Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 101

Thread: Ohioians for Concealed Carry article on interaction with law enforcement

  1. #1
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226

    OFCC article on the interaction with law enforcement

    I guess the OFCC folks are having issues concerning stops and they decided to write an article. I disagree with many of the aspects for the article, maybe you do too.


    http://www.ohioccw.org/201209235033/...ssler-esq.html
    Last edited by Makarov; 09-25-2012 at 11:37 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    I'm a regular in the OFCC forums. Without yet having seen any reaction there, I would suspect that the reaction to the article will be VERY negative, especially with regard to certain points made.

    1. I want NO interaction with police, of ANY kind. Any such interaction imposed by force is an imposition, and an unwelcome one.
    2. I'm not especially friendly to strangers with whom I have not sought out contact. I'm not AT ALL friendly toward people who INVOLUNTARILY command my attention using the implied threat of deadly force. When in an involuntary interaction with police I am POLITE. I am in NO way "friendly". They're NOT my "friends". They're public employees, nothing more, nothing less.
    3. In any involuntary interaction with police, I will OBEY THE LAW. NOTHING MORE. "Am I free to leave?" is poised on the tip of my tongue. Beyond statutorily (or precedentially) required notifications, I have NOTHING to say to them without benefit of counsel. That has served me well.


    FAR too many people are eager to prejudice their legal rights in order to get police to "like" them. I don't need the police to like me. I need them to OBEY THE LAW in any interaction with me. The best way to fatally compromise ones ability to COMPEL them to obey the law is to run your mouth unnecessarily when dealing with them.

    "Am I free to leave?"
    "No?"
    "I have nothing further to say without my lawyer present."

    Then keep your mouth SHUT.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
    I guess the Ohioians for CCW are having lots of an issue concerning stops and they decided to write an article. I disagree with many of the aspects for the article, maybe you do too.


    http://www.ohioccw.org/201209235033/...ssler-esq.html
    Gee, is there any doubt why OCers wouldn't run to OFCC for help or advice?

    Sickening.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Gee, is there any doubt why OCers wouldn't run to OFCC for help or advice?

    Sickening.
    The truth is that some of that "advice" was VERY ill advised for ANYONE, open carrying, carrying concealed, or carrying a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bag of Skittles.

    My lawyer would have told the guy he was nuts when he poo-pooed asking "Am I free to leave?" and denying consent. He's the one who told me that virtually the first thing out of my mouth in ANY unsolicited police encounter is, "Am I free to leave?"

    There is a WIDE gulf between certain "camps" in OFCC, both on open carry and on general police interactions.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  5. #5
    Regular Member cabledawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    58
    Courtrooms are for arguing who is right and who is wrong. Not the side of the road or a street corner. I willingly hand over my DL and military ID in good faith and to bring the stop to a close ASAP. Answer questions pertaining to the stop truthfully and dont give up any info otherwise. No chit chat or small talk. Isnt needed and most cops prefer not to engage in small talk unless they are building RAS (ie drunk people love to talk and its easy to smell one's breath when they are talking).

    I know most here will blast me and say I've given up my rights, but the short of it is that I'm not going to get into a ******* match on the street, even if I'm right. I'll let my lawyer and a judge do that for me.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    I just posted the following to OFCC's Riverside thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by jgarvas
    ...We have not reached out to his representation... Didn't see any point in getting involved unless they want it...
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarvas
    And, arguably, tell them who the heck you are. What is the reason for hiding one's identity other than the fact that you don't have to say anything? Lets say one of these cases turns into a police officer making an argument that he did have a "reasonable suspicion" that you matched the description of a person doing something. If he convinces a court then you were required to identify anyway.

    So why not protect yourself, identify who you are with your name, and if requested, age and DOB. Yes - that will get you found in LEADS and they'll figure out who you are, but if that is the extent of what you tell them and then ask if you can leave now they can't argue that you were uncooperative. You told them who you were and then asked if you could leave...
    Jeff,

    After your posts above, and the article below, I'm trying to figure out why Mr. Call, or any OCer for that matter, would turn to OFCC for help?

    http://www.ohioccw.org/201209235033/...ssler-esq.html

    In matters such as CC notification, OFCC wants the notification provision gone because of a) uneducated officers, or b) officers determined to enforce their view of the law. This is with reference to the privilege of CC.

    From your posts and the article, it seems that when the subject turns to open carry your position is that one act a certain way because of a) uneducated officers, or b) officers determined to enforce their view of the law. This is with reference to the right of open carry.

    ?
    Last edited by BB62; 09-25-2012 at 10:29 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by cabledawg View Post
    I know most here will blast me and say I've given up my rights, but the short of it is that I'm not going to get into a ******* match on the street, even if I'm right. I'll let my lawyer and a judge do that for me.
    It's awfully hard to get into a ******* match on the the street if you ID yourself as required by law, demand to know if you're free to leave, refuse consent to ANYTHING, and refuse to speak without an attorney present.

    I want NO interaction with the police, be it helping with their fishing expedition or arguing the law.

    "Am I free to leave?"
    "No?"
    "I have nothing further to say without my lawyer present."

    And the answer to "Mind if I look in <insert location>?" is ALWAYS "I do not consent to ANY search."

    That's not a "******* match". That's protecting my legal rights and interests and not saying anything that can be used against me. Now if that causes the cop to scream and threaten until he's blue in the face, then he should take a Hall's for his sore throat.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    From the article: "An OFCC member who cooperates politely with an officer is far more likely to receive support from OFCC afterward, at least in terms of correcting officer mistakes, than a person who behaves in an antagonistic manner."

    So, according to OFCC, antagonism = exercising one's rights.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Makarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    226
    I hope Jeff Garvas gets lots of email regarding his article.


    Quoted from the OFCC,

    "A common interaction with a law enforcement officer involves a person going about their business while armed when an officer approaches and (often after asking the person what they are up to and why they have a gun) asks for identification, or asks the person to provide name, address and/or date of birth. Under these facts, the person does not appear to have an obligation to respond. However, I question whether this is the best approach unless the person desires involvement with the legal system, in which case it is a very good approach. I, for one, think the street corner is a poor place to engage in a debate about the law. The officer wants to clear the call and move on. The citizen, in most cases, has other things to do as well."

    1. "A common interaction with a law enforcement officer involves a person going about their business while armed when an officer approaches and (often after asking the person what they are up to and why they have a gun) asks for identification, or asks the person to provide name, address and/or date of birth."

    Makarov: Open carrying a firearm performing ones own business is not a crime. If your have an interaction with a police office, started by them, they are looking RAS. To me its non of their business what im doing with a gun holstered on me.

    2. "However, I question whether this is the best approach unless the person desires involvement with the legal system, in which case it is a very good approach."

    Makarov: I think it is a great approach!!!! What!!! Resist to protect liberty. The police should be put in their place. We obey the law but they cant? They can lie...but we cant?

    3. Best approach for Law enforcement to obey the law and leave us alone.
    Last edited by Makarov; 09-26-2012 at 11:07 AM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    He's the one who told me that virtually the first thing out of my mouth in ANY unsolicited police encounter is, "Am I free to leave?"
    I prefer the "turn around and walk away" method as opposed to talking. This method requires the officer to do more than talk, now he has to move to intercept you. Talking is easy and words will be forgotten. A cop is not going to forget that he had to move to stop you from leaving.

    Once you have your back to the cop, he has to move. He does not know your name so yelling "stop" means little as he could be talking to a thousand other people for all you know - you cannot see him, right? You cannot see him pointing at you.

    So at the start of any police encounter, turn around and begin walking away. And if he gets in front of you again, about face and repeat. He is going to have to say you are being detained .. HE will have to say it by words and movement.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Makarov View Post
    I hope Jeff Garvis gets lots of email regarding his article.
    Well, aside from the spelling of Mr. Garvas's surname, I should clarify one other thing: that article was not written by Jeff Garvas!

    That article was written by David S. Kessler, a licensed attorney at law, in good standing, with more than twenty years in practice. Kessler expressed from the very beginning that what he wrote was his personal opinion. I read through the article twice, so let's review some of what he actually said:

    We have all seen reports from people who have had these encounters, and they seem to fall into one of two categories: the person who has a desire to make the encounter as brief as possible, and the person who desires to challenge police authority. Unfortunately, those in the latter category often find themselves involved in the legal system, usually without having planned for that eventuality, and without the knowledge or foresight to understand the nature and extent of that involvement. * * * A common interaction with a law enforcement officer involves a person going about their business while armed when an officer approaches and (often after asking the person what they are up to and why they have a gun) asks for identification, or asks the person to provide name, address and/or date of birth. * * * I, for one, think the street corner is a poor place to engage in a debate about the law. The officer wants to clear the call and move on. The citizen, in most cases, has other things to do as well. * * * If you elect to test law enforcement officers on the limits of their authority, thatís your decision. I think it is an unwise and wasteful decision. I think our cause is better served by having pleasant interactions with officers. * * * [I]n the long run, the cooperative approach is more likely to gain ground for the 2A movement.
    Some people like to avoid trouble; others are veritable "trouble magnets." That observation leads to a couple of well-worn aphorisms: (1) Different strokes for different folks, and (2) you reap what you sow. Everybody makes his or her own decision as to how to handled these situations, and everybody should be willing to accept the natural consequences of his or her choices. But there's one thing everyone should consider:

    Many of the hardcore "activist" types have criticized, and will continue to criticize, the recommendations of an experienced attorney set forth in that article. Nevertheless, those same people will continue to invite street confrontations with police and spew the same questionable "law" that they learn in Internet forums, a significant portion of which I have found to be inaccurate and poorly supported. Many YouTube videos offer testimony to that fact. I seriously question the wisdom of those actions. If you decide to take that path, ask yourself, "How would the average person - someone who is not a gun rights activist - perceive my behavior?" That's an important question because those are the people who will populate your jury.

    Edit: OK. I checked. Kessler does not list criminal defense as one of his specialties, so I struck that from my comment.
    Last edited by Werz; 09-25-2012 at 01:00 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by cabledawg View Post
    Courtrooms are for arguing who is right and who is wrong. Not the side of the road or a street corner. I willingly hand over my DL and military ID in good faith and to bring the stop to a close ASAP. Answer questions pertaining to the stop truthfully and dont give up any info otherwise. No chit chat or small talk. Isnt needed and most cops prefer not to engage in small talk unless they are building RAS (ie drunk people love to talk and its easy to smell one's breath when they are talking).

    I know most here will blast me and say I've given up my rights, but the short of it is that I'm not going to get into a ******* match on the street, even if I'm right. I'll let my lawyer and a judge do that for me.
    Your/a lawyer can't fix what you broke, he can fix what the cop broke.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    That article was written by David S. Kessler, a licensed attorney at law, in good standing, with more than twenty years in practice. Kessler expressed from the very beginning that what he wrote was his personal opinion.
    My lawyer is licensed, "in good standing", and has more than twenty years in practice, both as an assistant prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.

    His advice is to lead with "Am I free to leave?" and take it from there.

    He has no illusions about being the cop's "friend" or talking your way out of trouble, even if you've done nothing wrong.

    As I said, I want ZERO interaction with the police. I'm not going to try to "help" them, nor debate with them by the side of the road.

    If I'm free to leave, the conversation is over.

    If I'm NOT free to leave, the conversation is... OVER.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    That article was written by David S. Kessler, a licensed attorney at law, in good standing, with more than twenty years in practice. Kessler expressed from the very beginning that what he wrote was his personal opinion. I read through the article twice, so let's review some of what he actually said:
    If he ain't a criminal attorney then his opinion on criminal law ain't worth spit. Court procedure, sure, but not criminal law.

    Some people like to avoid trouble; others are veritable "trouble magnets." That observation leads to a couple of well-worn aphorisms: (1) Different strokes for different folks, and (2) you reap what you sow. Everybody makes his or her own decision as to how to handled these situations, and everybody should be willing to accept the natural consequences of his or her choices. But there's one thing everyone should consider:

    Many of the hardcore "activist" types have criticized, and will continue to criticize, the recommendations of an experienced attorney set forth in that article. Nevertheless, those same people will continue to invite street confrontations with police and spew the same questionable "law" that they learn in Internet forums, a significant portion of which I have found to be inaccurate and poorly supported. Many YouTube videos offer testimony to that fact. I seriously question the wisdom of those actions. If you decide to take that path, ask yourself, "How would the average person - someone who is not a gun rights activist - perceive my behavior?" That's an important question because those are the people who will populate your jury.

    Edit: OK. I checked. Kessler does not list criminal defense as one of his specialties, so I struck that from my comment.
    OK, I get it, some judges are stoopid and cannot detect unlawful use of police powers even when it slaps them in the face. Prosecutors are too incapable of detecting a cop's nitwittery and like prosecuting unwindable cases. I'll even concede that the cop's immediate boss likes subjecting his department and the dude who will have to sigh the settlement check to his minions nitwittery in the hopes that a jury will see "it" their way.

    After all that, potential jurors are too stoopid to understand the concept of "OC is legal, does not require a permit (where it does not require a permit), and DOC/DTP/OJ statutes/laws do not apply to my client."

    In my opinion it seems that those in the justice system are far more level headed than what some may subscribe to them. The occurrences of LEA's getting it wrong and having to have their city pay folks off for their getting it wrong is a great deterrent to cop nitwittery. Cops don't like being portrayed as rights abusing thugs especially if they have to pay for their thuggery.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    Well, aside from the spelling of Mr. Garvas's surname, I should clarify one other thing: that article was not written by Jeff Garvas!

    That article was written by David S. Kessler, a licensed attorney at law, in good standing, with more than twenty years in practice. Kessler expressed from the very beginning that what he wrote was his personal opinion...
    (referring to my blued text above)

    Come on, man. You know (or ought to know) better than that. Jeff Garvas is OFCC. If the attorney's opinion didn't mesh with Jeff's opinion (as reiterated on the Riverside thread on OFCC), it would never have gotten near OFCC's front page.

    I've interacted with Jeff, in person or online, since the days when OFCC's form of "discussion" was via an e-mail "talk-list", since before lots of disillusioned people in leadership left OFCC to form BFA. I know of whom I speak.

    Push Jeff hard enough and you'll find that he likes using OC and OCers for shock value, and wants nothing more to do with them otherwise. He's really not a rights guy, but he's desirous of OFCC having an appearance of a gun RIGHTS organization.

    http://www.ohioccw.org/200907194553/...ere-about.html

    "We are about freedom. We are an advocate for all firearms related rights" Uh-huh.

    As much as you seem to think or want to think that this is about those who ostentatiously challenge LEOs, it's really not. It's a good debate technique, but nothing more.
    Last edited by BB62; 09-25-2012 at 02:07 PM.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    ...Many of the hardcore "activist" types have criticized, and will continue to criticize, the recommendations of an experienced attorney set forth in that article. Nevertheless, those same people will continue to invite street confrontations with police...
    So if you're an hardcore "activist", ignoring an attorney's recommendation to not exercise your rights, you're one of those "same people" inviting street confrontation?

    Can you describe your vision of the "perfect" OCer?
    Last edited by BB62; 09-25-2012 at 02:57 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    My lawyer is licensed, "in good standing", and has more than twenty years in practice, both as an assistant prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.

    His advice is to lead with "Am I free to leave?" and take it from there.

    He has no illusions about being the cop's "friend" or talking your way out of trouble, even if you've done nothing wrong.

    As I said, I want ZERO interaction with the police. I'm not going to try to "help" them, nor debate with them by the side of the road.

    If I'm free to leave, the conversation is over.

    If I'm NOT free to leave, the conversation is... OVER.
    While your misanthropic tactics are not great for winning friends, I will acknowledge that they are both valid and effective, and they are much better than trying to play "street lawyer."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    In my opinion it seems that those in the justice system are far more level headed than what some may subscribe to them.
    Actually, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. But there's still an aspect of social harmony that will be considered. People who want to engage in armed "street theatre" in furtherance of their Second Amendment rights are no more favored than those who exercise their First Amendment rights by wearing T-shirts imprinted with "F*ck the Draft" or burning an American flag, both of which have been ruled to be constitutionally protected behavior. If the constitutionally protected behavior is the only thing supporting a criminal charge, then you're likely to walk, but if the police can establish any other misbehavior which is arguably unlawful, you're probably going to suffer for it. And some police officers are very good at eliciting poorly considered reactions from people who appear to be jerking them around. Keep that in mind.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Push Jeff hard enough and you'll find that he likes using OC and OCers for shock value, and wants nothing more to do with them otherwise. He's really not a rights guy, but he's desirous of OFCC having an appearance of a gun RIGHTS organization.

    http://www.ohioccw.org/200907194553/...ere-about.html

    "We are about freedom. We are an advocate for all firearms related rights" Uh-huh.

    As much as you seem to think or want to think that this is about those who ostentatiously challenge LEOs, it's really not. It's a good debate technique, but nothing more.
    So what you're saying is that OFCC is not extreme enough. Mmmmkay. I've often heard the same thing about the NRA. But those two organizations have something in common: THEY GET THINGS DONE. While those organizations are making significant strides in the courts and legislatures, the more extreme organizations are accomplishing little more than bragging about how uncompromising and unyielding they are. And the rest of society writes them off as "fringe elements."

    People need to learn that in the real world, you don't always get your way. In a civil society, change is prompted by those who know when to push and when to lay off.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    In a civil society,.
    In a true civil society, we don't need guns (its a pro-gun control viewpoint-not that you are)....but we don't live in such a utopian society. NRA supported trigger locks and many other laws as part of their "compromise" philosophy. I prefer not to compromise. Sorry NRA.

  21. #21
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    So what you're saying is that OFCC is not extreme enough. Mmmmkay. I've often heard the same thing about the NRA. But those two organizations have something in common: THEY GET THINGS DONE. While those organizations are making significant strides in the courts and legislatures, the more extreme organizations are accomplishing little more than bragging about how uncompromising and unyielding they are. And the rest of society writes them off as "fringe elements."

    People need to learn that in the real world, you don't always get your way. In a civil society, change is prompted by those who know when to push and when to lay off.

    So, how do we get law enforcement to leave open carriers alone?

    Imagine yourself walking down the sidewalk with a holstered handgun on your hip, doing nothing illegal, when a LEO stops you.

    That's too much interaction for some. I would be okay with saying that I'm just walking and carrying a firearm for self-defense. That should be enough.

    Where do we push and where do we lay off?

    Imagine yourself walking down the sidewalk with a walking stick, doing nothing illegal, when a LEO stops you.

    He takes away your stick, puts you in handcuffs, demands your identity and says you are not being detained. In what world do you NOT tell him to go pound sand up his a--?

    As to your comment about the fringe element, you may want to review your Revolutionary War history. Some amazing things came about due to the actions of the fringe element. Eventualy, the views of those considered "fringe" came to be adopted by more of the "mainstream" of society.

    Where do we push and where do we lay off?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Werz View Post
    While your misanthropic tactics are not great for winning friends, I will acknowledge that they are both valid and effective, and they are much better than trying to play "street lawyer."
    Only a criminal needs a cop for a friend.

    Those are "friends" bought at FAR too high a price and ones I can happily do without.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    As to your comment about the fringe element, you may want to review your Revolutionary War history.
    I don't think a day goes by when I don't see some comment in the Plain Dealer online comments calling gun owners a "fringe element", and people with CHLs a "fringe" of a "fringe".
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    As to your comment about the fringe element, you may want to review your Revolutionary War history. Some amazing things came about due to the actions of the fringe element.
    I believe I'm somewhat familiar with that conflict. Are you suggesting an armed revolt against our existing government?

    Always give careful consideration to your analogies.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    Where do we push and where do we lay off?
    It's OK to stand up for your rights. You need to have some sort of grievance before things will change. Does that require YouTube street theatre with some guy who is purposefully "pushing the limits," then nervously (and often incorrectly) reciting judicial decisions and prefabricated catch phrases* to street cops? I don't think so. Have I been fairly effective in getting a few things to change without that?


    * The one thing I found amusing about Kessler's article was a listing of all the standard catch phrases. Do those people really sound like someone standing up for their rights, or do they sound like little organic Turing machines?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , Ohio, USA
    Posts
    291
    Is it just me or is DSK over there trying to start a argument. Seems like OFCC has taken up their old ways against open carriers if we don't abide by JG's way of thinking.

    That guy (DSK) hasn't said anything positive all day, just running his mouth. Definitely not even trying to be part of the solution.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •