• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The power of words...

B

Bikenut

Guest
The post below is not intended as "cop bashing" but is offered as food for thought.

Words have power... words spoken by a uniformed officer of the law have great power especially when the average citizen has the expectation that officers know the law and the knowledge that uniformed LE have great authority. With that in mind I'd like to present something that disturbs me greatly.

Over the past year or so I have heard several LEO's say words to the effect of:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."

when responding to a complaint or a question about someone open carrying.

This disturbs me because those words carry the implication that there is something wrong about a legal activity and there should be something done about legal open carry.

And there is also the implication that not only should something be done about it but that LE itself doesn't approve of it in the first place.

While I have no doubt that some LEO's do not approve (and, to be fair, some do) I suspect that LE higher ups and politicians definitely do NOT approve... I also understand the power of words and how words can be used to further an agenda...

If, when dealing with a complaint about an open carrier, different words were used... such as:

"Yes, it is legal to openly carry a gun in a holster."

then the implication is the exact truth... that it is legal to openly carry a gun in a holster. But using those words does not convey what, in my opinion, is the agenda behind the words:

"There is nothing we can do about it."

and that agenda is to put legal open carry, and those who do it, in a bad light. The agenda is to imply that even though there is nothing they can do about it they surely don't like those who do it.... and something needs to be done to stop it.

This leaves the person who complained or asked a question with the perception of:

-The police don't like to see people carrying guns in the open so if I were to do it the police won't like me and I just don't need to have any trouble with the police...

Put it all together and open carriers come out looking like bad guys.

Now... it is my opinion! that the words:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."

were intentionally chosen by higher ups in LE, perhaps at the urging of politicians to discourage open carry, to be used for the purpose of engendering exactly the implications I mentioned. And I would not be surprised to discover those words are included in LE training sessions for how to deal with questions/MWAG calls concerning legal open carriers.

So, with all that in mind, legally openly carrying a holstered sidearm is only half the battle... the other half is countering the carefully chosen words that are intended to diminish, demean, marginalize, and engender fear for the agenda of keeping the general population from realizing that openly carrying IS legal... and that any law abiding person can do it... in the hopes that this will keep open carry from becoming an accepted practice by the majority of the people.

In other words.... if open carry can be cast in a bad light then open carry can be.......... controlled and kept to a minimum.

Or perhaps I'm just reading too much into the words:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."
 
Glock9mmOldStyle

Glock9mmOldStyle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Location
Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan, USA
IMHO you ARE NOT reading too much into this. Words from a law enforcement official should always be based in the law. Sadly I am finding that some (not all) officers see the law as way to abuse law abiding citizens. Example: "You can't just carry a gun on your hip and expect not to be questioned by police!" Well as it is the law officer yes I can, even if you personally disapprove of it. The law of "OUR" land says so and so does "OUR" state constitution. As we see in our local governments often there is a disdain for laws "they" don't like. Then we get this attitude from those who feel they know better than our elected law makers that "they" can pick & choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore! This is a indicator of just how far our country has slipped towards the abyss that awaits all corrupted governments; like the Roman Empire leaders of the past these petty leaders grasp frantically at any straw of power they can find righteous or not. This only expedites the decline of "their" nation as the common people realize those who swore to serve now swear at their people from on high for not being the mindless subservient surfs "they" think we should be!

Soap box now being stepped down from. Great thread Bikenut.

Peace be with you. G9OS out.
 
H

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
Bikenut said:
The post below is not intended as "cop bashing" but is offered as food for thought.

Words have power... words spoken by a uniformed officer of the law have great power especially when the average citizen has the expectation that officers know the law and the knowledge that uniformed LE have great authority. With that in mind I'd like to present something that disturbs me greatly.

Over the past year or so I have heard several LEO's say words to the effect of:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."

when responding to a complaint or a question about someone open carrying.

This disturbs me because those words carry the implication that there is something wrong about a legal activity and there should be something done about legal open carry.

And there is also the implication that not only should something be done about it but that LE itself doesn't approve of it in the first place.

While I have no doubt that some LEO's do not approve (and, to be fair, some do) I suspect that LE higher ups and politicians definitely do NOT approve... I also understand the power of words and how words can be used to further an agenda...

If, when dealing with a complaint about an open carrier, different words were used... such as:

"Yes, it is legal to openly carry a gun in a holster."

then the implication is the exact truth... that it is legal to openly carry a gun in a holster. But using those words does not convey what, in my opinion, is the agenda behind the words:

"There is nothing we can do about it."

and that agenda is to put legal open carry, and those who do it, in a bad light. The agenda is to imply that even though there is nothing they can do about it they surely don't like those who do it.... and something needs to be done to stop it.

This leaves the person who complained or asked a question with the perception of:

-The police don't like to see people carrying guns in the open so if I were to do it the police won't like me and I just don't need to have any trouble with the police...

Put it all together and open carriers come out looking like bad guys.

Now... it is my opinion! that the words:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."

were intentionally chosen by higher ups in LE, perhaps at the urging of politicians to discourage open carry, to be used for the purpose of engendering exactly the implications I mentioned. And I would not be surprised to discover those words are included in LE training sessions for how to deal with questions/MWAG calls concerning legal open carriers.

So, with all that in mind, legally openly carrying a holstered sidearm is only half the battle... the other half is countering the carefully chosen words that are intended to diminish, demean, marginalize, and engender fear for the agenda of keeping the general population from realizing that openly carrying IS legal... and that any law abiding person can do it... in the hopes that this will keep open carry from becoming an accepted practice by the majority of the people.

In other words.... if open carry can be cast in a bad light then open carry can be.......... controlled and kept to a minimum.

Or perhaps I'm just reading too much into the words:

"There is nothing we (I) can do about it."
Click to expand...

Thats why we have to continue to OC and be brave in exercising our rights, as those who have fought to defend them have,with their last measure of devotion ,as Lincoln said at Gettysburg!
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
hamaneggs said:
Thats why we have to continue to OC and be brave in exercising our rights, as those who have fought to defend them have,with their last measure of devotion ,as Lincoln said at Gettysburg!
Click to expand...

Yes! Without a doubt we must continue to exercise our rights!

But we must also be aware of the power of words... and that words do not care who uses their power or what agenda is served by that use. Which just means that if we are also aware of how to use the power of words we can play that game too... and further our own agenda of freeing "we the people" from "those who would control by removing rights" by adding the power of words to the exercising of our rights.

For example... when asked this question, or a variation of it:

"Why do you carry a gun like that?"

any reference to the 2nd Amendment will fall on deaf ears but making reference to how a gun in plain sight will send a criminal looking for an easier target most certainly will connect because not only does the simple truth of that make sense to anyone with half a brain it also causes them to realize that without a gun in plain sight they themselves are that easier target for the criminal we mentioned. Which serves our agenda by hopefully causing them to start considering carrying a gun of their own right out there in plain sight were the criminal can see it.

A strange thing happens when a person decides to take responsibility for their own safety by carrying a gun. They throw off the idea that other people, like the police or government, will protect them and keep them safe. They stop looking to those agencies for guidance and begin questioning the orders and laws they get from them... and they begin to walk the path that leads to freedom from control.

And the anti gun/anti freedom/pro control folks know that this happens which is why they go after the guns. It isn't the guns that is important... it is stopping folks from stepping onto the path that leads to freedom.

Words have power... we need to be aware of that power and how those who would take away guns (and freedom) use that power.... and then use that same power of words to put a stop to the anti gun/anti freedom/pro control agenda.
 
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
In my case, I fully intend cop bashing on limited numbers of cops when I say that a number of idiot jackass cops have felony stopped, assaulted, falsely prosecuted and otherwise gone out of their way to feloniously piss off a number of us on this forum.

Michigan police officers, particularly many of them aside from the MSP and some select awesome departments, have a deep rooted us against them way of thinking, and I've often pointed out that this goes well beyond the issue of open carrying. If we can get them to leave us alone personally, which we largely have, that is an enormous feat by itself. The superiority/small penis/victim of bullying as a child and now out for revenge complexes are not something we can hope to influence much, so I would suggest not worrying about it.
 
Last edited:
Evil Creamsicle

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
'words mean stuff' is just another reason for us to focus on the truth and the facts.

Someone seeing the facts and benefits of OC, and then seeing anti 2A departments being 'disapproving' of OC, will hopefully put 2 and 2 together and realize that these departments are not their friend.

As Michigander says, we won't be able to change the opinions of the police... but we can at least discredit their false statements to the public at large
 
Last edited:
eastmeyers

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
Maybe we should start giving departments ratings...
A
B
C
D
E
F
Incomplete
And they can change periodically, go alphabetically, or just do the big cities, and members can submit their own grades for their hometowns with their reasonings... Maybe this way departments will stride to be an A.
Just a thought... Not necessarily a good one...
 
Last edited:
Michigander

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
eastmeyers said:
Maybe we should start giving departments ratings...
Just a thought... Not necessarily a good one...
Click to expand...

I've had the same thought. But the problem ends up being that you can never predict the actions of an exact cop, nor can a cop predict the actions of someone in his patrol area.

Better I think to address bad police actions when they happen, same as they theoretically should do if one of us commits a crime and they see it.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Although I used the example of what I've heard said by police officers to illustrate that carefully chosen words can have powerful implications.. implications that click in the mind of the person who hears them... the main focus was in hopes of causing folks to think about the impact of the words we use when communicating with the public.. and even the police/government officials... as we defend legal OC.

Carefully chosen words spoken in a calm voice in a polite manner can accomplish great things. Minds can be changed... arguments can be won without even engaging in arguing... perceptions can be changed... and battles can be decisively won. And all it takes is the careful choice of the words used.

A police officer says:

"There is nothing we can do about it."

and he says that because, since OC is legal, he has no authority to do anything about things that are legal... but that isn't what he said... and that isn't the implication carried within those words.

Just as those who would work against freedom, the anti gun/anti freedom/pro control folks, are extremely careful to choose words that give impressions that further their agenda (listen to any political campaign and this careful choosing of words that say nothing but imply everything is obvious) we should also choose our words carefully to give impressions that further our own agenda. The agenda of freedom from those who would destroy it.

I would suggest that we need to carefully think through our responses to questions and/or challenges... and pick the words that carry strong pro OC/pro gun rights/pro all of our rights/pro freedom implications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top