Soju

This would be great, but you are operating under the assumption that a) those who enforce, prosecute, judge, and create the laws have the same thought about "dumb" gun laws as you or I. They don't. b) there is a way to distinguish between "dumb" gun laws and legitimate ones. Whether there is or not is debatable, but it doesn't work that way. This "us vs. them" discussion is quite ironic. You need look no further than the posts in this thread, in which you have LEO's saying it isn't true, they don't have that attitude, but others might, and people who aren't LEO's saying it is true, and they don't have this attitude. In both sides pointing fingers at the other, both sides are unintentionally PROVING this is true. How can there be no "us vs them" when simply arguing with each other over that legitimacy is showing there is a different mentality between the two. Ironic to say the least..

This isn't new. I'm not surprised. They have been doing this for some time now. It does a few things. It instills fear in people when they see people doing these things. It starts to criminalize legal activities, you know, like exercising your rights. It doesn't have anything to do with actually preventing terrorism, at least not real terrorism. Don't believe me? Call one of the numbers it tells you to where you report suspicious activity. If any of them work let me know. No it is not. It is about both perception and control. The only thing they are "paranoid" about is people seeing the truth.

1. That the masses think of them as taboo. 2. Negative stereotypes of firearm owners. 3. People who get angry with inanimate objects for being immoral, for example.

A few things. Apparently I fall in the 3rd most dangerous job category. Wow! Didn't know that.... But on topic: 1. Many here have got on me for some views of LEO that are not always popular. But with that said, I have a huge issue with the original post, that being arresting retired LEO's who are carry concealed. And here is why. Regardless of my, or anyones views on whether or not they should be allowed too, while us mere regular citizens cannot, this is upsetting. If that post is true, they are specifically targeting and arresting people for something they KNOW is LEGAL. At this point I don't care what it is, they are intentionally hassling people they have no business doing. If they can carry, regardless the reason why, leave them the eff alone. 2. As much as I am ENTIRELY against what is a quite common occurrence, where LEO's are often treated as if they are above the law, and commonly make reference (not here) to the phrase "badges don't grant extra rights", if retired LEO's can carry, that is a good thing, as long as they are not acting as if they are still a LEO. Should they have extra privileges I don't have? Absolutely not! But carrying is not anything that should be some sort of 'extra' privilege. The fact that we (normal citizen) can't carry is the issue, not that they (retired LEO) can. What I hope isn't lost, is that I don't like how it is. But I know that if you subject them to the same requirements as us, then it will only get HARDER for us to carry, and give them reason to INCREASE restrictions on us. Now that is messed up, but that is how it goes.

How many times do I have to hear this? I don't understand why people say this so often. How many of you have these pistols, or have even bothered to look at the field strip process? My guess is maybe....2? They are not difficult. It is not lengthy. It only takes 4-5 steps, depending on what you consider a step. How many people complain about the process to break down and resemble a 1911? There are more steps involved there but how many people don't get one because of the lengthy process involved?

My scenario operates in the real world as opposed to a fantasy, so yes. Don't get me wrong, I'd love if things worked the way you wish they did. That would be awesome. I could believe it worked that way if I wanted, as that would make me think things were better and happier, yet that would be ignorant. I try to not be ignorant. But lots of people like to be. You are free to decide.

I believe in my countries government to do the right thing when the time comes...oops!

It has little to do with incompetence. Things today don't work off of logic and reason, only agendas and authority.

That just because someone doesn't like them, or want them, means that I shouldn't be able to either. That is BY FAR by biggest firearm related pet peeve. I can't say anything more without being, at the very least, ironic.

I wish some of you all would film these transactions and post them online, or at the very least get the officer who is violating the law's information and post it on here. How do you expect to hold people accountable for their actions otherwise?

No need to call, .22 rifles are allowed on the pistol range.

Yes, misinformation is abundant on this forum. Fortunately with the help of some other members, that information is being called on as false. Unfortunately false information is still posted daily.

Rifle: Tikka T3 Lite (.308) - 2009 Handgun: PT 1911 (.45) - 2009

I currently don't have the power to decided, but I am told I can make a list that can better my chances. That however, I have yet to see work. But nonetheless, I have listed 10-11 places, based mostly on locations that I could go to based on my current job, and a few random ones anyways. WA AK HI SC NH CO Japan Germany Switzerland Finland Italy Not in order.

Except trashier.

Thank you! And stealing your laptop and running away and stealing your laptop and then assaulting you are very different events. So when you come in on the "stealing your laptop" phase of the incident, how do you know there isn't a threat? Do you just put faith in this criminal who is already trying to deprive you of your property to not hurt you?

Yes, philosophically. Yes, I understand the legal distinctions. I'm saying it shouldn't be that way, and it is unfortunate that it is.

Please try and read my post before blatantly misrepresenting what I said. Here, I'll help you out, and I am quoting myself. " Assault is already a crime." Well at least here you seem to get it, more or less. So were you just trying to misrepresent me purposefully, or were you trying to argue?

I don't want people stealing my stuff either. But things don't always work out that way. If you want to be restricted, that is fine. I don't much care about things you wish to either deny yourself, or allow others to deny you. But I don't want you, lawmakers, legislators, the government, or anybody else restricting me from doing lawful acts for "my safety". The only one who is going to look out for you is yourself.

When checking firearms I have never been redirected to any TSA agent. When checking bags, tell the agent you have a firearm to declare. They will give you a slip to fill out, and then affix it to the case. When your bag goes to screening they will presumably, see the firearm. When checking your bag they will see the slip, it is declared, and off your bag goes. At least that is how it has been for me. No checking it or anything. Your results may vary.

Sure, that is possible. You are hypothesizing just as me and others were. No difference. Nobody was claiming to be right. Really? “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. Weird.

You are absolutely right again, and that is exactly the reason I disagree. They need to STOP legislating things like this. The one thing I disagree with, is you say "nobody wants to take responsibility", and you are close, but it isn't because nobody 'wants' to, it is that we have been legislated out of the option. And that is my gripe. And it becomes substantiated with opinions like yours and others. Don't misinterpret that. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean that it has to be law, or the only option. You legislate bad things, and not good things. When you start to legislate good acts, you in turn, make other things that aren't bad, illegal my nature of not including everything.

From the little information we have, it sounds like it could be a classic 'contempt of cop' type thing. I could be wrong, but that is my guess. Officer bumps guy. Guy has some choice words for the cop. Cop doesn't like it, questions guy, tries to detain him because he is angry with him. And then this happens, with cop wrestling with guy, guys friends sees it and starts wrestling with cop, and then the video shows what happened from there. Probably would have been avoided if either a) the cop apologizes, b) the guy doesn't say anything, or c) the cop just continues on his way and doesn't make an issue out of it. Again, this is just my guess, and could be entirely wrong. But I have seen enough incidents where things like this happened for the sole reason that the officer was angry that somebody wasn't complying with them (including when said person had no obligation to do so). On a somewhat, but kind of unrelated note, I think the charge of "resisting arrest" is the biggest crock of *# charge possible. If you are making an arrest, you shouldn't expect the person to be all happy and be in total compliance with you. Assault is already a crime. People often resist when they feel they are being arrested wrongfully, and courts have ruled you are allowed to, if not obligated to do so.

Sure, I actually don't disagree. The only thing I disagree with is making it illegal to NOT retreat or something along those lines. If you want to risk your own life for your stuff, why should you be told you can't? People, contrary to what it would seem to lawmakers, are capable of making their own decisions. Let me make my own decision. I don't need anyone telling me to act a certain way "for my safety" at the expense of my liberty.

I certainly understand this view point, and it has validity. I however, am not so sure I would agree. For the most part, I worked hard to earn what I have. Why should I allow some potential thug to take that away from me if I have the means to prevent it? Sure, things can be replaced, and my insurance would likely cover it, but there are things that can't be. Family heirlooms, photos, stuff like that. I am not saying I would charge in there like Rambo. Heck, I am not sure I would even go in at all, and might do exactly what you guys are saying. But my point is, should that be a legal requirement? Should I be prevented from trying to protect my things? I don't think I should. I should have the choice.