Open Carry Trolling The Police For Civil Rights Violations

D’Angelo looking dude with the cornrows out for a troll stroll gets got:

The cop who dealt with the white dudes was cooler than the other side of the pillow.

Black open carry starts at 0:54.  I ask you this, guy in video… HOW DOES IT FEEEEEEEEL*?

*I’m going to slap a early “no homo” on that video embed before someone asks wtf is up with me watching that dude half naked. D’Angelo is smooth as butta tho my dude.

Open-Carry-Most-Interesting-Man-In-The-WorldOpen carry science is a muTha.  The video hardly proves anything, except some people really like wasting police time and getting guns pointed at them.  I DO NOT CONSENT! I DO NOT CONSENT!  Lucky he had his 7-months-pregnant friend to provide useless commentary and a backup video *smh*

Thoughts?  Will there be a court settlement in favor of D’Angelo for several million dollars in emotional damages for this one?

58 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Disco May 19, 2015 at 03:18 am

I used to be against open carry….but then I realized that police react negatively out of fear. Fear that they cannot have total control, rightly or wrongly, over people.

Drawing down on the black guy was pure racism. Everyone who OCs isn’t looking for trouble. It IS a right. This is like saying you can’t vote or you can’t go to your church without a church permit.

Everyone considers Switzerland to be this bastion of gun freedom but they have MORE restrictive gun laws than the US. If MORE people OC’d then people would have to get over themselves.

They pump it into a lot of Cops’ head these days that they have to be “tough”. Spree killings, while tragic, are rare occurrences. A man with a gun is not necessarily evil. There are officers too quick to pull rifles on those they swore to protect.

If everyone looks like a criminal, then you need a new vocation.

Reply

Guy May 21, 2015 at 01:07 am

Personally, I don’t get the point of OC other than “it’s my right”. I get that it’s our right to OC, I just don’t feel the need to advertise that I’m carrying. Furthermore, I live in the inner city where cops DO have to be “tough” and shootings occur on a daily basis. Yes, 99.99% of these are illegal guns, but I don’t blame cops for being cautious about people with weapons because at the end of the day, it’s their life on the line. If you live in the ‘burbs then yeah, by all means, OC. Just don’t expect to NOT be hassled in a high crime area like the inner city. Cops are just doing their jobs and I get that.

Reply

Starvinpilgrim May 19, 2015 at 05:39 am

OK, at 5:34 when the cop picked up the rifle did he charge it? It looked like sounded like he racked it.

Reply

Glocky Balboa May 19, 2015 at 06:27 am

The girl making the commentary on the black guy OC vid sounds like Wendy the Slow Adult from The Howard Stern Show.

Reply

bruh bruh May 19, 2015 at 06:50 am

Stupidly getting a gun pointed at my prego wife/gf. Smoov moov bruh.

Why is it such an issue to give cops your ID? If you have nothing to hide, why not let him do his job and be on your way. Be happy the cop isnt legally detaining you for 24hrs ‘just cause’. Nothing was proven by this. Two different cops, different outfits on the guys, even different carry position it looked like (slung over back vs at side). Far from a way to prove anything other then how stupid the people behind the video are.

Just yesterday i was helping a man try and find a cap for the adjuster on his scope. It wasnt an AR, but he was in the store for a solid hour at least, walking around with it in his hands and we didnt recieve one complaint, no cops were called, and nothing happened.

Reply

Disco May 19, 2015 at 07:04 am

I dunno….because my granpappy didn’t bayonet fitty Nazis and knock up fitty French girls for me to have to show my papers just for walking down the street while being American?

Reply

Rusty Shackleferd May 19, 2015 at 07:46 am

“Them Nazis took my shins, but I took fiddy of there boys”!!

Reply

ENDO-Mike May 19, 2015 at 04:13 pm

Lol so true

Reply

Jim Jones May 19, 2015 at 07:33 am

People with attitude like yours is the very reason that sociopaths who always need to control other people’s lives can thrive. What’s the big deal about showing papers? I’m a free fucking man asshole. Keep walking! If you like showing you papers so much, you should live in France. There, police have the right to stop you and ask you for your papers. If you don’t have them, you get to go to jail. You know who gets carted off to jail for that kind of shit all the time? Poor minority kids from the bad neighborhoods. Fuck you you boot licking useful idiot. Have some fucking principles. Be a man. What’s the big deal with a tax on the tea? Why won’t those pesky new continent dwellers just pay the tax?

Reply

bruh bruh May 19, 2015 at 08:30 am

I fail to see how checking to make sure youre within legal grounds is the start of sociopathic control. But im using logic and not fear…

Do you even open carry? Its only these attention whores that find out you can do this then run around town with cameras being jackasses. The problem isnt our laws, or the police. Its citizens being jackasses and thinking its ok to do whatever because ‘its a free country’. That attitude is whats stripping our rights from us…

Reply

Disco May 19, 2015 at 09:00 am

Put the crack pipe down…..

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 10:42 am

bruh bruh,

You are walking down the street and someone accuses you of being a rapist – prove you aren’t.
You are walking down the street and someone says you are a pedophile — prove you aren’t.

See in America, instead of having to disprove prove you are guilty, we make the police show cause as to why they should arrest you or accuse you of a crime. The reason people don’t want to show id — to allow the police the ability to ‘checking to make sure you are within legal grounds” is then every action would be up for stop. Prove you are within legal ground just walking around — couldn’t you be a wanted felon? A fugitive from justice ?

Every single step you take — justify you are ‘within legal grounds’ !

Isn’t it better to require the police to be able to articulate a reason why people are stopped more than “well, you see Your Honor; he was walking down the street and I felt that was suspicious.”?

Bob S.

Reply

Disco May 19, 2015 at 10:54 am

Truth here. I have “trained” with a SWAT team in the last few years that SWORE they were sitting at the same table as SEAL team 6 and SAS. Nobody could shoot anything with an AR beyond 50 yards and they “needed” EOtechs, guys were flagging each other too many times to count, and they were dying of heat exhaustion because they insisted on training in full battle rattle with armor. Lots of XXXL plate carriers.

And we need to give people like that more leeway and the benefit of the doubt….why, again?

Their last and only “no shit, hot op” was busting some college kids selling weed out their dorm. 4 whole pounds of it.

Reply

Taylor TX May 19, 2015 at 01:27 pm

Do you need bigger plates for a carrier that big? Shit I bet that could get heavy fast, might have a tactical chris farley heart attack on your hands :)

Reply

Disco May 19, 2015 at 02:11 pm

Remember the big mohawk guy from MGS4? It looked like that only fat

Reply

ST4 May 19, 2015 at 03:59 pm

Did they have a balaclava operator guy who shit his pants too?

Reply

Yourmacroismymicro May 21, 2015 at 09:04 am

Everybody wants to be FBI HRT.

I guess this is what happens when you hire a bunch of military dudes to police domestically, and then send some of them back out to kick doors in abroad. Everyone wants the fancy toys and a carte blanch ability to wield them without impunity.

Land of the free, home of the brave. Police have a hard job, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out of control. I blame huffington post, david letterman, and the neocons that took us into a couple of bullshit wars, which resulted in communist democrats being empowered to bring down home Chinese living to the USA.

Reply

bruh bruh May 19, 2015 at 11:51 am

I guess I see it as whats his justified reason for having an AR at his side? When someone is walking around a hardware store with a rifle he was working on in hand – no one was alarmed. But if he was walking around Krogers next door, same rifle same guy, then im sure there would have been issues. Do you sling your AR on your back when mowing the lawn? Grilling at the park? If you do, then the cops are violating your right. If your doing it once for the hell of it, then thats suspisious to me.

Here in CO we have stop and identify laws yet still people arent randomly being told to present ID with or without guns. So you must have done something to have him want to stop and question you. Thats not to say theres not any bad cops who take advantage of that. But its talked about as if cops are checking IDs like a club entrance and they arent. And if you dont like the laws then vote to change them or make laws that say ‘Cops can not check ID’.

Or what about the cops perspective? I would say that the cop seeing a MWAG would get a different responce then someone calling in a MWAG. Would you ever want the cops to blow off something you call in as a threat? So then your just being difficult to a cop doing his job.

Trolling obviously will get you treated like this. Dont like it, dont troll.

Thank you Bob S. for a educated responce. I think we just see ‘reasonable cause’ differently. If I see a video of some guy playing with his dog that gets asked his ID id be mad. But in this day and age anything more then a pistol I just cant see as being a EDC. Or if he was in Mossy Oak and just came back from hunting then id say this was a bit much. But its a guy and his buds all trying to get a reaction out of the cops – and they succeded. That far from proves cops abusing stop and ID in my eyes…

Reply

Jim Jones May 19, 2015 at 01:18 pm

That’s the thing though; he does not need to have any reason. That’s the beauty of freedom. It’s messy, it is scary for the namby pambies, but it is liberating. Do you really not understand how some humans feel rather strongly about the freedom to be left the fuck alone? In this beautiful country of ours, there’s this thing called the fourth amendment. If a police officer does not have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, then he/she is not allowed to detain you. Period. Walking around with a firearm strapped to one’s back is not probably cause for a Terry Stop in the “free” states. It’s really not that complicated.

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 01:59 pm

Bruh Bruh,

What is your ‘justified reason’ for posting any comments here or any place else?
Do you feel the police should be able to question you because you made a Facebook post, commented on this blog post, had a conversation with a friend?
Or perhaps they should have to wait until someone says “Hey, he’s threatening people” or “I think he just confessed to a crime” — freely exercising our rights without having to explain why we are doing it is a hallmark — or was — of this country.

If your doing it once for the hell of it, then thats suspisious to me.

So again – let’s look at it in relation to our other rights — If you fly once for the heck of it — that is suspicious? Go to church just to see what it is like once — be prepared to answer to the police? How about looking about on a busy street because you’ve never been there — obviously suspicious and the police should be able to question you right?
How about simply buying a firearm — some people do that for the heck of it.

Where do we draw the line on what the police are allowed to stick their noses into?

But in this day and age anything more then a pistol I just cant see as being a EDC.

Oh…I see. One of the IF I do it THIS way, it is okay but if anyone else does it differently then they must be causing trouble mentalities eh?????

So how about the people who don’t carry a pistol. That isn’t part of their EDC and probably view your carrying one as ‘suspicious’. By your reasoning then police should be able to stop you and question you any time, right?
Let’s see that stats that I have puts around 200,000 out of a population of 5 Million – quick math means 4% of the people. So where do we set the magic number for “Hey police leave me alone, I’m just exercising my rights”? 1% 2, 4% ?

Bob S.

Reply

bruh bruh May 19, 2015 at 06:24 pm

If your facebook post is about how you plan you kill someone, or how you just killed your wife (happened about a month ago) then yes you should be investigated.

Clearly you believe nothing is reasonable. Or rather that everything is reasonable and nothing should be questioned. There are lines drawn, you just dont believe in them.

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 07:33 pm

Bruh Bruh,

I really expected better then a response like that. NO I “believe everything is reasonable.” Far from it. I’ve consistently given examples of behaviors that are legal and reasonable – should be easy to see that driving in a neighborhood isn’t the same thing as stopping on a street corner asking to buy drugs or solicit a prostitute. It isn’t the intention but as the courts say “a significant step” in putting that intention into action that is the dividing line.

I’ve tried to draw parallels so you can see where intention can be misinterpreted. You or the cops don’t know someone’s intentions until they announce them or act on them. That is basic law. I may have murderous rage in my heart for certain people (like those who won’t yield the far left lane on the highway) but even that doesn’t mean I intent to act on that rage. Nor does my intention cross the line until I act on it. Then it becomes criminal.

It seems you advocate criminalizing thought — as determined by a 3rd party !! The officer interprets intention based on what? (S)he doesn’t like my looks, my manner of dress, my choice of carry firearm?????

I draw the lines where they have been — probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Officers have to articulate both. So — in the case of the video above—-just what actions by the African American Open Carrier indicated there was probable cause or reasonable suspicion he was about to commit a crime?

And think carefully please -because I also want you to explain how carrying a firearm concealed while doing the same thing would not be probable cause or reasonable suspicion that you were about to commit a crime.

Bob S.

Reply

Bruh Bruh May 19, 2015 at 10:54 pm

You say officers can use probable cause and reasonable suspision yet it seems theres no situation that fits that in your eyes. You further that with statements that lead me to believe we should be reactionary instead of proactive.

Its a struggle to determine where the line falls and its far from straight. And no we shouldnt give full power of a DA, Judge and jury to the cops – but thats why we didnt. There is due process and then actions can be taken against the cop depending on how far he over stepped his bounds or abused his power. The Colorado Springs man arrested the day after the Aurora theater shooting got major policies changed and was awarded $24k plus whatever wasnt allowed to be disclosed. So its not like cops are free to do as they please.

As for what this video – its just a bad troll. I firmly believe he deserves that for trolling the cops. I just can not justify the practicality of open carrying an AR. Im far from saying we shouldnt be allowed to – but dont be shocked when cops want to question your intent.

Until ‘The Machine’ from the ‘Northern Lights’ project is lauched i feel this is the best we can do at preventing possible crime. (Person of Interest anyone?)

Reply

Bob S. May 20, 2015 at 03:27 am

Bruh Bruh,

I’m going to take your sentence —
As for what this video – its just a bad troll. I firmly believe he deserves that for trolling the cops. I just can not justify the practicality of open carrying an AR. Im far from saying we shouldnt be allowed to – but dont be shocked when cops want to question your intent

And change a few words. Tell me is you still support the idea of police acting the same way afterwards.

As for what this video – its just a bad troll. I firmly believe he deserves that for trolling the cops. I just can not justify the practicality of concealed carrying a pistol . Im far from saying we shouldnt be allowed to – but dont be shocked when cops want to question your intent

Still think the police should be able to stop a person and ask them what they are doing and why?

How about thi —

As for what this video – its just a bad troll. I firmly believe he deserves that for trolling the cops. I just can not justify the practicality of owning a firearm. Im far from saying we shouldnt be allowed to – but dont be shocked when cops want to question your intent

The antis would have us ‘leave it to the police’ and say anyone who wants to own a firearm is probably going to use it — therefore the police should be able to question them. Doesn’t it give you pause when you are making the exact same argument as the gun control crowd?

Bob S.

Disco May 19, 2015 at 02:14 pm

Before you go any further, we will need to see your Privilege of Speech Permit

Reply

Yourmacroismymicro May 21, 2015 at 09:07 am

You are a whipped puppy Bruh.

We are a nation of laws, you need to re-read the highest of them.

Reply

Jim Jones May 19, 2015 at 10:56 am

Bruh bruh is the kind of man that would have turned the uppity new continenters to King George for a couple of gold coins.

Reply

Yourmacroismymicro May 21, 2015 at 09:10 am

More like, he is the kind if dude that figured it out, right before he heard his own neck crack in the gallows, or the stench of death and people pissing their pants out of fear as they walked knot the gas chamber and realized their fate.

Cops and government are out of control. We are a nation of laws, elected officials and law enforcement need to start following them.

Reply

Yourmacroismymicro May 21, 2015 at 09:15 am

More like, he is the kind of dude that managed to figure it out, right before he heard his own neck crack in the gallows, or right as the stench of death and people pissing their pants in fear hit his nostrils as he walked into the gas chamber and realized his fate.

Cops and government are out of control. We are a nation of laws, elected officials and law enforcement need to start following them.

reply

Reply

Taylor TX May 19, 2015 at 01:25 pm

Papiere bitte.

Reply

Huuuur May 19, 2015 at 01:57 pm

11/10 says, “bruh bruh,” also believes Cerakote jobs using the prime colors and 1911 grips with skulls on them also counts as, “citizens being jackasses and thinking it’s OK to do whatever because, “it’s a free country.’”

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 02:02 pm

Bruh bruh,

Please take a step back and look at the words you have typed here. Now instead of “Open carry” — put “own a gun” or ‘carry a gun’ in place.
Doesn’t that same tone and attitude remind you of what the anti-rights cultists (aka gun control advocates” say about us gun owners and people who carry concealed?

Bob S.

Reply

hextone May 20, 2015 at 07:52 am

“I fail to see how checking to make sure youre within legal grounds is the start of sociopathic control.”

Sounds like some guilty until proven innocent stuff right there.

Reply

Grindstone May 21, 2015 at 07:31 pm

“If you have nothing to hide”

Go fuck yourself.

Reply

T May 19, 2015 at 07:33 am

Well this won’t help the whole “all cops are racist” thing… Crazy response though. Not like the dude was even holding it/sweeping anybody.

Reply

jpcmt May 19, 2015 at 07:49 am

I’m gonna go ahead and piss people off and say that I think racial profiling (cultural profiling is probably more accurate a term but uppity racial people can’t understand that big word) is an invaluable tool in police work and should be, and mostly is embraced, regrettably. Black culture “in general” is one of disrespect for law and “in general” produces more criminals than other cultures in America, period. Being politically correct or culturally equal when responding to something like in this video is foolish and deadly.

Having said that, there’s NO reason why racially profiling someone like this scared cop did should result in more than a 1 minute detention. The next step should be a basic conversation to easily and quickly see that this is not the cultural norm but an idiot baiting me and not some actual thug carrying a gun not characteristically used in crime, and then a sincere thank you for their time and release to continue to troll the public. How many black men calmly walk around with an AR, cite case law, record video, and have back up video and still intend to do crime? Exactly. LE departments need to be flexible and educate themselves, but that requires a level of humility and realization that they are not elite statists and can actually learn from those they police.

Reply

Guy May 21, 2015 at 01:14 am

All you guys sittin here debatin 2A an Endo just be countin they hundos like yeee keep commentin boys make dat youtube monay

Reply

d0zer May 19, 2015 at 04:32 pm

Just thinking out loud here, but I think what is “tripping up” the dissenters is the question of intent of those purporting to be exercising their 2A rights. Being seen as antagonizing the police for, at best, the fuck of it, is gonna rub a lot of people the wrong way–LEOs, of course, included. Note, none of us, myself included, can get into the heads of those OC’ers, thus I am not claiming to know their “true” intent. But I think it is irresponsible, at best, to embark on a crusade without at least attempting to account for how the objects of your intended “education” may view your actions.

Stunts like having your 7 months pregnant girlfriend following along behind you, even if only to document ensuing events, are highly suspect. The truth is that simply exhibiting such an egregious lack of good judgement will turn many “off” to any message you hope to get across.

Don’t misunderstand me, LEOs, as a whole, have a long way to go to repair their image, and justifiably so. Just be careful what you wish for.

Would you be OK with individuals of middle eastern descent executing both their 1st and 2nd amendment rights in coming and going from a mosque, participating in anti-american sermons all the while open carrying “scary black rifles”? Now you can choose to be a smartass here and reply, well that’s preferable to them CC’ing, but that skirts the issue. My point is not to assume everyone will be as “responsible” as you believe yourself to be. Context is key.

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 06:20 pm

d0zer,

Intent? So how do we know the intent of a person without asking them?
Could we wait until they break the law and then say the had ‘criminal intent”? Otherwise, what difference does intent make?
I’m not asking to be snide but to earnestly inquire.
Does the intent to protest some how dilute the right to keep and bear arms? Does the intent to antagonize the police — legally and peacefully — by exercising their rights mean the police can infringe the Carrier’s rights?

Another problem is unless the people announce their intentions (see Open Carry Texas/ Tarrant County) the police are left guessing or trying to stop everyone and ask them. Gee, I really like the idea of “Hey Mr. Driver; just why are you in this neighborhood at night – trying to buy drugs, pick up a prostitute?” I”m sure every officer will gladly interpret our statements in the best possible light of our intentions, right?

Would you be OK with individuals of middle eastern descent executing both their 1st and 2nd amendment rights in coming and going from a mosque, participating in anti-american sermons all the while open carrying “scary black rifles”?

Actually yes. Again what are their actions, not what do we think their intentions are. As long as they are exercising their rights peacefully and legally, I’m golden with anyone carrying. We need not to use “people of color” or those from the “religion of peace” as possible foils in this scenarios but as fellow citizens.

My point is not to assume everyone will be as “responsible” as you believe yourself to be.

I don’t assume everyone is as responsible as I am. I do assume until they prove themselves criminals or criminal negligent they have the same rights. Isn’t that what we are fighting for ?

Bob S.

Reply

d0zer May 19, 2015 at 06:51 pm

A few points to make here:
1) If your intent is to troll the cops why be surprised when they, understandably, are at least annoyed if for no other reason than you are taking them away from being productive somewhere else? Does that in any way justify being unprofessional on the part of local LEOs? No, not at all. Everyone has a part to play here. And IMHO, I don’t believe either sides cause is furthered by being a douchebag.

2) The scenario I posited was to demonstrate that everyone has a line in the sand somewhere. Am I claiming to be the supreme adjudicator of just where that line should be? No, definitely not. But the discussion needs to take place.

3) Perhaps LEOs would be better received if they all approached OC demonstrators in the same manner as the first cop in the video. Perhaps rolling up and demanding an ID is not the best approach–and definitely rolling up and drawing down as “officer chub chub” did on the cornroll kid, as if he were auditioning for a spot as an extra on “Hawaii 5 0” is retarded. But this discussion cannot even take place if there is an obvious intent to antagonize the police and further, treat them as the enemy.

4) Thank you for being civil and not going the way of ad hominem mud slinging…..

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 07:43 pm

Dozer,

Great points.

#1 — I think there is a difference between the cops being annoyed and the cops violating our rights because they are annoyed. They don’t have to be civil (they should be) but they have to respect our rights regardless of the provocation – as long as it is legal.
I do think that sometimes d-bag can further things; it makes the distinction between annoyed and unconstitutional very clear. If we don’t support the right of people to be “Visibly Armed Jerks” (TM) — who is going to support our rights?
Because guaranteed someone things we are being d-bags for carrying concealed, for actually exercising our rights to keep and bear arms.

#2 – I understand the line in the sand and I hope I responded as I would in real life. Oh, wait not too long ago the New Black Panther Party had an Open Carry March less than 20 miles from my home. Guess what? I defended and supported their right to do exactly that. Encouraged them to do it again even. We need all the support we can get.

#3 — I agree that the police would be better received but completely disagree that the police response is dependent on the attitude and tone of the citizens. That attitude and tone may influence but it shouldn’t, it may be annoying but shouldn’t deprive people of their rights. And as far as treating the police as the enemy; when they do deprive people of their rights, when they knowingly and deliberately break the law — what are they?

When they fail to respond to attempts to politely educate, attempts to find common ground, when they fail to respect the people they are sworn to protect — what are they?

#4 — enjoying this discussion. Thanks

Bob S.

Reply

d0zer May 19, 2015 at 08:20 pm

Part of the core of this discussion, IMHO, boils down to this: how do we prevent another scenario like the Ft. Hood shooting or the Colorado Springs theater shooting? Should there be, and to what degree, profiling in assessing a potential threat or are we simply relegated to reacting after the fact? This crap is all heavily nuanced and slippery slopes abound, but it needs to be discussed.

My own feelings aside, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the general public is going to only have so much patience with a “we must only respond…” approach. Does that mean that I’m advocating a “Minority Report” solution? Hell the fuck no. But I think there is a lot of room to maneuver between those 2 extremes.

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 08:30 pm

Dozer,

Part of the problem is trying to think we can prevent another mass murder.
We can if we accept a few minor changes to the Constitution and or rights. The issue is how to prevent it while respecting those rights.

That is a major difference the gun control crowd, and apparently a few gun folks, are comfortable with a guilty until proven innocent approach. I highlight thsee issues because the argument against Open Carry is almost identical to the anti arguments against Concealed Varry

Reply

d0zer May 19, 2015 at 08:40 pm

“The issue is how to prevent it while respecting those rights”

I agree wholeheartedly.

I just have an internal debate raging over how to reconcile that with the knowledge that I think we all know someone, or someones, we would never want owning, much less walking around with, a firearm. How to reconcile the two? The short of it, I dunno, the answer appears to be eluding me.

Reply

Bob S. May 19, 2015 at 08:38 pm

Carry (darn phone). I want people to consider that.

Because we can use a different argument instead, not prevention but mitigation. We have the evidence, time and time again someone legally carrying reduced the death toll or stopped one from happening.

Instead of saying we need to deprive rights in a failed attempt to prevent, let’s push for liberty to use our rights.

Instead demonizing the presence of a gun, let’s focus on the causes of mass shootingS. That is prevention; better mental health treatment for example.

Reply

d0zer May 19, 2015 at 08:46 pm

Just to be clear…. I must apologize if anything I have written has in any way, either explicitly or implicitly, conveyed that I wish to “demoniz[e] the presence of a gun…” Nothing could be further from the truth. I am kinda grinding through this on the fly myself.

Reply

Bob S. May 20, 2015 at 03:22 am

D0zer,

I apologize also if that seems harsh or if I misinterpreted what you meant. But the implications of ‘less than white with a gun’ is the person wouldn’t be considered to be a problem without the firearm — hence, the demonizing the presence of a firearm. We have to keep pushing the idea of ‘Yes, I am sure he has a firearm but has he done anything illegal or threatening

It is the action, not the perception that has to be the line.

To answer your earlier comment about what can be done for those folks who shouldn’t own/carry — let’s focus on a couple of things that can be done legally.
First, end the inane War on (Some) Drugs that makes so many people convicted felons and prohibited persons.
Second, roll back the avalanche of felony laws or make the requirement to be a prohibited person a little different; let’s say multiple convictions for violent felonies. IF we can’t trust a person on the street with a firearm because of their criminal past, then we probably should still have them locked up.
Third, revamp the mental health system to make it easier for friends and family to initiate commitment hearings and get someone the help they needed while making it harder for the government to do the same.

Then we can move onto the where we need to make the most change — peers and social pressure.
Let’s bring back the idea people should have the respect of their friends, families and neighbors. Use that to pressure those who have demonstrated they are not safe with firearms not to own or carry them. Have friends and family step and get people the mental health they need when they need it.
We also need to make sure those few incidents where someone is unsafe are treated appropriately and not blown off.

While we may all know someone we think (again we have to be careful here because the antis say this about us) shouldn’t own or carry firearms; the numbers just don’t support this is a pressing concern. The accidental death, injuries and negligent discharges are an incredible small fraction of the percentage of gun owners.
I think this issue is much like how we view speeding on the highways.
Anyone going slower than me is a jerk.
Anyone going faster than me is an idiot.
People who drive only as fast as i do are the ones doing it right.

Same with firearms — some are ‘safer’ than me, others less so, right? But in the end how many people are really at issue here? I would bet the number is really, really incredibly small out of the 85 million gun owners.

Bob S.

Reply

d0zer May 20, 2015 at 08:04 am

” but has he done anything illegal or threatening…. It is the action, not the perception that has to be the line.”

But, you see, right there you are working off perception–or rather asking the dispatcher to. If the person making the call wasn’t [b]perceiving[/b] a threat then they never would have initiated a call to 911 in the first place. Ask any 10 people what they [b]perceive[/b] as a threat, and you will get 10 different answers. And that’s not even touched on cities like New York with the whole “if you see something, say something..” campaigns. Now, do we need to work on changing people’s perceptions regarding OC? No doubt. But, is the best way to do that antogonizing local LEO’s and inciting what can be [b]perceived[/b] as an armed standoff? –an armed standoff which will have the net effect of not making anyone feel safer. I’ve not 100% sold myself on an answer here, but I think such encounters might well be counter productive and not only further entrench the anti’s but also sway the fence-sitters against you.

Respectfully, I can’t say as I agree at all with requiring the conviction of multiple violent felonies before we curtail someone’s right to own a gun.

As far as your “peers and social pressure” section…. Boy are you on the wrong side of inertia on that one. Not to mention you would then have to tip toe the razor thin line between pressure and what’s perceived as bullying. And as for mental health, while I do agree that we need a complete rework of our system, I’m not convinced that your proposal would be any better than what we currently are plagued with.

Reply

Bob S. May 20, 2015 at 08:39 am

D0zer,

Of course I’m working off of other’s people’s perception of threatening but that has to be balanced by the simple fact that not everything perceived as threatening is !

I’m 6’2 and 225# — I was 40 pounds lighter going to college many years ago. I had two different women tell me my sheer physical size made them feel intimidated. They readily admitted I had never did anything threatening, never acted less than a gentlemen but they nonetheless felt intimidated. What they didn’t do was call the cops.

We need to educate the people — hence the admonishing about demonizing the presence of a weapon — as well as the law enforcement community. “So you say he is carrying a weapon. That is legal Ma’am/Sir — has he done anything illegal? If not, please call us if he does”. Pretty simple and people know the difference .

No doubt. But, is the best way to do that antogonizing local LEO’s and inciting what can be [b]perceived[/b] as an armed standoff? –an armed standoff which will have the net effect of not making anyone feel safer. I’ve not 100% sold myself on an answer here, but I think such encounters might well be c

In the early stages – I can yes a qualified yes. It isn’t the point to antagonize the officers — but to point out they are antagonized by people standing up for their rights. As badly as the OC movement in Texas has handled some of their protests, the simple fact that their actions got people talking about our rights. Many people never knew you couldn’t Open Carry in a pistol in Texas. People started talking about what is or isn’t acceptable because the OC crowd ‘antagonized’ the police by actually exercising their rights…..and the media was there to cover it.

Squeaky wheel getting the grease and all. That shouldn’t be the ONLY mode of education but sometimes we have to stand up and be noticed. We have to then transition into further education, pushing legislation to restore our rights. In Texas, I doubt we would be considering Open Carry Bills (passed out of committed and waiting on votes in Senate and House this week) had the protests of last year not be so spectacular.

Respectfully, I can’t say as I agree at all with requiring the conviction of multiple violent felonies before we curtail someone’s right to own a gun.

Then tell me what felonies you are okay with being used to strip people of their rights?

18 USC § 1028A(a)(1); § 2B1.6 Aggravated identity theft — 2 years in prison?

7 USC § 2024(c); § 2B1.1 2nd and subsequent offense; presentation of illegal food stamp for redemption; value of $100 or more 1 year ? Really a year in jail for illegally using or redeeming food stamps?

22 USC § 4221; § 2B1.1 Forgery of notary seal 1 year — is this a crime you want to disqualify people from being able to use a firearm for self defense?

Not all felonies are created the same — it has gotten insane what is now a felony offense.

And as for mental health, while I do agree that we need a complete rework of our system, I’m not convinced that your proposal would be any better than what we currently are plagued with.

The alternative is to give the power — or still with – the law enforcement officials who do not know the people involved, who might have an ax to grind etc. I’m open for counter proposals but we definitely need to shrink the power of the government to restrict people’s rights, don’t you agree?

Bob S.

d0zer May 20, 2015 at 09:12 am

Bob S,

We might be talking past each other on the felony argument. As for its reference in my post above, I was referring to violent felonies. I am not a lawyer and so parsing the breadth and span of the nuances in criminal law would probably be an exercise in futility, speaking for myself.

But, as an aside, I will state unequivocally, that regarding identity theft, not only do I think that should be a felony on par with something like attempted murder, but if ever there was a case to be made for the proverbial “locking someone up and throwing away the key”, then such a crime surely fits the bill.

“In the early stages – I can yes a qualified yes. It isn’t the point to antagonize the officers — but to point out they are antagonized by people standing up for their rights. As badly as the OC movement in Texas has handled some of their protests, the simple fact that their actions got people talking about our rights. Many people never knew you couldn’t Open Carry in a pistol in Texas. People started talking about what is or isn’t acceptable because the OC crowd ‘antagonized’ the police by actually exercising their rights…..and the media was there to cover it.”

Does it though? It’s an honest question as I have seen neither any numbers to back that up, nor seen or heard any even anecdotal evidence that would indicate those either on the fence, or blissfully ambivalent, are talking seriously about the issue. Does our ADD infused, 24 hour news cycle, press promote an infusion of “new blood” into the morass, or does it just briefly highlight the dialogue of those already entrenched in their own positions? As I said, it’s an honest question.

Bruh Bruh May 19, 2015 at 11:19 pm

Would you be referring to the march where they were actually there to promote the killing of cops, not open carry??!

Reply

bob May 19, 2015 at 07:55 pm

watch the vids again

its a BS test

1 different STATES!!!

2 DIFFERENT cops

3 different laws??

so lets do a real one and not a “pot stiring!!” one

same city same day of the week — same time— have both!! men WEAR the same outfits!! then do it 5 time then you have a REAL TEST till then its JUST BS!!!

Reply

Frank May 20, 2015 at 03:42 am

@ENDO MIKE

A lot of false data in this video.

Let me just summarize an email I sent to a friend.

WHAT AM I BEING DETAINED FOR?
AM I BEING DETAINED?
AM I FREE TO DO?

The discrepancy is in the VIDEO.
One of these videos was done in Oregon, the other in Nevada.
I’m surprised a viewer didn’t pick up on that due to lack of trees in Nevada versus Oregon.

THE REAL full video of the black dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU2RV0NgnZc
Washoe County Sheriff’s, Ar 15 Open Carry 1 of 2
Published on Aug 27, 2013
This video(My wife, camera one) was taking on 8/27/2013 in Sun valley Nv. 7th and Sun valley blvd.
I was simply open carry my Ar 15 walking with my wife (she is 7 months pregnant). We were stopped by Washoe County Sheriff’s at GUN POINT!!! AND CONTAINED.
Call the police department to express your opinion!Non-Emergency:
(775) 785-4629

****
Second video which the black dude took
FIRST PERSON POINT OF VIEW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n8LcX4KvRc
“What am I doing wrong?”
And the police don’t even know…
******
Another fun fact: These videos are over 2 years old.

Look at the white guy make a comment about the situation 2 years ago:
Gabriel Nobles, exercising his Right to bear arms in Nevada.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBslR5efU

Same black dude gets gun pointed at him again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWdf32OPIwo
*****

We owe it to ourselves to determine the facts first before we all get emotional like liberal-I-don’t-shower-more-than-once-a-week women.

Reply

Raisedby_dogs May 20, 2015 at 07:19 am

GUILTY OF BEING SILKY MOCHA! “Woop woop! THATS THE SOUND OF THE POLICE!”

Reply

Bob S. May 20, 2015 at 09:52 am

D0zer,

It appears we are at the limits of nesting comments. This is a reply to your comment

d0zer
Bob S,

We might be talking past each other on the felony argument. As for its reference in my post above, I was referring to violent felonies. I am not a lawyer and so parsing the breadth and span of the nuances in criminal law would probably be an exercise in futility, speaking for myself.

But, as an aside, I will state unequivocally, that regarding identity theft, not only do I think that should be a felony on par with something like attempted murder, but if ever there was a case to be made for the proverbial “locking someone up and throwing away the key”, then such a crime surely fits the bill.

“In the early stages – I can yes a qualified yes. It isn’t the point to antagonize the officers — but to point out they are antagonized by people standing up for their rights. As badly as the OC movement in Texas has handled some of their protests, the simple fact that their actions got people talking about our rights. Many people never knew you couldn’t Open Carry in a pistol in Texas. People started talking about what is or isn’t acceptable because the OC crowd ‘antagonized’ the police by actually exercising their rights…..and the media was there to cover it.”

Does it though? It’s an honest question as I have seen neither any numbers to back that up, nor seen or heard any even anecdotal evidence that would indicate those either on the fence, or blissfully ambivalent, are talking seriously about the issue. Does our ADD infused, 24 hour news cycle, press promote an infusion of “new blood” into the morass, or does it just briefly highlight the dialogue of those already entrenched in their own positions? As I said, it’s an honest question

Okay….so you think that a person who steals, non-violently another’s identity should be denied the rights to keep and bear arms — but you are okay with that person being out in public — able to steal another person’s identity?

I don’t get that.

What about a felon who committed one violent felony as a young man or woman — a lifetime prohibit against armed self defense makes sense to you? Couldn’t possibly ever encounter someone overcharged and prosecuted or pled guilty in order to avoid long time, eh.

See that is why I believe if we can’t trust someone with a firearm; they need to be locked up. Makes it pretty simple to figure out; makes it harder for the government to deny people’s rights. Again — just what violent felonies can a person never redeem himself or herself from — because isn’t that basically what you are saying ?

d0zer
Bob S,

We might be talking past each other on the felony argument. As for its reference in my post above, I was referring to violent felonies. I am not a lawyer and so parsing the breadth and span of the nuances in criminal law would probably be an exercise in futility, speaking for myself.

But, as an aside, I will state unequivocally, that regarding identity theft, not only do I think that should be a felony on par with something like attempted murder, but if ever there was a case to be made for the proverbial “locking someone up and throwing away the key”, then such a crime surely fits the bill.

“In the early stages – I can yes a qualified yes. It isn’t the point to antagonize the officers — but to point out they are antagonized by people standing up for their rights. As badly as the OC movement in Texas has handled some of their protests, the simple fact that their actions got people talking about our rights. Many people never knew you couldn’t Open Carry in a pistol in Texas. People started talking about what is or isn’t acceptable because the OC crowd ‘antagonized’ the police by actually exercising their rights…..and the media was there to cover it.”

Does it though? It’s an honest question as I have seen neither any numbers to back that up, nor seen or heard any even anecdotal evidence that would indicate those either on the fence, or blissfully ambivalent, are talking seriously about the issue. Does our ADD infused, 24 hour news cycle, press promote an infusion of “new blood” into the morass, or does it just briefly highlight the dialogue of those already entrenched in their own positions? As I said, it’s an honest question

It is never binary – there are some people who saw Open Carry and became entrenched in their positions. There were some people who got involved, on both sides of the issue, after seeing about it on the news. What I can tell you from personal experience – anecdotal experience only — and from reading a huge number of articles and comments is that it also brought about a huge discussion with those in the middle. Many people simply aren’t informed on the issue; this gave us a great opportunity. Here in Texas, we had more people calling in support of Open Carry than other major issues. It was a factor in the past elections. Most people in the middle were puzzled by the inane laws — can’t OC a modern pistol but can OC a rifle or shotgun. Most think we should be able to — I actually see more disapproval of OC from the ‘gunnie’ community -those active in the cause versus ‘gun owners’ who simply have a couple of guns.

I believe strongly it isn’t the protest or activism — like the above video – that kills support for our rights but how we ‘gunnies’ respond to it. When we slam them, people go “oh, even the gun guys think it is a bad idea.” When we fail to point out how ridiculous it is to stop someone who is legally doing something — they think maybe that is what cops should do.

We have the opportunity to expose the lies of the antis- several times they made claims here in Texas that were patently false and it bit them. Open Carry is expected to pass this session — after 5 or 6 previous attempts with very minimal success. Can I point to the OC activities as the single cause, no. But I can point to the conversations, the new FB pages, the comment threads overwhelming in support of OC — all started by the activism, by ‘trolling’ the cops.

Bob S.

Reply

d0zer May 20, 2015 at 10:07 am

“Okay….so you think that a person who steals, non-violently another’s identity should be denied the rights to keep and bear arms — but you are okay with that person being out in public — able to steal another person’s identity?

I don’t get that.”

Again, there appears to be a disconnect somewhere. I am actually saying the opposite. One found guilty of identity theft SHOULD NOT be out walking the streets period– that being my point I didn’t see the need to further elaborate and state the obvious regarding prison inmates and gun ownership.

As to the rest of your post…. Unfortunately, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I very much do believe that if you have been convicted of a **violent** felony, as an adult no matter the age, then 100% yes, you should have the right to owning a firearm stripped from you permanently.

Reply

Bob S. May 20, 2015 at 10:15 am

D0zer,

One found guilty of identity theft SHOULD NOT be out walking the streets period– that being my point I didn’t see the need to further elaborate and state the obvious regarding prison inmates and gun ownership.

So one conviction and a lifetime in jail? Because that is what it sounds like — no prison term, just life in prison.

Bob S.

Reply

d0zer May 20, 2015 at 10:19 am

Have you any experience with identity theft and the carnage it leaves in its wake, often for decades if not for the rest of one’s life? Yes, one conviction for identity theft and that should be it, IMHO.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: