Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Gun laws and race.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gun laws and race.

    As this video got zero response when I posted it before I thought I'd make a topic about it and see if I can get a response that way.



    What are your thoughts about what is pretty clearly a huge violation of a guys rights simply for being black and do you agree it shows why black people say that the police do indeed treat them differently?

  • #2
    Take a very close look at the way those rifles are slung.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      That has exactly what to do with the response he got?
      The police didn't even give him a chance to explain the situation they simply ordered him onto the floor at gunpoint.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        So, there seems to be an innate predjudice if you are black. The black guy was lucky he just didn't get shot and killed. But he knew to get on the ground fast. Still it was very dangerous to pull off the experiment.

        Of course someone walking down the street with a rifle is gonna cause the cops to storm in. In today's environment generally if you see something like this, an assault rifle, the idea that the person carrying the rifle is about to start shooting people has to be on the minds of cops. If I were going down a street and saw anyone carrying one of these guns, I would turn around and go the other way. But in this case here, the black fellow was treated differently. But we did not see the entire video of the white fellow for some reason.

        It is also odd to see anyone carrying a rifle in a city. You expect to see that in rural areas, but not in a city. Why carry a rifle in a city? LOL. Yet we know that in many cases blacks are treated different than whites when it comes to cops. But you see more crime with blacks if you look at the percentage they are of the population and the rates of crime from that percentage. There are not many white neighborhoods that you would never go into, for fear of your safety. But trying walking through a black area in Chicago, if you are white. I would not suggest ever doing it. But these days if you said this in the modern liberal crowd, they would scream racism. LOL. It's racism to say a white feller should not walk into a black area in Chicago. Of course it is just good sense.
        Last edited by Blue Doggy; 06-18-2016, 05:10 AM.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          I think the fact that the white fellow was walked up to and calmly asked by an officer for ID or a permit (which he apparently didn't have to give I have no idea if that's correct or not but by the reaction of the officer I'd say it is as he didn't seem to react) and the entire interaction went as you'd hope such an interaction between a cop and a guy with a massive gun might is the thing.
          The officer didn't seem scared by the white fellow with a gun whereas the officer with the black fellow took an entirely more confrontational approach and didn't seem to want to interact with the black fellow other than to call for back-up and have the guy arrested.

          Either the right to open carry is available to all or it's available to nobody even if as a British person I'd be bloody stunned at the sight of anyone carrying a gun like that anywhere.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
            I think the fact that the white fellow was walked up to and calmly asked by an officer for ID or a permit (which he apparently didn't have to give I have no idea if that's correct or not but by the reaction of the officer I'd say it is as he didn't seem to react) and the entire interaction went as you'd hope such an interaction between a cop and a guy with a massive gun might is the thing.
            The officer didn't seem scared by the white fellow with a gun whereas the officer with the black fellow took an entirely more confrontational approach and didn't seem to want to interact with the black fellow other than to call for back-up and have the guy arrested.

            Either the right to open carry is available to all or it's available to nobody even if as a British person I'd be bloody stunned at the sight of anyone carrying a gun like that anywhere.
            Heck, I would be stunned to see anyone here, in the south, carry an assault rifle looking gun down a street. And the south loves their guns. You just do not see people doing this in order to exercise a right, so it looks unusual. I would like to see this experiment carried out all across this nation, and then tabulate those results. I think in many areas you would have seen what happened to the back feller also happen to white people. And I think if this experiment was carried out, you would eventually see the person with the gun get killed.

            You know, every time I see someone with gun that looks like what I used in war, I just wonder why anyone would want one. Personally as I have said before, its the affect and influence of Hollywood on culture. I really believe that, but only because I never saw these guns being carried until after the films like Rambo came out. Kinda like the coonskin cap deal when I was a kid. Daniel Boone, the series starring Fess Parker made coonskin caps popular and I got one as did many boys. These guns are IMO, the same deal, but unlike coonskin caps they were more than a passing fad. I still say, kids will be kids, as that is how I perceive it, having owned a gun since I was a mere lad, and graduated from the BB guns to a real rifle for hunting. These assault looking rifles are a new perversion of American culture, IMO. It's a male testosterone deal, kids wanting to be real men, without having to join the military and risk their lives. I see absolutely no need for these guns. Other than wanting to look badass. And of course unlike a regular old styled hunting rifle, these guns are perfect for mass killings. These short stubby guns are much more easily concealed than a general hunting rifle or shot gun. If they are to remain legal we really need to limit clip size to 3 rounds if people insist on owning them. Perhaps we only need single shot bolt action rifles legal. You still have the right to own a gun, just not a mass killing machine. That would be logical with hand grenades being illegal, given a grenade can take out several people at once. Perhaps we need a large group called, Hunters against assault rifles to press this issue? I hate what these assault rifles represent. People used to never want to arm themselves like they were in the military. Yep, I blame Hollywood. Ironic that Hollywood is mostly modern liberals, huh?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              I know it's just a cultural difference but seeing someone carry a gun like that to me is only slightly more insane than going down the town for some groceries in one of these



              And getting out of that and using this to walk about in in the shop

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                Heck, I would be stunned to see anyone here, in the south, carry an assault rifle looking gun down a street. And the south loves their guns. You just do not see people doing this in order to exercise a right, so it looks unusual. I would like to see this experiment carried out all across this nation, and then tabulate those results. I think in many areas you would have seen what happened to the back feller also happen to white people. And I think if this experiment was carried out, you would eventually see the person with the gun get killed.

                You know, every time I see someone with gun that looks like what I used in war, I just wonder why anyone would want one. Personally as I have said before, its the affect and influence of Hollywood on culture. I really believe that, but only because I never saw these guns being carried until after the films like Rambo came out. Kinda like the coonskin cap deal when I was a kid. Daniel Boone, the series starring Fess Parker made coonskin caps popular and I got one as did many boys. These guns are IMO, the same deal, but unlike coonskin caps they were more than a passing fad. I still say, kids will be kids, as that is how I perceive it, having owned a gun since I was a mere lad, and graduated from the BB guns to a real rifle for hunting. These assault looking rifles are a new perversion of American culture, IMO. It's a male testosterone deal, kids wanting to be real men, without having to join the military and risk their lives. I see absolutely no need for these guns. Other than wanting to look badass. And of course unlike a regular old styled hunting rifle, these guns are perfect for mass killings. These short stubby guns are much more easily concealed than a general hunting rifle or shot gun. If they are to remain legal we really need to limit clip size to 3 rounds if people insist on owning them. Perhaps we only need single shot bolt action rifles legal. You still have the right to own a gun, just not a mass killing machine. That would be logical with hand grenades being illegal, given a grenade can take out several people at once. Perhaps we need a large group called, Hunters against assault rifles to press this issue? I hate what these assault rifles represent. People used to never want to arm themselves like they were in the military. Yep, I blame Hollywood. Ironic that Hollywood is mostly modern liberals, huh?
                You'd need to up against a shitload of bears to need a gun like that and it's unlikely that that many bears would be wondering about in the middle of a city.
                Nothing is impossible I suppose but rather unlikely.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                  You'd need to up against a shitload of bears to need a gun like that and it's unlikely that that many bears would be wondering about in the middle of a city.
                  Nothing is impossible I suppose but rather unlikely.
                  You just got lots of americans salivating like Pavlov's dogs by posting those pics. See, we have loads of people who want to look like the badass special forces, without having to risk their lives. That is why I say they are just adult children playing make believe. Trying to emulate fictional heros they see in shoot em up film. Since I remember when no one wanted these assault weapons and then the huge popularity of them today, there has to be a major cause of this tremendous change in culture. And nothing influences our culture like Hollywood. We had to cut out heroes smoking cigarettes in order to reduce smoking. Americans are obsessed with looking cool, or badass. Assault weapons are both cool and badass. It reminds me of chimps. One chimp does something and all the other chimps imitate. Why cannot we not just do this with good, positive things? Why must we emulate the bad?

                  Back on topic....I am thankful I was not born black. I think I might have a problem with it. The good black folks get treated like the bad black folks. This has got to wear on a person over the long haul. To be treated differently, in a bad fashion. Of course, I have seen this improve immensely in my lifetime, given I grew up when overt racism was the norm here in the south and blacks were treated like they would poison us whites by drinking from common public water fountains, or using common bathrooms. If you wanted to eat out, the blacks could not eat in white cafes. Hard to believe it was once like that here in America, but I lived it so I know it existed. So it is nothing here like it once was. And oddly enough, here in the south most blacks and whites get along well, and I have no seen racism in a long time in social interaction. So it is not as bad as some people try to color it. In fact, it is quite good. Except with some police departments.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                    That has exactly what to do with the response he got?
                    The police didn't even give him a chance to explain the situation they simply ordered him onto the floor at gunpoint.
                    Well, look at.

                    I guess I'll have to spell it out for you...

                    Here's the white guy... White Guy.jpg




                    Note how the rifle is slung from two points, near both ends, upside down across his back. Now imagine what he would have to do to get it to his shoulder and ready to fire. He can not do it without pulling it over his head. If you actually planned to fire it, this is the last way you would want to carry it. The cop knows that it would take several seconds of wriggling to get it ready to fire, and correctly deduced that the goober was just demonstrating.

                    Now here is the black guy... Black Guy.jpg




                    Notice how the rifle is slung upright, from a single point, at his side. Because the cop sure has. This guy just needs to drop his hand to the grip to shoulder the rifle. If you want to fire this weapon, this is a good way to carry it. Whether or not this goober is demonstrating is irrelevant, because he could have rounds going downrange before the cop could get around the door of his vehicle. Which is exactly why the cop stays very chose to the door of his vehicle for cover.

                    The producers of this video depend on ignorance to get people swallow their propaganda. The only racism on display here is harbored by the producers of the video. All involved with the creation of these videos should be charged with disturbing the peace or something of that nature for intentionally distracting police from real issues.

                    In terms of the wider open carry issue, I appreciate the desire to preserve the right, but they do nothing to further the cause politically, and more importantly, do yourself a disservice in a tactical situation. Anyone smart seeking to do something nefarious is going to first scan the crowd to see if anyone is carrying, and target them first, meaning they are going to have the element of surprise on you, and you are likely to just end up as the first casualty, and then rearming your assailant. Carry open on your property, carry concealed in public.
                    Last edited by Commodore; 06-18-2016, 05:40 PM.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      The black guy was walking down the street with his heavily pregnant wife by his side (She shouts that she is when asked to get on the floor) and was not waving the gun menacingly he was simply not holding it in a way you like.
                      I would imagine the open carry law is not worded so as to only allow specific styles of carrying the weapon so the actions of the officer stopping the black fellow are completely unjustified.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        The black guy was walking down the street with his heavily pregnant wife by his side (She shouts that she is when asked to get on the floor) and was not waving the gun menacingly he was simply not holding it in a way you like.
                        And the fact that someone he may have known was walking several meters behind him in order to get everyone in frame and happened to be pregnant somehow prevents him from shouldering the rifle in a split second and opening fire?

                        He was carrying it in a manner that implies intent to use. Any officer, of any color, gender, or political persuasion who wants to go home at the end of their shift would do the exact same thing.

                        If they want to test for similar outcomes, why didn't they have them carry it in the same way?
                        Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                        I would imagine the open carry law is not worded so as to only allow specific styles of carrying the weapon so the actions of the officer stopping the black fellow are completely unjustified.
                        I believe that outside of an obvious self defense scenario, whatever weapon your carrying is suppose to be secured in a non-threatening manner. That was the rifle equivalent of having a pistol out its holster and waving it around at people.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                          I know it's just a cultural difference but seeing someone carry a gun like that to me is only slightly more insane than going down the town for some groceries in one of these

                          That would be a huge waste of gas...
                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                          And getting out of that and using this to walk about in in the shop

                          ...and fusion cores.
                          Last edited by Commodore; 06-18-2016, 06:10 PM.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                            And the fact that someone he may have known was walking several meters behind him in order to get everyone in frame and happened to be pregnant somehow prevents him from shouldering the rifle in a split second and opening fire?

                            He was carrying it in a manner that implies intent to use. Any officer, of any color, gender, or political persuasion who wants to go home at the end of their shift would do the exact same thing.

                            If they want to test for similar outcomes, why didn't they have them carry it in the same way?

                            I believe that outside of an obvious self defense scenario, whatever weapon your carrying is suppose to be secured in a non-threatening manner. That was the rifle equivalent of having a pistol out its holster and waving it around at people.
                            So let me get this right you think that simply holding a gun in the wrong fashion (This is entirely decided by you) means an open carry law is instantly invalidated (I'd agree with the police going in strong if the guy looked like he had any intention of shooting anyone but he was simply walking down the street to prove a point) and the person with the gun should be treated as a criminal even though he's just practising a right you keep banging on about?

                            If you yourself were to hold that gun in the exact same way on the exact same street I highly doubt you'd be pleased to be forced to lie on your face in the road while your wife watches you be handcuffed at gunpoint by multiple police patrols who then call for a canine unit for no obvious reason.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              So let me get this right you think that simply holding a gun in the wrong fashion (This is entirely decided by you) means an open carry law is instantly invalidated (I'd agree with the police going in strong if the guy looked like he had any intention of shooting anyone but he was simply walking down the street to prove a point) and the person with the gun should be treated as a criminal even though he's just practicing a right you keep banging on about?
                              There is nothing here that is being decided by me. It's simple physics. The time it would take for the former open carrier to shoulder his weapon to fire is astronomically longer than the latter, and considering neither was in an actual self-defense scenario, that choice indicates no threat on the part of the former, and real threat on the latter.

                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              If you yourself were to hold that gun in the exact same way on the exact same street I highly doubt you'd be pleased to be forced to lie on your face in the road while your wife watches you be handcuffed at gunpoint by multiple police patrols who then call for a canine unit for no obvious reason.
                              That's why I wouldn't be stupid enough to carry it that way. But then again, it wasn't carried that way out of stupidity, but out of a desire provoke a reaction that fools would misinterpret as racism.
                              Last edited by Commodore; 06-18-2016, 04:19 PM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X