ehhh... that's a big maybe. It could also swing the other way and if we demand they eliminate the LTCH or something else, we could certainly gain that to get us out of their hair.They can't ban us from carrying guns in the city without one helluva fight and they know it.
I dunno... it kind of depends on monkeys video. I can just see the media skew it pretty hard on this one.
Don't get me wrong, if the story came across the way it happened, with some objective reporting, they YES!!! I'd LOVE to see coverage on this... but I just think it would be skewed and turned into an anti 2A story.
Just mycoming from my journalism classes in college.
I think a more organized event where the media is invited would play out better in the media. That's all.
Big words for a tiny post whore
Frank,
The first part of what I posted was only in hypothetical situation where an LEO was part of a group that was OCing and then detained by LEO(s) on duty.
I'm pretty disappointed that you lumped me with cop-dislikers, as I'm not one. I do dislike anyone (cop or not) who decides their "safety" is more important than my rights. When I posted the above about silence given on topic and how the public perceives it, I did not say that it was my opinion of LEO but I did state that it is how it will be perceived... right or wrong.... that's just how it is.
If you want to be silent while rights are being trampled, by all means, be silent. It is your right. I'd rather have you by our side at another Open Carry walk in solidarity than someone who keeps silent at something. You do not owe me nor anyone your opinion but you've jumped the gun on calling me a cop-disliker. So how about it, Frank? Want to accompany us on the next OC walk? You could be the first LEO (to my knowledge) to join the walks.
I used religion/a political party as a comparative example. When "Muslims" blew up the WTC, and surrounding Muslims didn't apologize for the actions of those involved... some interpret that as guilty by association.
Catholic priests who were guilty of molestation had lots of clergy come out and speak against those who did the molestation. Does that mean they participated in it? No, it means they spoke out against it because an opportunity arose where they had a chance to speak out against it... if nothing else, it is good PR.
I am only accountable for my actions because I'm the only one responsible for them. Sometimes, I realize the benefits of apologizing for the actions of groups that represent me to show that I do not approve of their actions.
I met you at the 1500. I shook your hand, Frank. I've offered to pay for your meal and/or beers at INGO events, if you showed up. I don't shake hands with people who are't worth my time. I appreciate your insight but I can't do it if you don't share it either. If you interpret all of the above as cop bashing, I'll be sure and not shake your hand the next time I see you at an INGO or non-INGO function.
So if someone expresses their opinion about this situation and LE, they are automatically "cop-dislikers"?
This IS a rights issue, whether you see it as such or not. Just as staying silent on other rights issues can make someone seem complacent at the least, and complicit at the worst, so it does here as well.
A LEO is charged with upholding the Constitution, and the rights of citizens, yes? Citizens (ie gun owners) rights are being violated by certain LEOs while other LEOs stand by and say nothing. Surely you can see how silence could be seen as agreement in these types of situations.
I can understand how you would not want to get involved based on your previous concerns you stated about being "called into the chiefs office", but it would sure make me, as a gun owner, PROUD to see at least ONE of the LEOs on here make a stand for their fellow INGOers.
No disrespect but I (as well as the mods) want to avoid a board war.
I would look at the fact that his thread only has 3 replies in nearly 18 hours as a sign that maybe even their OWN officers don't agree with the OP there.
