Police ignore another person with his 2nd Amendment right

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Someone said he was "Threatening public safety". How? I don't see the threat. The guy had people filming him in what was an obvious protest. When someone wants to kill some people they don't generally make a huge display of it. The moment you notice them it will be the sound of gunfire that grabs your attention not a waving flag.

The fear tactics are working. Now you see someone with a gun, who isn't a cop, you totally overlook "what" they are doing and just focus on the fact that they have a gun. Instantly people assume they have some nefarious intent, even when totally unfounded, as in this situation.




posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Hi guys,

Just throwing a wrench in the debate.

Is he outside of his constitutional rights, if he points the gun at people and puts his finger on the trigger (with the safety on) - even if he doesn't "intend" to shoot anyone?

What should be the reaction?

Are the police exercising their right to hold a weapon and point it at the guy?

Should they both be afraid of each other then? Everyone is exercising their rights, right? Why should anyone be afraid?



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Hi guys,

Just thought I'd add another thing here.

This reminds me of the stories of "Paul Revere".

He, and a lot of citizens had a disagreement with the British overlords... Lots of Risks and Rewards possibilities there.

There is a speech on the movie "Braveheart" (don't know about the historical accuracy of the movie - but the speech is pretty good) -
"Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!"

Not much of a fighter myself... never held a gun... too many things assessed before I decide to fight - that is a tough decision.

Not much chance of ever seeing me fight a war for the government though.... that's another story.
edit on 21-3-2014 by sensibleSenseless because: last line



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Sorry but if that dude was standing outside with a rifle like that outside in my neighborhood, it would scare me too. Kind of a stupid way to make a point and just asking for trouble imo.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

~Lucidity
Sorry but if that dude was standing outside with a rifle like that outside in my neighborhood, it would scare me too. Kind of a stupid way to make a point and just asking for trouble imo.


I feel as if you don't get it. He was protesting. You could have 100 people protesting, whether or not they have guns doesn't stop them from protesting. #, im half drunk right now and even I can identify the difference between a protest and someone who is breaking the law.

Pretty sad state of affairs when I can be DRUNK and still use more common sense than some of you.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Bundy

~Lucidity
Sorry but if that dude was standing outside with a rifle like that outside in my neighborhood, it would scare me too. Kind of a stupid way to make a point and just asking for trouble imo.


I feel as if you don't get it. He was protesting. You could have 100 people protesting, whether or not they have guns doesn't stop them from protesting. #, im half drunk right now and even I can identify the difference between a protest and someone who is breaking the law.

Pretty sad state of affairs when I can be DRUNK and still use more common sense than some of you.


Seems to me that a group of people on the street with signs is a protest. One guy on the street with a rifle does not immediately suggest protest. Nobody was violating his rights. The police were responding to reports of a man with a gun. Period.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   

freedomSlave
yet again no respect for anyone but himself .

still some people wonder why there is a a gun debate going on down there . Legal or not who in their right mind is gonna feel safe with their kids outside with some moron on his lawn with a rifle.


I agree with you. I'd like to add....
for me, the only reason to pull out a loaded weapon is if the weapon was going to be used. his hesitation to put the firearm down when prompted by the police officer could have ended poorly for this guy. the guy with the gun was lucky that day. now he poked the bear. every time he gets a speeding ticket, stopped for jay walking, or even stopped for spitting on the sidewalk, the local police will have their hands on their firearms.

common sense rules for firearms:

1. always handle a gun as though it is loaded
2. the safety is a man made device that can fail at any time.
3. never put live ammunition in a firearm unless you are ready to use it at that very moment.
4. if a police officer says, "PUT THAT GUN DOWN!" you do it.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
That dude is a straight up attention whore...Look I own 6 Guns,but I won't stand in my yard holding one of them.. Rule # 1 stay under the radar...That dumb ass just brought a whole lot of unwanted attention to himself..



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Kangaruex4Ewe
Whilst I do love me some 2nd amendment.... This guy is lucky that the coroner didn't have to come and scrape brain matter off of the grass in front of his house. I am surprised the cop didn't shoot him after asking him to put the gun down and him refusing to do so. It happens these days, I almost expected it here.

I am not sure if this guy was stupid, brave, or insane for taking the risk at all. I do applaud his passion and willingness to stand up for what he believes in and bringing attention to the matter though.
He may have been able to do it in a better way, sometimes egging a cop on to get a certain reaction ends up a bad deal for both parties.


The fact that you thought that, shows exactly WHY these actions are needed. People and LEs especially need to understand that people are allowed to do this and that they ARE NOT allowed to do what they do a regular basis.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroFurrbone
 


DUH.... THAT's why they ALSO have the right to keep and bear arms, so that they can protect themselves. You think that cops stop those crazies from killing???? Do you think limiting access to certain types of firearms will stop them from killing???

No, it's those members of society that are promoting a defenseless citizenry that are the problem, not the people carrying guns around.

Do you honestly think that if every neighborhood got together and organized an ARMED neighborhood watch that crime would be any where NEAR as rampant as it is???

It is EVERYONE's responsibility to protect themselves and those they care about. If you care about society, then you WANT your neighbor's armed, not disarmed...

Jaden



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Onslaught2996
More shooting deaths in states with more gun owners

You would think this would be common sense. More guns equals more gun related deaths..duh.



Gun right advocates are not the brightest people on the planet, this story just proves that point. This story just shows that some people are attention whores.


Here let me explain something to you. More gun related deaths does not equal BAD!!!!!

What articles like that one fail to relate to their readers (WITH SPECIFIC INTENT IN DOING SO) is what the cause of those increased gun related deaths are, or more specifically, what TYPE of death they are.

If they want truly MEANINGFUL results, then they need to include the causes of the number of deaths. How many are accidental, how many are murders and how many are justifiable death.

If the number of justifiable deaths is what is higher in areas with more gun ownership, then that is a GOOD thing.

Until they include those numbers, it is farsical to take anything away from those articles other than you've got yourself a biased writer...

Jaden



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Bundy
 

I feel as though you feel I don't get it. Rest assured that I do and would still find it alarming.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Pathetic attention seeking idiot. The desperation is tragic. If I was a parent walking past with my kid I'd feel quite intimidated. This kind of rubbish just to prove a point is utterly pathetic.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   

jimmyx
the cop used restraint...anyone standing by a public road in a dense housing neighborhood with a rifle is....duh....going to be viewed as having hostile intentions...this cop doesn't know if this guy is whacked, just got done killing his family or someone else, high on something, a cop-hating nut, a person out to commit suicide by cop.....geez....can't this guy just take some Viagra, if he feels that he's so impotent, that he has to walk around with a rifle over his shoulder?


HAving a gun in public is NO REASON for a cop to suspect hostile intentions. IF the perception is becoming that, then the PERCEPTION needs to change and the only way for that to happen is for open carry to become MUCH more common place.

The perception of your average citizen carrying a gun should be a positive one, much more positive than a cop carrying one.

Cops kill innocent people all the time these days, much more so than your average citizen who carries a gun.

I just think that open carry is MUCH better than concealed carry. People need to see that it is a positive thing.

Concealed carry prevents that from occurring because people don't realize how many people are actually carrying. Then of course you get overzealous cops like in Vegas when someone notices a concealed gun and assumes mal intent and kills someone who just wants to be able to protect himself and his.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   

freedomSlave
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

Yes I know my neighbors too good for you for reaching out . But obviously someone in that neighborhood didn't agree with the statement this guy was making about the 2nd admendment or in fact was oblivious as to what he was doing , regardless it still infringed someones right to feel safe and protected . Just because you have a right to feel safe and protected with a fire arm should cancel the right and freedoms of others where there is a shift of public perception over the decades in the western world towards fire arms and the needs for them . ETA.... With the problems of people going off the handle with public shootings was this really the best course and decision made by this guy , no probably not no respect for anyone but himself is how I see . Still people wonder why people are sketchy when some moron is on his lawn with a rifle

As I have said before I am not for an all out ban of fire arms I realize the need for hunting and sport regardless how hard people here seem hard to portray .

Good for you girl I bet she is a great shot, bonding is important with our kids you go to a shooting range I have other interests/ hobbies I share with my kids , bet she could out guitar you
Not really sure why you brought that up though .
edit on 19/3/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)


I don't give TWO #s about yours or anyone's PERCEPTION of the need of firearms, there IS a need. More so when society becomes lethargic towards government and thinking that government is the cureall, than when you have a vigilant, involved citizenry.

She can't out guitar me, or out shoot me, or out pool me, or probably out anything me.

The second amendment is SO far from about hunting and sport it's pathetic. IT is for ONE thing, for the citizenry to be armed against an overreaching government. Of course, you'll think, what is an AR going to do against an overreaching government??? That, one, is an argument for lessened restrictions on firearms, not more, and, two, you have NO idea what is available to a citizenry in America beyond AR's and AR's in that scenario are MORE than enough.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Generally am not a fan of the police, but they behaved EXCEEDINGLY well here. This guy appears to be armed with some sort of assault rifle, standing near a street in a residential neighborhood. Moreover, he wasn't practicing good gun safety because his rifle was pointing sub-horizontally; if he had just fired by mistake, he could have hurt or killed people 10's of blocks away, given a line of site. Contrary to what the officer said, holding the gun upwards (vertically) is no terribly safe either; again, even if shots were fired unintentionally, they could come down and still harm or kill innocent bystanders (as it turns out, falling bullets have nearly the same velocity as when they are fired). This idiot with the YouTube video is lucky that he wasn't shot outright, like kids carrying bb or air guns have been.

I'm really sick and tired of fundamentalist 2nd Amendment advocates. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, for the purposes of having a well regulated militia, people have the right to keep and bear arms. Well, what if the militia is regulated not to carry them around in unwarranted situations, like in a residential neighborhood when there is no security threat? We have the 1st Amendment, and just about everybody acknowledges that some speech is not protect, i.e. shouting "fire" in a packed auditorium. Well we can also regulate gun wielding to keep society at large safe. You can have your guns at home, and even take them in your vehicle with you, but carrying them around on the streets, into bars, churches, schools, banks, other businesses, etc. can be regulated/proscribed.

Clearly we already have laws that proscribe the ownership of various arms, i.e. automatic rifles, machine guns, modern artillery, rocket-propelled grenades, recoil-less rifles, bazookas, flamethrowers, etc. Hence there can be laws that also limit the carrying around of arms.

Yeah, you can keep and bear arms, but having that right can also involve some responsibility. If you can't handle that responsibility then your arms can be taken away. The clown in this video is exhibit A of someone who can't handle the responsibility of keeping and bearing arms.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

MrInquisitive
Generally am not a fan of the police, but they behaved EXCEEDINGLY well here. This guy appears to be armed with some sort of assault rifle, standing near a street in a residential neighborhood. Moreover, he wasn't practicing good gun safety because his rifle was pointing sub-horizontally; if he had just fired by mistake, he could have hurt or killed people 10's of blocks away, given a line of site. Contrary to what the officer said, holding the gun upwards (vertically) is no terribly safe either; again, even if shots were fired unintentionally, they could come down and still harm or kill innocent bystanders (as it turns out, falling bullets have nearly the same velocity as when they are fired). This idiot with the YouTube video is lucky that he wasn't shot outright, like kids carrying bb or air guns have been.

I'm really sick and tired of fundamentalist 2nd Amendment advocates. Here's the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, for the purposes of having a well regulated militia, people have the right to keep and bear arms. Well, what if the militia is regulated not to carry them around in unwarranted situations, like in a residential neighborhood when there is no security threat? We have the 1st Amendment, and just about everybody acknowledges that some speech is not protect, i.e. shouting "fire" in a packed auditorium. Well we can also regulate gun wielding to keep society at large safe. You can have your guns at home, and even take them in your vehicle with you, but carrying them around on the streets, into bars, churches, schools, banks, other businesses, etc. can be regulated/proscribed.

Clearly we already have laws that proscribe the ownership of various arms, i.e. automatic rifles, machine guns, modern artillery, rocket-propelled grenades, recoil-less rifles, bazookas, flamethrowers, etc. Hence there can be laws that also limit the carrying around of arms.

Yeah, you can keep and bear arms, but having that right can also involve some responsibility. If you can't handle that responsibility then your arms can be taken away. The clown in this video is exhibit A of someone who can't handle the responsibility of keeping and bearing arms.





as it turns out, falling bullets have nearly the same velocity as when they are fired).


You can't make it past your first paragraph without exuding ignorance on the subject and an apparent misunderstanding of physics.

Usually when bullets are fired into the air they travel back to earth at terminal velocity. I need not do the math to explain how a 5.56 mm bullet fired at nearly 3000 feet per second falls much much slower than that.

Unless I missed the memo.


Apparently you misunderstand the words "well regulated" as written. Once again I refuse to describe the true meaning as to not reward your blatant laziness for not understanding the proper terminology.

You have EVERY right to your opinion. However that opinion is not substantiated by ignorant folly.





top topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join