# I knew this would become an issue



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

NYPD work slowdown will be dealt with ?very forcefully,? Bratton says

When you don't support your police officers, and when you don't lay down the law with them, they will instinctively back off some.

It can never, never, never, ever be all about the criminals. To allow the protestors to continue to do what they are doing, is criminal itself.

Less than a year ago, if you went into a business to protest and disrupted it from doing business, you'd get arrested for disorderly conduct and trespassing.

Oh yeah, I can also still remember if you burned a police car, you frigging got arrested for it. Rioting is not an expression / extension of free speech.

This crap has got to come to a screeching halt. The longer it's condoned, the more it will become deeper entrenched as a way to commit crimes and not be held responsible.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

The "backlash street" runs both ways....... And what paratrooper said ↑


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Look to Europe, I say that since a long time. But some her tell me I have to learn a lot about the US.
I don't know about the US but people are everywhere the same. Stripped from their rights, a liberal nation lives in fear. Marxism without daydreams and false promises on the end is a government of fear.

It is sad that I had to see this morning in ABC TV, that the police chief of NYC stabbed the NYPD in the back, for higher Marxist reasons and his own political carrier. Yea once the true liberalism is installed than there will be no wars, no crime and no one need to work and everyone becomes free healthcare, free shelter (everyone lives in a Mansion than), free goods and love breaks out everywhere. No one will than need police anymore. But first before that can happen, the political enemy have to be extinct. Whatever it take. 

So - until that happen we need the ANTIFA or here in the US the so called protesters. 

Well - that is the promise since it was invented in Persia under Nimrod 4000 years ago and wherever this system was implemented it cost millions and millions of life's. There are no more paranoid political system than liberalism. They know once implemented everybody hates it. Last time they had to wall in their people in so no one escaped the liberal paradise. 

A Marxist system without capital crime as a normal behavior and as an accepted social order in society did not happen in 4000 years. Liberalism only works on the fear of all citizen and the privilege of being protected today based on political correctness.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

I think "backlash" is already fomenting--it is in my life by how I prepare. And I do not like the change in "me."

Last week there was a minor dust-up in a local saloon. Two security guards aided a singular police office in handcuffing a drunken and belligerent female patron. Get this, twenty townies attacked the guards and the officer.

I usually carry a spare magazine for my Kimber. But after hearing that story, I dug out two Tac-Mags and slipped one each into the two front patch pockets of my jean jacket. That gave me a total of 29 rounds. I relayed that story to a friend, and gun salesman who works at our local Gander Mountain.

He smirked, and added, _"Well, you're a piker! I carry 34 rounds..."_

If I had read an entry like mine, written by one of you one year ago (before Ferguson), I would have dismissed the entry are pure paranoia. Now with violent protests in just about every major city (and "die-in" at our local mall last week) I'm beginning to feel under-gunned with four magazines and a Crimson Trace.

If only ten percent of our fellow CCW license holders feel as I do, and something ignites our passion, it could mean that dozens of modern, premium frangible rounds could be fired in any coffee bar. That's backlash.

And if the innocent citizen lived--no matter what the human cost(s) of his attackers--I'd feel it was an acceptable loss.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think that society needs to stop coddling criminal behavior asking what made them shoot up a theater or attack cops and start dealing with that violent behavior violently. Let's say we take a criminal who chooses to shoot up a mall, and is taken alive before being allowed to turn the gun on themselves. You shoot them on site! I will never understand this concept of taking someone like that into custody. You caught them gun in hand! It doesn't matter why they did it! All that matters is that they did it, and the rest of society needs to know it will not be tolerated. 

Now, if more people carried guns, then more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up. If we start taking it back, then these fools will start looking for other ways to express themselves rather than taking a gun and shooting places up. It is foolish to think that police can protect everyone. There are nearly 5 million people who live in the state of Alabama. There are around 300 state troopers. There are over a million people in the Birmingham area alone, and maybe 500 local LEOs btwn the local deputies and police. They are under paid, over worked and under fire now b/c "governments" are coddling criminals for votes. That is why government is useless.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

GCBHM, while I agree with your assessment, I do not like the possible scenarios that could now play out in my life. Because of my past jobs, I was allowed to carry at work, but that was more for unruly debtors, not riots and mass hysteria.

In fact, I was one of the first to get a Wisconsin CCW permit, but even then I thought it was probably never going to be used. Perhaps I might have to brandish to stop a mugging attempt--at worst, I might face a car-jacker.

But lately I've wondered if actually firing a pistol is a real possibility. Granted, if we carry we all must be prepared for proper and disciplined use. But when you look at the dumpster-fire that is the middle-east, where roving gangs will kill, rape and behead, I never thought that behavior would reach my shores.

In the Kimber forum they just reported that another two NYPD officers were shot.

I also just saw an advertisement in a gun magazine that offers bulletproof vests for civilians.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I can't answer for what you're throught process is, but when you consider the laws of liberty and respect for each individual's right to it, then right will prevail. Treat others with respect, the way you want to be treated, come together as a community and establish the acceptable behavior and let it be known that anything less will not be tolerated. You see, you don't just brandish a gun b/c you witness an altercation. You allow those involved to resolve their conflicts and stay out of it unless it comes to you. 

Don't think you can go around stopping all the criminal behavior just b/c you have a gun. Who are you? No, let each man govern himself according to the law of liberty, which means do as you please while allowing others the same courtesy, respecting each man as you want to be respected. If you are walking in a mall with your family, and you see two people arguing, keep walking. Leave them alone b/c it is none of your business. But if you're walking along with your familiy and all of a sudden some fool pulls out a gun and starts shooting, now you have reason to act to save your own life and that of your family. It is really pretty simple, actually.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snippage>
> 
> Now, if more people carried guns, then more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up.
> 
> <snip Vigilante Call To Arms>


and you run the risk of someone unbalanced with a legal gun doing just the same thing to a gang of teenagers he feels are "over the line" as the Adam Lanzas are doing in theaters.

Can NOT agree with you there - at all.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

Yes, I'm well aware of these laws and obligations. My point is that I have always lived as a (fairly) law abiding citizen. I pretty much lived by the idea that the best way to keep from being run down by a train was to stay off the tracks.

Now that "train" is coming to all facets of America. Even BHO seemed to stoke the fires in his latest opinion. And far too often any exchange of disagreements can turn violent on a dime.

I've gone to Sturgis unarmed, and about the only "assault" I experienced was over-priced beer from a girl in a bikini. Now going to the mall for a Subway sandwich can have me facing banger wannabees.

Not the world I thought I'd live in.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TheTourist said:


> <snip>
> 
> I've gone to Sturgis unarmed, and about the only "assault" I experienced was over-priced beer from a girl in a bikini.
> 
> <more snip>


That wasn't an assault - you were paying for the view.....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> and you run the risk of someone unbalanced with a legal gun doing just the same thing to a gang of teenagers he feels are "over the line" as the Adam Lanzas are doing in theaters.
> 
> Can NOT agree with you there - at all.


Sail, that risk already exists. The point is that we hold each other accountable to doing what's right, not becoming thugs ourselves. Read what I said above for further clarification. It's all based on mutual respect for individual liberty.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

TheTourist said:


> Yes, I'm well aware of these laws and obligations. My point is that I have always lived as a (fairly) law abiding citizen. I pretty much lived by the idea that the best way to keep from being run down by a train was to stay off the tracks.
> 
> Now that "train" is coming to all facets of America. Even BHO seemed to stoke the fires in his latest opinion. And far too often any exchange of disagreements can turn violent on a dime.
> 
> ...


So why take what I said to the opposite end of the spectrum? You pretty much proved what I said out. You conduct yourself as you should, and leave it to others to conduct themselves accordingly. If you don't want to deal with a certain element, you don't put yourself in the position to have to deal with it. If these "banger wannabees" know that they will quite possibly be killed for stepping out like fools, chances are greater that they will indeed police themselves and not start anything. But if they are coddled and feared then they will continue to be lawless in their ways.

In essence, it's peer pressure. Punks don't want to take on everyone. They want to bully the weak.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

There seems to have been a misunderstanding with what I said regarding people policing society rather than playing victim. I'm not talking about peopel running around with guns vigilante style shooting up the streets! What I'm talking about is a society that holds each other accountable by taking responsibility for their actions, promoting acceptable behavior by example, and being ready to defend themselves when the need arrives. 

If a bully fears that he might be tackled and dealt with on the playground, he is not as likely to pick on the weaker kid b/c he knows there might be someone out there who will take him down. But if the bully knows that the worst that will happen is some teacher taking him to the office so that he can sit in time out before he is returned to the classroom, he will continue to bully every time he gets the chance. 

Just the same, if thugs know that if I go over there, those people have guns too, and they might shoot me if they see me trying to mug someone...they aren't going to come to that part of town. Not as often! But if they know that the worst that will happen is people will scatter and run in fear hiding until police arrive to take them to pattycake jail...come on. Seriously?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> I think that society needs to stop coddling criminal behavior asking what made them shoot up a theater or attack cops and start dealing with that violent behavior violently. Let's say we take a criminal who chooses to shoot up a mall, and is taken alive before being allowed to turn the gun on themselves. You shoot them on site! I will never understand this concept of taking someone like that into custody. You caught them gun in hand! It doesn't matter why they did it! All that matters is that they did it, and the rest of society needs to know it will not be tolerated.
> 
> Now, if more people carried guns, then more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up. If we start taking it back, then these fools will start looking for other ways to express themselves rather than taking a gun and shooting places up. It is foolish to think that police can protect everyone. There are nearly 5 million people who live in the state of Alabama. There are around 300 state troopers. There are over a million people in the Birmingham area alone, and maybe 500 local LEOs btwn the local deputies and police. They are under paid, over worked and under fire now b/c "governments" are coddling criminals for votes. That is why government is useless.


While I understand your frustration / passion, advocating everyone being armed and taking the law into their own hands isn't the answer.

That would create more problems than it would solve. I won't waste anyone's time by pointing them out, but I'm quite sure that you can understand my point.

It's about addressing the issues / problems of the black population, as well as minorities in general, and updated training for LE in regards to minority issues.

Body cameras for LE is a good place to start. It's also about holding bad and/or poorly trained cops and departments accountable. If you are a bad, crooked or corrupt cop, you need to be identified, weeded out, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

When you peel all the layers away, it all boils down to personal and individual responsibility, for everyone concerned.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> While I understand your frustration / passion, advocating everyone being armed and taking the law into their own hands isn't the answer.
> 
> That would create more problems than it would solve. I won't waste anyone's time by pointing them out, but I'm quite sure that you can understand my point.
> 
> ...


There seems to have been a misunderstanding with what I said regarding people policing society rather than playing victim. I'm not talking about peopel running around with guns vigilante style shooting up the streets! What I'm talking about is a society that holds each other accountable by taking responsibility for their actions, promoting acceptable behavior by example, and being ready to defend themselves when the need arrives.

If a bully fears that he might be tackled and dealt with on the playground, he is not as likely to pick on the weaker kid b/c he knows there might be someone out there who will take him down. But if the bully knows that the worst that will happen is some teacher taking him to the office so that he can sit in time out before he is returned to the classroom, he will continue to bully every time he gets the chance.

Just the same, if thugs know that if I go over there, those people have guns too, and they might shoot me if they see me trying to mug someone...they aren't going to come to that part of town. Not as often! But if they know that the worst that will happen is people will scatter and run in fear hiding until police arrive to take them to pattycake jail...come on. Seriously?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

One of the definitions of "police" is the regulation and control of a community, especially for the maintenance of public order, safety, health, morals, etc. If the people of the community will police their own community, meaning keeping it clean, safe, healthy and aware of unacceptable behavior, there would be no need for police officers to come. 

The concept of individual liberty was what this country was founded on, and that liberty has erroded over the years b/c of this idea of dependency on the state for safety, health, morals, etc. But the people are supposed to be the ones governing themselves, free and independently of a governing body. However, that concept has been lost for the most part, and people have come to expect the police to be the only ones who can restore order. And as long as that idea remains the bedrock of safety, we're going to continue to see criminal behavior grow. How can a government hold criminals accountable when they themselves are in fact lawless? 

The people need to take a stand, take their communities back and restore the order they want to see. Leave people alone to live their lives how they see fit, and when you have a disagreement, work to resolve it intelligently and peacefully, but if someone threatens your life and that of your family, defend yourself. THAT is called people policing their communities. Not going around with guns forcing others to do right.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

GCBHM, I think we're on the same page, I just don't like it. Let me give you an analogy.

After years of having to loan co-workers a knife because they didn't believe in carrying one, I stopped the practice. The last straw was the fact that as a professional sharpener I often had to fix the abuse inflicted on a pristine edge by a clueless user. I told them to buy their own or use their teeth. That was 20 years ago.

"Society" is becoming that same lame knife user on a grand scale. They won't work, but they expect the benefits of other tax-payers. They rob at will, then sue if shot. They'll skip school or just listen to music all day, then claim Human Resources personnel are racist for not hiring them.

If I obeyed every worthless law our representatives ever penned, I'd still be at the mercy of people who simply will not stop committing crimes. For example, my dad worked at a factory in the center of Milwaukee--never carried a weapon of any sort. I wouldn't go to that factory today with a Mossberg 590.

When did it become prudent, normal and even fashionable for a guy to make sure he carries a half of a box of premium combat ammunition to take his wife to Subway?

I think a backlash will come sooner, not later.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Go have a look at the thread I just started to carry the conversation on there. Concepts of Liberty...


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> There seems to have been a misunderstanding with what I said regarding people policing society rather than playing victim. I'm not talking about peopel running around with guns vigilante style shooting up the streets! What I'm talking about is a society that holds each other accountable by taking responsibility for their actions, promoting acceptable behavior by example, and being ready to defend themselves when the need arrives. If a bully fears that he might be tackled and dealt with on the playground, he is not as likely to pick on the weaker kid b/c he knows there might be someone out there who will take him down. But if the bully knows that the worst that will happen is some teacher taking him to the office so that he can sit in time out before he is returned to the classroom, he will continue to bully every time he gets the chance.
> 
> Just the same, if thugs know that if I go over there, those people have guns too, and they might shoot me if they see me trying to mug someone...they aren't going to come to that part of town. Not as often! But if they know that the worst that will happen is people will scatter and run in fear hiding until police arrive to take them to pattycake jail...come on. Seriously?


There's been so many times I've seen unacceptable behavior by others, that I can't even begin to count them. Some of that behavior was worse than others.

While I was working for a living, all too many times I was directed to correct those situations. For the most part, the uniform I wore spoke for itself. Other times, the uniform made no difference, and it was then game on.

Just because you don't like another's behavior, actions or words, doesn't give you the right to approach and demand change. When you toss some guns into the mix, things can get out of hand very quickly.

And, you can't compare the behavior or actions of children to that of young adults or adults in general.* BIG *difference! The stakes are much higher.

Firearms and all the good guys being armed isn't the answer. It's much more complicated than just that. It's about education, realization, consideration, mutual respect, and all that they bring to a table. It's about re-educating society and bringing things up to speed and keeping up with the changing times.

We have a system in place, as much trouble we seem to have with it, it's far from being broken. We need to fill in some gaps, close some cracks, and plug some holes. Sounds like a lot of work, it will be. But, it's better to do that than to just leave things as they are.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> There's been so many times I've seen unacceptable behavior by others, that I can't even begin to count them. Some of that behavior was worse than others.
> 
> While I was working for a living, all too many times I was directed to correct those situations. For the most part, the uniform I wore spoke for itself. Other times, the uniform made no difference, and it was then game on.
> 
> ...


No, you've misunderstood again. I'm not saying that people with guns should go around demanding others to behave as they see fit. Again, what I am talking about is people behaving themselves, living their lives as they see fit, while leaving others alone to do the same, and when someone else infringes your right to that liberty, endeavor to resolve it peacefully. If, however, some thug insists on infringing your rights, defend yourself at all costs, even if it means taking the life of the thug.

The current system is well beyond broken. In case you haven't noticed, there are "protesters" proving that point as we speak, and there are areas of the country that are at a fever pitch. Individual accountability is impossible unless individuals start taking responsibility for their actions, and our current system does not promote that. It promotes riots, unrest and civil disobedience.

Again, I am not advocating vigilante style justice, but individual liberty and accountability. One cannot exist without the other.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> <snip good stuff>
> 
> Firearms and all the good guys being armed isn't the answer. It's much more complicated than just that. It's about education, realization, consideration, mutual respect, and all that they bring to a table. It's about re-educating society and bringing things up to speed and keeping up with the changing times.
> 
> We have a system in place, as much trouble we seem to have with it, it's far from being broken. We need to fill in some gaps, close some cracks, and plug some holes. Sounds like a lot of work, it will be. But, it's better to do that than to just leave things as they are.


Thanks! This.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Sail, what everyone isn't realizing is that "this" is what I'm saying. I don't know how many times I have to explain it. It's like no one is reading what I've stated. People zoom in on one word and what they think it means, and then they start in with guns aren't the only answer, seemingly trying to sound all bright and intellectual, I don't know, but I'm seeing comments stating exactly what I'm talkin about as if I haven't said it. 

Of course, this is part and parcel to the problem in America. People don't pay attention to detail or try to comprehend what is going on around them. Society just goes along like butterflies and flowers, nothing to see here. Go back and actually read everything I've said. What I'm talking about is...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Sail, what everyone isn't realizing is that "this" is what I'm saying. I don't know how many times I have to explain it. It's like no one is reading what I've stated. People zoom in on one word and what they think it means, and then they start in with guns aren't the only answer, seemingly trying to sound all bright and intellectual, I don't know, but I'm seeing comments stating exactly what I'm talkin about as if I haven't said it.
> 
> Of course, this is part and parcel to the problem in America. People don't pay attention to detail or try to comprehend what is going on around them. Society just goes along like butterflies and flowers, nothing to see here. Go back and actually read everything I've said. What I'm talking about is...


GC, I did go back to read what you wrote, and here it is:


> Now, if more people carried guns, then more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up.


What you DIDN'T do was say "good guys only." Of course, that would have been worse because, let's face it, we ALL think WE'RE the Good Guy. Muddy waters...

You had previously stated that your political stance bordered on the anarchic, so I assumed this was part of it all.

paratrooper's statement that "education, realization, consideration, mutual respect, and all that they bring to a table" being necessary is exactly how I feel. More guns is NOT the answer. Education, both the perps and the LEO (sadly) is the answer.

I have nothing but respect for our .local LEOs - they are all local kids who know most of the island. I also (and I say this quietly since I know I'm in a minority here) have the GREATEST respect for the police chief who was pictured with a sign saying "I resolve to challenge racism @ work." Was he challenging his staff? Yes, assuredly. Were they upset? Yes, also assuredly. But why? All the sign said was that he would not tolerate it. He didn't accuse his officers, he merely stated a resolution. The best thing they could have done was stand up and say "We're with you!" Did they? Assuredly not. And THAT is why we need to educate,. Not because I think they are a racist department, but they cannot SEE why people might think they are, based on their disapproval of their chief's stand.

We're all after the same thing - peaceful lives.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> GC, I did go back to read what you wrote, and here it is:
> 
> What you DIDN'T do was say "good guys only." Of course, that would have been worse because, let's face it, we ALL think WE'RE the Good Guy. Muddy waters...
> 
> ...


No, this is what I actually said, in context: I think that society needs to stop coddling criminal behavior asking what made them shoot up a theater or attack cops and start dealing with that violent behavior violently. Let's say we take a criminal who chooses to shoot up a mall, and is taken alive before being allowed to turn the gun on themselves. You shoot them on site! I will never understand this concept of taking someone like that into custody. You caught them gun in hand! It doesn't matter why they did it! All that matters is that they did it, and the rest of society needs to know it will not be tolerated.

Now, if more people carried guns, then more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up. If we start taking it back, then these fools will start looking for other ways to express themselves rather than taking a gun and shooting places up. It is foolish to think that police can protect everyone. There are nearly 5 million people who live in the state of Alabama. There are around 300 state troopers. There are over a million people in the Birmingham area alone, and maybe 500 local LEOs btwn the local deputies and police. They are under paid, over worked and under fire now b/c "governments" are coddling criminals for votes. That is why government is useless.

You can't just take one statement out of the entire context of what I was stating and then build your own doctrine on that. It has to be kept in the context of what I was meaning. The first paragraph was related to the way our society coddles criminal behvior. The second paragraph, prefaced with "Now" as if to say "let us look at it this way"...IF more people carried guns, THEN more people would start acting and policing that type behavior on the spot instead of playing victim and calling/waiting for police to show up, but there is more to it than that...*if you continue to read*...IF *we* (law abiding citizens) start taking it back (from the criminals), THEN *these fools *will start looking for other ways to express themselves *rather than taking a gun and shooting places up*. It is foolish to think that police can protect everyone. There are nearly 5 million people who live in the state of Alabama. There are around 300 state troopers. There are over a million people in the Birmingham area alone, and maybe 500 local LEOs btwn the local deputies and police. They are under paid, over worked and under fire now b/c "governments" are coddling criminals for votes. That is why government is useless.

I hold nothing but respect for LEOs also! But do we really believe they can keep us all safe, all the time? NO! The truth is we, individuals, are supposed to be the ones policing our own communities with the help of the LEO, not leaving it all up to the LEO. We are supposed to be supporting and defending the concept of liberty (not the constitution) by living peacefully according to liberty, being accountable one to another to uphold the rule of law with respect for the right of every individual to live as they so govern themselves.

As I have stated, you live however you wish, and you allow others that same courtesy. If you have a disagreement, work with that person to resolve it peacefully, respectfully and intelligently. If you are walking down the street with your family and you see two people being obnoxious, behaving in a way that you do not approve of, but that is not really infringing your right to liberty, then keep on going. It really isn't any of your business. If the owner of the property those folks are on wants to address it, let them do so. But if the owner of that property sees nothing wrong with it, and it isn't breaking the law of liberty infringing on anyone else's, let it be.

But if you're walking down the street with your family and someone approaches you in a manner to infringe your rights, then address it accordingly. If you can say "excuse me" and they straighten up, great! If they insist on trying to take from you or harm you in anyway, deal with it accordingly. Society will dictate what is acceptable behavior, and we all have a role to play. If a bully knows he may be dealt with he won't bully. So in other words, I'm going to live my life how I see fit, and I'm going to leave you alone to do the same. We will work together to resolve conflict peacefully, and if needed we can employ third party arbitration, but if someone tries to harm you, you have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary. You don't have to wait on the cops.

All this is predicated on law abiding citizens taking their communities back from the criminal element. I thought that was understood. We're not going to stop BGs from carrying guns and trying to hurt people, but if more people carried guns to defend themselves and their communities against the criminal element, the criminals will start to do their business elsewhere. No one, at least not I, advocated vigilante law. I proposed people police their communities, which means live in a manner that promotes peace, safety, good morals and order, and when necessary, defend yourself and/or others if the need should arise.


----------

