-
June 10th, 2018, 8:57 PM
#21
Originally Posted by
just2cents
Said the guy who carries under LEOSA.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws.
That's a law, not a right. Everybody, to include the most hardened felon has the right to be armed, and often is, if you recognize a right as something one can do. Otherwise it can be said that lameness is a violation of the rights of the cripple and poverty a violation of the rights of the poor. If rights are simply a matter of law lets eliminate blindness, poverty and all the other unpleasantness of the human condition by passing some more laws. The liberals will love it!
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 1 LOL, 0 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 1:09 AM
#22
Originally Posted by
just2cents
They are, that's one of the reasons it is hard to hire or keep LEOs.
It seems not so much. One bad apple spoils the barrel.
While led I think the vast majority do a good job, there are too many that don't. Maybe the standards should be even higher.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 0 LOL, 0 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 7:50 AM
#23
Originally Posted by
Mestral
Well, in a way, you got me there.
But the subject here is cops carrying openly where no one else can, and there
are numerous rules about carrying (or drawing, or displaying) a weapon that
the majority of cops think should apply to us, but not to them.
Do you disagree with the above paragraph?
If not, then, by your standards, you are either
anti cop too, or anti liberty (your choice).
Actually, the subject is about a company exercising their freedom to determine if they want full open carry in their restaurants. If you are against that then you must be anti-liberty.
But it's good to know that you know what the majority of cops are thinking.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 0 LOL, 0 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 8:05 AM
#24
Originally Posted by
just2cents
Said the guy who carries under LEOSA.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws.
Why can't we carry under the csa? The civilian safety act.
-
June 11th, 2018, 8:43 AM
#25
Originally Posted by
Rick
Actually, the subject is about a company exercising their freedom to determine if they want full open carry in their restaurants. If you are against that then you must be anti-liberty.
But it's good to know that you know what the majority of cops are thinking.
Not sure I agree. A corporation thumbing their nose at the constitution to make a buck is disturbing. Perhaps whataburger would be happier in China or north Korea. No evil guns there.
-
June 11th, 2018, 8:53 AM
#26
Wow! Your anti-liberty stance is scary.
So now, companies have to leave the country if they don't submit to temper tantrums?
I guess I won't be running into you when I go for my twice a year patty melt.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 1 LOL, 0 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 9:35 AM
#27
Love liberty and have fought for it numerous times as have members of my family since 1725 thank you so much. But money makers disavowing the constitution does not increase liberty.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 0 LOL, 1 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 10:08 AM
#28
You fought for their liberty too. Or did you only fight for liberty as you see it?
-
June 11th, 2018, 10:28 AM
#29
The rights of private property owners are as equally valid as their other rights and it is the purpose of government to protect those rights. Of course the experience of many with the government in this area is at times disappointing, right Rick?
In any case the government should recognize and protect the right of property owners to prohibit the exercise of any activity, lawful or not, on or with their private property. Of course reliance on the government to perform as it should can be an iffy thing. What I find disturbing is the assumption by some of an entitlement to special privilege. That can be an unrealistic and dangerous assumption.
Assuming you have the right to a wedding cake is one thing but assuming you are the only one who is armed just because the law and property owner say so can get you killed but go ahead and make whatever assumptions you like. Its your right.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 0 LOL, 1 Saddened by, 0 WTF
-
June 11th, 2018, 10:52 AM
#30
So sorry to disagree with everyone. Guess MY liberty to voice my opinion should be minimized as should my willingness to sacrifice my life to support and defend the constitution. Once again, my apologies.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes, 1 LOL, 0 Saddened by, 0 WTF