Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Since there is no introduction thread...

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Hello to one and all,

    More than a few may recognize the handle, nick name, or whatever reference point one calls LMTD from missouricarry, I am one and the same.

    I am here to finish an internal debate and it was sparked by a discussion with a person whom is an OC advocate of sound mind and responsible well thought out communications. There is no link to the conversations as they were private and will likely continue on in that same manner.

    Since my own thoughts would lend themselves to a bit of wariness on anyone new to a group and I would want to get a "feel" for them and their opinions, I will make it really easy from the git go.

    OC vs CCW...I don't know where I stand, it is as simple as that and I am researching it as you read this line.

    Like anyone else, my opinions are my own and that makes the right, for me and me alone. I like to give others the same latitude and appreciate when it is reciprocated. I am not known as the most polite person in the world and have even been accused of being sharp in tone at times. If you find something offensive, feel free to direct contact me and share your thoughts as it is very likely I meant no offence but did so without intent, putting it simple as it is to me, I do not know you, why would I try and offend you?

    I recently pulled up on a police officer in a city where open carry would be perfectly legal for me and asked him a few questions.

    Lots of folks dismiss officers opinions as products of indoctrination and planned responses fed by the department and they are drones of some sort, I do not share that opinion. Since they are often involved in the less than stellar activities of the public, if they seem reasonable humans I give them some merit.

    Back ground, I was dressed in button collar dress shirt, slacks, drove up in 2004 Grand Cherokee. Not that it should be important, but getting real here, if I pulled up in a jalopy wearing a tee shirt with a pot leaf on it, the responses would be different I would imagine.

    I asked about open carry. His responses were decent but the first item of note, I think it was highly apparent he had no clue that OC was legal.

    His thoughts significantly cliff-noted:

    OC vs CCW, liked OC, I can see what I am up against on approach
    ccw not a fan, feels they are handed out as simple as one can make the purchase
    feels some get ccw whom are not responsible enough
    knows a guy who should not be allowed guns but has ccw
    2o + years on force, CCW made job lots more complex and lost tactical edge
    feels police need advantage
    only wants to go home at night
    moved to late shift due to lower activity and more likely to go home at night
    does not like the idea of oc based on retention issues and BG's or mentally unstable gaining more access

    Now before anyone bandwagons it, I said cliff notes, not exact words. he was articulate and these responses were well thought out and supported, I just shortened them into bullet points.

    I am well over 2k words into my own written internal debate, this was one step in thinking about it, a good one, it provoked thought. I disagree with much of what the officer said while at the same time appreciating his perspective.

    Anyway, just thought I would wave at ya'all as I read post and develop opinions.

    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  2. #2
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    Hey LMTD!

    Good to see a familiar face......er.....avatar. Just a few thoughts in regards to the points you have related:

    ccw not a fan, feels they are handed out as simple as one can make the purchase
    Any reason they shouldn't be? After all, EVERYONE (including you and I) is a potential criminal until they break the law. Why shouldn't folks who haven't broken the law not be able to enjoy a God given right?


    feels some get ccw whom are not responsible enough
    Probably right. Is he worried about driver's licences as well? Between driver's licences and CCW licences, which do you think more of are given to people who aren't responsible enough? Which is he more worried about?


    knows a guy who should not be allowed guns but has ccw
    "Not be allowed" as in felon, or "not be allowed" as in irresponsible? Both can be cured by a call to the issuing sheriff. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If he's aware of this, isn't letting it continue passive acceptance?


    2o + years on force, CCW made job lots more complex and lost tactical edge
    My rights don't depend on the comfort of others. I'm uncomfortable with some folks idea of free speech. Makes my life more complex. Should this right be curtailed for my comfort? Why should mine be curtailed for his?


    feels police need advantage
    Why do police need an "advantage" over folks who obey the law?


    only wants to go home at night
    When has a law abiding citizen ever prevented him from doing so? Shouldn't he be worried about the criminals?


    moved to late shift due to lower activity and more likely to go home at night
    That's his own personal preference.


    does not like the idea of oc based on retention issues and BG's or mentally unstable gaining more access
    Yet, he's a police officer. I take it he openly carries with the uniform? Is this a case of "good for him/bad for you"? I wonder: If taking a gun away from its owner and using it against them is so easy, why do the police openly carry them instead of handing them out to the bad guys?

    After all, since they can be taken away and used against their owners so easily, wouldn't it be more sensible to hand out guns for bad guys to open carry? After all, we could then take them away and use them against their owners, right?

    Just a few thoughts. Good to see you again.





  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    As a precursor I would like to mention that this was not posted as a line by line debate, I spoke to the man to get an opinion in the effort to clarify my own. I will however respond from my view of HIS perspective as mine is not completely developed yet.

    Superlite27 wrote:
    Hey LMTD!

    Good to see a familiar face......er.....avatar. Just a few thoughts in regards to the points you have related:

    ccw not a fan, feels they are handed out as simple as one can make the purchase
    Any reason they shouldn't be? After all, EVERYONE (including you and I) is a potential criminal until they break the law. Why shouldn't folks who haven't broken the law not be able to enjoy a God given right?

    ...I can't quote as I simply do not recall accurately but his comment was to the effect of "anyone can get one as easy as you can go in there and buy a coke" (took place in front of convenience store) I verbally disagreed with him meekly and politely as I did not want to bring the conversation to an end, I said "Well, I am not sure it is quite that easy, still requires the FBI background check and fingerprints and class" to which he concurred.
    feels some get ccw whom are not responsible enough
    Probably right. Is he worried about driver's licences as well? Between driver's licences and CCW licences, which do you think more of are given to people who aren't responsible enough? Which is he more worried about?

    ...I can not speak to conversations that did not take place however if he has worked a lot of traffic duty I should imagine he would say "yes" and in fact he might well advocate for re-examination periodically. Without his opinion on the first I can not guess at the second but from his previous responses I think he would find the question antagonistic and markedly different topics which would prevent him from appreciating the point. If he were asked the third question I think he would tell you he feels that driving is significantly more of a worry and far more regulated than firearms.

    knows a guy who should not be allowed guns but has ccw
    "Not be allowed" as in felon, or "not be allowed" as in irresponsible? Both can be cured by a call to the issuing sheriff. "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If he's aware of this, isn't letting it continue passive acceptance?

    I am fairly sure he was indicating someone he knew whom was 100% legal but that in HIS own opinion, despite the fact that they qualify, he has observed behaviors that cause him concern. While a lot of behaviors can and do exist that do not disqualify, they are legitimate concerns for all of us, that or I am the only one here whom has seen stupidity at the range, he has likely seen it elsewhere as well.

    2o + years on force, CCW made job lots more complex and lost tactical edge
    My rights don't depend on the comfort of others. I'm uncomfortable with some folks idea of free speech. Makes my life more complex. Should this right be curtailed for my comfort? Why should mine be curtailed for his?
    ... Well I can only offer that you and I are glad we can finally carry our weapons with us without regard for ccw or OC, for many years the BG's had the edge on us and we are glad to have it equaled. If I were charged with the task an officer is, I too would like every advantage I could get myself. I am not sure of his point was aimed the direction of rights in so much as it was a desire to always have the upper hand or better said as often as possible and I agree with that, it is always best to have the upper hand.

    feels police need advantage
    Why do police need an "advantage" over folks who obey the law?
    ...Again I think it would be viewed as antagonistic, I think he was speaking directly to the BG/LEO situation. Since his job is to deal primarily with those whom broke the law at some level, I think that is likely the ones he wants the advantage over, I could be wrong.

    only wants to go home at night
    When has a law abiding citizen ever prevented him from doing so? Shouldn't he be worried about the criminals?
    ...I think he is.

    moved to late shift due to lower activity and more likely to go home at night
    That's his own personal preference.
    ...Based upon his view that less criminal activities occur within his area, a concept which I would agree with 100% just knowing the area.

    does not like the idea of oc based on retention issues and BG's or mentally unstable gaining more access
    Yet, he's a police officer. I take it he openly carries with the uniform? Is this a case of "good for him/bad for you"? I wonder: If taking a gun away from its owner and using it against them is so easy, why do the police openly carry them instead of handing them out to the bad guys?
    ...If I were him I would retort the significant amount of training they are required to have regarding weapon retention prior to being authorized/licensed by their department for weapon carry. I did not ask and do not know if his does, but some departments require retention holsters on duty.

    After all, since they can be taken away and used against their owners so easily, wouldn't it be more sensible to hand out guns for bad guys to open carry? After all, we could then take them away and use them against their owners, right?
    ...A certain percentage of LEO's lose their sidearms in struggles, in his shoes I would respond that more folks wearing them statistically means more of them taken away and the blathering would go on and on.

    Just a few thoughts. Good to see you again.



    I will share in the "good to see you too" however I have to admit, the bell has not yet rung in my feeble old mind.

    I am 50/50 on even posting the line by line thing as I am cautious in this debate, likely more cautious than a lot of others.

    Anyone else reading along, again, do not assume these are my positions, I responded as I thought the conversation MIGHT have evolved. I personally am not a fan of the officers position or opinion but if I ask for it, I owe the respect of not criticizing it at the time. For lack of better terms I asked him if he was critical of my opinion without offering it in advance, he was, and I learned some points whether I agree is irrelevant to the goal.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  4. #4
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    Sounds like a decent guy, all in all.

    One thing I dislike is how people seem to forget that the right not only to KEEP arms but also to BEAR them is guaranteed in the Constitution.

    Yet everyone is so used to words like "permits" and "licenses"...

    Well when in the holy hell did someone ever have to pay for a permit to say whatever he or she wants to? Or to practice a religion?

    So why do we need this crap restricting our RIGHT?

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    cash50 wrote:
    Sounds like a decent guy, all in all.

    Who, the LEO or me?

    LOL

    All in all if I had to define his position from the 5 to 10 minutes of conversation I would say the following:

    He would like no one to have guns but LEO as it would make his job easy.

    He recognizes that all have a right to it even if he thinks some should not.

    He would rather see OC than CCW as it gives him the knowledge of what he is dealing with, though I would not go so far as to say he thinks it means if they OC they are NOT a criminal.


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    What I took from the LEO statement is that he is the typical LEO elitist and does not think anyone but LEO should be armed.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    I usually refrain from stereotyping myself, especially when I ask for the opinion of someone not known to me.

    My own personal opinion is that MOST LEO's are far from elitist and better stated are overly cautious when questioned by citizens as it is inherent within their daily lives to be suspicious when there is nothing to be suspicious of at the time.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    159

    Post imported post

    I'm new here. Honestly, I don't care for that officer's views at all. He believes the rest of us should be defenseless so its safer for him. That's ridiculous.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    LMGDAO

    Reading comprehension and effective communications are always hard on forums.

    So much for reasonable discussion.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    Mo wrote:
    I'm new here. Honestly, I don't care for that officer's views at all. He believes the rest of us should be defenseless so its safer for him. That's ridiculous.
    I agree 100%. I may have come across that all LEO are elitist but that was not my intent but that this one in particular was. He talks from both sides of his mouth at the same time.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    I asked about open carry. His responses were decent but the first item of note, I think it was highly apparent he had no clue that OC was legal.

    His thoughts significantly cliff-noted:

    Now before anyone bandwagons it, I said cliff notes, not exact words. he was articulate and these responses were well thought out and supported, I just shortened them into bullet points.
    At best you would be able to say my interpretation and perceptions of his words make it look that way, but that is not quite as much fun I guess.

    Reading stuff on forums lacks tone and inflection, something I got to experience first hand and he seemed a decent normal guy with honest answers.

    Did ya miss the part where he likes the cause of this web space, OC more than CCW?

    Perhaps you are not as old as I, the officer was about my age. We both remember a time when folks said "What ya need to hide it for?" instead of "What ya wanna show it for?" cause if you wanted to wear a firearm it had to be in plain view and IWB holsters were questionable. It was actually felt that only criminals wanted to conceal weapons.

    While we are taught it as toddlers, scientifically speaking, grouping is the first step to bias, stereotype and prejudice. I make my decisions based upon good science and logic only. When responses do that, it undermines any merit they might have developed.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  12. #12
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    LMTD wrote:
    cash50 wrote:
    Sounds like a decent guy, all in all.

    Who, the LEO or me?

    LOL

    All in all if I had to define his position from the 5 to 10 minutes of conversation I would say the following:

    He would like no one to have guns but LEO as it would make his job easy.

    He recognizes that all have a right to it even if he thinks some should not.

    He would rather see OC than CCW as it gives him the knowledge of what he is dealing with, though I would not go so far as to say he thinks it means if they OC they are NOT a criminal.

    I was saying the LEO, but you too.

    I'm glad he recognizes the right, however difficult it may make his job.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    Welcome.I hope we can help you to make a positive opinion. To often on forums such as this you get someone whose opinions are already set, for or against.I realize forums are for those who share similar ideas or aims. I also feel "discussion" about our views or goals only help to open them to others. Again welcome.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  14. #14
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    Just had to say something about "retention".....If you decide to OC it is your responsibilty to retain your weapon.

    I am not saying that some holsters are not fallable, but if your are smart you can get one that is more than difficult to "lose"your weapon.

    I was recently stopped and the officer wanted to take my weapon as a precaution, although I objected he decide that he would take it himself. He could not get it out of my holster.

    Before any of you ask, it was a traffic stop and I told the officer I was carrying. I do this out of respect whether any of you agree or disagree. On most occasions they don't care, but I have been asked many times to step out of the car and put the weapon in the trunk. I have no problem with this. Safety first for the ones that have to put their life on the line everyday.

    My point is, get a holster where a "bad guy" can't just walk up behind you and grab the weapon. Every officer that I have encountered in regards to the open carry have thanked me for having the holster which I use only for open carry.

    BTW....it is a Blackhawk


    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  15. #15
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    zeke, you using the Blackhawk SERPA?



    That's what I use too---with my Beretta 92.



    Whatchu packing btw?

  16. #16
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Post imported post

    Yes....SERPA....

    Glock 36
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member Reverend BCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    130

    Post imported post

    BOOOO crappy retention holster...HOORAY, SERPA!

    I carry my Glock 17 in a Blackhawk Serpa as well!
    "Before all else, be armed." -Nicolo Machiavelli

Posting Permissions

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