Bend over, folks...

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without question?
I'm
glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

I prefer *citizens* run free.


Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.

I'm not willing to give my birthday.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade papers
like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if you
single-source your information.

It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
can be checked.


"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Here are six cases in lest than a month. None of them made national news.

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed...izen/Index.asp



Ok so you're not from Kenya. Please explain then where you are coming in
contact with all of the armed people that use their weapons to control
others that you mentioned in a previous post.

In the course of my work, and in the course of a life lived in and around
places where the people feel much as you do.
I would not want you to get the impression that I am trying to convince you
of anything, I've simply stated opinions and experience.

My original post was in reaction to some rant about how a fellow needed
everyone in his church to carry a gun so they could fend off an imminent
terrorist attack from the next pew. I allowed how that was very unlikely and
that I felt perfectly safe without a gun almost everywhere. A gun is not a
requirement to live safely. I would carry a gun in the bush of Alaska at
times, but I don't live in fear of my fellow man. If you do, or you only
feel comfortable with other people if you have the power to kill them,
that's your problem.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jun 21, 4:38 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
"Ken Finney" wrote in message

...



And preceded with "Good evening, officer."

That's always my opener.

It's sometimes amazing what they are willing to overlook, or not take time
to find, if a person is just relaxed and cheerful.

Just don't over do it. Relax, be nice, and be yourself. If you over do it,
they can get suspicious as well. The really slick bad guys use this
technique, and they know it.

I have been very lucky on several occasions, with what they didn't take time
to find, or simply didn't choose to enforce.

I find it is generally to my advantage to leave it to
other people to be the jerks.

--

FF

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without
question?
I'm
glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

I prefer *citizens* run free.


Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.

I'm not willing to give my birthday.


May or may not be used or helpful in Canada, and unnecessary in the US if
you have a physical ID. Here it's just a unversal way to check someone for
warrents, valid drivers license, etc. Many officers will accept it here if
you don't have your DL with you during a traffic stop, thanks to
computerized record keeping.

In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Maxwell" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

And what point is that? You prefer the thugs run free without
question?
I'm
glad our country doesn't meet with your approval.

I prefer *citizens* run free.


Asking an honest citizen, in a questionable situation, for simple
indentification, has little if nothing to do with freedom. If you are
willing to give your name and birthday, most are easily satisfied,
regardless of laws requiring actual physical ID.

I'm not willing to give my birthday.


May or may not be used or helpful in Canada, and unnecessary in the US if
you have a physical ID. Here it's just a unversal way to check someone for
warrents, valid drivers license, etc. Many officers will accept it here if
you don't have your DL with you during a traffic stop, thanks to
computerized record keeping.

Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.

I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Jun 21, 10:15 am, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jun 19, 5:51 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

So... you won't mind finding yourself spread-eagled on the ground with
a 9mm against the base of your skull just because the cops think you
look suscpicious? Have fun!

Totally irrelevant, and childishly irrational.

FIrst you let the camel put his nose in the tent, then you wind up
with the entire camel...

I don't know where you are from, but in the US, the camel has had the right
to put his head in the tent, any time he feels probably cause, for a very
long time. And if he feels further cause, his ass and the rest of the pack,
will surely follow.

Refusing to ID yourself, or taking some kind of silly arrogant stand based
on your perceived rights, simply slows his progress in moving on to the next
guy, and greatly increases your chances of becoming an innocent victim of
blind justice. You are dealing with someone who is often working for near
minimum wage, and has the states authority to arrest and charge you with
anything he feels proper. If you happen to be strolling through a
neighborhood where something really bad has happened, and you look anything
like a description he has been given, a bad attitude can easily be the
difference between walking on home, and being charged with something that
can easily cost even an honest person, enough money and years to buy and
enjoy a good used airplane.

So do as you choose. In my country you certainly have the right. But trying
to stiff-arm a cop during his routine duties, and publicly blasting them for
doing so - aids the efforts of no one but the bad guys, and could easily
cost you more than you have to spend.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

You must live in Massachussettes where the authorities peed their
pants over a lite-brite advertisement...

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade
papers
like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if
you
single-source your information.

It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
can be checked.


But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners. Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

Being predisposed to appreciate one side more than the other would make you
look for more of one than the other. I suppose if that were a consideration
the dirth of good news would lead one to to feel the coverage is biased
against them but the bad news pile is simply much bigger. The NRA found six
in a month from over the whole country. I wonder how many crimes were
averted without gunplay, or how many cases were made worse.

The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he does
not appear willing to follow?

In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Fargo" wrote:

I thought you wanted unbiased reporting? You'll never get it in trade
papers
like the NRA's publication. I suppose there are likely many times more
events where the individuals did not have to save themselves with guns,
where was the NRA's reporter? You'll never develop an unbiased view if
you
single-source your information.

It doesn't matter whether the NRA is biased or not. The stories are
either factual or they are not, and each case included a citation that
can be checked.


But the claim was that the events are not given press coverage. I said they
were, each cite on the NRA page was taken from press coverage, so they were
reported and then repeated in a national publication for gun owners. Thats
extremely good coverage for local events. As I said, it gets covered very
well. The same press often does not bother with bad news stories about guns
unless they are spectacular in some way, a domestic dispute or a
neighborhood or bar dispute involving gunplay just isn't big news unless
there's some angle to it.

No, the claim was that the events were not given "national" coverage.


Being predisposed to appreciate one side more than the other would make you
look for more of one than the other. I suppose if that were a consideration
the dirth of good news would lead one to to feel the coverage is biased
against them but the bad news pile is simply much bigger. The NRA found six
in a month from over the whole country. I wonder how many crimes were
averted without gunplay, or how many cases were made worse.

I don't know, but where is your support for your explicit claim that
""when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary citizen foils a crime,
most especially with a firearm, it hits the press big time."?

Some examples of this would be nice.



The gun carrying church member has me wondering. Why does he attend a church
worshipping a God he apparently does not trust, and whose teachings he does
not appear willing to follow?

Your statements have me wondering. In what way does carrying a gun
indicate that he doesn't trust his god, and which teachings do you
believe it violates?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

wrote in message
ups.com...

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.


Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...


First of all, I can't speak for Canadian law, I have no insight there. All
my experience pertains to the US, and Oklahoma specifically.

Here's the thing: police don't get to stop someone who is doing nothing
suspicious on spec -- at least they shouldn't get to.

The OPs example was walking through the parking lot of a business, probably
closed, at 1 am. In the US it takes very little to meet the threshold of
reasonable suspicion to stop and question a pedestrian. Perhaps a little
more for a moving vehicle, but you don't have to be obviously breaking the
law.


I don't have to prove or even suggest that I have a right to exist.

That depends entirily on where and when you choose to exist, and anything
that might be under investigation in your proximity.