- Joined
- Feb 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,487
Here in Georgia, they passed a law last year making it a crime to carry, and get this, "a offensive or defensive knife" to any "public gathering". Part of there Homeland secruity measures.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Most knife unfriendly places?
- Thread starter mschwoeb
- Start date
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 306
Homeland security my a**. I hate cowardly murderes as much as the next person, but giving up my freedoms as an American to stop terrorism seems like an oxymoron to me. After all, putting a stop to American freedoms is what they are all about.
It seems to me that citizens should be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves. After all, the police and governemt can't possibly protect all of us all the time. Given that fact, who's going to protect you besides yourself?
It seems to me that citizens should be allowed to carry weapons to protect themselves. After all, the police and governemt can't possibly protect all of us all the time. Given that fact, who's going to protect you besides yourself?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
NYC weapons laws [ to include knives ]were already in place before 9-11.
The only thing to change there was the enforcement of the existing laws which were basically ignored for the most part by LE unless you were brought to their attention for some reason.
Freedom is never a free ride. To expect free movement to stay the same after such an event like 9-11 may be unrealistic. We don't have to like it but we do need to change certain areas of security internally.
While I don't believe it will be implemented equally among us I do believe that a re-adjustment of our expectations is in order where it concerns catching those who walk among us with intent to do us harm.
I don't like it but it has become something we'll need to deal with daily from 9-11 forward in this country. The world is a different place today than when we were kids. It has become more dangerous not less so. While that may mean we need to be more diligent in our own personal safety it also means that the country as a whole needs to readjust as well.
One of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to learn unconventional weapons and their stengths and weaknesses [ just like our knives ].
Unless I'm naked out of the shower I can assure you I am never unarmed. My belt, the buckle I choose to wear on it, pens, clipboards, ashtrays, my socks, boots, shoelaces/boot laces, my handkerchief are all with me and capable of causing an aggressor to back to hell up or take some punishement.
He has a knife?--I have a belt and buckle.
He has a gun? How did he get a gun into an area I could not get a knife into? The point being here that if we are at the theatre and have been relieved of our defensive tools of choice than so has everyone in the buliding at that time. [ And I'm still armed and capable of causing you to be cold forever if I so choose by realizing the unconvetional weapons I have on my person at all times and what they are capable of doing ]
The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Think about what is around and on your person and how you could possibly use these items/objects to defend with.
Brownie
The only thing to change there was the enforcement of the existing laws which were basically ignored for the most part by LE unless you were brought to their attention for some reason.
Freedom is never a free ride. To expect free movement to stay the same after such an event like 9-11 may be unrealistic. We don't have to like it but we do need to change certain areas of security internally.
While I don't believe it will be implemented equally among us I do believe that a re-adjustment of our expectations is in order where it concerns catching those who walk among us with intent to do us harm.
I don't like it but it has become something we'll need to deal with daily from 9-11 forward in this country. The world is a different place today than when we were kids. It has become more dangerous not less so. While that may mean we need to be more diligent in our own personal safety it also means that the country as a whole needs to readjust as well.
One of the best things you can do to protect yourself is to learn unconventional weapons and their stengths and weaknesses [ just like our knives ].
Unless I'm naked out of the shower I can assure you I am never unarmed. My belt, the buckle I choose to wear on it, pens, clipboards, ashtrays, my socks, boots, shoelaces/boot laces, my handkerchief are all with me and capable of causing an aggressor to back to hell up or take some punishement.
He has a knife?--I have a belt and buckle.
He has a gun? How did he get a gun into an area I could not get a knife into? The point being here that if we are at the theatre and have been relieved of our defensive tools of choice than so has everyone in the buliding at that time. [ And I'm still armed and capable of causing you to be cold forever if I so choose by realizing the unconvetional weapons I have on my person at all times and what they are capable of doing ]
The mind is a terrible thing to waste. Think about what is around and on your person and how you could possibly use these items/objects to defend with.
Brownie
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 306
That's a flawed method of thinking. NYC doesn't permit people to carry concealed firearms. You give up your weapon because you're a law abiding citizen. Criminals do not obey the law, therefore do not feel obligated to give up their weapons. I've been relieved of my defensive tool of choice, but plenty of people still manage to carry concealed firearms and kill people with them.
"Not permitted" "Illegal" - these phrases mean nothing to a criminal.
No doubt that if someone is intent on killing many innocent people and willing to trade his life to do it, no amount of homeland security is going to stop him. In the end it's going to be an armed citizen at the right place at the right time.
You're headed down a slippery slope when you state that we may be forced to change the way we live our lives post 9-11. Will each subsequent terrorist action force us to give up a little more of our personal freedom? Isn't that the destruction of America itself, what the terrorist are trying to accomplish?
At what point do we draw the line and say to the government, you can't invade my privacy any more? Before they start reading our email or after? Before they listen to our phone conversations or after? Before they demand that our ISPs give up logs of our Internet activity without a warrant or after? Oops that last one's already happened.
I didn't mean to rant here, but so many people in this country are willing to lay down their rights just because the governemnt want them too, and it infuriates me.
[rant mode off]
I agree Chief Wiggum. Sounds like a lot of people on this board have swallowed the post 911 garbage hook line and sinker. The World Trade and Pentagon Attacks did not change the whole world. It did not change my personal security situation one whit, except to restrict my freedom. It is being used as an excuse by control freaks to subvert our liberty. It is being used by an unelected president to wage an illegal war on Iraq. Some facts about 911:
- The perpetrators were mostly Saudis and Egyptians not Iraquis and Afghanis. We won't go to war against the Saudis because both Bush and Cheney are in their pockets and have made their fortunes from Saudi oil.
- If the passengers had any guts, no one could have taken control of a plane with a box-cutter.
- If airport security did their jobs in the first place, they would have confiscated any weapons that would have kept the passengers from protecting their own lives and saving those in the World Trade towers. You try fending off a plane full of people with a box cutter or a 3" folding knife. As an aside, I can still get a small knife on board, and have.
The Attacks were not part of a strategic plan that needs to be addressed. It was a desperate act by fanatics. If we allow this Attack to restrict our liberty and change America, then the AlQuida has achieved a victory of sorts.
Nothing about the World Trade/Pentagon Attack should restrict our ability to carry legal pocket knives and bring them into government, public and private buildings. If you agree with those who restrict our rights, you are an enemy of American Liberty.
There is no need to confiscate pocket knives as people enter theaters, office buildings, etc. Instead we should encourage people to fight for their own life and safety and not wait for the authorities. The gutless cops at Columbine proved that if you're not willing to protect and defend yourself, particularly when faced with deadly force, you very well may die as the cops protect their own asses. If anything this is a case for an armed citizenry capable of defending themselves.
I am really tired of hearing how the World Trade Center Tragedy changed everything. It only did if you let it. It was a desperate act, by desperate men, best addressed by a more humanistic foriegn policy than through Homeland Security. Learn from it, but don't allow your right to privacy, right to carry a tool, right to own a fire-arm, right to read literature, etc. be taken away.
Don't forget, before the World Trade Center Tragedy, there was Oklahoma, and that bastard was an American. Our national reaction was to fortify government buildings. Why? To protect the government from its own people or its crazies? As Americans we have the right to bring down our government by force if need be. That's our heritage. Fortification of government buildings is the first step to totaliarinism. The Patriot Act is a good second step. In a truly open society, the one envisaged by the American Founders, the government shouldn't be allowed to protect itself from the citizenry.
Strike a blow for freedom, make repeal of the Patriot act and other extremist security measures part of your voting decisions in the next election. Don't allow Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Regan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 to go to war with out a specific declaration from Congress.
- The perpetrators were mostly Saudis and Egyptians not Iraquis and Afghanis. We won't go to war against the Saudis because both Bush and Cheney are in their pockets and have made their fortunes from Saudi oil.
- If the passengers had any guts, no one could have taken control of a plane with a box-cutter.
- If airport security did their jobs in the first place, they would have confiscated any weapons that would have kept the passengers from protecting their own lives and saving those in the World Trade towers. You try fending off a plane full of people with a box cutter or a 3" folding knife. As an aside, I can still get a small knife on board, and have.
The Attacks were not part of a strategic plan that needs to be addressed. It was a desperate act by fanatics. If we allow this Attack to restrict our liberty and change America, then the AlQuida has achieved a victory of sorts.
Nothing about the World Trade/Pentagon Attack should restrict our ability to carry legal pocket knives and bring them into government, public and private buildings. If you agree with those who restrict our rights, you are an enemy of American Liberty.
There is no need to confiscate pocket knives as people enter theaters, office buildings, etc. Instead we should encourage people to fight for their own life and safety and not wait for the authorities. The gutless cops at Columbine proved that if you're not willing to protect and defend yourself, particularly when faced with deadly force, you very well may die as the cops protect their own asses. If anything this is a case for an armed citizenry capable of defending themselves.
I am really tired of hearing how the World Trade Center Tragedy changed everything. It only did if you let it. It was a desperate act, by desperate men, best addressed by a more humanistic foriegn policy than through Homeland Security. Learn from it, but don't allow your right to privacy, right to carry a tool, right to own a fire-arm, right to read literature, etc. be taken away.
Don't forget, before the World Trade Center Tragedy, there was Oklahoma, and that bastard was an American. Our national reaction was to fortify government buildings. Why? To protect the government from its own people or its crazies? As Americans we have the right to bring down our government by force if need be. That's our heritage. Fortification of government buildings is the first step to totaliarinism. The Patriot Act is a good second step. In a truly open society, the one envisaged by the American Founders, the government shouldn't be allowed to protect itself from the citizenry.
Strike a blow for freedom, make repeal of the Patriot act and other extremist security measures part of your voting decisions in the next election. Don't allow Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Regan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 to go to war with out a specific declaration from Congress.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
They are already reading every communication available and have for over a decade.
NYC does permit citizens to carry [ just not a lot of them ].
Criminals who do not obey the laws and carry won't be getting into the theatre I mentioned. They'll have to wait outside now. That means I'm am somewhat safer while watching the play as I know the guy next to me doesn't have the gun or knife anymore than I do. They may not be obliged to hand over their illegal weapons and as such that WILL keep them from entering public places where they would be discovered would it not?
"Not permitted" "Illegal" - these phrases mean nothing to a criminal.
They mean plenty when they [ the criminals ]are attempting to access a public building that searches now right?
How is it people think they won't need to change when the world is changing around them. Last I knew we didn't live in a sterile bubble.
When I was a kid we carried knives to school, can't do that now but nobody really complains that much their kid can't carry like they did back in "the good old days" do they? They don't because they realize the world is a different place than when they were pups.
Yes, each terrorist attack will/should bring heavier restriction on movement and freedoms once enjoyed when the world environment was not as hostile. What most Americans don't realize is that our country is very young relative our worldly neighbors and it will take events here similiar to what they have experienced over centuries to bring us closer to the rest of the worlds conception of what is necessary for the good of the masses.
We are always going to see something like this:
10 people in a room, one has a potential weapon [folding knife]and the others have nothing. The others wish him to remove himself as they are afraid of the potential. What will happen here? He now has two choices. Leave the room or disarm. That is the domocratic way isn't it?
On a larger scale we see the democratic process at work here. Society as a whole wants to feel safer [whether that is actually what will happen or not ]. Peoples perceptions become their realities. We will not change the restrictions placed upon us by others until we change their perceptions of the threats that make the masses nervous.
Tightening security is two edged here. We want to be able to defend ourselves by carrying weapons but we want the bad guys to be searched.
Last time I looked they don't walk around with a sign stating they are a criminal or have criminal intent so we err on the side of caution. It affects all of us but we enjoy [ to some degree ] a safer environment for the effort.
The US has been complacent for decades in dealing with terrorist acts against others and ourselves when it happened outside out borders. Hey, listen, thats over there, it doesn't affect me, I'm over here.
We need to play catchup with our internal security measures as other countries have been forced into through circumstances in their respective countries.
We are just now recognizing the threats to our soverign security. 9-11 was a wakeup call for this country. Lawmakers will overreact and over compensate in an attempt to play catchup. In the meantime we'll have to become aware of what is necessary to achieve those mandatory goals of homeland security and be willing to work within the framework our elected offcials deem prudent and the laws they pass to that end.
If they can't invade your privacy in an attempt to track the terrorists, then they can't invade anyones which will leave us wide open to more attacks against us. BTW--they already know everything you communicate via phone calls, emails, cell phones, etc including this forum content and others. Anyone who doesn't believe they have been for 10 years has been living on another planet. The technology is in place and used by the gov types. I have no problem with that [privacy issues ] as I am confident they have thwarted attacks on us in the USA prior and post 9-11. Because they don't advertise they have the capability doesn't mean they are proactive and saving the citizens from even more problems from those who wish to harm the country and it's citixenry.
I don't think it's flawed to think if I have been searched entering an area that others have experienced the same thing. Criminals would try to get into crowded area to do as much damage as possible. If they are to be searched they'll pick another spot or get caught.
It is naieve to think that we can continue to live in Mayberry RFD with Andy and Opie types as these types of places are all but gone from americana. Why?--because things change and we change with them. Sometimes the change is for the better and sometimes not but there is not escaping change in one direction or another. We have stuck our heads in the sand while terrorists have played elsewhere in the world and for the most part ignored the fact it was only a matter of time before it came to our shores.
We should be proactive not reactive in our endeavors to protect our citizens from future endeavors. To think we will experience a nuclear device going off in this country because we were unwilling to give up something we had before in a different world is unacceptable to me.
It may take that for the anti's to figure out we can't be reactive and have to take the fight to them on their turf and not play "touchy-feely" and be politically correct lest we offend someone. That has been status quo for quite some time here in the uSA and if we don't change in a changing world, or we refuse to change for the betterment of all of us then we are destined to repeat the mistakes which led to 9-11.
How free did you feel when the towers went down and you understood we were under attack from our sworn enemies? You may have still felt free but in reality your freedoms were diminished to quite an extent.
Bet you didn't go to lunch that day near the towers like you thought you would right? Your choices became based on others actions against you and thereby negated you making your own choice. Their actions changed yours and my life forever.
The sooner we realize that fact the sooner we can take steps that help prevent it from happening again. We all have choices to make and roads to travel based on those choices. If we continue to make the wrong choices or choose to make no change in our living habits we are destined to be hit again and again by our enemies.
I look at it this way [ and others of course ].Hypothetical here folks
I have harmed you based on your non-feasance or misfeasnace which allowed me access to get to you. I expect you won't make that same mistake again if you are intelligent. I wait in the shadows and watch. I see you have not changed/refused to change to prevent me from getting you again. I smile and take you out this time.
It's not a question of if but only when they will look to find weaknesses in our armor. We had better tighten what we can and suck it up or we are destined to repeat the mistakes and get whacked harder each time until the set off a big one.
We have evolved over the years to what we are today. We did not live in a static world then but reacted to the stimulus of our environment and the times at hand. We either stay ahead of the curve or we suffer the fools.
The game of life is dangerous and getting more so everyday. We need to place safeguards where we think they'll do the most good at preventing another 9-11. I'm willing to not go to certain areas in lieu of being frisked or disarmed. If I want to go bad enough I'll find a way to be armed and not armed at the same time.
The tool is the object of destruction but it's the mind that can reason and find a ways to defend. Outsmart em, thats all it takes.
Brownie
NYC does permit citizens to carry [ just not a lot of them ].
Criminals who do not obey the laws and carry won't be getting into the theatre I mentioned. They'll have to wait outside now. That means I'm am somewhat safer while watching the play as I know the guy next to me doesn't have the gun or knife anymore than I do. They may not be obliged to hand over their illegal weapons and as such that WILL keep them from entering public places where they would be discovered would it not?
"Not permitted" "Illegal" - these phrases mean nothing to a criminal.
They mean plenty when they [ the criminals ]are attempting to access a public building that searches now right?
How is it people think they won't need to change when the world is changing around them. Last I knew we didn't live in a sterile bubble.
When I was a kid we carried knives to school, can't do that now but nobody really complains that much their kid can't carry like they did back in "the good old days" do they? They don't because they realize the world is a different place than when they were pups.
Yes, each terrorist attack will/should bring heavier restriction on movement and freedoms once enjoyed when the world environment was not as hostile. What most Americans don't realize is that our country is very young relative our worldly neighbors and it will take events here similiar to what they have experienced over centuries to bring us closer to the rest of the worlds conception of what is necessary for the good of the masses.
We are always going to see something like this:
10 people in a room, one has a potential weapon [folding knife]and the others have nothing. The others wish him to remove himself as they are afraid of the potential. What will happen here? He now has two choices. Leave the room or disarm. That is the domocratic way isn't it?
On a larger scale we see the democratic process at work here. Society as a whole wants to feel safer [whether that is actually what will happen or not ]. Peoples perceptions become their realities. We will not change the restrictions placed upon us by others until we change their perceptions of the threats that make the masses nervous.
Tightening security is two edged here. We want to be able to defend ourselves by carrying weapons but we want the bad guys to be searched.
Last time I looked they don't walk around with a sign stating they are a criminal or have criminal intent so we err on the side of caution. It affects all of us but we enjoy [ to some degree ] a safer environment for the effort.
The US has been complacent for decades in dealing with terrorist acts against others and ourselves when it happened outside out borders. Hey, listen, thats over there, it doesn't affect me, I'm over here.
We need to play catchup with our internal security measures as other countries have been forced into through circumstances in their respective countries.
We are just now recognizing the threats to our soverign security. 9-11 was a wakeup call for this country. Lawmakers will overreact and over compensate in an attempt to play catchup. In the meantime we'll have to become aware of what is necessary to achieve those mandatory goals of homeland security and be willing to work within the framework our elected offcials deem prudent and the laws they pass to that end.
If they can't invade your privacy in an attempt to track the terrorists, then they can't invade anyones which will leave us wide open to more attacks against us. BTW--they already know everything you communicate via phone calls, emails, cell phones, etc including this forum content and others. Anyone who doesn't believe they have been for 10 years has been living on another planet. The technology is in place and used by the gov types. I have no problem with that [privacy issues ] as I am confident they have thwarted attacks on us in the USA prior and post 9-11. Because they don't advertise they have the capability doesn't mean they are proactive and saving the citizens from even more problems from those who wish to harm the country and it's citixenry.
I don't think it's flawed to think if I have been searched entering an area that others have experienced the same thing. Criminals would try to get into crowded area to do as much damage as possible. If they are to be searched they'll pick another spot or get caught.
It is naieve to think that we can continue to live in Mayberry RFD with Andy and Opie types as these types of places are all but gone from americana. Why?--because things change and we change with them. Sometimes the change is for the better and sometimes not but there is not escaping change in one direction or another. We have stuck our heads in the sand while terrorists have played elsewhere in the world and for the most part ignored the fact it was only a matter of time before it came to our shores.
We should be proactive not reactive in our endeavors to protect our citizens from future endeavors. To think we will experience a nuclear device going off in this country because we were unwilling to give up something we had before in a different world is unacceptable to me.
It may take that for the anti's to figure out we can't be reactive and have to take the fight to them on their turf and not play "touchy-feely" and be politically correct lest we offend someone. That has been status quo for quite some time here in the uSA and if we don't change in a changing world, or we refuse to change for the betterment of all of us then we are destined to repeat the mistakes which led to 9-11.
How free did you feel when the towers went down and you understood we were under attack from our sworn enemies? You may have still felt free but in reality your freedoms were diminished to quite an extent.
Bet you didn't go to lunch that day near the towers like you thought you would right? Your choices became based on others actions against you and thereby negated you making your own choice. Their actions changed yours and my life forever.
The sooner we realize that fact the sooner we can take steps that help prevent it from happening again. We all have choices to make and roads to travel based on those choices. If we continue to make the wrong choices or choose to make no change in our living habits we are destined to be hit again and again by our enemies.
I look at it this way [ and others of course ].Hypothetical here folks
I have harmed you based on your non-feasance or misfeasnace which allowed me access to get to you. I expect you won't make that same mistake again if you are intelligent. I wait in the shadows and watch. I see you have not changed/refused to change to prevent me from getting you again. I smile and take you out this time.
It's not a question of if but only when they will look to find weaknesses in our armor. We had better tighten what we can and suck it up or we are destined to repeat the mistakes and get whacked harder each time until the set off a big one.
We have evolved over the years to what we are today. We did not live in a static world then but reacted to the stimulus of our environment and the times at hand. We either stay ahead of the curve or we suffer the fools.
The game of life is dangerous and getting more so everyday. We need to place safeguards where we think they'll do the most good at preventing another 9-11. I'm willing to not go to certain areas in lieu of being frisked or disarmed. If I want to go bad enough I'll find a way to be armed and not armed at the same time.
The tool is the object of destruction but it's the mind that can reason and find a ways to defend. Outsmart em, thats all it takes.
Brownie
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 306
Brownie,
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and on many issues you and I are arguing the same point.
NYC does not issue concealed carry permits to civilians. You have to be a police officer or retired police officer. If you have a permit to own a firearm you can't carry that firearm off the premises for which the permit was issued.
Okay, then when does this end? After 100 attacks and the government decides to lock every person in an individual jail cell to keep them safe? My point is you can't restrict peoples personal freedom to catch criminals. At least not in America.
I agree that we as a country have been complacent. We have not reacted to terrorist actions in a manner that would dicourage future action. Again, restricting citizens freedom is not a valid solution.
There's no reason for the government to invade your privacy unless they have probable cause to do so. That's the way the justice system works. Just because the government has been monitoring your personal communication for 10 years doesn't make it right.
I certainly don't think I live in Mayberry, and I do think we need to be proactive, but within the confines of the law and the constitution.
Now as far as searches in public places are concered. Just because the guy sitting next to you in a theatre was searched doesn't mean he's had his weapons removed. You as a law abiding citizen would have willingly given up your weapon, while he as a criminal may have figured out a way to bring in a weapon anyway. So what happens when he pulls out his gun and starts shooting people and your gun is sitting with the security guards?
I totally agree. It's the frisking and disarming that bothers me. If you won't let me protect myself who's going to do it for me?
How many times have you said, "Where's a cop when you need one?"
How many times have you said, "Good thing that cop was there when he was?"
Which one have you said more?
No one can protect us except ourselves. The right to protect myself, that's all I'm asking for.
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, and on many issues you and I are arguing the same point.
NYC does not issue concealed carry permits to civilians. You have to be a police officer or retired police officer. If you have a permit to own a firearm you can't carry that firearm off the premises for which the permit was issued.
Okay, then when does this end? After 100 attacks and the government decides to lock every person in an individual jail cell to keep them safe? My point is you can't restrict peoples personal freedom to catch criminals. At least not in America.
I agree that we as a country have been complacent. We have not reacted to terrorist actions in a manner that would dicourage future action. Again, restricting citizens freedom is not a valid solution.
There's no reason for the government to invade your privacy unless they have probable cause to do so. That's the way the justice system works. Just because the government has been monitoring your personal communication for 10 years doesn't make it right.
I certainly don't think I live in Mayberry, and I do think we need to be proactive, but within the confines of the law and the constitution.
Now as far as searches in public places are concered. Just because the guy sitting next to you in a theatre was searched doesn't mean he's had his weapons removed. You as a law abiding citizen would have willingly given up your weapon, while he as a criminal may have figured out a way to bring in a weapon anyway. So what happens when he pulls out his gun and starts shooting people and your gun is sitting with the security guards?
I totally agree. It's the frisking and disarming that bothers me. If you won't let me protect myself who's going to do it for me?
How many times have you said, "Where's a cop when you need one?"
How many times have you said, "Good thing that cop was there when he was?"
Which one have you said more?
No one can protect us except ourselves. The right to protect myself, that's all I'm asking for.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
brownshoe:
Get ready, I'm landing both feet this time.
Point by point for your edification okay?
1. You state "The World Trade and Pentagon Attacks did not change the whole world. It did not change my personal security situation one whit, except to restrict my freedom."
answer-----It changed the world this way. We are at war with Iraq. Countries, both enemies and allies, have been exposed through this event for what they are. Through the investigations of various againcies, as a direct result of 9-11, we have ferreted out the facts as to who sponsored financially and logistical support forthem to be able to pull it off.
2. You state "The perpetrators were mostly Saudis and Egyptians not Iraquis and Afghanis."
answer--------The real perps here were the terrorist states that sponsored them. That would be the Iraquis and Afghanis would it not? It matters not who carried out the attack but who supplied them with information and materials to perform their terrorist deeds.
3. Yu state: "We won't go to war against the Saudis because both Bush and Cheney are in their pockets and have made their fortunes from Saudi oil."
answer-----provide us all here with evidence instead of rhteroric. We don't go to war with the Saudi's for many reasons but your statement isn't one of them unless the country of Saudi Arabia didn't exist before they took office. You think Clinton didn't go to war with Saudis cause he was lining his pockets with oil money too? Your statement makes no sense at all here as your statement makes it sound like the situation in the middle east was created by Bush and Cheney [which of course it was not].
4. You state: If the passengers had any guts, no one could have taken control of a plane with a box-cutter."
answer-----prior to 9-11 no hijackers had shown or performed the act of blowing up the plane and becoming martyres. They wanted a free ride somewhere. Passengers were not in danger of being run into a building as hostages. When the third planes' passengers heard what had happened to the other two planes they took action [ they had guts ].
5. You stated: "- If airport security did their jobs in the first place, they would have confiscated any weapons that would have kept the passengers from protecting their own lives and saving those in the World Trade towers. You try fending off a plane full of people with a box cutter or a 3" folding knife. As an aside, I can still get a small knife on board, and have."
answer--------you admit to breaking federal laws on an open forum? Just how would any passenger save the plane from the towers when they had no indication that was their [ the terrorists ]intention until it happened? See the previous answer to #4.
6. You state: "The Attacks were not part of a strategic plan that needs to be addressed. It was a desperate act by fanatics"
answer-----fanatics never have the logistics nor the money to carry out 9-11. They were sponsored and supplied with what they needed to accomplish their goals. They are fanatical of course but certainly sponsored with enough money and logistics to have a prudent person understand it could only have been state sponsored [as in Iraq, Syria, etc ]The logistics and intel needed to pull it off was not something a few fanatics put together.
7. You state: "Nothing about the World Trade/Pentagon Attack should restrict our ability to carry legal pocket knives and bring them into government, public and private buildings. If you agree with those who restrict our rights, you are an enemy of American Liberty."
answer----I could write a dissertaion on this one but I'll restrain myself and show some control here for the benefit of other members of the opposite sex. Background, USMC 69-71, RVN "70", honorably discharged. I believe I have earned the right to speak about such things, have you? Rights have been restricted since the begining of mankind. You aren't restricted from driving 100mph on the highways? You aren't restricted from killing someone? You aren't restricted from assaulting someone? Hey come on now, we would not want you think we were an enemy of American Liberty now so lets rescind all the restrictions on everything in our daily lives. Lets have stores open 24/7 and not close. They otherwise restrict me from when I want to shop there and god forbid I'm restricted from whatever I want to do, right?
8. You state "I am really tired of hearing how the World Trade Center Tragedy changed everything. It only did if you let it. It was a desperate act, by desperate men, best addressed by a more humanistic foriegn policy than through Homeland Security."
answer-----they were really humanistic in their action upon the citizens of this nation weren't they? I would suggest you contradict yourself and appear hypocritical here as you want to be able to protect yourself with force but would have the rest of us be more humanisitic when dealing with terrorist states? Can you explain your contradictive statements for the rest of us here please? Let me get this straight, you want me to be more humanistic to my enemies as a defense while you arm yourself physically against the same potential threats? That somehow doesn't strike me as being fair does it?
9. You state "the one envisaged by the American Founders, the government shouldn't be allowed to protect itself from the citizenry."
answer---The goverment is made up of the people. The citizenry makes up the government. They are one and the same. You somehow have determined that we are like Iraq, Iran, and those countries who citizens are subject and have no say in government. By your very statement the citizenry of those countries should do what?
10. You state: "Strike a blow for freedom, make repeal of the Patriot act and other extremist security measures part of your voting decisions in the next election. Don't allow Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Regan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 to go to war with out a specific declaration from Congress."
answer----extreme deadly potential circumstances by terrorists require extreme security measures if we are to possibly come close to eradicating them from our populace. Anything less is not going to work. Oh, I forgot, I need to be more humanisitic while my enemies are perpetrating animalistic acts upon my country, my home, my family, and myself.
I now know what you are by your posting on this subject and the content of your posting is questionable at best and is one of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with. More humanistic, thats what that liberal democrat who should have been impeached thought and acted like while he was in office a few years ago. His humanistic approach really worked didn't it folks? Most of the arab world looks to people like you and your cigar toting buddy attitudes as a chance to strike us hard while we your type languishes in the rhetoric of "forgive them for they know not what they do" If you believe they are misguided you and your like are the ones who are in danger of their wrath.
Me, I'll stand against any and all enemies of my country. I'll stand and fight like I have before so you can enjoy the freedoms I have provided to you through my blood and tears being shed on foreign soil while you take the time to condemn the very people who provided and are providing you the freedoms that allow you the freedom to write it down at all.
I'd like to know just a little more about your background if you would not mind responding. Sounds a little unpatriotic to me.
Brownie
Get ready, I'm landing both feet this time.
Point by point for your edification okay?
1. You state "The World Trade and Pentagon Attacks did not change the whole world. It did not change my personal security situation one whit, except to restrict my freedom."
answer-----It changed the world this way. We are at war with Iraq. Countries, both enemies and allies, have been exposed through this event for what they are. Through the investigations of various againcies, as a direct result of 9-11, we have ferreted out the facts as to who sponsored financially and logistical support forthem to be able to pull it off.
2. You state "The perpetrators were mostly Saudis and Egyptians not Iraquis and Afghanis."
answer--------The real perps here were the terrorist states that sponsored them. That would be the Iraquis and Afghanis would it not? It matters not who carried out the attack but who supplied them with information and materials to perform their terrorist deeds.
3. Yu state: "We won't go to war against the Saudis because both Bush and Cheney are in their pockets and have made their fortunes from Saudi oil."
answer-----provide us all here with evidence instead of rhteroric. We don't go to war with the Saudi's for many reasons but your statement isn't one of them unless the country of Saudi Arabia didn't exist before they took office. You think Clinton didn't go to war with Saudis cause he was lining his pockets with oil money too? Your statement makes no sense at all here as your statement makes it sound like the situation in the middle east was created by Bush and Cheney [which of course it was not].
4. You state: If the passengers had any guts, no one could have taken control of a plane with a box-cutter."
answer-----prior to 9-11 no hijackers had shown or performed the act of blowing up the plane and becoming martyres. They wanted a free ride somewhere. Passengers were not in danger of being run into a building as hostages. When the third planes' passengers heard what had happened to the other two planes they took action [ they had guts ].
5. You stated: "- If airport security did their jobs in the first place, they would have confiscated any weapons that would have kept the passengers from protecting their own lives and saving those in the World Trade towers. You try fending off a plane full of people with a box cutter or a 3" folding knife. As an aside, I can still get a small knife on board, and have."
answer--------you admit to breaking federal laws on an open forum? Just how would any passenger save the plane from the towers when they had no indication that was their [ the terrorists ]intention until it happened? See the previous answer to #4.
6. You state: "The Attacks were not part of a strategic plan that needs to be addressed. It was a desperate act by fanatics"
answer-----fanatics never have the logistics nor the money to carry out 9-11. They were sponsored and supplied with what they needed to accomplish their goals. They are fanatical of course but certainly sponsored with enough money and logistics to have a prudent person understand it could only have been state sponsored [as in Iraq, Syria, etc ]The logistics and intel needed to pull it off was not something a few fanatics put together.
7. You state: "Nothing about the World Trade/Pentagon Attack should restrict our ability to carry legal pocket knives and bring them into government, public and private buildings. If you agree with those who restrict our rights, you are an enemy of American Liberty."
answer----I could write a dissertaion on this one but I'll restrain myself and show some control here for the benefit of other members of the opposite sex. Background, USMC 69-71, RVN "70", honorably discharged. I believe I have earned the right to speak about such things, have you? Rights have been restricted since the begining of mankind. You aren't restricted from driving 100mph on the highways? You aren't restricted from killing someone? You aren't restricted from assaulting someone? Hey come on now, we would not want you think we were an enemy of American Liberty now so lets rescind all the restrictions on everything in our daily lives. Lets have stores open 24/7 and not close. They otherwise restrict me from when I want to shop there and god forbid I'm restricted from whatever I want to do, right?
8. You state "I am really tired of hearing how the World Trade Center Tragedy changed everything. It only did if you let it. It was a desperate act, by desperate men, best addressed by a more humanistic foriegn policy than through Homeland Security."
answer-----they were really humanistic in their action upon the citizens of this nation weren't they?
I would suggest you contradict yourself and appear hypocritical here as you want to be able to protect yourself with force but would have the rest of us be more humanisitic when dealing with terrorist states? Can you explain your contradictive statements for the rest of us here please? Let me get this straight, you want me to be more humanistic to my enemies as a defense while you arm yourself physically against the same potential threats? That somehow doesn't strike me as being fair does it?9. You state "the one envisaged by the American Founders, the government shouldn't be allowed to protect itself from the citizenry."
answer---The goverment is made up of the people. The citizenry makes up the government. They are one and the same. You somehow have determined that we are like Iraq, Iran, and those countries who citizens are subject and have no say in government. By your very statement the citizenry of those countries should do what?
10. You state: "Strike a blow for freedom, make repeal of the Patriot act and other extremist security measures part of your voting decisions in the next election. Don't allow Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Regan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 to go to war with out a specific declaration from Congress."
answer----extreme deadly potential circumstances by terrorists require extreme security measures if we are to possibly come close to eradicating them from our populace. Anything less is not going to work. Oh, I forgot, I need to be more humanisitic while my enemies are perpetrating animalistic acts upon my country, my home, my family, and myself.
I now know what you are by your posting on this subject and the content of your posting is questionable at best and is one of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with. More humanistic, thats what that liberal democrat who should have been impeached thought and acted like while he was in office a few years ago. His humanistic approach really worked didn't it folks? Most of the arab world looks to people like you and your cigar toting buddy attitudes as a chance to strike us hard while we your type languishes in the rhetoric of "forgive them for they know not what they do" If you believe they are misguided you and your like are the ones who are in danger of their wrath.
Me, I'll stand against any and all enemies of my country. I'll stand and fight like I have before so you can enjoy the freedoms I have provided to you through my blood and tears being shed on foreign soil while you take the time to condemn the very people who provided and are providing you the freedoms that allow you the freedom to write it down at all.
I'd like to know just a little more about your background if you would not mind responding. Sounds a little unpatriotic to me.
Brownie
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2000
- Messages
- 2,573
We are a republic, not a democracy. Democracy is majority/mob rule and is one of the worst forms of government ever concieved. There is no protection for the minority in a democracy. Even if 9 sheeple think knives are bad, I still have the right to carry one. The Constitution was set up to protect our rights, not grant them or take them away. Whatever the hell the terrorists do MY rights should not be infringed. What type of totalitarian society do you want to set up, since you say our freedoms "should" be restricted with each attack? I'm also curious where you got the idea that only military verterns have the freedom of speech. What part of the Constitution is that from?
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Most people don't have the training to protect themselves to begin with. You could hand them a gun and they would not know what to do or how to suee it. They aren't interested in providing their own safety and security. They leave it to others as it is very messy and vulgar, this self defense of ones person.
Yes, there are citizens who have carry permits in NYC that aren't cops or retired cops. I know several personally.
It ends with us taking out, with extreme prejudice, those who have shown a propensity to want to harm us as Americans. Preemptive strikes will be necessary until they do not exist or they realize they had better not get physical as we have the biggest muscles in the world and can do what we are doing to those in power in Iraq right now anytime we feel threatened.
Your personal freedoms already suffer to catch criminals. Road blocks set up during holidays checking for alcohol abusers driving around as one example. There are examples everywhere in our lives, we are restricted to a degree in almost everything you can imagine. There are of course degrees of restrictions placed on society as a whole, and some are palatable and others less so. It doesn't negate the fact we live with them daily or that they are necessary.
If the guy next to me was searched as I was, or wanded to get in, he won't have the gun. The more security you have in place the less risk to you in that scenario.
The cop comments are valid to a point. We all know by now that the police are not accountable or responsible for our personal safety.
People rag on the cops a lot for all kinds of reasons and some are certainly valid while others are not. When you are in grave danger and have an opportunity, you call the police. You don't call Uncle Freddy and Aunt Mary on their cell phones. It isn't perfect but it is still the best the world can come up with without being a police state.
If the govt waited to have probable cause with the terrorists it would be too late. They listen into everyone so that they can find the ones they want. There is no other better way to thwart future attacks than to have access to every electronic communique that comes into or goes out of the country as well as internally so. The terrorists use technology to plan and attack us, we need to be able to listen in on them and stop them before their aggression is brought to fruition. Yes, I agree it is not ideal but until someone comes up with a better way to find and stop them, I say go for it as the odds are reduced I'll have to attend another funeral.
"Noone can protect us except ourselves". I wish that were true. 99+% of the people in this country have no training or the desire to get the training necessary to be able to defend themselves adequately. They leave that ugliness to others and then question the way in which it is provided. I'd rather they be responsible for themselves but that too is very unrealistic and we won't ever see that here in the USA.
Brownie
Yes, there are citizens who have carry permits in NYC that aren't cops or retired cops. I know several personally.
It ends with us taking out, with extreme prejudice, those who have shown a propensity to want to harm us as Americans. Preemptive strikes will be necessary until they do not exist or they realize they had better not get physical as we have the biggest muscles in the world and can do what we are doing to those in power in Iraq right now anytime we feel threatened.
Your personal freedoms already suffer to catch criminals. Road blocks set up during holidays checking for alcohol abusers driving around as one example. There are examples everywhere in our lives, we are restricted to a degree in almost everything you can imagine. There are of course degrees of restrictions placed on society as a whole, and some are palatable and others less so. It doesn't negate the fact we live with them daily or that they are necessary.
If the guy next to me was searched as I was, or wanded to get in, he won't have the gun. The more security you have in place the less risk to you in that scenario.
The cop comments are valid to a point. We all know by now that the police are not accountable or responsible for our personal safety.
People rag on the cops a lot for all kinds of reasons and some are certainly valid while others are not. When you are in grave danger and have an opportunity, you call the police. You don't call Uncle Freddy and Aunt Mary on their cell phones. It isn't perfect but it is still the best the world can come up with without being a police state.
If the govt waited to have probable cause with the terrorists it would be too late. They listen into everyone so that they can find the ones they want. There is no other better way to thwart future attacks than to have access to every electronic communique that comes into or goes out of the country as well as internally so. The terrorists use technology to plan and attack us, we need to be able to listen in on them and stop them before their aggression is brought to fruition. Yes, I agree it is not ideal but until someone comes up with a better way to find and stop them, I say go for it as the odds are reduced I'll have to attend another funeral.
"Noone can protect us except ourselves". I wish that were true. 99+% of the people in this country have no training or the desire to get the training necessary to be able to defend themselves adequately. They leave that ugliness to others and then question the way in which it is provided. I'd rather they be responsible for themselves but that too is very unrealistic and we won't ever see that here in the USA.
Brownie
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Messages
- 932
Actually, that statue has been in place for at least 15 years probably longer.(I know because it's been on my carry permit that long.) The change was to the wording. It was changed to read "knife, or other object designed or modified for offense or defense." If you look at the case law, pretty much anything under 3" won't get you in trouble unless a DA can prove the knive was designed that way or if he can convince the jury of that. I stay away from knives marketed as tactical or named something ridiculous like "tactical emasculator"
The only place I've ever really been stopped was at a Braves game. Even then there are ways to get around it.I'll admit I'm one of the few here who believe that owners of private property do NOT have the right to control what I carry as long as I am breaking no laws.
Edited for grammar.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2000
- Messages
- 2,573
If we invade, occupy, and colonize Saudi Arabia, the primary source of Islamic terrorism, this could go a long way to ending the problem. IMO the rights of Americans are more important than the existance of a Wahabbist nation.
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 306
Is this supposed to be satirical? I sure hope so...
Brownie,
Just because most people don't know how to defend themselves, or don't even take interest in their own personal safety does not mean that we shouldn't allow them to. Further, I'm not saying get rid of the police, military, etc and let everyone fend for themselves. I'm just saying that if a person has a desire to defend themselves, they should be given the opportunity.
I never felt as if my personal freedom was in jepordy until after 9-11 and the homeland security act. Until now, the police have always been able to catch criminals without violating my freedom. Terrorist are nothing more than criminals, so why should they be treated differently?
I fail to see how a roadblock is a violation of my freedom. My privacy is not being invaded, and I'm still allowed to go where I need to go.
btw, since you know how I can go about getting a concealed carry permit in NYC, please email me and tell me how!
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Benjamin Liu:\
Please highlight the statement you are referring to about my purported "freedom of speech" being restricted to military veterans. I reread my posts twice and find not anything close to what you referr. I'll expect you to highlight it and respond, and in lieu of not finding it, some small apology will be accepted.
I believe you may have read into a statement and determined thats what I said when in fact I did not.
Where did you get the "right" to carry a knife? Is this a god given right? Something I missed along the way? Your rights are spelled out in the constitution. I don't believe the that document mentions your rigth to carry a knife anywhere does it?
Your rights should not be infringed? How about my rights to go about my days activites in relative safety from others? Show me where you read anywhere that you have the right to carry a knife if the majority through a democratic process have determined otherwise. I'd be interested in researching your reference materials.
Again with the rights, Your rights are restricted daily. I am to assume you want no restrictions on anyone relative anything? A free for all? Or just the rights you think are important to you? You live with restrictions as we all do. Some of them are more repugnant than others but someone somewhere will take umbridge with what restrictions you can live with as you take the same against those restrictions here. If thats going to be the case and everyone can do as they please with NO restrictions I'm sure I'll survive as I have when confronted with life and death before. I have the training and experience to live long and prosper under that guise.
Meanwhile your Mom, sisters, aunts and the like will be at the mercy of those who would rape/mame/kill them as there are no longer restrictions in the country. You have god given rights recognized by our constitution. Where does the it state it is your god given right to carry a knife.
The theme being restrictions:
We either live with them or we may not live at all. Your loved one is killed at the theatre along with 100 others by a terorrist. His right not to be searched was honored and he was abler to perpetrate the crime due to your "no restrictions" policy. Bet you'd be crying at the funeral about they should have checked that guy huh? If not you I know many who would be making that very statement. Thats why we have restrictions, so we can minimize the threat of this ocurring again anytime soon.
Do I think it will stop someone dedicated enough? No, but if it stops just one attack and saves YOUR wife, mother, daughter, son etc you may feel different at that time.
It's easy when it doesn't/hasn't touched you to make these types of comments against common sense. Hope you never have to eat your own rhetoric about "restrictions". It will be too late to change your mind then as when someones cold, they are cold forever.
Brownie
Please highlight the statement you are referring to about my purported "freedom of speech" being restricted to military veterans. I reread my posts twice and find not anything close to what you referr. I'll expect you to highlight it and respond, and in lieu of not finding it, some small apology will be accepted.
I believe you may have read into a statement and determined thats what I said when in fact I did not.Where did you get the "right" to carry a knife? Is this a god given right? Something I missed along the way? Your rights are spelled out in the constitution. I don't believe the that document mentions your rigth to carry a knife anywhere does it?
Your rights should not be infringed? How about my rights to go about my days activites in relative safety from others? Show me where you read anywhere that you have the right to carry a knife if the majority through a democratic process have determined otherwise. I'd be interested in researching your reference materials.
Again with the rights, Your rights are restricted daily. I am to assume you want no restrictions on anyone relative anything? A free for all? Or just the rights you think are important to you? You live with restrictions as we all do. Some of them are more repugnant than others but someone somewhere will take umbridge with what restrictions you can live with as you take the same against those restrictions here. If thats going to be the case and everyone can do as they please with NO restrictions I'm sure I'll survive as I have when confronted with life and death before. I have the training and experience to live long and prosper under that guise.
Meanwhile your Mom, sisters, aunts and the like will be at the mercy of those who would rape/mame/kill them as there are no longer restrictions in the country. You have god given rights recognized by our constitution. Where does the it state it is your god given right to carry a knife.
The theme being restrictions:
We either live with them or we may not live at all. Your loved one is killed at the theatre along with 100 others by a terorrist. His right not to be searched was honored and he was abler to perpetrate the crime due to your "no restrictions" policy. Bet you'd be crying at the funeral about they should have checked that guy huh? If not you I know many who would be making that very statement. Thats why we have restrictions, so we can minimize the threat of this ocurring again anytime soon.
Do I think it will stop someone dedicated enough? No, but if it stops just one attack and saves YOUR wife, mother, daughter, son etc you may feel different at that time.
It's easy when it doesn't/hasn't touched you to make these types of comments against common sense. Hope you never have to eat your own rhetoric about "restrictions". It will be too late to change your mind then as when someones cold, they are cold forever.
Brownie
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Scenario:
You are allowed to defend yourself and carry anything you want. This law/rule applies to everyone.
You are in an altercation where justified lethal force could be applied. In the heat of battle you should an innocent bystander and punch through the perp and hit another as well but ony injuries to the second person while the miss was fatal.
If you shot my relative and did not have what might be considered adequate training [a minimum standard similiar to the cops lets say ]what do you propose is my recourse against your misfeasance and negligent act? You would be negligent in shooting an innocent no matter what the circumstances right? What recourse do you give me against all the people out there who under that scenario become wannabe vigilantes with no restrictions?
This is about restrictions or lack thereof remember. If no restrictions are to be placed on the individual who wants to carry a potentially lethal weapon in self defense what rights have you now taken away from me by your actions? Do I then have the god given right of "eye for an eye". See where I'm going with this? You can't have 250 million people in this country runnign around with no restrictions on their ability to be stupid and injurous to others through negligence or lack of training.
Don't tell me they would be required to be qualified proficient in some way first as you have set your own restrictions on me at that time.
When you are detained at a road block your freedom to move freely has been altered. If you are detained/stopped for any reason without probable cause YOU did something wrong you have lost your freedom to move freely about. Now you may not mind that but somebody else just might. They are restricting you by detaining you whether you agree with the small detention or not.
Your privacy has been invaded if you role down your window at an officers request and not your own doing [ like asking for directions perhaps ].
Brownie
You are allowed to defend yourself and carry anything you want. This law/rule applies to everyone.
You are in an altercation where justified lethal force could be applied. In the heat of battle you should an innocent bystander and punch through the perp and hit another as well but ony injuries to the second person while the miss was fatal.
If you shot my relative and did not have what might be considered adequate training [a minimum standard similiar to the cops lets say ]what do you propose is my recourse against your misfeasance and negligent act? You would be negligent in shooting an innocent no matter what the circumstances right? What recourse do you give me against all the people out there who under that scenario become wannabe vigilantes with no restrictions?
This is about restrictions or lack thereof remember. If no restrictions are to be placed on the individual who wants to carry a potentially lethal weapon in self defense what rights have you now taken away from me by your actions? Do I then have the god given right of "eye for an eye". See where I'm going with this? You can't have 250 million people in this country runnign around with no restrictions on their ability to be stupid and injurous to others through negligence or lack of training.
Don't tell me they would be required to be qualified proficient in some way first as you have set your own restrictions on me at that time.
When you are detained at a road block your freedom to move freely has been altered. If you are detained/stopped for any reason without probable cause YOU did something wrong you have lost your freedom to move freely about. Now you may not mind that but somebody else just might. They are restricting you by detaining you whether you agree with the small detention or not.
Your privacy has been invaded if you role down your window at an officers request and not your own doing [ like asking for directions perhaps ].
Brownie
Chief_Wiggum
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2003
- Messages
- 306
Alright, you have a point about moving about freely, but I'm not being detained. Certainly if I haven't commited a crime, I would be allowed to move on within a resonable amount of time. Seems resonable to me.
I guess personal privacy needs a better definition. I don't see how talking to a cop is an invasion of personal privacy, even given the fact he requested the conversation. Case law seems to support an officer being able to stop you (even frisk you) provided he has reasonable suspision of illegal activity. The one exception is roadblocks and such where _every_ person is being stopped and not one individual is being singled out.
Finally, and here's the big one, the police have no specific legal duty to provide protection to you or anyone else. Here's one example:
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm
So regardless of how much training you have (or have not) had, you are still responsible to protect yourself. Nobody else has that responsibility. Given that fact, I should be allowed to posess and use the tools necessary to protect myself. I'm not saying some minimum level of training should not be required or that anyone and everyone should be allowed to carry/possess any weapon they want. In fact, I don't know of any states that issue CCW permits without some required education. But I do know of many states and cities that do not issue them at all, and there's where I take issue.
I'm serious about the email! If there's a way to carry a gun legally in this city, I want to know about it.
Edit: Here's another one...
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/riss.htm
And I just have to point out from the dissenting opinion:
I guess personal privacy needs a better definition. I don't see how talking to a cop is an invasion of personal privacy, even given the fact he requested the conversation. Case law seems to support an officer being able to stop you (even frisk you) provided he has reasonable suspision of illegal activity. The one exception is roadblocks and such where _every_ person is being stopped and not one individual is being singled out.
Finally, and here's the big one, the police have no specific legal duty to provide protection to you or anyone else. Here's one example:
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm
So regardless of how much training you have (or have not) had, you are still responsible to protect yourself. Nobody else has that responsibility. Given that fact, I should be allowed to posess and use the tools necessary to protect myself. I'm not saying some minimum level of training should not be required or that anyone and everyone should be allowed to carry/possess any weapon they want. In fact, I don't know of any states that issue CCW permits without some required education. But I do know of many states and cities that do not issue them at all, and there's where I take issue.
I'm serious about the email! If there's a way to carry a gun legally in this city, I want to know about it.
Edit: Here's another one...
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/riss.htm
And I just have to point out from the dissenting opinion:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2000
- Messages
- 2,573
Why do you feel threatened if I carry a knife or firearm? Do you think I'm a murderer? If I am a murderer, why would I follow these laws anyway since murder is already against the law?
Originally posted by brownie0486
Please highlight the statement you are referring to about my purported "freedom of speech" being restricted to military veterans. I reread my posts twice and find not anything close to what you referr. I'll expect you to highlight it and respond, and in lieu of not finding it, some small apology will be accepted. I believe you may have read into a statement and determined thats what I said when in fact I did not.
You wrote, "answer----I could write a dissertaion on this one but I'll restrain myself and show some control here for the benefit of other members of the opposite sex. Background, USMC 69-71, RVN "70", honorably discharged. I believe I have earned the right to speak about such things, have you? Rights have been restricted since the begining of mankind."
Where did you get the "right" to carry a knife? Is this a god given right? Something I missed along the way? Your rights are spelled out in the constitution. I don't believe the that document mentions your rigth to carry a knife anywhere does it?
If a knife is a tool, like my TOPS Anaconda, they have no business restricting them. If it is a weapon like my Sandbar Bowie, then it is protected by the Second Amendment.
Your rights should not be infringed? How about my rights to go about my days activites in relative safety from others? Show me where you read anywhere that you have the right to carry a knife if the majority through a democratic process have determined otherwise. I'd be interested in researching your reference materials.
The United States is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. Tne Constitution was written to LIMIT government. They have not been given the power to regulate bladeware, so they can't. You've had too much statist influence. Try reading "Liberalism" by Ludwig Von Mises.
Do I think it will stop someone dedicated enough? No, but if it stops just one attack and saves YOUR wife, mother, daughter, son etc you may feel different at that time.
I'm single but if I marry and have kids my wife and kids will be trained.
It's easy when it doesn't/hasn't touched you to make these types of comments against common sense. Hope you never have to eat your own rhetoric about "restrictions". It will be too late to change your mind then as when someones cold, they are cold forever.
A close relative of mine was shot in the back of the head by a government thug of the Marcos regime. Marcos and his thugs were all for civilian disarmament.
In November and December of 2001 Islamic terrorists overran and occipied parts of Zamboanga City. My relatives there and their neighbors were in our family compound. Three Muslimes with assault rifles tried to get in but a friend of mine answered the door with a 1911 pointed at them. They did not try to get in after that. People in homes without weapons were taken hostage and some were killed.
Originally posted by brownie0486
Please highlight the statement you are referring to about my purported "freedom of speech" being restricted to military veterans. I reread my posts twice and find not anything close to what you referr. I'll expect you to highlight it and respond, and in lieu of not finding it, some small apology will be accepted.
I believe you may have read into a statement and determined thats what I said when in fact I did not. You wrote, "answer----I could write a dissertaion on this one but I'll restrain myself and show some control here for the benefit of other members of the opposite sex. Background, USMC 69-71, RVN "70", honorably discharged. I believe I have earned the right to speak about such things, have you? Rights have been restricted since the begining of mankind."
Where did you get the "right" to carry a knife? Is this a god given right? Something I missed along the way? Your rights are spelled out in the constitution. I don't believe the that document mentions your rigth to carry a knife anywhere does it?
If a knife is a tool, like my TOPS Anaconda, they have no business restricting them. If it is a weapon like my Sandbar Bowie, then it is protected by the Second Amendment.
Your rights should not be infringed? How about my rights to go about my days activites in relative safety from others? Show me where you read anywhere that you have the right to carry a knife if the majority through a democratic process have determined otherwise. I'd be interested in researching your reference materials.
The United States is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. Tne Constitution was written to LIMIT government. They have not been given the power to regulate bladeware, so they can't. You've had too much statist influence. Try reading "Liberalism" by Ludwig Von Mises.
Do I think it will stop someone dedicated enough? No, but if it stops just one attack and saves YOUR wife, mother, daughter, son etc you may feel different at that time.
I'm single but if I marry and have kids my wife and kids will be trained.
It's easy when it doesn't/hasn't touched you to make these types of comments against common sense. Hope you never have to eat your own rhetoric about "restrictions". It will be too late to change your mind then as when someones cold, they are cold forever.
A close relative of mine was shot in the back of the head by a government thug of the Marcos regime. Marcos and his thugs were all for civilian disarmament.
In November and December of 2001 Islamic terrorists overran and occipied parts of Zamboanga City. My relatives there and their neighbors were in our family compound. Three Muslimes with assault rifles tried to get in but a friend of mine answered the door with a 1911 pointed at them. They did not try to get in after that. People in homes without weapons were taken hostage and some were killed.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2000
- Messages
- 2,573
Brownie, at the school I trained at for firearms, their level 2 class was slightly above police qualification. I graduated level 4. Why do you gungrabbers always assume we are so poorly trained? IMO is just makes sense that people who like guns train in their use. Otherwise we would just be collectors. 
Brownie, No personal attacks...please. I am an American, a conservative, who knows his history. Why is democrat a dirty word to you? I am a democrat, republican, Green, depending upon the truth of their beliefs and how they act upon them
The only soldiers who fought to defend my rights were in the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWII-pacific theatre. Most of the rest of the wars were either American imperialism, American policing, or us just doing the "right thing." What War did you defend my freedom in? Our founders believed that a standing army and proffessional soldiers were a dangerous thing that would lead American into imperialistic acts like the Europeans. I believe our milatary history of the past 20 years may support their fears. Don't forget the military openly brainwashes recruits to bring them into the fold and control them. Try to separate yourself from the mind control.
If you don't realize the oil money behind the current administration, you don't read the papers, watch TV or listen to the radio. If you don't know about the personal ties between the Bushes, Cheney and the Saudi royal family, you don't know your current and past history. All be it these facts are not publicized to a great extent, but if you listen and read carefully and connect the dots, you will know it is true. Why don't we go to N. Korea? It's oil buddy.
The only soldiers who fought to defend my rights were in the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWII-pacific theatre. Most of the rest of the wars were either American imperialism, American policing, or us just doing the "right thing." What War did you defend my freedom in? Our founders believed that a standing army and proffessional soldiers were a dangerous thing that would lead American into imperialistic acts like the Europeans. I believe our milatary history of the past 20 years may support their fears. Don't forget the military openly brainwashes recruits to bring them into the fold and control them. Try to separate yourself from the mind control.
If you don't realize the oil money behind the current administration, you don't read the papers, watch TV or listen to the radio. If you don't know about the personal ties between the Bushes, Cheney and the Saudi royal family, you don't know your current and past history. All be it these facts are not publicized to a great extent, but if you listen and read carefully and connect the dots, you will know it is true. Why don't we go to N. Korea? It's oil buddy.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,913
Benjamin Liu:
I said I earned the right, I didn't say you did not have the right.
Big difference there, I asked if you had earned the right, I have.
We all have the right to speech but I've earned mine, others in this country have not even though they can excercise that freedom.
brownshoe: We are in Iraq as they have demonstrated a clear and present danger to the US by sponsoring terrorism against us and our allies. Oil is a biproduct/reward of that endeavor.
Political views as to whether the police actions were right or not have nothing to do with USGI's defending this country from our sworn enemies [at the time]. If we did not fight for freedom [ ours or someone elses ] USSR would have a new meaning today. They wanted to rule the world and tried to grab land everywhere. We stopped them as others could not defend themselves adequately.
The big reason we aren't in N Korea or Syria is due to the antis complaining about us trying to rule the world. Course that doesn't fly as I don't ever remember seeing Japan, Germany, or France being our 51,52, and 53rd states. We have to be politically correct lest we offend someones senses.
Any US soldier who fought in any action furthered you freedoms and the ideals of free men.
I don't personally feel threatened by anyone as I have the backgorund to handle what comes my way. Though you boys may think my words speak antigun you are wrong. I carry all kinds of weapons all day long and have the training to use them to their full potential. I just think some common sense needs to be injected into the scenario of everyone being allowed no restrictions. We have lived with them forever and in fact the more people in a geographical location the more need for those very restrictions.
I agree most of the dangerous weapons statutes are silly and that we could be better off without all of them but the point is some feel they should not be restricted at all.
Benjamin Liu: As to your being trained to a level above the average police officer, I'm glad you take the responsibility for your decision to carry a dangerous weapon but it does not negate the fact many more have no training nor will ever seek it out.
I never said disarm the american people in any of my posts nor mentioned anything about being anti gun/ anti personal defense.
We need to restrict these items as they are dangerous and not everyone should be allowed access to them. They in fact are restricted by statutes of the various states under the dangerous weapons statutes where knives are included/restricted by size, shape, configuration etc.
If any of you would like to explore my backgorund and what I do you are welcome to visit
www.folders-r-us.org
Brownie
I said I earned the right, I didn't say you did not have the right.
Big difference there, I asked if you had earned the right, I have.
We all have the right to speech but I've earned mine, others in this country have not even though they can excercise that freedom.
brownshoe: We are in Iraq as they have demonstrated a clear and present danger to the US by sponsoring terrorism against us and our allies. Oil is a biproduct/reward of that endeavor.
Political views as to whether the police actions were right or not have nothing to do with USGI's defending this country from our sworn enemies [at the time]. If we did not fight for freedom [ ours or someone elses ] USSR would have a new meaning today. They wanted to rule the world and tried to grab land everywhere. We stopped them as others could not defend themselves adequately.
The big reason we aren't in N Korea or Syria is due to the antis complaining about us trying to rule the world. Course that doesn't fly as I don't ever remember seeing Japan, Germany, or France being our 51,52, and 53rd states. We have to be politically correct lest we offend someones senses.
Any US soldier who fought in any action furthered you freedoms and the ideals of free men.
I don't personally feel threatened by anyone as I have the backgorund to handle what comes my way. Though you boys may think my words speak antigun you are wrong. I carry all kinds of weapons all day long and have the training to use them to their full potential. I just think some common sense needs to be injected into the scenario of everyone being allowed no restrictions. We have lived with them forever and in fact the more people in a geographical location the more need for those very restrictions.
I agree most of the dangerous weapons statutes are silly and that we could be better off without all of them but the point is some feel they should not be restricted at all.
Benjamin Liu: As to your being trained to a level above the average police officer, I'm glad you take the responsibility for your decision to carry a dangerous weapon but it does not negate the fact many more have no training nor will ever seek it out.
I never said disarm the american people in any of my posts nor mentioned anything about being anti gun/ anti personal defense.
We need to restrict these items as they are dangerous and not everyone should be allowed access to them. They in fact are restricted by statutes of the various states under the dangerous weapons statutes where knives are included/restricted by size, shape, configuration etc.
If any of you would like to explore my backgorund and what I do you are welcome to visit
www.folders-r-us.org
Brownie