General Categories > Carry Issues
Open Carry...*gasp*
JTH:
--- Quote from: MissMichella on June 12, 2013, 11:07:08 PM ---However, I don't think a LEO is targeted solely to steal their firearm. If the attack occurred with no provocation, I believe the officer most likely was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. Even more likely of a theory, the officer’s gun was taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody for an unrelated (alleged) rime. If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again? Do they change policy so all LEO must carry concealed? Not that I've seen. I want to prioritize my defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
--- End quote ---
I don't believe I ever said that the LEO was targeted specifically for their gun, and I do believe that I said that one of the reasons that they had to fight more often for their guns was that they had to close with the criminals to cuff them.
And I also don't believe that I ever said that being targeted specifically so that someone could take your gun was the priority issue. :)
Edited to add:
--- Quote ---If all my theories are incorrect and an officer was solely attacked to obtain their gun, what actions does the police department take to keep it from happening again?
--- End quote ---
They do a lot more weapons retention training, and get better retention holsters---because again, carrying concealed would be useless for a uniformed police officer.
As such, the decision to carry concealed for someone who must be instantly recognizable as a law enforcement officer, is a separate one from the decision normal citizens should make. :)
The weapons retention training, and a good retention holster, on the other hand, is a good thing for anyone open carrying for any reason.
JTH:
--- Quote from: 00BUCK on June 13, 2013, 12:17:16 AM ---So I am guessing said town will be in Canada then? If you start a town in the good 'ol USA you still are subject to the constitution. Requiring training is infringing on 2A. Last I looked, they hadn't removed that part, at least not yet ...
--- End quote ---
Buck, are you even reading what I'm writing?
The second amendment is about people's rights to keep and bear arms. My joke commentary about a fictional town ordinance has nothing to do with people's rights to keep and bear arms. (As I've said.) It has to do with people's ability to buy land from me to live in that area. Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms.
Quite the contrary, if you want to live in this fictional town, adults MUST demonstrate basic gun-handling safety and accuracy, which means that they all must have access to firearms for at least basic practice. (I'm sure I'd add a clause for exceptions like Kennesaw did, of course.)
And, as I've said, part of it is similar to the town ordinance in Kennesaw, GA, which has been in effect for years, and has worked perfectly well.
You can keep trying to make this a "mandatory training to own guns is wrong!" situation, but it isn't. And your comments about how this is against the 2nd amendment and how it wouldn't be allowed in the U.S. is---incorrect.
00BUCK:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido ---Personally, I'd love to start a town in Nebraska in which a local ordinance is that everyone older than 10 has to take a firearms safety class (free, offered by the town), and every adult in town has to qualify yearly (using any gun, don't care what) at a 7-yard target demonstrating basic accuracy and safe gun handling, and where open carry in town is actively encouraged.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on June 13, 2013, 08:01:04 AM ---Nothing in anything I've said stops people from buying or owning firearms.
--- End quote ---
I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.
And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.
Mudinyeri:
--- Quote from: jthhapkido on June 12, 2013, 04:19:26 PM ---No, actually. And I don't consider these "above average" criminals, either.
--- End quote ---
You obviously associate with a higher caliber of criminal that I do. :D
JTH:
--- Quote from: 00BUCK on June 13, 2013, 10:25:29 AM ---I beg to differ, your quote makes training and qualification mandatory. If they don't take the training or they don't qualify yearly then they are breaking your ordinance. Your ordinance infringes on 2A, plain and simple.
--- End quote ---
What about that has to do with whether or not they can keep and bear arms? You see, THAT is what the second amendment is about. Let's see here-----yep:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So---if people want to LIVE in this town, they have to (at some point in time in their life, after the age of 10) take a safety class. And, each year, prove that they can handle firearms safely with a base level of accuracy.
As none of that has anything to do with owning firearms, keeping firearms, or bearing firearms, , but instead about being able to live in the town that I created in fiction, I'm rather curious as to what part of the 2nd amendment you think it is infringing?
--- Quote ---And it is against 2A unless you are of the NRA and gun hater mindset that "shall not be infringed" doesn't really mean much, which I am certainly not. It's only legal to impose restrictions like this because spineless lawmakers ignore the true meaning of 2A. And the NRA, as spineless as they are, went along with it. Try putting your little utopia in Alaska or Texas and see what kind of reception you get.
--- End quote ---
Hm. Have you actually read what I've written, yet?
Again: This fictional ordinance would not regulate or affect in any way the ability of any person to own, possess, or bear firearms in any fashion. I'm sorry you aren't understanding that, but that doesn't make what you are saying true.
Just for the sake of my curiosity---have you read Kennesaw's city ordinance regarding firearms?
Have you or your children taken a Hunter Safety class? Do you consider that "infringing"?
I also find your disparaging remarks, offhand derogatory commentary, and general attitude pretty rude, so I'm thinking I'm done with the part of this discussion that includes you. If you aren't going to bother to actually read what I've written, but instead post things that don't actually apply, I see no reason to continue this part of the conversation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version