"I'm conducting a 2nd Amendment Audit"

[Joe_K]

What is the difference between this person, doing nothing illegal and following the law, exercising his rights to ensure the rights remain and say, the US Navy exercising freedom of navigation operations in waters claimed by China in the South China Sea or exercising freedom of navigation operations in the Caspian Sea?

Is the USA assholes for enforcing our rights using Military ships in areas that are claimed by other countries?

As the police. They argument is he shouldnt do it because they swarmed and came in hot. The police's over-reaction to a situation is on them not on the person who is doing nothing illegal. They even used the excuse that people are trying to kill police with rifles. Again, the over re-reaction is on them. How do they jump from someone carrying a pistol legally, to the person being a cop-killer?

If any side were the side acting unreasonably, I would say look at which side was the placing blame for their actions on the other side. That is generally a good indication which side acted incorrectly.

So the only time Police should respond with a heightened sense of safety is if the call comes to them as man with a gun firing it at people? Regardless of legal/not legal, it is NOT normal in 99% if America to stroll through an urban area with a long gun, much as we might wish it were. People doing it think they are creating positive dialogue and social change, but guaranteed, they are in fact doing the opposite.

What the US and PRC Navies do over contested seas has almost nothing to do with this discussion, but since you want to draw parallels, if the Chinese felt threatened enough and acted in an aggressive manner, we could easily wind up at War with them. In essence a zero positive outcome.

If the Police ignore all but verified legitimate calls of ?Man with Gun?, as in someone literally killing folks, and treat other calls of man holding a rifle in a public park the same as a call of ?Man holding newspaper? how do you think that will work out?

Would YOU walk into a bank wearing a ski mask?
Stand on a street corner and scream random things at passers by?
Walk into a Police station wearing a shirt that said ?F$&? The PO-Lice??

No? Why not? Because they?re stupid things to do, Zero positive outcome events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DDT951]

So the only time Police should respond with a heightened sense of safety is if the call comes to them as man with a gun firing it at people? Regardless of legal/not legal, it is NOT normal in 99% if America to stroll through an urban area with a long gun, much as we might wish it were. People doing it think they are creating positive dialogue and social change, but guaranteed, they are in fact doing the opposite.

Is the job of Law Enforcement to investigate / prevent violations of the law or it is it to investigate abnormal people? Should police be able to stop and contact anyone for displaying abnormal behavior or should they need reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has been committed?

[DDT951]

What the US and PRC Navies do over contested seas has almost nothing to do with this discussion, but since you want to draw parallels, if the Chinese felt threatened enough and acted in an aggressive manner, we could easily wind up at War with them. In essence a zero positive outcome.

The Chinese do feel threatened.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1MC04F

"China’s Defence Ministry said a Chinese naval ship had been sent to warn the U.S. vessel to leave.

The ministry said China has irrefutable sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and the waters around them, and the situation there is progressing well thanks to the hard work of China and countries in Southeast Asia.

“The U.S. side repeatedly sends military ships without permission into seas close to South China Seas islands, seriously threatening China’s sovereignty and security, seriously damaging Sino-U.S. military ties and seriously harming regional peace and stability,” the ministry said."


The big difference between the two situations who has more might.

If China thought they could get away with attacking the ship (think USS Pueblo) they would.

The equivalent situation is if 200 OCer descended on the park and clearly had the force advantage over the police.

A good example is the Pro- OC protests in Boulder. The police

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/04/...rally-boulder/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/04/...t-weapons-ban/

The police left them alone because they were armed and didnt have a huge force disparity. The police even admitted this.


"Boulder police Sgt. Alastair McNiven said that there was some “education” provided to demonstrators by police regarding the code, but no one was ticketed for an open carry violation.

“With the limited resources available, we monitored the event in order to prevent a breach of the peace,” he said."


So obviously, the "man with a gun argument in urban areas" falls flat on its face as soon as the police arent the ones with over whelming force.


It is 100% like freedom of navigation operations.

[Justin]

Is the job of Law Enforcement to investigate / prevent violations of the law or it is it to investigate abnormal people? Should police be able to stop and contact anyone for displaying abnormal behavior or should they need reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has been committed?

Don't act like a weirdo and people won't treat you like a weirdo.

[Joe_K]

Is the job of Law Enforcement to investigate / prevent violations of the law or it is it to investigate abnormal people? Should police be able to stop and contact anyone for displaying abnormal behavior or should they need reasonable suspicion that a violation of the law has been committed?

Would you investigate if dispatch told you there was a guy wearing a ski mask standing in line at a bank?

Would you tell dispatch no thanks if they told you there was calls of man with gun in park?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe_K]

The equivalent situation is if 200 OCer descended on the park and clearly had the force advantage over the police.

A good example is the Pro- OC protests in Boulder. The police

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/04/...rally-boulder/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2018/04/...t-weapons-ban/

The police left them alone because they were armed and didnt have a huge force disparity. The police even admitted this.


"Boulder police Sgt. Alastair McNiven said that there was some ?education? provided to demonstrators by police regarding the code, but no one was ticketed for an open carry violation.

?With the limited resources available, we monitored the event in order to prevent a breach of the peace,? he said."


So obviously, the "man with a gun argument in urban areas" falls flat on its face as soon as the police arent the ones with over whelming force.
.

That just seems like common sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe_K]

Furthermore there?s quite a bit of difference between a lawful assembly with a city/county permit and a lone knucklehead in a park conducting a ?2A audit?.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DDT951]

Furthermore there?s quite a bit of difference between a lawful assembly with a city/county permit and a lone knucklehead in a park conducting a ?2A audit?.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did the Boulder protesters have a permit? I seriously doubt they were given a permit.

And if you have to have a permit to protest the government, is it a right or is it a privilege?

Either they are doing something illegal or they are not. A bunch of people doing something illegal doesnt make it legal because they are in a group. A single person doing something legal doesnt make it illegal because they are not in a group.

What is the difference between a group of people armed with rifles and a single person with a rifle (or in this case a pistol)?

[DDT951]

Would you investigate if dispatch told you there was a guy wearing a ski mask standing in line at a bank?

Would you tell dispatch no thanks if they told you there was calls of man with gun in park?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are different levels of reaction that are warranted in different circumstances. Not every interaction required swarms of police coming in pointing guns at people. The police chose their reaction and investigation technique. That is on them.

You (we) have come to tolerate that police can do whatever they want when they are profiling based upon 2A.

How do you think it would would be portrayed if I called police because I saw a black man walking in my neighborhood at 11pm? I would be called a racist and police would not investigate. But where I live, that is rare and would be "weird".

Why are we supposed to accept this "weird" behavior, so as to not be racist, but we are not to accept someone with a firearm.

Keep in mind there are 10 enumerated rights. 2A is one of them. Strict scrutiny applies.

[Irving]

You (we) have come to tolerate that police can do whatever they want when they are profiling based upon 2A.

Why do you think this only has to do with 2A? We have come to tolerate that police can do whatever they want in any situation. That you would assume it is a 2A specific issue is your own personal blindspot. Blindspot is not the correct word, perhaps tunnel vision is better.