A Gentleman's Guide to Open Carry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with = "lone gun", "libertarian". Action required: none

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with + Muslim = "terrorist". Action required: set up huge counter terrorism apparatus, go to war, throw away constitutional freedoms.

---

I'm not sure who you are attempting to criticize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with = "lone gun", "libertarian". Action required: none

Carry guns, shoot or bomb people you don't like or agree with + Muslim = "terrorist". Action required: set up huge counter terrorism apparatus, go to war, throw away constitutional freedoms.

---

Er, Waco, Ruby Ridge, McVey trial.....it is not as though the lone guns are being ignored in terms of large government response -- though the B-2s don't have a role.

As someone stated, the stakes become more lethal…
https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-...rican-policing
Did noone ever have the idea, that police violence *COULD* result from the fact, that an American cop is far more likely to encounter an armed citizen than his European counterpart?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GenosseGeneral

Did noone ever have the idea, that police violence *COULD* result from the fact, that an American cop is far more likely to encounter an armed citizen than his European counterpart?

---

I actually said that several times in previous threads on the subject, I'm pretty sure it's part of the problem but I wouldn't say it's the only reason for police brutality.

It probably contributes heavily to the militarization of the police.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with militarization of police. That's pure ignorance. Militarization of police stems from excess military hardware being produced by military contractors that need new buyers now that the US has gradually de-escalated our wars in iraq and afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Gun ownership has nothing to do with militarization of police. That's pure ignorance. Militarization of police stems from excess military hardware being produced by military contractors that need new buyers now that the US has gradually de-escalated our wars in iraq and afghanistan.

---

Well it probably doesn't discourage the militarization of police. It could be argued in a chicken/egg dynamic. I encourage the militarization of police, I just don't encourage the abuse of it with this no-knock raid madness. Local control over more and more military hardware is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Well it probably doesn't discourage the militarization of police. It could be argued in a chicken/egg dynamic. I encourage the militarization of police, I just don't encourage the abuse of it with this no-knock raid madness. Local control over more and more military hardware is a good thing.

---

This doesn't even make sense from your twisted perspective. Letting cops play soldier in your neighborhood turns daily patrols into an occupation. Cops would be more hesitant to do no-knock raids on innocent people if the people inside were on the same level as them in terms of firepower.

I know cops in the area. They are like a better armed militia not under the direct control of the State and Federal government. They aren't walking around in fatigues with select fire weapons, they are maintaining an armory. So long as they respect due process it is merely maintenance of an armory with local men and women trained for a catastrophe. I'm against the bad fruits of the policy but in favor of the underlying principle,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I know cops in the area. They are like a better armed militia not under the direct control of the State and Federal government. They aren't walking around in fatigues with select fire weapons, they are maintaining an armory. So long as they respect due process it is merely maintenance of an armory with local men and women trained for a catastrophe. I'm against the bad fruits of the policy but in favor of the underlying principle,

---

Unless you live in New Hampshire where everybody is a hardcore libertarian looking to create that "free state", this is an utter joke. If you look at a cop from LA, NY or Chicago the wrong way, you are likely to get ****** very hard by the police. Or did you forget what Orange County cops like to do with their homeless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Gun ownership has nothing to do with militarization of police. That's pure ignorance. Militarization of police stems from excess military hardware being produced by military contractors that need new buyers now that the US has gradually de-escalated our wars in iraq and afghanistan.

---

So they are forced to buy it and do not want it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Gun ownership has nothing to do with militarization of police. That's pure ignorance. Militarization of police stems from excess military hardware being produced by military contractors that need new buyers now that the US has gradually de-escalated our wars in iraq and afghanistan.

---

It's probably one factor. Being a cop in the US is more dangerous than in western Europe.

The gun fetish attitude in quite a bit of police recruitment videos, with military gear, does give the impression of the police embracing a violent attitude and that your point has more influence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDM4QneEE9Y

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Oh the cops want it, but not just because of the equipment--also because it comes with extra funding for training programs and maintenance for the systems they've acquired. The people really profiting from this are the companies making the equipment. But its more complicated than that, since most of it was paid for during the Bush years, and is being sold at discount prices by the department of defense to police departments. Basically, fallout from the war on terror--both in terms of legal precedent for police empowering themselves (partially defeated by the recent supreme court decision) and in terms of supplying the material. The fact is most of it is already paid for by tax payers, and has been since the last presidential administration. When the police are tired of their new toys, they'll sell them again at a further discount to third world countries. Watch. :shrug:

*Also, while a lot of the stuff being sold to police departments is actually sold in the traditional sense, things like MRAPs or tracked IFVs will never actually belong to the police department, most of the time. Its more like an indefinite loan from the factory, with your money buying maintenance teams and technical experts. When the equipment changes hands again down the road, the contracts will still be with the same companies.

---

I'm not denying any of that. It's just that if the police feel threatened by almost anyone they stop, they are far more likely to want all that additional training and equipment than they are if they can solve more problems by talking instead of a shootout.

Our police here are not that different, they only got full coverage of bullet proof vests after a few series of police murders many years ago when it became apparent to them that they would need more than a shirt to make it more likely to come home after a shift. Police work is actually getting safer in both of our countries statistically speaking but that does not mean it's how the police perceive it.

http://www.copblock.org/2198/is-viol...ly-increasing/
http://www.dw.de/reality-of-violence...ove/a-16305755

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Unless you live in New Hampshire where everybody is a hardcore libertarian looking to create that "free state", this is an utter joke. If you look at a cop from LA, NY or Chicago the wrong way, you are likely to get ****** very hard by the police. Or did you forget what Orange County cops like to do with their homeless?

---

Clearly it is misused. I am an obsessed about these abuses actually. The man who was just shot point blank and killed while 2 officers restrained him recently, the homeless man in the rocks way outside of town, the baby in its crib that was flashbanged and now has a hole in its chest in ICU. These things are a horrific abuse of police power and are too numerous to count.

I just happen to like my county PD. While they are dramatically overpaid, we are very fortunate here. The local town PD's are irritating, but it is peaceful. I have never had a run-in with a horrific officer, a few jerks but we are lucky. Beyond that, though, the abuses that I am most concerned with are use of lethal force and deadly no knock raids for nonviolent offences. This is a concern whether the officer is in level 4 armor with an M4 out of an MRAP or just kevlar and a glock 19 in a dodge charger. In my ideal world, police departments are tiny militaries that use their brains instead of excessive force. Reform is desperately needed.

As you've stated though, some of the worst abusers of rights are the PD's in city's with European style gun controls. So I agree with you that an armed populace is no excuse for or cause of liberal use of lethal force on unarmed citizens. As it has been stated, violence against police is on the decline along with violent crime, yet the number of horrific raids have skyrocketed. I'm not sure if officer abuses are on the upswing or if we can now watch YouTube videos of every straight up officer perpetrated murder that used to be covered up as necessary and defensive. My implication is that the US has seen lower violent crime rates with still the highest civilian firearms ownership rate in the world.

All open carry does is mark you as a target.

This is the whole reason CHLs were invented

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

I would prefer to cc, personally.

Since I stumbled upon those and they're on topic of police militarisation. Notable high misuse of SWAT teams

And Massachusetts SWAT teams claims to gone merc to be immune to open records laws.

Yea, it is a wierd problem.

"Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

So if the Consitution is to uphold the actions of the Declaration of Independence and if the military are supposed to protect the Consitution from powers both foreign and domestic... Are the US military oath bound to attack mercenaries on US soil?

Wishful thinking but it would make an interesting movies