Open Carry encounter at the Police Station

[DON`T TREAD ON ME]

While this "wrong State post" stirred the pot, I Think we got a lot of stuff talked about.

Shoobee: I agree there is a time and a place for CC/ OC If it is not hurting anyone, Which neither do, the person CC'ing or OC'ing isa the best person to decide when it is right for them.

Echo Wolf and othe CO posters; Thanks for making this a good discussion, I kept hearing about the differences in laws, I feel like the topconversation needs to sound more like "why am I not allowed by law to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones in this building?" "If all men are created equal why is the Govt. agent allowed to defend, yet the people who by consent, give him his power are prohibited?"

 

[MAC702]

I do love OC. Don't get me wrong.

But I believe there is a time and a place for it.

Outside of a prison or other similarly secure building, what time and place would you tell a police officer is a no-go for him to openly carry?

Do you believe cops have more rights to carry guns than we do?

 

[mwaterous]

It's amazing what imaginary lines do to people. Apparently all it takes is one bad apple from Colorado for an 'entire' state to hate them. All it takes is one bad apple from Nevada for it to become mutual. Now we've elevated something we're all supposed to be fighting for to civil unrest across imaginary lines.

There's too much dirt in Nevada. Far too many Denver airports in Colorado.

There, now I've given y'all a reason to hate New Mexico. Maybe we can redirect some of our efforts temporarily.

 

[greengum]

I wanted to post and show how mad I am too!!! Look at me RAAAAAAAAAGGGGEEEEE.




Anyways nice job to tread for making the vid. At the very least it has opened the discussion.

 

[Warren Drouin]

It seems that the Nevadans are TRUE LIBERTY LOVING INDIVIDUALS, while the Coloradans (not all) seem to be non-individual, but are more toward Collectivism style... sad.

Keep up the good work Nevadans. Show them what TRUE LIBERTY IS. :banana:

 

[Rollbar]

Here is what you need: Video eye wear
http://www.shopatron.com/products/p...t_number=50013/352.0.1.1.79821.0.0.0.0?pp=12&

 

[MAC702]

I'm sure wearing sunglasses while talking to cops is some form of "intimidation..."

 

[vegaspassat]

I was looking on fleabay and there are some cameras that look like bluetooth headsets and I want to say there were a couple that you could turn them on with a remote

 

[vegaspassat]

ok so I went back and read the whole thread, and it makes my head hurt Thank God for people like Dave, Tim and Tigerlilly that actually get **** done.

 

[Rollbar]

I'm sure wearing sunglasses while talking to cops is some form of "intimidation..."

IMHO I don't think so, they talk to us w/them on, correct.

 

[FallonJeeper]

IMHO I don't think so, they talk to us w/them on, correct.

That's because they are trying to intimidate us. Doesn't work on me.

 

[Shoobee]

Outside of a prison or other similarly secure building, what time and place would you tell a police officer is a no-go for him to openly carry?

Do you believe cops have more rights to carry guns than we do?

An interesting philosophical question.

The most obvious answer is that military in a combat zone, and LEOs (who live their lives and perform their duties constantly in an urban combat zone) have the need for 24/7 OC. For everyone else it is optional.

Being optional for everyone else, the matter would turn on the danger of the moment and the need.

I normally avoid places where there is constant danger and the need to carry either OC or CCW.

The exception being when I am hiking in USFS or BLM lands. Usually I am there for the beauty and for the exercise. I OC there because there are dangers there from 4 legged predators and 2 legged criminal minds. There was a serial killer in California called The Trailside Killer who murdered hikers and backpackers for the fun of it and he got away with it for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Carpenter

For any other situation, where there *might* be the possibility of danger, then CCW is more than adequate to deal with it.

The only disadvantage of CCW compared with OC is that you can draw your weapon a fraction of a second faster from OC than from CCW.

And when you are CCW you do not make a lot of people nervous around you, when your weapon is properly concealed.

Jeeze you guys in Nevada are luckier than heck that the Nevada Legislature believes in shall-issue CCW. You ought to make the most of it and stop bickering about 24/7 OC.

Ergo, there is a time and a place for everything.

A time and a place for CCW.

A time and a place of OC.

And a time and a place where neither CCW or OC is appropriate, like when you to to court, or when you go into a police station, etc.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

An interesting philosophical question.

The most obvious answer is that military in a combat zone, and LEOs (who live their lives and perform their duties constantly in an urban combat zone) have the need for 24/7 OC. For everyone else it is optional.

Police are constantly in an urban combat zone? What about the police in England? They don't carry guns.

The exception being when I am hiking in USFS or BLM lands. Usually I am there for the beauty and for the exercise. I OC there because there are dangers there from 4 legged predators and 2 legged criminal minds. There was a serial killer in California called The Trailside Killer who murdered hikers and backpackers for the fun of it and he got away with it for a long time.

BLM and USFS land is not much more dangerous than any other place. Yeah, there are serial killers and dangerous animals, but the same could be said for urban areas and residential suburbs.

The only disadvantage of CCW compared with OC is that you can draw your weapon a fraction of a second faster from OC than from CCW.

Concealing is also also usually uncomfortable and restrictive of your movement. I like to be able to run, jump, bend over, sit, etc. without discomfort, carry a decent sized gun, and not wear a coat in the summer.

 

[usmcmustang]

And a time and a place where neither CCW or OC is appropriate, like when you to to court, or when you go into a police station, etc.

And pray tell, why would it not be appropriate for a law abiding citizen doing anything within the law in a court-room or a police station, or anywhere else in a public venue? Police officers are armed in those situations and locations aren't they? Philosophically... do you have an answer to that one? Would you "trust" yourself to be lawfully armed in a court-room or a police station? Would you "trust" others to be lawfully armed in a court-room or a police station? Do you only trust police to be armed in a court-room or a police station? Just what IS the issue of an "armed citizenry" that you are having a problem with? Should citizens only be "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location? Just what is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that leads anyone to endorse a practice of only being "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location?... philosophically asking, of course.

 

[Shoobee]

Police are constantly in an urban combat zone? What about the police in England? They don't carry guns.



BLM and USFS land is not much more dangerous than any other place. Yeah, there are serial killers and dangerous animals, but the same could be said for urban areas and residential suburbs.

Concealing is also also usually uncomfortable and restrictive of your movement.

The police administrations of England are stupid fools.

There are less people per square mile in USFS and BLM lands, and virtually no recourse to 911 or LEO walking foot patrols. You are completely on your own in USFS and BLM lands.

 

[Shoobee]

And pray tell, why would it not be appropriate for a law abiding citizen doing anything within the law in a court-room or a police station, or anywhere else in a public venue? Police officers are armed in those situations and locations aren't they? Philosophically... do you have an answer to that one? Would you "trust" yourself to be lawfully armed in a court-room or a police station? Would you "trust" others to be lawfully armed in a court-room or a police station? Do you only trust police to be armed in a court-room or a police station? Just what IS the issue of an "armed citizenry" that you are having a problem with? Should citizens only be "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location? Just what is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that leads anyone to endorse a practice of only being "armed" in certain circumstance, situation, and/or location?... philosophically asking, of course.

Interesting philosophical question, Mustang. You want to know if societies should ever disarm anyone anywhere?

I know of at least one place for sure.

If you come to my house and eat dinner at my table, you can come to the front door wearing your gun, but you will leave it by the door on the inside when you come in. If you want to eat. In the Old West, they had similar decorum.

Now, if I am called to go to a judge's courtroom, I can see a similar analogy. Maybe you cannot. But I can.

And if I go to the police's house, their sanctum sanctorum, the police station, I can also see a similar analogy. But again maybe you cannot.

Philosophy is not such an easy thing. Some are good at it, while others are not.

 

[usmcmustang]

Interesting philosophical question, Mustang. You want to know if societies should ever disarm anyone anywhere?

I know of at least one place for sure.

If you come to my house and eat dinner at my table, you can come to the front door wearing your gun, but you will leave it by the door on the inside when you come in. If you want to eat. In the Old West, they had similar decorum.

Now, if I am called to go to a judge's courtroom, I can see a similar analogy. Maybe you cannot. But I can.

And if I go to the police's house, their sanctum sanctorum, the police station, I can also see a similar analogy. But again maybe you cannot.

Philosophy is not such an easy thing. Some are good at it, while others are not.

Your home... your rules, plain and simple... don't need any philosophizing there.

Court-house... police station... any other PUBLIC venue... my choice... NO, my right !!! Last time I checked, Judges and Police Officers in their official capacities had no "property" rights... that's because the "property" which they occupy in their official capacities are THE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

 

[Shoobee]

Your home... your rules, plain and simple... don't need any philosophizing there.

Court-house... police station... any other PUBLIC venue... my choice... NO, my right !!! Last time I checked, Judges and Police Officers in their official capacities had no "property" rights... that's because the "property" which they occupy in their official capacities are THE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

Well you are definitely getting better at philosphy, Mustang.

At least you and I agree on "your home your rules."

The way philosophy works is that you list out every minute aspect of any given issue.

Then you must agree on what is valid and what is invalid among the elements.

If there is a dispute, then you debate. Someone else who is impartial and equally trained in philosophy needs to be the judge though.

So for any debate you need not only the two parties, but also an impartial judge.

Ultimately by a complex route of deduction and induction you normally either arrive at a proven conclusion or else you must defer to uncertainty.

Anyway, that's how it works. They teach college classes on it.

So back to the issue of courtrooms and police stations. That issue now seems to be in dispute between you and I at the moment.

So the next question becomes then how do you resolve disputes civilly?

The ancient Greeks and ancient Romans decided that you must use democracy in that case, and that the majority should rule.

Of course there are inherent weaknesses to democracy, for as Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said, if you have every other idiot on your side, that is a majority anywhere.

Anyway, that's how our democracies and our republics make laws. It starts with majority rule. Then by majority rule give or take a little gerrymandering they send their legislators to the assemblies and senates.

For the record, the assemblymen and senators in California are really mucked up. You guys are a lot better off in Nevada with yours. So I think you should listen to yours, rather than making up philosophies of your own, which are unsound.

Unsound.

 

[usmcmustang]

Well you are definitely getting better at philosphy, Mustang.

At least you and I agree on "your home your rules."

The way philosophy works is that you list out every minute aspect of any given issue.

Then you must agree on what is valid and what is invalid among the elements.

If there is a dispute, then you debate. Someone else who is impartial and equally trained in philosophy needs to be the judge though.

So for any debate you need not only the two parties, but also an impartial judge.

Ultimately by a complex route of deduction and induction you normally either arrive at a proven conclusion or else you must defer to uncertainty.

Anyway, that's how it works. They teach college classes on it.

So back to the issue of courtrooms and police stations. That issue now seems to be in dispute between you and I at the moment.

So the next question becomes then how do you resolve disputes civilly?

The ancient Greeks and ancient Romans decided that you must use democracy in that case, and that the majority should rule.

Of course there are inherent weaknesses to democracy, for as Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) said, if you have every other idiot on your side, that is a majority anywhere.

Anyway, that's how our democracies and our republics make laws. It starts with majority rule. Then by majority rule give or take a little gerrymandering they send their legislators to the assemblies and senates.

For the record, the assemblymen and senators in California are really mucked up. You guys are a lot better off in Nevada with yours. So I think you should listen to yours, rather than making up philosophies of your own, which are unsound.

Unsound.

Philosopher = Bull$hitter... good job !!!!! You have won "the game of" philosophy. Oh, and by the way "...[SIZE=+1]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed.[/SIZE]"

 

[Shoobee]

Philosopher = Bull$hitter... good job !!!!! You have won "the game of" philosophy. Oh, and by the way "...[SIZE=+1]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed.[/SIZE]"

That's called ad hominem and in a formal debate you would then lose.

I don't doubt that you are indeed dyed in the wool.

What I don't think you grasp is how civilizations must work together.