannot be the sole purpose for detainment. And I would add that if someone were detained for no other reason than because he was OCing, and it was discovered that he is in fact an ex-con, I would bet money that any weapons charges would be dropped.

    I am reminded of a great Jefferson quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    OK I'll bite, but you might not like my answer. 2 things come to mind when I read your question. The first is that you do not suspend the practice for the law abiding just because the law breakers might blend in. The act of carrying in and of itself is not a crime unless you are a felon, which brings me to my next thought. I've stated elsewhere on this site that I believe that prohibiting ex-cons from possessing guns is flawed logic. If we believe certain people to still be a threat to society, why have they been released from prison in the first place? If we do not consider them a threat, and therefore have released them, they ought to be able to defend themselves just like you or me. I know the law is what it is, but you posed the hypothetical "what if?", so I added a few to it.
    I am also a believer in the restitution of normal rights to those who have paid their debt to society. If we were to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions on liberty known as "the war on drugs", we would have plenty of room for the serious, violent threats to society.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomboy007 View Post
    I am also a believer in the restitution of normal rights to those who have paid their debt to society. If we were to eliminate the ridiculous restrictions on liberty known as "the war on drugs", we would have plenty of room for the serious, violent threats to society.
    Another good point! I'm not sure about all the drugs, but I have been saying for a long time that we need to legalize pot and that would solve two problems, one it would be taxed by the government and therefore help pay off some of the debt we have and two, a crapload of jails would not be overcrowded and in a way help the states and government because we would not be paying for their stay! But no one listens, while everyone that does smoke weed keeps doing it anyway! By the way, I don't smoke, not pot, not even cigarettes and never have. Just don't want someone saying I'm a smoker and that is why I want it legalized.
    "You must prove you feared for your life. Pee in your pants."
    -Someone on this site!

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bellingham, WA, USA
    Posts
    733

    Thumbs up I get you, Chudak.

    I, like you, do not partake of the substances which alter my perception of the world. Heck, if I have more than six or eight alcoholic drinks in a year, it would surprise the heck out of me. It is not that I have any moral or ethical issue with the intoxicant in question; I just don't like the way the few that I have tried made me feel.

    That said, I am very, very careful about the restrictions that I would approve of placing on consenting adults. Take helmet laws for example: Personally, when I ride, I always wear a helmet, although my locale does not require one. Eye protection, on the other hand, is a legal necessity. This is a system that I support.

    When does a helmet matter? After you have been involved in a wreck, and your head is contacting the ground or engine block or elm tree with which you have collided. Who is hurt by the decision to forgo the helmet? The legal, consenting adult who, more than likely, moved on to a better place.

    When does eye protection matter? Before the horsefly hits your eyeball at forty miles an hour, causing you to lose control and slew into the eight year old standing on the adjacent sidewalk, ending her life and making a living heck of the rest of yours.

    Not to beat the vehicular example to death, but another good example, in my opinion, is the seat belt law. I agree wholeheartedly with requiring motor vehicle companies to install seat belts as part of a reasonable safety system. Companies and corporations should not share the same rights as people (don't get me started on corporate person hood!).

    That said, I find the idea that cognizant, consenting adults should be forced to wear the seat belt "for their own good" to be insulting and contrary to the reasonable order of the universe.

    Car seat law? Fantastic! Seat belts for all under the age of majority (which is 18 here)? Great concept! These individuals are helpless and unable to consent, and I have no problem with reasonable rules to protect them. However, I am really uncomfortable with the thought of forcing any adult into acting or practicing in ways that are not of their own choosing.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  8. #57
    If someone is too dumb not to wear a seatbelt, there's a high likelihood that they haven't protected themselves in other departments....namely, health insurance. So when they get ejected from their car and have to find the nearest Level I trauma center, guess who's footing the $500K bill??? You and I.
    Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown

  9. I've got a crisp $20 bill that the LEO had previous encounters with the OP and those shaped this taped version.

    Also an armed man "pacing the block" could be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search depending on state law.

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by PascalFleischman View Post
    If someone is too dumb not to wear a seatbelt, there's a high likelihood that they haven't protected themselves in other departments....namely, health insurance. So when they get ejected from their car and have to find the nearest Level I trauma center, guess who's footing the $500K bill??? You and I.
    We're getting a little off topic but since it is all a matter of personal freedom and choices, what the hey...

    First, I know MANY people who don't wear their seatbelt, yet every one of them has health insurance. I don't believe for one minute that the likelyhood of being insured is in any way statistically related to the decision of wearing a seatbelt. Infact, one could just as easily make the case that the insured figures "screw it, I don't need a seatbelt, I'm insured."

    Second, even IF they don't have health insurance, they very likely have auto insurance, which would be the first payor in an injury accident. I'm not sure how most ins. cos. work, but ours asked us if we wear our seatbelts, and would have jacked up our rates if we didn't. How they enforce it, I have no idea. But that is the kind of seatbelt policy I can agree with, one between the insurer and the insured, and no meddeling by the government.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisible_Dave View Post
    Also an armed man "pacing the block" could be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search depending on state law.
    On what justification?

    Would a "black man 'pacing the block'...be enough to trigger a suspicious activity complaint and a search"?

    What about a "white man 'pacing the block'"?

    Or maybe a "man with an anti-abortion poster 'pacing the block'"?

    What about a "woman with a 'Ron Paul for President' t-shirt 'pacing the block'"?

    See the point? Why is it any more acceptable or reasonable for a law-abiding person to be stopped, searched, etc. because the right s/he is exercising is the RKBA than it is any other fundamental right?

Page 6 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

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