It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shreveport Citizens Disarmed By Police For 2nd Amendment Bumper Stickers

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sloppy
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


You think taking your guns away is going to solve anything? Take a look at my country (England), guns are illegal over here but we probably have just as many shootings. I envy your guns. Its the only thing that keeps you safe from internal threats.


Bless you for recognizing that fact.

Many feel the time for gun ownership is past. I am not one of them. So long as the government retains the right to eliminate habeus corpus, can secretly rendition anyone and are allowed to trample on the rights we claim as our civic strength, I think it's clear that the state is not to be trusted with unilateral power over law-abiding citizens - based on presumed guilt.




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg

Getting rid of guns won't stop that. However, it will stop people from killing each other with such an effective and simple tool.


I totally understand your POV. It's frustrating as hell to see some retarded crackhead dropout cause a death with a gun.


What that something is, I don't know, but guns are clearly being misused every day, and people die because of that.


You're not alone.



Maybe the solution is mandatory safety training? Maybe it's mandatory licensing?


Laws already on the books in most places. Ironically the places with these laws are the crime-ridden cities and highly populated crime-ridden states. Not ironically, since the inaction of mandatory training and licensing the crime has gotten much worse and continues to rise. I am one of those instructors for an area that required mandatory training and the folks who go in for the training are typically people who have been around guns for generations and frankly dont need any training. The ghetto-trash crackheads arent coming in for training.



Maybe it's a big fat tax on guns, so people can't go buy 3 of them on a months salary?


Right, because keeping guns away from poor people is a good idea. Poor people, often living in poor neighborhoods, often with high instances of robbery, shouldnt have the means to defend themselves. Nothing like a little government mandated classism.



I don't know. I would just like to see some preventative measures taken to stop people from shooting each other.


I dont mean this to be offensive in anyway and you've shown that you're giving this a lot more thought than most of the "anti-gun" crowd does but I bet (because you arent personally involved with firearms) that you're largely ignorant of gun law. I think you'll find every last one of your ideas as to how to reduce crimes involving guns has been implemented and then some. The end result has been increased crime nationwide. The fact of the matter is that no regulation, legislation or ban will ever in any way alter the behavior of those who live outside of the law. The law only works to regulate the behavior of those who abide by the law. There's no escaping that.

If you wish to keep brainstorming or want to know what the laws are like in certain areas and how their crime levels are keep on posting and asking. Maybe you will really come up with a workable solution. Something other than knee-jerk assinine bannings that our politicians and gun-ignorants keep coming up with like a ban on barrel shrouds.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Where is your proof?

I'll bite. Show me the statistics.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I hate to agree -- but I do. i've been to Shreveport many times on business. And well, it's a little "rough" to say the least.

That's the age-old problem. How do you allow responsible citizens to carry/own weapons while preventing potential thugs from doing the same? And does the area in which one resides have any effect on how those guns are used?

Is there a double-standard? Is it OK for a rancher living on 100 acres to walk around with a shotgun, but not a guy living in a city apartment in say, Detroit? Who would get to make that determination?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Well, I could speak from experience and having watched crime skyrocket in my once home state of CT but that's just hearsay to you.

I can point you to a previous ATS thread:

Kennesaw v Morton Grove

Then there's the ongoing examples of Chicago and D.C. who have essentially had all out bans and have only seen crime skyrocket.

At best bans and the like have no impact and at worst they seem to have the reverse impact.

There's this study from the Harvard Society of Law:

Would banning guns reduce murder/suicide?

I just realized that link is only to an abstract. Here is the full text in PDF format:

HJL Study

[edit on 8-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Sounds like their boat-anchor-in-chief didn't know the particulars of the stop because if you have a valid CCW and are carrying it in a legal manner there is nothing they can charge you with based on those items. As for the whole thing about notifying the police that you are carrying I fully support this as they will know anyway once they run your info (which is pretty common for traffic stops) and tend to take offense to not being notified. My state doesn't require notification but the one and only time I've had an encounter with LEO while carrying I told them up front and the officer was openly appreciative of the fact.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree with the Harvard Journal of Law report. It makes a lot of sense -- socioeconomic factors lead to violence, not guns.

So, the way to reduce crime is through welfare
. Maybe we can pay for it with a gun tax for irony purposes



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Liberty and freedom are just plain messy and chaotic. When people have freedom they have the right to choose their own way. If you want order and everyone doing exactly as they are told you have to seriously limit freedom and liberty. (see Fascism)

I would rather have my messy and chaotic freedom and liberty then your orderly and peaceful fascist state thank you very much.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by UFOTECH]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
In case any of you are interested, below is a hyperlink to the NRA-ILA list of USA mayors that have joined NYC Mayor Bloomberg's "Anti-Gun Mayors Coalition"

ANTI-GUN MAYORS IN USA


I encourage ANY of you that value your Second Amendment rights to join the NRA and LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


Im convinced. given the behavior of individuals I have lived among, that even equalizing socioeconomic status would not reduce crime or violence. All too often the motivation for an assault, mugging, theft or murder has been stated by the criminal as "for kicks." There really is no way to combat that.

I remember back in CT all the Yalie eggheads kept claiming the "plight" of the impoverished or substance abusing for the high levels of crime in the city. The best day was when a Yale faculty member got punched out riding his bike and the assailant rode off with it. When he was caught the assailant said he did it because it "fun." That faculty members little ivory league world crumbled at that moment. You could see his life built on ignorant perceptions shatter and fade away. Reality means nothing to this "elite" class who feel so fit to subject us to their arbitrary laws.

Give them all a million dollars and they'll steal to get two million just because they want to.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




it will stop people from killing each other
didn't stop cain, did it? no sign of intelligence here, keep movin.
sorry
that's just nieve.and very untrue.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I live in Shreveport, and I hate to be "that guy" in this thread, but I think some places, or perhaps people, in the USA really shouldn't have access to guns.

It's unsafe in Shreveport because there are a butt load of rednecks that don't like black people, and even more black people that don't like the rednecks. And they allll own guns.

Back in February of this year, somebody shot their brother dead in the parking lot of a business my father owns, and now we're being sued by the family of the dead brother. Hurray for justice?


This city stinks. The only thing keeping it afloat are the casinos, and I really wish people weren't allowed to wantonly buy firearms, as a lot of them just aren't responsible with them.


I'm afraid there are racist in every city as well as idiots. That doesn't mean you take rights away. If that was the case, no one would own a car (not that owning a car is a right) because a heck of allot more people are killed from drunk driving than by murder from a registered firearm.

Handle the idiots but leave the peoples rights alone!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I have two observations in the way of questions:

1 - At some point wouldn't they need to actually dispose of these weapons? I mean, what then, Police auction (
)? Or could it be that the best armed people in this country is slowly becoming the civil police force?

2 - Isn't it neat that we must submit to this kind of thing or be instantly assimilated by the justice system? Is that not incongruous with our Republic's stated position on freedom to bear arms? Or maybe I am being Constitutionally anal?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Maxmars]


I knew a game warden in Texas years ago who had a house full of guns.
And fishing poles ,come to think of it.
I know a retired Chicago cop who told me the finer points of ' the care and handling of throw-down guns '... I asked where you get one and he said ,' you confiscate them, dumb ass ' .

I used to think the 2nd amend. argument was stupid ( go ahead and take a shot at that A 10 Thunderbolt, tough guy )... but- now I realize after watching events in the middle east ( Lebonon ) and Iraq and elsewhere- there is always hope that you can hold out long enough and inflict enough
injury that you can prevail. Or, at least THEY won't win... not that some of these people WON- but, WE might have...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




it will stop people from killing each other
didn't stop cain, did it? no sign of intelligence here, keep movin.
sorry
that's just nieve.and very untrue.


Learn to spell, before addressing issues of other's intelligence, please.
Notonelinerandomblathernot...



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
This was an attempt to mess with the guy reagrding his veto over the police. Police revenge, lets call it. The cop probably noticed his NRA sticker, with is perfectly legal to have on yuor acr, ive known many people near me who had them on thier cars years ago. The cop prob did some qucik thinknig,a ndd found a way to disarm this guy/hurt him somehow, without using his nightstick or tazer.


Even if what you say is true, this kind of police action is OK?

I think not!




posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 
i know this ,when it all comes apart.it comes apart for them to.
i'm sure gonna be glad i wasn't a cop. if they would just pull there heads
out and think for there selves for maybe a day.they might actually realise, they've let the backstabbing politicians,get behind them for protection from us.and they've got these long ass knives in thier hands.
if we could some how wake up the cops man i think that would be the key.to all this crap.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I live in Shreveport, and I hate to be "that guy" in this thread, but I think some places, or perhaps people, in the USA really shouldn't have access to guns.


I agree completely! Criminals in prison, criminals who are out on probation, and people who are being treated in mental institutions should not have access to guns.



It's unsafe in Shreveport because there are a butt load of rednecks that don't like black people, and even more black people that don't like the rednecks. And they allll own guns.


It's sad that blind hatred so often prevails over common sense. It's strange that where I live, there are rednecks out the wazzoo. There are plenty of black people around. And there are tons of guns here... but no shootings? Hmm...



Back in February of this year, somebody shot their brother dead in the parking lot of a business my father owns, and now we're being sued by the family of the dead brother. Hurray for justice?



"Hurray for justice..." You are starting to touch upon the *REAL* problem behind gun crime in this country. The problem isn't with guns, it's with justice... Read on. ;-)



This city stinks. The only thing keeping it afloat are the casinos, and I really wish people weren't allowed to wantonly buy firearms, as a lot of them just aren't responsible with them.


Ah, but who are the ones that aren't responsible? Is it the law abiding citizens? Or is it the criminals, who - by the very fact that they are criminals - are clearly not concerned with whether or not they are "allowed" to do something?

 



Originally posted by Kaytagg

The only tyranny we have is the kind people go along with, because it's to stop terrorists, or communism, or immorality, or for the children.

In other words, it's all voluntary tyranny.



I agree completely! As a great example, look how many people want to voluntarily give up the Second Amendment rights of all Americans just to stop criminals. Because crime is terrifying, right? Do it for the children, right?



Getting rid of guns won't stop that. However, it will stop people from killing each other with such an effective and simple tool.


There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Many are cobbled together from spare parts, completely off the books. The bad guys know where to find these off-the-books guns. If somebody has criminal intent, it means they're a criminal. If they're a criminal, they probably run with the criminal crowd who knows where to get these black market guns which are far harder to trace.

You can only get rid of the legal guns. It's the illegal guns you need to worry about.




Look, I know plenty of people who own guns and use them responsibly -- but something has to be done about this minority of retards who get access to them, then run around shooting people. What that something is, I don't know, but guns are clearly being misused every day, and people die because of that.


Something HAS been done about that minority. Running around shooting people was outlawed a long time ago. Remember how earlier you were deriding the justice system? That's your real problem right there. That's what you need to do something about. We need to stop giving criminals easy sentences and second chances. There are people who get released from jail, and intentionally commit crimes so they can go back. What used to be a punishment in this country is now social time with gyms, cable TV, top-rate medical care, hot meals, library access, and in some cases even Internet. All at our expense. And best of all, since criminals have so many opportunities to interact with each other while they're in jail, it fosters gang activity and rivalries.

I agree completely though. Something has to be done about the criminals. Put them in jail, and turn jail back into a punishment. Solitary, miserable, lonely punishment. No cell mates. No "rec time." No T.V. No Internet. No fooling around. No hot meals. The criminals can get by just fine off of supplement shakes or something.

And most of all, NO MORE PLEA BARGAINS FOR VIOLENT FELONIES OR FEDERAL CRIMES! It's absolutely sick that people can get shortened sentences or even immunity from prosecution just because they turn around and snitch on their accomplices. That's ridiculous. It just puts the snivelling weasle criminals back on the streets.

Anyways... you wanted to know what can be done? Start with that. People with violent tendancies will be in jail, law abiding citizens will be out of jail with their gun rights in tact. Sounds like a win/lose situation to me, with the good guys winning and the bad guys losing - you know, the way it should be!




Maybe the solution is mandatory safety training? Maybe it's mandatory licensing? Maybe it's a big fat tax on guns, so people can't go buy 3 of them on a months salary?


All of those things are restrictions on law abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals circumvent all of that when they buy guns on the black market. It merely makes it harder and more expensive for honest, trustworthy people to exercise one of the founding rights of this country.



I don't know. I would just like to see some preventative measures taken to stop people from shooting each other.


I agree completely, but gun control isn't the right measure to take. Criminal control is the answer. Justice control, if you will.



Also, if somebody gets shot on your property, the law should be on the side of the property owner, not the victim who got shot.


The law should be on the side of the victim and the property owner. It should be against whoever was committing the crime. If a property owner has to shoot an intruder, then the owner is the victim and the intruder should be the criminal. If it's two people on somebody else's property, the law should be with the victim and the owner. In that case, justice should come down on the shooter.

Some states have something called "Castle Doctrine," where you're allowed to assume an intruder means you harm and you can't get in trouble for defending yourself.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Predictably, this thread has turned pro-gun vs. no-gun. That is an important debate, but the article this thread was written about seems to be sensational journalism.

The policeman's action and the mayor's responses seem very appropriate. As someone said earlier, the gun was never "confiscated." It was taken away from the owner and returned at the end of the stop. I have my concealed license, and this is S.O.P.

When I am stopped, my Conceal License and my Driver's license go to the officer at the same time. They always ask if I am carrying my weapon, and I always answer honestly.

Sometimes they ask me to unload it and lay it on the seat, sometimes they ask me where it is and to please keep my hands away from that area, and sometimes they ask me to get out of the vehicle, unload the weapon, and lay it on the hood.

I consider this prudent action on their part, because they do not know me or my circumstance at the moment. I may be speeding, because I just robbed a liquor store or killed my wife. Even with no criminal record, this could be the day that changes, and they are being cautious!

Nobody wants to die at work, including cops, so I commend the ones that are doing a good job, and keeping themselves and their suspects safe. No laws, including the Constitution, were broken in this incident. No rights were violated, no undue profiling occured.

If I see a redneck with a rebel flag and an NRA sticker, or a Caprice on 26's with blacked out windows, it is justified and prudent to treat those people different than the soccer mom in her minivan!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Very astute response and I agree. My CCW classes advised me that the first words out of my mouth while handing them my permit is "I have a concealed weapons permit and I am currently carrying my weapon and it is located _________"

I would expect the cop do do EXACTLY the same thing in either holding the weapon doing the stop and asking me to unload it and set it out of reach.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Well i just happen to be a citizen of Shreveport, La. and this is all bogus. The man was pulled over for not using a signal when turning which is the law here by the way. Also you don't get out of your vehicle and start walking back toward the officer after being stopped. You wait for the officer to come to your vehicle. So just the fact he got out of his vehicle and walked toward the officer made the officer suspicious and more likely to follow the "book". The officer asked him if he had been drinking and had any drugs or weapons in the car which is standard when pulling someone over. I have been pulled over a couple times by Shreveport/Bossier City cops and have been asked those questions every single time. The officer secured the weapon while he conducted his business which is allowed under the law. The man also got his weapon back so his 2nd amendment rights were not violated. As for Mayor Glover's comments well i believe he didn't formulate his wording as one would have liked but i understand what he was saying. The officer did his job within the parameters of the law and there is no conspiracy or rights violations here.

That said i bet he won't forget to use his turn signal next time so thank you officer. I can't stand people who don't use the turn signal because telling the person behind you that you are turning is not a privacy issue.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join