California Cops Call For Open Carry Ban

[dom1104]

Good gosh.

This thread is on dangerous ground.

It's not bloodlust. I just won't be sorry to see them go, and might even smile about it. You see, people like that, whether they are cops or not, are trying to strip me of my rights.

And everyone who supports them regardless of whether they're right or wrong, chooses sides. Against our rights.

And I just about hate them for it.

But don't worry about that. Every February I drink to the firebombing of Dresden. I also drink to the A-Bombs being dropped on Japan. Why? Because that's what they get.

People drinking to people who kill police, and the firebombing of a city!

I think what we see here is a divergence of morality and politics.

Yes I agree it is wrong to ban guns.

No I do not agree to supporting, "drinking to" or otherwise unlawfully eliminating fathers and sons who protect and serve!

Good Lord people, they have a right to make the wrong decision, to belong to the wrong union, and to change their minds about it later!

They are humans. They are AMERICANS! Created in the image of God. Every person is someones son or daughter and NO ONE should rejoice or condone their killing. Certainly not over a political issue! And certainly not the wholesale destruction of civilians by the A-Bomb! Good Lord!

To memorialize with pride the firebombing of a city, or the ATOM BOMB is .. frankly sickening to me. Yes terrible things happen in war but they are to be regretted and not celebrated.

At some point it is a moral issue. Saying "Death to anyone to infringes on my rights, bomb their cities and heres to Hiroshima!" is simply...unfathomable.

I understand there is a morality founded on something other than respect for life, and Judeo-Christian morals, but whatever moral system CELEBRATES the death and destruction of women and children en masse...

Is far more of a threat to the fabric of our society than anything that goes on in Californias legal system.

 

[dom1104]

Let me just say one more thing.

The 2nd Amendment is critical to the survival of Freedom in this country.

The United States.

It is however, not worth your eternal soul. We must draw the distinction that there is a line between political freedom, and what is morally right and wrong.

It very well may happen that this country goes down in history as a footnote, and let it be that we fight tooth and nail to defend our freedom.

But let our focus not be so much on the loss of our rights that we forget our very humanity. Let us not rejoice at the extinguishing of the spark of life in any mothers son.

The founders of this country would not approve of this.

When I die I believe I will face judgement, and it WONT be George Washington sitting on the judges seat.

<Or if it is, I made some serious theological errors.... >

 

[XMil]

So the founding fathers are going to hell?

 

[dom1104]

So the founding fathers are going to hell?

No I was trying to crack a joke at the end of a very serious post.

 

[XMil]

I caught the joke . I think the FF thought that it was worth at least their lives and that political freedom is not on the other side of a line, it IS the morally right thing.

 

[jbombelli]

Good gosh.

This thread is on dangerous ground.




People drinking to people who kill police, and the firebombing of a city!

I think what we see here is a divergence of morality and politics.

Yes I agree it is wrong to ban guns.

No I do not agree to supporting, "drinking to" or otherwise unlawfully eliminating fathers and sons who protect and serve!

Good Lord people, they have a right to make the wrong decision, to belong to the wrong union, and to change their minds about it later!

They are humans. They are AMERICANS! Created in the image of God. Every person is someones son or daughter and NO ONE should rejoice or condone their killing. Certainly not over a political issue! And certainly not the wholesale destruction of civilians by the A-Bomb! Good Lord!

To memorialize with pride the firebombing of a city, or the ATOM BOMB is .. frankly sickening to me. Yes terrible things happen in war but they are to be regretted and not celebrated.

At some point it is a moral issue. Saying "Death to anyone to infringes on my rights, bomb their cities and heres to Hiroshima!" is simply...unfathomable.

I understand there is a morality founded on something other than respect for life, and Judeo-Christian morals, but whatever moral system CELEBRATES the death and destruction of women and children en masse...

Is far more of a threat to the fabric of our society than anything that goes on in Californias legal system.

If you're asking me to lament the deaths of the enemies of my country, be they foreign or domestic, it's not going to happen. I don't care who they are; I don't care how old they are. I don't care if it's not their fault because they're two years old and they got firebombed during a war. The fact is... every single one of those deaths brought the wars that much closer to their respective ends. Every single one of those deaths resulted in breaking the will of our enemies that little bit more, and a corresponding reduction in the number of casualties WE would have sustained.

I only started drinking to Dresden when some Germans I knew issued a blanket condemnation of it, but didn't feel the least bit sorry for shooting V-2 rockets at England, saying "that's war."

We did Japan a FAVOR by dropping those A-Bombs on them. We would have killed LOTS more Japanese had we NOT done so, and instead invaded. And we would have taken LOTS more casualties than the -0- we took dropping those bombs. So I drink to that, too.


As far as Judeo-Christian morals? Whatever. I'm not a Christian. I don't turn the other cheek. My heroes in history are Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Two bloodthirsty conquerors if there ever were any.

How did THEY approach war again?


When you lament the deaths of those who wish to take from you, you simply enable their cohorts to take from you. If more people said "f*** you, that's what you get for trying to take our rights", maybe THEN they'll change their ways. But lamenting them? Wishing them the best? Sympathizing with them and their supposed moral quandaries? That gets you nowhere but trod upon.



By the way... if it was up to me? I would nuke half of the entire Middle East and Persia, as a lesson to the other half... Gaze upon that destruction in awe, and fear us, for we WILL destroy you ALL if you don't stop screwing with us.

War isn't nice. War isn't moral. War isn't pretty. Unfortunately... the wars we're in? We're fighting for a draw. Nobody ever wins by inflicting as few casualties as possible, which is the path we're on. What would Attila do?



Lastly, I never claimed I was a nice guy. I never said I was forgiving, and I will be the first to admit I'm one of the meanest, most vindictive a-holes in the world. I am extremely heartless and cold to those who would cross me. Whether they're foreign, or domestic.

 

[dom1104]

Wow. I dont know what to say, other than that sums up the difference between two very different world views.

One values the human life, the other power over human lives.

One God given rights, the other rights gained and maintained by brute force and brutality.

I am glad I chose the side I am on. I think I would be a mean angry sad old man if I was on the other.

I wish you well Jbombelli but I doubt we will ever see eye to eye. We are lookin at the same duck from opposite sides of the pond.

 

[Joe Williams]

[snip
Also, I don't have to "pray, and pray I guess correctly who the bad guy is." It's simple - it's the person violating the law. I would also be curious to see the numbers involving civilian-civilian vs. LE-civilian uses of force. My gut tells me there are more police action shootings than civilian self-defense shooting each year.
snip."

Your gut is wrong. The facts are available to you with a little research.

 

[Joe Williams]

Let me just say one more thing.

The 2nd Amendment is critical to the survival of Freedom in this country.

The United States.

It is however, not worth your eternal soul. We must draw the distinction that there is a line between political freedom, and what is morally right and wrong.
snip>

Anyone who would allow themselves or others to be enslaved is morally wrong, IMHO. Despite your apparent claim, you simply aren't the arbiter of who does and doesn't go to hell. If you lack the moral fiber to actually defend our rights, if you aren't willing to recognize an enemy when you see one, fine and dandy. But please don't blaspheme and hide behind the Bible to cover your unwillingness to actually preserve our freedom with more than pretty words.

 

[Joe Williams]

I caught the joke . I think the FF thought that it was worth at least their lives and that political freedom is not on the other side of a line, it IS the morally right thing.

If I studied my history properly, those founding fathers also killed or helped kill quite a few people to establish this nation. Reckon they ARE going to hell after all!

 

[XMil]

If I studied my history properly, those founding fathers also killed or helped kill quite a few people to establish this nation. Reckon they ARE going to hell after all!

My point exactly. If my history book was right, we didn't politely ask the Brits to leave us alone, or pray for the will of the King George to change and then sit around waiting. Sometimes vermin need to be exterminated.

If they are in hell, then I guess I'll get to meet them after all. But I'm in no hurry.

 

[dom1104]

You are right, Joe Williams I am not the Arbiter, however God is.

But that is completely off the topic.

The point is, there is a difference between what the founding fathers did, which is wage war, and killing public servents that disagree with you politically, or commemorating mass killings.

The founding fathers to my knowledge, did no such thing, and merely waged a war.

There IS a difference.

You can believe whatever you want, however suggesting that we enjoy the killing of fellow american police officers... is a far cry from the direction you are trying to take this.

I dont think INGO is the place to advocate murder and killing people who are against us, thats all I am saying.

 

[dom1104]

If I studied my history properly, those founding fathers also killed or helped kill quite a few people to establish this nation. Reckon they ARE going to hell after all!

Surely you realize there is a difference in waging war, vs the enjoying the murder of your political enemies dont you? Give me a break here. We are talking about killing our political adversaries, vs the War for Independance.

You seem to be a little off the rails.

Again, I just think that INGO is not the place to talk about the murder of our fellow Americans. Its bad for gun rights in america, and for us as a whole to foster talk like that.

 

[cop car]

personally im not a fan of open carry. i want the scumbag to shp when he realizes hes dealing with someone who is going to defend themselves with better equipment than he has.

 

[dom1104]

I agree, personally I also dont see the point of open carry, better for the criminals to not know who is carrying, as opposed to avoiding those who do and pick a easier victim.

But in Cali I think its their only option.

 

[XMil]

Just for the record, I'm not talking about killing public servants, and nobody else here is either. Only saying that oppressors usually don't just go away, and there's nothing wrong with a righteous war.

Saying that the FF "merely waged a war" seems to be sanitizing it. It was a hellishly brutal conflict, but it was (IMHO) the moral thing to do. And for also for the record, we and the Brits were disagreeing politically.

 

[ATM]

personally im not a fan of open carry. i want the scumbag to shp when he realizes hes dealing with someone who is going to defend themselves with better equipment than he has.

If that knowledge causes scumbags to shp, I'd rather not lure them in by feigning weakness first.

Just let them shp and move on to an easier target.


Regardless, this topic is about Californians who don't have the luxury of choice in the matter.

 

[E5RANGER375]

A serviceable argument? There isn't one. The easier, more Constitutional answer is to have your dispatcher screen the calls better if you're worried about needless calls for MWG, especially in states that do NOT require a state-issued permission slip to carry. As was pointed out upthread, the easiest answer is "Ma'am, carrying a firearm is not an unlawful act. There aren't many criminals who will advertise the fact that they're armed... most of them want to surprise their victims with that knowledge. If the person you're calling about is just looking at the green beans/just buying some nachos/just walking down the sidewalk with her husband and kid, they're committing no crime, but making a false report to police IS a crime."

Your MWG calls would drop like a bloody rock.

You do raise an interesting point, though, that I'd like to address: You describe it as an "odd" feeling to talk to someone with an exposed pistol. Do you get that same feeling talking to other uniformed officers? Would that feeling you describe experiencing be a bit of intimidation? That's a similar feeling that the rest of us who don't wear badges get when talking to some officers. I can say that I've stood and talked with people from this very board, walked with them as we picked up a couple of things at Walmart, etc. while they were OCing, and I have been more uncomfortable talking with uniformed officers than I was those times. (especially considering the point I read in the "gunfacts.info" pdf, that armed citizens are more accurate and have fewer erroneous shots than do police officers. In fairness, citizens know who the criminal is. You guys have to guess and pray you guess correctly.) No insult is intended here, so please don't take any: the thought that crosses my mind is "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." Given the choice of one or the other, I would choose the latter, however with all the choices on the table, I'd prefer that no discomfort was even present, let alone perceived.



If I may jump in here...There are quite a few people, some in our government at every level, for whom I would not weep if this was to happen to them. I would never seek, endorse, call for, or promote the idea of any harm befalling them, but I also would not shed a tear for the end of their abuse of their offices, much as I shed no tears for the mass murderers at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Trolley Square mall, the mall in Lincoln, Neb., or the church in Colorado Springs.

By this, I simply mean that I would not mourn them, and that is a far, far cry from bloodthirst.

Blessings,
Bill

BEST DAMN POST IVE READ IN A LONG TIME HERE!!!!!

 

[dom1104]

Saying that the FF "merely waged a war" seems to be sanitizing it. It was a hellishly brutal conflict, but it was (IMHO) the moral thing to do. And for also for the record, we and the Brits were disagreeing politically.

I agree with you, on all points actually. There is a difference between murder and war.

And I was directing my posts at Jbombelli Xmil. He was talking about the killing of public servents, and praising the idea.

Thats what set me off on my little rant

 

[dom1104]

I think I should further clarify.

If someone kills a California policeman, and we as Pro-2a members toast and glorify that murderer, THAT is a shame on us, and patently wrong. <as stated by the law of the land and the moral law of what I am sure is the majority of religions>

I cannot agree with that. Anti 2nd amendment people need to be brought over to our way of thinking, not murdered.

How it got shifted over into the founding fathers going to hell, lol.... I will never know.