發新話題
打印

攜槍運動勝利時刻

>>However, "legal to do" does not always equal "smart thing to do."
這年頭都是這種情形,法律規範是一回事,但是實際執行起來卻又是另外一回事了,某些程度上你也不能說他們有錯......
只是這些人是想要藉此引發一些awareness,立法出來就不能說怕麻煩就不給執行。

TOP

回復 11F 的帖子

11樓中肯

TOP

引用:
原帖由 槍口向上 於 2010-9-26 07:29 發表


我覺得 這條法律應該修改一下  非管制區可以自由攜長短槍 但必須卸下槍內彈夾和子彈或是能造成傷害射擊彈藥

(槍.彈分離起碼安全一點) 這是小弟在下的淺見.. ...
問題是如果不上彈匣那攜槍沒有意義;頂多變成讓歹徒奪槍的大目標。就我所知公開攜槍都是上彈匣,至於是不是上膛就不一定了。

攜槍跟運輸槍枝不一樣,運輸槍枝是要槍彈分離,但攜槍用意就是要防身。既要防身就一定要槍彈合一。就算不上膛,至少緊急時刻拉滑套也比手忙腳亂上彈匣來的快。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-26 06:03 發表
I understand what this guy is trying to do.
I sympathize with his motive.

However, "legal to do" does not always equal "smart thing to do."  
For example - screwing your boss's daughter is perfectly ...
我也不是公開攜槍的那種類型,但是我很佩服片中那些攜槍人士勇於挑戰現狀的勇氣及執著。要是美國沒有這種"傻瓜"的話,就不會有今日的民權運動成果。片中這些人某些程面來講是跟馬丁路德金恩及蘿莎派克那些民權先驅者有相同之處。正義與不正義,往往不是用聰明或傻瓜就可以來斗量的。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 前田又左 於 2010-9-27 01:25 發表


我也不是公開攜槍的那種類型,但是我很佩服片中那些攜槍人士勇於挑戰現狀的勇氣及執著。要是美國沒有這種"傻瓜"的話,就不會有今日的民權運動成果。片中這些人某些程面來講是跟馬丁路德金恩及蘿莎派克那些民權先驅者有 ...
No, he is not a MLK.  
He is looking for attention for attention sake and he is looking for a fight.

Peaceful civil disobedience for one's cause is fine.  If the point is "open carrying in public places is legal" -- he could have done so peacefully in front of City Hall, or a popular street corner.  But what did he do?  He chose to walk into a busy police station and disrupt the daily activities of a busy police station.  Besides police officers, there are prisoners being escorted in and out.  There are distraught publics coming in to report crimes...   I am a police officer.  And I will disarm in police stations of other jurisdictions if asked to do so without any arguments.

What he is doing is just like dressing up in Klan outfits and walk in to a Black Panther bar.  He is looking for a fight, plain and simple.  

He is not helping the Second Amendment cause.  In fact, he is hurting it. Guess what the legislature is going to do next?  They are going to outlaw open carry in public using this incident as an excuse.

I am a very pro-2A police officer.  I would have arrested this guy for disturbing the peace.

不,他不是一個 "馬丁路德金恩"。
他只希望出風頭.  他正在找藉口打架。

一個和平的 "公民抗命" 是好的。 如果重點是“合法的公共場所公開攜槍” - 他可以這樣做在市政府會堂前面,或流行的街角。但是,他做了什麼?他選擇走進一個繁忙的派出所, 破壞忙碌警察局的日常運作。 除了警察,那裡有囚犯被護送進出, 心煩意亂的民眾進來報案...

我是警察。但, 如果被要求, 我會在其他司法管轄區警察局內解除武器,沒有任何爭執。

他他的行動就像是穿三K黨的服裝打扮走進了黑豹吧。他正在找人打架的,簡單明了。

他是沒有幫助 2A。 事實上,他是傷害它。 猜猜立法會將做什麼?他們將禁止公開攜帶, 使用此事件作為一個藉口。

我是一個很親 2A 的警務人員。 我會逮捕了這傢伙 "擾亂和平"。

[ 本帖最後由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-27 02:38 編輯 ]
我妻子常說:  槍就像避孕套 --  寧願是有它而不需要它,不要是需要它而沒有它。

TOP

這幾位擁槍人士只是實踐公民權  挑戰的僅是警察的法律素養
在蘿莎派克的時空  種族隔離是現行法律
這一點還比不上她的勇氣

我同意某些行為就算合法  從另一個角度看來並不洽當
不過因為合法攜槍不洽當  大家都將槍鎖在家裏的話
離攜槍非法化也不遠了

TOP

引用:
原帖由 MikeH 於 2010-9-27 02:47 發表
這幾位擁槍人士只是實踐公民權  挑戰的僅是警察的法律素養
在蘿莎派克的時空  種族隔離是現行法律
這一點還比不上她的勇氣

我同意某些行為就算合法  從另一個角度看來並不洽當
不過因為合法攜槍不洽當  大家都將槍鎖在家裏的話
離攜槍非法化也不遠了
Don't get me wrong.  My problem is not with him carrying a rifle openly.  If he had done that walking down the street, I wouldn't care much except to make sure he is not some crazy guy trying to commit a massive shooting.  

My problem is with him openly carrying a rifle INTO A POLICE STATION.  This becomes a public safety issue.  Police station is a secured area, just like an airport.  The fact that the public may freely come and go does not alter it being a secured area.  There are prisoners being escorted, there are sensitive materials being housed, and it may need to become a command center for unforseen disasters at moments notice... etc.

This guy could have made his point anywhere else, but he chose a police station.  He is not there to further 2A rights.  He is a nutjob who is trying to provoke a fight.  This is all about HIM, not about 2A rights.  I would NOT want this nutjob representing 2A rights.   He is no different than the Imam who is trying to build a Mosque at Grond Hero.  

Like I said, I normally do not hassle otherwise law abiding gun owners.  In fact, I have looked the other way when I came across otherwise good folks who illegally carried concealed weapons (out of fear, out of ignorance while visiting California... etc)  I've come across a few "openly carrying unloaded handgun" folks in California.  For the most part, I've left them alone.  But if someone tries to walk into my police station with a rifle just to make a point and hope to provoke an argument, he is going to jail -- I'll find a way.

不要誤會我。我的問題不在於他公開背著步槍。如果他這樣做了走在街上,我不會在意,除非他是些瘋狂的傢伙試圖大規模射擊。

我的問題是他公開攜帶步槍進入派出所。這已成為一個公眾安全的問題。 派出所是一個安全區,就像一個機場。 公眾可以自由地來來去去,並不能改變它是一個安全區域。 派出所有囚犯,有敏感材料被安置,並可能需要成為一個指揮中心為不可預見的災害時刻...等

這傢伙有很多其他地方可選擇,提出自己的觀點,但他選擇了一個警察局。 他是不是希望進步 2A 的權利。他是一個試圖挑起戰鬥的 nutjob。 這是所有主要關於他的出風頭,不是關於 2A 的權利。 我不想要這個 nutjob 代表 2A 的權利。 他比那個試圖在 9/11 Ground Hero 建立一個清真寺的伊瑪沒有什麼不同。

就像我說的,我一般不會麻煩守法槍主。 事實上,當我遇到了好人們非法攜帶隱藏武器(出於恐懼,出於法律無知,來訪的加州...等等),我一般不會麻煩他們。  我也已經遇到了一些“公開攜帶沒有子彈手槍”人在加州。 在大多數情況,我沒有麻煩他們。 但是,如果有人試圖公開背著步槍走進我的派出所,並希望挑起爭論,他會進監獄 - 我會找到辦法。

[ 本帖最後由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-27 05:44 編輯 ]
我妻子常說:  槍就像避孕套 --  寧願是有它而不需要它,不要是需要它而沒有它。

TOP

這個傢伙其實很辛運  遇到會跟他講道理的警察  要是遇上黑道幫派份子或是到敏感的美軍軍事管制區 他的下場可不是講講法條就算了  可能連講的機會都沒有就給掛了

我想回前田大就是    你會在警務人員一堆的地方  身上又帶好幾把槍嗎?

我是不會啦  因為有一群免費義務性的保鑣保護你  帶槍不是多餘嗎?

就像是身坐戰車 身上又背火箭筒 沒必要  

[ 本帖最後由 槍口向上 於 2010-9-27 06:31 編輯 ]

TOP

引用:
However, "legal to do" does not always equal "smart thing to do."  
More serious thoughts on this:
"Rights" are useless if the citizens do not exercise it, or else we might as well not have it in the first place. Using the "it's legal but not smart" argument, in my opinion, is just a way to create pressure to circumvent the fact that an action is in fact legal by those who's unable to directly outlaw it.
引用:
My problem is with him openly carrying a rifle INTO A POLICE STATION.  This becomes a public safety issue.
I can probably do more damage to a station full of cops by driving a Ford F-250 straight through the door and start doing donuts inside the building than some random yahoo can by going in packing a pistol. Does that mean the citizenry are not allowed to drive near police stations?

My issue with LEs in a lot of firearm scenario is that they automatically view the very presence of the firearm as intent, regardless of whatever other behavior that the owner of the said firearm is engaging it. Now, if firearm is in fact a right instead of a privilege that we are able to exercise only due to the generosity of DA MAN, than its presence should be viewed normally. It is very alarming that the LE community still equate carrying a firearm with intent to use it.

(Yes, LEs can get uncomfortable when guns are in plain sight. I can sympathize with that, really, been through those scenarios myself. But honestly lets face it, the people that wants to drill a hole between your eyes ain't going to be packing openly.)

[ 本帖最後由 gatheringsin 於 2010-9-27 11:09 編輯 ]
A good commie is a dead commie.

“糞青這種東西頂多只有拿去堆肥時才會有用” by Me

TOP

引用:
原帖由 gatheringsin 於 2010-9-27 11:05 發表
I can probably do more damage to a station full of cops by driving a Ford F-250 straight through the door and start doing donuts inside the building than some random yahoo can by going in packing a pistol. Does that mean the citizenry are not allowed to drive near police stations?

My issue with LEs in a lot of firearm scenario is that they automatically view the very presence of the firearm as intent, regardless of whatever other behavior that the owner of the said firearm is engaging it. Now, if firearm is in fact a right instead of a privilege that we are able to exercise only due to the generosity of DA MAN, than its presence should be viewed normally. It is very alarming that the LE community still equate carrying a firearm with intent to use it.

(Yes, LEs can get uncomfortable when guns are in plain sight. I can sympathize with that, really, been through those scenarios myself. But honestly lets face it, the people that wants to drill a hole between your eyes ain't going to be packing openly.)
Well, I wouldn't want anyone driving a Ford F-250 INTO the police station

I can't speak for other officers, but I am hardly the type that "panic" at the sight of a firearm.  I've come across my share of guns on people.  I can honestly say that since off my initial FTO program, I've never jammed a gun owner purely on CCW violations... and you know in California, we don't issue many CCW's -- Vast majority of people I've found guns on do not have permits to carry guns.  And I've never jammed anyone purely on the gun.  When I jam someone on guns, it's usually other more serious crimes I am interested in (usually dope, gang banging, or felony warrants).  

I do believe gun ownership the ability to bear arms for self defense are rights.  
But no rights are absolute -- just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, or openly carrying an AR-15 onto a commercial flight.  One person's rights end at the infrigement of another peron's.

In the case of a openly slung rifle in the police station -- here are my problems with that --
Police station is a secured facility -- same as an airport or a prison.  
It's also a very volatile place, even at the front counter.
Eventhough we have a sallyport, I can't tell you how many times prisoners get brought into the front door, by us and other agencies.  An open rifle around prisoners is just asking for trouble.  
I also can't tell you how many times fights have broken out at the front counter -- Rival gang members duking it out at our lobby is not unheard of.  Adding a rifle in the mix, again, is asking for trouble.   

I am sure when in Iraq, you wouldn't let just any Iraqi walking into the Green Zone with an AK47, would you?  

Again, this is not a 2A issue.  This is a secured facility issue.  When I go into a federal building or a federal court house, I disarm if asked by the U.S. Marshals or the FPS (Federal Protective Services police officers).  Heck, when we toured the White House, we made arrangements to surrender our firearms to secret service well before reaching the White House.  It's their house, they have a right to secure it the way they see fit.

I have no problems with guns on campus or in parks, BTW.  They are not secured facilities.
我妻子常說:  槍就像避孕套 --  寧願是有它而不需要它,不要是需要它而沒有它。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 MikeH 於 2010-9-26 01:44 發表
有種  

老百姓不維護自己的權利  久了只是方便政府將它視同放棄
這句話所有國民都該謹記

TOP

引用:
原帖由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-27 02:37 發表
一個和平的 "公民抗命" 是好的。 如果重點是“合法的公共場所公開攜槍” - 他可以這樣做在市政府會堂前面,或流行的街角。但是,他做了什麼?他選擇走進一個繁忙的派出所, 破壞忙碌警察局的日常運作。 除了警察,那裡有囚犯被護送進出, 心煩意亂的民眾進來報案...
我是警察。但, 如果被要求, 我會在其他司法管轄區警察局內解除武器,沒有任何爭執。
他他的行動就像是穿三K黨的服裝打扮走進了黑豹吧。他正在找人打架的,簡單明了。
他是沒有幫助 2A。 事實上,他是傷害它。 猜猜立法會將做什麼?他們將禁止公開攜帶, 使用此事件作為一個藉口。
我是一個很親 2A 的警務人員。 我會逮捕了這傢伙 "擾亂和平"
我同意你。我想這個人需動動腦想一下,自己的行為對於自己宣稱支持的理念,倒底是幫忙還是幫倒忙,旁邊出聲支持的人也需要想一下。這種宣稱的勝利,往往不是勝利,太多理念的失敗都是被過度興奮的支持者搞得倒退了,尤其是這對爭取執法人員對擁槍態度一點幫助也沒有。
MDC
萬物作焉而不辭

TOP

引用:
原帖由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-27 12:36 發表


Well, I wouldn't want anyone driving a Ford F-250 INTO the police station

I can't speak for other officers, but I am hardly the type that "panic" at the sight of a firearm.  I've come across my ...
The main difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and openly packing is that packing is a passive act. At face value, all it says is "I gots a gun". Any interpretation of that is based solely on other's perception. Now, screaming fire is something deliberate meant to get people to vacate the immediate area, since there's a specific reaction that one can expect from such a verbal cue.

The right to carry comes no where near where another person's right begin, since "not seeing a firearm in plain sight" is no where mentioned in those pieces of lamb skin we're suppose to follow. If you make the safety argument, then you are essentially equating the act of carrying a firearm as a definite intent to harm. Not a happy conclusion to go to.

This is the way I see it: In  the case of police stations, we need to do business there as law abiding citizens. If we have to face the type of danger you're talking about, then we sure as heck need a way too protect ourselves. The courts already ruled that you folks do not have liability if y'all fail to prevent crime/protect individuals. So even when we do step foot into a station, y'all are still not responsible for our safety unless we're explicitly in police custody. As for airports: Different scenario to police stations. By being on flights, we are in the custody of the airlines, and we CAN sue their asses if they screw up (same thing with prisons). Now, if the court does rule that being in a police station, voluntarily or not, equates to being in police custody, then sure, I'll go along with not packing heat in there.

Now, green zone: No clue. I've only been to the green zone to catch flights out of Dodge, was stationed at a FOB that held the US Army record for the most amount of indirect fire ever received, including "real" wars like WWI and WWII. But, I'm rather insulted you made that comparison: I rather hope that the LEs in the US don't think they need to guard themselves from US citizens the way we had to from the Iraqis. If the relationship is this antagonistic in the eyes of LE, then we got more serious problems at hand here.

Barely awake, so pardon me if this chunk of words don't make much sense.
A good commie is a dead commie.

“糞青這種東西頂多只有拿去堆肥時才會有用” by Me

TOP

引用:
原帖由 gatheringsin 於 2010-9-27 14:06 發表
The courts already ruled that you folks do not have liability if y'all fail to prevent crime/protect individuals. So even when we do step foot into a station, y'all are still not responsible for our safety unless we're explicitly in police custody. As for airports: Different scenario to police stations. By being on flights, we are in the custody of the airlines, and we CAN sue their asses if they screw up (same thing with prisons). Now, if the court does rule that being in a police station, voluntarily or not, equates to being in police custody, then sure, I'll go along with not packing heat in there.
Actually, the police gets sued all the time.
You are right, the courts have ruled that police does not have an absolute duty to protect.

However, being inside of a police station is no different than being inside of a supermarket when it comes to liability to the "customers."  If you are an innocent bystander and you get shot in the police station, oh yeah, we will get sued and lose just like if you get shot in the mall.  

Plus, we do have people in custody inside the police station.  We do have a duty to protect these people in our custody, even though they are scumbags.   And that's why we need to control the facility... just like any facilities with protectees (ie the White House).  And yes, the police station is like a prison.  Think about it -- the general public does visit the prison as well.  Not all "customers" visiting the prison are in custody.  In fact, most are not "in custody."  We don't allow visitors to pack on prison grounds.  

BTW, airports are governed by federal laws.  Airlines actually has very little say on the security measures of an airport.  

Like I said, this is not a 2A issue to me.  I have no problem with people packing under just about any circumstances -- this includes most private businesses such as Costco or the supermarket.  Yes. I do believe in property owner rights. But I believe property owners can exercise that right under trespassing laws, not gun laws (so no criminal charges if the customer is asked to leave and does leave).  However, I do draw the line in secured facilities such as prisons, police stations, court houses... etc where there are involuntary protectees.  This then becomes a secured facility issue.

[ 本帖最後由 Code3Cover 於 2010-9-27 22:25 編輯 ]
我妻子常說:  槍就像避孕套 --  寧願是有它而不需要它,不要是需要它而沒有它。

TOP

引用:
你會在警務人員一堆的地方  身上又帶好幾把槍嗎?
我是不會啦  因為有一群免費義務性的保鑣保護你  帶槍不是多餘嗎?
警務人員不是義工  是納稅人雇用的
我相信絕大部份的警察具有高度榮譽心和職業道德  會努力執法
但是根據美國法院案例  警察並無保護民眾的義務
了解這一點  才不會產生過度期待

回到主題
平民在警局大廳不適合持槍的話  應該明確規定  硬性執行
而不是期盼民眾有所謂的common sense  或者以其他罪名處理
但我也同意這代表警局有責任維持禁區內的安全

TOP

發新話題

Sitetag