By your rationale, the police should be able to stop you anytime, without any good reason. 1984 anyone?
As I'm in the UK, and this whole scenario seems totally fucked up from both sides (the fact you can open carry, and the fact the cop doesnt have the right to demand a permit), could someone please explain to me, why Americans think that a) it's OK to carry a gun (or any other deadly weapon) and b) that cops shouldnt be able to demand a permit?
As I'm in the UK, and this whole scenario seems totally fucked up from both sides (the fact you can open carry, and the fact the cop doesnt have the right to demand a permit), could someone please explain to me, why Americans think that a) it's OK to carry a gun (or any other deadly weapon) and b) that cops shouldnt be able to demand a permit?
why Americans think that a) it's OK to carry a gun (or any other deadly weapon)
See Amendments, Second and Fourth.and b) that cops shouldnt be able to demand a permit?
People got concerned, called the police, and the cop was just responding to a call. It's their job. They have to investigate when a call is made.
So if they don't know the law, they should just do whatever they feel like?It means that with over 20000 local, state, federal, and international laws on the books it would be unreasonable to expect a police officer to know them all.
First of all, there are no citizens. That's a myth that a "citizen" exists in America.For the vast majority they do the best that they can to keep the peace and protect and serve our citizens.
Again, you're saying cops can do whatever because it's not fair to make them know what they are doing, and the prosecutors will sort it all out.Because it would be impossible for them to know all those laws if they believe someone is breaking one its their duty to handle the situation, and leave the prosecutors to prosecute them.
That's not my rationale. My rationale as you put it, is that the police should be able to challenge someone carrying a deadly weapon, IMO.
Random stop and searches no, requesting ID for carrying a deadly weapon yes.
Random stop and searches no, requesting ID for carrying a deadly weapon yes.
1. I've asked this before, and never gotten an answer I fully understood. You'll get a bunch of answers about Europeans being under the yoke of a socialist police state, but as far as I can tell, it's a cultural/constitutional thing. The idea is if citizens are armed, it's harder for the state to suppress them. Any attempt to infringe on the constitutional right to carry a gun is perceived by many people as an act of tyranny. There's also the self-defence angle, but given that we have lower levels of violent crime, and nobody carries guns, I'm dubious about that argument.
2. British and American police cultures are very different. We (mainly) have a culture of policing by consent - it's generally accepted that co-operating with the police is a good thing to do (if you're middle class anyway). American police are a lot more authoritarian.
But they shouldn't because it is not a crime.That's not my rationale. My rationale as you put it, is that the police should be able to challenge someone carrying a deadly weapon, IMO.
Random stop and searches no, requesting ID for carrying a deadly weapon yes.
But they shouldn't because it is not a crime.
You're saying the police should be able to stop and report people for doing legal things.
It's nonsense if you think about it.
Yes, you have an aversion to guns. I have an aversion to homosexual intercourse and people eating cheese with jam. Neither of us has boo to say about it if no crime is being committed.
But they shouldn't because it is not a crime.
You're saying the police should be able to stop and report people for doing legal things.
It's nonsense if you think about it.
Yes, you have an aversion to guns. I have an aversion to homosexual intercourse and people eating cheese with jam. Neither of us has boo to say about it if no crime is being committed.
Because people that are not prelaw dont talk like that.
See History, Ancient through Modern. Pay particular attention to governments killing lots and lots of people. You'll see more than a few references.
That's not my rationale. My rationale as you put it, is that the police should be able to challenge someone carrying a deadly weapon, IMO.
Random stop and searches no, requesting ID for carrying a deadly weapon yes.
1. I've asked this before, and never gotten an answer I fully understood. You'll get a bunch of answers about Europeans being under the yoke of a socialist police state, but as far as I can tell, it's a cultural/constitutional thing. The idea is if citizens are armed, it's harder for the state to suppress them. Any attempt to infringe on the constitutional right to carry a gun is perceived by many people as an act of tyranny.
2. British and American police cultures are very different. We (mainly) have a culture of policing by consent - it's generally accepted that co-operating with the police is a good thing to do (if you're middle class anyway). American police are a lot more authoritarian.
if citizens are armed, it's harder for the state to suppress them. Any attempt to infringe on the constitutional right to carry a gun is perceived by many people as an act of tyranny.
It's taken a while to get them that way. It wasn't always like this. A lot of the police issue magazines/pamphlets/white papers/etc. cooked up by the Rand Corporation/FBI/BATF have been conditioning cops into more and more of an us vs them, guilty until proven innocent mentality. Sad cuz cops used to be pretty cool guys back in the day from what my granddaddy tell me. Knew their history, knew the law, knew how important it was to respect rights.American police are a lot more authoritarian.
the big overbearing single reason i can tell you is that for every tiny little piece of my life that government wants to control, they have to have a very good reason for. it does not matter whether its drunken driving or public exposure or carrying a weapon or owning a weapon or being outside at 3 am in the morning at the place that is known for drug dealing. it is none of their fucking business. it is not them who has to allow me to do something. it is me who has to allow them to control something about my life. unfortunately, this principle has been turned upside down because too many morons have been led to believe that government should be able to make up rules at will.
by this argument, the issue (carrying weapon) doesnt matter. its a deadly weapon. you know what else is a deadly weapon? shoelaces. boots. if you wear some kind of charm, that could be utilized as a weapon. that might be stretching things, but the question remains: why should one not be allowed to carry a weapon?
a couple years ago, some dude went "amok" in israel. you know how the situation ended? about 2 minutes into the killing spree, he got gunned down by a civilist carrying a gun. thats it. no massive police force barricading a couple major streets producing crappy situations for half the town. situation took care of itself. because people were allowed and trained to defend themselves.
Because while we are gigantic losers and homos over here in MURKA, we can't even come close to euro levels of limp-wristed faggotry.
it is not them who has to allow me to do something. it is me who has to allow them to control something about my life.