Stopped by Terre Haute PD for OC'ing -- On a Date!

[XMil]

Lets get rid of all fire services, all EMS services, all police, all public road building, all libraries, all public health codes, all law requiring safe cars, buildings, etc., all public education, all state parks, all national parks, etc.. Stop stealing from the people to provide these above things to others. Everyone needs to pay their own way for the above.

So you do understand!

 

[E5RANGER375]

Let's put the brakes on this for a minute. In the question of law vs. freedom, trust of freedom in others' hands, Joe, DZ, mrjarrell, I'm sorry you are not fully correct. By the same token, neither is bapak2ja. All of you are expressing good thoughts and doing so well; that is not in contention. The point where we're falling down on this, and honestly, I think we're all saying the same thing even if we don't realize it, is that we want some limitations. Don't think so? OK, Joe, I'm going to pick on you for a minute here because you have a young child. Let us, just for the moment, take that you and your wife had had a daughter instead of a son. From what I've read, Sean is, what, 11? So OK. You happen to walk into your daughter's room and find her standing at her window. As you ask, "Whatcha looking at, honey?", you look out also and see your neighbor, walking behind his lawnmower or maybe just laying out tanning, naked as a jaybird. He is on his own property. He can do what he wants. Presuming we don't have laws forbidding such, your only recourse would be to go talk to him and ask that he cover up. OK, so if he complies, "Oh crap, Joe, I'm sorry, I didn't think about her looking!" then all is well. Suppose, though, his reply is, "Nope. She wants to look, that's not my problem."? Sure, you can build a fence between your property and his. When the neighbor on the other side decides to have a pool party with his gay friends, I guess you'll be building another fence. The problem is that, as the saying goes, no man is an island. We live in a society. We interact with others. From a different perspective, you go to your local grocery and buy cereal in a box. There are laws that disallow the enormous box and minimal product that some were doing, and sure, the better solution would have been people complaining/demanding money back, etc., or just stopping purchasing of that product, leading to them going out of business, but how hard is it to get people to do that? It's a worthwhile goal, to be sure, and you guys know I fall more on the side of smaller government than larger. I'm just not sure how we're going to get there without life just sucking for a long time. We do need some laws, I think. Minimal things addressing violent crime, maybe even addressing such issues as fraudulent claims. There has to be SOME order to society, but I think the proper line has to be closer to minimalist than to the burgeoning behemoth we have now.

Blessings,
Bill

i have a solution. how about we make a law that says if i punch him in the d*** for prancing around like a rainbow fairy infront of my kid, then i wont be prosecuted and neither will he. problem solved without the cops.

 

[downzero]

So you do understand!

yep, he sure does. I don't have time to respond to his points individually, but he'd probably call me an anarchist if he realized how many of those things that I want to eliminate.

I will say this:

I support arresting people 100% of the time for violating statutes. Courts don't selectively enforce bad statutes, they do it 100% of the time. The fact that cops do otherwise just perpetuates mediocrity. Making the legislature write the laws correctly is much easier when they are not selectively enforced. Allowing the police to make the law doesn't serve the public interest. And I can think of a laundry list of constitutional principles that disfavor giving preferential treatment to some people who violate the law and not others. One day, after we enforced all the ridiculous statutes we have on the books, we'd wake up and realize that we locked up way too many people, and that perhaps the laws should make more sense and fit more with the needs of our society, rather than the other way around.

And as for his last point, the theft is not voluntary and I would not pay for any of those services with tax dollars if I had the power to change it, with perhaps a few exceptions. But I can assure you one thing--private would be the norm.

I just would be very surprised to hear anyone here really believe that no government would be a good thing. There must be a small amount of government, but not to create laws, but to keep the peace, preserve liberty, and be the Country's voice on the world stage. That should be the extent of government, IMHO of course.

I actually think no government would be better than what we have. That said, I'm not an anarchist, I just think that we've gone so far the wrong way, that even chaos would be better than what we have. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine, I can understand how people might differ on this. But I really think we have so much government control over our lives at this point, that almost anything that constrained the power of government would make us better off overall.

 

[SavageEagle]

i have a solution. how about we make a law that says if i punch him in the d*** for prancing around like a rainbow fairy infront of my kid, then i wont be prosecuted and neither will he. problem solved without the cops.

There used to be such a society. It was based on the principle of family, community, town, region, country. If it was an issue that could be handled at the family level, it was so. Something like that could certainly be handled at the family level.

I wish we could go back to that system. Too bad the P****fication of this Country has become so dominate....

 

[SavageEagle]

I actually think no government would be better than what we have. That said, I'm not an anarchist, I just think that we've gone so far the wrong way, that even chaos would be better than what we have. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine, I can understand how people might differ on this. But I really think we have so much government control over our lives at this point, that almost anything that constrained the power of government would make us better off overall.

While I can respect that opinion and understand your frustration, my gift of imagination allows me to see that having no government compared to what we have now would be just as bad. It's kind of like comparing the extreme left to the extreme right.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I actually think no government would be better than what we have. That said, I'm not an anarchist, I just think that we've gone so far the wrong way, that even chaos would be better than what we have. I'm sure others will disagree, and that's fine, I can understand how people might differ on this. But I really think we have so much government control over our lives at this point, that almost anything that constrained the power of government would make us better off overall.

Afganistan = Somalia = Iraq = Palestine = Lebenon = no government. No government = anarchy. The power void will be filled, but it will be filled by criminals, villians and thugs.

I'd rather have to complain about sissy leftistas than hide from raghead religious police.

 

[mrjarrell]

While I can respect that opinion and understand your frustration, my gift of imagination allows me to see that having no government compared to what we have now would be just as bad. It's kind of like comparing the extreme left to the extreme right.

Here's a book for you that might change your mind, SE. It's free.
Free download of Alongside Night 30th Anniversary PDF Edition

 

[jbombelli]

Afganistan = Somalia = Iraq = Palestine = Lebenon = no government. No government = anarchy. The power void will be filled, but it will be filled by [strike]criminals, villians and thugs[/strike] me.

I'd rather have to complain about sissy leftistas than hide from raghead religious police.

All will bow to the Warlord of the Midwest.

 

[mk2ja]

God to see things turned out ok and that you have a second date. If you all have a long term realtionship that is sure a good story to the beginning of your relationship.

Good thinking! I'm not opposed to the idea at all

 

[indyjoe]

"Troll"? I thought "racist" was the buzz word of the day for hypocrits.

I said what I see. You specifically post to get a response after the person you are responding to has fully explained himself. Legally, there may not be a difference between OC and CC of a firearm. For a citizen who doesn't believe that victim disarmament zones are correct, then breaking the law with a purpose is not the same as just breaking the law. I will also CC in an Indy park, where it could also get me a fine, because I don't believe the law is right and I and willing to risk it.

hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

How exactly does that apply to me?

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

This actually has seemed to apply to many of your posts.

I welcome enlightenment, if I misspoke.

 

[Clay]

If you tap my handgun with a flashlight, you are very likely to get double-tapped right back. I have been OCing for many years and have never had anyone touch my firearm. My friends and family members (some who have known me for 40 years) would never even joking touch my sidearm. My five yr old neighbor who sees me carrying everyday and is interested in the shiney gun would never ever think of touching my gun. Some people understand to keep their hands off of other peoples stuff. If you believe the right way to start a pleasant conversation with someone is to touch their firearm, then we really are on different sides of this issue.

Yeah, what Deet said.


.

yeah, let me know how that works out for the two of you.

 

[lashicoN]

[/i]

yeah, let me know how that works out for the two of you.

Man won’t be charged for shooting officer

Even almighty police officers can't do anything they want. You don't approach someone carrying a firearm and tap on it to initiate an interaction. At best, one must be a real self-inflated idiot to think that sort of thing is an appropriate way to start any encounter off. At worst, he could have drawn his weapon before he looked who was touching it like a fool.

If my gun is being touched from behind, I'm not checking the road twice before I cross. Either my elbow is coming out to rock some moron/criminals face or I'm going to attempt a draw. It should be a social standard not to touch other people's firearms.

Would you walk up behind a police officer and touch his firearm? Would he simply turn and look at you? Who works for who here?

 

[mk2ja]

EDIT: LashicoN beat me to it! That's what I was talking about! /EDIT

[/I]

yeah, let me know how that works out for the two of you.

I can definitely relate to the your sentiment, Clay; if that is the response that somebody has when a stranger taps their sidearm, and that somebody happened to be LEO, they'll be in a world of trouble. However, you never know - the court case could also end up saying, "Look, don't be a friggin' fool by tapping a citizen's gun." I saw a thread on here the other day about a guy who shot an off-duty cop ended up not having charges filed because it was determined he responded to the situation in an appropriate manner and that it was the cop's behavior that was inappropriate. Might end up going either way.

 

[Clay]

I dont care who is happens to.

If someone walks up and taps your gun, or you walk up and tap someone elses gun..... and the response is for the gun owner (reguardless if LEO or everyday Joe) is to draw down, and/or shoot the other person, your in for a world of hurt.

Now would I expect someone to yell at me, secure their sidearm w/ their hand, etc, if I touch their weapon? Absolutely. Maybe in an extreme case remove said sidearm and keep it at low ready, MAYBE in an extreme case.

But to remove the handgun from the holster and point it at someone.... nothing good will come of that. period.

 

[Expat]

Come on guys, you mean if some 3 year touches your open carry holster as you walk by, you don't want to pop a cap in him... what's wrong with you?

 

[jeremy]

I dont care who is happens to.

If someone walks up and taps your gun, or you walk up and tap someone elses gun..... and the response is for the gun owner (reguardless if LEO or everyday Joe) is to draw down, and/or shoot the other person, your in for a world of hurt.

Now would I expect someone to yell at me, secure their sidearm w/ their hand, etc, if I touch their weapon? Absolutely. Maybe in an extreme case remove said sidearm and keep it at low ready, MAYBE in an extreme case.

But to remove the handgun from the holster and point it at someone.... nothing good will come of that. period.

For some of us, that is what is now our instinctive action to do though...

 

[lashicoN]

I dont care who is happens to.

If someone walks up and taps your gun, or you walk up and tap someone elses gun..... and the response is for the gun owner (reguardless if LEO or everyday Joe) is to draw down, and/or shoot the other person, your in for a world of hurt.

Now would I expect someone to yell at me, secure their sidearm w/ their hand, etc, if I touch their weapon? Absolutely. Maybe in an extreme case remove said sidearm and keep it at low ready, MAYBE in an extreme case.

But to remove the handgun from the holster and point it at someone.... nothing good will come of that. period.

You really don't understand. Police officers aren't invincible. Say a cop sneaks up on someone from behind, like a coward. He taps on your firearms, like a smart***. Before you look to see who the idiot is touching your gun, you decide it is obviously someone up to no good, so you crack him in the face with your elbow, believing you are defending yourself. As the cop stumbles backwards, he is obviously going to draw on you, and from the majority of articles I've read, he's going to shoot you. Now you really do have to defend yourself with deadly force.

Who is going to be in a true world of hurt? The guy who defended himself or the police officer who touched your gun and attempted to shoot you?

It isn't acceptable to touch another person's firearm. Don't do it. Save yourself escalation. Come up to us like a man and if you have to ask for our LTCH, because you don't honor the Bill of Rights, then do it face-to-face. Criminals sneak around, I'm not going to expect the guy sneaking up behind me, touching my firearm to be an honest police officer.

Nothing good will come from touching another person's firearm. Don't do it. You'll be in a world of hurt when you try it with the wrong guy. And then the courts will say "Yeah, he was wrong for doing it. Justified shooting."

 

[lashicoN]

Come on guys, you mean if some 3 year touches your open carry holster as you walk by, you don't want to pop a cap in him... what's wrong with you?

Never fails. Expat is here with some serious word twisting. Who said anything about shooting 3 year olds? Do they let 3 year olds become cops? I know some act like it, but I don't think that's legal.

What do you do, let a 3 year old kid play with your firearm? Do you let them stick knives into electrical outlets? See, this is the difference with the open carriers. They are responsible, and it isn't responsible to let a 3 year old touch your holster or play with your firearm, even if you are OK with that. Kids should be taught that it isn't OK to touch a stranger's gun. Perhaps the kids that do that, and are never taught otherwise, are the ones who grow up to become cops who think it is OK to touch a stranger's firearm without their consent. It all makes sense now.

Word twisting revenge complete.

 

[RichardR]

I dont care who is happens to.

If someone walks up and taps your gun, or you walk up and tap someone elses gun..... and the response is for the gun owner (reguardless if LEO or everyday Joe) is to draw down, and/or shoot the other person, your in for a world of hurt.

Now would I expect someone to yell at me, secure their sidearm w/ their hand, etc, if I touch their weapon? Absolutely. Maybe in an extreme case remove said sidearm and keep it at low ready, MAYBE in an extreme case.

But to remove the handgun from the holster and point it at someone.... nothing good will come of that. period.

Situational awareness is key here but there are instances, like in a crowd of people watching a concert, etc that a person cannot maintain 100% awareness.

It is in those instances that weapon retention (after some unknown makes contact with that weapon) becomes paramount.

No one should ever touch another persons carried weapon without their permission PERIOD, if they do it is reasonable believe that they just placed that person in a state of fear for their life &/or serious bodily injury IMHO.

 

[jeremy]

Come on guys, you mean if some 3 year touches your open carry holster as you walk by, you don't want to pop a cap in him... what's wrong with you?

Yes. I have drawn a weapon on children before.
Only a fool thinks only an Adult can kill someone...