Phily Cop chokes person openly carrying

... ^^^ ... I am very much for C/C and gun owner rights too ... but I think we have some .. "Paint Ball Cowboys" aka wantta be COPS & Marines .. who would probably chit their pants and cry "Mama" if they really got into a "balls-out fire fight" with someone.

.

 

We got kicked outta this thread for going off topic eh ?

 

like anything on TW is on topic? best I have seen a thread go is 2 days max before derp crept in.

 

I quit then ...

 

everyone just needs a little Philly

 

well put

 

Yep

That's about how long it takes for you to show up

 

I only post in deserving threads and this one required some derp for the herd.

 

it is a natural right, and it's codified in the constitution (bill of rights), ...zombie warrior pwned you in post #123... the founders realized that to be free, the gov't cannot be the grantor of rights - what can be granted can be taken away...

we are not pretending anything... we just go about our lives hoping to be left to our own devices... if you don't feel comfortable in a land where the cops, robbers, and gov't aren't the only ones possessing arms, then i'd suggest you look to another nation to where you can be a happy go-lucky subject w/ plenty of "feel good" guard rails around your life and ambitions... perhaps the UK would be a good fit...

 

None of the rights in the Constitution are "natural" which is why the Constitution can be amended.

As a former police officer and a proud citizen of this here US of A, I can say without hesitation that I am comfortable being protected by people who invest the time to become professionals. If the bar to own and carry a handgun was at least as high as becoming any other licensed professional, then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, you have been mislead to believe that openly carrying that weapon is a right rather than a privilege. Shooting at paper targets and playing video games are no substitute for advanced training.

Just based on how quickly gun rights proponents come unglued on these forums is enough to convince me that they should not be allowed anywhere near a deadly weapon. And I suspect most could not pass any decent psych exam necessary for employment as a LEO.

 

well, well, well, ...so the real story comes out... you seem to be a bit "miffed" that us troglodites don't have to meet the exceptional "bar" that you have, sir... nevermind i've taken 40+ hours of tactical handgun training at a world class training center, run by your "less conceited" brethren... you seem to forget that the gov't and LEO are "servants" to the citizenry - that must eat at your soul...

 

Actually every right in the constitution is natural...even if you amend the constitution those rights still exist... the constitution is a political trust and is a restraint on government not on the people....the natural state of man is free..we give up a little bit of that to have a system of law..

here is a post on the idea of privilege vs a right by John Monroe a civil rights attorney

 

Congrats on going the extra mile and taking the tactical training. But you are probably in the 1% of gun owners. And do you really feel 40 hours now qualifies you to protect me or anyone else when something bad happens? Thanks, I'll take my chances on my own survival skills or those of the professionals.

And, as for being a servant of the citizenry, when citizens would ask if the arrest or ticket I was giving them was just part of my quota, I would smile and reply - "no, I've already met my quota. You sir, are a bonus".

 

Driving is considered a privilege under any state law, which is why it can be revoked. Rights can generally not be revoked -- speech, assembly etc.

 

rmodel, ..i don't think it's much use to use facts and reason here... you see he was "kinged" when he got his badge and gun... we are insignificant as we have not "attained" such exaltation as him...

in truth, we should be lucky this guy wasn't a judge!

 

so, you just proved our point, dude...

 

(The government could prohibit driving a sound truck through a neighborhood at 2 a.m. broadcasting campaign rhetoric)" Actually, the only they can stop is the use of the sound truck which is not protected by the first amendment. The speech is.

 

look up public servant - that is what you are/were... sometimes we can make believe things, ...other times we get past adolescence... you're not doing your fellow officers any service (that is, if you really are/were LEO to begin w/) - this is the internet, ..serious business...

 

i think what you're trying to say is that one's liberty ends where it infringes on that of another...???? there i said it for you, ...and of course this applies across the board, BOR-wise... hmm?..

 

How exactly am I doing my fellow LEO's a disservice? Sure, we are public servants doing a tough job. I have to assume that at some point you tried to become a LEO but for reason failed to achieve that honor. Whenever I hear guys like you talking about how much safer they are making it for everyone by wearing a gun, I know that you probably tried and failed. Being a LEO is more than carrying a gun -- its about maturity and common sense. IMHO, anyone openly carrying a weapon lacks both.

The origin of this thread showed a prison guard who probably shouldn't be where he is -- he didn't control his weapon and, instead of showing common sense and walking outside with the officers, he decided to show his ass. The PO probably should not have choked him but he should have forcibly taken him from the building. If I was that guard's supervisor, I'd probably be suggesting he look for a new career path.

This is serious business. But when you start playing the victim and accusing those of us who disagree with you as being dishonest and suggesting we leave the country, we know that weapon you openly flaunt is compensating for something. Those of us who do take this seriously will continue to mock those of you who don't.