Switch to full style
This is the place to discuss the how, when, where and why we carry.
Post a reply

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:40 am

Selador wrote:
Massivedesign wrote:
golddigger14s wrote::thumbsup2:
Yeah more people giving their rights up. We are in a not required to inform state. Don't ask don't tell. :facepalm2:


What RIGHT did he give up?

The one he paid for?

If you tell someone about it, it's no longer 'concealed', even if they don't see it...


Concealed isn't a right, it's a "privilege".

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:42 am

Massivedesign wrote:
Selador wrote:
Massivedesign wrote:
golddigger14s wrote::thumbsup2:
Yeah more people giving their rights up. We are in a not required to inform state. Don't ask don't tell. :facepalm2:


What RIGHT did he give up?

The one he paid for?

If you tell someone about it, it's no longer 'concealed', even if they don't see it...


Concealed isn't a right, it's a "privilege".

One you paid for. Why give it up without being asked by the LEO?

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:46 pm

Selador wrote:One you paid for. Why give it up without being asked by the LEO?


Oh, i get it. I share your same principal. I am just confused by Chuck saying that he gave up his rights by offering the CPL, and asked for clarification of exactly what RIGHT was given up.

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:06 pm

Maybe it's the right to remain silent? :bigsmile: :peep:

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:10 pm

Massivedesign wrote:
Selador wrote:One you paid for. Why give it up without being asked by the LEO?


Oh, i get it. I share your same principal. I am just confused by Chuck saying that he gave up his rights by offering the CPL, and asked for clarification of exactly what RIGHT was given up.

I do as well. I also would like to hear a clarification of what was on his mind when he said that.

Maybe I shouldn't have popped in with my example. But I guess that's the nature of a forum discussion. LOL

In my own example, I have paid for a CPL. I passed the background check, and was issued the CPL.

In my mind, that is now more a right than a privilege. I have the privilege of carrying a gun, concealed. And I have the right not to tell anyone that I am carrying. (Remain silent, as Dana suggests.) Even an LEO, unless asked. (And in some situations I could see volunteering the information, without being asked. Sometime common sense beats 'rights'...) Anybody else, its simply none of their business.

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:59 pm

The power of the state to tax with or without a vote is a non sequitur with regard to whether cops are or are not held to a higher standard than the public at large.


Perhaps a bit of clarification....

This is what I meant...a goodly amount of the people (fortunately, none on this board I know of) are willing to vote for the privilege and opportunity of either: a. Giving the state MORE and MORE money, and b. Giving up their rights willingly.

An example is this: How many times has the State slipped in another tax here, another tax there? Look to the local governments as well. How in the HECK was Seattle able to pass a "soda tax" without a vote of the PEOPLE? By vote of the City Council. Who was voted into office by the citizens who live there.

Take a look at the "bullet tax" as well.

These are the same people who are on one hand willing to accept the opening of "safe injection sites", and who wail at alleged instances of "police brutality", yet are the FIRST ones to yell for the cops if something happens.

Does that make sense?

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:45 pm

Powderman wrote:
The power of the state to tax with or without a vote is a non sequitur with regard to whether cops are or are not held to a higher standard than the public at large.


Perhaps a bit of clarification....

This is what I meant...a goodly amount of the people (fortunately, none on this board I know of) are willing to vote for the privilege and opportunity of either: a. Giving the state MORE and MORE money, and b. Giving up their rights willingly.

An example is this: How many times has the State slipped in another tax here, another tax there? Look to the local governments as well. How in the HECK was Seattle able to pass a "soda tax" without a vote of the PEOPLE? By vote of the City Council. Who was voted into office by the citizens who live there.

Take a look at the "bullet tax" as well.

These are the same people who are on one hand willing to accept the opening of "safe injection sites", and who wail at alleged instances of "police brutality", yet are the FIRST ones to yell for the cops if something happens.

Does that make sense?


Makes total sense. And the endless adding and increasing of taxes pisses me off as much as the next guy.

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:35 pm

I wear my gun on my right side right by my wallet...if I reach for my wallet it could look like I'm reaching for my gun and I'm not going to take that chance....it only takes 1 " I thought he was reaching for a gun" incident and my family is left burying me all because I don't have to tell I'm carrying so I shouldn't...........I think I will just let them know up front and not take the chance.......Remember we would ALL like to go home at the end of the day. :thumbsup2:

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:43 pm

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re: Traffic Stops while Armed.

Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:25 am

golddigger14s wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


But that document is now dead. We have moved on and are now full of progressiveness...
Post a reply