Detained for Open Carry (Guy owns officers)

rusvik said:
Pretty weird to be walking around with a gun on your belt. Sends out a weirdo message to be honest. This isn't Bluff, Alaska in the gold rush lol. Probably some dweeb who feels powerful. I can understand carrying a gun for self defense, particularly if you live around minorities, but open carry just seems douchy.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that view if it was just as easy to legally concealed carry as it is open carry.
 


schockergd said:
Are cars deadly weapons? Yes, they can be.
Are baseball bats deadly weapons? Yes, they can be.
Are screw drivers bats deadly weapons? Yes, they can be.
Are fists deadly weapons? Yes, they can be.

So , if police had the 'right' to investigate everyone carrying something that could be used as a deadly weapon, then you have a major problem.

On top of that, during hunting season all across the US it's common practice to carry a firearm. While driving around on any given shotgun season day in my area, I'll see no less than 50 to 100 individuals carrying around shotguns or handguns. Hunting and firearms are just part of the lifestyle in the US, just like it is in Switzerland.

The problem is, many people in the US now grow up in heavily urban areas and see firearms as only good for killing people, and nothing else. Because of this they feel that everyone who owns or carries a gun must be up to no good and therefor attempt to use the law to suppress people who exercise their right to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...


just because you are fuckin hillbillies tho. theres no such thing in normal civilized places.
 
scottspfd82 said:
It turned out best cased scenario, but all it would take is someone dropping a pill in my car, or even the cop planting some shit to put me away. It may sound paranoid but there's a lot of people in prison who thought they had "nothing to worry about".
Click to expand...

It pays to be paranoid when it comes to cops (just don't let 'em see you sweat). At least one department in California uses hard-to-trace firearms as "planters." How do I know this fun fact? Because it was confirmed in confidence by a police officer in that department. Moreover, it is simple to do, at least in that department.

When someone says, "police don't really do that stuff," I chuckle. It's pure ignorance on display. It's like talking to a woman whose husband has been banging other chicks for years, and hearing her say, "my husband would NEVER cheat on me." (haha. Okay lady.)

Regarding your tattoo... next time, here's the conversation:

Cop: Cool tattoo. What does it mean?

You: Thanks. It's tribal for "cops are heroes."
 
rusvik said:
open carry just seems douchy.
Click to expand...
You must have missed I2E's post earlier.

There is nothing douchy about walking around openly armed. It lets people know that fucking with you comes with consequences.

Incentives like danger and injury are something every human understands.
 
trickykid said:
Question:
If police are useless, why not abolish the police force?

Surely if enough people support this, it can get passed?
Click to expand...

you surely must have heard of at least 1 revolution against a medieval ruler that has let to not insignificant bloodshed?

governments wont go down without a fight. just like its human resources job to protect the firm against its employees, its the polices job to protect government against its citizens.
 
trickykid said:
Question:
If police are useless, why not abolish the police force?

Surely if enough people support this, it can get passed?
Click to expand...

The image of the police officer has become synonymous with "law and order". It would be extremely difficult for anyone to be elected to public office on a platform of reduced police presence, because their opponent would paint them as being "soft on crime".

One thing Americans hate, is something that's soft.

Unless it's ice cream, we like that.
 
JakeStratham said:
It pays to be paranoid when it comes to cops (just don't let 'em see you sweat). At least one department in California uses hard-to-trace firearms as "planters." How do I know this fun fact? Because it was confirmed in confidence by a police officer in that department. Moreover, it is simple to do, at least in that department.

When someone says, "police don't really do that stuff," I chuckle. It's pure ignorance on display. It's like talking to a woman whose husband has been banging other chicks for years, and hearing her say, "my husband would NEVER cheat on me." (haha. Okay lady.)

Regarding your tattoo... next time, here's the conversation:

Cop: Cool tattoo. What does it mean?

You: Thanks. It's tribal for "cops are heroes."
Click to expand...

Good point. Even if only 0.1% of cops plant guns (I have no idea what % it is), since the consequences are so grave for you, it makes sense to be concerned about it.
 
IceToEskimos said:
The image of the police officer has become synonymous with "law and order". It would be extremely difficult for anyone to be elected to public office on a platform of reduced police presence, because their opponent would paint them as being "soft on crime".

One thing Americans hate, is something that's soft.

Unless it's ice cream, we like that.
Click to expand...

But how would their opponent even be able to paint them as being "soft on crime" if THE PEOPLE are the ones who want the reduced police presence?

If the overwhelming majority WANT a reduced police force, would it not be political suicide to base your campaign on an increased force?
 
guerilla said:
Rights don't exist. They are a logically incoherent concept.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What most of us call rights are actually just privileges that can be taken away by those in power.

For instance, I have a criminal record therefore I no longer have a right to bear arms. Ever. Not for protection. Not for hunting. Not in a year. Not in 50 years. Therefore, was it ever really a right, or was it just a privilege like having a drivers license?

Look at every right you think you have, then ask yourself if the government can ever take it away. If they can, then what makes it a right? And if you can think of an actual right that the government can not take away, I'd love to hear about it.
 
trickykid said:
But how would their opponent even be able to paint them as being "soft on crime" if THE PEOPLE are the ones who want the reduced police presence?

If the overwhelming majority WANT a reduced police force, would it not be political suicide to base your campaign on an increased force?
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of people want to be safe. They have been conditioned to believe that more police = more safety.
 
wayn3 said:
you surely must have heard of at least 1 revolution against a medieval ruler that has let to not insignificant bloodshed?

governments wont go down without a fight. just like its human resources job to protect the firm against its employees, its the polices job to protect government against its citizens.
Click to expand...

You are blurring the lines here...a Medieval ruler would not have a police force, he would have a military force.

So, yes the lines have been blurred...is there any difference between a Countries military and their police?
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
Exactly. What most of us call rights are actually just privileges that can be taken away by those in power.

For instance, I have a criminal record therefore I no longer have a right to bear arms. Ever. Not for protection. Not for hunting. Not in a year. Not in 50 years. Therefore, was it ever really a right, or was it just a privilege like having a drivers license?

Look at every right you think you have, then ask yourself if the government can ever take it away. If they can, then what makes it a right? And if you can think of an actual right that the government can not take away, I'd love to hear about it.
Click to expand...
You're starting to sound like an anarchist bro.
 
mattseh said:
Most people don't support it. The majority of the views in this thread are held by a minority of the population.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not being American I'm just trying to make sense of the debate.

I'm not reading this thread to be critical or to try to make any point, just wan't to get a sense of what the views are.

I had the impression, based on this thread, that Americans do not feel safe, do not feel protected by the police force, and therefore would be in support of abolishing it.

Would America be able to survive without State/City police forces?

Could the (geez, don't want to say citizens) population police itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom