The Law and Guns

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, Boltito, you did not claim your interactions with the city park police were specific to constitutional carry. Rather, you claimed a broader spectrum:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I think that will vary a great deal, especially depending on location, but anecdotally the ones I’ve interacted with (both urban and rural) come out in the “mixed” camp, and certainly are not absolutist either way…

[/quote]

This was your initial post and constitutional carry had not yet been mentioned. Your original post was in direct response to Muf’s original post:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s fairly clear you weren’t specifying constitutional carry but general gun control measures.

So it’s completely fair of me to cite sources of LEO’s countering you and your city park buds about general gun control measures.

[/quote]

Ad hoc explanations for your piss poor initial response.

The city park cops were one example, I know many others. But the larger point is, what is there to rebut? I said the answer would vary depending on location, but here is what I have heard from people I know. That isn’t a claim that LEOs elsewhere don’t think differently. Clearly they do, and I never said otherwise.

So, why in the world would I need to prove that AZ cops don’t support constitutional carry? Did I ever claim they didn’t?

Seriously. A (true) story (I’ve mentioned this in PWI before). I asked a boxer friend the classic question of “who is the least fun person to box?” I expected him to say huge guys, or fast guys. He said, “people who don’t know how to box.”

That’s you, in PWI. You don’t know how to box. I answer Mufasa’s questions and you start barfing up examples of LEOs read to defy Obama’s executive order as a “rebuttal”.

Learn to box.

[/quote]

By the way, this whole post was a dodge (I guess that fits with your boxing analogy). I laid out why I wrote what I wrote in response to you and you did the very thing of which you’ve accused me – you twisted it. You know you did this, boxer.[/quote]

Nope. Point being, you provided a rebuttal or “counter” to…precisely nothing. There was nothing to counter. I didn’t claim AZ cops thought the same way as cops I had talked to and recognized cops in different places have different viewpoints, Einstein.

[/quote]

Yes.

For years now you have been here on PWI advancing the narrative that “reasonable” gun control is The Ticket (Hillary wants “reasonable” gun control too FWIW). You’ve got a record. Every single long time poster here knows this.

Then on your very first post on this thread you ran this flag up the pole again and said the LEO’s you know in the park salute your flag. So it’s not inappropriate for me to offer the viewpoints of officers I know and officers all over the US including AZ to drive home the distinct point that “your team” may very well be the one in the minority. I back up my point by citing sources. You back up yours with “I know others.”

Now back to your record. If you hadn’t been a pro-gun control guy for years you wouldn’t have been hit with my left hook. But I did throw and connect with my left hook because I know where you’re coming from with all the “claptrap” I mentioned in my first post on this thread.

Learn to stagger to your feet from the canvas before giving advice on my educational status.
[/quote]

The lesson continues.

  1. Where did I claim that the cops I talked to were in the majority position?

You can post about AZ cops the day is long, I don’t care - the point is you pointing out what AZ cops think isn’t countering any position I am taking.

So, while (amongst your rank dishonesty in dealing with me) you flap your gums about connecting a left hook, the only thing you punched was a straw man of your own making. And predictably, bwcause of your nonsense, you come attempt in to punch a legion of straw men and yet again, shit the bed in a thread that was dealing with a different topic.

Learn to box. Oh, and learn how to be honest, something you are clearly struggling with.

62

[quote] pushharder wrote:

Scroll up. [/quote]

Of course. So it ends. In classic Push fashion - having been called on his nonsense, he cowardly won’t answer the question put to him.

Sorry folks. This was a waste of everyone’s time, certainly mine. Back to the thread.

63

Bonus points if Push’s response amounts to a silly but almost verbatim imitation of what I said, just switching out the names.

64

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Yes, it does.

For instance, Rhode Island had a state religion after the ratification of the Constitution. It was not overturned by a court but legislatively later on.[/quote]

I think it merits noting, however, that the better answer is not any longer. TB is correct insofar as the original federal Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government - the Supreme Court even opined as much in Barron v. Baltimore, a landmark case that should be orthodox study in any government or civics class. However, with selective incorporation of the 14th Amendment, almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights have been applied to state and local governments too. Many of the individual state constitutions mirrored the Bill of Rights in guaranteeing similar protections from infringement by state or local governments, but yes, as you noted, there were, for example, instances of official religious endorsement by state governments, religious instruction in public schools, and numerous prosecutions in state and local courts for speech or expression that would have never been constitutional had it of been a federal case.

65

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Like you, it varies, but among the folks I know there is consensus that an assault weapons ban is worthless. The guys I associate with (through various sporting groups and events) personally think lowly of so-called assault weapons, but don’t support making them illegal.

(Their take, which I share, is that they are mostly a silly marketing shtick - low caliber with a pistol grip only for that segment of the market that a) want to own a gun because they get action hero jollies from owning such a “fierce” looking gun and b) people who are horrible shots. I know people who hunt with big mag assault weapons and all I see it as is an admission you are low-skilled. As for the group in a), these are the same people who will buy a roll of tape for $10 over an identical regular roll of tape merely because Beretta labeled it “tactical”.)[/quote]

I agree that the “tactical” marketing is excessive, but please don’t tell me you are a Fudd.

66

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Like you, it varies, but among the folks I know there is consensus that an assault weapons ban is worthless. The guys I associate with (through various sporting groups and events) personally think lowly of so-called assault weapons, but don’t support making them illegal.

(Their take, which I share, is that they are mostly a silly marketing shtick - low caliber with a pistol grip only for that segment of the market that a) want to own a gun because they get action hero jollies from owning such a “fierce” looking gun and b) people who are horrible shots. I know people who hunt with big mag assault weapons and all I see it as is an admission you are low-skilled. As for the group in a), these are the same people who will buy a roll of tape for $10 over an identical regular roll of tape merely because Beretta labeled it “tactical”.)[/quote]

I agree that the “tactical” marketing is excessive, but please don’t tell me you are a Fudd.
[/quote]

Heh. If by “Fudd”, you mean someone who owns guns for their purpose and not for the purpose of being seen or heard as a gun owner because of the hoped-for “cool points” (“fingers crossed that they actually think I am some kind of a badass!”), then I probably qualify.

But it could be worse - I could be the kind of person who uses the term “Fudd” (no offense). These folks tend to see guns first and foremost as status symbols and don’t know half of what they think they do about the hallowed Second Amendment.

70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
These folks tend to see guns first and foremost as status symbols and don’t know half of what they think they do about the hallowed Second Amendment.
[/quote]

Come on man, there are a lot of Fudds with $2,000 dollar Browning shotguns that have never been fired.

To keep this somewhat on topic, the people I hear criticize “responsible hunters and sportsman who support common sense gun legislation” the most are military and law enforcement.

71

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Heh. If by “Fudd”, you mean someone who owns guns for their purpose and not for the purpose of being seen or heard as a gun owner because of the hoped-for “cool points” (“fingers crossed that they actually think I am some kind of a badass!”), then I probably qualify.

[/quote]

What are “their purpose?”

I think some gun owners do see guns as a status symbol.

I think many see them for what they truly are – a freedom symbol.

Do you see them that way, boxer? As a freedom symbol?[/quote]

Hmm… I was always taught to see them as highly effective machines for launching bullets into things, generally for the purpose of killing/destroying said things.

72

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Heh. If by “Fudd”, you mean someone who owns guns for their purpose and not for the purpose of being seen or heard as a gun owner because of the hoped-for “cool points” (“fingers crossed that they actually think I am some kind of a badass!”), then I probably qualify.

[/quote]

What are “their purpose?”

I think some gun owners do see guns as a status symbol.

I think many see them for what they truly are – a freedom symbol.

Do you see them that way, boxer? As a freedom symbol?[/quote]

Hmm… I was always taught to see them as highly effective machines for launching bullets into things, generally for the purpose of killing/destroying said things. [/quote]

Firearms are certainly not symbols of freedom and security for the citizens of despotic regimes. Weapons are ambiguous symbols. They have meaning in relation to the context and the beliefs of the relevant actors. A gun can be the source of food for a family in a hunting community, or it can be used to spray bullets across a school in a mad killing spree. A sword can be an instrument of honorable suicide, or the cross marking a crusader’s grave, as well as a weapon of war. Ambiguous symbolism goes all the way down, as was shown with telling simplicity in a question at the World Disarmament Conference (WDC) in 1932: “What is not a weapon in the wrong hands?” They also asked: is a spade a spade or is it an entrenching tool? There exists an interplay between the material and the psychological. The same weapon that holds the capacity to defend a person can also be turned upon others to deprive them of their own freedom and security.

73

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Heh. If by “Fudd”, you mean someone who owns guns for their purpose and not for the purpose of being seen or heard as a gun owner because of the hoped-for “cool points” (“fingers crossed that they actually think I am some kind of a badass!”), then I probably qualify.

[/quote]

What are “their purpose?”

I think some gun owners do see guns as a status symbol.

I think many see them for what they truly are – a freedom symbol.

Do you see them that way, boxer? As a freedom symbol?[/quote]

Hmm… I was always taught to see them as highly effective machines for launching bullets into things, generally for the purpose of killing/destroying said things. [/quote]

Firearms are certainly not symbols of freedom and security for the citizens of despotic regimes. Weapons are ambiguous symbols. They have meaning in relation to the context and the beliefs of the relevant actors. A gun can be the source of food for a family in a hunting community, or it can be used to spray bullets across a school in a mad killing spree. A sword can be an instrument of honorable suicide, or the cross marking a crusader’s grave, as well as a weapon of war. Ambiguous symbolism goes all the way down, as was shown with telling simplicity in a question at the World Disarmament Conference (WDC) in 1932: “What is not a weapon in the wrong hands?” They also asked: is a spade a spade or is it an entrenching tool? There exists an interplay between the material and the psychological. The same weapon that holds the capacity to defend a person can also be turned upon others to deprive them of their own freedom and security. [/quote]

That’s all well and fine. My point was simply that attaching emotionally charged symbolism to an item does little to further rational discourse on the subject.

To me, a firearm is and always has been a tool, not a symbol. I endeavour to see things simply for what they are rather than for the significance people attach to them.

Anyway, this is off topic. I apologize.

74

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’m curious, because I really don’t know (so I hope someone in, or with Law Enforcement experience; or who knows someone who is, will post…)

What does the average, “in-the-trenches/out-in-the-street” Law man or woman think should be the “balance” between them and public when it comes to firepower?

Do most advocate any form of Gun Control?

(P.S. Politicians need to get the hell out of the discussion…and I believe the 2nd Amendment is clear…)

Mufasa[/quote]

Perhaps it would be nice to get back on topic?