Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 11, 2008 19:57:11 GMT -5
Len, you are sounding like a shill for Sarah Brady or Rosie. That tired old agument about guns blazing away when some gets cut off in traffic, or whatever, doesn't hold up to what happens in real life. Or, the times they do, they are caused by the gang bangers and wannabees that are already prohibited from owning firearms. To paraphrase a bumper sticker, Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than the guns of 80,000,000 gun owners. Well, I've never read a word of Sara Brady or her side of the argument, and I guess I'll take that as a compliment; I mean being in good company and all. Isn't she the wife of the guy that lost his brains when President Reagan was shot? Now if you tell me I lost my brains in this discussion, just hold on a minute. I think you agreed with me: bangers have guns, now all citizens may have guns, you don't think there will be guns blazing? The bangers shoot each other for simple power struggles over business deals, for the most part, now go and mix in a bunch of regular folks and the outcome will be a bunch higher for a while. As for Rosie.....I think I've been insulted now. I think she is against guns for everybody except herself. Well, maybe I am a bit like that now that I think about it, but that is the devil in me. As an American and that were the case, that I be the only one packing, I'd have to do myself in.....something like what John Wilkes Booth said when he assassinated Lincoln; and for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 11, 2008 20:13:28 GMT -5
In re: the Pennsylvania caper....
I actually have to side, to a point, with the state of Pennsylvania. As a nominated candidate for the presidency, Barack is entitled to a Secret Service detail. That agency has the administrative authority under federal law, as memory serves, to exclude any and all weapons at any event they protect people at. Their policy is that no one armed gets anywhere near the principal who isn't a sworn peace officer. I would be willing to bet that they gave instructions ahead of time to the local authorities to exactly that effect.
The rationale is that in that somewhat special circumstance the only people they want having firearms are people who they know and who they have vetted. And every member of the local law enforcement contingent gets vetted, believe me. While I know it might rankle some here, I believe that where it concerns the president, vice president and presidential candidates their presence constitutes something of an exigent and temporary circumstance.
Having said that, I'm guessing that the disorderly conduct beef is because the law abiding citizen, standing on the principle of his rights, got pissy with the officer. Easiest way to solve that is to hook him up for what they did. Is it a chicken bleep arrest? Yes. But if the citizen will not cooperate temporarily there really isn't much left to do.
In re: Len... experience going back over twenty years across forty states says your conclusions are wrong. Here's a case in point:
Used to be in Florida that rental cars had a special series of license plates that identified the car to a peace officer at a glance as a rental car. After Florida went to "shall issue" concealed carry, car jackings dropped to almost none... except for the said same rental cars, which were getting bamboozled right and left. Why would the bad guys pick on rentals?
Chances are the driver is a tourist and hence not able to be armed under Florida law... hence, an easier victim. After a year or so Florida DMV changed it's regulations and started plating rentals just like every other passenger car.
To no one's surprise, incidence of car jacking dropped precipitously.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 11, 2008 20:29:46 GMT -5
Sarah is another of the gunz-r-bad types that wants guns taken away from everyone except the select few (such as herself, her family {she bragged in her bio of buying a long range, high power sniper rifle for her son}, and certain powerful and influential types).
Yeah. The thugs have guns now. FL may have had a worse gang problem than we have now when it became a shall issue state, and I think it was a few years later a 'castle doctrine' state too (might have happened at the same time, but I don't feel like checking at the moment). The anti-gun crowd was tripping over itself with claims that there would be guns blazing and blood running in the streets for everything from too loud music to being looked a wrong. They raised the same objections when any state since then has become a shall issue state. Unfortunately for them, their hopes were dashed. All that happened in those states was a significant, rapid decrease in crimes against persons. There was a very slight increase in property crime. FL did find that when it became a shall issue state that there was a sudden very large increase in personal crimes against tourists (or people in rental cars, anyway). Seems that rental cars in FL at the time had special plates indicating that they were rentals. So the thugs went after the (mostly) tourists in the rental cars since most, if not all, would be unarmed. They decided that they did not want to risk going after potentially armed citizens, so they chose the soft targets instead.
People don't turn into maniacal, zomboid (a maniacal zombi??) killing machines as soon as they touch a firearm. Those honest citizens who choose to own and carry are far less likely to commit ANY crime than those who don't own firearms, and are more likely to avoid any confrontation.
Again, real world evidence does not support your concerns.
I'm missing the meaning of your last sentence "As an American and that were the case, that I be the only one packing, I'd have to do myself in.....something like what John Wilkes Booth said when he assassinated Lincoln; and for the same reason. " Are you saying that if you were the only one armed you would likely become a tyrant, and therefore have to do yourself in? If that is the case, then I applaud you for recognizing your lack of control and self discipline and can see why you would not want to carry. But please don't project that same lack of self control and self discipline onto the rest of us.
Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis!
|
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 13, 2008 9:08:04 GMT -5
Well, Subjoe, I guess I stand corrected if your post has factual basis, and thanks for the clarification. Not following the gun thingy at all obviously puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to facts across the states and how it works elsewhere. I do know my experience and when we all packed folks were real polite and I liked that. I just couldn't imagine it across the board.
You also got my meaning about "if I were the only with the power".....I dare not project my shortcoming on you all, but I do know human nature and without external checks and balances I dare say that there's a tyrant in us all. It is not lack of self control or discipline issue, it's just knowing folks and there will to power if left unrestrained. And thanks for Mr. Booth's last known public utterance.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 13, 2008 12:28:59 GMT -5
My pleasure, sir. Note that both Big Dog and I gave the same example. He did carry it to the next step of FL changing the plates on rental cars so that you couldn't tell they were rentals and attacks on them dropped.
Again, your fears about peoples "will to power if left unrestrained" is not borne out but reality. The thugs who honest citizens need to worry about don't give a rats ass anyway, no external checks and balances will restrain them. The vast majority of honest citizens can be trusted to carry safely. Better than 99% of firearm owners NEVER misuse their firearms in any way. The open carry and shall issue states, and the states of VT and AK that don't require any permit to carry, bear this out.
I would take it that with the recent epidemic of knife violence that is sweeping our country and leaving the streets red with blood that you favor the same type of control on the ability of citizens to carry knives.
Oh, and I gave the full quote. Mr. Booth gave the usual shortened version: Sic Semper Tyrannis! The motto of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
|
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 14, 2008 15:34:33 GMT -5
Well, the knife is another weapon all together. It's a personal thing, one has to be up close and smell their opponent. The gun is so impersonal.
Wonder what the stats are for women-in-their-kitchen-stabbing-their-honey is, relative to all knife wounds inflicted upon others? Those need to be factored out from my previous position. Again, it is an extension of one's hand, but for ladies inflicting honeys with new smiles, there is that heated passion of the moment.
Knives used in fights in backs of bars, etc may even be fewer than honeys doing the quick draw in the kitchen.
Don't know, but it fun to speculate.
But your point is well made, it is not the gun or the knife, but that same old faulty thang: us
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 14, 2008 16:46:40 GMT -5
Thanks Len. It is fun to speculate. And even to play the devils advocate from time to time.
Here is a quote from St. John Chrysostome that pretty much sums up my position: "For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for foolhardiness, but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts which have been bestowed upon them by God, and punish them accordingly. "
As you said, it ain't the tool, it's the person. Well, paraphrased, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 15, 2008 12:14:50 GMT -5
In re: the Pennsylvania caper.... I actually have to side, to a point, with the state of Pennsylvania. As a nominated candidate for the presidency, Barack is entitled to a Secret Service detail. That agency has the administrative authority under federal law, as memory serves, to exclude any and all weapons at any event they protect people at. Their policy is that no one armed gets anywhere near the principal who isn't a sworn peace officer. I would be willing to bet that they gave instructions ahead of time to the local authorities to exactly that effect. The rationale is that in that somewhat special circumstance the only people they want having firearms are people who they know and who they have vetted. And every member of the local law enforcement contingent gets vetted, believe me. While I know it might rankle some here, I believe that where it concerns the president, vice president and presidential candidates their presence constitutes something of an exigent and temporary circumstance. Having said that, I'm guessing that the disorderly conduct beef is because the law abiding citizen, standing on the principle of his rights, got pissy with the officer. Easiest way to solve that is to hook him up for what they did. Is it a chicken bleep arrest? Yes. But if the citizen will not cooperate temporarily there really isn't much left to do. In re: Len... experience going back over twenty years across forty states says your conclusions are wrong. Here's a case in point: Used to be in Florida that rental cars had a special series of license plates that identified the car to a peace officer at a glance as a rental car. After Florida went to "shall issue" concealed carry, car jackings dropped to almost none... except for the said same rental cars, which were getting bamboozled right and left. Why would the bad guys pick on rentals? Chances are the driver is a tourist and hence not able to be armed under Florida law... hence, an easier victim. After a year or so Florida DMV changed it's regulations and started plating rentals just like every other passenger car. To no one's surprise, incidence of car jacking dropped precipitously. Go figure. I believe that he never offically entered the area the event was being held, but set up outside that area, knowing he would have to surrender his gun. So, the authority of the Secret Service did not apply to his situation. I will re-read the article though. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 15, 2008 12:21:51 GMT -5
Okay, I was correct, he never entered Irvine Park, where the rally was being held. This is a clear violation of his rights, and the officers made a false arrest. Regardless if he is charged, the charges can not stand, the officers had no legal standing to confront him, and exceeded their authority, because he was not at the rally. The officers involved should be reprimanded, recieve a one week forfiture of pay, and have to take classes on constitutional law, for violating the rights of a citizen who was not engaged in any illegal activity.
Even the feds knew he was legally untouchable, which is why they have not pressed charges. The stated reason the feds are not pressing charges, he never entered Irvine Park, where the rally was being held.
The current charges against him stem from a false arrest, trumped up by officers who exceeded their authority. All charges should be dropped, and his gun returned immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 15, 2008 12:27:49 GMT -5
Devil's advocate time... show me where in the laws of that state that what you say is fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 15, 2008 12:48:37 GMT -5
What fact, that he never entered Irvine Park? Or that he never broke the law? Or that police do not have a right to arbitrarily stop and detain a person who is only exercising their rights under state law?
You know yourself that these officers trumped up charges against him based on a faulty complaint, under the color of authority. The citizen, by default, filed a false police report. And the officers, knowing full well that it is legal to open carry in their state, pushed the situation, and based their arrest on what was, as you pointed out, a citizen protesting a violation of his well known state rights. If that is not abuse of power, nothing is.
Now you have a district attorney claiming the man did not violate any law, but, instead violated someone else's right to not feel fear? To begin with, no right in the constitution trumps another. Carrying a firearm outside of the rally was not illegal, nor in violation of federal law, or against the orders of the Secret Service.
Everything about this issue stinks of a police state. It does not sit well with me. Police are not the utlitmate authority, yet know enough about the law to know they can not stop a citizen without just cause. Knowing he was not in the restricted area was not just cause. They violated his rights, and should pay the price. If they felt he may have been a threat to Obama, they had an obligation to keep him under surveillance until he made a move toward Irvine Park. Until such time, he was not a threat to Obama, and they should have respected his rights. It is a clear case of over-reaction and abuse of authority in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 15, 2008 14:37:15 GMT -5
What fact, that he never entered Irvine Park? Or that he never broke the law? Or that police do not have a right to arbitrarily stop and detain a person who is only exercising their rights under state law? Any / all of the above. You weren't there, you can't say for fact what the officers did / said, what the gentleman did / said in response, and what laws he may or not have broken. Do you know what the disorderly conduct laws are in that state? Do you know what the officer's powers of arrest are? If you don't have any of those data points then you can not make a fair statement about what was or was not "legal". No, I don't know that. Saying so is a matter of your opinion based only on press reports and no knowledge of the controlling law and authority. Disorderly conduct, in many states, is a jackass violation... meaning that if you act like a jackass to the police, you run the risk of getting hooked up. Not saying that is the case here but it certainly could be. Many states also have very strict laws concerning what is and is not obstructing or hindering an officer in the performance, much stricter than California's. Really. This is based on what? And even the SCOTUS in Heller affirmed that the right under Amendment Two is not exclusive. If this gentleman became belligerent with the police, who were there in good faith based on a citizen complaint (hence false arrest does not apply), then he likely got hooked up solely for being belligerent... which may well be a crime in that state. So if someone was made uncomfortable by the presence of his firearm, they have no right or recourse? Is that what you are saying? You said it yourself up above... no single right trumps another. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. If the police approached him and said, politely, that someone else was concerned and could you please cover up for the moment, and he said "up yours, make me"... in a lot of states he's going to wind up in the klink for an hour or two. And that is part of your right to your opinion. I am merely submitting that you are forming that opinion of far less than a complete set of facts. Again... they were there in good faith in response to a call from a citizen. That is all the just cause in the world to make a casual contact. What happens from there becomes the responsibility of both the person being contacted and the police. And this is what there are district attorneys and courts for... which it seems to me are already involved in. So the process is working, no? Be very, very careful about this line of argument. Second Amendment law is still evolving. And as noted above the right is not exclusive of all others. The Supreme Court has said exactly that and that government may in some cases restrict that right. And in this final part you are correct. It is a clear case of over-reaction and abuse of authority in your mind. In Pennsylvania, however, it might not be. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just being the devil's advocate here. |
|
