Let's Fight About it Some More - Page 6
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Let's Fight About it Some More

  1. Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    Sure you have the right...It’s Freedom..
    Don't get upset or surprised when the police show up and perhaps have you at gun point, maybe they detain you for 2.5 hours or more... Not saying that it’s right, just what may happen…
    They have that right because it's their safety at stake in this case. They will not know who you are or what you are doing so expect that behavior. Right wrong or indifferent, they are trained that way. They have to be…
    It's their job to provide safety for the citizens who pay taxes and therefore pay their salary, the citizens who will see you and perhaps question who and why and think “he may be up to no good”. They have that right to perceive you as a possible threat and react accordingly.
    So do what you want, but expect that if it flies in the face of conventional wisdom or skirts the line of good judgment, you will be questioned about it.

    Use good judgment while exercising your rights and be respectful of people who may fear you being armed. They may have a good reason or they may be ignorant to the laws and what is legal. Represent yourself with pride and educate them. Perhaps you make allies and not adversaries.

    Peace…
    I have a problem with the three statements bolded above. The police do not have the right to violate my civil rights (EDIT: without due process). Period. If the police can violate my civil rights any time they feel "unsafe", what's the point of having "inalienable rights"? They do not have the right to feel safe. Then again, neither does anyone else. And on the second statement, it has been ruled that police have no duty to provide safety to citizens. Their job is to enforce the law. Protect the general peace. Not provide security to citizens. And at what point did the police have the right to treat me like a threat for exercising my rights? Am I not innocent until proven guilty? We get all bent out of shape about police pulling people over for "driving while black" or other obvious civil rights violations. Why is "walking while armed" an acceptable reason to violate my rights? Either I have the rights protected by the BOR (all of them, including protection from unreasonable search, presumption of innocence, ect), or I don't. Which is it?
    Last edited by joespahr; 01-13-2010 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Clarity
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

  2.   
  3. #52
    Where does the "Innocent until proven guilty" phrase come from? I have not seen it in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence so I am wonering who came up with it and how did it originate. Anyone know for sure and is it true?

  4. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by joespahr View Post
    I have a problem with the three statements bolded above. The police do not have the right to violate my civil rights (EDIT: without due process). Period. If the police can violate my civil rights any time they feel "unsafe", what's the point of having "inalienable rights"? They do not have the right to feel safe. Then again, neither does anyone else. And on the second statement, it has been ruled that police have no duty to provide safety to citizens. Their job is to enforce the law. Protect the general peace. Not provide security to citizens. And at what point did the police have the right to treat me like a threat for exercising my rights? Am I not innocent until proven guilty? We get all bent out of shape about police pulling people over for "driving while black" or other obvious civil rights violations. Why is "walking while armed" an acceptable reason to violate my rights? Either I have the rights protected by the BOR (all of them, including protection from unreasonable search, presumption of innocence, ect), or I don't. Which is it?
    If you believe that the police will forgo their training, which is to be on guard at all times especially when approaching a person with an AK-47 (pistol or rifle even if it was pink or green) and interact with you as if you were dressed in clerical clothing you would be mistaken. I think you may have missed my point.

    They have to ascertain if you are a threat to the peace or if you have violated any laws. Until they have all the information they will be on guard and perceive you
    (for clarification I use “you” without affiliation to you personally) as just that, a threat. This will be the case especially when a weapon is present.
    As far as the right to “feel safe”, it’s not defined as a right, but believe me they will make sure they are safe… Each and every one of them… I know many of them and have for years and the one common thread is the statement “if I have anything to say about it, I’ll be the one going home when my shift is done”. After all is that not the goal for us all, Survival?

    LEOs on this site feel free to comment or correct me if I’m being presumptuous…

    Yes I agree with the statement they are not there for our personal safety. We the citizens are responsible for that task.
    Now with that typed. Tell the tax paying citizens of any municipality the police are not there for their safety. You will get varying degrees of disagreement. “To Serve and To Protect” is the mantra so it’s implied… So when the public feels threatened they call the police. For the unarmed it’s the first reaction to reach for the phone and wait for the police to arrive. For the armed it’s the 2nd step to report the shooting or the fact that they were brandishing a weapon in reaction to a threat of death or injury…

    So my rights and your rights and the rights of others… We all have them. How we choose to exercise them is a choice just as the type of weapon we use or the car we drive etc… My point here is, if you choose to attract attention via behavior that others may consider unusual or threatening, expect a reaction. No one likes to feel threatened or unsure of their safety. I’m sure you would agree.

    Comments welcome and expected...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    I wouldn't use that as your standard. I use two hands to fire all my pistols.
    +1

    I think it's a matter of defined nomenclature, if the manufacturer defines it as such then it is.
    Just call it a firearm keeps it simple.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    +1

    I think it's a matter of defined nomenclature, if the manufacturer defines it as such then it is.
    Just call it a firearm keeps it simple.
    As long as the BATF agrees.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  7. Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    If you believe that the police will forgo their training, which is to be on guard at all times especially when approaching a person with an AK-47 (pistol or rifle even if it was pink or green) and interact with you as if you were dressed in clerical clothing you would be mistaken. I think you may have missed my point.

    They have to ascertain if you are a threat to the peace or if you have violated any laws. Until they have all the information they will be on guard and perceive you
    (for clarification I use “you” without affiliation to you personally) as just that, a threat. This will be the case especially when a weapon is present.
    As far as the right to “feel safe”, it’s not defined as a right, but believe me they will make sure they are safe… Each and every one of them… I know many of them and have for years and the one common thread is the statement “if I have anything to say about it, I’ll be the one going home when my shift is done”. After all is that not the goal for us all, Survival?

    LEOs on this site feel free to comment or correct me if I’m being presumptuous…

    Yes I agree with the statement they are not there for our personal safety. We the citizens are responsible for that task.
    Now with that typed. Tell the tax paying citizens of any municipality the police are not there for their safety. You will get varying degrees of disagreement. “To Serve and To Protect” is the mantra so it’s implied… So when the public feels threatened they call the police. For the unarmed it’s the first reaction to reach for the phone and wait for the police to arrive. For the armed it’s the 2nd step to report the shooting or the fact that they were brandishing a weapon in reaction to a threat of death or injury…

    So my rights and your rights and the rights of others… We all have them. How we choose to exercise them is a choice just as the type of weapon we use or the car we drive etc… My point here is, if you choose to attract attention via behavior that others may consider unusual or threatening, expect a reaction. No one likes to feel threatened or unsure of their safety. I’m sure you would agree.

    Comments welcome and expected...
    I don't expect LEO's to disregard their training. I do, however, expect them to be trained to respect the rights of citizens exercising their rights. If open carry is legal and that is the only reason they are responding to me, they don't even have a cause to stop me, because I am not violating, or presenting evidence that I am about to violate, any laws. Just because other people are uncomfortable does not make me a criminal. Maybe they should explain to whoever called them that no crime has been committed?

    Look, I'm not saying that the guy with the orange AK made the brightest decision. But it was within his rights. And as long as no laws are violated, shouldn't he be able to exercise his rights without interference from the police or anyone else? Either we have rights, or we don't, that's all I'm saying.
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

  8. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by joespahr View Post
    Look, I'm not saying that the guy with the orange AK made the brightest decision. But it was within his rights. And as long as no laws are violated, shouldn't he be able to exercise his rights without interference from the police or anyone else? Either we have rights, or we don't, that's all I'm saying.
    Agreed...

    He had the right. My point is that when doing things like the "orange AK expedition"; well expect to get some attention. Be it right or wrong you will get it and when there is a weapon in the mix expect the police to be in self preservation mode until they have ascertained no laws have been broken...

    Peace.
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  9. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by 6shootercarry View Post
    when there is a weapon in the mix expect the police to be in self preservation mode until they have ascertained no laws have been broken...

    Peace.
    Exactly, 6sc. LEOs are under tremendous pressure to preserve the peace while, at the same time, preserving their own lives. I, for one, am willing to give them a break under situations such as the one being discussed in this thread. However, at the same time, I am not willing to give up any of my Constitutional rights. It is a balancing act, for sure. I realize that there are bad cops, but IMHO most of them are good folks trying to protect the public and still make it home safe, to their families, at the end of their shift.
    My 2 cents ... and that's probably what it's worth, too.
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  10. #59
    As we fight to restore this country to the constitutional republic it was meant to be, we're going to run into these kind of situations. For sure, part of the battle is letting LEO (and other gov't agents) know that we know our rights, expect LEO to know them, and, more importantly to honor them. At the same time, we must consider the sheep, who, for so long, either didn't know or were/are afraid to exercise them.

    So, on the one hand, we have LEO and on the other, we have the sheep. They are both part of the equation and you can't ignore the significance of their respective roles. You ignore LEO, or treat them disdainfully, and they may hassle you to no end. Similarly, you ignore or antangonize the sheep, they may vote your "right" away.

    We must be wise and pick our battles carefully, IMHO.

  11. #60
    SET RANT ON...

    The Second Amendment unambiguously & unconditionally states in part "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    The Fifth Amendment States in part "No person... shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

    Due process cannot occur without having your day in court...

    When it comes to determining IF a crime has been committed, that is not up to any LEO to determine; they have two primary legal guidelines on which they can make a arrest or detain an individual...

    Both of which are based on the fourth amendment:
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that any search without a warrant is unconstitutional...
    Thanks to things like the so-called Patriot Act, that is no longer the case...

    The Inherit problem with both is they are subject to interpretation by the individual.

    Reasonable Suspicion:
    Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion"

    Probable Cause:
    "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"...
    In United States criminal law, probable cause refers to the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

    Even taking the aforementioned into consideration; My view remains in this specific case; the individual threatened nobody, shot nobody, did not discharge the firearm in anyway, shape or form...
    Thus nobody's civil or constitutional rights were violated but those of this specific individual. Moreover, every time we allow this kind of reaction by LEO or otherwise to transpire without public opposition; we give implied weight and acceptance to the action; ("Public Good" & "Public Safety" arguments) which is exactly how the unconstitutional 20,000 and counting firearms laws in this country have remained on the books...
    Why we have sitting members of Congress on camera stating without fear "Most of the things we (Congress) do is unconstitutional"...

    Coincidentally the "Public Good" & "Public Safety" (or paraphrases thereof) arguments is exactly what England, Canada, Australia, and the other now disarmed (law-abiding citizens anyway) countries of the world used. AND Cities in this country like Chicago & New York City...

    We must never allow good judgment & morality to be Legislated...

    Additionally, the problem with the training of LEO & members of the Military is they are conditioned to follow orders of their immediate superiors unconditionally.

    Thus we have in some cities (AKA: Sanctuary Cities) illegal aliens loitering in front of Home Depot, Nurseries etc., while police officers drive by and do nothing, (ignoring Federal & State Laws) but two blocks down the street if some white guy is loitering they stop & ask him for identification etc.
    It is well established that these same illegal aliens are being recruited by organized crime for organized burglaries, etc. Not withstanding that they are taking American Jobs, working for cash under the table at rates American's can not compete with; not paying taxes, using our emergency rooms as their primary care facilities; collecting food stamps, welfare, social security, medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs; and we wonder why ALL entitlement programs are bankrupt and our Health, Auto and other insurance is so-high, and in many cases unfordable...
    All things they can not get away with in their own countries...
    I have been to Mexico and IF you do not have cash in hand, you can literally bleed to death at the doorway of a hospital. Additionally, a guy walking down the street with a Orange or any other color for that matter AK would not get a second look...

    Additionally, LEO & U.S. Military were used to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DISARM law abiding citizens following Hurricane Katrina...
    While a few members of the LEO & Military Community on camera questioned the orders they still followed the orders; NOBODY refused to follow the Unconstitutional Disarmament of Law Abiding Citizens and no charges have been or likely will be placed against those at the top that issued the orders...

    "The Second Amendment IS my Concealed (and Open) Carry Permit" - Ted Nugent

    Bill of Rights...
    God Given...
    Non-Negotiable...

    Without our Liberties, we have NOTHING...

    Rights you do not use, you lose...

    SET RANT OFF...

    :-)

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 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