Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
fyrestarter-
Please enlighten me. What, exactly, does a "thug" look like? I was a cop for 14 years and never could single out a bad guy by looks alone.
Denny
ANYTHING can be a weapon????
- Thread starter para.2
- Start date
fyrestarter-
Please enlighten me. What, exactly, does a "thug" look like? I was a cop for 14 years and never could single out a bad guy by looks alone.
Denny
fyrestarter
New member
MicroBalrog, that sort of "resolution" borders on ridiculous. By making a blanket statement like that, you're condoning the carrying of lethal weapons by criminals. If one has been convicted of a violent crime, his "right" to carry a weapon should be stripped. Felonious offenders lose their right to vote, why not lose their right to carry a firearm?
And when you say "anything", you can't mean "anything", because that means I should be allowed to carry my Viking sword on my hip and an axe thrust through my belt wherever I go. Obviously, that is unreasonable.
I'm a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and an NRA Life member, but I do believe that only responsible people should be allowed to carry weapons. When one wants to drive, he or she takes classes and is licensed to operate a motor vehicle. At the very least, one should have to go through the same procedures to carry a firearm. Most states that issue CCW licenses require classes anyway.
And when you say "anything", you can't mean "anything", because that means I should be allowed to carry my Viking sword on my hip and an axe thrust through my belt wherever I go. Obviously, that is unreasonable.
I'm a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and an NRA Life member, but I do believe that only responsible people should be allowed to carry weapons. When one wants to drive, he or she takes classes and is licensed to operate a motor vehicle. At the very least, one should have to go through the same procedures to carry a firearm. Most states that issue CCW licenses require classes anyway.
fyrestarter
New member
Denny, in this particular case, a person carrying a machete would be quite obvious. Machetes are two and a half feet long -- not exactly the most concealable weapons. And I certainly do not mean to impugn your abilities as a law enforcement officer, but you can't tell me that "bad guys" don't often time look suspicious -- a trenchcoat on a sunny day, ski jackets in June, a lump protruding from a waistband under a T-shirt -- that sort of thing. I'm sure in your 14 years as a peace officer, you've had more than one "hunch" about a suspected BG, and I'm sure that more often than not that hunch has turned out to be correct.
You're in Arizona, yes? Are you telling me that if you saw a guy walking down the street wearing a North Face jacket in August, you wouldn't stop him? Heck, here in NY, cops routinely stop anyone wearing black and yellow clothing (Latin Kings' colors)
You're in Arizona, yes? Are you telling me that if you saw a guy walking down the street wearing a North Face jacket in August, you wouldn't stop him? Heck, here in NY, cops routinely stop anyone wearing black and yellow clothing (Latin Kings' colors)
MicroBalrog
New member
You Viking sword? Why the h__l should carrying swords be a crime?
Even moreso, the entire depriving felons of rights thing is weird. If they're a danger to society, they should be in prison. If they are not, they should have their rights restored, no? (Or at least have the opportunity to restore it).
I will also note I do know people who carry knives/swords for self-defense and who are not criminals.
Even moreso, the entire depriving felons of rights thing is weird. If they're a danger to society, they should be in prison. If they are not, they should have their rights restored, no? (Or at least have the opportunity to restore it).
I will also note I do know people who carry knives/swords for self-defense and who are not criminals.
fyrestarter
New member
MicroBalrog, after perusing the website you advertise in your signature file, I now understand your comments a little more clearly. You're a quasi-libertarian, pseudo-anarchist, who wants the government to stay out of his life, except in instances of military protection, economics and the like. I'm sure, given your ideals, that you think carrying a sword while smoking dope and laughing about us proles here in the rest of America is the solution, but utopian societies never work. One of the cardinal ambitions of man is power, and even in a small society, there will always be those who will attempt to exert power over the rest of the population.
Heck, the "president" of the Free State Project, Amanda Phillips, is a self-proclaimed anarchist. How can an anarchist be president of anything??
Heck, the "president" of the Free State Project, Amanda Phillips, is a self-proclaimed anarchist. How can an anarchist be president of anything??
Denny Hansen
Staff Emeritus
Yep, had one or two. Still known to now and again. But a hunch does not constitute reasonable suspicion -- and it's a hell of a long ways from probable cause.
And yes, I'm in Arizona. Been here all my life, and one reason I've stayed is that law enforcement here frowns on citizens being accosted by law enforcement.
Denny
fyrestarter
New member
Denny, reasonable suspicion is a nebulous thing. A person standing on the corner wearing a winter jacket in the summer may not be suspicious. If he walks away rapidly when an officer approaches, he becomes a suspicious person, and the officer has the right to at least do a "Terry stop", no?
In this instance, however, I was referring more about possible "machete-wielding" persons. A Hispanic youth walking through an all-white neighborhood with a long "machete concealing" coat on in the dead of night during the summer is suspicious no matter how you slice it. I would hope that my local PD would stop him. Heck, I would stop him.
In this instance, however, I was referring more about possible "machete-wielding" persons. A Hispanic youth walking through an all-white neighborhood with a long "machete concealing" coat on in the dead of night during the summer is suspicious no matter how you slice it. I would hope that my local PD would stop him. Heck, I would stop him.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
I've heard that when the word, 'but' is used in a sentence, everything that preceeds it is BS. I hope that's not the case with your words, kind sir.fyrestarter said:
Please enlighten me as to how you propose to know who is "responsible people" and who is not. Be certain not to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of which you are such a strong supporter.
Taking a test, akin to a driver's license examination, is an infringement. I owned firearms for thirty years before I had my first formal training class. Would you have seen me disarmed???
Uh, it is?
Let's hypothesize for the moment that I live in some East coast urban pesthole that won't allow me to carry something practical for self-defense. Hmmm... What to do? Let's go look in the shed and see if anything looks useful...
"Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
Well, machetes are fairly swordlike...
fyrestarter
New member
Tamara:
"A person held to service or labor" in one state, who escapes to another state, "shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due." Article IV, Section 2, US Constitution, 1788
Hmm...Slavery protocol in the US Constitution...does that mean we should have this slave rule today?
Not everything that was written in 1788 should be taken at face value today.
Besides, the Penn Gazette is hardly a legal document retaining our rights as Americans.
Blues Man, I would not have you disarmed, I would have you licensed. One needs a license to drive, marry, open a business, go fishing, and myriad other activities in this country. Why not for possessing a firearm? Seems to me that it would eliminate a lot of unworthy people. I find it interesting that out of the hundreds of activities that one needs a governmental license for, two of the most important go overlooked: Having a baby and owning a firearm. One would think that given the inordinate amount of truly awful parents in this country, we would have gotten around to making sure that children are not brought into the world by crack-whores and violent felons.
But I digress. A responsible person is one who can:
1) Prove his worth to the community. A crack dealer has no reason to own a firearm.
2) Prove he is knowlegable about firearm safety.
3) Prove he is proficient with the firearm.
4) Prove he is able to provide a secure place for his firearm when not using it.
In NY, it takes 10 hours and two tests to operate a motor vehicle. To buy a rifle takes fifteen to twenty minutes. Surely you don't suggest that owning a potentially destructive device should only take twenty minutes?
Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights has a "but if" or "but for" clause decided by the Supreme Court. You have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You have a right against unreasonable seizure of property, unless you're a drug dealer, and in that case, the government takes your house. We have a freedom from state-sponsored religion, but our money has the words "In God We Trust" engraved on it. You have the right to own a firearm, unless you have been convicted of a violent crime. The Constitution was written specifically to allow for these "but" clauses, and I respectfully submit that to not budge an inch is arrogant and obstinate.
"A person held to service or labor" in one state, who escapes to another state, "shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due." Article IV, Section 2, US Constitution, 1788
Hmm...Slavery protocol in the US Constitution...does that mean we should have this slave rule today?
Not everything that was written in 1788 should be taken at face value today.
Besides, the Penn Gazette is hardly a legal document retaining our rights as Americans.
Blues Man, I would not have you disarmed, I would have you licensed. One needs a license to drive, marry, open a business, go fishing, and myriad other activities in this country. Why not for possessing a firearm? Seems to me that it would eliminate a lot of unworthy people. I find it interesting that out of the hundreds of activities that one needs a governmental license for, two of the most important go overlooked: Having a baby and owning a firearm. One would think that given the inordinate amount of truly awful parents in this country, we would have gotten around to making sure that children are not brought into the world by crack-whores and violent felons.
But I digress. A responsible person is one who can:
1) Prove his worth to the community. A crack dealer has no reason to own a firearm.
2) Prove he is knowlegable about firearm safety.
3) Prove he is proficient with the firearm.
4) Prove he is able to provide a secure place for his firearm when not using it.
In NY, it takes 10 hours and two tests to operate a motor vehicle. To buy a rifle takes fifteen to twenty minutes. Surely you don't suggest that owning a potentially destructive device should only take twenty minutes?
Every single amendment in the Bill of Rights has a "but if" or "but for" clause decided by the Supreme Court. You have freedom of speech, but not the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. You have a right against unreasonable seizure of property, unless you're a drug dealer, and in that case, the government takes your house. We have a freedom from state-sponsored religion, but our money has the words "In God We Trust" engraved on it. You have the right to own a firearm, unless you have been convicted of a violent crime. The Constitution was written specifically to allow for these "but" clauses, and I respectfully submit that to not budge an inch is arrogant and obstinate.
The existence of government encroachment in some areas does not make a compelling argument for allowing it in more. Rather ask: the government does not require a license for owning a firearm, why should it require one to, for instance, open a business or marry?
Since you think a license for exercising one's Second Amendment rights is a good idea, would you also be in favor of a Worship License? What other enumerated rights may the government infringe on in the name of the Public Weal?
fyrestarter
New member
Tamara, I'm all for less government, but not the severe lack thereof. Licenses, of any sort, exist to protect the rest of our freedoms. If one were allowed to do whatever they pleased, unchecked, well, that would amount to chaos. I can't fly a plane, not because some government entity is stifling my freedom, but because I'm not schooled in the basics of flight. A licensing authority, in this case the FAA, seeks to ascertain whether or not I am skilled in flying a plane so that I do not endanger the lives of others.
There's nothing wrong with a governing body having the authority to issue licenses for gun ownership, as long as the process is fair and equitable. What possible inconvenience could it be to take a safety / skills class lasting a few hours before purchasing a firearm? I'm not talking about national registration of firearms, as that would be an infringement on my right to privacy, but I see no harm in having a state or federal licensing body conducting classes for firearm ownership.
There's nothing wrong with a governing body having the authority to issue licenses for gun ownership, as long as the process is fair and equitable. What possible inconvenience could it be to take a safety / skills class lasting a few hours before purchasing a firearm? I'm not talking about national registration of firearms, as that would be an infringement on my right to privacy, but I see no harm in having a state or federal licensing body conducting classes for firearm ownership.
Actually licensing of pilots, doctors et al. is, at best, a means to make identifying SAFE people to go to for assistence in their specialty easier (you personally don't have to check their credentials and experience).
At worst, it is a way for a specialist group to lobby the government to use their power to establish a monopoly. For example....
Need your teeth cleaned? No pain noticed? You really only need a dental TECH.
BUT you have to pay to see the DENTIST for 5 minutes (billable at an hour)so he can double check the tech. Who happens to be trained and qualified to refer you to a dentist if they think something MIGHT require one.
THAT is a scam, brought to you by the helpful folks over at the ADA.
AMA, ABA and most trade unions are no better, at worst.
Course, without personal responsibility and rational liability laws, it won't change.
At worst, it is a way for a specialist group to lobby the government to use their power to establish a monopoly. For example....
Need your teeth cleaned? No pain noticed? You really only need a dental TECH.
BUT you have to pay to see the DENTIST for 5 minutes (billable at an hour)so he can double check the tech. Who happens to be trained and qualified to refer you to a dentist if they think something MIGHT require one.
THAT is a scam, brought to you by the helpful folks over at the ADA.
AMA, ABA and most trade unions are no better, at worst.
Course, without personal responsibility and rational liability laws, it won't change.
Fred Hansen
New member
Of course you don't. You also don't see any harm in people being harassed over their clothing color choices. In fact, I'll bet the ranch that you don't see that in places where we live in freedom, we don't have gangbanger scum, or any of the other problems that plague sewers like (insert your favorite urban area here) do.
Could it be because we spend ZERO time on running other people's lives for them through busybody government intrusion? Could it be that Latin Kings and their ilk prefer to prey upon people who "see no harm" versus trying to prey on people with an ingrained sense of personal responsibility?
I wonder... if I were a Latin King, would I be better served to prey upon people in a place that counted on police to hassle me about my wardrobe, or would I have more success in a place where an ordinary person has the freedom to blow my brains out for assaulting them? Boy, that is a tough one to figure out.
Nah! Must be a complete coincidence that every place that has a law for everything is corrupt, rife with violence, unlivable, etc...
New Yawk, D.C., Baahstun, Los Anghellees, etc... the other white meat. I'll stay at the TOP of the food chain thank you!
You folks in NY feel free (get it?) to do things your way. I promise to steer clear of the east coast as much as humanly possible. Freedom's too much fun to spend time away from it. Have fun now ya hear?
fyrestarter
New member
Yes, Fred, it is. Look, I'm not the biggest fan of NY, but having lived here for twenty-five years, I can say without too much hyperbole, that NY is the center if the known universe. All of the world's decisions are made in NY, and with that power comes the money. More financial transactions are handled everyday in NY than anywhere else in the world, from billion-dollar stock deals to the sale of $1.50 hot dogs. The promise and temptation of all that money is what leads to crime and corrupttion.
Gangs and other criminals exist solely to take what you have. Why would there be Latin Kings, Crips or Bloods in a city that's not NY, LA, Boston, or Chicago? Woudln't they go where 1) the money is, and 2) to a place with a dense population? Crips can't sell drugs in a town of 500 because there aren't enough people in town to make any money. Latin Kings won't mug anyone in a small, midwestern town because they've got nowhere to run and hide after the crime.
A couple of years back, Sheila Nevins made a great documentary for HBO called "Banging in Little Rock", about Arkansas gangs. What I'm reminded of today is that gangs operate in every small town in the US, and all of them have weapons. What makes gangs in NY different than gangs in Little Rock is that if a gang member in NY is stopped with a firearm, he goes to jail, while if the same happens to one in Little Rock, nothing happens because Arkansas is a shall-issue state, and there is nothng stopping an 18-year old gang-banger from walking into a gun store and buying a Glock 23. Bangers in NY don't have Glocks. They have crappy little .25 Ravens and Jennings. Why? Because it's so difficult for them to obtain a quality firearm illegally. A glock on the street in the Bronx goes for $1000. That same gun in Arkansas is $400. Guess which gang member is going to own one?
What's the solution? Make illegal gun ownership a severe crime. A cop stops someone (legally of course, with reasonable suspicion), and he's carrying a gun. Now if that person can't produce a license for that gun, he should go to jail for five years. Responsible citizens who have taken and passed the licensing tests will have no problem, whereas the goblins will go directly to jail without passing GO. A mandatory five year sentence for illegal firearm possession will go a long way towards curbing gun violence in cities large and small. I can't for the life of me figure out why a responsible, intelligent person would oppose that. No one is saying to take away your guns, as we have a Second Amendment right to own them. But the Constitution does not make blanket statements; as I have pointed out before, there are many "but" clauses to all Amendments. You want to drive, get a license, you want to fish, get a license, you want to shoot, get a license.
And to those people who will continually come up with ridiculous conditionals like "What if you're carrying matches and gasoline? Should we license them too?", we already have laws on the books about carrying flammables. It's illegal in NYC to carry a can of gasoline around. I don't know the laws in Deer Lick, Nebraska, so the question is moot.
Fred Hansen
New member
You're entitled to your fantasy life. Those of us living in small towns know better.
fyrestarter
New member
I was just perusing the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, and it seems that for the year 2001, the percentage of armed robberies committed with a firearm in the Northeast, which arguably has the strongest gun control laws, was around 34.6%. In the Midwest, where gun laws are softer, it was 45.1%, and the South, 46.9%. So in regions where it is easier to buy a firearm, more armed robberies are commited WITH a firearm. Does this mean that guns cause crime? Of course not. It merely correlates criminal behavior with accessiblity of firearms. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to wager that if the southern and midwestern states had a licensing procedure behind firearm ownership, that percentage would go down. Conversely, if it were easier in Northeastern states (NY and MA, for instance) for responsible people to carry firearms for personal defense, the overall numbers would go down as well.
Read for yourself if you still think I'm living in a fantasy world:
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics
Maybe it just correlates bank robbers to where more easily robbed banks are. Let's face it, it's harder to rob a big city bank with a gun. How many banks in Ohio and Georgia are Plexiglas fortresses as compared to in NY and MA? Many more banks in urban areas have extreme security measures in place than do those in suburban and rural areas. The Northeast has a far greater part of the population centered in these urban areas than do the Southeast or Midwest. In all likelihood then, there exist, fewer easily robbable (open-planned suburban and rural) banks there. Also, many bank robbers work in sprees, robbing several banks over a short period of time. This is difficult to accomplish successfully in the confines of a city. Besides, the Midwest arguably has harsher gun laws than the Northeast when it comes to carrying. Michigan just adopted "shall issue" laws less than two years ago, Ohio within the last year. Iowa is "may issue," and Kansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Illinois still deny the right to carry entirely. I think the answer has nothing to do with accessibility to guns, but accessibility to ripe targets.