Detained for Open Carry (Guy owns officers)



Where I live your much better off doing what the police say to do. They deal with so many idiots here on a daily basis I can see why they might be a little short.

I have seen first hand what happens when you fight with them and then talk shit and do not listen to there commands, quite a show.
 
By your rationale, the police should be able to stop you anytime, without any good reason. 1984 anyone?

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.
 
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?


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.
 
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?

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. Does that answer your question, Susie?
 
why Americans think that a) it's OK to carry a gun (or any other deadly weapon)

See History, Ancient through Modern. Pay particular attention to governments killing lots and lots of people. You'll see more than a few references.

and b) that cops shouldnt be able to demand a permit?
See Amendments, Second and Fourth.

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.

Absolutely. And the cop did all right except as someone upthread said he doesn't even know the laws he's enforcing. The conversation should have gone like this:

Hey, we received a call from someone who is concerned that you're carrying open in public.

Oh. Well, I'm sorry they feel that way but it is my right.

Yes, yes it is indeed.

*crickets*

You have a good day and be safe OK?

Will do, thanks officer.
 
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.
So if they don't know the law, they should just do whatever they feel like?

Also, if they can't know the laws, then we probably can't know the laws.

For the vast majority they do the best that they can to keep the peace and protect and serve our citizens.
First of all, there are no citizens. That's a myth that a "citizen" exists in America.

Second of all, don't believe the fairytales. The job of the cops is to maintain compliance with the system and to prevent any competing agencies or firms from emerging to challenge the system.

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.
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.

Now I know you have never been arrested.
 
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.

so youre totally happy with them assuming all the power in the world. works out for you, because in this case, theyre on your side. some day your opinion might differ from theirs, and then youre the one complaining. big government is big because of two faced attempts at producing "just the right amount" of oppresion like this. theyll always find some piece of shit approving of the latest policy they shelled out. even the most obscure. two weeks from now they stop you for drunk driving and you create your very own whiny thread because thats not something they should have been able to do. you werent even carrying a deadly weapon.
 
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.

American cops are pieces of shit. But our citizens are also pieces of shit...so I'm not sure who's to blame for the way our cops behave.
 
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.

I like to spread jam on my cheese with a loaded handgun while I fuck dudes in the ass.
 
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.


I dunno, it may be in society's best interest to stop and check out a motherfucker eating cheese with jam...I sure don't want anyone like that walking around my neighborhood.
 
Because people that are not prelaw dont talk like that.

You're assuming that. He could just be a well informed citizen. Believe it or not those do exist. Especially when it comes to firearms and open carry.
 
See History, Ancient through Modern. Pay particular attention to governments killing lots and lots of people. You'll see more than a few references.

It's easier to let you guys kill each other. Meanwhile, I'm sure some wannabe lawyer with a gun on display is going to stop his government from killing lots of people.
 
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.


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.
 
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.

yeah that's it in a nutshell. And there's a good chunk of libertarian principle in there too, 'free people can carry guns because they're free people and fuck you and any argument you have against that'

American police are a lot more authoritarian.
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.
 
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.

Thanks for a sensible reply :)