Bend over, folks...

Fargo wrote:
"Bryan Martin" wrote in
message news:bryanmmartinNOSPAM-
...
Bull****, you just don't hear about such cases much in the popular
press. It contradicts their liberal political agenda. The fact is,
the crime rates are lowest in places where concealed carry is most
widespread. I. e. the more guns on the street, the less crime there
is. This indicate that citizens carrying guns does, in fact prevent
violent crime. The criminals aren't all completely stupid, they will
move their activities to areas where it is safer for them to
operate. For example, violent crime rates are very high in D.C. but
much lower just outside the city limits. Because of, not in site of
the fact that D.C. has the most draconian gun control laws in the
country. Guns are used millions of times a year to prevent crime as
opposed to
thousands of times a year to commit crimes.


Quite the contrary, when the rare occasion strikes that an ordinary
citizen foils a crime, most especially with a firearm, it hits the
press big time. Also criminals, the violent type at least, are by and
large pretty stupid people. Finally if you want to find a very safe
environment, look to police states. In places where the gov't
prohibits almost everything overt crime is nearly non-existent. For
verification, you don't need word of mouth or folklore, look to the
news. While you may perceive them as liberal pawns, the liberals
perceive them as very conservative and the truth is that their
product is rather balanced. Just because you don't like it doesn't
make it biased.


Here are six cases in lest than a month. None of them made national news.

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



In the interest of truth, I am not from Kenya despite someones
determination. I have held positions that force me to deal with armed
individuals. I am usually unarmed and I feel pretty safe about it,
even in Florida. I'm going to go back to aviation related topics now.

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.

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.

"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.

"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Maxwell" 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.

May I ask, to which country do you refer?

Rich S.


The USA.

"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.

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

oups.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.

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

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...


Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down" by
anyone.


Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.


In the US, cheerfully giving your name, addres and birthday is seldom all
that's required.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:16 pm, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down"
by
anyone.

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.

--
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."

Alan,

Maxwell is the type that would say "thank you" to a rapist... don't
waste your breathe...


No, actually Maxwell is the type that would gladly shoot the rapist if he
can reach his concealed weapon fast enough.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 20, 4:16 am, Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,

"Maxwell" wrote:
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but no.

I have the right to go about my business without being "shaken down"
by
anyone.

Sure, and as soon as you identify yourself and your authority to be
there,
you have no problem. But if you were able to tie the hands of law
enforcement, anyone could be there, for any reason.

I don't need authority to be there, and as far as identifying myself
goes, that means giving my name and address -- verbally.


And for good measure immediately afterwards smile, extend your
hand and add, pleased to meet you.


Be cordial of coarse and keep your hands in sight, but be careful of hand
shakes, especially on initial contact.

Cops are taught that there is at least one gun at EVERY scene, their OWN.
Never do anything to approach their firearm side, it's the first thing an
unarmed bad guy is going to consider, and an attempted hand shake is a know
set-up. If you notice, a good cop will always stand at and angle to you,
never facing you directly. They are taught from birth to keep their gun on
the far side of you. This makes hand shaking a good bit of a red flag.

"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.

wrote in message
ups.com...

I guess that is where the world 'unreasonable' comes into play.
What is reasonable at the border is different from a parking lot
in Kansas.


I would certainly agree. A border crossing is a whole different ballgame.