Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Hyperbolic* Philosophical Musings

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    Picturethis:

    Open carriers go strapped into the wide world and cops and scaredy cats everywhere immediately recognize that this is legal and socially acceptable. Guns show up on everyone's hips and the world keeps spinning happily and politely on its axis.

    A tired black woman sits in the front of a southern bus and everyone realizes that she's tired and leaves her alone. Folks of all shades start sharing lunch counters, public schools and swimming pools like its always been that way.

    A Catholic priest nails a list ofthings he sees wrong with the admin at his work placeon the door of a German church. Rome says, "You know what? That guy's got a few good points there. Let's make us some changes." Hundreds of years of various warsoverthe color of a priest's knickers and wheter or not you have a dead jewish rable rouser up on your cross still happen but for different, maybe more rational reasons.

    A Jewish carpenter starts telling folks to be nice to one another and that the temple ain't the right place to be transacting business. The boss Rabbis think to themselves, "Wow, I never looked at it that way. I like the way he's thinking. Let's buy this guy some lunch and have us a good ol' chat". 2000 years of history have a slightly different flavor.

    I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that if you are ballsy enough to strap up and face down the man, you stand a slight chance of modern martyrdom. Expecting instant changeis about as rational and realistic as expecting politicians to work soley in the best interests of their consituents and the greater society around them.

    Those of you who go forth with a song in your hearts, a smile on your lips and a bag full of civility backed up by a correct and thorough understanding of the law deserve nothing but respect. Those of you who insist on screaming bloody lawsuit and "fire all cops" everytime things don't go just the way you think they should need to bone up on your history, phychology and sociology and understand that this is a long game being played here and the fat lady ain't even close to warming up for her solo yet.

    I've just gotten my nomex boxer shorts back from the cleaners soflame onbrothers.



    *Hyperbole is not a bigger better version of the Super Bowl.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    SNIP Those of you who insist on screaming bloody lawsuit and "fire all cops" everytime things don't go just the way you think they should need to bone up on your history, phychology and sociology and understand that this is a long game being played here and the fat lady ain't even close to warming up for her solo yet.
    No offense.

    That sentence should be first, so we can tell which particular OCersyou are talking to at the outset.

    With that said, there seem to be a very few here who say "[insert LEO bash]." Also, I don't see a lot of screaming on this subject. I think your ownbiases are playing into your choice of words, setting up anunnecessary argument/fight.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    SNIP Those of you who insist on screaming bloody lawsuit and "fire all cops" everytime things don't go just the way you think they should need to bone up on your history, phychology and sociology and understand that this is a long game being played here and the fat lady ain't even close to warming up for her solo yet.
    Cops first.

    Cops who violate the 4th Amendment should bone up on their case law. Case law is history. Legal history. The history of the law.

    I recommend a particular one to start:

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific RR Co vs Botsford.

    No right. More sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

    If certain police were to take that to heart, and recognize the damned seriousness of an illegal detention, there would be a sea change overnight.

    Until the Blue Wall of Silence is dismantled, and everything it protects is well on its way to "gone", I plan on making myself as dangerous as possible to LEOs' personnel files, promotion prospects, and financial future.

    By the way, I took that quote above not from Union Pacific but from Terry vs Ohio where the US Supreme Court thought it important enoughto quote it themselves.

    Also, while history is being discussed, rights in this country have come down to us through history going back almost a thousand years. Our rights have come to us after centuries of suffering, tyranny, and conflict, paid for in blood going back at least to Magna Carta, if not the Norman Conquest or earlier.

    Its the police who need to learn their history, what it really cost to get our rights, how valuable they really are, how cherished they should really be, given what it cost in suffering and blood to obtain them.

    Anybody who wants to dig a little deeper into this might care to have a look here:

    http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    I'll play the part of Martin since you've already staked out the roll of Malcolm.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    SNIPExpecting instant changeis about as rational and realistic as expecting politicians to work soley in the best interests of their consituents and the greater society around them.
    Oh?

    Let me see. The legislature passes a law, good or bad, and from the moment it becomes effective,our compliance is expected. With a penalty for non-compliance, thank you very much.

    Actually, we are not so much expecting change, as weareworking against change that has already occurred. We are saying "no" to changes others want to make or have alreadymade. Law-abiding gun owners are the ones who have been getting (short-)changed for years.

    So, no. Between those two points, I don't think we are out-of-line for demanding right-now recognition of our right to self-defense. Especially from police.Especially when it is the law.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    The sitution of infringement on the RKBA developed over generations, it is very optimistic to expect its removal in less than one. That said I think great progress has been made in 20 years, but the OP has it right, there have been and will be causalties in this struggle.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    The sitution of infringement on the RKBA developed over generations, it is very optimistic to expect its removal in less than one. That said I think great progress has been made in 20 years, but the OP has it right, there have been and will be causalties in this struggle.
    I don't think he was talking about RKBA generally so much as OC in particular.

    I am talking about OC, cops, and 4A.

    But thanks for making what has become an all too rare appearance! :P
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Left Coast, , USA
    Posts
    228

    Post imported post

    I'm talking about any change in general. This just happens to be an open carry site. Change takes time no matter what the subject matter is.



    Citizen,

    So howsabout your assertion that instant compliance is expected when new laws go into effect. Your thoughts on the subject and my experience on it differ. In a strictly black and white world you might be right but in our shades of grey world you are sadly uniformed.

    Just an example: Not that long ago California made it illegal to drive and chat on the phone at the same time unless you use a hands free setup. Laws like this tend to go into effect on Jan. 1. This means that the legislators worked on getting the law to be a law through chunks of the preceeding year and since it effects a lot of folks and is an emotion laden topic it gets some good media exposure. That's a lot of warning that the rules are gonna change. Next thing you know the new year rolls around and the media gets to remind folks that they can get a ticket if the chat hands full instead of hands free. That's almost a year's worth of warning and prep time. Is that enough time?

    The cops get the legal update video with the new law highlights somewhere between Thanksgiving and Xmas. Now many cops get a kick out of trying new laws on for size and there is a burst of enforcement for about a week or two. Some folks get the message at the point of a ticket book. Some folks get the point because their friend got the point. Some folks just don't get the point. The cops get bored with writing new law tickets after a bit and start trotting it out whenits useful.

    The judges here also have a tendency to play soft when they start seeing new laws taking effect. i've no idea how many hands free tickets the judges went easy on but I'm guessing it's a fair number.

    Here we are a few years later and I still see folks with their hands to their ears at 80 MPH. Why?

    Does stuff change? Yup. Does it change fast? Nope. is it perfect? Nope. Is it human? Yup. Does that make you unhappy? I hope not. Too much unhappy at the realities of the human world makes Jack a dull boy and no fun to drink with at parties.

    Screaming in rightous indignationon the interwebz may be fun but it wears thin after a bit especially if the notes struck have no variation between them. What tangible thing have you done lately to change your gov for the better? it is your gov after all. if you don't change it for your benefit someone else will chage it for thiers. I got my city to change the animal zoning laws so that my neighbors and I could keep more horses in our back yards. My gov is now a bit better. How about yours?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    Guys, its not about whether it's right or wrong, it matters only how much milk the cash cow will give before becoming exhausted...

    Carrying weapons gives us the strength to resist tyranny, therefore, the tyrants want to even the playing field.

    What it boils down to is; control. Plain and simple. If you take away the Citizen's means of protecting himself, you can control him. If you poorly educate him, you can control him. If you keep him in fear of [insert bad guy here] you can control him. If you make him lose interest in everything except entertainment, he'll never know what hit him, and you can control him.

    I could go on like this for a long time, but I hope you all get my point.
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    It's more than about control. It's about a desire to be controlled. I talk toyoung peopleabout the military. They say they are interested, not to serve their country, but because they need discipline.

    Think about it. Someone willing to make a life-changing committment, because they themselves realize they have no self control. They are looking for the military to teach them some. (BTW I advise them that after Basic, the military is more about teamwork, acquiring technical skills and demonstrating leadership).

    People who visit my area on vacation or who are transplanted from other areas (we call them 'down-staters' here in rural NY) actually see gun owners (especially those who carry) as admirable from a distance. They admire our independent spirit and unwillingness to do as otherswant us to do(particularly what BGs want) andrefusal to live in fear.

    But, unlike the young people I meet who are interested in the militaryto teach themdiscipline, the downstaters are not looking for anyone to teach them self reliance and lack of fear. It is too late for that.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    grumpycoconut wrote:
    SNIP Screaming in rightous indignationon the interwebz may be fun but it wears thin after a bit...
    Since this is the second time you've mentioned something like this, and some of your earlier posts on other threads had echoes of same, I'm going to guess your real underlying objection is too-strong language, too zealous an approach, etc. (while reserving yet the idea that maybe you just don't like seeing cops criticized).

    I'll concede your point against my examples of instant change demanded by government.

    Lets go back to strong language/zealous approach. I'll work my way up to it.

    I've made this next point repeatedly across time. Its all too obvious in the reported encounters. You, as a police officer,have to be almost deliberately overlooking it. Or perhaps you yourself have gotten so used to skirting it that you don't even recognize it when it is right in front of you.

    It is not the 2nd Amendment that is being violated during illegal detentions over OC'd guns. It is the 4th Amendment that is being violated.

    The police are already supposed to know the 4th Amendment case law.

    It is not "change" that is being demanded.It is adherence to the existing state of the law that is being demanded.

    Now, here is a handy little quote from Terry vs Ohio.1The US Supreme Court, when writing Terry,thought it worthy to quote it from an earlier court opinion.They must have considered it rather important, eh? Why else would they include it, of all the possible quotes, or even the option of not quoting it and writing their own version diluting this one?

    No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

    No right. Held more sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint or interference. Unless by clearAND unquestionable authority of law.

    I'd say that is a pretty significant statement, showing up as it doesright in the very court opinion that started this era's case law on detentions.

    When police start recognizing the damned seriousness of a detention, maybe we'll see fewer illegal detentions. Maybe even legal ones that are at the time questionablebefore a court later decides otherwise,writing a new set of circumstances into the case law.

    The seriousness of an illegal detention is not measured by how much can be recovered in a civil suit, or how much a police officer can get in trouble in his personnel file. It is measured against the principle embodied in that quote and others like it.

    Just because the courts cannot control illegal detentions except through theExclusionary Rule does not mean an illegal detention is not damned serious.

    It is a bit of a red-herring, a mis-direction to explain away an illegal detention over OC by saying, "the officer didn't know" or "the police just need to learn that OC is legal" or even "we want respect for our 2A rights".

    Police do not need to know that OC is legal. All the police officer needsto know, in light of that quote and other 4A case law, is that he does not know it is illegal. Remember the part about "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

    Unless the police officer knows to a dead moral certainty thatOC is illegal, he has no business doing anything other than a consensual contact. If he is not sure it is illegal, he has no "clear and unquestionable authority of law." If he cannot say to himself, "I have read the statute that makes OC illegal," he has no businessdoing anything other than calling his boss or a magistrate to find out, or making a consensual contact.

    Being unsure,being indignant,beingoutraged are none "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

    Also, many of the encounters and/or illegal detentions reported on this forum include commentary from the copillustrating their antipathy to OC.Antipathy is not "clear and unquestionable authority of law."

    I have read of too many illegal detentionson this forum. I have been harassedtwice myself (includes one 4A violation, one attempted 4A violation, and one 5A violation--an ID document demand.) I have read or seen videos of too many violations of other people that didnot involve OC.

    I have read of illegal detentions in the court opinions where the conviction was overturned. If the conviction was overturned because the detention was illegal from inception, the cop hardly had "clear andunquestionable" authority of law.

    I have read or heard of too many instances of the Blue Wall of Silence, which wouldbarely need to exist if it were not hiding violations oroutright crime.

    I have a first hand reportfrom peopleI considercredibleof an entire shift of police lying to protect 2-4 members of that shift. I found this astounding. The cops lied not because they were afraidfor their own personnel files. They liedsoley to protect their pals. An entire shift!! Not one cop told the truth!! Not one. And, the chain of command ignored obvious inconsistencies in the internal affairs report, forwardingthose inconsistencies inthe department's written public response to the complaint.

    What is being demanded is not recognition of 2A. What is being demanded is adherence to 4A.

    Why a demand? Why the strenousnessand zealousness? A combination ofseveral factors:

    An illegal detention is a damned serious matter. Even a legal detention is a serious matter, and deserves an appropriate level of attention toits legal justifications from an LEO.

    I am convinced that it is not uncommon forLEOs to violate 4A.

    I have read on this forum offour police departments that did not change their ways with the "nice" approach.

    I have read on this forum a memo from a group of retired chiefs, etcwho were telling the recipient LE departments that OC was legal. In that memo they used language such as "[no matter how indignant you feel]" and "[no matter how much you disagree with it]" OC is legal. Damning choice of words. That they estimated they had to say that in order to get their point receivedsays volumes about what they think is the real state of affairs in LE regarding the 4A.

    The existence of the Blue Wall of Silence tells me police are more loyal to themselves than the people they are supposed to be serving. And have a lower ethic than is acceptable. Also, I'll just mention the word "testi-lying". And ask how frequent lying on the witness stand must be for a word like that to come into common understanding in police circles.

    Police have the power of the State behind them. That is a lot of power.

    Less, shall we say, stringent efforts have not worked to clean up police on the 4A, as observable by the current state of things. Obviously police can't or won't clean themselves up on it.

    Thus, I am going toadvocate the maximum level of feasible and not illegal efforttointimidate 4A-violating police into at least outwardly respecting the 4A.

    If we onlyinsist onrespect for 2A by police, we miss themuch broader picture on 4A.

    No apologies. No Mr. Nice Guy with a cop who misuses hisposition in violation of the 4A.

    And based on that Supreme Court quote above, a reprimand in a personnel file is nothing compared to the seriousness of an illegal detention. A little money out of the city's coffers and/or the cop's pocket is nothing compared to repeated violations of the principle in that quote above. Remember, I am talking allillegal detentionshere. Not just 4A violations connected to OC.

    We are not talking about getting 2A accepted by police.Those who do miss the mark. It is adherence to the existing law, 4A law, law that is supposed to be already well understood and recognized by police, that I demand. Whether it involves guns or not.




    1. Its the first quote the court indents in Section I.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...2_0001_ZO.html
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pahrump, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    261

    Post imported post

    Thank you, Citizen.
    It is rare that I have heard this put so lucidly and intelligently.

    You nailed it right on the head.

  13. #13
    Regular Member XD40coyote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    woman stuck in Maryland, ,
    Posts
    709

    Post imported post

    As a demographic police officers are just like everyone else. Some are dumbells, but they passed the academy anyway. Some are high IQ types who do a great job remembering a huge # of laws at all times. Others are average but try hard. Then you have the egomaniacs and nutty ones who may know the laws and can be either the dummies, the high IQ types, or the averages-but feel they can abuse their authorityfreely and get away with it, relying on the general stupidity you find in the general populous.

    And yes, if you fit into the higher than normal intelligence level and look at the general populous, you will conclude that at least 95% of people are idiots LOL.

    Best thing I have found though is that these gun boards are full of free thinkers and intellectuals ( real ones, not those psuedo ones like the libtard college professors and the like). This is my nitch! You are "my people"! I do get bored at the page after page postings dealing with legal info, but if something applies to me I will absorb it like a shamwow. I am in fact a walking encyclopedia of various facts, and sure I don't know everything, but I could talk about neandertals, then switch to Aztec history, talk about the life cycles of the red fox, describe the process of a dead mammal decomposing water vs dry land, and then quote the basic open carry regulations of CA.



Posting Permissions

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