Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Spread the word at GT

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Billings, Montana, USA
    Posts
    156

    Post imported post

    http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?...89#post7050989

    Found this intersting today....



    Matt

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    358

    Post imported post

    almost makes me want to register there, but I think it would be best for the whole OC community if I keep my mouth shut this time.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I put my 2 cents in.

  4. #4
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    I hate it when people use the "disorderly conduct" BS. A guy at a gun store near here told me that. I tried to inform him, but he was confident that people were getting locked up for a right I exercise, and that I would be next. This just simply isn't happening. Carry with pride.

  5. #5
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    I think the original poster has a bit of troll DNA in his own DNA thread.... It's turned into a pretty good discussion.

    Longwatch, I like:
    Why do people open carry?
    Because they want to.
    Its their only legal option to carry.
    They don't want to pay for a permit, their rights, or submit to government registration.
    They are under 21.
    They are in a restaurant in Virginia.
    They are in a car in Ohio.
    It is to hot to conceal carry.
    They can carry a bigger handgun.
    They can draw faster.
    They feel open carry has a deterent value.
    They want to change the paradigm that only cops and criminals carry guns.


    RussP


    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    A lot of GT contributors are rational. Too many are of the mindset "What?! You don't agree with me? You are an imbecile." The latter typeenter the concealed-vs-open debate at every opportunity.

    I note that 2 posts in that thread cited the Virginia legal requirement that open carry is legally forced on a concealer when he enters the alcohol-serving restaurant. Both were essentially ignored by the enthusiastic debaters.

    I restrict my postings at GT to simple facts and avoid debates based on opinions---they spin out of control almost every time.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    Why does it always seem to be cops that are vehemently opposed to OC? They are the ones that do it most often as those in uniform are required to do it.

    My personal guess is that they are less worried about rights than not having people bother them with "man with a gun" calls, and do not realize how infrequently those calls happen. Another possibility is that this is a result of the "militarization" of police--the push to be "tactical," the proliferation of SWAT teams, etc.

  8. #8
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    hirundo82 wrote:
    Why does it always seem to be cops that are vehemently opposed to OC? They are the ones that do it most often as those in uniform are required to do it.

    My personal guess is that they are less worried about rights than not having people bother them with "man with a gun" calls, and do not realize how infrequently those calls happen. Another possibility is that this is a result of the "militarization" of police--the push to be "tactical," the proliferation of SWAT teams, etc.
    Depending on the jurisdiction, "Person with Gun" calls can waste a lot of resources. I've talked with officers and supervisors in various parts of the country and most agree they'd rather not have to respond to such calls, but the only way to avoid them is educate the general population that it is legal, or everyone conceal carry.

    I don't follow "a result of the "militarization" of police". Help me out, please.





    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  9. #9
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Anubis wrote:
    A lot of GT contributors are rational. Too many are of the mindset "What?! You don't agree with me? You are an imbecile." The latter typeenter the concealed-vs-open debate at every opportunity.

    I note that 2 posts in that thread cited the Virginia legal requirement that open carry is legally forced on a concealer when he enters the alcohol-serving restaurant. Both were essentially ignored by the enthusiastic debaters.

    I restrict my postings at GT to simple facts and avoid debates based on opinions---they spin out of control almost every time.
    It is a shame that your first and the last part of your last sentence are correct.

    Yes, the Virginia situation is usually ignored. Why? Because everyone whobrings a firearn into a restaurant serving alcohol is required to do so openly. That includes those new to carry, those carrying since creation, thoseat every socio-economic level... we are all equal. That negates the arguments ofthose anti-open carry based on "showing off", making a "statement"... all we're trying to do is go out and have something to eat.

    Yep, it bugs me big time.


    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    180

    Post imported post

    RussP wrote
    I don't follow "a result of the "militarization" of police". Help me out, please
    It is pretty much the same problem (as I see it) that led police to stop referring to themselves as "peace officers" and begin referring to themselves as "law enforcement officers". It is also why it bugs me when police refer to non-police as "civilians," although I know that it is often used as just a convenient shorthand.

    I know it is partially caused by an increase in the sophistication of criminals and their willingness to use violence, but it seems that many police view themselves as "above" the rest of us. As I see it, police are just like the rest of us, but are given more responsibilities than most by society, and therefore should be given some privileges and consideration the rest of us do not get; however, those should be limited and closely monitored by the rest of the populace.

    But some officers seem to think they should be above the law. Consider the outrage by those NJ police who were stopped by an Augusta County deputy when they were running hot all the way back from New Orleans. They thought the law should not apply to them. For more of the same kind of thinking, see copswritingcops.com.

    Perhaps it is old-fashioned of me (funny considering my age), but I like the community policing style of yesteryear, when the neighborhood police officer knew everybody on his beat, and worked to prevent crime through communication, not a show of force. These days, the "beat cop" has all disappeared. As I see it, a major job of the police should be education and outreach, similar to the way open carriers can educate the public at large about firearm ownership.

    I think that what I am getting at is that many officers like to think of themselves as "elite" or "tactical." Gadgets are all the rage among the police, and even the smallest deprtments have SWAT teams. See this image of LAPD SWAT--automatic weapons (understandable), masked, clothed completely in black. They look pretty much the same as these soldiers in Iraq. This is what I refer to as the "militarization of police." I realize that SWAT teams are needed in some circumstances, but they are overused--ie the Elian Gonzales raid.

    The controversy over no-knock raids also highlights how these teams can be overused and lead to loss of life. You give a man an automatic rifle and a hood, and protection if not explicitly in law then in practice (the reluctance of DAs to prosecute a cop when they would prosecute one of us for the same shoot), then you make him much more willing to take a life. The adrenaline of a SWAT callout cannot help his judgement either.

    I think the elitist thinking is the mentality of many of the subsection of police who think nobody but police should carry guns. They portray themselves as highly trained weapons experts and threfore the only ones who can be trusted with guns, and the antis buy into and perpetuate this myth. I see this in a lesser form in pfficers who open carry every day on the job, but do not think "civilians" should have the same right.

  11. #11
    Regular Member RussP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    393

    Post imported post

    Well said, I understand your feelings now.

    Yes, there has been a huge swing from the beat cop when I was growing up in the '50s and '60' to where some departments may be today.

    There is room for improvement.




    Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

Posting Permissions

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