Lock and Load with Open Carry Laws...

Quote:

I understand that being able to own and carry guns means a lot to a large number of US citizens (and citizens of other countries where gun ownership is common). Since I don't have the insights in the reasons why these people want to own guns or feel the need to, I cannot be pro or con gun laws. So I remain neutral in this

Having said that: I wondered if one is required to do some kind of exam or skill proof to get a gun permit. Do you have to keep your skills up to standard? Or can you get a permit, buy a gun and that's it?
Here one can get a permit and buy a gun if one is a member of a shooting club for at least one year. Then in order to keep the permit valid one has to visit the firing range and shoot the weapon at least 18 times a year. Guns may be stored at home, but in a locker. Ammo needs to be stored separate from the gun.

My personal view: guns and chainsaws are dang dangerous when handled by people who don't know one end from the other.

Mike,
To answer your question, that is set by the individual states. Some require that you have some formal training before they will issue permits, or even allow you to purchase a gun. In my state, Washington, there is no such requirement. You go to the local constabulary (sheriff's department in our case) and pay a set fee, fill out some paperwork, and have a set of fingerprints taken. The fingerprints, and your information are sent off to the FBI for quick review. If they come back negative, you can walk out with your permit.

Local laws restrict where you can shoot, so many people will go to the local range. Most ranges, any that are NRA affiliated, will have a Range Officer who controls the goings on along the range. People there are friendly. It comes from the person next to you holding a weapon, and you're holding a weapon, and both of you respect and trust each other. You have to. It's bad juju to be an ass around 15 armed people. So, with so many friendly people, it's very easy to go up to someone and say 'Hey, I've just bought this gun, and I don't really feel comfortable with it. Can you recommend someone to help me out with it." Most people will be that 'someone.' You take the time to get them situated and straightened out, and if they are still uncomfortable, then you send them to one of the numerous shooters education seminars/schools/etc. You may do that anyway.

My ammo is normally stored in a box, except for the ammo that is with and IN my handguns, which are locked in a safe. The safe is a digital one, so I think someone is going to be coming through the front door, I have enough time to get a gun. Other than that, it's safe from people who should not touch guns.

As to your last statement, and something that in ingrained in me from the very first time I fired my very first rifle (aged 7) is this. 'Treat a gun like it is ALWAYS loaded.' The only time my gun is 'unloaded' is when it's sitting on the counter, in pieces, being cleaned, and I can see through the barrel which I'm holding in my hand.

Finally, I want to say something that may offend a lot of people, but I think it's accurate and on target.

Most anyone who is willing to think logically about guns will realize that it is not the gun that commits the crime, it is not the gun who decides that it's going to go on a shooting streak, and kill civilians on a college campus, or gun down four police officers drinking coffee and getting ready to go to work. Most people also will agree that in most cases, the person using the gun is either a criminal or should have never had the gun in the first place. The VTI shooter, Cho, was diagnosed as mentally ill, and should have never been allowed to buy the guns. Those who saw his videos or his manifesto should have contacted police. Unfortunately, that never happened, and it might have prevented that horrible massacre.
However, ON THE WHOLE, our civilization, over the last 50 years, has become increasingly criminal, and we fail to do anything about it. I can not speak of other countries, but here, when a person sits on 'Death Row' for tens of years, because of all the formalities, second, third and fourth chances, it doesn't say much about our justice system. When we send a person to prison for 15 years, and they're released after 22 months because of 'overcrowding' that also doesn't send a message of horrors and fate worse than death to those who should be detered by it.
Maybe we need to go back to chain gangs, forced labor, and truly 'hard time' to send out the message that prison is not where you want to be, nor is it a fun place. Let's make old men out of those 18 and 20 year olds who are sent to prison, by the time they are released 15 years down the road. Let's tell people 'if you commit a violent crime, you are going to suffer a violent end' in prison, and stand behind that. The comic Ron White talked about Texas putting in an 'Express Lane' for the death penalty when certain requirements were met. Maybe we ought to do this all over.
The biggest question that I have to ask is 'how did these people get to be this way in the first place?' I think we can answer that very simply. They did not have good parents. I see too often parents complain about the school systems because 'they aren't raising their children well.' If you ask the parent why they think it's the school's responsibility to raise the child, and not theirs, often the answer is 'I don't have time!' or 'it's what we pay taxes for!' To me that is one of the most telling of all indicators as to why we are the way we are today.

We can not reduce crime, of any kind, because those who are committing it are past the age of learning differently, from parents who might actually care about them. So, let's put the criminals away, send a very direct and large message to those who would be willing to follow in the footsteps of those who have gone before them that this pathway will lead to destruction and death...YOURS! Of course, we'll have to follow through on it, and there are too many in our country, and around the world, who don't have the stomach for it. That is too bad.

Off my soap box.

Gary

By the way, I don't own a gun. But I support the right to own and bear arms.

I also choose not to smoke, but I support smoker's rights. To me the crux of all these discussions is that one point of view empowers everybody, and the other point of view seeks to remove rights from the other group.

Our national embarrassment is not in the guns, it is in the lack of enforcement due to politically incorrect reasoning.

After the psychologist in Ft Hood shot all thse people, the conservatives were all saying the obvious ways it could have been prevented. (The list is long. I won't elaborate because anybody with common sense doesn't need to see it, and anybody without common sense wouldn't believe it if they saw it)

Meanwhile, the other camp was saying things like
"it would have been wrong to profile him"
"he was misunderstood"
"people were mean to him"
"who would have ever guessed..?"

duh.
Liberty is only dangerous when responsibility is lacking
responsibility is enhanced by morality and the enforcement of laws
You can't eliminate one without affecting the other.

I think a lot of people who don't live in the US get the wrong idea when they hear terms like "open carry" and "conceal and carry permits".

I have lived in an "open carry" state for the last 30 years. I have NEVER seen anyone openly carry a firearm. But it's legal if they do as long as they're not a felon.

I have a conceal and carry permit. The last time I "carried" was probably 4 years ago when I was riding my 4 wheeler in the woods. Most people I know who have the permit seldom, if ever, carry their firearm. So even the folks who legally can, seldom do, with some exceptions of course.

But the criminals don't know who is carrying and who isn't. If I knew I was going to be in a high crime area, I would exercise my right to conceal and carry.

It is nice that my son and I can take our firearms, load them into the car, drive to the shooting range, walk up to the stall next to a state trooper or county deputy, set down a satchel full of handguns and ammo, lay the rifles and shotguns down, and the only questions I get from the trooper or deputy is "how do you like that Smith & Wesson 38 Special? May I shoot it?"

I know this seems strange to a lot you that don't live in the US and even strange to some of you who do live here. But it's part of the American culture and our history. You don't have to agree with it. But don't villify those of us who choose to exercise our rights.

And by the way, I'm not "fascinated" with guns. I'm "fascinated" with guitars. If you want to see me get excited, pull out a 1942 Gibson L5 guitar! My eyes will light up like a Christmas tree! LOL.

Bob

Pat,

Quote:

But that is not how I interpret Bob's comment, neither do I think that is how he intended it.
His point (I believe) is that the law currently allows both groups to have their respective choice. Every body *ought* to be happy, but that is not the case. Why? Because one group cannot be happy until the other group is forced to conform to the "no gun" choice, and the only way for that to happen is for one groups rights to be denied.

You hit the nail right on the head! Nuff said.

Bob

Pat,

Quote:

So it all boils down to a group of people wanting to take the rights of another group of people away.”

As you can see, this is expressed in terms of rights and not choices. I replied in kind.

It would be dangerous if we started to second guess what other forum users meant.

I responded to the words actually written by Bob. If it turns out he actually meant something different, then of course my comment is invalid.

Quote:

His point (I believe) is that the law currently allows both groups to have their respective choice. Every body *ought* to be happy, but that is not the case.

Why? Because one group cannot be happy until the other group is forced to conform to the "no gun" choice, and the only way for that to happen is for one groups rights to be denied.

Again, you’re missing the point big time.
The citizen who does not wish to carry a gun and does not do so represents no sort of threat to the gun carrier. The reverse is not true for the reasons I listed above. (post #266720)

Quote:

it seems to me that you believe your choice is superior to the other choice, and therefore the pro gun choice should be disallowed by law.

I wouldn’t use loaded terms like ‘superior’ with its moral connotations. I would keep the debate to what is or is not effective in reducing unwanted violent deaths.

The stats quoted below show unequivocally and irrefutably that, in terms of intentional homicides, the USA is well over 3 times more dangerous than the UK.
What exactly is your argument? that without the private citizens’ right to bear arms you would not be at 5.4, per 100,000 but somewhere around the Mexican level (10) or higher perhaps?
You may be right, but to my way of thinking it is an argument which defies rationality.

Quote:

The comparative figures which interest us are as follows (homicides per 100,000 population)
USA: 5.4
Northern Ireland: 2.5
Scotland: 2.1
England and Wales: 1.4
and, specially for John,
Canada: 1.8

Quote:

USA is not a democracy, it is a democratic republic.

I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me completely here.

‘Democracy’ means (very broadly) that it is the people who decide who they are governed by using some form of fair voting system. Surely, this applies to the US of A?

The only democratic republic I am aware of is the DRC, not much of a model for anyone!

I fully agree with you that if you have broken a law, any law, you can argue your opinion of said law until you are blue in the face. It will make no difference to the outcome of your legal process, and rightly so.

But this is not at all what was said, which was that no discussion should be permitted on this subject.

Quote:

which is precisely why the citizens need to diligently remain involved in the political process so some slick-talking politician doesn't crawl in under the door and change everything.
("this is the greatest nation on earth.. help me change it!")

But isn’t it the greatest nation on earth precisely because it changes to adapt to new circumstances and greater knowledge and enlightenment? Whether slick-talking or not, a politician will only be able to change the laws if he has been duly authorised to do so by the electors.

Quote:

But why do you care about our laws that don't affect you?

1/ ..because I’m curious. This is the first time I have heard it suggested here that there are issues which only forum members from a particular state should comment on.

2/..because the USA is the greatest nation on earth (see above). It is possible that I will visit the country as a tourist at some point, and if I do so, I would rather have a less than 5.4 in 100,000 chance of meeting a violent end there.

3/..I would welcome anyone and everyone’s views on both my native country (UK) and my adopted country (France)

Quote:

Nobody's mind has been changed in this thread.

Mine has – I feel I have a better understanding of why so many American citizens support this historically entrenched but ultimately counter-productive right.

If you’re mind is not altered by the weight of factual argument (US intentional homicides per 100,000 of the population vs. those in other western countries), then –I’m afraid for you anyway- there has been little point to the discussion.

I have to say this is by far the best thread I've seen on this subject in many years. We used to have some bomb throwers who would crap all over something like this and kill it but this time it really is a good discussion among friends. Of course this is one of the top 2 or 3 most divisive issues around, yet there's a lot of good reasoned points being made so I just want to say, good job guys.
Nothing to do with music but it's a good diversion anyway.

Bob

Alcohol and vehicles kill way more people in the US than firearms.

You can demonize me all ya want, I do not care, I cannot and will not give up my God-given right to be a free man.

And there is a period on the end of the above sentence.

--Mac

Mglinert,

I guess I’m going to “try” to do the same as Bob, (aka jazzmammal), and exit this thread.

It is humorous and enlightening to see people from other countries stick their noses into another countries business and get all worked about an issue that doesn’t concern them.

If you don’t like the laws of the USA, don’t come here. Don’t buy our products.

But don’t try to tell us how to live! You don’t understand being an American any more than I understand being from the UK or France.

The main reason that the USA exists is because they didn’t want foreign influence or domination. We still don’t want that. We never will. But we will always be the best ally you've ever had.

Bob

There are many differences between the two countries, considering ...

Not just the gun issues, even things like the squatting that goes on there really intrigues me. How the problem is handled there, it seems like a lot of tolerance is required.. which can be commended on one side, but not understood at all on the other.

So I guess we will both look at each other from across the pond and watch the events unfold.

Quote:

Alcohol and vehicles kill way more people in the US than firearms.

Of course they do, Mac. Private swimming pools too, I think. But the point is this.
The primary purpose of a firearm is to shoot it at someone (or, perhaps, at something).
The primary person of the other killers is something very different in each case.

Quote:

You can demonize me all ya want, I do not care, I cannot and will not give up my God-given right to be a free man.

And there is a period on the end of the above sentence.

That’s fine with me, and very much as I suspected – we’re not dealing with rational argument here but something that goes far deeper.

I still don’t altogether see:
- how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom
- how a Right enshrined in an Act passed by the US Congress in 1791 was actually conferred by God

…but I’m working on it.

mglinert,

Quote:

I still don’t altogether see:
- how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom
- how a Right enshrined in an Act passed by the US Congress in 1791 was actually conferred by God

…but I’m working on it.

As long as you're "working on it", and not condemning something you don't understand because of cultural differences, then all is good.

Most Americans don't like being told what to do, even by our own government.

The Constitution and it's Amendments are meant to not only spell out the the rights of the citizens, but mainly to spell out the rights and limitations of the government.

Bob

P.S. By the way, I've never shot a small piece of metal at another human being. Neither have most people who own a gun.

Thanks Bob,

Quote:

It is humorous and enlightening to see people from other countries stick their noses into another countries business and get all worked about an issue that doesn’t concern them.

I’m sure the USA would never stick its nose into another country’s business!
But now is not the time to widen this thread further.

Quote:

Most Americans don't like being told what to do, even by our own government.
The Constitution and it's Amendments are meant to not only spell out the the rights of the citizens, but mainly to spell out the rights and limitations of the government.

That is a very important point, and one that give me plenty to think about. Thanks.

Quote:

If you don’t like the laws of the USA, don’t come here. Don’t buy our products.

Now that’s not very hospitable. I neither like nor dislike the laws of the USA.
My original intention was to report that this particular one seemed very strange to someone from a UK background (post #266341).
I knew nothing about the issue when I wrote that and next to nothing now.
However, what I have read suggests that this right is not only strange it is also counter-productive.

Quote:

But don’t try to tell us how to live!

I didn’t – and I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments in this way.

Quote:

You don’t understand being an American any more than I understand being from the UK or France.

Absolutely. Hence the value of this type of exchange.

Quote:

..we will always be the best ally you've ever had.

This is most definitely the case…and long may it continue.

Can we get back to the music now?

mglinert,

Quote:

Can we get back to the music now?

I actually have BIAB fired up in the background. It's been interrupted only by taking a break to participate in this exchange. LOL.

Bob

Marc, I think one thing you don't grasp is what is called 'checks and balances' over here.

Whether you trust the government or not, our system was set up so that every part of the government has another part that has just enough power to keep it in check ( or prevent it from abuse). This is what checks and balances are. The constitution and amendments were written (a lot of us believe) to make sure the government could not step on the rights of individuals or states. One of the first things a government would do in order to opress its people would be to disarm them. So making that a basic right tends to keep that problem at bay.

Not trying to be silly, but what keeps the government of the UK from opressing its people at this point? If the government set militia on the streets and said you were all going to pay this tax and give up your homes? This is one of the things the right to bear arms guards against.I am not saying that is ever going to happen in either country, as I tend to believe people are good (in general) but a lot of history tells us otherwise. So we were given this right (and in a sense a responsibility) to be able to keep the government in check, be it state or federal, the constitution says we can not be forcibly disarmed as law abiding citizens.

I am sure accidental gun deaths are more common (obviously) when guns are around. There is a responsibility that goes along with gun ownership. However, in this country if the general public was unarmed, the criminals would not be. UK is an island with pretty port control. We have thousands of miles that border other countries, so illegal guns would be here within the hour of being outlawed. Just as we see weapons being found and used in crimes that are already outlawed (like automatic weapons, etc). Just another reason you will likely never see the gun control work here.
Edited because the window expired and it reverted to an earlier verion when I used the back button to try and post ..

mglinert,

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don’t like the laws of the USA, don’t come here. Don’t buy our products.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Now that’s not very hospitable. I neither like nor dislike the laws of the USA.

That's not meant to be either "hospitable" nor "inhospitable". If I ever visit France, or Spain, or the UK, I won't try to tell them their Constitution is wrong. I may complain about the customs coming in, the food, or whatever, but I won't tell them the way they run thier country is wrong. I'll take it in and try to learn from it.

Nor will I expect them to cater to my American sensibilities or needs. I will be, after all, in THEIR country. As a visitor.

Bob

P.S. I probably won't complain about the food, because I love trying new dishes. Even if I don't like them! But odds are....I will like them.

Quote:

..I would welcome anyone and everyone’s views on both my native country (UK) and my adopted country (France)

No problem Marc, I know the history of the Statue of Liberty and going back even further, if it wasn't for France, this country wouldn't even exist. There can be disagreements here and there but compared to the last 220 years or so, they're nothing. As for the Brits, of course we're still the closest allies in the world. And, I lived in Canada for 12 years and outside of the weather loved it. It's all good.

Bob

the weather in Canada...NO HOW dare you LOL.

Interesting and good thread. Sober debate is good.

Funny no one jumped in on my analysis of where the gun crime is in the US.

On the other hand due to how the net works I'm not saying anything more than I have bows.

I have no animosity towards anyone who had another view. But it needs to be reasonable. Most people do not understand that most of the Canadians from 1760 to 1800 came from the US. The ran to Canada. Our biggest period of immigration. I'll let you figure that out. At the same time we had abolished slavery. And let those people into the country.

Some make fun of me when I repeat what people on this forum called us. A right wing canuck is a communist in many areas of the US. So be it.

I re-iterate that the US is becoming a fortress. OK, why?

I have been in a lot of bad situations, fallen through burning floors, down stairs to burning basements, flashovers, explosions, but I was the most scared in Flint Michigan, first due to the bad street I drove down, and second because the cops pulled multiple guns on me for running out of gas on I75. I almost pooed my pants. And 2 kids and the wife the car, got handcuffed and searched. Here the cop would have walked up and asked what was wrong. Just watch the show COPS, none of that happens here.

A step back is required. Sanity is sanity. OK so if we extract the gang bangers from the shooting things in Canada, 2 or 3 people die of gunshots every year. And a dozen with knives.

I know you don't believe me, but I don't have keys for my house. Until last year when I got new patio doors, 3 of the 4 doors didn't even lock.

John,

Please don't use the "c" word to describe your country! It's your country, not mine, so you can do what you want to.

I just think of Canada as a great neighbor. Not the "c" word.

And if you're wondering why I don't use the whole term, it's because I don't want my name linked to the terminology in google or anywhere else.

Bob

Marc,
I'm actually enjoying your responses, because they make me think.

Quote:

That’s fine with me, and very much as I suspected – we’re not dealing with rational argument here but something that goes far deeper.

I still don’t altogether see:
- how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom
- how a Right enshrined in an Act passed by the US Congress in 1791 was actually conferred by God

…but I’m working on it.

'Freedom', at least to MY POINT OF VIEW, varies by situation. While I have the ABILITY to drive 100 mph through town, my freedom would be drastically curtailed if I did it in front of a police officer, since the speed limit is 35 mph. I would be in violation of the law, and certain freedoms which I take for granted would be suspended for a period of time while I spent some of my old age in the county lockup.

On the other hand, if people like Winston Churchill had not stood up against an oppression of tyranny, and sent millions of small pieces of metal against other human beings, would you be 'free?' Likewise, how 'free' would I be if I were knifed, or beat up, or otherwise harmed and injured if someone were to move from our 'civilized' societal norms and were to violate me and my person? By the way, I *have* been assaulted a few times, robbed a few times, and had that 'freedom' removed from me. I've made a decision that I won't allow it to happen again. Could Churchill and the House of Commons simply have sat back and said 'oh, it doesn't matter, we don't want to hurt them;' and if so, where would you be today? A German citizen? Look outside your window and think what that might look like if a Swastika flew outside your yard.

Secondly, our Constitution begins with 'We the people....' and I may be missing it, but I see no reference to a RIGHT being conferred by God that citizens have the right to bear arms. 'We the people....'

Surprisingly enough...or may not, is this. This is taken from the Wikipedia article on the United States Constitution, and is under the section about The Bill of Rights.

Quote:

The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[15] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.

Please note the bold face and italicized text. Please explain to me where the U.K. changed that.

I hope I'm helping in your understanding.

I am NOT trying to take sides, I simply am stating what I understand to be true, as applies to the United States of America

Gary

John,

Quote:

I re-iterate that the US is becoming a fortress. OK, why?

God, I wish I knew. My biggest answer would be 'FEAR.' But, that is simply an easy answer, and there is no easy answer.

A lot of boils down to common sense, or lack thereof.

/me bows head and whispers 'Rest In Peace, you are missed.'

Funny? Well, it was supposed to be some sort of levity, but the truth is that I do believe that whatever that thing that we used to call 'common sense' or 'horse sense' or whatever has galloped out of the pasture and hiding, grazing, on the other side of the hill, waiting for people here to get their heads out of their arses and back on their shoulders where they belong.

Then, along with the lack of common sense, you have the rebel-rousers, and fear-mongers who will tell you that every terrorist is going to bring a nuke bomb in from Canada, packed in inexpensive drugs and wrapped in maple leaves...or maple sugar. At that same instance, they're also telling you that the terrorists are coming in across the Rio Grande, or under it, or under the border in Arizona, and then have videos to prove it.

Hey, maybe if there wasn't a huge demand from illegal drugs, then we wouldn't have this issue! Let's find a way to stop illegal drug use, and no, I don't mean by legalizing it.

Whatever it is, paranoia, people with IQs that are the inverse of the decibels they can reach with a bull horn, or just plain 'I don't give a damn' attitudes, we are driving ourselves insane...or, are allowing ourselves to be driven that way.

How many years does it take an established society to go from the top of the heap to the bottom of the pile? Two hundred, three hundred, maybe four?

How long was The British Empire (where the sun never set) in place? How long from when Britian was at it's glorious peak to have fallen to where it is today? How long for the U.S.? I would say that our country peaked in the mid 1950's and early 1960's, and from there, we have been going downhill all the way. Who will be the next power to rise up to be the big person on the street? Not China, at least as she is now, not until she has true Democracy, but she will make a run for it. Canada is tied too closely to the U.S., in mores and ethics, no South American country with their petty squabbles. Japan has passed her prime, Russia is in worse condition than China for many reasons, mostly corruption. India? I don't think so. The Middle East? Not likely.

In the next 25 years, probably a lot less, I see our civilization going through a huge change, a new world order, but not the shining star that so many talk about. We will see a ruthless, cruel and powerful dictatorship on a world level, with individual countries falling in line. Freedoms that we've spoke of in this thread, gone for everyone. Oh, it may get better with time, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it won't be for a while, and out of the smoke and rubble of that disaster, we'll either have a new and better world, or we'll have darkness unimaginable.

I pray that I am not here to see it.

Gary

Gary - Wow
I was going to respond to your comments on Nazi flags in English neighborhoods as being offensive, but then you posted another post..

To John; asking why we are turning into a fortress.. umm we have been a focus of attacks, some pretty well orchestrated..and many from within. Be glad we have the right to defend ourselves. We live next door.

I don't worry about the doors being locked here either. Part of that is because of how remotely we live. Facts be told, my town has had one murder in 80 years and it didn't involve a gun. So statistics can work a lot of ways.. doesn't mean I shouldn't pay attention.

Bob,
The question wasn't supposed to be offensive, nor was the following post. If the English people had not done the things necessary to prevent a totalitarian dictator from moving into the United Kingdom, even though that regime had already moved through all of Western Europe, then in fact Marc might very well be looking out his window, as a German citizen, under a Nazi regime. Also, had what I said actually happened, it would not have been 'an English neighborhood', it would have been a German neighborhood. Even though Marc lives in France now, it is still the same. In the early 1940s, France was, for all intents and purposes, within Germany, considered a part of Germany. In reality, no different than what the Russians put up with after the Czars were ousted until the fall of the U.S.S.R. It could have been the Sickle and Hammer, too.

BUT, Marc was asking "I still don’t altogether see: - how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom." It was an illustrative answer to that question. We, the Brits, the French, and even the Germans, all have FREEDOM today because a small piece of metal, or literally, millions of them, were shot at human beings, and many millions of human beings died from those small pieces of metal to bring about FREEDOM.

I only chose to illustrate a POSSIBLE, and yes, offensive, outcome.

As to the other post, that is the way I see it, and have seen it for 30 some years now. Nothing has changed my mind, or is likely to, since I see it getting worse each day.

Gary

Quote:

Again, you’re missing the point big time.
The citizen who does not wish to carry a gun and does not do so represents no sort of threat to the gun carrier. The reverse is not true for the reasons I listed above. (post #266720)

On the contrary, I fully understand that point; but I respectfully disagree with the way you are driving the point to a conclusion. This is one of those "difference in kind/difference in degree" discussions. You appear to be offering DEGREE arguments, whereas the rest of us are making KIND arguments. Your observations about HOW MANY murders and HOW MANY guns erroneously leads to the conclusion that lots of guns lead to lots of shootings. We disagree. You further contend that if guns were controlled then people would be safer. We disagree. We contend that THE VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and safe. To argue that responsible people should not be able to own the guns they enjoy is a knee jerk response to misapplied statistics.

We believe that passing laws against guns would simply result in only bad and irresponsible people having guns. And they are the only ones who are likely to shoot people now. So changing the law would not change the degree of safety AT ALL, except possibly for the worse. If a crook thinks you have a gun, he might think twice before he breaks in.. but if he is sure you DON'T have a gun (and he does have a gun) what's to stop him?

Quote:

The stats quoted below show unequivocally and irrefutably that, in terms of intentional homicides, the USA is well over 3 times more dangerous than the UK.
What exactly is your argument? that without the private citizens’ right to bear arms you would not be at 5.4, per 100,000 but somewhere around the Mexican level (10) or higher perhaps?
You may be right, but to my way of thinking it is an argument which defies rationality.

THere is an old saying in business that 90% of your problems come from 10% of your customers. I submit that a relatively small number of repeat offenders are responsible for most of those statistics.

Why? because our system fails to exact penalties for lawlessness.
Why? because the same bleeding hearts who protest guns also protest justice.
Why? Because they don't really believe in absolute right and wrong
why? because they themselves don't want to be accountable
why? because they are reprobate
why? because they value their own opinion more than they value the law
why? because they think they are smarter than everybody else, and not subject to law

...but until they can get the guns away from the gun owners, they are afraid to disregard the law to the degree necessary to shove their point of view down everyone else's throat.

Which is why many people see discussions like this as a power play to change the laws under the guise of "enlightenment" ( But I digress...)

Quote:

But this is not at all what was said, which was that no discussion should be permitted on this subject.

actually, what I tried to say was that the question of whether the right to bear arms exists does not need to be discussed, because the right clearly does exist.

Quote:

If you’re mind is not altered by the weight of factual argument (US intentional homicides per 100,000 of the population vs. those in other western countries), then –I’m afraid for you anyway- there has been little point to the discussion.

are you suggesting that the only valid point that could have been derived from this discussion is agreement with your perspective? And barring that the discussion is pointless? Assuming that the data itself is valid, the conclusion you derive from it is arguably not what you hold it to be. Guns are the secondary player if not tertiary player in the stats. The problem with American Crime begins with a system that is (for a variety of reasons) unable to keep the bad guys off the streets.

"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.

As the English judge said to the criminal who stole a horse and was convicted, and question the sentence:

"I am not hanging YOU for stealing a horse, I am hanging you so someone else does not steal a horse."

An old story, might be folklore, but I heard it from a conservative lawyer.

The same judge maybe that listened to the accused pleas:
"As God is my judge, your honour, I'm not guilty!"
and replied:
"He's not. I am. You are."

Quote:

"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.

Thank you skyline.
I mentioned this statistic much earlier and was told I was wrong, even though I cited the stats..

Skyline,

Quote:

"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.

It's hard for me to understand why so many people find this to be a difficult principle to grasp. It's so basic.

The criminals, aka "outlaws", will always have guns. Period.

Why ANY government would want their citizens to to be easy prey for the criminals is a mystery to me.

A couple of years ago, 2 young thugs decided to break in on old woman not far from where I live. They knew she had gotten her welfare check and cashed it.

Easy pickin's for them. They kicked her door in, and she "greeted" them with a 12 gauge pump shotgun. She killed one of them. She wounded the other and he went to prison after he got out of the the hospital.

They were both armed. As most criminals are.

Unfortunately, someone died that day.............................Fortunately, it wasn't the "helpless" old lady.

If she hadn't been able to "respond", she wouldn't have been their last victim.

Bob

Quote:

"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.

Can you post a credible link showing that? I thought I did earlier but was told the link is a tabloid blog with no credibility at all. Also exactly what was the mechanism used to confiscate your guns? Did Parliament simply pass a new law and if so what law? Someone mentioned the original English Common Law had the right to bear arms in it, is that true?

Bob

Bob,
In late 2009 the Daily Telegraph published figures supporting the horrendous growth in gun crime since they were 'done away with'. The BBC quoted in 2007: "The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998." Two credible sources there, one Right and one Left.
The sorry tale of UK legitmate firearms ownership is dealt with quite well here:
Wiki - UK Firearms Legislation.
Yes, the right to bear arms was in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, much of which was copied by the Founding Fathers into the US Bill of Rights:
Wiki - The English Bill of Rights.
Blackstone, the definitive authority on English Common Law declared in his four volume treatise in the 1760s:
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Perfectly put.

Interestingly, our Bill Of Rights is still in force so I guess in theory the relevant clause could be evoked by us:
"Freedom for Protestants to have arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law."
I'm no lawyer so I don't know if Parliamentary statutes override my 1689 rights? I could go for a test case, but the minimum sentence for illegal possession of a handgun here is five years!

here's a link with more references than the first one I posted
http://www.rkba.ca/gun_control_and_genocide.html

Be sure to Scroll down to the very last sentence on the page and read that before you exit the site.

(FWIW. this is taken from a Canadian web site)

Bob, in answer to your other question:
It was the 1997 Firearms Act and the mechanism for confiscation was as follows, bearing in mind this was probably the first time legislation had been passed to make ownership of legitmate personal possessions retroactively illegal.
The Home Office prepared a comprehensive catalogue of all items we pistol shooters might own, including all known types of pistol, ammunition, reloading equipment, holsters, etc. The catalogue showed surrender prices. We had to fill in a form, send it off and then were sent an appointment to go to our local Police HQ. It was conducted in a terribly British fashion - we even had a reserved car parking space to pull into! I then had to take my stuff inside to a private room, sat down and a very courteous policeman (a member of my local club) made things as gentle as possible. Items were checked, put in an individual cardboard box for each shooter. There was an enormous wall of boxes behind me.
I must confess I had a tear in my eye at the time due to the sheer injustice of it all and sadness that the sport I loved so much was now at an end. A few days later a compensation cheque arrived from the government and that was that. I kept one item in order to show it to my grandchilden ('we used to be trusted to by our government to own these, son') as you could keep guns but only if you had them deactivated. So I still have my Beretta 92F auto (standard US army), albeit in an inert form. (Note to self: I have a feeling that even da-acts might have been made illegal since, but sod 'em...)

Thanks, Skyline.

Alright guys, this seems pretty definitive to me. Take away honest citizens guns and look what happens.

Bob

Wow.....someone please stick a fork in this thread, I think it's a tad overdone.......

Quote:

OK so if we extract the gang bangers from the shooting things in Canada, 2 or 3 people die of gunshots every year. And a dozen with knives.

John,

I enjoyed the debate from the sideline but the statement above prompted me to do a little research. Now unless you are saying, or believe every homicide is a gangbang, your numbers are a bit off, still low but not 2-3 per year. Here is what I found directly from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website:

Firearm Deaths In Canada

• From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.

Not sure why but I could not find figures later than 1996 but unless the trends depicted on the accompanying charts on this site did a complete 180 I would only imagine the numbers to be considerably higher. So just a head's up . . . you might want to think about locking that screen door in the not too distant future.

Later,

The problem with taking guns away, in my opinion, is that it not only allows the criminals to have free reign, it also allows for the possibility of a government to impose a will beyond the desires of the people.

http://goldandgrains.blogspot.com/2009/09/worldwide-history-of-gun-confiscation.html

Not an 'authoritative list', but something worth looking at:
WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION
Found this today. Something to think about. You may not want a gun in your house, but you might be glad you neighbor has one in his.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+confi...ved=0CC4Q5wIwCw

Anyway, I need to get ready, I'm 'under the gun' as it were, as I have multiple MRIs today for my back, and I need to get ready to go.

Have a great day, folks.

Openly sharing opposing views, and being accepting of others beliefs, is the first step to understanding.

Gary

I've done some research also, on UK gun crime.

Page 35 of this government report pretty much sums up whether handgun crime has increased or decreased since law was enacted, although it doesn't mean they will admit it-

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

Note the government's public statement says these statistics show reduced hand gun crime rate, even though the numbers obviously show otherwise.

I was led there by an interesting article here-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece
that stated-
"The Home Office has repeatedly denied gun crime is rising. Last week it pointed to the latest annual crime statistics, which appeared to show that overall gun crime was 13% down on the previous year.

But in his letter to Smith, released today, Davis said these claims were contradicted by figures “buried” in a Home Office statistical bulletin, published ear-lier this year. “[Here] we find the most revealing indication of the true gun-re-lated violence sweeping Britain. Gun-related killings and injuries (excluding air weapons) have increased over fourfold since 1998,” he wrote. "

So I looked up the references and there ya go.. granted this was 2007, so I am not sure how the last three years have gone..

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Read the last paragraph....more restrictive gun control results in more person on person violent crime. The U.S. is in fact, one of the best testbeds for this, owing to the different state laws being enforced.

As I said in a different thread, the States that the Brady Organization, a virulent anti-gun organization, rank highest in gun control also, according to National Crime statistics, match, STATE FOR STATE as the highest in violent crime. The states with the lowest Brady ranking, meaning little or no regulations on personal weapons, also have the lowest violent crime.

Hmmmm

Anyway, that tunnel is calling my name, and my paranoia and claustophobia are about topped out, and I'm not even at the radiologist yet.

See you tomorrow.

Gary

Quote:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Read the last paragraph....more restrictive gun control results in more person on person violent crime. The U.S. is in fact, one of the best testbeds for this, owing to the different state laws being enforced.

As I said in a different thread, the States that the Brady Organization, a virulent anti-gun organization, rank highest in gun control also, according to National Crime statistics, match, STATE FOR STATE as the highest in violent crime. The states with the lowest Brady ranking, meaning little or no regulations on personal weapons, also have the lowest violent crime.

Hmmmm

Gary

State for state! Interesting parallel! Thanks for posting!

Bottom line...

I respect the sensibilities of those on the thread (and those in the world) who are peaceable sorts who want nothing to do with guns. I am glad they are free to exercise the choice that seems right to them, and I hope that always remains true.

I also respect the sensibilities of those who see the statistics in light of history, understanding that ANYTHING that has happened in the past can happen again.

I respect THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FORESAW THE DANGERS INHERENT IN OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT and therefore built in a variety of checks and balances, the right to own and bear guns being one of them.

I respect that most gun owners are law abiding citizens whose gun ownership is for peaceable means and self defense, not for aggression.

I hope both groups continue to have liberty to choose the path that seems right to them. But I doubt if it works out that way.

Danny I was talking about my 'neck of the woods'.

In the last 10 years I remember 4 deaths.

One the cops shot a crazy guy.
Two bikers in a parking lot via shotguns.
Two out of town dealers shot each other in the bathroom of a Scottish bar on hip hop night. One died. Hip hop is canceled everywhere here, too much trouble. That's is quite a radius. I drove the engine at the 2nd busiest station in the city. (There's 14). We went to lots of stuff, suicide by grenade, hangings, but never responded to a gunshot call. Ever other type of medical call. We had part of the downtown area.

You have to examine the situation you are in. If I thought there was a threat, I'd lock the doors. Despite gun laws, we do have guns.

After all the debate here we have established that in some states you can walk in a buy a handgun, and elsewhere you can not. Some states arrest and jail you for having a gun and others give you a permit and encourage you to play Roy Rogers. Some states have almost the same laws as Canada when it comes to guns.

That here 3 days of education is required to buy a gun.

I don't see a lot of difference, other than many people think that not having a gun in your pocket encourages criminals.

There are routine shootings in Toronto. From what I read, 95 percent know gang members over drugs. Don't go out in those areas of town at night and taunt them. I lived 3 times in Toronto. I've been out at all hours downtown and never saw a problem.

No matter how hard I try, I do not think I can find a person in my city killed with a handgun, except the two gang guys, and the 'suicide by cop.'

The ATF, RCMP, and local cops just busted a major handgun smuggling operation where guns were being brought across the border. We'd be safer if that flow stopped than if they let us buy a gun and put it in the glove box.

I also wish the best for each country, and remain optimistic.

It's probably about time for a thread wrap-up.

I'll just say this: I own firearms. They are all legal firearms under the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. I currently have the Constitutional right to own these firearms, as long as I use them legally under the laws of my local, State,and Federal Govenments. I am not any kind of 'gun nut' nor do I ascribe to the 'gun culture'. I haven't hunted for about 20 years, but I certainly would start again if I got hungry enough. I enjoy shooting my firearms under safe conditions because it is a skill that may be vitally important to me one day. I hope not.

I respect the views of those that don't feel the need or the want to own or shoot firearms. There is liitle chance of them being in a life-threatening situation where a firearm might prove their salvation, and I do understand that. All I ask is that those folks please understand that those of us that do own and shoot firearms of various kinds are not wacky murderers or crazy cowboys. We are law-abiding citizens of of a nation which has a Constitution that guarantees us the right to have those firearms. It's our choice to own them. It's also a choice not to own them. I never berate or demean or act in a condescending way towards those that don't own 'guns' because I do respect that viewpoint. All I ask is that you respect my viewpoint as well and perhaps some reasons for it.

And yes, more on topic...the sound of a 1911A1 Colt is indeed music to my ears.

Deleted

Quote:

In my opinion, the answer is exactly the same for both sets of crimes. Line the perps up, and end their lives. Do it by lethal injection, gas chamber, or yes, even shoot them. I guarantee if you did that, publically, for a year, both criminal instances would drop...drastically.

Ohh, don't mess with Gary...

I agree in principle but the problem is the first time an innocent person is executed by being framed by a crooked cop, the whole scheme would blow up in everybody's face. Look at all the people who've been rotting on death row or are serving life sentences who've been exonorated by DNA testing and were convicted by questionable eyewitness testimony. I'm the farthest from some bleeding heart but a civilized country can't allow that to happen. A great thing to look up is the Innocence Project. It's pretty eyeopening to read just how many people were found innocent. This is why the former right wing death penalty Governer of Illinois who didn't run for reelection maybe 8 years or so ago commuted the sentences of a bunch of death row people to life (didn't release them, just commuted the sentences to life in prison) because during his term several had been found innocent by DNA and he just couldn't let that stand.
There are no obvious easy answers here in spite of what some of us think.

Bob

Gary,

Quote:

In my opinion, the answer is exactly the same for both sets of crimes. Line the perps up, and end their lives. Do it by lethal injection, gas chamber, or yes, even shoot them. I guarantee if you did that, publically, for a year, both criminal instances would drop...drastically.

That's a little over the top bro.

Especially in light of the FACT that so many of the cops are crooked. And our justice system is flawed, to say the least.

We need to have less power and control by the government. Not the ability to summarily line people up and execute them.

I'm all for punishment for the crime. But statements like that lead to people reaching wrong conclusions about gun owners.

I've been with you up till now.

One of the main things our founders feared the most was too much power in the hands of the government. It's still a concern for me.

That was one of the main reasons for the second amendment.

Bob

Deleted

Gary,

Piss poor analogy.

I'm glad the things you propose won't ever come to pass.

Get a grip man!

Bob

Deleted

I find this whole topic sort of ironic. A lot of us complained about one of our members preaching the word of God on this Forum yet we go on & on about the right to carry weapons to kill other human beings. Sort of says something about were our society is at.

5. Thou Shalt Not Kill

There are no exceptions to this that I know of.

Yeah the earth needs less people, but we can solve that with death penalty for parking violations (Steve Martin)..it is funny as comedy, but when you seriously want to start death penalty for smaller and smaller infractions, it is disconcerting.

I did not read you examples, lack of time right now, but I will say that each of the people is entitled to a trial by peers. It is another one of our basic laws.. the only time a death can be legal without a trial is if it happens in self defense when it is an either/or situation (in my eyes). I know some castle laws can be interpreted otherwise, but I don't think that was the intent of the laws.

Gary,

Quote:

Let me ask a question. Coast Guard intercepts a 'go-fast' boat coming in. They stop the boat...a .50 cal in the engine works real nice for that because the boat has failed to heed repeated warnings to stop to be boarded. Video cameras are rolling, and a cutter or other LE boat arrives on scene. The boat is inspected and 500 pounds of cocaine and 2,000 pounds of marijuana are found on board. Is there really any doubt in anyone's mind that these people are 'innocent?'

A truck attempts to cross the border just went of Vancouver, B.C. and a tip to the Customs people of both Canada and the U.S. reveals that there is the possibility of a cache of illegal weapons is loaded in the truck, along with 20 tons of Washington apples. It's a private trucking company, the driver was singled out by name, and has a 20 year history of known ties to a White Supremacist organization. He freely admits, out of arrogance, out of conceit, out of whatever, that yes, he was carrying them.

Why would those two situations not warrant and expedited death sentence?

For starters, neither one if those crimes is a capital crime. We don't live in some tin pot dictatorship where you can line up and murder anyone you want to.

The same Constitution that we've referred to guaranteeing our 2nd amendment right also guarantees rights to the criminals in both of your examples. We can't pick and choose which parts of it we like and which parts we don't. That would make us guilty of the same type of hypocrisy as the people who want to take away our right to bear arms.

It's time for me to exit this thread. It has gone from a well reasoned discussion into a realm I don't want any part of.

Bob

Quote:

It's time for me to exit this thread. It has gone from a well reasoned discussion into a realm I don't want any part of.

Bob

This is a recurring theme in discussions of the heated sort. But I think there is real value in giving all participants the leeway to express whatever point of view they have, even when some people in the discussion see it as offensive. Why?

Because no matter WHAT your opinion is, SOMEBODY thinks it's offensive! If we live by the rule of forbidding talk that offends somebody else, then nobody would ever be allowed to talk.

By analogy, discussion is much like pouring hot water into a cup full of cold water. In both cases, the substance is water, but the temperatures are extreme in opposing directions. If you perform this as an experiment, and test the final temperature of the water, it will NEVER be as hot as the hottest nor as cold as the coldest. Mixing extremes, at least in nature, always seems to have the effect of bringing both extremes toward the middle.

Using the same analogy, if you put the resulting mix of water in the freezer, it will all become colder... if you put it in a kettle on the stove, it will all become hotter. This is the functional equivalent of eliminating one point of view in order to homogenize the whole.

Personally, I like different points of view. And discussion exposes me to things I would not have considered otherwise. Discussion is good. It keeps us centered.

Man, I'm just surprised no one's been shot on this thread yet.....hehehe

Deleted

To All,
I value this discussion, because ALL of us have made points which to some may consider to be valid. The other thing is that I've seen no name calling, no personal attacks, or denigration of others as I've seen in other threads.

If Bob FP doesn't agree with me, and feels that I'm out in left field, that's fine. He hasn't told me that I'm insane, or that I should have my head examined, or some such, and I can see his point of view, and I respect it.

If others feel that I may be over the edge, they can say that too, and so far, I've not seen anything that has offended me, personally.

I will grant you that I've moved off the topic from the OP, but I guess crime will do that to me.

I'll try to refrain from posting further in this thread.

Gary

Edited..

Here's an idea..

This is clearly a group of thinkers who have strong opinions on various topics. I don't want to see the discussion end, but it could be that this PARTICULAR topic is in danger of making enemies out of people who would otherwise enjoy the fellowship of a shared hobby.

So, to keep discussion alive I am starting a new thread on another less-controversial topic: the search for excellence vs the search for equality. I hope people will particpate there as they have here.

This doesn't mean the party here is over by any means. May we all continue to post as long as we have something to say.

Citaat:

To All,
I value this discussion, because ALL of us have made points which to some may consider to be valid. The other thing is that I've seen no name calling, no personal attacks, or denigration of others as I've seen in other threads.

I too enjoy this debate. Unlike other (non musical) threads I've seen on this forum this is a mature and open discussion. You can oppose another person's point of view but you always have to respect their right to have his/her point of view. Learn from other persons views and decide for yourself what you think is right.

Mike,

I couldn't agree more Mike. There will always be "non-musical" threads on here as long as people are able to type.

We just need to keep it civil.

Take care,
Bob

Quote:

MI is also a 'shall issue' state, meaning they have the burden of a reason to not give the permit. Pretty specific reasons required. However, open carry in a vehicle is illegal here, it has to be in a case, preferably with lock on case or trigger.

I'm also from Michigan. I'm also a legal, carrying citizen -- have been for half a century.

"... AND shall be placed in the back seat or trunk ... AND all ammo locked in the glove compartment ..."

Where the heck are they going with this?

Maybe the ammo's far enough away from getting into a gun chamber that by the time it takes to do so ... cooler minds might prevail? Is / was that perhaps their thinking?

Of course the guy in Cass Corridor, Michigan driving by me with his 45 pointed at me knows EXACTLY where my ammo is 'cause our legislature has protected him from me! Right? On the other hand, does he REALLY know where my ammo is ???

True enough, I am a DISABLED citizen of Michigan but I am not, nor will I ever be, an UNABLED or disadvantaged citizen. Not any more. Trust me, my protection is IS NOT my cell phone, nor is it a 911 operator! Here's hoping all those guys are making beautiful music tonight instead of 'cruising'. I know, not likely!

These types of vehicle laws are to designed to prevent road rage actions and also to protect officers.

I know, I know, the criminals are the ones not following the laws to begin with, so the officers aren't safer..
however if an officer sees the firearm mis-handled this way he needs no more reason than that to bring you in, whether you pointed it at him or not.

Understand, vehicles are not private, they are public. If you choose to violate that law you better be real careful not get pulled over. You will likely lose any firearm permits and worse yet there is a good chance you will be drawn upon. Trust me, it is not a good feeling.

I was involved in a case of mistaken identity (license plate number only) and was drawn upon by state and local in Texas. Long story short, all charges were thrown out, but it IS something I will remember. Whoever they were after, they were serious about catching. I counted four firearms pointed directly at me.
I'm sure this isn't helping the 'pro-gun' cause, but I thought I would warn you from my experience. I did not possess firearms back then (only 20 yrs old).

When I went before the judge one of the officers said "He got out of the car and immediately put his hands up so he knew something was going on" Well- DUH! Even if I HAD been the guy they were after, who doesn't know what to do in that situation??

Bob,
Your comment about vehicles being public, not private, at least as far as guns go, seems to be coming under fire.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008926967_aptexasgunbill.html

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/arti...in-cars-at-work

http://www.wlwt.com/news/22750863/detail.html

http://inform.com/united-states/fla-guns-work-law-upheld-federal-judge-208573a

FYI, in the state of Washington, if you have a CCW, you may keep a loaded weapon in the car, anywhere you want it. If you do NOT have a CCW, you may transport an unloaded weapon

Gary

Yeah, the post right before mine was from ikeinblackriver who also is in Michigan.

So we were staying with those laws in the above couple posts.

I know, Bob, but many states have the same type of rules that you do, and it is possible that even Michigan will have changes coming in the future. Who knows.

Gary

Oh, OK, I see now what you were saying.

Shoot, when I saw the header of this thread I thought you were talking about open-container laws. I really miss being able to keep an open beer between my legs while driving around.

rharv, not sure i worded it right or if i missed putting the right words together here ... I am a law-abiding, carrying citizen of Michigan. I've never drawn down on anybody in my life, but I have seen the what the inside of a barrel looks like ...

My wife, myself and my 4-year old grandson were coming back from a trip to Cedar Point in Ohio. We were driving north to our home at night driving through a nasty part of Detroit -- pulled off the freeway to get gas, pulled out of the drive the wrong direction, got turned around somehow and had trouble finding the interstate and next thing ... I'm asking for directions in a neighborhood I'd rather not remember. Anyhow, I stop to ask for help at a BP gas station and a car with 4 guys in it pulls in as I'm walking out to my car and points a long-barrel revolver out the window at my wife and grandson. Yep, laughing their as*** off too! My wife cried over that issue. My grandson cried because my wife was so upset. Wife still will not travel with me if I've got to go anywhere near Detroit and my grandson, now 9 tells us he actually remembers the episode. The cop tells me, "Well, by now those boys are home in bed." The officer is telling me I guess that I wasted my time reporting it and I deserved it because I shouldn't be in this neighborhood at night and well, "... they're just boys." After my own research, I sent a long letter to the police chief of Detroit and to the station chief in that neighborhood. I / we never received a phone call or even a letter. Yes, my attitude has soured. I won't wait for someone to protect my family ever again. I have two friends that are state troopers and another, a chief of police for a community close to 200,000 north of Detroit. All of them have told me privately that if it were them, they would not hesitate ... they would protect first and answer questions later. They, themselves don't do anything different (you're not gonna wait and see if the guy's gonna pull the trigger -- not if you want to go home at night). My feelings are exactly the same as my three offer-friends. I get bashed lots because of my feelings about this (I express them freely these days), but it doesn't bother me anymore -- I'm too old to think like that anymore. I can take the criticism. The laws simply don't protect all of us and they've had plenty of time to get it right. Until I'm satisfied that the law will in fact protect me and my family, I'll still carry (and I'll be ready), and I'm hoping that the guys who drew on my family that evening read things like this ... they should know that the next time, I won't wait to see if they're gonna pull the trigger -- joke or not.

So parents (or relation) of these kids, I suggest you keep those kids home where the ought to be! There are plenty of people who feel just the way I do and you wouldn't want your loved-one not coming home some night because of a stupid prank (pointing a weapon at somebody). It happens a lot more frequently than you think it does.

What is it that you "lock" before you load? I've heard that many times.

I've only fired a few guns a few times. I just loaded them then fired.

James,

Excellent summary! One of the best I've ever read!

Regarding our system of checks and balances: I'm not so sure about the supreme court.

....I would guess, lock the clip (magazine) in place then load that first bullet in the chamber.
Like the Marines say..."When in doubt...Unload the Magazine!"

Hopefully you've locked the magazine
in place before you proceed to unload it all, if necessary.

Supreme court was set up to decide on issues that are not defined and need to be. Somebody has to have final say (using the constitution as a guide). I am glad we do not elect these justices, they are appointed by the person we elect as president but only when a spot becomes available, like one of them retires (or dies).
I wouldn't want them elected, or to have the ability to influence their decisions in other ways (lobbying etc) or rotated with each administration. I think it's a pretty good setup. What issue do you have with it Pat?
As I mentioned, someone has to have the final say on interpretation of law. Checks and balances are great, but there will always be a need for a final decision. I don't necessarily agree with every decision they make, but I don't think I could come up with a better system.

Pat,
I tend to agree with Bob on this one. Because there are nine justices, all serving very long terms, a good cross section of represented. We have Conservative leaning justices, and we have liberal justices, and while they may not agree, they can present differing opinions across the board. They also can not help but influencing one another, over time.

I *could* come up with a better system....but no one but me would like it.

Gary

The best description I've ever read concerning the Supreme Court:

"Nine scorpions in a bottle"

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall....

Bob

I had my moment in Flint, but driving past places in Detroit or Chicago and I just said, John, don't go there. But I was running out of gas. Went through 10 red lights, dudes standing round burned out buildings.

Downtown Toronto has had 3 or 4 people shot in the last 10 years, but I meet Americans all the time there, (the wife and I are going up on Sunday), and they all say the same thing.

1. It's so clean.
2. It's so safe.

Oh well.

If they came here it would be better.

I miss the trips to Romeo, Port Huron, and the other 3 places north of there we paraded as a drum corps, until the fortress America thing came to be, and they took you sandwiches, came in the bus with drawn guns, and kept us if we took our cars for 2 to 4 hours to get in.

I'll still go once in a while, but it has to be a week or longer, 'cause I'm not sitting at customs and getting treated like a terrorist. I have a grey beard, and mustache, no hair, and never even had a ticket. In almost 50 years of driving, only been pulled over once. Cop told me my tire was going flat.

I wish someone would make a gps map with colours, green for ok, blue for maybe ok, orange for maybe not and red for never. That would be good. There might be 400,000 people here, but I need no map to tell me you can go out anywhere at night. Toronto, maybe not, stay our of Scarberia.

Funny about those toronto stats, seems like half of them must have happened here-

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051118/funeral_shooting_051118/20051118

If we are going to throw around stats, lets keep the stats somewhere near reality ...or there is no sense using them

Toronto has gangs. Jane and Finch area, and the far east end. No reason for anyone to go to those areas. Safe enough is you stay away, it's just plain turf war. But on a small scale. My Mom and Dad went to a convention 20 years ago in Grand Rapids (church thing), and wanted to go out for a walk after supper. The man at the door told them it was way to dangerous.

But even at 2 am. thousands of tourists walk around Downtown Toronto. That's a fact, Jack. Sorry to say it but 80 percent of the shootings are young black males, and 10 percent are Asians, and about .01 percent end up innocent bystanders. It did happen, Jane Creba was sitting in a Starbucks or something when some guys got into it with handguns. But that's the only one I remember.

We had a 3 on 3 basketball tournament here downtown every year. The bulk of the players were from Detroit. At 12 p.m. the downtown became a shooting gallery, car windows shot out, buildings with windows shot, and people running through the streets with handguns. I'm on the downtown committee, we did a review, it brought in big bucks, but we canceled it. It was called the Gus Macker 3 on 3. We closed all the downtown streets and they set up courts. The building I take care of downtown, (hire electricians plumbers etc.) made 20k more in revenue that weekend. But it didn't feel safe at all.

2003 stats
Detroit 42 murders per 100,000 people
Toronto 1.8 murders per 100,000 people

Take your pick for nice vacation at a a downtown hotel. And when you look at crime, better Cuba than Jamaica. I've been to both, and I'm sure of my safety in Cuba. When I went to the beach in Jamaica I took a few dollars, and left my key with the desk at the hotel so they couldn't take me back there and clean out my room, which happened to a friend of mine.

We have Gus Macker here in port huron every year, three day event I believe.

Nobody has ever been shot in corrolation with it to my memory and we are a lot closer to Detroit. Somehow the bulk of the players are local, as that is what the tourney is all about. Wonder why Detroit players would go all the way to Toronto?? How did they get thru customs with weapons? And before you answer that your customs don't search like ours, remember these guys were coming back.. so they were going thru both ways.

Something sounds fishy, or maybe biased.

We have gangs here too John, and the majority of the shootings you hear about are gang related here also. There are also hundreds of people wandering around downtown Detroit on any given night enjoying the Red Wings game or Comerica park. Without incident. Just like Toronto there are bad areas you avoid. Funny how you accept that in Toronto but not here.

I think it's the dealers from Toronto and Windsor who know they've got guys who will buy that are the trouble makers.

All I know is that in this whole city of nearly 400,000 you can't find 60 black young males, but when that thing is on the city is full of them, probably 300. They are way taller than us...

From personal experience (and statistics) Detroit is worse than Toronto for crime.

I will admit that.
I hesitate to put a color on it though. To me its more of an economic issue.
I have no doubt the dealers play a large part in the crime activity, same as everywhere.

Quote:

Supreme court was set up to decide on issues that are not defined and need to be. Somebody has to have final say (using the constitution as a guide). I am glad we do not elect these justices, they are appointed by the person we elect as president but only when a spot becomes available, like one of them retires (or dies).
I wouldn't want them elected, or to have the ability to influence their decisions in other ways (lobbying etc) or rotated with each administration. I think it's a pretty good setup. What issue do you have with it Pat?
As I mentioned, someone has to have the final say on interpretation of law. Checks and balances are great, but there will always be a need for a final decision. I don't necessarily agree with every decision they make, but I don't think I could come up with a better system.

The old way of sneaking unpopular laws into existence was by adding them to the end of a popular bill that was sure to pass. The new way is submit legislation that is ill-defined in the areas where, if you said what you actually meant, it would never be voted into law. Then, once the bill is passed, you just set up a case where the law is challenged, it goes to the supreme court and they define it...often in ways which are not consistent with the will of the majority. The implications of a very few people making personal judgment calls that affect the whole population is unnerving to me on many levels. Oligarchy is government of the many by a few, and there are aspects of the supreme court that smack of Oligarchy.

There are aspects of the absue of our system that smack of oligarchy. I don't think you can blame the supreme court when someone else passes a bill then forces the case ..

I do know what you are talking about. It is abuse of the system by those 'entitled' bass-tirds in Washington..
luckily some of the worst ones are getting old and dying off. If it weren't for that they would never leave.

Quote:

There are aspects of the abuse of our system that smack of oligarchy. I don't think you can blame the supreme court when someone else passes a bill then forces the case ..

I do know what you are talking about. It is abuse of the system by those 'entitled' bass-tirds in Washington..
luckily some of the worst ones are getting old and dying off. If it weren't for that they would never leave.

I don't BLAME the supreme court.. my contention is that for the power they exercise, there is virtually no system of checks and balances on them, apart from the natural balance of opinions in the group (and that is always subject to manipulation, as in magistrates of a certain ilk waiting until their party is in power before they retire). To my way of thinking, that's neither enough balance nor enough control. Small groups can become homogenized in their thinking too easily. They can also be swayed by special interest groups.

Its a few people with absolute control to enforce their personal opinions, and nobody can do anything about it. We can't vote them out if we don't like their opinions. They can't be removed from the office by anybody that I am aware of.

Congress can control the supreme court by changing the laws to force them to ashere in their decisions.

That is the only 'recourse' way. See prohibition as an example. Currently another example would be flag burning. Supreme court often upholds it is free speech. If congress made a law that it was specificly illegal, they would have to honor it. At least until it was formerly challenged in their court <grin>
Otherwise, the President nominates/appoints a judge, but Congress has to approve it, so there is a smaller checks and balances there at the beginning.

Quote:

It is abuse of the system by those 'entitled' bass-tirds in Washington..
luckily some of the worst ones are getting old and dying off. If it weren't for that they would never leave.

There was once a planet, many lightyears off, which was inhabited by cats and mice. There were far more felines on the planet, but the mice were in office and ran the planet.

A passing traveler stopped by, and after staying a while, spoke to one of the cats about how peaceful the place was, and how there seemed to be no wars, or such.

The cat replied that while this was true, if the traveler stayed much longer, he would see that the mice had no clue what they were doing, the taxes were exorbitant, and that personal freedoms were quickly vanishing.

The traveler asked the cat why they didn't do anything about it, and the cat replied that it was a democracy, and that the mice had been elected as 'the will of the people.'

When asked why they didn't get rid of the mice, the cat replied, rather smugly, 'We don't want the wrong mice getting in power!'

Gary

Yeah , I understand, but somehow my vote doesn't change 80% of the country.

See when your congressman gets millions to build you a bridge that you really don't 'need' but makes your life easier, you re-elect him, regardless of whether it was worth it for everyone. Back to entitlement again.

Get me 'mine' and I'll re-elect you.

Wow, caught this tidbit this morning concerning UK crime and how they are handling it.

Is relevant to thread; how would our supreme court handle this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8578631.stm

No doubt in my mind how illegal this is here.. Is this legal there? Random drug testing and searches on the street.
Except it's not really random, you were 'suspect' if you were between 13-24!

Quote:

Yeah , I understand, but somehow my vote doesn't change 80% of the country.

See when your congressman gets millions to build you a bridge that you really don't 'need' but makes your life easier, you re-elect him, regardless of whether it was worth it for everyone. Back to entitlement again.

Get me 'mine' and I'll re-elect you.

I saw a news blurb just this morning about politicians selling their votes for personal perks (not even perks for their constituents, which would be good /bad on a whole other level)

Quote:

Wow, caught this tidbit this morning concerning UK crime and how they are handling it.

Is relevant to thread; how would our supreme court handle this one?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/8578631.stm

No doubt in my mind how illegal this is here.. Is this legal there? Random drug testing and searches on the street. Except it's not really random, you were 'suspect' if you were between 13-24!

Profiling is an interesting topic which I'm not sure has been nailed down the same way in all cases. For example, in the insurance industry, if it can be statistically proven that certain groups have more wrecks, that whole group can be charged more for their premiums. If somebody in that group actually has an accident, his/her rates go up even more. This is a form of profiling, and it is legal.

However it is also statistically true that a very high percentage of terrorist activity in recent years has been done by a highly identifiable demographic group. Yet, it is not OK to single them out for more diligent searching at the airport.

There needs to be leeway to use common sense in society. Randomly harassing a group because you don't like that group shouldn't be OK. In countries where there has been genocide, that's always the first step. Disarming them is the second step.

However, where it is known there is a demographic with a certain problematic terndency there needs to be a way to address those individuals without bothering those who are basically minding their own business.

It should never be OK to intimidate a group by taking them out behind the building and beating them up without a trial and without repercussions. But there should be more we can do to identify people who are suspicious so law enforcement can constrain their activity in ways that make it harder to act against society. The guy at Ft Hood is a good example. Many people saw that coming a mile away, but there was nothing they could do because of profiling laws.

regarding profiling:

we know from history that just about any group can suffer dramatically when the society they live in turns against them. People have been massacred because of religion, political opinion, race, excessive wealth, excessive poverty.. you name it.. if somebody doesn't like you and they can convince enough people you're the problem, you can be demonized and persecuted.

This discussion reminds me of the scene in SONG OF THE SOUTH where Bre'r rabbit tells Bre'r bear "Don't throw me in the briar patch!", knowing full well that he would do exactly that if he thought that's what the rabbit DIDN'T want.

I'm concerned that when the rules about profiling change (and they will), it will be presented as though the bear is just doing what the rabbit asked for, but in fact the rabbit is a special interest who is manipulating the bear to make a decision the rabbit wanted all along.

I think the end result will be less fairness and more persecution (because the people ASKED for it, doncha know). And I think when this happens, we may be surprised (maybe not) who ends up in the demonized group.

It wasn't just the chosen group that surprised me. The search (full body scans) and the drug testing as you got off the public transportation is what initially surprised me. I wonder if this is a regular occurence there. It wasn't reported as being 'Look what they are doing', seems more like 'they were out there working for us' type of report.. implying people there are OK with this (?).

Quote:

It wasn't just the chosen group that surprised me. The search (full body scans) and the drug testing as you got off the public transportation is what initially surprised me. I wonder if this is a regular occurence there. It wasn't reported as being 'Look what they are doing', seems more like 'they were out there working for us' type of report.. implying people there are OK with this (?).

different people see this in vastly different ways. I would be curious to see some forum input on the topic of profiling. Personally, I don't like ANY all-encompassing rules. I think common sense always considers the pertinent details. As an example of a scenario I would see as acceptable:

Here in the USA, people are given the right to PEACEABLE assembly. Protesting an abortion clinic is an example of that. I think that to provide compliance with the PEACEABLE part of the assembly, protesters should be willing to submit to a search for weapons. Providing none exist, nobody should be able to stop them from their peaceful protest.

But the corollary is that the unarmed protesters should have reasonable confidence that their lawful protest won't turn into something reminiscent of Kent State or Tienman Square.

an interesting movie about persecution is THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS

It is a dark film, not really very much fun to watch.. but it deals fairly with the topic of profiling and the subsequent persecution of a group. It uses symbolism to compare and contrast the two groups presented in the film, and it shows how the mindset of persecution is cultivated in a society from the youth upward. It also shows how everyone in a society is affected by the mindset of persecution, not just the target group.

If you like symbolism, this film uses it very well to makes a variety of points. If you don't like symbolism, you may not like the movie at all, because most of what the film says well, it says symbolically.

Bob,
Have you ever seen a roadblock set up outside of a bar, where everyone is stopped, and checked for alcohol? How much different is that from here?

Yes, I think both are wrong, in the U.S., you're innocent until proven guilty, and we've supposedly based a lot of our laws on the laws of U.K., so I would think that the same sort of thing goes on there.

I was watching Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin last night, and both were making the point that our country is starting, very little, but starting, to see a grass roots level movement to take back our country from the government. Palin makes the point that it has to be done through a legal manner, i.e., the voting process, which it should. But, I fear that it won't happen that way, that it will be wrought with violence and much bloodshed.

I am certain, however, that in the next 15 years, possibly even sooner, it will happen.

When a government becomes oppressive, at some point, the people, if they have known 'freedom', such as the U.S. and U.K., will rise up and reclaim that freedom.

Maybe both countries are on the same path to self-destruction and self-renewal.

Gary

Quote:

Bob,
Have you ever seen a roadblock set up outside of a bar, where everyone is stopped, and checked for alcohol? How much different is that from here?

Yes, I think both are wrong, in the U.S., you're innocent until proven guilty, and we've supposedly based a lot of our laws on the laws of U.K., so I would think that the same sort of thing goes on there.

Gary

Gary! Glad you chimed in! I always value your thoughts!

*IS* it wrong to focus control in areas where there is most likelihood of a problem?? Heaven help us if we can't enforce good sense until it blows up in our faces. What have we accomplished by letting the disaster play all the way out? Prevention is a good idea, IMHO

Regarding the idea of being innocent until proven guilty: people coming out of a bar drunk who don't get behind the wheel of a car probably would not be charged with anything. I don't think it's a crime to be intoxicated. It *IS* a crime to drive drunk. Better to identify them before there's a bunch of people tangled up in sheet metal, broken glass, puke and blood.

But that's just my opinion. Not everyone would agree.

The trick is in finding a way to identify and stop criminals without simultaneously inhibiting the freedom of those who are law-abiding citizens. We're open to suggestions. Any takers?

Just curious if anyone posting in this thread - these 18 pages, has had their opinion moved in a different direciton; ever so slightly?

Sure, because I have learned things in this thread, my opinion was altered to some extent.

Quote:

Just curious if anyone posting in this thread - these 18 pages, has had their opinion moved in a different direciton; ever so slightly?

it is almost impossible to expose oneself to other people's thoughts without being changed somewhat in the process. Which is exactly why such discussion is so valuable, even if it doesn't appear on the surface to make an immediate difference.

On TV, every conflict must be created, developed and resolved in 60 minutes, (minus commercials). Life Ain't quite so tidy. We have to act in good faith, believing that the principles we talk about are bigger and more enduring than we are. We also walk with the conviction that even when we don't see immediate change, that doesn't mean that discussion has not put something valuable in motion.

A large ship travelling at full speed takes time and distance to turn around; and so it is with ideology

here's a philosophical question my wife and I can't agree on. Since we have the great minds of at least 4 continents assembled here, maybe we can derive a reasonable answer to this age old question:

Cheet-ohs : are they good or bad?

My wife says they're bad because:

1) no nutritional value
2) they're addicting
3) they make your fingers orange, which in turn makes the towels orange
4) they make your butt big(ger)
5) they are more expensive, pound for pound, than nutritional food

But *I* say they're good because:
1) they're tasty

PS, you can participate even if your opinion never changes

Quote:

Just curious if anyone posting in this thread - these 18 pages, has had their opinion moved in a different direciton; ever so slightly?

IMHO, these discussions have yielded some extremely profound observations on all sides of the issues. And it isn't about changing anybody's mind in the first place. Discussion is about expanding one's own awareness by comparing multiple points of view.

Those who want to expand their own awareness tend to embrace such discussions, as they aren't offended by opinions that differ from their own.

On the other hand, people who are intolerant of opinion that isn't exactly like theirs tend to dislike such discussions, because they can't handle hearing opinions they don't agree with. The classic response of intolerance is to shut down the discussion so NOBODY can talk about the opinions they don't like.

you will be sure to hear things you don't agree with in an open forum. Yet, I believe discussion is important, especially in democratic societies where the media is in a position to spin the news to influence the public's interpretation of the events being reported.

Pat,
Is it wrong to focus control in the area that might be a problem? No, it isn't. And placing police officers outside of bars to catch drunk drivers is not a bad thing...BUT, INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty, which means the officer must OBSERVE a crime being committed.

To stop a line of traffic, to do random testing for drunk driving DOES NOT presume INNOCENCE, it DOES presume GUILT. You are simply LOOKING for the person whom you believe is committing a crime.

At that point, you are completely backwards, and once that door is opened, then everything else is open for change as well.

Profiling is the same thing. We think this group of individuals, or this ethnic group, is more likely to be ones committing a crime, so we are going to randomly stop them to see if they are committing a crime. That is so far wrong it's not even funny, we might as well go back to the days before the Emancipation Proclamation and decide that if we don't like a certain group of people, or race of people, or whatever, that we're going to take their rights away from them.

There was a little guy over in Germany who did that.....

Gary

Scott,
No, my opinions haven't changed one iota. I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and if they can't live with that, too bad.

I say that humorously.

But, for the most part, in this thread, no, my opinions have not changed...so far. No points have been made that would cause me to re-examine my core beliefs. I AM open to contrasting ideas however, because I am willing to change, if that is necessary. But, as of right now, I have found nothing to change my opinions expressed in this thread so far.

You will note, of course, that I have removed posts because some people have found them inflammatory, that was done not for me, but those others who are offended by my opinions. I can at least try to make the world easier to live in, and not try to force my ideas and opinions on people who can not see them as I do, but it does not change what was there to begin with.

Gary

Quote:

Profiling is the same thing. We think this group of individuals, or this ethnic group, is more likely to be ones committing a crime, so we are going to randomly stop them to see if they are committing a crime. That is so far wrong it's not even funny, we might as well go back to the days before the Emancipation Proclamation and decide that if we don't like a certain group of people, or race of people, or whatever, that we're going to take their rights away from them.

There was a little guy over in Germany who did that.....

Gary

I'm curious to know if you think that's what I'm advocating... because if so, then I'm not communicating very well. I do NOT think singling out a group for bullying is remotely OK. I would hope that my verbose replies had differentiated between those two positions.

I'm fishing for ideas on how to accomplish the obviously good goal of preventing crime without simultaneously stomping on anybody's rights

Gotta agree with Gary, we are tredding the line (and crossing it) with those checkpoints.
It is 'assumed guilty', otherwise they have no reason to pull everyone over. If 'assumed innocent' there is no reason for the stop.
I have personally never seen one.
Good analogy. However the people in the article I mentioned were not even possibly endangering anyone in any way.
They took public transportation and were not otherwise doing anything to draw suspicion, according to the article it was just a wide age group that got searched.

Also like to say I am impressed with how people have handled themselves here. This many pages and no screaming or vicious flaming.
I was one person who PM'd Gary to say I thought something he said was offensive. He edited it, which took a lor of compassion for views of others. I appreciate that. That was just one of the behind-the-scenes displays of character shown so far.
I also edited my response to him so no sign of any of it exists now, out of respect for Gary.

The presumption of innocence.

It looks like the US and the UK (and probably every other country which pays even lip service to the presumption of innocence) has the samebasic areas of non-compliance as we do here in Oz:
Tax law and the motor traffic act. In both areas of law, the legislation is written such that accusations can be made and you must prove your innocence, your accusers do not have to prove your guilt.

There are other areas in most countries, but these two are common. Why? Because the government gets their hand into your wallet through them.

Quote:

I'm fishing for ideas on how to accomplish the obviously good goal of preventing crime without simultaneously stomping on anybody's rights

Individually. If you see a 'profile' of a group that is struggling, volunteer and change their lives while they are young. Don't try it when they are 16 and initiated into the gang already.. be proactive with youth.

Just an idea. But it takes volunteers.
It has worked every time I've seen it tried.

Quote:

The presumption of innocence.

It looks like the US and the UK (and probably every other country which pays even lip service to the presumption of innocence) has the samebasic areas of non-compliance as we do here in Oz:
Tax law and the motor traffic act. In both areas of law, the legislation is written such that accusations can be made and you must prove your innocence, your accusers do not have to prove your guilt.

There are other areas in most countries, but these two are common. Why? Because the government gets their hand into your wallet through them.

That is why these checkpoints are disturbing here. They are a recent phenomena, and previously a lot of us thought the police needed a reason to pull you over and check you. It is one of those things we are allowing to happen just recently, and I think a lot of us are weighing the value of it. I think most of us know the implication of allowing it, and also the cost of fighting it.
I'm more of a 'personal freedom/rights' guy than a 'protect everyone at all costs' guy. We take risks when we go out on the road. Should we slowly give up our freedom for reduced risk?

Pat,
I do not think that you are advocating anything. I understood your post, but others may not, so I had to go back and go through that.

Gary

Quote:

Pat,
I do not think that you are advocating anything. I understood your post, but others may not, so I had to go back and go through that.

Gary

Thanks Gary. It's a good thing to ask for clarification. It keeps the thread on track and minimizes the chance for misunderstanding.

(Aside: I'm watching a NatGeo special on 9/11 ... very interesting stuff in light of this discussion)

Quote:

The presumption of innocence.

It looks like the US and the UK (and probably every other country which pays even lip service to the presumption of innocence) has the samebasic areas of non-compliance as we do here in Oz:
Tax law and the motor traffic act. In both areas of law, the legislation is written such that accusations can be made and you must prove your innocence, your accusers do not have to prove your guilt.

There are other areas in most countries, but these two are common. Why? Because the government gets their hand into your wallet through them.

perhaps the best argument for the conservative mantra of limited government

Quote:

That is why these checkpoints are disturbing here. They are a recent phenomena, and previously a lot of us thought the police needed a reason to pull you over and check you. It is one of those things we are allowing to happen just recently, and I think a lot of us are weighing the value of it. I think most of us know the implication of allowing it, and also the cost of fighting it.
I'm more of a 'personal freedom/rights' guy than a 'protect everyone at all costs' guy. We take risks when we go out on the road. Should we slowly give up our freedom for reduced risk?

It is possible that there *IS* a reason that the general public does not know about. But how would citizens differentiate between harrassment and a real reason without insider knowledge about the reason for the roadblock? In the case of reference, they may have had a tip about 2 gangs meeting at a specific location for a clash.. (if that were in fact the case, would it affect your view of the event?)

whether or not this is offensive to me depends on whether or not I trust the motives of the police conducting the operation. Best case, they are honestly looking for a fugitive or drunk driver in the interest of public safety. In that case, people who are not doing anything have nothing to be concerned about.

However, if they have an alternate agenda of generating income or profiling , then I would not like it. THe problem is in knowing their agenda. And I'm not real big on "trust me" as a reason for anything...

Quote:

Also like to say I am impressed with how people have handled themselves here. This many pages and no screaming or vicious flaming.
I was one person who PM'd Gary to say I thought something he said was offensive. He edited it, which took a lor of compassion for views of others. I appreciate that. That was just one of the behind-the-scenes displays of character shown so far.
I also edited my response to him so no sign of any of it exists now, out of respect for Gary.

I agree. A lot of different people have contributed to the discussion. It has been uncommonly civil. And the respect shown by various individuals who removed posts once they realized someone was offended... that's as good as it gets in a discussion forum. Musicians are good people.

And if you think about it, music is the ultimate conveyor of ideas. The ability to navigate the world of ideas should be very useful to a songwriter. If we learn how to make a statement without offending, and cause people to step back and say "hmmm. I never thought of it that way before..." that is powerful stuff for a songwriter.

Quote:

However, if they have an alternate agenda of generating income or profiling , ...

Worst case of this I ever saw was in Niagara Falls Ontario on a Sunday morning in '02.
After stopping at a red light I turned right and about 150 ft up the road was a cop waiving people into a parking lot. I thought maybe it was some kind of raod block or checkpoint. Instead they were handing out prewritten speeding tickets. for 10 over. Mind you I had turned the corner afetr a full stop and with the wife and kids and luggage in the car there was no way I had hit 45 kmh that quickly. Didn't matter.

You could pay the $110 full tickey, or go to the station for 'traffic school' (which consisted of a written test that you graded yourself) and then pay only $50 for the test, or you could come back and fight the ticket which was about a 5 hour drive to go to court.
They wouldn't accept US money, but there was conveniently a store across the street that would exchange. When you paid the $50 the ticket was ripped up right in front of you (no more evidence of it ever happening) and the money went into an unmarked desk drawer.
Then you were free to go after your donation. There were about 20 cars I saw pulled over, most with US plates. Wife and kids witnessed this display of public service.

Long story but worth mentioning.

Ah! 200 posts! Now the thread can die in peace
(I couldn't bear to see it stop at 199)

One last thought:

Many posts have been made about forbidding certain kinds of discussion because they lead to "strife". If I may say so, ANY topic can lead to strife... and any topic can lead to intelligent articulation of ideas. We get to choose. What's offensive is rarely the ideas in discussion, it is the rudeness that often accompanies the opinions. So, the outcome of any given discussion depends more on the courtesy of its participants than on the topic.

I've actually seen musical discussions go nuts... Should we forbid the discussion of music because people have strong opinions about it? Of course not... we simply encourage respectful exchange.

If I may say so, the discussion itself was quite respectful except for the intrusion of a few comments having the express purpose of introducing contention; and those typically came from the same people who protested the discussion on grounds that it might become unpleasant. Go figure.

When societies start to enforce the notion that certain ideas are forbidden, that is the beginning of oppression. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Frankie, the only reason it's white is you burned it and they had to paint it. Should never have shot those rockets at them because they were too heavy to carry back to the ships. They made and anthem out of a British Song.

According to many, Canadians would be Americans but their army got here and had neither shoes nor boots so had to leave when winter set in.

Pat,
Those roadblocks are, and were, set up specifically to test drives for driving under the influence. It was even reported on T.V. as such. "Hi, I'm such and such, with such and such, channel whatever News, here at the scene of a drunk driving checkpoint. Tonight, 75 cars have been pulled over to test drivers for DUI......"

I admit, I haven't seen that in the Pacific Northwest, but in the mid-Atlantic region, and down south, all the time.

Gary

John,
Are you really saying that you would have been unhappy if you hadn't been at least given the chance to be an American?

Gary

I think Pat was implying that they may not announce that they were looking for a terrorist (or other person) by using the checkpoints. Instead use a public safety excuse for the stops.. it won't cuase panic or tip anyone off.
I suppose it's possible and even likely to have been used for both purposes.

Up in these parts they usually just announce they are having more cops on the road watching for drunk drivers, especially on holidays, etc.

Personally I consider Canadians as Americans. I like to picture both countries as 'related' in many common needs.
They are not US citizens, much as I am not a Canadian citizen. As John is well aware, citizens from both countries intermingle quite a bit in this area. My daughter is dating a Canadian who has moved to the US within the last 5 years or so. His parents split and they each live in their own country now. All divorces should end so resolutely!

I could become an American in an instant. I'm sure your country like mine, grants citizenship to those who have cash and will start a business and hire some employees. I could do that no problem. But, I'm happy taking trips when the cold gets to me now and then.

I do miss all the trips to Michigan, but I'm not a criminal nor are my friends and we get very badly treated at the border now. It used to be welcome, come and spend some money and a smile. Now it's interrogation, look under my car for a bomb and lock one in 50 people in a room and make you strip. Pffffffttt...

Well, you know John, the attempted invasion of Canada during the War For Independence was just another ill-advised plan; one of many during that conflict. Personally, I'm glad that the British forces and their allies fought very hard and very well to keep the 'Yanks' out. America's already too big and diverse to govern from a central location effectively. In addition, without the French fleet, it's rather doubtful that the rebels would have prevailed. Maybe another even bloodier war would have been needed...who knows.

The Capitol needed a facelift anyway, so when the British burned it they were really doing the Americans a favor. It looks pretty nice now.

In reality, the War of 1812 was a series of blunders by the Americans, matched by some even bigger blunders by the British, so it was a rather sloppy conflict. The biggest American victory came about after the war was over, and due to some tragic arrogance on the part of the British commander. Just another irony in the age old history of state sanctioned murder and destruction...sad.

Quote:

Frankie, the only reason it's white is you burned it and they had to paint it. Should never have shot those rockets at them because they were too heavy to carry back to the ships. They made and anthem out of a British Song.

According to many, Canadians would be Americans but their army got here and had neither shoes nor boots so had to leave when winter set in.

Sorry John I wasnt around when"they" burned it unless you believe in the sins of the father etc..Anyway if it wasnt for us you could have all ended up being French oolala!

Wikipedia:
The English established fishing outposts in Newfoundland around 1610 and established the Thirteen Colonies to the south.[21] A series of four Intercolonial Wars erupted between 1689 and 1763.[22] Mainland Nova Scotia came under British rule with the Treaty of Utrecht (1713); the Treaty of Paris (1763) ceded Canada and most of New France to Britain after the Seven Years' War.[23]
The Royal Proclamation (1763) carved the Province of Quebec out of New France and annexed Cape Breton Island to Nova Scotia.[13] In 1769, St. John's Island (now Prince Edward Island) became a separate colony.[24] To avert conflict in Quebec, the British passed the Quebec Act of 1774, expanding Quebec's territory to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley. It re-established the French language, Catholic faith, and French civil law in Quebec. This angered many residents of the Thirteen Colonies and helped to fuel the American Revolution.[13]

Frank you miss the point.

The 'mericans sent armies to Canada when you were fighting Napoleon. You won the war, and as pay back sailed the Navy up the river. Sent word to the President and his wife that no offence, but please leave your house. I think the ranking officer and the President were both masons but I'd have to delve into that. The British then sacked and burned much of Washington and marched to Baltimore where you fired off the now famous rockets which were new to war at the time. Then you said, bye bye, cherio and leave our colony alone.

I know all the history of Canada/Britain/France in spades. Don't need a wikedpedia. And I speak French and English and so do my kids and my wife's relatives, although my parents don't know oui from we.

The most amazing thing is how polarized everything in the USA has to be. There seems to be only one solution. Declare some states Right Wing, and the Others Left. Most of the Left Coast is left anyway...

Johnny Cash did a good song about a group where the one on the left was on the right....that's a good one.

"Frank you miss the point"
John,Im still trying to figure out exactly what is that point!! Its good you speak both French and English because I have a feeling if all Canada was French then the English language would be as popular as our Welsh language.The English language is anathema to the French as I found out a few years ago when my family and I tried to get directions to a hotel we had booked in and no I dont speak French although its a language I find appealing to the ear.frankie

I never openly carried a gun, but I once smoked a joint sitting under a tree on the DC mall within sight of the capitol building.

Speaking of "Open Carry", have you ever written a music score for a porn movie???`

Quote:

Speaking of "Open Carry", have you ever written a music score for a porn movie???`

Yes, several. None of them longer than 3:09 though, since nobody ever watches longer than that.

Quote:

Most Americans don't like being told what to do, even by our own government.

Well, I think its probably fair to say that these guys don’t !

There are quite a few references in the preceding pages to the citizen’s constitutional right to forcibly resist an unjust or tyrannical regime.

No doubt that in the minds of these guys, the current US government is already way beyond the pail.

The problem is that one man’s organised group legitimately (and constitutionally) defending its members’ right to remain ‘free’ is another man’s bunch of dangerous, armed and homicidal nutters.

Who gets to decide at what point (and by what process) the authorities have gone too far in constraining personal freedom and need to be forcibly resisted?

Quote:

The problem is that one man’s organised group legitimately (and constitutionally) defending its members’ right to remain ‘free’ is another man’s bunch of dangerous, armed and homicidal nutters

A Jewish historian friend of mine claimed that 100,000 or more Jews left the US during the revolution and came to Canada fearing those same gun toting persons.

It's documented that 10,000 blacks left the US, having either fought for England or just because slavery in Canada at the time was very scarce, and no one would enslave someone who arrived here on their own. The end of the underground railway is just a short drive from here....

Over 100,000 Scots, many of the relatives of mine, originally from N. and S. Carolina (Mostly MacDonalds descendants of Islay, came to Canada, 1/2 to Nova Scotia and the other half to Ontario.

Tens of thousands of people of German descent moved north.

Hutterites, Mennonites, "Friends", Amish, and many Dutch people came at the same time, establishing towns like Berlin (Now Kitchener for obvious reasons).

All through the US there was a network of appointed people who worked for the Brits, postmasters, sherrifs, and civil servants who had jobs given to them by the crown, and they either got out fast, or were killed, tarred and feathers etc.

The biggest influx by percentage of new Canadians arrived during the revolution, and gun toting people in unorganised mobs mowed down anyone they though of as a British person.

So at the end, we got a bunch of people who wanted nothing to do with guns, nothing to do with revolutions, and who used diplomacy to create a society.

And a bunch of the opposite types stayed south of the 49th as we call it. Along the border there is a mix of people who can't decide where they stand. Especially the really close places, like east of here where before 9 11 you could just take a small street or country road and cross the border without drones, balloons and the Border Patrol.

So in short the "peace-niks" came north, and the cowboys stayed south.

Here when you smile at someone, even an American because if the didn't start talking yet they look like us only bigger, and you just say "Hey how's it going eh?"

If you smile at someone in the US you may just get "who you staring at ****!!$%#%#".

Been there and done that. And you worry about the gun.

Here the cops pull you over and ask if you would be so kind as to show him your papers.

There the pull you outta the car, shove yer face in the gravel, and cuff you, search you, and then ask why you licence plate light is out. Don't run out of gas on I-75 at midnight just on the north end of Flint Michigan. 3 shotguns pulled on me, had to walk backwards with my hands behind my head, and lean over my car. The kids 8 and 10 were wetting themselves.....here they call a towtruck, give you 2 gallons of gas, and the cop might go for coffees and doughnuts while you wait.

I think I'll go watch COPS and sing Bad boy....

No wait the Sopranos is on at 8....na, I'm going to sing! It's going up to 16C today and the sun is out, no clouds....yippee.....

I've been accosted by 3 patrol cars myself...imtimidating, to say the least. However, I remained courteous and the issue was soon resolved. I was NOT the burglary suspect that the cops were looking for.

America has a lot of faults as a nation, no doubt about it. Real freedom is never really free, so we Americans often pay a price for it. There is real freedom of speech here in the US, unlike Canada and Europe where politically unpopular speech can be a crime. With that freedom comes a lot of inflamatory and even derogatory speech, but it's all in the US universe of ideas.

Ann Coulter was recently shouted down by a group of students in Canada who apparently though they had the right to determine which words and ideas were suitable for listening to, and which were not. I'm sure they felt just so justified and proud of themselves, while wallowing in their own arrogance and hubris. I am not a fan of Coulter's attack and bate style of provocation, but she has the right, at least in America, to express those views in a peaceful manner. As does dailykos.com and the huffington post and Rush Limbaugh, etc. When the government begins to determine what the citizens can read and what they can hear in the political arena, despotism is just around the corner.

In western democratic states the citizens can determine how much freedom they are willing to give up for security and comfort. Personally, I don't want a bunch of bureaucrats telling me how to lead my life or what I can say or not say. I do understand that millions of folks are willing to give up some freedom for the warm, fuzzy feeling that the nanny state can offer, but count me out.

I am not a Tea Party follower or a member of any political party...I have been a registered independent for over 40 years now. I like to make up my own mind on issues that affect my freedom, and dislike being preached to by political hacks of any movement or party. I loath politicians because they are almost all self-serving sycophants with huge egos, and are not in politics to serve the public, but because they desire power and money. Political parties are there to support these unfortunate ambitions.