http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ok-way-open-carry-gun-owners/?test=latestnews
Looking forward to how this plays out.
Looking forward to how this plays out.
After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carr
- Thread starter spamby
- Start Date
I don't think it will be a good outcome.. he will loose his permit and maybe some other rights. 
How many Oklahoma officers would act the same as the Philly cops? I would be willing to bet a good number, especially when we have former OHP officers who are now legislators actively campaigning against citizens having the right to carry weapons openly in public. Lots of good cops out there who respect the constitution, but also quite a good number who feel that their right to feel "safe" when on the job (openly carrying their own weapons) trumps our constitutional right to uninfringed firearms ownership and carry.
Shame on them.
And yes, I DO feel that this prosecution is retaliatory... charges were never filed until after the tape came out and made the police look bad. Not a good sign... another reason to avoid Philadelphia specifically and big cities in general.
Shame on them.
And yes, I DO feel that this prosecution is retaliatory... charges were never filed until after the tape came out and made the police look bad. Not a good sign... another reason to avoid Philadelphia specifically and big cities in general.
Hopefully he takes this **** to court.
I'm with you on this one. Wouldn't an accurate record of the encounter benefit both parties. It cuts out the he said she said b.s.
Actually, if the DA continues on this path He will be committing Malicious Prosecution and be subject to prison time himself.
If I was the guy charged, I would sure go to the AG and counter-charge the DA.
If I was the guy charged, I would sure go to the AG and counter-charge the DA.
^THIS^
there seems to be a lot of police bashing in this thread
i believe this all comes down to leadership, these officers contact with open carrying civis would be more friendly if their leadership would rein them in and have consequences for their action.
Police need as many good guys with guns these days now more then ever.
hell the police dept in my girlfriends town has been cut in half.
there seems to be a lot of police bashing in this thread
i believe this all comes down to leadership, these officers contact with open carrying civis would be more friendly if their leadership would rein them in and have consequences for their action.
Police need as many good guys with guns these days now more then ever.
hell the police dept in my girlfriends town has been cut in half.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gun is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Anyone have a link to the audio? I'm having trouble finding it.
Similar threads
