Rahm's new Police Chief on gun rights

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
Dead bodies indeed are not abstract bits of case law, but they do not prevent anyone from tailoring laws to their specific situation.

Why are some folks not allowed to tailor gun laws for their specific situation?
Hell if I know. You're the Constitutional expert, you tell me.
Tom's right to sell guns to criminals and lunatics is enshrined in the US Constitution.

Actually, that sort of thing is prohibited. Federally, and stately......
Really? If someone who is not an FFL is not required to do a background check before selling a firearm, then how are they prohibited from selling a firearm to a criminal or lunatic?
Because the law says you cannot sell to a prohibited person, but does not require background checks on all sales. If you are charged with violating that law, "But they did not make me do a background check" is not going to get you out of trouble. It's still against the law.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?
No, the point in that sentence is about their understanding. You parsed out a half-sentence there.
So, these people who do not understand why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, do you suppose they are just stupid, or what? They are allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, and the law banning guns from porches and garages is proof. That's a Chicago original, and exists nowhere else. Whining that you can't do something you are doing is rather foolish, don't you think?
You just listed restrictions on what laws they can and can not have in post 214.

The guy in the tape though, I believe he may be referring to the looser laws in neighboring states, or perhaps the gun-show loophole. Difficult to be sure, although one could probably review his public record for other related statements to form an educated guess about that, if one wanted to.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?
No, the point in that sentence is about their understanding. You parsed out a half-sentence there.
So, these people who do not understand why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, do you suppose they are just stupid, or what? They are allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, and the law banning guns from porches and garages is proof. That's a Chicago original, and exists nowhere else. Whining that you can't do something you are doing is rather foolish, don't you think?
You just listed restrictions on what laws they can and can not have in post 214.

The guy in the tape though, I believe he may be referring to the looser laws in neighboring states, or perhaps the gun-show loophole. Difficult to be sure, although one could probably review his public record for other related statements to form an educated guess about that, if one wanted to.
Whining that they have to live within the second amendment is also foolish, and I would be happy to talk about why, but I thought we were not talking about that?

If you are right in your speculation, it would be more correct to say that he was wondering why he is not allowed to tailor other people's laws to his specific beliefs, would it not?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
But none of that has anything to do with your point, since it is about the second amendment, so there must be some other reason why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, as you said. What is it?
No, the point in that sentence is about their understanding. You parsed out a half-sentence there.
So, these people who do not understand why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, do you suppose they are just stupid, or what? They are allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation, and the law banning guns from porches and garages is proof. That's a Chicago original, and exists nowhere else. Whining that you can't do something you are doing is rather foolish, don't you think?
You just listed restrictions on what laws they can and can not have in post 214.

The guy in the tape though, I believe he may be referring to the looser laws in neighboring states, or perhaps the gun-show loophole. Difficult to be sure, although one could probably review his public record for other related statements to form an educated guess about that, if one wanted to.
Whining that they have to live within the second amendment is also foolish, and I would be happy to talk about why, but I thought we were not talking about that?

If you are right in your speculation, it would be more correct to say that he was wondering why he is not allowed to tailor other people's laws to his specific beliefs, would it not?
Which is the topic I was talking about in the original comment. The whole original comment, that is.

There is a natural difference between what country people believe the laws should be and what people living in the inner city believe they should be because of their very different situations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

wabbiteer

Super Anarchist
9,781
1
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
If you are right in your speculation, it would be more correct to say that he was wondering why he is not allowed to tailor other people's laws to his specific beliefs, would it not?
Which is the topic I was talking about in the original comment. The whole original comment, that is.
Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
OK, I'll try again. They are not allowed to tailor other people's laws to their specific beliefs because, well, do I really have to explain why? They are allowed to tailor their own laws for their specific beliefs, as I noted they have been doing.

So basically, the guy can't figure out nonsense because nonsense doesn't make sense, and possibly because he's an idiot. Debate ended. :p

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
If you are right in your speculation, it would be more correct to say that he was wondering why he is not allowed to tailor other people's laws to his specific beliefs, would it not?
Which is the topic I was talking about in the original comment. The whole original comment, that is.
Fact is, gun laws that are fine and dandy for country folk and affluent neighborhoods are not real popular in the ghetto.

Some folks just can't figure out why they are not allowed to tailor those laws for their specific situation. This guy went overboard with insinuating it's a plot, but that shouldn't end the debate.
OK, I'll try again. They are not allowed to tailor other people's laws to their specific beliefs because, well, do I really have to explain why? They are allowed to tailor their own laws for their specific beliefs, as I noted they have been doing.

So basically, the guy can't figure out nonsense because nonsense doesn't make sense, and possibly because he's an idiot. Debate ended. :p
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.

I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he lives in is from what a country boy would be likely able to comprehend.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.

I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he lives in is from what a country boy would be likely able to comprehend.
Actually, you didn't tell me that, you just said I couldn't follow a conversation because you mentioned restrictions on writing gun laws and I started talking about the only restriction that existed at the time.

Are you talking about the officer who threatened to execute a citizen for following his orders? I thought that was pretty outrageous, city or country, and am glad he got fired for it. I hope he gets hired wherever you live, if you think that's OK.

 

CA Railwhale

Super Anarchist
Anyone know what the CCW laws are in Denver?
I dunno, but let's hope their cops do, unlike some in Ohio...


That video is scary. Out here in California we complain about our cops, but I've never seen a cop behave the way the lead cop did on that video. He had to know he was on the car's video but he seemed to think abusing citizens war perfectly OK. His partner did nothing to try to calm him down either. I've rarely seen a cop on a stop being anything but professional, calling people mister or sir and even without dash cameras controlling their emotions. That cop has no business carrying a badge, he is a danger to everyone around him. Rodney King and the Fullerton six aside our cops are pretty professional.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.

I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he lives in is from what a country boy would be likely able to comprehend.
Actually, you didn't tell me that, you just said I couldn't follow a conversation because you mentioned restrictions on writing gun laws and I started talking about the only restriction that existed at the time.

Are you talking about the officer who threatened to execute a citizen for following his orders? I thought that was pretty outrageous, city or country, and am glad he got fired for it. I hope he gets hired wherever you live, if you think that's OK.
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.

I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he lives in is from what a country boy would be likely able to comprehend.
Actually, you didn't tell me that, you just said I couldn't follow a conversation because you mentioned restrictions on writing gun laws and I started talking about the only restriction that existed at the time.

Are you talking about the officer who threatened to execute a citizen for following his orders? I thought that was pretty outrageous, city or country, and am glad he got fired for it. I hope he gets hired wherever you live, if you think that's OK.
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
I kept trying to tell you there was no debate here, that we were talking about two different things.

I re-entered this to explain why that officer in the second tapes behavior seems outrageous to you and EL, but is actually not that bad too. It also has to do with how different the world he lives in is from what a country boy would be likely able to comprehend.
Actually, you didn't tell me that, you just said I couldn't follow a conversation because you mentioned restrictions on writing gun laws and I started talking about the only restriction that existed at the time.

Are you talking about the officer who threatened to execute a citizen for following his orders? I thought that was pretty outrageous, city or country, and am glad he got fired for it. I hope he gets hired wherever you live, if you think that's OK.
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.
Review the tape. I recall they had a conversation about his employment after the "shut up" moment.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.
Review the tape. I recall they had a conversation about his employment after the "shut up" moment.
Missing the point. At ANY time after the "shut up" moment, disclosure would be too late, and this guy would fly off the handle.

 
G

Guest

Guest
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.
Review the tape. I recall they had a conversation about his employment after the "shut up" moment.
Missing the point. At ANY time after the "shut up" moment, disclosure would be too late, and this guy would fly off the handle.
Yep

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
This whole problem could be solved by a bit of training. The first question a cop should ask is, "Do you have any weapons?"

They ask for license, registration, and insurance info. The two times I have been stopped while carrying a gun, I made my concealed weapons permit very obvious as I pulled out my license. That prompts what probably should have been their first question: "Do you have any weapons?"

It's interesting what different cops are concerned about. Both times, the gun was in the truck, not actually on me. As far as I know, there are no rules about exactly how I conceal it in there, nor about in what condition. One wanted to make sure it was in a holster of some kind, which it was, and the other gave me a brief editorial speech indicating that he did not particularly agree with my practice of keeping a round in the chamber, but understood that it was not illegal. Whatever. The discussions on that point are endless. Think: lee bow. I'm no good at operating the action with one hand, end of discussion for me.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
It may have been on another thread. But yes, the second tape, of another supposedly horrible example of that officers work.

I do not recall any death threats for following his orders in that one. Nor in the first, for that matter.
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.
Review the tape. I recall they had a conversation about his employment after the "shut up" moment.
Missing the point. At ANY time after the "shut up" moment, disclosure would be too late, and this guy would fly off the handle.
Yep
That's just you guys speculating about what he would and would not have done. We are all entitled to our speculations.

Looks like Tom has reviewed the tape and discovered I was right about the way things actually went down in the first tape.

He still acted unprofessional in that first tape though. It's really the second tape where I think he is being damned unfairly for doing some things that were actually the right thing to do by the gun-nut sites. They don't get it. Cops deal with stupid people. He needed to get the message across that if he reached down for that gun at his feet, he would be dead. Cops do not fear evil so much as they fear stupid. It's about 95% of what they deal with.

The kid decides to pick it up to hand it to the cop, perhaps to show that it is but a squirt gun or unloaded, and he dies. It's just that simple. Think shit like that doesn't happen to cops? Incredibly stupid people doing incredibly stupid things right in front of them?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,095
1,887
Punta Gorda FL
The guy tried to say he was armed and was told to shut up, so he did. Then the cop got mad because he shut up and threatened to kill him. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the problem with laws that mandate disclosure of concealed weapons: they force citizens to take early control of a conversation with officers. Officers are trained to control the conversation from the outset. Conflict is inevitable.
Review the tape. I recall they had a conversation about his employment after the "shut up" moment.
Missing the point. At ANY time after the "shut up" moment, disclosure would be too late, and this guy would fly off the handle.
Yep
That's just you guys speculating about what he would and would not have done. We are all entitled to our speculations.

Looks like Tom has reviewed the tape and discovered I was right about the way things actually went down in the first tape.
Informed speculation, in this case. And no, you were not right, I was. I did not need to review that tape, I remembered. The guy was trying to say he had a gun and was told to shut up. He followed that order and it resulted in death threats against him.

Here is something that is not speculation: these disclosure laws do mandate that citizens take early control of a conversation with a cop, and that is a bad mandate for everyone involved. This case is but one example of why, at least for those of us willing to acknowledge what happened.

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
Informed speculation, in this case. And no, you were not right, I was. I did not need to review that tape, I remembered. The guy was trying to say he had a gun and was told to shut up. He followed that order and it resulted in death threats against him.

Here is something that is not speculation: these disclosure laws do mandate that citizens take early control of a conversation with a cop, and that is a bad mandate for everyone involved. This case is but one example of why, at least for those of us willing to acknowledge what happened.
Just as long as your "informed" speculation about what this officer would have done in a counter-factual history scenario, one that had to be suddenly dreamed up (for whatever reason), is acknowledged as based on only watching a few minutes tape of the officer, and not on any personal knowledge of his character or behavior in the other 99.999999099% of his life, I have no objection to whatever you might wish to say about that.

Look at the tape again then. They had a conversation about his employment before he got out of the car. While you are at it, note the the point in the tape where you are saying a death threat was made for me. Just so we can be on the same page on that topic as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top