Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/11/2006 9:24:02 AM EDT
The "snitch" thread made it pretty clear most Arfcommers range somewhere between "don't get involved" to "almost never snitch on a gun owner."

So I'm curious now....would you call the cops ever?

The following are a bunch of scenarios. Please at least indicate "yes" or "no" if you would make the call. Feel free to give explanations if you wish. (All scenarios assume youa re unarmed, and have no access to a firearm)

1. You are in a parking lot. YOu hear an argument, male v. female. Male screams "I'm getting my gun, %&*$&" and walks over to his car.

2. Same as # 1 above, except male says "I'm going home to get my gun, %&$^."

3. You are on the phone to a female friend. You hear a male in the background yell "Somedays I could just shoot you in the head, %&*$^."

4. Same as # 3 above, except its just yelling and screaming at her, no threats of firearms violence.

4. You in advertently receive a email intended for a male friend of yours (A) from a male acquaintence of his (B) expressing hostility, and at the end B says says "Don't forget %&$, I have guns and I know how to use them."

5. Female friend of yours forwards to you a transcript an internet chat with a CCW permittee, who is making unwanted romantic advances, which she has clearly communicated she is uninterested in. He has shows up at her job once, and apartment twice.

6. You are at a male friends house. He is ranting an raving about another guy he is really pissed at. He grabs his gun, and says "I'm gonna go talk with this guy, and make him see my point of view." Then he heads to his car.

7. Same as # 6 above, except he just heads straight out to his car, without getting his gun. YOu know he is a CCW permittee, and suspect he may have a gun in his car.

8. A guy you've met thru an Arfcom shoot inadvertently copies you on an email to another guy, and makes threats against him, mentioning how he could blow away a woodchuck from 400 yards away. The mention of shooting prowess is clearly meant to coerce.

9. Same as # 8 above, except Arfcom acquaintence just makes seroius threats not with a gun, but with a baseball bat.


Would you make the call?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:24:27 AM EDT
IBTL
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:26:12 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:26:20 AM EDT
Guys, don't get his thread locked by insulting him relentlessly.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:26:58 AM EDT
Anyone wanna start a pool on how many posts before this thread is also locked?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:27:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:27:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 9:28:37 AM EDT by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:28:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
i1.tinypic.com/nlydc0.gif



Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:28:53 AM EDT




Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:29:16 AM EDT
If you ignore this thread, it will sink off the page.

Now, help me find and buy a stuffed toy of the creature from the TV show Surface. It's a Valentine's day present.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:32:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
i1.tinypic.com/nlydc0.gif



Now that's a cool emoticon. Never seen that one before.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:33:17 AM EDT
I find it interesting that pretty much everyone here goes nuts at the thought of turning in unsafe or unstable behavior of a gun owner but then when someone snaps says "Now gun owners are taking another hit. Someone should have done something." You can't have it both ways people.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:33:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 9:34:03 AM EDT by KyBlaster]
The criteria for these questions do not allow me to answer them. I am always packing.


ETA: IBTL
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:33:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
The "snitch" thread made it pretty clear most Arfcommers range somewhere between "don't get involved" to "almost never snitch on a gun owner."

So I'm curious now....would you call the cops ever?

The folowing are a bunch of scenarios. Please at least indicate "yes" or "no" if you would make the call. Feel free to give explanations if you wish. (All scenarios assume youa re unarmed, and have no access to a firearm)

1. You are in a parking lot. YOu hear an argument, male v. female. Male screams "I'm getting my gun, %&*$&" and walks over to his car.

I ALWAYS have a gun. And that's a 911 call.

2. Same as # 1 above, except male says "I'm going home to get my gun, %&$^."

Now it's none of my business. No immediate threat.

3. You are on the phone to a female friend. You hear a male in the background yell "Somedays I could just shoot you in the head, %&*$^."

I have NO friends who would hang around someone who would say something like that. Since your question requires that I put myself in the frame of mind of trailer trash, I cannot answer either way.

4. Same as # 3 above, except its just yelling and screaming at her, no threats of firearms violence.

Same answer.

4. You in advertently receive a email intended for a male friend of yours (A) from a male acquaintence of his (B) expressing hostility, and at the end B says says "Don't forget %&$, I have guns and I know how to use them."

Forward to A and stay the fuck out of it.

5. Female friend of yours forwards to you a transcript an internet chat with a CCW permittee, who is making unwanted romantic advances, which she has clearly communicated she is uninterested in. He has shows up at her job once, and apartment twice.

I'm seeing a pattern here. To break it, stay the fuck out of other people's business, especially concerning romantic entanglements.

6. You are at a male friends house. He is ranting an raving about another guy he is really pissed at. He grabs his gun, and says "I'm gonna go talk with this guy, and make him see my point of view." Then he heads to his car.

See Answer #3.

7. Same as # 6 above, except he just heads straight out to his car, without getting his gun. YOu know he is a CCW permittee, and suspect he may have a gun in his car.

See Answer #3.

8. A guy you've met thru an Arfcom shoot inadvertently copies you on an email to another guy, and makes threats against him, mentioning how he could blow away a woodchuck from 400 yards away. The mention of shooting prowess is clearly meant to coerce.

None of my business. Except that I would immediately sever any contact with Arfcom acquaintance.

9. Same as # 8 above, except Arfcom acquaintence just makes seroius threats not with a gun, but with a baseball bat.

None of my business. Except that I would immediately sever any contact with Arfcom acquaintance.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:33:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
The person witnessing those situations shouldn't call the cops in any of those instances. People don't LIKE nosy busybodies.




Interesting.

Thanx for an answer, at least.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:34:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 9:46:09 AM EDT by Johninaustin]
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:34:54 AM EDT
Thanx for the answers, modog.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:35:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 9:36:14 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:



Are you indicating you think that I am drunk, or that I am driving you to drink?




Or both?


Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:35:52 AM EDT
This thread belongs in the pit.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:37:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
This thread belongs in the pit.



No, thank you.

Please everyone have the moral decency not to force that to happen.

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:37:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 9:39:07 AM EDT by LANCEMAN]
You are getting into the area of Pre-Crime, calling the cops for something that could possibly happen.

No on all of them. The person being threatened could easily inform the authorities if they wish to do so on their own. The "threat" could be an inside joke bewtween the two other parties for instance. I don't like interfering in other peoples business especially the ones involving strangers.

On #6 and #7 if a friend of mine wants to take his gun to go talk to someone that is his business. Maybe he feels he needs it.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:38:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
This thread belongs in the pit. hr


When is the pit going to reopen?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:39:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:39:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By DigDug:
This thread belongs in the pit.



No, thank you.

Please everyone have the moral decency not to force that to happen.




Irony is lost on some people...
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:40:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:



Are you indicating you think that I am drunk, or that I am driving you to drink?




Or both?





Sorry, popcorn smiley didn't take. Nothing meant towards you, but this is going to be pretty entertaining.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:45:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Louie:
If you ignore this thread, it will sink off the page.



That's what I'm going to do. Just ignore it.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:54:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:



hey, I haven't seen that one before!
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 10:01:19 AM EDT
There are many principles that guide my life and actions. All are default conclusions or assumptions, and none are absolute - meaning exceptions are warranted in unusual circumstances. I'll list a few relevant to this discussion:

1. I don't invite the man into my life.
2. I mind my own business.
3. My involvement is warranted when by way of reason, it can be ascertained that the well-being of another is in serious jeapordy.

Now, I'll address each one of these:


1. You are in a parking lot. YOu hear an argument, male v. female. Male screams "I'm getting my gun, %&*$&" and walks over to his car.


I would intervene.



2. Same as # 1 above, except male says "I'm going home to get my gun, %&$^."


No involvement.



3. You are on the phone to a female friend. You hear a male in the background yell "Somedays I could just shoot you in the head, %&*$^."


No initial involvement, though I would begin asking questions. Context is important.



4. Same as # 3 above, except its just yelling and screaming at her, no threats of firearms violence.


No involvement.



4. You in advertently receive a email intended for a male friend of yours (A) from a male acquaintence of his (B) expressing hostility, and at the end B says says "Don't forget %&$, I have guns and I know how to use them."


No police involvement, advise friend that I received an email not intended for me.



5. Female friend of yours forwards to you a transcript an internet chat with a CCW permittee, who is making unwanted romantic advances, which she has clearly communicated she is uninterested in. He has shows up at her job once, and apartment twice.


No personal involvement, unless requested. No police involvement until reasonable threat of bodily harm becomes apparent.



6. You are at a male friends house. He is ranting an raving about another guy he is really pissed at. He grabs his gun, and says "I'm gonna go talk with this guy, and make him see my point of view." Then he heads to his car.


Depends on friend and context. Most grab their guns as they would grab their car keys and their wallet. I would intervene in others.



7. Same as # 6 above, except he just heads straight out to his car, without getting his gun. YOu know he is a CCW permittee, and suspect he may have a gun in his car.


No intervention.



8. A guy you've met thru an Arfcom shoot inadvertently copies you on an email to another guy, and makes threats against him, mentioning how he could blow away a woodchuck from 400 yards away. The mention of shooting prowess is clearly meant to coerce.


No police involvement. I would advise both parties that I was inadvertently copied.



9. Same as # 8 above, except Arfcom acquaintence just makes seroius threats not with a gun, but with a baseball bat.


Both are deadly, neither are imminent, and therefore require no intervention on my part.


Garandman, I've kept these short and sweet. If you'd like to hear arguments supporting any particular conclusion, just ask.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 10:38:57 AM EDT
I can't take it anymore. Garand, please explain:


Originally Posted By garandman:

Being a SLED certified concealed carry instructor, with teh ability to refuse to certify my trainees, I imagine they'll take me seriously. We'll see.



What is a "SLED certified concealed carry instructor", and why would anyone care? For some reason I wish that instead of an emoticon, I could insert a .wav of Bob Slidell saying "What...would you say...you do here" and some sort of wav-shopped Tom Smykowski saying "Look, I already told you...I deny the god-damned CCW permits! Can't you people see that?"


All in all, it's a good thing KBR hasn't figured out how entertaining this shit is. They'd be charging the .gov $10,000/day for troops to read this site.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:40:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 11:47:46 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By jwr6:
I can't take it anymore. Garand, please explain:

What is a "SLED certified concealed carry instructor", and why would anyone care?




In order to train others to carry concealed, the state of South Carolina requires a state approved certification course for trainers.

SLED is the SC State Law Enforcement Division. SLED is the chief law enforcement authority in our state. As a SLED certified trainer, I must go for periodical continuing professional education.

As a trainer, I sign applications indicating the individual is proficient in academic knowledge and hands on firearms handling.

I am required to keep records of the training I give, as well as students test and range scores, subject to audit. Should one of my students be involved in a shooting, I will be called to testify.

Underlying all this is the responsibility of acting as the ONLY actual contact the state has with the trainee. Should I deem teh trainee unsuited to the task, I am required NOT to sign the app.

Signing the app puts my butt on the line legally.

Those are my legal duties.

Beyond that, as ANY citizen should, I understand to the degree we CCW permitees WILL not police ourselves, the gov't WILL. As an accountant, we USED to be a self policing profession. Well, because of the Enron jerks, now accounting has become a living hell. .gov landed on the accounting profession like Rosie Odonnell on a snickers bar.

Similarly, I beleive we as CCW permittees BETTER start self-policing, or the gov't will. Now, I DEFINATELY beleive contacting the gov't is a dead last resort, but I also realize this "no way I'm getting involved" attitude jeopardizes CCW as a whole.

We can either self-police, or the gov't will. Does ANYONE here think the gov't policing us is better than us policing ourselves?

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:42:22 AM EDT
If it is a friend of mine, we handle problems between ourselves. Sometimes that can involve an ass kicking even.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:49:50 AM EDT
Scnerio ....
It is 2 am you step out front to grab a smoke . You here a lady scream "No get away from me stop it ." from a few apartments away but you are not sure which one .Do you call the cops ?


FYI Call me what ever you want I did . I can't wait to move .

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 12:03:18 PM EDT
What would your SLED training officer tell you to do ?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:04:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
So I'm curious now....would you call the cops ever?

The following are a bunch of scenarios. Please at least indicate "yes" or "no" if you would make the call. Feel free to give explanations if you wish. (All scenarios assume youa re unarmed, and have no access to a firearm)




1. You are in a parking lot. YOu hear an argument, male v. female. Male screams "I'm getting my gun, %&*$&" and walks over to his car.


Yes


2. Same as # 1 above, except male says "I'm going home to get my gun, %&$^."


Yes


3. You are on the phone to a female friend. You hear a male in the background yell "Somedays I could just shoot you in the head, %&*$^."


Yes.


4. Same as # 3 above, except its just yelling and screaming at her, no threats of firearms violence.


Yes.


4. You in advertently receive a email intended for a male friend of yours (A) from a male acquaintence of his (B) expressing hostility, and at the end B says says "Don't forget %&$, I have guns and I know how to use them."


No, but I'd be calling the friend to warn them about the threat against them they didn't receive.


5. Female friend of yours forwards to you a transcript an internet chat with a CCW permittee, who is making unwanted romantic advances, which she has clearly communicated she is uninterested in. He has shows up at her job once, and apartment twice.


You are not the victim in this case and are not the one who should be calling.


6. You are at a male friends house. He is ranting an raving about another guy he is really pissed at. He grabs his gun, and says "I'm gonna go talk with this guy, and make him see my point of view." Then he heads to his car.


Yes.


7. Same as # 6 above, except he just heads straight out to his car, without getting his gun. YOu know he is a CCW permittee, and suspect he may have a gun in his car.


I don't see what the CCW status has to do with anything. No.


8. A guy you've met thru an Arfcom shoot inadvertently copies you on an email to another guy, and makes threats against him, mentioning how he could blow away a woodchuck from 400 yards away. The mention of shooting prowess is clearly meant to coerce.


Once again, you are not the victim.


9. Same as # 8 above, except Arfcom acquaintence just makes seroius threats not with a gun, but with a baseball bat.


See above.


I can't believe the guy who said that in none of those scenarios should a call be made, and that doing so makes you a busy body.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:33:03 PM EDT
I cut and pasted the questions. My answers will be in RED

1. You are in a parking lot. YOu hear an argument, male v. female. Male screams "I'm getting my gun, %&*$&" and walks over to his car. I'm not going to want to be too near this especially if it turned out that he DOES get his gun. I'll seek concealment and note where the closest phone is and see if it is practical for me to get to it, at this point, the best thing I can do is be the best witness I can be and if a phone is handy, great, I sure don't want the potential perp knowing I am observing him as I don't want to make things worse. I don't know everything about what's happening. I don't have alot of faith in the police to begin with, but, if I am going to call them, more will have to unfold before it's necessary to do so.

2. Same as # 1 above, except male says "I'm going home to get my gun, %&$^." Now how many times have I heard that? For one thing, I'm sure not going to stick around incase that guy DOES go home and get a gun and decides to shoot anyone and everyone in proximity! But no, I'm not calling the police.

3. You are on the phone to a female friend. You hear a male in the background yell "Somedays I could just shoot you in the head, %&*$^." How many people have felt this way before about anybody? Please... sounds rhetorical. He probably DOES want to shoot her in the head when she won't shut up, doesn't mean he's going to do it. No, I'm not calling the cops...

4. Same as # 3 above, except its just yelling and screaming at her, no threats of firearms violence. None of MY business. It's a private argument that is fairly peaceful... No need to call the cops.

4. You in advertently receive a email intended for a male friend of yours (A) from a male acquaintence of his (B) expressing hostility, and at the end B says says "Don't forget %&$, I have guns and I know how to use them." It's something to inform the friend about and even make a note of it. It's up to the friend to how he wants to handle it. If HE wants to call the cops and I am asked what did I read, I'll give a statement as to what I read. Outside of that, it's NOT my call.

5. Female friend of yours forwards to you a transcript an internet chat with a CCW permittee, who is making unwanted romantic advances, which she has clearly communicated she is uninterested in. He has shows up at her job once, and apartment twice. Again, it's not MY call, I would advise her to call the police though. It's getting creepy. The CCW has yet to come into play here, but he sure doesn't take NO for an answer. I think this is what is meant when "stalking" is mentioned. I think SHE should call the cops!

6. You are at a male friends house. He is ranting an raving about another guy he is really pissed at. He grabs his gun, and says "I'm gonna go talk with this guy, and make him see my point of view." Then he heads to his car. Be the best friend you can here! Tell your buddy, "Yeah, he's an asshole, but if you go over there, especially with a gun, you can bet you'll go to jail for it. To hell with that guy, lets just hang out here and not let this asshole get to us". If my friend tells me to go kick rocks and that he's going anyway. Buddy, I'm outta there! I want in no way to me mixed up with this. This is where friendship ends and smarts begin.. Consequently, I don't (and wont) keep friends that act like that. No, I'm not calling the cops..

7. Same as # 6 above, except he just heads straight out to his car, without getting his gun. YOu know he is a CCW permittee, and suspect he may have a gun in his car. and I'm STILL not getting in the middle of this. I will give the same advice as I did above and encourage him to blow this crap off and to pick and choose his battles and point out to him that he doesn't have to pick this one, the guy's not even here and it's just an asshat who wouldn't learn a damn thing anyway. If he goes over, hell, why stick around if I am all by myself, I can do that at home. Plus, in the event my buddy does do something stupid, it will be better for ME if I am no where near it. No, I'm NOT calling the cops..

8. A guy you've met thru an Arfcom shoot inadvertently copies you on an email to another guy, and makes threats against him, mentioning how he could blow away a woodchuck from 400 yards away. The mention of shooting prowess is clearly meant to coerce. Maybe he can blow a woodchuck away from 400 yards.. So what? What's he going to do, shoot him through the computer?? DELETE IS YOUR FRIEND! No, I'm not calling the cops.

9. Same as # 8 above, except Arfcom acquaintence just makes seroius threats not with a gun, but with a baseball bat. So he can baseballbat a woodchuck to death from 400 yards? This is sigline material! Ok, really, please, I've been threatened by several members here over the years and I'm still posting.. big deal... But, if he DOES do this, it had better be to play BASEBALL otherwise anyone DUMB enough to actually show up to a reasonably suspected ARMED guys house with a baseball bat is ASKING to get shot! This IS ARFCOM, it's a GUN SITE, implying that we, the members are into guns, suspect that we actually OWN guns... It's gotta make sense! No, I'm not calling the cops..

Ok, there's my take on things..


Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:53:55 PM EDT
Garandman, it really sounds as if you take your "duty" WAY too seriously when you talk about reporting someone states away, who is NOT your student (read as: NO DUTY or responsibility to do ANYTHING). I am obviously talking about your former thread, and don't really see the need to try to help you justify your intended actions by answering questions that you have attempted to weight towards your point, therefore helping you justify the unjustifiable. Point of the matter is, the original reportee made ALL those statements in a court of law, was "punished" for them, and was reinstated as a CCW holder but you still feel that it is your "duty" to intervene, based on internet statements? The main point is, you didn't train him, aren't responsible for him, and it's none of your business!
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 2:00:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By jwr6:
I can't take it anymore. Garand, please explain:

What is a "SLED certified concealed carry instructor", and why would anyone care?




In order to train others to carry concealed, the state of South Carolina requires a state approved certification course for trainers.

SLED is the SC State Law Enforcement Division. SLED is the chief law enforcement authority in our state. As a SLED certified trainer, I must go for periodical continuing professional education.

As a trainer, I sign applications indicating the individual is proficient in academic knowledge and hands on firearms handling.

I am required to keep records of the training I give, as well as students test and range scores, subject to audit. Should one of my students be involved in a shooting, I will be called to testify.

Underlying all this is the responsibility of acting as the ONLY actual contact the state has with the trainee. Should I deem teh trainee unsuited to the task, I am required NOT to sign the app.

Signing the app puts my butt on the line legally.

Those are my legal duties.

Beyond that, as ANY citizen should, I understand to the degree we CCW permitees WILL not police ourselves, the gov't WILL. As an accountant, we USED to be a self policing profession. Well, because of the Enron jerks, now accounting has become a living hell. .gov landed on the accounting profession like Rosie Odonnell on a snickers bar.

Similarly, I beleive we as CCW permittees BETTER start self-policing, or the gov't will. Now, I DEFINATELY beleive contacting the gov't is a dead last resort, but I also realize this "no way I'm getting involved" attitude jeopardizes CCW as a whole.

We can either self-police, or the gov't will. Does ANYONE here think the gov't policing us is better than us policing ourselves?




The only 'legal jeapordy' you could be put under is not being able to prove you trained prospective
CCW licensees up to the level mandated by your state. As far as being called to testify in court, you'll be asked to testify only with regards as to whether or not the person passed the test and if you felt that they had the requsite grasp of the deadly force laws as they apply in your state and if they were proficient and handled their firearm safely. Not their mindset, character, nor intent.

I don't understand where you have gotten the idea that you are 'required' to police ccw holders or how you can be held legaly liable if they do something illegal.

You are a teacher...not a cop. Nor are you a referee, judge, mind reader, prognosticator, crusader, social concience, or cure-all of societal ills. I doubt seriously, truth be known, that you have the authority to refuse anybody a ccw unless they cannot pass the course ciriculum as set forth by law. Regardless of your personal opinion of them.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:20:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By u-baddog:
What would your SLED training officer tell you to do ?



I;ve got a call in to help me clarify some of these types of issues.

I know there are people in this forum who hate all cops, any cops, every cop. And prolly their families, too.

I am not such a person.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:29:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:33:46 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
Garandman, it really sounds as if you take your "duty" WAY too seriously when you talk about reporting someone states away, who is NOT your student (read as: NO DUTY or responsibility to do ANYTHING).



I take my duty VERY seriously for ONE reason - NOT because I think I'm a cop-lite, but because if I do my job well, it enhances teh chance we can get oir freedoms restored, HOPEFLYY to the point where WE WON"T NEED TO GO TO THE STATE TO GET ANY STUPID PERMIT.

I'm TRYING to work myself OUT of a job here.


I am obviously talking about your former thread, and don't really see the need to try to help you justify your intended actions by answering questions that you have attempted to weight towards your point, therefore helping you justify the unjustifiable.


Yeah, over teh internet you can "divine" my motives. What teh %&$^ are you doing at Arfcom? There are lotteries all across teh nation you could be winnign right now, with your magical powers.

In reality, I was just curious what people thought, but noooooooo.....you ahve magical powers to uncover my devious plot. SO...who's taking themselves too seriously?



Point of the matter is, the original reportee made ALL those statements in a court of law, was "punished" for them, and was reinstated as a CCW holder but you still feel that it is your "duty" to intervene, based on internet statements? The main point is, you didn't train him, aren't responsible for him, and it's none of your business!


Yeah, the "its not MY problem" attitude is working REAL well for us gun owners. Reversing NFA? "Not my problem" was what I was told in this very forum. Expanding CCW? "Not my problem" I hear all the time, and demonstrated by people inactivity legislatively.

I'll stack my record of attempting to restore freedoms against ANYONE who ripped me in the threads.

And other gun owners acting badly IS YOUR PROBLEM.

Don't you get it?

Can't you see? Are you THAT blind?

Its OTHER gun owners bad acts that are causing you to lose freedoms.

Yeah, it your problem. In a BIG way.

If you DID make it "your problem" maybe I wouldn't have to do this stupid CCW training.

Or just keep making it "Not your problem" and we;ll NEVER get our freedoms back.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:32:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pcsutton:
The only 'legal jeapordy' you could be put under is not being able to prove you trained prospective
CCW licensees up to the level mandated by your state. As far as being called to testify in court, you'll be asked to testify only with regards as to whether or not the person passed the test and if you felt that they had the requsite grasp of the deadly force laws as they apply in your state and if they were proficient and handled their firearm safely. Not their mindset, character, nor intent.






Yeah, right.

Come on - we ALL know better than that.

SLED has told me I can deny for ANY reason.

That being the case, if a defense lawyer gets the chance, he'll skewer me to make his client look innocent.

My "duties" are whatever teh defense lawyer wants to demonize me with.

And since its MY job, MY house, MY lifestyle that I'll lose defending myself in court, you canbe $^&% sure I take it VERY serious.



Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:33:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:35:12 PM EDT by Johninaustin]
Just a note. Over the years I've seen every one of these scenarios (Except the emails) end in a homicide.

Nothing really new in the world is there?
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:35:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:36:28 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:
Just a note. Over the years I've seen every one of these scenarios (Except the emails) end in a homicide.

Nothing really new in the world is there?



[sarcasm] Yeah, but that's "not my problem." [/sarcasm]

Well, except that other gun owners bad acts are EXACTLY what anti-gunners use to justify taking away my gun freedoms.

Gun owners BETTER wake up to the fact that either we police ourselves, or the anti gunners will.



Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:38:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I can't believe the guy who said that in none of those scenarios should a call be made, and that doing so makes you a busy body.




I bet if any of them were behind the blue line you'd do nothing and look the other way.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:42:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DVCAPI:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I can't believe the guy who said that in none of those scenarios should a call be made, and that doing so makes you a busy body.




I bet if any of them were behind the blue line you'd do nothing and look the other way.



Take your cop hate elsewhere.

Its SOO childish.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:46:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:49:26 PM EDT by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By DVCAPI:

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
I can't believe the guy who said that in none of those scenarios should a call be made, and that doing so makes you a busy body.




I bet if any of them were behind the blue line you'd do nothing and look the other way.



You'd lose that bet. Typical selfish Arfcom responses though.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:50:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DVCAPI:
I bet if any of them were behind the blue line you'd do nothing and look the other way.


Typical basher.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:51:22 PM EDT
Stop making yourself a target for an internet wedgie.

Your last attempt as heroism was a moot exercise, more of a personal attack than anything.

I dont know what you hope to accoplish with this post.

Go out side or go read a book. Take a break from the 'net.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:51:58 PM EDT
tc556guy and WizardofAhs -

Thanx for the answers.

Interesting reads.

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:52:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:53:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:56:43 PM EDT by Mister44]
ETA - oops - double post - sorry.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:54:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 4:58:02 PM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Mister44:
Stop making yourself a target for an internet wedgie.

Your last attempt as heroism was a moot exercise, more of a personal attack than anything.

I dont know what you hope to accoplish with this post.

Go out side or go read a book. Take a break from the 'net.



<heavy sigh>

Sorry if the "Israeli babes" and "I'm getting divorced again" threads bore me.

I like my discussions to be a little more cutting edge and thought provoking than "OOo, I'd like to do her" and "I hate my wife."

NOT ironically, its the poeple who live at the "I'd like to do her WHILE hating my wife" that are the ones usually trying to apply the internet wedgie to me.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top