In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
quote:But cops do have "special privileges" don't they? Even if the ability to go armed is taken out of the argument?
When was the last time you arrested anyone, detained anyone for questioning, wrote a traffic ticket?
Would you remove those "privileges" from the police, or would you assume them for yourself?
What about other "privileged" classes of people? Do you feel as qualified to design an office building as an architect? Do you believe you are competent to perform surgery?
I'm not, and I will leave those tasks to those who are qualified, and "privileged" to perform those functions.
Don't be confusing "privileges" with "powers".
We, the citizens have invoked "powers" upon police to uphold the law, and maintain the peace. And yes, if the police did not bother to uphold the law or maintain the peace with the powers bestowed upon them by the people, then you bet your @$$ I would take care of maintaining the peace myself, and with other organized citizens, the militia, called forth and illustrated by the 2nd Amendment.
quote:What about other "privileged" classes of people? Do you feel as qualified to design an office building as an architect? Do you believe you are competent to perform surgery?
Don't be confusing "privileged" with "skilled" either. There is a difference. In order for the "privilege" to be invoked, it has to be for no discernable reasoning of skill, as in due to friends, or family, or held in the hands of those without bestowed "powers", like a politician, whose only real qualification these days appears to come from a forked tongue and by duress and deceit.
In all honesty, does a cop even want privilege status, knowing what others think of him/her for accepting the equivalent of bribery to get it, or to turn their back on the populace, and betray his/her oath to those same people? I know I sure wouldn't....
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"
Indeed...and I need to clarify my misspoke "Privilege" above.
The Second Amendment is a RIGHT...Not a 'privilege'. I guess if you wish to accept a "Privilege" and renounce your "Rights"..I cannot stop that train. I can, however, stand to the side and throw rocks...
And...I cannot aid in the attempt to destroy a "Right"..to make it a "Privilege"....not even for police officers.
quote:And...I cannot aid in the attempt to destroy a "Right"..to make it a "Privilege"....not even for police officers.
It is my principles involved with this argument, not my lack of run in's with the law that bring me to this conclusion. I want true equality for all of us, and making any class of people superior is not equality.
Because that is a contradiction, I cannot support it. Bravo highball!!! I'll stand alongside you and throw some rocks, myself.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"
Please do not misinturpit this as anti peace officer. I will support an honest peace officer, to the end. There are many however, that are power hungry. It is these, that we have no use for. The right to bear arms, for the protection of ones self, is A right. Not A priviledge. It should be extended to all. Not just cops.
There is a handfull of officers on this forum that have put their jobs on the line..by stating that they will refuse the order to disarm Americans.
Until that day..they will enforce the laws of the land.
Because I myself will obey the laws as written..till that day..Nothing less then respect for decent, honorable Policemen is deserved..and will be extended from my quarter.
Those cops on record as stating that they will enforce a gun ban..deserve noting but contempt..and will receive that from me. Dirty cops will also be in that category..I believe that a dirty cop..or politician..OUGHT to get double the sentence of an ordinary citizen for equal crimes.
You see..along with respect comes the expectation of honesty..and breaking the public trust ought to be punished.
WHat is it, that leads you to believe being A leo makes you more special than average joe. quote:Originally posted by dano
Active police officer or retired.....big difference between them and "Joe Average".
Nat'l. carry for police officers was a long time coming. It's a positive step forward and I'd hate to see it watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right(s).
""cops are not here to interpret the laws they enforce, they are here to enforce the laws enacted by the elected legislators""
Cops interpret the laws just as any other man. By saying they enforce the laws only you are asserting they know everything and are not capable of fault in their interpretation nor using their emotions in their criminal decision making.
I believe LEO's lead the way in accidental discharges and get away with it but if a citizen had an accidental discharge they would receive a ticket and fine if not lose their firearm if they did the same thing.
Just look at the LEO's in the military, those kids commit more crimes/dui's than any other military unit on their installation. But it all get's covered up to keep faith in the law enforcement folk.
There are some good LEO's out there...but it's just like the rest of America...there is corruption and a criminal sect in them as well.
quote:Originally posted by dano
Active police officer or retired.....big difference between them and "Joe Average".
Nat'l. carry for police officers was a long time coming. It's a positive step forward and I'd hate to see it watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right(s).
The "average joe" is generally a better shot than the "average LEO" I have proven this myself on a number of occasions by outshooting several local PD's that practice at the same range as I. Using their own guns too sometimes. I would also disagree with having the "right for LEO's to carry watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right" Whose right is being watered down here? LEO's are empowered by their job to carry. It is my right to carry when, where, and how I choose. And I do.
Terribly sorry, Dano, that you aren't getting the respect over here that I am sure you think you deserve..as a member of whatever alphabet agency you are.
You see...over here are people able to think..not followers, in other words. See..just because you think you are somebody special..entitled to "Rights"...and the ordinary unwashed masses aren't..don't make it "right".
See..some people still are smart enough to understand that a couple hundred years ago, people like you marched on Lexington..and the Founders taught them that sucking eggs wasn't nice.....
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
quote:Originally posted by nunn
Small point of disagreement.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
Point taken and agreed. I would suggest,however, that anyone (or at least most) carrying concealed would probably fall into that catagory.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
I counter your disagreement with the following statement, and an explanation:
quote:Police failure rate for hitting the right guy 11%
Citizen failure rate for hitting the right guy 2%
These are not shooting enthusiasts I refer to when the term "citizens" are used. Let's look at why:
1. A police officer responding to a call will not know who the true perp is until he has arrived. A woman about to be raped by a man twice as big as she is has a pretty good idea who to shoot, though.
2. A police officer is under duty to stop a threat first, and go lethal if that doesn't work. Citizens who believe they are in imminent danger can forgo the first step.
3. A police officer is expected to act in a certain manner to uphold the law, and receive their training based more on minimum standards, than on incentive-based education, while citizens are free to learn whatever they desire, however much they desire.
4. A citizen in immediate danger can act immediately. Police need to get there, first, if at all.
5. Inside the dwelling of a citizen in distress, they have the home field advantage.
Given all these things, this explains why cops do not possess special skills. As for range shooting, perhaps they have an edge over the standard gun owner, on average, but I know for a fact that the gun enthusiast or militia enthusiast has a very powerful edge over the standard LEO.
There you go, Dano.
By being an agnostic,or athist..one can disavow a God...thereby making the Government the supreme Being...as you do. See...in your world, Rights are conferred by Government.Therefore, government can confer them on whomever it choses...such as Special You.....
As far as "Knowing the Law"....my,my..such blind faith in the law. I am perfectly capable of knowing when Mortal danger is iminent to me or my loved ones...I really have no need of YOU or your kind telling me when that is about to happen. I also have faith in most of my fellow citizens...indeed, more in them then in officers with YOUR mind set.
See..you blindly follow orders..with absolutely no knowlege of American history and the reason for the Rights enumerated and fought for by the Founders.
quote:I guess letting everyone carry open or concealed, would be kind of like every state in the USA no longer requiring a CDL for driving big rigs. Kind of an apple / orange comparison, but the results would be the same.
This argument has no basis. Why? Because roadways are part of the infrastructure, and licenses required to operate vehicles on them are necessary to make travel on it more efficient (I know, this is arguable, believe me, but this isn't my argument; it is theirs). We are not required to use licenses to walk on the sidewalks, though, so carrying guns while on the sidewalk would be covered by no license needed for walking. While in a motor vehicle with a gun, the motor vehicle license would superceded the license of the gun (if one were expected).
Furthermore A CDL is fairly A new license, it used to be known as A chauffers license, that required only having your operators license. Wether you like it, or agree with it or not, in different states their are different laws regarding when you can shoot, and in many states all that is required is an intruder being in your home. Wether he is showing threat or not, you are legally entitled to assume threat. As in many states if one is stealing your car, you also are legally entitled to use deadly force to prevent theft of property over A certain dollar amount. I suppose there are states that give the leo A special privilidge as to when they may use deadly force, and have A different law for the citizen, here in KY, there is no difference. A citizen actually has more leway when to use deadly force than an leo, when it comes to an intruder being in A home. It is leo's with your mindset dano that give the rest of them A bad name.
Consider Vermont (and now Alaska) where any person that can legally buy a firearm, can then legally carry it. NO government permission required. Why are these streets NOT running with blood?? (as predicted) Are not these people
just "Average Joes"?
Most states have adopted some form of CCW. Some require specific training, others are more lax. Why are these streets NOT running with blood?? (as predicted) Are not these people
just "Average Joes" bending over to get government permission to carry?
A recent Florida decision comes to mind. (Other states already had this) There, you are no longer required to "attempt to retreat" if you feel that you are being threatened. There was WORLD-WIDE media hype over this one. Why are these streets NOT running with blood?? (as predicted) Are not these people
just "Average Joes" also?
The media would gleefully, hype up, the streets running with blood, if they could. Of course there will be the occasional rotten apple among the civilians. Just as there are rotten apples among the police force. But "for the most part" civilians that take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm, also take on the responsibility of their actions.
Or
so it would seem.
It is very important for police officers, and the avrage citizen alike to know what the law is. In KY 1933 Ky supreme court case Gibson VS Commonwealth the KY supreme court said "Kentuckians are known for their tenacity, they have never ran, do not run, nor are they expected to run. They have no duty to retreat, but may stand their ground, and meet force with force. Ky revised statue states that in the event an intruder is in your place of residence A citizen may assume him to be A threat, and use deadly force. 1st amendment of KY constituion states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for any reason execpt the general assembly may pass laws regarding the carrying of weapons concealed. Also states any laws to the contray shall be considered null and void, and no goverment official may question you as to your reason for carrying arms. Ky revised statue use of force. A citizen may use deadly force for the following reasons, Theat of death to ones self, family, or another with reasonable belief death is eminent, defense of ones property, or sex compelled by threat of force to ones self, family, or another with resaon to believe. I wonder how many KY leo's know these. I wonder how many leo's know what the laws are regarding use of force in their state. As opposed to just what their opinion is.
Somewhat agree. I suppose it is relative. Here most folks grow up with guns and are very proficent. The avarage joe from KY ( its true we can hit A squirell with A rock) can probally out shoot top leo shooters in NYC for example.quote:Originally posted by nunn
Small point of disagreement.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
quote:Contrary to what some of you may believe, or want to believe, in most states, you cannot use deadly force to prevent the theft of personal property.
You could if you were being robbed, although other things would take priority over the theft involved.
quote:And, if someone is in your house for whatever reason, many states require you to "attempt to retreat" and distance yourself from the perceived threat, BEFORE you can use deadly force.
True, but they also won't do anything to you if they had an inkling that the person gunned down was there to harm you. This POS rule is also disappearing throughout the nation. Of course, it will stand in the kommie states, and that's their problem. The course is being reversed in the rest of the sane nation.
quote:You can rant and rave all you want about the govt. and all of their conspiracies, and how the govt. is out to get you and all that jazz. You're all a bunch of nuts....plain and simple.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I wonder what Randy Weaver would say to such a post. We already know the Branch Davidians aren't going to say anything about it. The feds made sure of that. I would say we have damned good reason to be suspicious of them. Of course, a rank and file self righteous officer will probably not see it that way, though.
I think it would be quite safe to say, Dano..that the day they ban firearms you will be in the first waves confiscating them.
After all...That will be the law that day.
Good luck in your endeavors.
It is also quite obvious which side you would have been on 200 odd years ago..with your repeated reference to those of us with even a rudimentary grasp of the Constitution as "Nuts"...As you may not know, let me enlighten you. Coming from such as you..that is a compliment.
quote:Originally posted by dano
I've seen perfect examples of the wrong person being in posession of a firearm, and using that firearm in all of the wrong ways.
Did ya see that video a few months back, of the POLICE OFFFICER having an AD while in a classroom, telling the kiddies how evil guns are?? It would have been funny, if there werent so many children in the room.
quote:I chose the term "average Joe" for a reason. Knowledge of laws is just as important as shooting ability.
Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
I have equally encountered LEOs that are ignorant of the firearms laws in their jurisdiction. The difference is that the "Average Joes" don't get paid by the tax payers to know these laws.
quote:I've talked to people who state they would shoot to kill, cause someone was trying to steal their car. I've spoken to people who have stated that if they found an intruder in their home, and if not even threatened, the intruder would not leave alive.
The vast majority of "average Joes" don't have a clue what it's like to point a firearm at a person and possibly have to take a life in the process.
Whenever anyone shoots a firearm at an individual it is a "shoot to kill" situation. You of all people should know that it is a fallacy to shoot to injur or disarm. What you are really saying here is that you don't think the "Average Joes" should ever be allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves, their family, or their property, even if an intruder has entered their home. Apparently you feel this is a right reserved to only the law enforcement elite.
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
??? I have heard of Alaska and Vermont. Where are the other "many" states that will issue a CCW without training?
quote:I guess letting everyone carry open or concealed, would be kind of like every state in the USA no longer requiring a CDL for driving big rigs. Kind of an apple / orange comparison, but the results would be the same.
Ah, here you truly show your ingnorance. Open carry IS ALREADY LEGAL in most places. Typically it is only barred in some incorporated cities (by city ordinance) or in some "special" districts in unincorporated areas. But, there is a de facto ban on open carry in most places thanks to LEOs that are ignorant of the law. Other than Washington, D.C., I am unaware of any state that has completely banned open carry statewide. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I know even California still leaves open carry law to the local governments.
quote:Police officers spend years practicing their profession and are for the most part, very knowledgeable in regards to laws and how they apply to particular situations.
Bottom line is.....it's all about knowledge and training. The "average Joe" doesn't have either.
If you are the example, then you better hit the law books again because you don't have anything on these "Average Joes", except of course a badge.
David Nunn and a few other peace officers posting on these forums have earned respect...by demonstrating their understanding of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are the basis of law.
Notice how they don't instantly fall back on calling those interested in restoring some sembalance of that constitution"Nuts"..
Traditionally I do not frequent these forums. However, My husband does on an almost daily basis keeping me informed as to what is being said and occasionally including my input when I feel it is warranted. Today is obviously different.
Today he read me a post that disturbed and even frightend me. Today he read me a post by a "very knowledgable" police officer. I could not let this one simply go by...
quote:Originally posted by dano
Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
First and foremost I have to say that the term average Joe really kind of bugs me, it implies a certain level of elitism brought about by simply attending a police academy. I lived with someone who attended a police academy, I helped him study, I learned the penal codes better than he did. Am I not nearly as elite as he is simply because I chose to get a degree in Mathmatics instead of a certification in policework? Segway this into the next comment about not having a clue as to when "they" can and cannot use lethal force...I suppose the clue comes about right when you need it...you know when Dano...it's called when your life, family, or property is threatened.
quote:I've talked to people who state they would shoot to kill, cause someone was trying to steal their car. I've spoken to people who have stated that if they found an intruder in their home, and if not even threatened, the intruder would not leave alive.
Yes...now explain why it is you think this is wrong? If I am lying in bed asleep and someone breaks into my home, I should have every right to defend myself and my family. People don't break into homes thinking everything will be okay, and if people are in the house, the intruder is more likley to harm them than run away. Unless of course he thinks he may be harmed.
Want to talk revocation of public gun rights? First take for example England where there are extremley stringent gun laws and an outright ban on handguns. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home. This is compared with 13 percent in the US where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. Disarming the public obviously leads to more crime, not less. The fear of retaliation on the part of the intruders and the steadfast insistance that we WOULD shoot is one of the few things keeping our crime rates lower.
quote:The vast majority of "average Joes" don't have a clue what it's like to point a firearm at a person and possibly have to take a life in the process.
And thank goodness for that. Seriously. But also...don't they have the right to do this should they need to? Or is taking life only reserved to police officers and criminals???
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
This one's been touched on...I'll let it go for now only because I have faith that the others in this forum will rip it to shreds.
quote:I guess letting everyone carry open or concealed, would be kind of like every state in the USA no longer requiring a CDL for driving big rigs. Kind of an apple / orange comparison, but the results would be the same.
No, not an apple/orange comparison, more like an apple / roast beef comparison, but I'll try to use your analogy. Allowing people to carry a weapon is like allowing people to own a big rigs. Allowing them to shoot off rounds along busy intersections as a part of getting to work is like allowing them to drive the big rig without training...
Yeah...that didn't work well. Know why? Because the analogy sucks. Implying that letting people carry firearms will result in deaths is rediculous and has the ear marks of small mindedness.
quote:Police officers spend years practicing their profession and are for the most part, very knowledgeable in regards to laws and how they apply to particular situations.
HAH! There are police officers out there with only days on the job, not years that end up having to use thier weapon. So this brings us back to the academy. Is there something that happends during the 4 odd months of academy training that suddenly makes people "very knowledgeable"? If so why not include something taught so quickly in all educational forums...at least then we'd get rid of your "average joe" problem.
Simply going through the academy does not imply a betterment of person. There are many officers out there who do not know the laws in detail, a lot of whom do not want to know them. You could counter argue that the veteran police officers know more. But I say they probably know less. The laws change with relative regularity, and I highly doubt that the veteran officers go out of their way to learn all of the changed nuances with each pass of congress (state and federal).
Bear in mind, I am not saying that I do not appreciate the police officers that put their lives on the line daily so that I may live happliy with my way of life. I'm simply saying that when it comes to my life being on the line...I make sure I am able to protect it.
quote:I know good men who are LEOs, and I also know complete idiots who are LEOs
Me too.
quote:Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
The same could be said for LEO's. I am not one of the "average" that have no clue. I have stabbed a man with his own knife. I have held three people at gunpoint in my lifetime, and I have several wounds and broken bones prior to those incidents where I was disarmed. After these events, I defied state law, and was quite armed, opting to take my chances rather than end up harmed anymore.
So, am I a bad man, because I "took the law into my own hands", or am I a citizen who was not willing to be a victim, anymore?
quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
??? I have heard of Alaska and Vermont. Where are the other "many" states that will issue a CCW without training?
I know in the great state of Pennsylvania, we dont need no stinkin training class for a CCP.
The Second Amendment was a product of men with an iron will, pen in hand, and an insight to the future from what the experianced in the past. "God" Had vary little to do with it. I have listen to folks use the term "god given right" as though it was an infliction rather than a right. The U.S. Constitution is a product of brave men who were able to stay the course. I am not bashing faith in God in no way shape or form. It is more the sence of the term. Give the true credit to those who fought and struggled to give us the right. Just my not so humble opinion.
One Shot, the Founders were indeed great men, but they did not believe that they were "giving" anyone any rights when writing the founding documents of our nation. They believed that they were merely enumerating the natural rights that every person is endowed with at birth, their "God given" rights if you will. Even without the Constitution, the fact that we are living human beings is all we need to claim these natural rights.
The Bill of Rights outlines our Constitutional rights, but it doesn't outline all of our natural rights (such as the right to breathe, eat, procreate, etc.). It does include some of them, such as the rights to life and liberty, and most of our natural rights can be implied from our Constitutional rights.
But remember, the Bill of Rights was not intended to be a complete listing of ALL of our rights as citizens of this nation, instead it was supposed to emphatically state just some specific rights that may have otherwise been trampled upon by an overbearing government. Indeed there was a faction that felt that the Bill of Rights would be misinterpreted as the ONLY rights "granted" to the people and thus should have been excluded entirely as it would serve to limit the natural rights of the people.
Two hundred and thirty years later it seems that the latter group was indeed correct. Far too many politicians and judges feel that our Constitutional rights are the ONLY rights "granted" by the government to the citizens. This is far divergent from the intention of the Founders. No government or ruler may grant us our natural rights, as human beings they are our birth rights. A tyrant or oppressive regime may only deny us these rights.
"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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
quote:Originally posted by One shot
Give the true credit to those who fought and struggled to give us the right.
Since there is not one man uot there who fought to give us those rights, there is no credit to be given. However, there are quite a few men who fought and died to protect our natural rights given to us as human beings...and I will more than happily give them credit for that. The rights that we have are not given to us by the founding fathers, they were already ours to begin with...the founding fathers fought to keep them from being taken away from us. Call them God-given if that is what you so chose, but I think the founding fathers would disagree with you. I prefer the term innate rights.
Comments
When was the last time you arrested anyone, detained anyone for questioning, wrote a traffic ticket?
Would you remove those "privileges" from the police, or would you assume them for yourself?
What about other "privileged" classes of people? Do you feel as qualified to design an office building as an architect? Do you believe you are competent to perform surgery?
I'm not, and I will leave those tasks to those who are qualified, and "privileged" to perform those functions.
Don't be confusing "privileges" with "powers".
We, the citizens have invoked "powers" upon police to uphold the law, and maintain the peace. And yes, if the police did not bother to uphold the law or maintain the peace with the powers bestowed upon them by the people, then you bet your @$$ I would take care of maintaining the peace myself, and with other organized citizens, the militia, called forth and illustrated by the 2nd Amendment.
quote:What about other "privileged" classes of people? Do you feel as qualified to design an office building as an architect? Do you believe you are competent to perform surgery?
Don't be confusing "privileged" with "skilled" either. There is a difference. In order for the "privilege" to be invoked, it has to be for no discernable reasoning of skill, as in due to friends, or family, or held in the hands of those without bestowed "powers", like a politician, whose only real qualification these days appears to come from a forked tongue and by duress and deceit.
In all honesty, does a cop even want privilege status, knowing what others think of him/her for accepting the equivalent of bribery to get it, or to turn their back on the populace, and betray his/her oath to those same people? I know I sure wouldn't....
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"
-Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.
The Second Amendment is a RIGHT...Not a 'privilege'. I guess if you wish to accept a "Privilege" and renounce your "Rights"..I cannot stop that train. I can, however, stand to the side and throw rocks...
And...I cannot aid in the attempt to destroy a "Right"..to make it a "Privilege"....not even for police officers.
It is my principles involved with this argument, not my lack of run in's with the law that bring me to this conclusion. I want true equality for all of us, and making any class of people superior is not equality.
Because that is a contradiction, I cannot support it. Bravo highball!!! I'll stand alongside you and throw some rocks, myself.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Mirror Mirror on the wall. Who's the ugliest one of all?"
-Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco.
In hoc signo vincies
Until that day..they will enforce the laws of the land.
Because I myself will obey the laws as written..till that day..Nothing less then respect for decent, honorable Policemen is deserved..and will be extended from my quarter.
Those cops on record as stating that they will enforce a gun ban..deserve noting but contempt..and will receive that from me. Dirty cops will also be in that category..I believe that a dirty cop..or politician..OUGHT to get double the sentence of an ordinary citizen for equal crimes.
You see..along with respect comes the expectation of honesty..and breaking the public trust ought to be punished.
Get over it.
Active police officer or retired.....big difference between them and "Joe Average".
Nat'l. carry for police officers was a long time coming. It's a positive step forward and I'd hate to see it watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right(s).
Cops interpret the laws just as any other man. By saying they enforce the laws only you are asserting they know everything and are not capable of fault in their interpretation nor using their emotions in their criminal decision making.
I believe LEO's lead the way in accidental discharges and get away with it but if a citizen had an accidental discharge they would receive a ticket and fine if not lose their firearm if they did the same thing.
Just look at the LEO's in the military, those kids commit more crimes/dui's than any other military unit on their installation. But it all get's covered up to keep faith in the law enforcement folk.
There are some good LEO's out there...but it's just like the rest of America...there is corruption and a criminal sect in them as well.
Sure is.
Police failure rate for hitting the right guy 11%
Citizen failure rate for hitting the right guy 2%
Police are not endowed with special Jedi-like abilities with a firearm the rest of us could not hope to attain. Get over yourself.
Active police officer or retired.....big difference between them and "Joe Average".
Nat'l. carry for police officers was a long time coming. It's a positive step forward and I'd hate to see it watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right(s).
The "average joe" is generally a better shot than the "average LEO" I have proven this myself on a number of occasions by outshooting several local PD's that practice at the same range as I. Using their own guns too sometimes. I would also disagree with having the "right for LEO's to carry watered down by the average citizen obtaining the same right" Whose right is being watered down here? LEO's are empowered by their job to carry. It is my right to carry when, where, and how I choose. And I do.
You see...over here are people able to think..not followers, in other words. See..just because you think you are somebody special..entitled to "Rights"...and the ordinary unwashed masses aren't..don't make it "right".
See..some people still are smart enough to understand that a couple hundred years ago, people like you marched on Lexington..and the Founders taught them that sucking eggs wasn't nice.....
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
Small point of disagreement.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
Point taken and agreed. I would suggest,however, that anyone (or at least most) carrying concealed would probably fall into that catagory.
*****
Dano just comes to stir thing up, it's working.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
I counter your disagreement with the following statement, and an explanation:
quote:Police failure rate for hitting the right guy 11%
Citizen failure rate for hitting the right guy 2%
These are not shooting enthusiasts I refer to when the term "citizens" are used. Let's look at why:
1. A police officer responding to a call will not know who the true perp is until he has arrived. A woman about to be raped by a man twice as big as she is has a pretty good idea who to shoot, though.
2. A police officer is under duty to stop a threat first, and go lethal if that doesn't work. Citizens who believe they are in imminent danger can forgo the first step.
3. A police officer is expected to act in a certain manner to uphold the law, and receive their training based more on minimum standards, than on incentive-based education, while citizens are free to learn whatever they desire, however much they desire.
4. A citizen in immediate danger can act immediately. Police need to get there, first, if at all.
5. Inside the dwelling of a citizen in distress, they have the home field advantage.
Given all these things, this explains why cops do not possess special skills. As for range shooting, perhaps they have an edge over the standard gun owner, on average, but I know for a fact that the gun enthusiast or militia enthusiast has a very powerful edge over the standard LEO.
By being an agnostic,or athist..one can disavow a God...thereby making the Government the supreme Being...as you do. See...in your world, Rights are conferred by Government.Therefore, government can confer them on whomever it choses...such as Special You.....
As far as "Knowing the Law"....my,my..such blind faith in the law. I am perfectly capable of knowing when Mortal danger is iminent to me or my loved ones...I really have no need of YOU or your kind telling me when that is about to happen. I also have faith in most of my fellow citizens...indeed, more in them then in officers with YOUR mind set.
See..you blindly follow orders..with absolutely no knowlege of American history and the reason for the Rights enumerated and fought for by the Founders.
This argument has no basis. Why? Because roadways are part of the infrastructure, and licenses required to operate vehicles on them are necessary to make travel on it more efficient (I know, this is arguable, believe me, but this isn't my argument; it is theirs). We are not required to use licenses to walk on the sidewalks, though, so carrying guns while on the sidewalk would be covered by no license needed for walking. While in a motor vehicle with a gun, the motor vehicle license would superceded the license of the gun (if one were expected).
just "Average Joes"?
Most states have adopted some form of CCW. Some require specific training, others are more lax. Why are these streets NOT running with blood?? (as predicted) Are not these people
just "Average Joes" bending over to get government permission to carry?
A recent Florida decision comes to mind. (Other states already had this) There, you are no longer required to "attempt to retreat" if you feel that you are being threatened. There was WORLD-WIDE media hype over this one. Why are these streets NOT running with blood?? (as predicted) Are not these people
just "Average Joes" also?
The media would gleefully, hype up, the streets running with blood, if they could. Of course there will be the occasional rotten apple among the civilians. Just as there are rotten apples among the police force. But "for the most part" civilians that take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm, also take on the responsibility of their actions.
Or
so it would seem.
Small point of disagreement.
The "average Joe" will not outshoot the average police officer. I have trained cops on the firing range, and "average Joes" in CPA and CHL classes, so I have a little experience to draw from.
I have also been to an IDPA club shoot or two, and I can tell you this: The average SHOOTING ENTHUSIAST will outshoot the average police officer.
A shooting enthusiast is not an "average Joe."
You could if you were being robbed, although other things would take priority over the theft involved.
quote:And, if someone is in your house for whatever reason, many states require you to "attempt to retreat" and distance yourself from the perceived threat, BEFORE you can use deadly force.
True, but they also won't do anything to you if they had an inkling that the person gunned down was there to harm you. This POS rule is also disappearing throughout the nation. Of course, it will stand in the kommie states, and that's their problem. The course is being reversed in the rest of the sane nation.
quote:You can rant and rave all you want about the govt. and all of their conspiracies, and how the govt. is out to get you and all that jazz. You're all a bunch of nuts....plain and simple.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I wonder what Randy Weaver would say to such a post. We already know the Branch Davidians aren't going to say anything about it. The feds made sure of that. I would say we have damned good reason to be suspicious of them. Of course, a rank and file self righteous officer will probably not see it that way, though.
After all...That will be the law that day.
Good luck in your endeavors.
It is also quite obvious which side you would have been on 200 odd years ago..with your repeated reference to those of us with even a rudimentary grasp of the Constitution as "Nuts"...As you may not know, let me enlighten you. Coming from such as you..that is a compliment.
I've seen perfect examples of the wrong person being in posession of a firearm, and using that firearm in all of the wrong ways.
Did ya see that video a few months back, of the POLICE OFFFICER having an AD while in a classroom, telling the kiddies how evil guns are?? It would have been funny, if there werent so many children in the room.
Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
I have equally encountered LEOs that are ignorant of the firearms laws in their jurisdiction. The difference is that the "Average Joes" don't get paid by the tax payers to know these laws.
quote:I've talked to people who state they would shoot to kill, cause someone was trying to steal their car. I've spoken to people who have stated that if they found an intruder in their home, and if not even threatened, the intruder would not leave alive.
The vast majority of "average Joes" don't have a clue what it's like to point a firearm at a person and possibly have to take a life in the process.
Whenever anyone shoots a firearm at an individual it is a "shoot to kill" situation. You of all people should know that it is a fallacy to shoot to injur or disarm. What you are really saying here is that you don't think the "Average Joes" should ever be allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves, their family, or their property, even if an intruder has entered their home. Apparently you feel this is a right reserved to only the law enforcement elite.
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
??? I have heard of Alaska and Vermont. Where are the other "many" states that will issue a CCW without training?
quote:I guess letting everyone carry open or concealed, would be kind of like every state in the USA no longer requiring a CDL for driving big rigs. Kind of an apple / orange comparison, but the results would be the same.
Ah, here you truly show your ingnorance. Open carry IS ALREADY LEGAL in most places. Typically it is only barred in some incorporated cities (by city ordinance) or in some "special" districts in unincorporated areas. But, there is a de facto ban on open carry in most places thanks to LEOs that are ignorant of the law. Other than Washington, D.C., I am unaware of any state that has completely banned open carry statewide. I'm not saying there isn't one, but I know even California still leaves open carry law to the local governments.
quote:Police officers spend years practicing their profession and are for the most part, very knowledgeable in regards to laws and how they apply to particular situations.
Bottom line is.....it's all about knowledge and training. The "average Joe" doesn't have either.
If you are the example, then you better hit the law books again because you don't have anything on these "Average Joes", except of course a badge.
Pardon me while I shiver at that thought.
-Wolf
Notice how they don't instantly fall back on calling those interested in restoring some sembalance of that constitution"Nuts"..
Today he read me a post that disturbed and even frightend me. Today he read me a post by a "very knowledgable" police officer. I could not let this one simply go by...
quote:Originally posted by dano
Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
First and foremost I have to say that the term average Joe really kind of bugs me, it implies a certain level of elitism brought about by simply attending a police academy. I lived with someone who attended a police academy, I helped him study, I learned the penal codes better than he did. Am I not nearly as elite as he is simply because I chose to get a degree in Mathmatics instead of a certification in policework? Segway this into the next comment about not having a clue as to when "they" can and cannot use lethal force...I suppose the clue comes about right when you need it...you know when Dano...it's called when your life, family, or property is threatened.
quote:I've talked to people who state they would shoot to kill, cause someone was trying to steal their car. I've spoken to people who have stated that if they found an intruder in their home, and if not even threatened, the intruder would not leave alive.
Yes...now explain why it is you think this is wrong? If I am lying in bed asleep and someone breaks into my home, I should have every right to defend myself and my family. People don't break into homes thinking everything will be okay, and if people are in the house, the intruder is more likley to harm them than run away. Unless of course he thinks he may be harmed.
Want to talk revocation of public gun rights? First take for example England where there are extremley stringent gun laws and an outright ban on handguns. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home. This is compared with 13 percent in the US where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. Disarming the public obviously leads to more crime, not less. The fear of retaliation on the part of the intruders and the steadfast insistance that we WOULD shoot is one of the few things keeping our crime rates lower.
quote:The vast majority of "average Joes" don't have a clue what it's like to point a firearm at a person and possibly have to take a life in the process.
And thank goodness for that. Seriously. But also...don't they have the right to do this should they need to? Or is taking life only reserved to police officers and criminals???
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
This one's been touched on...I'll let it go for now only because I have faith that the others in this forum will rip it to shreds.
quote:I guess letting everyone carry open or concealed, would be kind of like every state in the USA no longer requiring a CDL for driving big rigs. Kind of an apple / orange comparison, but the results would be the same.
No, not an apple/orange comparison, more like an apple / roast beef comparison, but I'll try to use your analogy. Allowing people to carry a weapon is like allowing people to own a big rigs. Allowing them to shoot off rounds along busy intersections as a part of getting to work is like allowing them to drive the big rig without training...
Yeah...that didn't work well. Know why? Because the analogy sucks. Implying that letting people carry firearms will result in deaths is rediculous and has the ear marks of small mindedness.
quote:Police officers spend years practicing their profession and are for the most part, very knowledgeable in regards to laws and how they apply to particular situations.
HAH! There are police officers out there with only days on the job, not years that end up having to use thier weapon. So this brings us back to the academy. Is there something that happends during the 4 odd months of academy training that suddenly makes people "very knowledgeable"? If so why not include something taught so quickly in all educational forums...at least then we'd get rid of your "average joe" problem.
Simply going through the academy does not imply a betterment of person. There are many officers out there who do not know the laws in detail, a lot of whom do not want to know them. You could counter argue that the veteran police officers know more. But I say they probably know less. The laws change with relative regularity, and I highly doubt that the veteran officers go out of their way to learn all of the changed nuances with each pass of congress (state and federal).
Bear in mind, I am not saying that I do not appreciate the police officers that put their lives on the line daily so that I may live happliy with my way of life. I'm simply saying that when it comes to my life being on the line...I make sure I am able to protect it.
Welcome, MsBunny.
You would be welcome anywhere intelligence is appreciated...and on THIS side of the forums...WELCOME !!!
Please feel obliged to share your wisdom with us frequently...[:D]..because it sure is a pleasure to read your well thought out post.
You have a lucky husband..the doity rat....taking you out of circulation !!![:D][:D]
I have tired of the reasoned approach to such as Dano. That type are a closed mind...and obey their masters without question.
Love it, love it, LOVE IT.
LEOs are not special. They chose their profession by their own free will, and they should be accorded no special rights or privilegas.
I know good men who are LEOs, and I also know complete idiots who are LEOs
Me too.
quote:Over the years, I've dealt with countless "average Joes" that don't have a clue as to when they can or cannot use deadly force. They can't articulate cause (justification) from a legal stand point.
The same could be said for LEO's. I am not one of the "average" that have no clue. I have stabbed a man with his own knife. I have held three people at gunpoint in my lifetime, and I have several wounds and broken bones prior to those incidents where I was disarmed. After these events, I defied state law, and was quite armed, opting to take my chances rather than end up harmed anymore.
So, am I a bad man, because I "took the law into my own hands", or am I a citizen who was not willing to be a victim, anymore?
quote:Many states don't even require any kind of classroom trng., or proof of marksmanship ability to obtain a carry permit.
??? I have heard of Alaska and Vermont. Where are the other "many" states that will issue a CCW without training?
I know in the great state of Pennsylvania, we dont need no stinkin training class for a CCP.
I enjoy bouncing stuff off a foil....[:0]
This was a win.....Might I just say...MSBUNNY !!!!?????
Forced her to take a hand....[:0][:D]
This was a win.....Might I just say...MSBUNNY !!!!?????
Forced her to take a hand....[:0][:D]
Well, I have to admit....I did have a LITTLE bit of fun. *grins*
Don't let Highball scare you away. No offence Highball.[:D]
Welcome to the forum.
Jump in ANYTIME. [:D]
*******
quote:[:D] I couldn't help it.
I saw the topic and I had to do it. I told ya a couple of weeks ago, that I was a huntin.......[;)]
Yeah I know....I'm evil......[}:)]
Told ya so.....it was working.....[B)]
The Bill of Rights outlines our Constitutional rights, but it doesn't outline all of our natural rights (such as the right to breathe, eat, procreate, etc.). It does include some of them, such as the rights to life and liberty, and most of our natural rights can be implied from our Constitutional rights.
But remember, the Bill of Rights was not intended to be a complete listing of ALL of our rights as citizens of this nation, instead it was supposed to emphatically state just some specific rights that may have otherwise been trampled upon by an overbearing government. Indeed there was a faction that felt that the Bill of Rights would be misinterpreted as the ONLY rights "granted" to the people and thus should have been excluded entirely as it would serve to limit the natural rights of the people.
Two hundred and thirty years later it seems that the latter group was indeed correct. Far too many politicians and judges feel that our Constitutional rights are the ONLY rights "granted" by the government to the citizens. This is far divergent from the intention of the Founders. No government or ruler may grant us our natural rights, as human beings they are our birth rights. A tyrant or oppressive regime may only deny us these rights.
"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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Give the true credit to those who fought and struggled to give us the right.
Since there is not one man uot there who fought to give us those rights, there is no credit to be given. However, there are quite a few men who fought and died to protect our natural rights given to us as human beings...and I will more than happily give them credit for that. The rights that we have are not given to us by the founding fathers, they were already ours to begin with...the founding fathers fought to keep them from being taken away from us. Call them God-given if that is what you so chose, but I think the founding fathers would disagree with you. I prefer the term innate rights.