• 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.

PBS - Open carry a growing movement in California

S

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
"We don't know who you are, and we don't know if that gun is loaded. And,..and we're going to have to deal with that gun..."

Oh no....you don't know who a civilian walking around drinking a cup of coffee is?
Oh no....you don't know if a gun is loaded or not, and this is a concern despite nearly every other state allowing loaded carry in some form or another?
Oh no....You're "going to have to deal with that gun", because by themselves, and as inanimate objects, must be dealt with. I mean, except the one on YOUR waist yes?

That guy sounds like an embarrassment to law enforcement. I think it's rather questionable that he should be the head of the California Police Chiefs Association.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
Seems to me Chief James is truly afraid of guns. "If we have greater control on the guns, greater regulation on the guns and in the public realm, the -- the chances of us coming in contact with that gun become fewer."

Again, as in my other recent post, the progressives have brained washed the masses into believing that local law enforcements' safety is more important than our natural law rights and protected, enumerated civil liberties. Now, I haven't been able to determine is Chief James is simply afraid of guns, or if he is a socialist, or if he is jaded by all the crime he has witnessed throughout his career. If I had to guess I'd say its a combination of the three. But what is clear is the fact that he favors the disarmament of the innocent law-abiding citizenry in exchange for the safety of himself and his officers. And that is not only unacceptable but its also unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
B

Buzzkill144

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
6
Location
Las Vegas
Yeah, Keep the lawful citizen unarmed while keeping criminals fully loaded.
Screw that guy.
I'm sitting in a Las Vegas NV. Starbucks at this writing with my Glock 19, with 13 guests all around, two of them LEOS and no one is taking notice. I love this town.
Keep up the good work California!
 
Last edited:
K

kittyhawk63

Guest
Police State?

INTENT:
The thing that Chief James wants is the elimination of all firearms except those that are carried by law enforcement.

REASON:
Police are afraid of an armed citizenry they don’t know.
Whose fault is that? You took away your neighborhood beat cops and put them into cars. They don’t get to know anyone. They don’t develop friendship with those in the neighborhood and everyone becomes the enemy. It becomes “us against them.”

POLICE SOLUTION:
U.S. Constitution is ignored and all guns are confiscated in order that there is a gun-free society...except for law enforcement. (Ignore armed criminals)

RESULT:
1) Law enforcement only ones with guns. (Ignore armed criminals)
2) No law-abiding citizen has any firearms of any kind for any reason.
3) Crime goes up.

PROBLEM:
1) Law enforcement has guns.
2) (Ignore armed criminals)
3) Citizens left unarmed.

REAL RESULT:
1) Criminals still have guns (You're supposed to ignore armed criminals)
2) We are left with a POLICE STATE!
3) Citizens left defenseless.

=====================================================================================

ALTERNATIVE: ARMED CITIZENRY

INTENT: Citizens want to keep criminals and law enforcement agencies at bay and from running over us.

REASON: In order to defend ourselves against criminals and possibly a future, ever-growing, more abusive police state.

OUR SOLUTION: STAY ARMED.

RESULT:
1) We keep our freedoms
2) We keep the police state from taking over.
3) We keep from being mugged.

[FONT=&quot]PROBLEM?[/FONT][FONT=&quot] It’s a win-win situation for law-abiding CITIZENS.

REAL RESULT:
1) We keep our Constitutional rights.
2) Police remain servants and not tyrants carrying out the threats of the state.
3) Criminal activity decreases.
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
K

kittyhawk63

Guest
I got to thinking...

How many police officers (PO) could be hired to walk a beat if they got rid of all the expensive cars they have to keep buying every few years? They might actually get to know the people. Wow! ...a beat PO who actually knows your name...and not because he/she has stopped to e-check you...and you surrendered your rights by giving him/her your name.

Bonus...the "Us versus Them" attitude may go away.

Edit: Well, maybe a car is less expensive than what it takes to pay a PO and give him/her all the fringe benefits. Nonetheless, I still believe there would be a lot better relationship between police officers and the public if they were to walk a beat.

Edit: I don't hate police officers; I don't dislike police officers. My neighborhood over the years has had many police officers live here, and a number of them have become friends of mine. My oldest brother is a retired deputy sheriff. After passing the exam and physical, I was hired back when I was 25 to train as a PO in Ft. Worth, Texas. After waiting for my training class to begin, my class was indefinitely put off and I chose to return to college, which eventually led me in a different direction.
kh63
 
Last edited:
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
It's about time!

Open carry has been a "movement" for the last five hundred years of mankind's use of a firearm. It's about time California get with the program.

And I thought California was progressive...
 
N

NRAMARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Anywhere but here.
coolusername2007 said:
Seems to me Chief James is truly afraid of guns. "If we have greater control on the guns, greater regulation on the guns and in the public realm, the -- the chances of us coming in contact with that gun become fewer."

Again, as in my other recent post, the progressives have brained washed the masses into believing that local law enforcements' safety is more important than our natural law rights and protected, enumerated civil liberties. Now, I haven't been able to determine is Chief James is simply afraid of guns, or if he is a socialist, or if he is jaded by all the crime he has witnessed throughout his career. If I had to guess I'd say its a combination of the three. But what is clear is the fact that he favors the disarmament of the innocent law-abiding citizenry in exchange for the safety of himself and his officers. And that is not only unacceptable but its also unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Very well stated.
 
tcmech

tcmech

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
368
Location
, ,
slowfiveoh said:
That guy sounds like an embarrassment to law enforcement. I think it's rather questionable that he should be the head of the California Police Chiefs Association.
Click to expand...

slowfiveoh I did edit your quote

In my opinion that guy doesn't sound like an embarrassment to just law enforcement, he sounds like an embarrassment to American citizens in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top