arma virumque cano (et alia)
This is a double pleasure. I called it that law enforcement in California would not be happy with dickheads carrying guns around in the cabins of their vehicles. Why should they be? That's just stupid CCW or no. Also Genessee Auto Care is a fucking rip-off outfit. I went in for a smog check. They came up with a cock-a-mamie story that some thief had stolen my catalytic converter and that they could replace and repair it for $1,200. I might have actually fallen for the line, but the concocted story kept getting goofier and goofier, until somebody with a muted rotary saw must have sneaked up under my car in front of my house while I was sleeping and stole my cat because it's worth so much money on the black market. I guess they only stole one of the cats or maybe replaced one with a cheap after-market cat or else the car would have roared like a big go-cart. Yeah right!Went to a reputable shop and passed no problem. Maybe the guy needs to carry a gun to battle it out with disgruntled customers. Why would an auto repair place need a gun? Someone's going to pay with cash? Steal one of the cars? Give me a break! That guy's never there anyway.
That's a riot. This clown probably mouthed off to the cops and then cried to the press when he got hassled a bit.
This [peaceable armed citizen] probably mouthed off [says Mikeb, based on ZERO evidence] to the cops and then cried to the press when he got hassled a bit.So is it your contention, then, that "mouthing off" to the government's hired muscle justifies being handcuffed and detained for nearly half an hour--which, apparently, you describe as being "hassled a bit"?Is there any government abuse you think we should not cheerfully endure, like docile, degenerate boot-lickers?
No, and I didn't say it would have been justified in such a case. You accused me of that with ZERO evidence, Kurt. What I said, clearly, is that it would have been EXPECTED and to then go crying to the press when he has no grounds to file a law suit is further stupidity.
Mikeb, Kurt accused you of nothing. He asked a question. But questioning gun control advocates gets counted as an accusation, I see.
You accused me of that with ZERO evidence, Kurt.I "accused" you? What we have here is a failure to communicate. Perhaps your definition of "accuse" is different from that of, well . . . everyone else, but in English, asking you if you think that abusive bullying by the government's petty thugs is justified carries a meaning distinctly different from accusing you of harboring such a contemptible, degenerate belief.I do wonder, though, why one would be so dismissive of the complaints of a man who "probably mouthed off to the cops and then cried to the press when he got hassled a bit," if one did not believe that the treatment he received was justified.Oh--and this?What I said, clearly, is that it would have been EXPECTED and to then go crying to the press when he has no grounds to file a law suit is further stupidity.Just where did you say that, "clearly," or not, because I ain't finding it anywhere?
Wrong, Kurt and Greg. Around here, when we ask each other loaded questions like that, it's an accusation plain and simple. Of course being lying flim-flam artists, you'd never admit it, unless of course, you'd "accused" me of it first.
Actually, Mike, when people ask questions it's because they think the person MIGHT harbor such thoughts but they want to ask if the person does or if the person can explain himself otherwise and clarify what he does believe.It's a request for clarification rather than making an accusation over a possible misunderstanding. You go on and on about us having a victim mentality, but if you didn't interpret what Kurt asked as an accusation and take so much offense at it you could have said something like: "No, I do not think that. I just think that in the current environment mouthing off is likely to get one in trouble, so you should avoid mouthing off to cops to simplify things. Moreover, if you do mouth off and get harassed, but not to the point of legally actionable abuse, then you should shut up and view it as a life lesson in 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes.'"You could even color it up by noting your offense that Kurt would think so poorly of you as to ask the question if you felt the need for vindication on that issue.Such a response would have opened a line to discuss the latter issue--whether one should take it as a life lesson or not--rather than derail things by twisting Kurt's question into an accusation and flipping the topic to what bad and horrible people you think we are.
Around here, when we ask each other loaded questions like that, it's an accusation plain and simple.What in the hell do you mean by "we"? There is no "we." You speak for yourself, and if you want to claim to speak for the rest of the forcible citizen disarmament jihadists, I won't complain--you do a much worse job of hiding the fanaticism of that ideology than most of the rest of them, so go ahead.But you sure as shit don't speak for me. When I say something, that something is what I mean. I would have that by now you would have noticed that I don't tiptoe around an issue. When I accuse you of something, I'll come out and accuse you of it, with no regard for politeness or political correctness. I sure as hell won't do it in the form of a question.
Mikeb, your dedication to wrecking the English language is only surpassed by your zeal to violate gun rights.
In spite of you contentious stubbornness, it is a common practice to ask a question as a way of making a statement or accusation. Why is it so hard for you guys to admit things like that? What do you lose?
When I ask a question, Mikeb, it's a question. When I make an accusation, you'll damned well know it's an accusation.Of course, if you have a guilty conscience . . .
Why is it so hard for you to admit that Kurt was asking for clarification and discuss the issue of what one should do if one mouths off and receives the expected reward?
Kurt, you're fucking lying through your teeth, man. You use every rhetorical device in the book. You have a tremendous grasp of English figures of speech and you use 'em, especially one so simple as asking a loaded question to make a statement.What's funny is how contentious you are and how you'll never ever back down when caught in something.
My experience with cops has shown a stark divide between those in favor of it and those not in favor of it. Polls have been taken that show a majority in favor of various pro gun positions (nationwide, not necessarily state to state). In my experience, this has been the case--experience includes conversations with deputies at court houses, conversations with cops hired to work security at student film shoots, conversations with cops taking down accident reports who I informed that I had a permit for courtesy's sake, and experiences on two occasions when I got tickets.That being said, the ones opposed can be frighteningly belligerent--one spotted my carry permit as I was handing him my driver's license, before I could even get the words out that I had a permit--much screaming ensued and I spent the rest of the stop with my hands glued to the wheel while a frightened exchange student I was taking to the mall had to hand him my license and dig my registration and proof of insurance out of the glove box. Sadly, I think she'd had better experiences with cops in Belarus.
Interesting that you quote the nationwide surveys that support your biased position. You do know of course there are other surveys out there that don't. But let's not even get into comparing who's got the best polls, let's try to think it through a bit. Many cops are insecure and inadequately trained for their jobs. They certainly don't want civilians carrying. Many others truly believe they should be the "only ones." They sure don't. Many more understand and agree with the basic tenets of the gun control movement, that more guns means more guns slipping into the criminal world and that even among lawful folks guns do more harm than good. They aren't going to side with you guys. That leaves the 2A fanatics who happen to be cops. Do you really believe any survey that says most cops favor civilian concealed carry? Use your head, man.
Many cops are insecure and inadequately trained for their jobs. They certainly don't want civilians carrying. Many others truly believe they should be the "only ones." They sure don't. Many more understand and agree with the basic tenets of the gun control movement, that more guns means more guns slipping into the criminal world and that even among lawful folks guns do more h tarm than good. They aren't going to side with you guys.So all of them except A) the nervous and incompetent ones, B) the power-hungry authority freaks, and C) the idiots who blame the gun--support the right of private citizens to defend themselves.Sounds good to me.
As I said above, the surveys exist. I know nothing about their methodology or how my side or your side might have skewed the results. All I know is that my personal experience has lined up with most of them being pro-gun and not freaking out at the idea of concealed carry.I can't speak from the same personal experience about departments in other parts of the country.However, I have a question for you: If cops are as anti-gun as you propose, for the reasons you propose (and yes, you said anti-concealed carry, but the same factors would likely make them edgy about civilian gun ownership as much as about carry), then why do you think that they involve themselves in your proposed conspiracies to distort crime data on carriers, to under report crimes, and to make sure criminal's get to keep their guns? It's a contradiction that makes no sense.
... yes, you said anti-concealed carry, but the same factors would likely make them edgy about civilian gun ownership as much as about carryGive it up fellas. You're not making any sense. Cops don't want a bunch of dumb cowboys driving around with weapons in their cabins. End-of-story. Other than that, I'm sure a lot of these guys have no problem with the well-behaved shooting culture in California. They probably have a lot of friends that own guns. I mean, why not?
The well-behaved shooting culture of California? You mean the state where gun owners are harrassed and disparaged, who have their rights violated more than almost every other state?But yes, the police in large numbers do support legal carry of firearms. I can't speak to control freak enclaves, but in the free states, they do.
"It's a contradiction that makes no sense." I don't see the contradiction. I think you're stretching for a gotcha.
Mikeb, you keep claiming that police and prosecutors are sympathetic with gun owners and let them get away with negligence. But then you claim that those same law enforcement personnel oppose concealed carry.
You don't just claim they let people get away with negligence, you even suggest that they fudge the crime statistics so that concealed carriers seem more law abiding than they really are--in fact, you claim so much manipulation that "fudging" isn't even the right word.And then in another post like this you claim that most of them oppose carry.These two things can't be true at the same time.
"But then you claim that those same law enforcement personnel oppose concealed carry."You mean the very same guys, literally? That's not what I mean, Greg, and if you put a little thought into it, you'd see that. Obviously, it couldn't be the SAME cops.As I mentioned with your selective use of strict definitions, this is a case where you play pretty loose with your words. Saying "those same law enforcement personnel" is pretty sloppy, Greg.
You accuse police and prosecutors of being sympathetic with gun owners without limiting that list to only a select group, so when you are sloppy with language, you can't expect people to know that you only mean some law enforcement officials.
Mike,You can't have it both ways. If the majority of police opposed concealed carry, then they would put a stop to any attempt to under-report crimes and manipulate statistics to favor people with permits. It doesn't make any sense for you to claim that pro-gun conspiracies are common nation-wide and at the same time claim that most of the cops are anti-carry/pro-gun-control.
I caught Greg being extremely sloppy with the language, and what did he do? He accused me of being sloppy with the language. Simon, I don't have it both ways. The majority of cops are a perfect reflection of the majority of citizens at large, and that is they agree with the gun control side of the argument. The minority of cops is responsible for lots of abuse, which I point out whenever I see it.
And so the minority is carrying out rampant injustice, sweeping cases under the rug, and doctoring stats without the majority being able to do anything about it? Without them even being able to point to this minority and say "Hey! They're publishing fraudulent data!" ?How is this possible? Whenever small groups, large groups, and even nearly whole departments engage in corruption of other types there are whistleblowers. Where are the whistleblowers on this supposed nationwide conspiracy?
Mikeb, until you learn how to use evidence and logic, you should stop claiming anything.
Some states require you to inform a police officer that you have a permit and are carrying when you come into contact with them. I'm not sure if that is the case in California, or if he did it to try to be cooperative. If informing the officer isn't a requirement, what do you suppose he's going to do next time? In Minnesota, the requirement is to present the permit upon request. There have been instances of this rule being misused by police. If I'm ever stopped, I'll likely just give him my permit along with my license and see what happens. If it doesn't go well, I'll just stop doing it. It is mostly a matter of training. What happened might very well be the SOP. The important thing is to not make the policeman nervous. After all, not too long ago, the LA Police shot up two vehicles just because they resembled the one owned by a police officer who was killing people. Whether they approve or not depends on the personal feelings of the individual officer. But they better get used to eventually encountering permit holders and dealing with them."Californians have flooded several sheriff offices with applications and inquiries for permits to carry concealed guns. ""The Orange County Sheriff Department, for instance, said it has received a little more than 1,000 applications since the ruling, which is about double the applications it receives annually. Ventura, San Joaquin, San Diego and several other smaller and rural counties also reported surges of hundreds of applications, which cost between $150 and $300 depending on the issuing agency. Those three counties reported receiving hundreds of applications since Feb. 13, far exceeding the numbers of requests for permits each county receives annually. "http://www.contracostatimes.com/portal/news/ci_25329945/requests-carry-concealed-guns-surge-california?source=rss&_loopback=1
Just be wary of the young ones--in my experience they're the ones most likely to be edgy and get hostile when they learn of a permit. Older guys generally realize that if I'm taking the opportunity to inform them that I have a permit, showing it to them, and offering to carefully remove the weapon and make it safe, chances are pretty good that I'm not planning on doing anything untoward.
Anti-armed private citizen thug "Only Ones" in California?! I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.I can't help but note that the state's non-"Only One" population appears to have a much different attitude.Good to see the "intelligent and educated folks of CA" exercising their rights, even if it is just unconstitutional carry.
This was California, after all. He'd have had a better chance if he'd identified himself as a pot grower.
Ok Mike, so back in the “smart gun” thread, you said how when you say you don’t oppose carry any more than you do ownership, that really means you don’t support carry at all until you get your wish of disarming half the country. That’s not exactly what we have in California, but the permitting process is a strict may-issue system where the sheriff can deny anyone they please, and falls in line with how you want to see permits issued nationally (particularly in San Diego country, which as we know, is one of the hardest places to get permission to carry). But here we see you seemingly have a problem with this guy carrying, and didn’t have a problem with the cops detaining him. You called him an “idiot”, “clown”, and assumed he “mouthed off” to the police. What’s wrong with California’s system where you automatically believe this guy is one of the bad 50%? Should people who make it through California’s exclusive permitting process be allowed to carry why buying coffee? The excuses you used to say why you want Starbucks to ban carry in their store should only apply to states like Florida and Texas, et al., where they give out permits willy-nilly, right?I just want to add that there is another stipulation (other than first disarming half the country) that you undoubtedly have before supporting carry. It has to work. I know in your heart you believe it will, but you also know I don’t believe it will work based on all the data I’ve shown you. There is no way that after disarming half of America and violence remains as it is, that you would say, “well that didn’t work. Oh well, might as well let people carry again.” Somehow I doubt you would say that.
Speaking of attitudes regarding concealed carry, Mikeb, does it trouble you at all that concealed carry legislation appears to move in only one direction--toward more freedom and self-defense?Think about it. No state, after legalizing concealed carry, ever decided, "Well, the ungulates shrieking about 'Blood in the streets!' were right after all, we had better repeal it." In fact, I can't even think of any serious efforts to repeal concealed carry.Going further than that, I can't think of any state going from "shall issue" to "may issue" (while several examples of the other way around exist), let alone "may issue" to "no issue," or from Constitutional carry to any less free system (I mean in the last 50 years--I realize that at some point in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries nearly every state went from Constitutional carry to mandated defenselessness). And again, I can't think of any effort worth taking seriously for such a change.Really, the only aspect of defensive firearm carry that there seems to be a real effort to further restrict is "stand your ground," and even that effort is not looking especially robust (and in fact Florida might liberalize its SYG law).OK--I take that back. California did, not long ago, end open carry of unloaded firearms (a practice that was thus nearly useless for self-defense, anyway), and in so doing, opened up the very real possibility of being forced by the federal courts to go from "may (not) issue" to "shall issue."You know, it's not too tough to see why "gun control" advocates tend to be so unhappy all the time ;-).
TS, "There is no way that after disarming half of America and violence remains as it is,..."That could never happen, as I have shown over and over again.Kurt, "Mikeb, does it trouble you at all that concealed carry legislation appears to move in only one direction"Yes (assuming that it's true - you may be glossing over examples that I can't think of right now).Kurt, "
Mikeb, gun carry laws have gone in exactly the direction that Kurt described. And since the predictions of gun control freaks have been proved false again and again, the trend in our favor continues.But once again, you're confusing assertion with proof. You have claimed that your demands would reduce violence, though you have yet to offer any evidence.
This is where Mike is being more clever than the other gun control advocates. They claim that shootings will skyrocket--the claims we deride as hysterics about blood in the streets--if carry is allowed in a jurisdiction or if it is expanded--they claimed it would happen in Tennessee the law was changed to allow people to carry when they went to Applebee's or Chili's so long as they weren't drinking. This in spite of evidence to the contrary from other states with similar laws--e.g. Kentucky which allows carry so long as you don't drink and don't sit in the bar area.The claims didn't come true, and now we have more evidence that those claims are false.Mike's claim, however, depends on nationwide compliance with his wishlist of "proper gun control" as he defines it. Even if a state passed it he has the out that it must be nationwide for results to count, and so he doesn't feel the need to prove his claim because it can't be proven or disproven without us crossing the Rubicon, doing it, and doing it hard. If it works, he gets to claim a victory. If it doesn't, he blames non-compliance, a conspiracy, or just suggests a new fix, but we've gone too far to go back--lists, registries, licenses, etc. all exist, and it would be budget breaking for the government to refund everyone or replace the weapons that were destroyed because they had the wrong grip.