Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 181 to 193 of 193

Thread: The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

  1. #181
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Surely there are local criminal laws that apply to the man with an AR-15 and pistol, taking up position on a public road and appearing to be ready to shoot?

    Elsewhere I have seen a man with what looked like a AK47.
    Nevada is an "Open Carry" state.

    Nevada is a better place than most for Farrell because it is "an open--carry state." Nevada reiterates the right to bear arms in its constitution and does not have blanket restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ open carrying of firearms.

    That’s why a dozen or so people who attended the March 27 Tea Party rally in Searchlight were able to openly carry firearms. ...

    On the night of June 24, [Ferrell] holstered up his loaded 40-caliber Glock 23 pistol and proceeded to a sidewalk on Las Vegas Boulevard, just south of Charleston Boulevard, where he was certain he would be noticed by police. He was.

    It wasn’t his first encounter with the law. While vacationing in Nashua, N.H., early last year, he was stopped on foot on the way to a bank by police who asked about his gun. Minutes later he was allowed to go about his business with gun in tow. Such is life in the “live free or die” state, apparently.

    The Las Vegas Strip encounter was far more intense, with police arriving in squad cars and on motorcycles in a show of force, guns drawn. Farrell was handcuffed and his gun was confiscated, its bullets removed. Over the course of the next 23 minutes, Farrell invoked his right to talk to an attorney, told police not to touch his gun, and that he hadn’t consented to being searched and detained. He refused to answer questions about whether he possessed a registration card for the weapon, and invoked his right to remain silent.

    Bottom line: He hadn’t committed any crime. After police ran a background check on Farrell, confirming his gun was properly registered, and finding that he also has a concealed-weapons permit and is not a dangerous criminal, he was uncuffed. He was handed back his gun but the bullets were dropped down one of his pants pockets and the empty magazine was placed on an irrigation box 100 feet away. He was ordered not to move until police drove away.

    “I understand the need for officer safety,” Farrell said. “These guys have a tough job. But officer safety does not trump my rights. To stop me there has to be something other than the fact I have a gun. They shouldn’t have even taken my gun.”
    In my opinion, Ferrell was wrong. The right to remain silent applies when there is a question as to whether you committed a crime. If he was confident he was within his rights, he should not told the officers what they needed to know. Absent straight answers, an officer has to assume the worst. That is what I would do.

    See Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTrGD5JltK0

    It would probably be felony assault if he actually rose up over the barrier and pointed the weapon at a police officer, but simply observing from behind the barrier is probably not assault.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-17-2014 at 05:51 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  2. #182
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Slap, a couple of points: (1) this dispute is nothing special nor a depature from American tradition; (2) the Obama Administration probably could not care less about a single rancher's grazing rights after decades of violating federal law and ignoring court orders.
    Thank You Thank You!!!!That is exactly my point!!! The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.

    I've noted in previous posts the strong undercurrent of reactionary populism in American rural politics as well as the changing demographics of the country and the metropolitan "Otherness" of Obama personally and the federal government generally. This event highlights the collision of all of these moving pieces. Even George Washington suppressed challenges to federal authority.
    I don't have a problem with this statement.

    I also highlighted your comment that really captures the mindset of the same people out there protesting the federal government's actions. Even though it's clearly documented that Bundy is the one with the radical ideology ("I don't even recognize the federal government", he says) and is the one attempting to subvert federal law, you still manage to find a way to build an explanation consistent with your ideological disposition. Obama is a pragmatist, for one, and his efforts are focused on the health care program and Russia; so I very much doubt he's at all concerned, aside from the publicity of the event now, with the seizure of cattle by BLM. The highest ranking political official to comment on the issue was Reid, one of the senators from Nevada; and he's not a part of the administration.
    I have a real problem with this. President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."

    America is changing. And it's government and it's political priorities are changing to reflect that. That's not acceptable to people like Cliven Bundy and other anti-government radicals. In another post you cited the actions of communists and other left-wing radicals, but in American history, the greatest violence and subversion has consistently originated from rural right-wing political groups: the militia movement, the KKK, sovereign citizens, and so forth. The Tea Party is a legitimized wing of that movement and the Southwest is a tinderbox for a number of reasons. The real scandal is that the Republican Party allowed this faction to come to dictate its politics to the detriment of the GOP and the country.This rancher issue, and many of the other frivolous arguments of the Tea Party, is about one guy ignoring the law because of its inconvenience to him.
    Yes it was a very dark time for America until a true hero arose named Martin Luther King who had the courage to speak the truth. And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.

  3. #183
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Bob Is A Racist...

    So everybody needs to watch this it is funny but has a lot of truth to it.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbULBAjstBA

  4. #184
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slap
    The guy lost in court twice and he was being fined for it. Now I have severed enough court orders to know that the usual way to do this is to seize his bank account and or lien his property and collect interest on the fines and the Government was going to do this until. The Radical Left wing group Organization for Diverse Species filed suit 2012 and demanded that those really bad cows be removed by force and those really good turtles be protected under the EPA species protection act. That is what started it all. If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. Move the Cows to protect the Turtles.....Jeeeeeeezzzzz you cannot make this stuff up.
    I don't think it's about turtles, although environmental conversationism policy is an underlying factor. It's about the fact that a rancher has ignored court orders, failed to pay fines and fees, and has otherwise refused to comply with the law. The radical position in this scenario is the refusal on the part of Bundy to recognize and comply with the authority of the federal government. This is not a David vs. Goliath situation. This is about one man willfully ignoring the laws that inconvenience his desire to freely take federal resources for his personal gain. He's a through and through taker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slap
    President Obama is the Chief Executive Officer of the USA. He is directly responsible for the BLM as it is under the Department Of The Interior, whose Secretary reports straight to him. He is the responsible Federal Officer not Harry Reid. I just wish he would do his job for a change instead of "fundamentally change America."
    What would Obama's job be in this situation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slap
    And that truth was this that most white people did not support the KKK or racism. on another SWC thread I posted the exact source of that comment (think is was while he was in the B'Ham jail). I just like to point that out because for some reason that fact just always seems to get lost when there is a discussion of racism in the South.
    True or not, depending on how one assigns moral responsibility, but my point was rather that right-wing violence is often ignored or downplayed in American narratives. The "Other" - inner city gangs, Mexican immigrants, Muslims, left-wing radicals, and so on - however receives extensive coverage that frequently is out of proportion with comparable coverage. When is the media going to name the recent Jewish center shooter as a domestic terrorist? How quickly would he have been labelled a terrorist if he was Muslim? In 2009, Congress forced DHS to withdraw an extensive report on right-wing violence because it negatively reflected on conservatives, veterans, and gun owners (even though the FBI reported that right wing groups intentionally enlist members in the armed services specifically for military training to bring back home).

    So not only is there a long history of reactionary populism in rural America, but there's also an equally long history of violence - and it has undergone various transformations as the country and its institutions change, but it remains in subtext. And not only is there this history of reactionary populism combined with a propensity for violence, but it receives priveleged coverage in American public conciousness and media.

    One of the myths embraced by this ideology is the idea of an expansive, over-reaching, corrupt, metropolitan federal government repressing individuals in rural America through burdensome regulations and taxation. But the federal government has been in retrenchment for many years, and it's employeeopulation ratio has shrunk considerably since LBJ's Great Society projected started. As of 2012, that ratio is the lowest it has ever been since 1962. That year, there were 14 non-military federal employees for every 1,000 people. That number is now nine (9). That's a reduction of 35%! Other than expansion from 1967-1969, it has been in general decline. So the government, by this metric, is actually less capable of meeting its obligations to the population than in the previous 50 years.

    So my interpretation is that much of this battle is about the transformation of America - it has been rapidly growing in its metropolitan regions and in the process is becoming more diverse in both demographics and politics - and the desire by the rural segment in holding onto its declining privelege. Hence the attack on social services and welfare perceived to be uniquely benefiting the minorities that make up a part of the metropolitan other at the expense of rural America (although statistically speaking this is a myth too). This is expressed on Capitol Hill by the Tea Party, which has outsized influence in Congress on the basis of our political mechanisms - but we're also likely to see growing resentment and confrontation in rural communities. I'm sure there will also be some level of radicalization to accompany it. The question is how much mainstream legitimacy will reactionary populism continue to receive?
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  5. #185
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/12/vi...allenged-feds/

    Just so you know, the guy in the picture is not a Federal Agent. He is one of the protestors who was probably outside the "first amendment zone".
    I think you are making a little too much of this photo. Nobody in the background is taking any notice of this guy, they all have cameras pointing at the ground. And the guy is in sort of a movie poster ready for action pose.

    I think it most likely that it is a 'hey look at me shot' posed and shot for distribution rather than a depiction the normal in that time and place.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  6. #186
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    What would Obama's job be in this situation?
    OK here goes.

    He needs to do what he keeps telling the press he is going to do. Start using his "Pen and Phone."

    1-Tell Harry Reid to stop calling the Rancher a Domestic Terrorist. The situation has calmed down because cooler heads prevailed and avoided what could have been a truly terrible outcome. Reid does not need to aggravate it.

    2-Order the AG to do a complete review with recommendations for final resolution to the Court Orders and any other Due Process Matters.

    3-Select a Republican to review and make recommendations to the accusations about Harry Reid's staffer becoming head of BLM with no experience for this position, other than working for Reid and the fact that the guy is only 35 years old, certainly a fast track there. And dicern if he was the one who actually ordered the raid on the Rancher.

    4-There are also allegations of Reid's son(another reason for him to be quite) being involved with a law firm with interest in the property for Solar Panels after the Rancher is evicted. The Republicans should be involved with this review to in order to avoid the appearance of any impropriety by Reid senior.

    5-Since the President is a Constitutional Scholar I am sure he will call Senator Rand Paul who has also brought up the fact that there are very serious Constitutional issues about the use and abuse of this so called Protection Of Endangered Species Act. I am sure the President want want this resolved in a fair and fast way.

    This IMO is the Presidents job as Chief Executive Officer of our Country.

  7. #187
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    People's Republic of California
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I think you are making a little too much of this photo. Nobody in the background is taking any notice of this guy, they all have cameras pointing at the ground. And the guy is in sort of a movie poster ready for action pose.

    I think it most likely that it is a 'hey look at me shot' posed and shot for distribution rather than a depiction the normal in that time and place.
    More angles on the same a-hole. Pic1 Pic2It does seem he is the center of attention. You can even see the guy in the blue t-shirt pointing him out to others.

    These people have been emboldened and now the situation is getting worse with Bundy developing a cult following complete with personal bodyguards. Maybe he'll grow his flock by marrying off his 50 grandchildren to the militia members. Link

    "There are people out here who will sacrifice their lives and their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend them," said Jerry DeLemus, a camouflaged former U.S. Marine sergeant from New Hampshire who called himself the leader of a Bundy security force of some 40 people.
    Bundy, the 67-year-old patriarch of a Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, seems to enjoy the attention. He met the media this week flanked by personal guards headed by a man who called himself Buddha Cavalier.
    Bundy took to the stage fashioned from a flatbed trailer to tell reporters he wants sheriffs around the country to seize weapons from federal bureaucrats.

  8. #188
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Two other links.

    First, the executive order that the Bundy's are violating: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36873

    Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer, to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.
    The second is a National Review Article. http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-perry-pendley

    The interesting thing is that, the National Review article has a picture of Bundy next to President Reagan and a little of Reagan's history when he was a governor supporting ranchers. However, it is President Reagan's executive order that Bundy is violating.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  9. #189
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Not quite the same thing, but more on the "revoution" ...

    “We are calling for [their] removal … as a start toward constitutional restoration,” said retired Army Col. Harry Riley, the leader of the group, Raw Story reported. “They have all abandoned the U.S. Constitution, are unworthy to be retained in a position that calls for servant status.”


    The aim of the group, too, is to influence those politicos who aren’t targeted for ouster to “sponsor and pass very constitutionally crafted state legislation to dissolve the size, powers, scope and spending of the U.S. government by two-thirds,” the media outlet reported.

    The group expects between 10 million and 30 million similarly thinking Americans to meet them in the capital on Friday for a rally that’s being billed as a sort of “Arab Spring” for Americans.

    Meanwhile, the group is holding another event on the same day in Bunerkville, Nev., near cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s property and in support of his stand-off with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees.

    The Friday event was promoted by Tea Party Nation.

    Col. Riley said he hopes the event will go forward peaceably, but that so far, peaceful protests haven’t brought citizens much luck. He also said that more than 1 million militia members have already mobilized for the event — and that projections of 10 million to attend aren’t pie in the sky.

    “For more than five years, ‘we the people’ have been writing, calling, faxing Congress, the media, screaming in town halls, marching, rallying, demonstrating, petitioning, all to no avail,” he said, Raw Story reported. “Every branch of government looks at ‘we the people’ whom they have taken an oath to serve, as ‘pests,’ interfering with their political agenda, cramping their self-serving, greedy agendas. We have no faith in the ballot box any longer, as many believe this sacred secret box has been compromised.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  10. #190
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Not quite the same thing, but more on the "revoution" ...
    Guess they actually got a few hundred, which says something about the difference between noise and substance.
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”

    H.L. Mencken

  11. #191
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096
    Last edited by AdamG; 05-24-2014 at 01:56 AM. Reason: j
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  12. #192
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Oops. Standby.
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  13. #193
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamG View Post
    Was there ever a police admin type who didn't need more stuff, especially if somebody else was paying for it, even stuff they had no use for, like an M-16 or an MRAP? They'll get a lot of it and discover they can't pay to maintain it, like the MRAPs or they have no use at all for it, like an M-16 (by M-16, I assume they mean a select fire semi or full auto rifle). The same thing happened after Vietnam when cities accepted free UH-1s without having a clue what they were getting into. The helos just sat, like the C-12 a police dept I know of accepted and then discovered they had neither the money nor the knowledge to run it.

    That's nonsense about needing M-16s. I can't think of any situation, and I mean any to include a Mumbai where an American cop needs a full auto rifle. That guy was blowing smoke. If he was so concerned he would have had his dept get AR-15s as many depts have had for many years.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •