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.

 

Cops gun down man for legally carrying firearm... WND

page: 15
76
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 


Unfortunately, as MANY of the pro gun advocates in this thread have painfully shown, some people aren't mature enough to own a firearm.

Again, gun ownership requires and demands responsibility. If you're an idiot who thinks that it's absolutely necessary to bring your firearm into the grocery store with you, there's a serious problem with your level of responsibility.

Also, if you are asked to leave private property because of your inability to understand gun ownership responsibilities. And they are forced to call the police because you simply refuse to leave, and the police actually arrive on the scene and you are still there. You have a serious problem with gun ownership responsibility.

Gun ownership is fine, it's one of the great things about living in this country. But people must understand, respect, and treat guns as the weapons they are. Guns aren't a fashion accessory, guns aren't a toy, guns aren't a political statement. Guns are a weapon. And if people simply cannot understand that. They are too immature to own a firearm and are more dangerous to society at large than the people they claim to be defending themselves against.

Like most of the pro gun people in this thread. I wouldn't trust them with a flyswatter let alone a loaded firearm. They simply don't understand that a gun isn't a licence to be a douchebag. They never will get that, and that truly saddens me. It's these people that are the primary reason that there are more and more gun restrictions on the books.

These people tout the second amendment like it's their right to be a jerk. It's not, as a gun owner it's your right to own a firearm, but it's your responsibility to treat that firearm with the respect and maturity level that a firearm demands. If you simply don't get that, then please for the safety and security of those around you, sell your firearms before you hurt or kill someone. And leave gun ownership to the grownups who truly know how to be mature around a weapon.


I had to stop reading this post as soon as I saw the part where "if you're an idiot that thinks you have to bring your gun into the grocery store with you...".

You sir are an idiot if you think it's prudent to NOT carry a gun with you wherever you go.

grocery stores are robbed, patrons are shot dead by robbers every day in this country. You need a gun anywhere you go, if you want to be able to protect yourself and your family from those who would do you or them harm.

As a gun carrier, it is your responsibility to protect everyone from a deadly threat. If I had been on site and the officer ordered him to remove his gun and he did, then he opened fire, I would've drawn and shot the cop because it is my duty to protect the man who is in danger of deadly harm.

It used to be that officers were required to be shot at first prior to being able to shoot at someone and that's the way it should be.

We have a right to keep and BEAR arms. Police officers have a duty to PROTECT that right not to gun down anyone who exercises it.

Jaden




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by lonewolf10
 


Who needs a gun? It's Costco, there's literally hundreds of different products that can be improvised into a weapon.

& don't lump me in with the Anti Gun crowd. I am pro gun, however I am anti idiot.

And that's what this guy was, an idiot.

If you think that there are crazed gunmen around every corner, and feel the need to pack heat "just in case" 9 times out of 10, you are going to end up being that crazed gunman. If you are so paranoid that you feel the need to go grocery shopping with a firearm. Chances are good that your mental health is severely compromised.

I would suggest seeking out a mental health professional, and please, don't bring your gun with you.





Again you showcase that YOU are the idiot with this moronic talk. It's not that you need your gun to go to the grocery store, it;s that you need a gun AnYWHERE and EVERYWHERE that there is a chance that you will need it.

It's not being paranoid, it's being aware. It's the morons who believe that they are safe in places where they are not, or that the police will protect them...that are delusional.

YOU SIR, are DELUSIONAL to believe that you are safe going grocery shopping. Those who responsibly bring guns with them shopping, KNOW that 999 out of a 1000 trips to the supermarket or ANYWHERE for that matter will be absolutely fine, but they are also aware that if they leave their guns in the car even 50% of the time, they are now flipping a coin on being able to protect themselves and their family in that 1 out of a 1000 time when they DO need it.

So take your delusions of reality and shove it. Also, it doesn't even matter, we have the inalienable RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by sean
Not sure why they would drop the lawsuit. If the store has a policy against guns then they can ask the person to leave. The thing is how many people walk up to the doors of the stores they are entering and actually look for a policy and read them? lol So someone saw he had a gun and they flipped out. A man armed but shopping in the store yeah that sounds like a threat alright. God some people are so freaking ignorant!!! Then the police show up and guns the guy down before he even realizes what's going on. How can they possibly call this a justified shooting of a man leaving the store after buying goods or whatever and has a permit to carry concealed?? Oh yeah that looks real good on the report. I would have sued their asses off 6 different ways to sunday.

edit on 3-6-2012 by sean because: (no reason given)


People who carry cancealed better be looking for the proper signs and better not enter if the signs are posted. That is just a part of carrying concealed. Also in most states if you have a concealed license and a cop pulls you over you must hand both the gun and driver license whether your carrying or not. These are things all that do carry know.

Policies mean nothing if the signs are not correctly posted. A policy only means they can ask you to leave if the gun is noticed. For the signs to be correct they must be the correct size, lettering, color, written in Spanish/English, proper statement and posted at all doorways. After all that is done then they are posted correctly. The normal universal "no" symbol around a gun that everyone sees means nothing.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



EHHH!!!!! wrong answer!!!!!

It is state based and there are MANY states that you don't even have to inform an officer that you conceal carry.

So learn my friend before spouting off misinformation.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs
 


THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT.

Belaboring your point in CAPS discredits you you know.


So, because I wrote that message in all caps, interpreting the Constitution is no longer the function of the Supreme Court? Do you even read what you write?


Too bad Eric Wright won't get to have his day in court, huh? He's dead.


Yes, that is too bad. He died innocent, but no one else did. I cannot speak to his intentions that day, no one else can either. A police officer struck down an armed man in a populated area after the man refused to leave when asked, and refused the lawful instructions of bonded officers of the law.


Like I said every time you reply you shovel more dirt on his name. You have no right to criminalize him here either. Like you said, it is a matter for the courts, not cops to decide culpability.


You don't actually know what bonded officer means, do you?


By the way... there are three branches of Government. Besides the Judicial, there are the Executive and Legislative. The reason all three exist his to insure that all three must review any changes to the constitution before hand. Not arbitrarily, like you do.


How am I making changes to the Constitution? As said before, one of us is citing legal precedent and the other is just chest beating. By all means, bring some legal precedent to the table that supersedes the United States Supreme Court.

By the way.. There is only one branch of government that is charged with interpreting the Constitution.


That is the way it was setup, originally. I bet you don't know that either. It was setup like that so people down the road would not take it upon themselves to shoot people in the back for no reason and then dismiss it away like you are doing.


You seem to have a 3rd grade understanding of government. Literally. Like all of your knowledge is taken out of a third grade civics text book, and you do not have the background to apply that knowledge to this situation. I don't blame you, Civics isn't really taught that well in the US.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by lonewolf10
 


If you are so paranoid that you feel the need to go grocery shopping with a firearm. Chances are good that your mental health is severely compromised.



What would I have to be paranoid about? I have a gun.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Said officer has shot and killed another suspect before because of a "perceived threat" then too. Read the story in the link.





Is it just me, or does this denizen of the gene pool's shallow end remind anyone else of Curly from the Three Stooges?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


i have a major question that hopefully can be answered. Q if i am carrying a gun and a police officer tells me if i dont put down my leagal handgun he will fire upon me. do i have the right to paint a canvass with his brain matter if he reaches for his? i mean for # sake are we really THAT cattle like to not even be able to defend ourselves or are police officers just that overpowered in this #ed country. the way i see it in my mind is that i am gonna die if i dont relenquish my human/american rights and he kills me/destroy everything our fore fathers created if i dont oblige or......i kill him and the massive man hunt for the criminal who killed an*honest officer* goes underway and i am hunted and killed like a dog. if cops are above due process then apparently we are too. im sorry grammatical and punctuation errors but im in a hurry. can a few of u well respected patriots of the human race help me here with this question. i feel we humans are in an advanced technological DARK AGE and reversing every good thing humans have accomplished by the day. love to my fellow earth inhabitants......



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jough626
 


well spoken haha



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
yeah some one needs to be fired, the person who killed the guy, and his family should sue the pd for wrongful death. its bs that cops are so trigger happy, the guy had a gun but was not waving t around like a mad man.

one other thing, these stores with no gun sings what are they going to do when some one gets robbed or killed out side in the parking lot? they had to leave there gun in there car cus of a no gun sing on the front door.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I read the referenced links. This man pulled the gun out to aim at the officer. That's a different story altogether. Might want to go back to page 1 and read the links. It happened 2 years ago. Being a veteran/West Point grad does not give him the right to point his weapon at the officer. I am a grad, too, and I don't carry and I don't point.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
No one here is saying you can't have a gun, what they are saying is, use some judgement where you choose to carry your firearm. A responsible gun owner would know this.


Actually, my comment was in response to OutcastSearcher who asked why anyone would "need" to carry a weapon into a grocery store. He never implied no one should carry a weapon at all nor did my reply indicate a response to such. I just explained that "need" was not the question at hand but rather the right or specifically in this case the man's license to carry means he can carry anywhere (not otherwise restricted by law) within the State he so chose - without regard to the perceived need of others.


Originally posted by HauntWok
Here's a pro-tip for you, police do not have transporters. They cannot arrive instantly on the scene once called. It takes time for police to receive a dispatch, respond, and arrive on the scene. So, exactly how long does it take one to leave private property?


From the OP’s article:

He informed the employee that he was legally carrying the gun and was in possession of a valid Nevada concealed weapons permit, but was informed that Costco has a policy against carrying firearms in their stores.
A brief argument ensued, some raised voices and obvious frustration on Scott’s part, but witnesses said it didn’t seem like a big deal. They saw nothing particularly threatening about the incident or the clean-cut, good looking young man. The store manager who had spoken with Scott seemed satisfied by Scott’s reassurance that he was a legal firearm carrier and would be finished with his shopping in a few minutes. But a store Loss Prevention Officer called the police and reported that an armed man was behaving erratically in the store.



Originally posted by HauntWok
Exactly how long should it take one to leave private property once asked? Obviously this guy took his sweet time about it, because according to the article he was at the entry when police arrived and confronted him. So, tell me again about leaving private property once asked.


Seems to me that he and the store manager had reached some kind of understanding that he could finish his shopping them leave. However, the loss prevention employee described a man explaining that his possession of a firearm was legal in this case with a raised voice as “behaving erratically”. The loss prevention employee used specific terms that he knew would invoke an immediate and hostile response from the police. I’m guessing he envisioned himself some kind of hero – probably a wana-be cop or Soldier who was too fat or stupid to be either. He is in my opinion the one who is responsible for this man’s death.


Originally posted by HauntWok
Interesting, so, does your local grocery store have a lot of violent vegetables that warrant the need for firearms? Perhaps they have a shoot and dress butcher in the back and you pick out your own cow. Perhaps your concern is with aggressive breakfast cereals.


While I will give you an A for wittiness and humor you know this to be hyperbole.


Originally posted by HauntWok
As a person who has owned several firearms in my lifetime, I have to say I am truly concerned about the juvenile attitude towards firearm ownership shown in this thread.
Firearms are not toys. Firearms are not a all access pass to act like a douchebag. Firearms are not a fashion accessory. They are a weapon. One that can potentially be deadly if in the wrong hands, for instance in the hands of idiots who feel that a trip to the grocery store warrants small arms. Or morons who think that private property means nothing if you have more firepower than the people with authority over that private property.


I do hope it is not me to whom you are referring. The whole point of a concealed carry permit is to have the weapon on you, loaded and ready for use without regard to your location.

The point of being vetted and applying for the license (and going through the training) is so that the authorities can determine if the applicant is a responsible citizen who knows that while he may carry a weapon he has to demonstrated some understanding of proper weapon safety, marksmanship and judgment so that if he ever does have to use it he doesn’t endanger others. A weapon in a holster is no danger to anyone. Also, I my particular case I can tell you I have more weapons training than any law enforcement officer being a retired Army Special Forces Officer. I have carried a weapon of some kind (and always at least one sidearm) both in and out of uniform for more than half of my life.

(continued)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
(con't from above)

I have taken more life than I care to with firearms, bombs from aircraft, and artillery, thankfully I have never had to use a firearm in self defense against another American citizen.

However, If you are somehow accusing me of not having a healthy respect for the lethality of firearms I assure you I fully comprehend their lethality and would not hesitate to use one for the defense of myself, my family or even a stranger in a grocery store, on the street, or in a movie theater, or any other place you would consider a weapon unnecessary. I carry a firearm every single day everywhere I go. Because I can – I have a license to do so. I have been properly trained checked and vetted. Your perceived “need” or that of others is completely irrelevant to me.

In most States I believe retired LEO’s automatically are granted a CCW. This I believe should also apply to Soldiers when they are discharged/retire. They are properly trained and have demonstrated proper safe handling on a daily basis. If a Soldier or LEO can carry a weapon for years FOR their government (be it local, State or Federal) they should be able to carry one IN America. That includes to the grocery store if they so choose.


Originally posted by HauntWok
I believe that CCW laws, and open carry laws are a good thing. I believe that people SHOULD have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't however think that right gives them the obligation to act like nincompoops. If you are asked to leave private property, and you hang around long enough that the police actually arrive and you aren't long gone, there's something seriously wrong with you.


Again – see above from article seems he and the manager had made some kind of agreement – the police were called needlessly causing the escalation of a misunderstanding into a lethal confrontation.


Originally posted by HauntWok
When the police arrive, and you are still there, the correct way to handle the situation where everyone is armed is to be very very passive. Especially when the police know your armed. It's time to play it real cool and calmly obey every order given by the police till the situation is straightened out. It's not time to argue or "be a man" it's time to listen and shut your mouth.


Seems to me he did what the officer instructed him to do – the gun was still in its holster when the CSI guys showed up….
www.lasvegassun.com...


As customers were exiting the warehouse shopping club, Mosher, with his gun drawn, watched the entryway.
---
...after homicide detectives responded to the scene and began investigating the officer-involved shooting, a number of items were recovered outside the store: Several shell casings, a cell phone, and a 9mm Kimber semiautomatic handgun.

The handgun was still in its holster.
---
Scott’s family has been openly critical of the inquest process. Following Thursday’s proceedings, their attorney, Ross Goodman, spoke with reporters about Mosher’s testimony.

“What you heard today was the best that the state has to offer. They cherry picked their witnesses,” Goodman said. “And officer Mosher said a .45-caliber gun was in the holster on the ground.”

“So how could he have pulled his gun out and pointed it at anybody? In fact, what you heard today is that Erik Scott was leisurely walking out. He wasn’t posing a threat to anybody; he didn’t make any aggressive movements.”
---
“In fact, he instructed Erik Scott to drop the gun,” Goodman said. “So Erik Scott apparently took out the holster with the gun in it and it fell on the ground.

“Mosher’s going to remember whatever he wants to remember. The fact of the matter was that Erik Scott was surrounded by three officers. He turned around. He was compliant, according to officer Mosher. He was told to drop the gun and he did exactly that.




Originally posted by HauntWok
It's all how you handle it. And this guy didn't handle it correctly, and he got himself a lead sandwich.


No – it’s all in how the people in America are programmed to be afraid of guns and that started the whole thing for all he knew the man who saw the gun in the first place he could be an off duty cop. He wasn’t brandishing he was shopping. Is COSTCO somehow more competent to judge the mental stability, training and criminal history than the State that issued the man his CCW? No – then why the sign. Because they know guns scare people and they don’t want to “offend” their customers. IMO Costco shouldn’t be able to second guess the licensing process for CCW. I will never shop there…


edit on 3/6/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
When the cops are criminals who do you call?

Who or what department of government supervises the police?
There has to be something can be done about this.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Said officer has shot and killed another suspect before because of a "perceived threat" then too. Read the story in the link.





Is it just me, or does this denizen of the gene pool's shallow end remind anyone else of Curly from the Three Stooges?


i haven't met a cop yet that didn't remind me of one of the three stooges. lulz

gotta luv the few po po's trying to defend the other slime ball popo.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


I did say "in most states", but you are right it is state by state...oh BTW don't be so condescending with your post...I'm not spouting off and I did say those that carry they will know their states laws.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 



From the OP’s article:


That's the first problem people are having in this thread, this comes from the exact same website that time and time again has been busted for falsely reporting about Obama's birth certificate and have ran many many misleading and erroneous stories over it's time.

Believing anything that comes out of WND without checking other sources is going to give you a warped sense of the situation. I personally don't believe the WND article at all. I feel it deliberately distorted the facts in order to paint the situation other than what it really was.

For instance, it's been established that Costco has a no gun policy for it's property. The store manager would enforce this. And I don't believe for a second they had a rational discussion where the store manager allowed this man to violate store policy and continue shopping. And then the rogue loss prevention officer went and called the cops on his own. It doesn't add up. Not in my experience.

Given the attitudes of many of the pro gun crowd in this thread I believe that the situation went down more like this:

Manager: Sir, I'm sorry, but firearms are not allowed in Costco, I am going to have to ask you to put it in your car if you want to keep shopping here.

Guy: IT"S MY GOD
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AN I WILL TOTALLY SHOOT YOU IN THE MOTHER
FACE IF YOU DARE ASK ME A GOD
THING AGAIN! I WILL
KILL EVERYONE IN THIS MOTHER
STORE IF YOU EVEN THINK OF ASKING ME TO LEAVE!
YOU
YOUR MOTHER,
YOUR FATHER I HATE YOU! GAH THIS IS WHAT'S WRONG WITH AMERICA (Starts smashing things) THERE IS NO WAY I HAVE TO LEAVE I'M
ARMED! THAT MEANS I MAKE THE RULES AN YOU CAN KISS MY
!

Loss prevention officer: (calls police)

Guy: (continues rant, foaming at the mouth and pistol whips an infant)

30 minutes go by..

Police finally arrive, man eventually calms down enough to leave the store, then gets enraged again at the sight of police waiting for him outside.

Guy:
YOU COPS YOU CAN
HAVE MY
GUN WHEN YOU
PRY IT OUT OF MY COLD DEAD
HAND, I WILL SHOOT ALL OF YOU MOTHER
IF YOU EVEN
THINK OF COMING ANYWHERE NEAR ME!
and
in the
with a
Until you
MY SWEATER IS ITCHY!
PIECES OF
WITH A SPOON!

Cops: (blam blam blam)

Of course the above is a dramatization of what happened. It probably didn't go down exactly like that, I am just using the attitude of many of the pro gun people in this thread to estimate the mans reaction to being asked to leave the store for being armed.

I have dealt with the public for long enough to know, that if you have to call the cops to make someone leave your store. Calmly discussing the situation with them has long failed. If you are forced to call the police because of an irate customer, they aren't calming down. And they aren't going to calm down. They aren't thinking rationally, and given the attitudes of many of the pro gun crowd in this thread. The above scenario probably is a little closer to what happened than the OP article would have you believe.

Also, if you are going to compare a firearm to a watch. Then you feel that firearms are a fashion accessory and have the wrong attitude for firearm ownership.

Also I disagree with automatically giving vets CCWs. Many vets suffer from undiagnosed and untreated PTSD and the last thing this country needs is a traumatized war vet taking out a quick e mart because the cashier looks like some Iraqi they blew away in Baghdad.

edit on 3-6-2012 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Golf66
 



From the OP’s article:


That's the first problem people are having in this thread, this comes from the exact same website that time and time again has been busted for falsely reporting about Obama's birth certificate and have ran many many misleading and erroneous stories over it's time.


Ok, so you don't like the WND source.....


Originally posted by HauntWok

Believing anything that comes out of WND without checking other sources is going to give you a warped sense of the situation. I personally don't believe the WND article at all. I feel it deliberately distorted the facts in order to paint the situation other than what it really was.


This is why I posted the information from the Las Vegas Sun. The one that indicated the man's weapon was recovered (after his death) still in its holster. I don't think it was going to shoot itself...

I don't know about where you live but if someone calls the police because I have a weapon on their property - even if that property is marked with a sign that is within the legal limits the only thing the cop can do is ask me to leave and issue a ticket (summons) for trespassing. It's not a life or death encounter to have a gun on you in a holster. Now had he been waving it about and # like that - np I'd have probably shot him myself...

His gun was never a threat to anyone while in a holster.


Originally posted by HauntWok
Also, if you are going to compare a firearm to a watch. Then you feel that firearms are a fashion accessory and have the wrong attitude for firearm ownership.


You are obviously looking for a fight here - it is a simple comparison to demonstrate that need for something and ability to have it are not the same for us all. A 6k Rolex to me is a watch to some other family it could be 3 months of wages... I would put my knowledge of firearm safety and marksmanship against yours or that of any current LEO.

I am sure my 6 years or more of actual combat (in multiple theaters) combined with 17 years of training and service in Special Operations is more than either you or officer handy from Las Vegas will ever have. Further, I have (unlike most LEO's actually killed a person in a confrontation) therefore I don't feel the itch to do so again... It's not something pleasant to shoot another human being even less pleasant to be shot at. Rather have it with me and never need it every day and every where than not have it the one day or place I did.

I will never be without my fancy accessory...at the mall, the store, the gas station or anywhere else I can legally carry it. One thing you learn in years of conflict is that life threatening situations occur when you least expect them. Plan for them and you can live another day.


Originally posted by HauntWok
Also I disagree with automatically giving vets CCWs. Many vets suffer from undiagnosed and untreated PTSD and the last thing this country needs is a traumatized war vet taking out a quick e mart because the cashier looks like some Iraqi they blew away in Baghdad.


Yes because the mostly fat ass police in America are clearly more qualified to carry firearms daily than the Soldiers who fought for it. If our Soldiers are good enough to carry a gun for us they are good enough (just like cops) to carry a gun around us... end of story.

Finally, to get a CCW they don't check your mental health at all there are no medical questions...so as long as you have no priors and have the safety class you can get one. Many Americans with PTSD - rape victims, people who have been robbed at gunpoint, battered women, etc. who feel the need for a permit probably can and do get CCW all the time.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Furbs
 


THAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT.

Belaboring your point in CAPS discredits you you know.


So, because I wrote that message in all caps, interpreting the Constitution is no longer the function of the Supreme Court? Do you even read what you write?


Too bad Eric Wright won't get to have his day in court, huh? He's dead.


Yes, that is too bad. He died innocent, but no one else did. I cannot speak to his intentions that day, no one else can either. A police officer struck down an armed man in a populated area after the man refused to leave when asked, and refused the lawful instructions of bonded officers of the law.


Like I said every time you reply you shovel more dirt on his name. You have no right to criminalize him here either. Like you said, it is a matter for the courts, not cops to decide culpability.


You don't actually know what bonded officer means, do you?


By the way... there are three branches of Government. Besides the Judicial, there are the Executive and Legislative. The reason all three exist his to insure that all three must review any changes to the constitution before hand. Not arbitrarily, like you do.


How am I making changes to the Constitution? As said before, one of us is citing legal precedent and the other is just chest beating. By all means, bring some legal precedent to the table that supersedes the United States Supreme Court.

By the way.. There is only one branch of government that is charged with interpreting the Constitution.


That is the way it was setup, originally. I bet you don't know that either. It was setup like that so people down the road would not take it upon themselves to shoot people in the back for no reason and then dismiss it away like you are doing.


You seem to have a 3rd grade understanding of government. Literally. Like all of your knowledge is taken out of a third grade civics text book, and you do not have the background to apply that knowledge to this situation. I don't blame you, Civics isn't really taught that well in the US.

\

That is the biggest misnomer EVER perpetrated. It is not the courts position to interpret the constitution. It is their position to interpret legislation to see if it violates the constitution...

That is a HUGE distinction. The constitution is plainly written and clearly read. It is the SCOTUS' responsibility to look at legislation and executive orders that are passed and to strike down those that don't agree with the plain writing of the constitution.

When there is a lack of clarity it is SUPPOSED to always go towards Liberty of the people in decisions by the SCOTUS and it is the legislative branches duty to clarify it by utilizing the means that have been given to them through the powers that they are granted by the people as defined in the constitution. That means to get together and get 2/3rds of both houses and 3.4ths of all the states to agree on what the clarification means. Barring that congruence, it should always go towards the liberty of the people.

Jaden



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 



You are obviously looking for a fight here - it is a simple comparison to demonstrate that need for something and ability to have it are not the same for us all. A 6k Rolex to me is a watch to some other family it could be 3 months of wages... I would put my knowledge of firearm safety and marksmanship against yours or that of any current LEO.


Now, I'm not going to doubt your marksmanship, I haven't fired a gun in years. I used to back before I had a child, and I lived in Colorado and could go out into the forest. But, I have his safety to think of.

As for your assertion about firearm safety? I have my doubts. It appears your attitude towards guns leaves much to be desired, again, firearms are not a fashion accessory to be worn because it looks good, or complements your attire.


I am sure my 6 years or more of actual combat (in multiple theaters) combined with 17 years of training and service in Special Operations is more than either you or officer handy from Las Vegas will ever have.


Again, not in question here. It's your attitude towards firearms that is.


Yes because the mostly fat ass police in America are clearly more qualified to carry firearms daily than the Soldiers who fought for it. If our Soldiers are good enough to carry a gun for us they are good enough (just like cops) to carry a gun around us... end of story.


It's not qualifications that I am concerned with, it's mental stability. While I am certain you are quite qualified as most in our military are, what concerns me is the fact that you feel that there are enemies around every corner whom you feel the need to defend yourself from. This glaring attitude flies in the face of firearm safety. Not everyone you meet is an assailant. There is no need to go to the gas station or grocery store and act as if it's an insertion into a hostile enemy stronghold.

There is no need to duck and roll around the asparagus. It is not necessary to yell out "clear" after exiting the potato chip aisle. One does not have to belly crawl in the dairy section. You don't have to duck down behind the pears, pull the stem off an apple with your teeth and lob it into your cart.


Finally, to get a CCW they don't check your mental health at all there are no medical questions...so as long as you have no priors and have the safety class you can get one. Many Americans with PTSD - rape victims, people who have been robbed at gunpoint, battered women, etc. who feel the need for a permit probably can and do get CCW all the time.


While I feel that there should be a mental health evaluation to get a CCW, I still feel that Open carry and CCW laws are good things. When it's appropriate.

Some vets however don't leave the war in the theater, they bring it home. The war is over, leave it in the past.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok

Now, I'm not going to doubt your marksmanship, I haven't fired a gun in years. I used to back before I had a child, and I lived in Colorado and could go out into the forest. But, I have his safety to think of.


Wow, if you are afraid of having a gun because you may shoot your child he must be a handful. (See how the strawman works?) Actually, I think you have demonstrated in your posts a mastery of the straw man argument that you have my permission to call it an iron man when you use it.


Originally posted by HauntWok

As for your assertion about firearm safety? I have my doubts. It appears your attitude towards guns leaves much to be desired, again, firearms are not a fashion accessory to be worn because it looks good, or complements your attire.


Hyperbole on the other hand while you may occasionally use it you clearly can't recognize it in the writing of others.


Originally posted by HauntWok

It's not qualifications that I am concerned with, it's mental stability. While I am certain you are quite qualified as most in our military are, what concerns me is the fact that you feel that there are enemies around every corner whom you feel the need to defend yourself from. This glaring attitude flies in the face of firearm safety. Not everyone you meet is an assailant. There is no need to go to the gas station or grocery store and act as if it's an insertion into a hostile enemy stronghold.


Please post for us all any statement that I indicated I feel there are "enemies" around every corner.

Further, please explain for us all how you will be so omnipotent as to know the exact circumstances in which one would need to carry a firearm therefore being able to cross certain locations off your list of possible threats.

I am sure you may have some way to know exactly when you will "need" your firearm given your clearly superior attitude regarding gun safety.

However, for the rest of us we may just have to carry and hope we never need it. You; however, will somehow "know" when is just the right time to have it - all other times and locations it will be unneeded. Do you give stock market advice - I could use some like that.

All I said is that to have it and not need it is way better than vice versa.


Originally posted by HauntWok

There is no need to duck and roll around the asparagus. It is not necessary to yell out "clear" after exiting the potato chip aisle. One does not have to belly crawl in the dairy section. You don't have to duck down behind the pears, pull the stem off an apple with your teeth and lob it into your cart.


How do you know? I may have post traumatic asparagus disorder... Again - I love your mastery of the straw (or in your case) "iron" man argument.


Originally posted by HauntWok

While I feel that there should be a mental health evaluation to get a CCW, I still feel that Open carry and CCW laws are good things. When it's appropriate.


Oh please Doctor, do tell us when and where and for whom it is appropriate for one to carry a concealed weapon. The Sherriff of my county says I can carry mine anywhere it's not otherwise prohibited by State law. To include his office (even though it is prohibited by State law) why, you ask? Because he gave me his express permission - he trusts me so why should I consider your's or anyone else's opinion? I find you to be clueless when it comes to the whole point of a concealed carry permit and the vetting process for one.


Originally posted by HauntWok

Some vets however don't leave the war in the theater, they bring it home. The war is over, leave it in the past.


The only war I see is with people who don't understand the whole point of having a concealed carry permit is to carry it with you....everywhere allowed by law as a precaution.

Like a car jack or life insurance - hope to never need them but if you are caught without one either you or your family will regret not having them.

I mean for those of us who clearly don't have your grasp of precognition when it comes to dangerous situations.




top topics



 
76
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join