close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Unprofessional cop with open carry activist

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by frizz, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. Pepper45

    Pepper45

    2,086
    1
    Jun 15, 2006
    Actually, Oregon requires notification that your voice is being recorded, unless it's over the telephone, or very obvious that it's being recorded. I have arrested people for that offense before, and these guys must have done their homework before stepping out to be dooshbags.
     
  2. Gombey

    Gombey

    1,448
    148
    Oct 10, 2011
    Well, how about the right to keep and bear arms?

    Idiots like these pushed the legislators in CA to make open carry illegal. For many this was the only way they could legally carry a firearm.

    These "activist" have effectively stripped many of this right.
     


  3. In the same place where people are granted the right to get married and divorced. Yes, that's state rights but all states follow the Fed constitution and impose very, very few hoops (and reasonably low fees) to jump through to get married or divorced.
     
  4. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    I actually had to look it up. :crying:
     
  5. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    I don't understand your question then. I can be slow on the uptake, so can you reword it, por favor?
     
  6. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    I have to see any right to feel safe about the same way I see the right to not be offended. If it exists, the right to free expression.

    As far as open carry goes, I see both sides. It does boil down to a social norm. In some places in time, it was not uncommon to see open carry. Maybe the old west, but I don't know if that is just the movies.
     
  7. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    No. It is a collective right.

    Never mind the fact that a "right" enforceable by no-one isn't a right at all.
     
  8. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    I have not seen one in which they are NOT dbags!

    This one is the smoothest cop response EVAR! Cooler than the other side of the pillow.
     
  9. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    There was a line is my undergrad business law textbook that I have never seen expressed elsewhere so clearly. I was something like this:

    "The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to legislate pretty much anywhere they please."

    If they can ban food grown for self-consumption, what limits are there? Yeah, they did this: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
     
  10. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,426
    2,837
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Okay, here's the thing, as I've said before. When people find that normal OC is not getting them the negative response from law enforcement they seek, they amp up their presentation, increase the drama. It might be carrying a larger firearm. It might be carrying a rifle caliber pistol. It might be carrying semi-auto versions of well known full-auto firearms. It might be changing locations and times. It might be any or a combination of those things.

    Go back a few years. Honestly, some of the recordings made then, mostly audio, did support legitimate complaints and led to changes in ordinances, laws and policies after traditional complaint formats failed.

    When video started appearing it became somewhat of a contest to see whose video could get the most views on YouTube. The trolling for negative encounters began in earnest, leading to videos like the one in this thread. Trying to resolve issues through normal channels became even less popular, replaced by "15-Minutes-of-Fame" Syndrome.

    Oh, there are still groups and organizations working with local governments, local LE, legislatures all across the country to achieve the goals needed to secure the 2nd Amendment for all. BUT, are some of these videos actually hurting the work being done? I say yes. They are putting forth images that others say are representative of all of us who carry. That is absolutely untrue.

    Now, threads like this create problems. Specifically, some of the posts responding to the video, the ones denigrating the OCers and OCers in general, they ain't helping LE's image as seen by some people who carry. And those are the most vocal people in these threads, those who have their feelings hurt by the JBTs.

    Well, when someone opens a thread like this in Cop Talk, the forum on GT created by Eric specifically for LE members, the reception is going to be a bit difference than, say, if it were opened in another forum, like, oh what is it called, oh, yeah, Carry Issues. LE members here in CT are going to be critical in evaluating intent, defensive if hostility is sensed, and bluntly honest with their opinions.

    This isn't a closed, by invitation only forum. It is, however, a tight knit community forum where it sometimes takes those not involved in that community time to establish credibility. Patience is a virtue. Want to jump in with both feet? Look at your LZ. Make sure you're not jumping into a pile of excrement. Not sure? PM me. Run the idea past me. Some of the cops here do before posting in CI.

    Are there ways to start a thread like this without drawing battle lines? Yep.
    There will still be those that are skeptical about intent, but that is a better start.

    Or, just try to be as confrontational, controversial as you can.

    :cool:
     
  11. Beware Owner

    Beware Owner NOT a victim.

    8,555
    0
    Oct 16, 2007
    If that was the case, we wouldn't even have a GT forum to go to...
     
  12. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,426
    2,837
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    The question is simple enough as is.
     
  13. The commerce clause is how the Feds got their foot in the door regarding civil rights, which up to that time had been considered a state matter.
     
  14. The commerce clause is how the Feds got their foot in the door regarding civil rights, which up to that time (late 1950s, early 1960s?) had been considered a state matter.
     
  15. TheExplorer

    TheExplorer

    1,322
    0
    Apr 16, 2012
    While I don't agree with everything RussP has ever said, this post deserves to be a sticky.
     
  16. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    OK, lemme see if this helps you see my failure to understand.


    The anonymity of the net has brought out lots of kooks and cranks with wild conspiracy theories. Add to that, even odd, out-of-the-ordinary views are expressed on the net that wouldn't be expressed in person.

    Because if that, it can sometimes be hard to tell if someone is pulling your leg. Consequently sarcasm (or more accurately irony) can be hard to pick up on.

    I say, "We all run into it online." We meaning pretty much everyone online. Is that it?
     
  17. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    I think the 14th Amendment had a lot to do with that, too. It is, as we know, the vehicle by which the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states.

    While I like the result, I have to admit that I find it to be bad law.
     
  18. jeepinbandit

    jeepinbandit Sgt. USMC

    393
    0
    Dec 27, 2007
    NAS Fort Worth JRB

    So what you're saying is that they lost their right by exercising their right? So it might as well have been illegal in the first place. :faint:
     
  19. frizz

    frizz

    1,670
    1
    Jul 6, 2012
    Well, the right IS gone, is it not?

    They exercised the right in a foolish, obnoxious manner, and screwed it up for everyone else.



    "Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive." T. Roosevelt