Trump literally says 'we have to take their guns' ...

[Cigar]

Trump literally says 'we have to take their guns' and the Second Amendment advocates are silent (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/26/1574713/-Trump-literally-says-we-have-to-take-their-guns-and-the-Second-Amendment-advocates-are-silent)

http://images.dailykos.com/images/304464/story_image/GettyImages-610599892.jpg?1474940858

What. The. Hell.

Gun nuts, now is your time. After eight years of kicking and screaming that President Obama was going to take away your guns, Trump literally just said “we have to take their guns!” while discussing his plan to implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk program that has already been ruled unconstitutional. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/21/1572751/-Trump-tells-Ohio-audience-he-would-implement-NYC-s-disastrous-Stop-and-Frisk-policy-nationwide) Watch:


https://youtu.be/-q2LwreUCKU

Why so silent now, NRA?

[MisterVeritis]

Trump literally says 'we have to take their guns' and the Second Amendment advocates are silent (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/26/1574713/-Trump-literally-says-we-have-to-take-their-guns-and-the-Second-Amendment-advocates-are-silent)

What. The. Hell.

Gun nuts, now is your time. After eight years of kicking and screaming that President Obama was going to take away your guns, Trump literally just said “we have to take their guns!” while discussing his plan to implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk program that has already been ruled unconstitutional. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/21/1572751/-Trump-tells-Ohio-audience-he-would-implement-NYC-s-disastrous-Stop-and-Frisk-policy-nationwide) Watch:

Why so silent now, NRA?
You do know it is legal to disarm criminals, don't you?

Oh wait, Cigar. Never mind. Carry on.

By the way, your story is incorrect. Stop and frisk has not been ruled unconstitutional. A lower court ruling was not challenged by the liberal in charge. You know the one? He doesn't care enough about black criminals murdering other blacks so he failed to challenge the decision.

[Safety]

You do know it is legal to disarm criminals, don't you?

Oh wait, Cigar. Never mind. Carry on.

By the way, your story is incorrect. Stop and frisk has not been ruled unconstitutional. A lower court ruling was not challenged by the liberal in charge. You know the one? He doesn't care enough about black criminals murdering other blacks so he failed to challenge the decision.

So tell me, how do you take the criminal's guns and not violate the non-criminal's rights?

[MisterVeritis]

So tell me, how do you take the criminal's guns and not violate the non-criminal's rights?
Stop and frisk. Wasn't that the topic?

[decedent]

I can hear the gears grinding.

[MisterVeritis]

I can hear the gears grinding.
So you do have an imagination. Cool.

[FindersKeepers]

So tell me, how do you take the criminal's guns and not violate the non-criminal's rights?

I suppose you could confiscate the ones being carried by those who don't have valid CC licenses.

[Safety]

Stop and frisk. Wasn't that the topic?

Terry stops were ruled unconstitutional, therefore stop and frisk is also.


I suppose you could confiscate the ones being carried by those who don't have valid CC licenses.

What metric should be used to determine who is carrying illegally? Use Terry stops? What about those carrying concealed?

[FindersKeepers]

Terry stops were ruled unconstitutional, therefore stop and frisk is also.



What metric should be used to determine who is carrying illegally? Use Terry stops? What about those carrying concealed?


You asked how law-abiding gun owners could escape punishment if law enforcement opted to use stop-and-frisk and confiscate weapons.

The metric used to determine who is carrying illegally is a person who is carrying concealed without a valid license in a state that has issues CC licenses.

Those who are legally carrying, meaning they've undergone training and have a valid permit issued by the state would not suffer.

I don't know what a Terry stop is.

[The Xl]

Stop and frisks are absolutely unconstitutional. More police should be on the street in bad neighborhoods for sure, but stop and frisk is basically legalized racial discrimination.

[MisterVeritis]

Stop and frisks are absolutely unconstitutional. More police should be on the street in bad neighborhoods for sure, but stop and frisk is basically legalized racial discrimination.
No. It isn't.

But, as long as liberalism is allowing blacks to murder other blacks in large numbers should anyone have a problem with it?

[Safety]

You asked how law-abiding gun owners could escape punishment if law enforcement opted to use stop-and-frisk and confiscate weapons.

The metric used to determine who is carrying illegally is a person who is carrying concealed without a valid license in a state that has issues CC licenses.

Those who are legally carrying, meaning they've undergone training and have a valid permit issued by the state would not suffer.

I don't know what a Terry stop is.

No, I asked what criteria would be used to verify whether or not a citizen was armed, especially those carrying concealed.

The whole purpose of carrying concealed is just that, concealed. A police officer has to suspect that a crime has been committed, or getting ready to be committed before violating a person's Fourth Amendment right's.

[FindersKeepers]

No, I asked what criteria would be used to verify whether or not a citizen was armed, especially those carrying concealed.

No.

I was responding to post #3, where you said:

"So tell me, how do you take the criminal's guns and not violate the non-criminal's rights?"


I explained that the cops could confiscated the guns of those people who were carrying illegally. It's really that simple. Either the person has a CC license, or he doesn't. Take the guns from the ones who don't have the licenses, because they are carrying illegally, anyway.


The whole purpose of carrying concealed is just that, concealed. A police officer has to suspect that a crime has been committed, or getting ready to be committed before violating a person's Fourth Amendment right's.

Oh, well, I thought this was about the stop-and-frisk thing. If stop and frisk was used, the officer could find a concealed weapon that was being carried illegally. Most legal CC carriers would probably inform the officer of the presence of a gun from the get-go.

And, because so many are saying stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional, I thought it would be good to learn that Trump was actually right on that one.


Mr. Trump, technically, is right that the general tactic of stop-and-frisk was not deemed unconstitutional. The ruling in the civil-rights class-action case Mr. Trump was referring to didn’t order an end to the practice of stopping and searching pedestrians suspected of criminal activity.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled (http://nypdmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Floyd-Remedy-Opinion-8-12-13.pdf) that the policing tactic as deployed by the Bloomberg administration was unconstitutional because, in her view, police were frisking too many people without reasonable suspicion and that the city’s policy resulted in a “disproportionate and discriminatory stopping of blacks and Hispanics in violation of the Equal Protection Clause” of the Constitution.



http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/09/27/trump-and-hillary-on-stop-and-frisk-who-was-right/

We need to follow the appellate process to the SCOTUS and get a determination that carries some weight.

[Common Sense]

Could you imagine Clinton said, we're going to stop everyone who drives a pickup as they go through the McDonalds drive through to see if they are carrying a legal gun?

[AZ Jim]

I suppose you could confiscate the ones being carried by those who don't have valid CC licenses.In many states you require no cc license to carry.

[Ravens Fan]

No. It isn't.

But, as long as liberalism is allowing blacks to murder other blacks in large numbers should anyone have a problem with it?

Yes, everyone should have a problem with it. I do not agree with stop and frisk, but at least Trump is aiming at the real problem, instead of talking about "common sense gun control" which does nothing to address it.

[Safety]

No.

I was responding to post #3, where you said:

"So tell me, how do you take the criminal's guns and not violate the non-criminal's rights?"


I explained that the cops could confiscated the guns of those people who were carrying illegally. It's really that simple. Either the person has a CC license, or he doesn't. Take the guns from the ones who don't have the licenses, because they are carrying illegally, anyway.



Oh, well, I thought this was about the stop-and-frisk thing. If stop and frisk was used, the officer could find a concealed weapon that was being carried illegally. Most legal CC carriers would probably inform the officer of the presence of a gun from the get-go.

And, because so many are saying stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional, I thought it would be good to learn that Trump was actually right on that one.



http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/09/27/trump-and-hillary-on-stop-and-frisk-who-was-right/

We need to follow the appellate process to the SCOTUS and get a determination that carries some weight.

Again, how do you perform this "confiscation" without violating the citizen's 4th amendment?

[FindersKeepers]

Again, how do you perform this "confiscation" without violating the citizen's 4th amendment?


Okay, so I take it that you now agree with me that it's possible to take away a criminal's gun and not a law-abiding citizens gun.

Where you're getting hung up, in my opinion, is in thinking Stop-and-Frisk violates 4th amendment rights. I already posted where it isn't technically unconstitutional, and it's used in many places, whether or not they call it by that name, so it seems like at least ONE option for confiscating.

Perhaps officers need clear-cut guidelines for using stop and frisk. Loitering, out after curfew, things like that.

You're assuming it will violate rights, but SCOTUS has not ruled -- so you're just guessing.

[Safety]

Okay, so I take it that you now agree with me that it's possible to take away a criminal's gun and not a law-abiding citizens gun.

Where you're getting hung up, in my opinion, is in thinking Stop-and-Frisk violates 4th amendment rights. I already posted where it isn't technically unconstitutional, and it's used in many places, whether or not they call it by that name, so it seems like at least ONE option for confiscating.

Perhaps officers need clear-cut guidelines for using stop and frisk. Loitering, out after curfew, things like that.

You're assuming it will violate rights, but SCOTUS has not ruled -- so you're just guessing.

Actually, no I don't agree with your statement, because the very nature that "stop and frisk" was implemented under targeted a subgroup of citizens because they happened to share unchangeable traits with those who committed crimes. Now, Ben Franklin spoke some heavy words such as "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Now, I'm sure many here have good intentions, well I think the only one with good intentions are you, but that's for another time....but color me skeptical that the very one's who are championing for the "safety of blacks" by implementing stop and frisk, would holler like a stuck pig if they were on the receiving end of such a policy.

[MisterVeritis]

Could you imagine Clinton said, we're going to stop everyone who drives a pickup as they go through the McDonalds drive through to see if they are carrying a legal gun?
Are pickup trucks and McDonalds visits associated with the murders of white people?

Clinton wants to take guns away from the law-abiding while releasing black criminals from jails. Cool idea, no?

[MisterVeritis]

In many states you require no cc license to carry.
Right. Confiscate weapons from those who are breaking the relevant laws. NYC, no doubt, makes legal gun ownership onerous. Other places abide by the Constitution.

In addition to stop and frisk, we also need common sense welfare reform. End all welfare programs carried out by or under the direction of the federal government. Over time ending welfare will also significantly reduce crime. It will also reduce rap music. Threefer.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, everyone should have a problem with it. I do not agree with stop and frisk, but at least Trump is aiming at the real problem, instead of talking about "common sense gun control" which does nothing to address it.
Stop and frisk is fine.

[MisterVeritis]

Again, how do you perform this "confiscation" without violating the citizen's 4th amendment?
We could eliminate use of the nation's intelligence agencies to spy on us.

If a weapon is carried lawfully there should be no problem. If unlawfully, hold a hearing.

[MisterVeritis]

Actually, no I don't agree with your statement, because the very nature that "stop and frisk" was implemented under targeted a subgroup of citizens because they happened to share unchangeable traits with those who committed crimes. Now, Ben Franklin spoke some heavy words such as "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Now, I'm sure many here have good intentions, well I think the only one with good intentions are you, but that's for another time....but color me skeptical that the very one's who are championing for the "safety of blacks" by implementing stop and frisk, would holler like a stuck pig if they were on the receiving end of such a policy.
Right. Stop and frisk was used in high crime neighborhoods.

It is better for one hundred blacks to be murdered than for one gangbanger to be deprived of his terror instrument. Am I right?

[Safety]

We could eliminate use of the nation's intelligence agencies to spy on us.

If a weapon is carried lawfully there should be no problem. If unlawfully, hold a hearing.

Quantify how you would tell if a person is carrying it lawfully. That is my point.

Will it be "paper's please"?

[Safety]

Right. Stop and frisk was used in high crime neighborhoods.

It is better for one hundred blacks to be murdered than for one gangbanger to be deprived of his terror instrument. Am I right?

Water your strawman, it's getting dry.

[MisterVeritis]

Now, I'm sure many here have good intentions, well I think the only one with good intentions are you, but that's for another time....but color me skeptical that the very one's who are championing for the "safety of blacks" by implementing stop and frisk, would holler like a stuck pig if they were on the receiving end of such a policy.
Let's assume you are taking a shot at me (and Trump). No matter what OUR intentions are, the actions we propose will save black lives. For some of us black lives matter. No matter what your intention is more blacks will be murdered by blacks. Because for some of you the only black lives that matter are those where a police shooting is involved.

[MisterVeritis]

Water your strawman, it's getting dry.
No straw men were involved. Why do you hate blacks?

[MisterVeritis]

Quantify how you would tell if a person is carrying it lawfully. That is my point.

Will it be "paper's please"?
Stop and frisk seems pretty simple. A team of cops patrols a high crime neighborhood. If they suspect me they stop me. I tell them I am carrying a concealed weapon lawfully. They frisk me and determine that I have a weapon. They take it from me while they confirm that I am carrying it lawfully. They return my weapon to me and go their merry way. I do the same. It is much like a traffic stop.

[Safety]

Let's assume you are taking a shot at me (and Trump). No matter what OUR intentions are, the actions we propose will save black lives. For some of us black lives matter. No matter what your intention is more blacks will be murdered by blacks. Because for some of you the only black lives that matter are those where a police shooting is involved.

:rofl: you should be Trump's misinformation minister, like Baghdad Bob.

[Safety]

No straw men were involved. Why do you hate blacks?

Damn, the other strawman blew away and you decided to create one out of bricks, eh?

[Ethereal]

Stop and frisk is police statism at its worst.

It gives government agents the arbitrary power to detain and molest civilians on a whim.

So of course Trump supporters love it.

[decedent]

Fascist Shrillary wants to disarm Americans and implement a national stop-and-frisk program to turn people into sheeple. Oh wait...

[Safety]

Stop and frisk seems pretty simple. A team of cops patrols a high crime neighborhood. If they suspect me they stop me. I tell them I am carrying a concealed weapon lawfully. They frisk me and determine that I have a weapon. They take it from me while they confirm that I am carrying it lawfully. They return my weapon to me and go their merry way. I do the same. It is much like a traffic stop.

Yes, I frequent enough gun forums to know that shit is bullshit. You and others like you would be on every gun forum hollering about how it was time to arm up and have a revolt.

[MisterVeritis]

Let's assume you are taking a shot at me (and Trump). No matter what OUR intentions are, the actions we propose will save black lives. For some of us black lives matter. No matter what your intention is more blacks will be murdered by blacks. Because for some of you the only black lives that matter are those where a police shooting is involved.

:rofl: you should be Trump's misinformation minister, like Baghdad Bob.
Are you objecting to something? Or have you recognized that you have painted yourself into a horrible, anti-black corner?

[MisterVeritis]

Stop and frisk is police statism at its worst.

It gives government agents the arbitrary power to detain and molest civilians on a whim.

So of course Trump supporters love it.
Stop and frisk is good police work. Nothing more.

[MisterVeritis]

Fascist Shrillary wants to disarm Americans and implement a national stop-and-frisk program to turn people into sheeple. Oh wait...
Kook Alert. Usual suspect.

[Ethereal]

Arguments from "safety" and "security" are the most common excuse for tyranny.

[Safety]

Let's assume you are taking a shot at me (and Trump). No matter what OUR intentions are, the actions we propose will save black lives. For some of us black lives matter. No matter what your intention is more blacks will be murdered by blacks. Because for some of you the only black lives that matter are those where a police shooting is involved.

Are you objecting to something? Or have you recognized that you have painted yourself into a horrible, anti-black corner?

What corner? You being pro-black is like saying Michael Moore likes rice cakes.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes, I frequent enough gun forums to know that $#@! is bull$#@!. You and others like you would be on every gun forum hollering about how it was time to arm up and have a revolt.
As long as the laws are followed I have no objections to measures taken to improve my safety. (see what I did there, Safety?)

[Private Pickle]

Stop and frisk is police statism at its worst.

It gives government agents the arbitrary power to detain and molest civilians on a whim.

So of course Trump supporters love it.

So it was shown to reduce murders in NY. I get the idea behind improper search and seizure but with regards to "stop and frisk", if done so in crime ridden areas, areas known to be a hotbed of murders and crime, it has shown to be effective.

Bottom line? It's between two scenarios. Let's take the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. 1st scenario is to deregulate Chicago's gun laws and allow for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with firearms they currently cannot get. The second is to target crime ridden "hot spots" and stop and frisk.

Since we know the former will never happen the latter doesn't look all that bad. If you want to call it racism that's all good. But in reality they are targeting areas of high crime.

Trump was right. 4,000 deaths in Chicago since Obama took office is on par with the KIA we've seen during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Solution? Treat them like warzones...given that's exactly what they are...

[Ethereal]

Stop and frisk is good police work. Nothing more.

No, it's government tyranny based on the oldest excuse in the book: Safety.

Every tyrant claims that they're harassing and molesting and killing people in order make us all safe.

Sometimes real liberty means exposing ourselves to some additional risk. But it's better than being safe slaves.

[MisterVeritis]

Let's assume you are taking a shot at me (and Trump). No matter what OUR intentions are, the actions we propose will save black lives. For some of us black lives matter. No matter what your intention is more blacks will be murdered by blacks. Because for some of you the only black lives that matter are those where a police shooting is involved.

Are you objecting to something? Or have you recognized that you have painted yourself into a horrible, anti-black corner?

What corner? You being pro-black is like saying Michael Moore likes rice cakes.
And yet my way preserves black lives. Your way ensures more blacks will be murdered.

Conundrum.

[MisterVeritis]

No, it's government tyranny based on the oldest excuse in the book: Safety.

Every tyrant claims that they're harassing and molesting and killing people in order make us all safe.

Sometimes real liberty means exposing ourselves to some additional risk. But it's better than being safe slaves.
Sometimes you are simply wrong. This is such a time.

By the way, I am not exposed to additional risks. I do not live in a high crime neighborhood.

[Ethereal]

As long as the laws are followed I have no objections to measures taken to improve my safety. (see what I did there, Safety?)

You want the government to keep you safe? What else do you want them to do for you?

[MisterVeritis]

So it was shown to reduce murders in NY. I get the idea behind improper search and seizure but with regards to "stop and frisk", if done so in crime ridden areas, areas known to be a hotbed of murders and crime, it has shown to be effective.

Bottom line? It's between two scenarios. Let's take the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. 1st scenario is to deregulate Chicago's gun laws and allow for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with firearms they currently cannot get. The second is to target crime ridden "hot spots" and stop and frisk.

Since we know the former will never happen the latter doesn't look all that bad. If you want to call it racism that's all good. But in reality they are targeting areas of high crime.

Trump was right. 4,000 deaths in Chicago since Obama took office is on par with the KIA we've seen during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Solution? Treat them like warzones...given that's exactly what they are...
I do agree that arming and training every law-abiding citizen is in our best interest. We could begin by no longer taxing any business involved with supplying arms, ammunition and training to American citizens.

[Ethereal]

Sometimes you are simply wrong. This is such a time.

Not at all.

My beliefs are in line with the founding fathers, yours are not.

You want hordes of government agents roaming the streets and keeping you "safe" from the infinitesimal probability that something bad might happen to you or someone else.

That is not consistent with the American conception of liberty. It is tyrannical in the extreme.

[MisterVeritis]

You want the government to keep you safe? What else do you want them to do for you?
Yeah. That is a principal purpose of governments.

[MisterVeritis]

Not at all.

My beliefs are in line with the founding fathers, yours are not.

You want hordes of government agents roaming the streets and keeping you "safe" from the infinitesimal probability that something bad might happen to you or someone else.

That is not consistent with the American conception of liberty. It is tyrannical in the extreme.
Every now and again you get stupid.

This is one of those times. I understand.

[Cigar]

I have 8 more hours in my CCW class ...

So Donald, any day you want to come get this S&W MP Shield ... come get some. :laugh:

http://clipdraw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/shield_ig_2.jpg (http://clipdraw.com/product/smith-wesson-mp-shield-belt-clip-for-concealed-carry/)

[MisterVeritis]

I have 8 more hours in my CCW class ...

So Donald, any day you want to come get this S&W MP Shield ... come get some. :laugh:


This makes me laugh. Despite your high levels of goofiness from time to time, I suspect you are the sort of
American who should be armed all the time. Stop and frisk is no danger to you. You are one of the law abiding American citizens.

Thank you for carrying a concealed weapon.

[Private Pickle]

I do agree that arming and training every law-abiding citizen is in our best interest. We could begin by no longer taxing any business involved with supplying arms, ammunition and training to American citizens.

Gun stores aren't churches and tax exemption on churches is the antithesis of the separation of church and State.

How about this? K-12 education on our Constitutional rights including the 2nd. Firearm training specifically with regards to safety starting in 1st grade. Understanding the rights that come with the Constitution and taking responsibility for the harm and or damage that can come from abusing those rights.

In other words, educate...not placate...

[Ethereal]

Trump supporters only support stop and frisk policies because it mostly effects poor blacks. If stop and frisk showed up in their own neighborhoods, they would scream bloody murder about government tyranny.

[MisterVeritis]

Trump supporters only support stop and frisk policies because it mostly effects poor blacks. If stop and frisk showed up in their own neighborhoods, they would scream bloody murder about government tyranny.
If I lived in a high crime neighborhood I would want stop and frisk. Wouldn't you?

[Private Pickle]

I have 8 more hours in my CCW class ...

So Donald, any day you want to come get this S&W MP Shield ... come get some. :laugh:

http://clipdraw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/shield_ig_2.jpg (http://clipdraw.com/product/smith-wesson-mp-shield-belt-clip-for-concealed-carry/)

8 hours huh? Wow man... You're a real Barnaby Jones!

BTW posting a picture of an auto S&W while touting your "education" just makes you look like an idiot. You wanna go S&W buy a revolver. Their autos are shit.

[Ethereal]

Every now and again you get stupid.

This is one of those times. I understand.

You support tyranny. And you support it because you want the government to keep you safe. Trump is a wanna-be tyrant who will grow the government and impose his perverse version of "law and order" on America. And you support him too.

[Private Pickle]

Trump supporters only support stop and frisk policies because it mostly effects poor blacks. If stop and frisk showed up in their own neighborhoods, they would scream bloody murder about government tyranny.

BULLSHIT Hillary meme. Stop and frisk targets high crime areas. Is it truly the fault of the policy that those high crime areas are populated by predominately blacks because they commit the most crime? Sorry...I don't feel guilty for zeroing in on warzones like Chicago because the majority of crime being committed there is by minorities.

Crime = Crime.

[MisterVeritis]

8 hours huh? Wow man... You're a real Barnaby Jones!

BTW posting a picture of an auto S&W while touting your "education" just makes you look like an idiot. You wanna go S&W buy a revolver. Their autos are $#@!.
Don't be mean! I chose a small Glock for concealed carry. We all have our reasons.

[Ethereal]

If I lived in a high crime neighborhood I would want stop and frisk. Wouldn't you?

I would want to the liberty to defend myself from criminals. Stop and frisk is security for slaves, not freemen.

[MisterVeritis]

Every now and again you get stupid.

This is one of those times. I understand.

You support tyranny. And you support it because you want the government to keep you safe. Trump is a wanna-be tyrant who will grow the government and impose his perverse version of "law and order" on America. And you support him too.
This makes me smile.

There are times when you are right. This is not that time.

[MisterVeritis]

I would want to the liberty to defend myself from criminals. Stop and frisk is security for slaves, not freemen.
Stop being stupid. It is unbecoming.

[Private Pickle]

Don't be mean! I chose a small Glock for concealed carry. We all have our reasons.

My CC is a Glock 43. Single stack. I added the magazine extension so it's 8+1 that can fit in the palm of my hand.

[Ethereal]

BULL$#@! Hillary meme. Stop and frisk targets high crime areas. Is it truly the fault of the policy that those high crime areas are populated by predominately blacks because they commit the most crime? Sorry...I don't feel guilty for zeroing in on warzones like Chicago because the majority of crime being committed there is by minorities.

Crime = Crime.

Stop and frisk treats Americans like slaves. I don't think Americans should be treated like slaves just because they live in an area that has higher crime than most areas.

[Private Pickle]

I would want to the liberty to defend myself from criminals. Stop and frisk is security for slaves, not freemen.

Right...I'm sure Chicago will get right on that liberty agenda.... They want to create a warzone they should expect to be treated like they live in a warzone. It's either that or let them defend themselves...

What do you think Emanuel will do?

[MisterVeritis]

My CC is a Glock 43. Single stack. I added the magazine extension so it's 8+1 that can fit in the palm of my hand.
Mine is a P26. We all select our weapons for our own reasons. The P26 is small in my hand. But it conceals very nicely.

[Cigar]

8 hours huh? Wow man... You're a real Barnaby Jones!

BTW posting a picture of an auto S&W while touting your "education" just makes you look like an idiot. You wanna go S&W buy a revolver. Their autos are $#@!.

Illinois Law says you have to take the 16 hours ... if you want the privilege to Conceal & Carry. I'm taking mine from a current Illinois State Trooper.

BTW, I spend my money on whatever the F'ck I want with my money on, and if you don't like it, you can floss with my crack hairs. :grin:

[Private Pickle]

Stop and frisk treats Americans like slaves. I don't think Americans should be treated like slaves just because they live in an area that has higher crime than most areas.

They have elected the officials that have allowed their city to become a warzone. They are just as culpable as those actually shooting each other... Then they demand more protection.

Sorry...you can't have your liberal cake and eat it too... You reap what you sow. But the status quo cannot continue because every American, in good conscious, either should go to Chicago and take the city back themselves or allow the authorities to treat that city how it should be treated.

And you and I both know how Americans who stand up to their government and say "FUCK YOU" are treated. Just look at the corpse of Finnicum.

[Ethereal]

This makes me smile.

There are times when you are right. This is not that time.

There were no organized police forces during early American history. For one, the very concept of a career-class of salaried government agents roaming their towns would have been unthinkable to a people who had just revolved against their own government. And for another, Americans were not willing to countenance the level of taxation needed to finance such a bloated government agency. Your love of government agents who subsist on tax dollars, and who exercise arbitrary authority over Americans, is tyrannical in the extreme, and totally inconsistent with American liberty as it was understood by the founders.

[del]

They have elected the officials that have allowed their city to become a warzone. They are just as culpable as those actually shooting each other... Then they demand more protection.

Sorry...you can't have your liberal cake and eat it too... You reap what you sow. But the status quo cannot continue because every American, in good conscious, either should go to Chicago and take the city back themselves or allow the authorities to treat that city how it should be treated.


jawohl

[Ethereal]

Stop being stupid. It is unbecoming.

You want the government to treat your fellow Americans like slaves, so if anyone is being stupid, it's you.

[Cigar]

Mine is a P26. We all select our weapons for our own reasons. The P26 is small in my hand. But it conceals very nicely.

That was all I was looking for, something small and without a lot to print.

I have no intentions of carrying much, because most of the places I go don't allow any Guns.

But I like having options.

[Private Pickle]

Mine is a P26. We all select our weapons for our own reasons. The P26 is small in my hand. But it conceals very nicely.

More capacity but 3/4 thicker. I find my 43 doesn't print at all. My 19 (same width as the 26) prints.

[Ethereal]

Right...I'm sure Chicago will get right on that liberty agenda.... They want to create a warzone they should expect to be treated like they live in a warzone. It's either that or let them defend themselves...

What do you think Emanuel will do?

I don't really care what they want to do or what they will do. Stop and frisk is how slaves are kept safe. Liberty is how freemen are kept safe.

[Private Pickle]

Illinois Law says you have to take the 16 hours ... if you want the privilege to Conceal & Carry. I'm taking mine from a current Illinois State Trooper.

BTW, I spend my money on whatever the F'ck I want with my money on, and if you don't like it, you can floss with my crack hairs. :grin:

Sure. Take 16 hours of training and feel like you're Doc Holliday in Tombstone. No skin off my teeth.

[Private Pickle]

jawohl

Godwin is your friend.

[del]

Godwin is your friend.

if it quacks like ein ente....

[Cigar]

Sure. Take 16 hours of training and feel like you're Doc Holliday in Tombstone. No skin off my teeth.

Look DS, I've been shooting guns for years ... but if you want to be able to C&C in Illinois, you have to take the Class.

It has nothing to do with Cowboys and everything to do with not breaking the Law you F'cking idiot. :rollseyes:

[Private Pickle]

I don't really care what they want to do or what they will do. Stop and frisk is how slaves are kept safe. Liberty is how freemen are kept safe.

Yet you are ignoring the reality. Do you think Chicago will "get better" given Hillary's plans of "community outreach"? Or do you think the gun laws in Chicago will continue to lead to more deaths?

[Crepitus]

You asked how law-abiding gun owners could escape punishment if law enforcement opted to use stop-and-frisk and confiscate weapons.

The metric used to determine who is carrying illegally is a person who is carrying concealed without a valid license in a state that has issues CC licenses.

Those who are legally carrying, meaning they've undergone training and have a valid permit issued by the state would not suffer.

I don't know what a Terry stop is.

Thanks to Sammy everybody here in Brownbackistan can carry concealed without a permit!

[Private Pickle]

Look DS, I've been shoot gun for years ... but if you want to be able to C&C in Illinois, you have to take the Class.

It has nothing to do with Cowboys and everything to do with not breaking the Law you F'cking idiot. :rollseyes:

You've been shoot gun for years? Have you been drink whiskey for hour too?

Cowboys? Breaking the law? Maybe you haven't realized this but your praised Chicago gun laws is what has led to that city killing more Americans than died in the Iraq war which lasted ten years. Get a grip you fucking race baiting lemming.

[Crepitus]

Yes, everyone should have a problem with it. I do not agree with stop and frisk, but at least Trump is aiming at the real problem, instead of talking about "common sense gun control" which does nothing to address it.

Trump is talking gun confiscation.

[Private Pickle]

if it quacks like ein ente....

Sure Stalin...let's round up those ducks and send em to reeducation camps! Amirite comrade!

This is fun.

[del]

You've been shoot gun for years? Have you been drink whiskey for hour too?

Cowboys? Breaking the law? Maybe you haven't realized this but your praised Chicago gun laws is what has led to that city killing more Americans than died in the Iraq war which lasted ten years. Get a grip you fucking race baiting lemming.


you seem tense, gunther

[Cigar]

you seem tense, gunther

More like Uptight :laugh:

[Ravens Fan]

Stop and frisk is fine.

I disagree. The ends do not always justify the means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Private Pickle]

you seem tense, gunther

Nah. Just got off work and am letting off some steam Ivan! <3 U!

[Crepitus]

Are pickup trucks and McDonalds visits associated with the murders of white people?

Clinton wants to take guns away from the law-abiding while releasing black criminals from jails. Cool idea, no?

Actually no, Trump is the only one talking about gun confiscation.

[del]

Nah. Just got off work and am letting off some steam Ivan! <3 U!

someone pull you through the window again?

that sucks

[Private Pickle]

Actually no, Trump is the only one talking about gun confiscation.

That's both funny and a lie given Hillary's quote on guns last night. You watched right? She did actually say that "stop and frisk" works....or maybe you missed that...

[Cigar]

You've been shoot gun for years? Have you been drink whiskey for hour too?

Cowboys? Breaking the law? Maybe you haven't realized this but your praised Chicago gun laws is what has led to that city killing more Americans than died in the Iraq war which lasted ten years. Get a grip you $#@!ing race baiting lemming.

WTF are you talking about ... are you drink your crack?

F'ck You ... you little temperamental b!tch ... are you on your period?

[Crepitus]

Right. Confiscate weapons from those who are breaking the relevant laws. NYC, no doubt, makes legal gun ownership onerous. Other places abide by the Constitution.

In addition to stop and frisk, we also need common sense welfare reform. End all welfare programs carried out by or under the direction of the federal government. Over time ending welfare will also significantly reduce crime. It will also reduce rap music. Threefer.

If you cut welfare you will see a huge crime wave generated by people trying to feed themselves and their children.

[Private Pickle]

someone pull you through the window again?

that sucks

No idea what that means.... Hopefully it's not another symptom of dementia... You should contact Hillary on that... I hear e-mail is your best bet...

[del]

No idea what that means.... Hopefully it's not another symptom of dementia... You should contact Hillary on that... I hear e-mail is your best bet...

it's okay, gunther

clark griswold's dog does a better job of keeping up than you do, but you're all right

[Ravens Fan]

Trump is talking gun confiscation.

He was talking about illegal weapons in the hands of felons. That is not the same as the confiscation the hard left wants, not by far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MisterVeritis]

There were no organized police forces during early American history. For one, the very concept of a career-class of salaried government agents roaming their towns would have been unthinkable to a people who had just revolved against their own government. And for another, Americans were not willing to countenance the level of taxation needed to finance such a bloated government agency. Your love of government agents who subsist on tax dollars, and who exercise arbitrary authority over Americans, is tyrannical in the extreme, and totally inconsistent with American liberty as it was understood by the founders.
Police and other safety powers are inherent in the state. There is nothing inherently tyrannical about people choosing to have specialists perform a task on their behalf. Give this particular issue a rest. You are wrong and will never be right.

[MisterVeritis]

You want the government to treat your fellow Americans like slaves, so if anyone is being stupid, it's you.
Citizens have the right to determine what things their government will do for them. We have chosen to use professionals for safety. Now go away.

[MisterVeritis]

More capacity but 3/4 thicker. I find my 43 doesn't print at all. My 19 (same width as the 26) prints.
I am considering a new holster. It should allow even more options for concealed carry. It is pricey so I have not yet "pulled the trigger". I bought wireless speakers for my wife's next party instead.

[Crepitus]

8 hours huh? Wow man... You're a real Barnaby Jones!

BTW posting a picture of an auto S&W while touting your "education" just makes you look like an idiot. You wanna go S&W buy a revolver. Their autos are shit.

Never owned a S&W auto, but I've heard great things about the revolvers.

[Private Pickle]

I disagree. The ends do not always justify the means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In areas of high crime stop and frisk works.

[Private Pickle]

WTF are you talking about ... are you drink your crack?

F'ck You ... you little temperamental b!tch ... are you on your period?

Are I drink my crack? LOL Look in the mirror...

[Private Pickle]

it's okay, gunther

clark griswold's dog does a better job of keeping up than you do, but you're all right

Clark never had a dog.... And he only kept up for about a mile or so...poor little pup...

[Ravens Fan]

In areas of high crime stop and frisk works.

It also violates the 4th Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cigar]

I disagree. The ends do not always justify the means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's all good, until it happens to them ... several times or it happens to their Women :laugh:

[del]

Clark never had a dog.... And he only kept up for about a mile or so...poor little pup...

so close to getting it...

[Crepitus]

That's both funny and a lie given Hillary's quote on guns last night. You watched right? She did actually say that "stop and frisk" works....or maybe you missed that...

I watched it, but I was watching my kids too so it's possible I missed it. Don't recall her saying that though. Anyway the jury is kinda out on stop and frisk. Crime was already on the way down when it was implemented and continued to drop even after it stopped.

[Private Pickle]

I am considering a new holster. It should allow even more options for concealed carry. It is pricey so I have not yet "pulled the trigger". I bought wireless speakers for my wife's next party instead.

You have two real choices. Appendix or small of the back. A lot of guys don't like the appendix holsters because they are afraid of losing Mr. Bojangles but it prints less and is just as safe.

Ankle holsters and shoulder holsters (not including the tank tops that have holsters) are easily identifiable. If you're identified then you really aren't carrying concealed and can be charged.

[Private Pickle]

Never owned a S&W auto, but I've heard great things about the revolvers.

The best revolvers for 100 years... The worst semi's since Ruger....

[MisterVeritis]

If you cut welfare you will see a huge crime wave generated by people trying to feed themselves and their children.
It need not be cold turkey. But we no longer need to have the underclass breed new Democrats. We already have way too many.

[Cigar]

It also violates the 4th Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://empathyeducates.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CCRStpFrskImg-copy.png

[MisterVeritis]

You have two real choices. Appendix or small of the back. A lot of guys don't like the appendix holsters because they are afraid of losing Mr. Bojangles but it prints less and is just as safe.

Ankle holsters and shoulder holsters (not including the tank tops that have holsters) are easily identifiable. If you're identified then you really aren't carrying concealed and can be charged.
This holster is designed for front wear.

[Private Pickle]

It also violates the 4th Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The meme that stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional is false. But like I said you have two choices. Either allow stop and frisk or allow everyone, including the law abiding citizens that can't carry, to carry. Something tells me places like Chicago won't do the latter...

[Crepitus]

The best revolvers for 100 years... The worst semi's since Ruger....

Hey, I like my ruger! It's never given me any trouble.

[Private Pickle]

so close to getting it...

So far from making an actual point.

[Private Pickle]

I watched it, but I was watching my kids too so it's possible I missed it. Don't recall her saying that though. Anyway the jury is kinda out on stop and frisk. Crime was already on the way down when it was implemented and continued to drop even after it stopped.

By 200%?

[del]

So far from making an actual point.

well, you never have so it's not like i expect you to.

[Private Pickle]

This holster is designed for front wear.

That's appendix.

[Private Pickle]

Hey, I like my ruger! It's never given me any trouble.

Ruger 10-22's and Ruger .22L's are great. Anything above and including a .9MM you are taking your life into your hands.

[Cigar]

Hey, I like my ruger! It's never given me any trouble.

The 10 Best Concealed Carry Guns
http://concealednation.org/2014/07/the-10-best-concealed-carry-guns/

[Private Pickle]

well, you never have so it's not like i expect you to.

Well I suppose that makes two of us. We should get together and I can drink beers while you drink your castor oil. Good times!

[Crepitus]

By 200%?

Pretty steady trend both before and after iirc. Hafta see if I can find stats.

[MisterVeritis]

It also violates the 4th Amendment.

It has the potential, no doubt. How about if we just use it until the number of murders in black communities stops rising?

[Private Pickle]

Pretty steady trend both before and after iirc. Hafta see if I can find stats.

Enjoy that. Shouldn't take you all that long.

[Crepitus]

Ruger 10-22's and Ruger .22L's are great. Anything above and including a .9MM you are taking your life into your hands.

Huh, I gotta LC9. Put plenty of rounds through it without a hitch. And I love my 10-22

[MisterVeritis]

I watched it, but I was watching my kids too so it's possible I missed it. Don't recall her saying that though. Anyway the jury is kinda out on stop and frisk. Crime was already on the way down when it was implemented and continued to drop even after it stopped.
Murders went up after stop and frisk was ended.

[Ravens Fan]

http://empathyeducates.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CCRStpFrskImg-copy.png

Why are you arguing with me? I already said I did not agree with the policy. I don't think trump would be able to implement it anyways. But he at least, is pointing out the real gun problem in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crepitus]

Enjoy that. Shouldn't take you all that long.

16256

[Ravens Fan]

The meme that stop and frisk has been ruled unconstitutional is false. But like I said you have two choices. Either allow stop and frisk or allow everyone, including the law abiding citizens that can't carry, to carry. Something tells me places like Chicago won't do the latter...

The 4th is pretty clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crepitus]

Murders went up after stop and frisk was ended.

Link?

[Cigar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/nyregion/what-donald-trump-got-wrong-on-stop-and-frisk.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/trump-incorrectly-says-murders-are-up-in-new-york/

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/ending-new-yorks-stop-and-frisk-did-not-increase-crime

... there's just way too much data ...

Forgive me if these facts are insulting anyone. :laugh:

[MisterVeritis]

Link?
No. I am not that interested. I saw it on TV this morning.

Blacks can murder blacks with the approval of white liberals. Its cool.

[Mister D]

Why are you arguing with me? I already said I did not agree with the policy. I don't think trump would be able to implement it anyways. But he at least, is pointing out the real gun problem in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Exactly. Some of our members keep asking why they don't 'stop and frisk' the suburban white kids. Well, it's because they don't carry guns. What about Columbine, Mister D!!?

You can't have a rational discussion about race on this forum.

[Ravens Fan]

It has the potential, no doubt. How about if we just use it until the number of murders in black communities stops rising?

What other sections of the bill of rights would you like to suspend for our own good?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cigar]

Why are you arguing with me? I already said I did not agree with the policy. I don't think trump would be able to implement it anyways. But he at least, is pointing out the real gun problem in America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm providing factual data ... who said I was arguing with you? :laugh:

Do you see an issue with the data? :tongue:

[MisterVeritis]

What other sections of the bill of rights would you like to suspend for our own good?

You err. I don't mind.

[Mister D]

The only serious objection to 'stop and frisk' type policies is that rights are violated for no apparent gain. Argue that stats. The racism angle is....it's just retarded. I like some of the people engaging in it and it's nothing personal but it's just really silly.

[Crepitus]

No. I am not that interested. I saw it on TV this morning.

Blacks can murder blacks with the approval of white liberals. Its cool.

So, just your opinion then.

[Cigar]

No. I am not that interested. I saw it on TV this morning.

Blacks can murder blacks with the approval of white liberals. Its cool.

I've been Black for over 50 years and I didn't know about this approval thing ... :laugh:

[Private Pickle]

Huh, I gotta LC9. Thanks n posts rounds through it without a hitch. And I love my 10-22

Everything I've read about the LC9 has been pretty good. It's light but that can be a bad thing given the recoil. I shot one at my range a few months ago and it behaves similarly to my G43 with the exception of the insanely long trigger pull, which isn't something you want in a defensive shoot. I think it was at 6.3lbs vs. the 3lbs of my 43. It also doesn't come with any additional mags. You can order 3rd party but who wants to do that? Given that and it's virtually impossible to engage the safety with the right hand (why does the CC have a safety again?) speaks to why one shouldn't have a frame mounted safety.

At the end of the day the differences are minimal. But Glock has the decades of tried and true non-malfunctioning weapons. Glock is essentially to pistols what the AK-47 is to rifles. You just know for a fact that it will not fail and that is proven. That is a hard argument to follow.

Besides, I have a G-19 for my combat pistol and my G-43 for my carry. Both utilize the same ammo which is appealing to me and both have the same breakdown which is easy for me. I tend to lean towards efficiency in that regard.

Now with that being said I would take the AR-15 over the AK-74 any day due to it's accuracy. The AK is a shoot lead down range weapon without fail. The AR is a precise weapon meant for precise shooting. I favor the latter.

[Private Pickle]

16256

If you could expand that would be great... I don't understand your point here....Are you saying that crime rate has stayed the same and the stoppage of said crime rate has declined? If so...one needs to ask themselves why....

[MisterVeritis]

So, just your opinion then.
LOL. If that makes you feel better run with it.

[Ravens Fan]

Exactly. Some of our members keep asking why they don't 'stop and frisk' the suburban white kids. Well, it's because they don't carry guns. What about Columbine, Mister D!!?

You can't have a rational discussion about race on this forum.

I wasn't really trying to go in that direction, I know and have known plenty of white kids here in the suburbs who carry illegal guns.

I can understand why some would want such drastic action taken in the high crime areas, that is where the guns are being used at a much higher rate. But the ends do not always justify the means... Violating ones constitutional rights is not cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cigar]

The only serious objection to 'stop and frisk' type policies is that rights are violated for no apparent gain. Argue that stats. The racism angle is....it's just retarded. I like some of the people engaging in it and it's nothing personal but it's just really silly.

I have NO Problem with Police Officers using their Skill, training and Intuition to stop and prevent crime.

But when the data says 99 out of 100 Stop and Frisk uncover nothing ... then you have to question the tactic, the skill, training or intuition.

Now if you're only using the tactic on 13% of the population and you still are coming up with the same results ... well admitting the tactic is wrong may not be the wrong thing to do.

Just saying ... it's only Math, and Math is Color Blind.

[MisterVeritis]

I've been Black for over 50 years and I didn't know about this approval thing ... :laugh:
How many other blacks have you murdered?

[Private Pickle]

The 4th is pretty clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. And if stop and frisk was implemented in my neighborhood I would be extremely curious as to why...given I live in a low crime area.

With that being said we have had 4,000 dead in Chicago since Obama took office. That is on par with how many soldiers we lost in Iraq. That, to me, is a warzone. Either we allow the citizenry to defend themselves or we treat Chicago like a warzone. Which is it?

[MisterVeritis]

I wasn't really trying to go in that direction, I know and have known plenty of white kids here in the suburbs who carry illegal guns.

I can understand why some would want such drastic action taken in the high crime areas, that is where the guns are being used at a much higher rate. But the ends do not always justify the means... Violating ones constitutional rights is not cool.

I suppose the murdered ones used to share your opinion.

[Crepitus]

Everything I've read about the LC9 has been pretty good. It's light but that can be a bad thing given the recoil. I shot one at my range a few months ago and it behaves similarly to my G43 with the exception of the insanely long trigger pull, which isn't something you want in a defensive shoot. I think it was at 6.3lbs vs. the 3lbs of my 43. It also doesn't come with any additional mags. You can order 3rd party but who wants to do that? Given that and it's virtually impossible to engage the safety with the right hand (why does the CC have a safety again?) speaks to why one shouldn't have a frame mounted safety.

At the end of the day the differences are minimal. But Glock has the decades of tried and true non-malfunctioning weapons. Glock is essentially to pistols what the AK-47 is to rifles. You just know for a fact that it will not fail and that is proven. That is a hard argument to follow.

Besides, I have a G-19 for my combat pistol and my G-43 for my carry. Both utilize the same ammo which is appealing to me and both have the same breakdown which is easy for me. I tend to lean towards efficiency in that regard.

Now with that being said I would take the AR-15 over the AK-74 any day due to it's accuracy. The AK is a shoot lead down range weapon without fail. The AR is a precise weapon meant for precise shooting. I favor the latter.

I dont have a safety. Mine is the lc9 pro. The long heavy trigger is both typical of rugers and intended to be the safety.

[MisterVeritis]

I have NO Problem with Police Officers using their Skill, training and Intuition to stop and prevent crime.

But when the data says 99 out of 100 Stop and Frisk uncover nothing ... then you have to question the tactic, the skill, training or intuition.

Now if you're only using the tactic on 13% of the population and you still are coming up with the same results ... well admitting the tactic is wrong may not be the wrong thing to do.

Just saying ... it only Math, and Math is Color Blind.
I suspect that high crime neighborhoods have far more than 13% black populations.
Stop and frisk reduced murder rates in the high crime neighborhoods. Stop and frisk has no impact on me. Stop if you like. I would prefer for blacks to remain alive. But that's just me.

[Crepitus]

Everything I've read about the LC9 has been pretty good. It's light but that can be a bad thing given the recoil. I shot one at my range a few months ago and it behaves similarly to my G43 with the exception of the insanely long trigger pull, which isn't something you want in a defensive shoot. I think it was at 6.3lbs vs. the 3lbs of my 43. It also doesn't come with any additional mags. You can order 3rd party but who wants to do that? Given that and it's virtually impossible to engage the safety with the right hand (why does the CC have a safety again?) speaks to why one shouldn't have a frame mounted safety.

At the end of the day the differences are minimal. But Glock has the decades of tried and true non-malfunctioning weapons. Glock is essentially to pistols what the AK-47 is to rifles. You just know for a fact that it will not fail and that is proven. That is a hard argument to follow.

Besides, I have a G-19 for my combat pistol and my G-43 for my carry. Both utilize the same ammo which is appealing to me and both have the same breakdown which is easy for me. I tend to lean towards efficiency in that regard.

Now with that being said I would take the AR-15 over the AK-74 any day due to it's accuracy. The AK is a shoot lead down range weapon without fail. The AR is a precise weapon meant for precise shooting. I favor the latter.

And I don't own either an AR or ak at the moment but while sloppy I've seen AKs that I would have just pitched rather than try to clean up fire perfectly

[Ravens Fan]

I'm providing factual data ... who said I was arguing with you? :laugh:

Do you see an issue with the data? :tongue:

Not at all. It is what I would expect when they go to the highest crime areas of the city. Look at the racial makeup of the residents. But I am not even arguing that aspect, you can, but I already get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Safety]

As long as the laws are followed I have no objections to measures taken to improve my safety. (see what I did there, Safety?)

So, when the law says your business will bake a cake for gays, you will comply because it is the law?

[Crepitus]

If you could expand that would be great... I don't understand your point here....Are you saying that crime rate has stayed the same and the stoppage of said crime rate has declined? If so...one needs to ask themselves why....

I'm saying that stop and frisk had minimal if any effect on crime.

[Mister D]

I wasn't really trying to go in that direction, I know and have known plenty of white kids here in the suburbs who carry illegal guns.

I can understand why some would want such drastic action taken in the high crime areas, that is where the guns are being used at a much higher rate. But the ends do not always justify the means... Violating ones constitutional rights is not cool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't mean to suggest you were going there but I sure am. If there are all these white kids packing heat very few of them end up getting shot. Now that may be your experience but I seriously doubt it's as common as you let on. In any case, some of our progressives can't seem to wrap their minds around the relationship between a high rate of firearm related deaths (i.e. homicides, morons) and 'stop and frisk' policies.

That's the only serious objection you can make regarding 'stop and frisk'.

[Crepitus]

LOL. If that makes you feel better run with it.

If you refuse or are unable to back it up that's all I got.

[Private Pickle]

I dont have a safety. Mine is the lc9 pro. The long heavy trigger is both typical of rugers and intended to be the safety.

I understand the concept but don't agree with the premise. With a defensive shoot you want to be on target as quickly as you can. The trigger pull will delay the on-target shoot in addition to hinder accuracy. A trigger job is most certainly required and they need to lose the in frame safety.

[MisterVeritis]

So, when the law says your business will bake a cake for gays, you will comply because it is the law?
You twist and turn this way and that.

Why do you hate black people? Isn't that the core of the problem? Do you also support abortion? Between abortion and black on black murder don't we have a genocide going on?

[MisterVeritis]

If you refuse or are unable to back it up that's all I got.
:-) I won't bother. I already know the truth. You do not. But you could know it if you wanted to. So why don't you?

[Safety]

I agree. And if stop and frisk was implemented in my neighborhood I would be extremely curious as to why...given I live in a low crime area.

With that being said we have had 4,000 dead in Chicago since Obama took office. That is on par with how many soldiers we lost in Iraq. That, to me, is a warzone. Either we allow the citizenry to defend themselves or we treat Chicago like a warzone. Which is it?

We have also had 20k whites killed by other whites during the same period, so I guess America is a war zone.

[Crepitus]

I understand the concept but don't agree with the premise. With a defensive shoot you want to be on target as quickly as you can. The trigger pull will delay the on-target shoot in addition to hinder accuracy. A trigger job is most certainly required and they need to lose the in frame safety.

Once you get used to it it isn't a problem. Until you pick up something with a 2lb trigger! Lol

[Mister D]

While the Constitutional argument is rational I tend to agree with Private Pickle that cases Chicago have become exceptional ones.

[Safety]

You twist and turn this way and that.

Why do you hate black people? Isn't that the core of the problem? Do you also support abortion? Between abortion and black on black murder don't we have a genocide going on?


LoL, can't answer, eh?

[MisterVeritis]

I'm saying that stop and frisk had minimal if any effect on crime.
It is acceptable for you to keep yourself in the dark. Are you a mushroom?

I bet that most of NYC's violent crime occurs in just a few places. I suspect those places used to have stop and frisk and no longer do.

[Private Pickle]

And I don't own either an AR or ak at the moment but while sloppy I've seen AKs that I would have just pitched rather than try to clean up fire perfectly

Well that's the thing. An AK will fire "perfectly" whether in mud, sand, water or otherwise. You will be able to send rounds down range. This is the mindset of most untrained militaries. If you can throw lead then you are doing it right.

This is why we see so many Arab and African fighters shooting their AKs off their shoulder without aiming.

The U.S. military uses a more precise but more maintenance weapon. We want to accurately reach out and touch someone at 300 yards minimum. That's why the U.S. qualifies it's shooters using 300m targets at a single rate of fire. It's better to be accurate then to simply throw rounds down range. We learned that lesson 50 years ago while in Vietnam. It's why most of our warfighters will shoot on semi vs. burst. It's more accurate and more effective.

You should invest in one or the other. It's better to have and not need then to need and not have.

[Private Pickle]

While the Constitutional argument is rational I tend to agree with @Private Pickle (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=615) that cases Chicago have become exceptional ones.

We are talking about areas that are completely lawless. Areas where the cops just don't go anymore. The law abiding residents have absolutely no ability to defend themselves in the face of gun laws that make them the criminals. We have a choice. Either let the populace defend themselves or declare a "martial law" type of scenario...otherwise known as stop and frisk.

[Ravens Fan]

I agree. And if stop and frisk was implemented in my neighborhood I would be extremely curious as to why...given I live in a low crime area.

It shouldn't matter what neighborhood you live in, you should always have your Constitutional rights.


With that being said we have had 4,000 dead in Chicago since Obama took office. That is on par with how many soldiers we lost in Iraq. That, to me, is a warzone. Either we allow the citizenry to defend themselves or we treat Chicago like a warzone. Which is it?

That the number of deaths is on par with Iraq does not make it Iraq. These are American citizens who deserve to be treated as such.

What authority would the Federal Government have to step in anyways? These are things that the citizens of Chicago should be screaming to their officials about. If the officials decided to reach out to the Feds, that is one thing. But no matter who would try to implement it, I feel that stop and frisk is wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cigar]

I suspect that high crime neighborhoods have far more than 13% black populations.
Stop and frisk reduced murder rates in the high crime neighborhoods. Stop and frisk has no impact on me. Stop if you like. I would prefer for blacks to remain alive. But that's just me.

Don't twist the statistic and don't ignore the factual results ...

I know Cops in Lincoln Park have no problem finding Drugs or Guns ... if Drugs and Gun are something they are looking for.

The distance between Lincoln Park and Hyde Park is 11 Miles and less than 20 minutes.

You physically can't get from one to the other without passing more than a 100 of Chicago best in Blue.

I'd bet anything if you Stopped and Frisked in Lincoln Park, you'd find plenty of idiots with Drugs and Guns, but in the 10 blocks before you get to Hyde Park you'd find nothing ... because these are pro's and they ain't stupid or privileged enough to get caught.

[MisterVeritis]

LoL, can't answer, eh?
It is irrelevant.

Why do you hate black people?

[Private Pickle]

I'm saying that stop and frisk had minimal if any effect on crime.

The statistics disagree with you.

[MisterVeritis]

Don't twist the statistic and don't ignore the factual results ...

I know Cops in Lincoln Park have no problem finding Drugs or Guns ... if Drugs and Gun are something they are looking for.

The distance between Lincoln Park and Hyde Park is 11 Miles and less than 20 minutes.

You physically can't get from one to the other without passing more than a 100 of Chicago best in Blue.

I'd bet anything if you Stopped and Frisked in Lincoln Park, you'd find plenty of idiots with Drugs and Guns, but in the 10 block before you get to Hyde Park you'd find nothing ... because these are pro's and they anin't stupid or privileged enough to get caught.
If the violent crime rates include Lincoln Park then it sounds like a good candidate for stop and frisk. I don't know Chicago. You do. Where do the bodies pile up?

[Private Pickle]

We have also had 20k whites killed by other whites during the same period, so I guess America is a war zone.

America? Perhaps that was regulated to certain areas or are you saying that the .05% of whites you're talking about = a warzone.

[Safety]

It is irrelevant.

Why do you hate black people?

Sure it is, why do you pretend to care about black people?

[Private Pickle]

Once you get used to it it isn't a problem. Until you pick up something with a 2lb trigger! Lol

It makes a big difference in a real life shoot scenario. Super easy to miss. That's why you see cops shooting 15 times. They are trained to not take chances with accuracy being an issue.

[Safety]

America? Perhaps that was regulated to certain areas or are you saying that the .05% of whites you're talking about = a warzone.

If 4K people are killed in Chicago are cause enough for it to be considered a war zone and constitutional rights to be suspended, then surely 20k is enough to be given the same consideration.

Statistics are fun.

[Crepitus]

Well that's the thing. An AK will fire "perfectly" whether in mud, sand, water or otherwise. You will be able to send rounds down range. This is the mindset of most untrained militaries. If you can throw lead then you are doing it right.

This is why we see so many Arab and African fighters shooting their AKs off their shoulder without aiming.

The U.S. military uses a more precise but more maintenance weapon. We want to accurately reach out and touch someone at 300 yards minimum. That's why the U.S. qualifies it's shooters using 300m targets at a single rate of fire. It's better to be accurate then to simply throw rounds down range. We learned that lesson 50 years ago while in Vietnam. It's why most of our warfighters will shoot on semi vs. burst. It's more accurate and more effective.

You should invest in one or the other. It's better to have and not need then to need and not have.

There is something to be said for that level of durability though.

I have a decent selection of stuff, just no at at the moment.

[MisterVeritis]

Sure it is, why do you pretend to care about black people?
I enjoy pretending to care. Ironically, my ideas save real black lives. Your ideas do not.

[Crepitus]

The statistics disagree with you.

I just posted some statistics that did.

[Crepitus]

It makes a big difference in a real life shoot scenario. Super easy to miss. That's why you see cops shooting 15 times. They are trained to not take chances with accuracy being an issue.

Like I said, gotta practice until you are used to it.

[Private Pickle]

It shouldn't matter what neighborhood you live in, you should always have your Constitutional rights.

And you do. Something tells me that the citizenry trapped within these lawless neighborhoods would welcome something...anything...with regards to inhibiting the combatants they have no ability to defend themselves against.



What authority would the Federal Government have to step in anyways? These are things that the citizens of Chicago should be screaming to their officials about. If the officials decided to reach out to the Feds, that is one thing. But no matter who would try to implement it, I feel that stop and frisk is wrong.

I get it and understand but we are talking about municipalities that have failed to keep their citizenry safe. To the degree of rivaling our wars abroad. Would you rather the president declare martial law? I'm surprised it hasn't happened given how much the media harps on how many soldiers we've lost abroad vs. how many American citizens are losing their lives while just trying to go to school or work.

[Safety]

I enjoy pretending to care. Ironically, my ideas save real black lives. Your ideas do not.

They only save lives from the enclave you are posting from, reality is that those policies only cause more resentment of police from people who are targeted, which causes groups like BLM to be more relevant.

[Private Pickle]

If 4K people are killed in Chicago are cause enough for it to be considered a war zone and constitutional rights to be suspended, then surely 20k is enough to be given the same consideration.

Statistics are fun.

I suppose that depends on where.... If you want to count the 3 deaths that happened in hoboke Nebraska to the 4K in Chicago that's your call. A little naïve but your call nonetheless.

[MisterVeritis]

It shouldn't matter what neighborhood you live in, you should always have your Constitutional rights.
What could be more fundamental than a right to life?


What authority would the Federal Government have to step in anyways?
No authority whatever. The president can set the tone. The (in)Justice Department under an American President is not going to federalize your police department.


These are things that the citizens of Chicago should be screaming to their officials about.
Granted.


If the officials decided to reach out to the Feds, that is one thing. But no matter who would try to implement it, I feel that stop and frisk is wrong.
Maybe the citizens who live in the high crime areas should put it to a vote.

[Safety]

I suppose that depends on where.... If you want to count the 3 deaths that happened in hoboke Nebraska to the 4K in Chicago that's your call. A little naïve but your call nonetheless.

Life is a life. The numbers will never be on the same plane due to external factors, but a citizen is a citizen, and should enjoy the same rights, no?

[Private Pickle]

There is something to be said for that level of durability though.

I have a decent selection of stuff, just no at at the moment.

Sounds like you're on the right track.

[MisterVeritis]

They only save lives from the enclave you are posting from, reality is that those policies only cause more resentment of police from people who are targeted, which causes groups like BLM to be more relevant.
Right. Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

Cool.

[Private Pickle]

I just posted some statistics that did.

And the drop in the death toll don't lie.

[Private Pickle]

Like I said, gotta practice until you are used to it.

Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect and you can't expect perfect with an untried untrue firearm. But to each their own.

[Ravens Fan]

And you do. Something tells me that the citizenry trapped within these lawless neighborhoods would welcome something...anything...with regards to inhibiting the combatants they have no ability to defend themselves against.



I get it and understand but we are talking about municipalities that have failed to keep their citizenry safe. To the degree of rivaling our wars abroad. Would you rather the president declare martial law? I'm surprised it hasn't happened given how much the media harps on how many soldiers we've lost abroad vs. how many American citizens are losing their lives while just trying to go to school or work.

There is still no reason for the Feds to get involved. If it is too much for the city of Chicago to handle, then the State of Illinois should be the ones stepping in. While I agree that 4,000 deaths is unacceptable, it does not call for Presidential action, other than maybe some pressure to be applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Safety]

Right. Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

Cool.

No, you don't really side with the murdered black citizens, you just side with the policies that allows you to approve of stripping rights from those whom you deem beneath you.

[Private Pickle]

Life is a life. The numbers will never be on the same plane due to external factors, but a citizen is a citizen, and should enjoy the same rights, no?

Not in a warzone no. A citizen that lives in a relatively crime-free area is different than a citizen that has chosen to elect officials, create an environment and then call on their government to do something because the neighborhood they live in is a warzone. Pretty simple math. I think the fact that most crime ridden zones that would be subject to stop and frisk would happen to coincide with the fact that they are mostly minority areas is what you're having an issue with...given you're a minority.

I get it but the fact remains they are targeting CRIME not minorities.

[MisterVeritis]

Right. Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

No, you don't really side with the murdered black citizens, you just side with the policies that allows you to approve of stripping rights from those whom you deem beneath you.
And yet my policies sustain their lives. Your policy allows their murder.

Which Constitutional right is more important than a right to life? It must confuse you that a white Constitutional Conservative cares more about black lives than a black liberal.

[Crepitus]

Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect and you can't expect perfect with an untried untrue firearm. But to each their own.

Perfect practice?

[Private Pickle]

There is still no reason for the Feds to get involved. If it is too much for the city of Chicago to handle, then the State of Illinois should be the ones stepping in. While I agree that 4,000 deaths is unacceptable, it does not call for Presidential action, other than maybe some pressure to be applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We've allowed the State of Illinois to step in... It's just getting worse....

[Safety]

Not in a warzone no. A citizen that lives in a relatively crime-free area is different than a citizen that has chosen to elect officials, create an environment and then call on their government to do something because the neighborhood they live in is a warzone. Pretty simple math. I think the fact that most crime ridden zones that would be subject to stop and frisk would happen to coincide with the fact that they are mostly minority areas is what you're having an issue with...given you're a minority.

I get it but the fact remains they are targeting CRIME not minorities.

Either you are for equal rights for everyone, or you are for selective rights for some. Choose and get back to me, or not.

[Ravens Fan]

What could be more fundamental than a right to life?


That doesn't address what I said


No authority whatever. The president can set the tone. The (in)Justice Department under an American President is not going to federalize your police department.

I have no problem with a President applying pressure.



Granted.


Maybe the citizens who live in the high crime areas should put it to a vote.

Normally I would agree, but if it violates the Constitution...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Safety]

Right. Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

And yet my policies sustain their lives. Your policy allows their murder.

Which Constitutional right is more important than a right to life? It must confuse you that a white Constitutional Conservative cares more about black lives than a black liberal.

Not in the least, for I have been through more debates with online conservatives who think they are clever with their "caring" when it boils down to the same caring they had past slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, etc...

When it comes time to talk about abortion, you say "what about da blacks", when the topic turns to mass shootings "what about da blacks", when it comes time to talk about unarmed blacks getting shot by police, it then turns to "what about LaVoy"

It's pretty transparent.

[MisterVeritis]

That doesn't address what I said
I have no problem with a President applying pressure.
Normally I would agree, but if it violates the Constitution...

Stop and frisk does not violate the Constitution.

[del]

Perfect practice?

shhh

he's channeling vince lombardi

[decedent]

Kook Alert. Usual suspect.

Are you Broke-Brained again?

[MisterVeritis]

Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

And yet my policies sustain their lives. Your policy allows their murder.

Which Constitutional right is more important than a right to life? It must confuse you that a white Constitutional Conservative cares more about black lives than a black liberal.

Not in the least, for I have been through more debates with online conservatives who think they are clever with their "caring" when it boils down to the same caring they had past slavery, Jim Crow, civil rights, etc...

When it comes time to talk about abortion, you say "what about da blacks", when the topic turns to mass shootings "what about da blacks", when it comes time to talk about unarmed blacks getting shot by police, it then turns to "what about LaVoy"

It's pretty transparent.
Uh-huh. Despite your words, my approach preserves black lives. Yours wastes them.

It's pretty transparent.

[MisterVeritis]

Are you Broke-Brained again?
Me? Possibly. Why?

Crooked Illary is for sure.

[Ravens Fan]

Stop and frisk does not violate the Constitution.

Do they have a search warrant or probable cause?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MisterVeritis]

Do they have a search warrant or probable cause?

No warrant. Probable cause. Stop first. Then frisk if anything develops.

[Safety]

Real black people are being murdered by criminal black people. I side with the murdered black citizens who have a right to life. You side with the criminals.

And yet my policies sustain their lives. Your policy allows their murder.

Which Constitutional right is more important than a right to life? It must confuse you that a white Constitutional Conservative cares more about black lives than a black liberal.

Uh-huh. Despite your words, my approach preserves black lives. Yours wastes them.

It's pretty transparent.

You keep repeating that like it will make it true. /shrug

[MisterVeritis]

You keep repeating that like it will make it true. /shrug
you keep pretending it isn't true. /shrug.

Let blacks murder blacks. I support black liberals. It is a gutless choice.

[FindersKeepers]

Actually, no I don't agree with your statement, because the very nature that "stop and frisk" was implemented under targeted a subgroup of citizens because they happened to share unchangeable traits with those who committed crimes. Now, Ben Franklin spoke some heavy words such as "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and Blackstone's formulation "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Wiser words were never spoken. We should never impinge on the rights of some in deference to others. Protecting the rights of all is tantamount - and it's the underlying foundation of the entire world's humanity.


Now, I'm sure many here have good intentions, well I think the only one with good intentions are you, but that's for another time....but color me skeptical that the very one's who are championing for the "safety of blacks" by implementing stop and frisk, would holler like a stuck pig if they were on the receiving end of such a policy.


I DO have good intentions, but I don't pretend that I know what it's like to live and experience things that others experience. My only source of knowledge is what happens in my limited world. I know the term "stop and frisk" has been associated with blacks, although a similar thing happens here but mostly to whites, they just don't call it stop and frisk. I do think the poor tend to suffer more, however, and I'm not sure if it's because the officers suspect them more of being troublesome, or if they actually are more troublesome.

Sadly, black or white, justice belongs to those who have money to pay for good attorneys. That's where the real joke comes in -- justice is not equal. It should be. But it's not.

[FindersKeepers]

Thanks to Sammy everybody here in Brownbackistan can carry concealed without a permit!

I know, and everyone was thinking we'd see more gun-crime in the year since it's been in force.

But, instead, we've seen less.

[Ravens Fan]

No warrant. Probable cause. Stop first. Then frisk if anything develops.

Incorrect. The program allowed for the frisk part with less than probable cause.

[zelmo1234]

Terry stops were ruled unconstitutional, therefore stop and frisk is also.



What metric should be used to determine who is carrying illegally? Use Terry stops? What about those carrying concealed?

The LAW would be a good place to start. So if I have a gun tucked into my belt, then I should have the CPL/CCW that allows me to do so legally? if I do not, then I have committed a crime.

[Truth Detector]

Trump literally says 'we have to take their guns' and the Second Amendment advocates are silent (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/26/1574713/-Trump-literally-says-we-have-to-take-their-guns-and-the-Second-Amendment-advocates-are-silent)

What. The. Hell.

Gun nuts, now is your time. After eight years of kicking and screaming that President Obama was going to take away your guns, Trump literally just said “we have to take their guns!” while discussing his plan to implement a nationwide stop-and-frisk program that has already been ruled unconstitutional. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/21/1572751/-Trump-tells-Ohio-audience-he-would-implement-NYC-s-disastrous-Stop-and-Frisk-policy-nationwide) Watch:

Why so silent now, NRA?

Yep; in liberal loony land, criminals should be the ONLY ones carrying guns while the lefties find every excuse to make LEGAL gun ownership extinct. You're not smart enough to comprehend how stupid your arguments look are you? :biglaugh:

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t107/Draconum321/Fail/FailSeal.gif

[Safety]

The LAW would be a good place to start. So if I have a gun tucked into my belt, then I should have the CPL/CCW that allows me to do so legally? if I do not, then I have committed a crime.

That's common sense, my point is how does a police officer know you are carrying unless he just stops you because you "look" like you are carrying.

Trust me, if you or misterveritis were stopped solely because you were white, you would have an issue with that, no?

[Safety]

I see the kids have woken up and decided to play in the thread, I'm out until they go to school.

[Truth Detector]

I see the kids have woken up and decided to play in the thread, I'm out until they go to school.

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t542/apple-sauce38/Positive%20Reactions/laughing/biglaugh7_zpsd701e485.gif

[Truth Detector]

That's common sense, my point is how does a police officer know you are carrying unless he just stops you because you "look" like you are carrying.

Trust me, if you or misterveritis were stopped solely because you were white, you would have an issue with that, no?

Yep; as per the idiot premise of this thread.....let's let blacks continue murdering fellow blacks in leftist urban sewers as long as it isn't in our back yard right? ;)

[Private Pickle]

There is still no reason for the Feds to get involved. If it is too much for the city of Chicago to handle, then the State of Illinois should be the ones stepping in. While I agree that 4,000 deaths is unacceptable, it does not call for Presidential action, other than maybe some pressure to be applied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The State of Illinois has been doing a bang up job so far.

[Private Pickle]

Perfect practice?

Yes. Take golf for example. You can practice for hours upon hours but if you have an in to out swing you'll learn how to slice the ball...

[Private Pickle]

Either you are for equal rights for everyone, or you are for selective rights for some. Choose and get back to me, or not.

I am not for equal rights for criminals so I guess not everyone...

[MisterVeritis]

Incorrect. The program allowed for the frisk part with less than probable cause.
Reasonable suspicion.

I am with you. Let the blacks murder the blacks.

[MisterVeritis]

The LAW would be a good place to start. So if I have a gun tucked into my belt, then I should have the CPL/CCW that allows me to do so legally? if I do not, then I have committed a crime.
Some states follow the Constitution. Some do not.

[Safety]

I am not for equal rights for criminals so I guess not everyone...

Cool, so LaVoy's rights were not violated, and Philando was murdered. Glad we are on the same page.

[MisterVeritis]

That's common sense, my point is how does a police officer know you are carrying unless he just stops you because you "look" like you are carrying.

Trust me, if you or misterveritis were stopped solely because you were white, you would have an issue with that, no?
Of course. That is not what happened. But no matter. I agree with you 100%. If we don't let black criminals murder black citizens we are racists.

So let blacks murder blacks. Then we can reform the criminal justice system so blacks can get out of jail. That allows the virtuous cycle to continue. More welfare anybody?

[exploited]

Reasonable suspicion.

I am with you. Let the blacks murder the blacks.

For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist, you sure do have lots of ideas that go against the meaning, spirit and existing interpretation of the Constitution.

See the 4th Amendment.

[Private Pickle]

Cool, so LaVoy's rights were not violated, and Philando was murdered. Glad we are on the same page.

No idea what you're talking about... Neither Levoy nor Philandro provided cause for deadly force so they were both murdered...

[MisterVeritis]

For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist, you sure do have lots of ideas that go against the meaning, spirit and existing interpretation of the Constitution.

See the 4th Amendment.
The 4th is not in play. Nice try though.

[Safety]

Of course. That is not what happened. But no matter. I agree with you 100%. If we don't let black criminals murder black citizens we are racists.

So let blacks murder blacks. Then we can reform the criminal justice system so blacks can get out of jail. That allows the virtuous cycle to continue. More welfare anybody?

That is exactly what we are talking about here. Stats have shown that stop and frisk did nothing to control crime, but did violate citizen's rights. It's no surprise that those who are the most critical of blacks are the ones saying that the stop and frisk system is best for blacks. No difference than saying gun control saves lives.

[Safety]

No idea what you're talking about... Neither Levoy nor Philandro provided cause for deadly force so they were both murdered...

Oh, but one was targeted as a "stop and frisk" or "terry stop" and the other was not. LaVoy died from his actions, Philandro died because of the policy.

[zelmo1234]

That's common sense, my point is how does a police officer know you are carrying unless he just stops you because you "look" like you are carrying.

Trust me, if you or misterveritis were stopped solely because you were white, you would have an issue with that, no?

I certainly don't want them stopping people based on Color. But if myself and Mr. Vertis were hanging out on a street corner, know for being in a place where Drugs were bought and Sold, and we were all dressed up in our finest Gang Banger Wear.

And they stopped and frisked us??? I think that I would be ok with that, even being one of the privileged White Folks.

Or is that Racist too?

[Safety]

For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist, you sure do have lots of ideas that go against the meaning, spirit and existing interpretation of the Constitution.

See the 4th Amendment.

With several here, they don't think the constitution apply to all citizens.

[MisterVeritis]

That is exactly what we are talking about here. Stats have shown that stop and frisk did nothing to control crime, but did violate citizen's rights. It's no surprise that those who are the most critical of blacks are the ones saying that the stop and frisk system is best for blacks. No difference than saying gun control saves lives.
We can agree. I am just as cool with criminal blacks murdering other blacks as you are. Let's go on supporting the murder of black citizens so the criminal blacks are not offended.

[exploited]

The 4th is not in play. Nice try though.


[t]he 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."

Would you describe "stop and frisk" as searching a person? Yes or no?

You should read Terry v. Ohio, and learn about the limitations of the exclusionary rule.

[MisterVeritis]

Oh, but one was targeted as a "stop and frisk" or "terry stop" and the other was not. LaVoy died from his actions, Philandro died because of the policy.
In my opinion LeVoy was murdered. No big deal. He was white.

[MisterVeritis]

Would you describe "stop and frisk" as searching a person? Yes or no?
Yes.

[Safety]

I certainly don't want them stopping people based on Color. But if myself and Mr. Vertis were hanging out on a street corner, know for being in a place where Drugs were bought and Sold, and we were all dressed up in our finest Gang Banger Wear.

And they stopped and frisked us??? I think that I would be ok with that, even being one of the privileged White Folks.

Or is that Racist too?

Yet, that isn't what the statistics show.

[zelmo1234]

For a guy who claims to be a constitutionalist, you sure do have lots of ideas that go against the meaning, spirit and existing interpretation of the Constitution.

See the 4th Amendment.

When you have areas of our country that are more dangerous than war zones, we have always used more aggressive tactics. From the Cow Towns of the old west to the Whiskey rebellion!

The Democrats want to take guns from those that legally own them. Criminals can have all they want. And when you try and take them from their criminal friends, that just can't stand for that.

[Safety]

We can agree. I am just as cool with criminal blacks murdering other blacks as you are. Let's go on supporting the murder of black citizens so the criminal blacks are not offended.

Cool, didn't know you were so emotional.

[Safety]

In my opinion LeVoy was murdered. No big deal. He was white.

Figures.

[MisterVeritis]

With several here, they don't think the constitution apply to all citizens.
For some of us, it is paramount. The state exists to provide security from attacks internally and externally. Some people believe it exists to plunder our neighbors.

[zelmo1234]

Yet, that isn't what the statistics show.

Do the statistics show that Violent and Gun crimes were greatly reduced?

I can't help it if not enough White people live in these areas. That is not my fault. But if they need some white folks to stop and frisk they can come to my home first. And everyday if it will help make people safe in the inner city killing fields that the democrats have created.

[MisterVeritis]

Yet, that isn't what the statistics show.
What do you believe your statistics show?

[Private Pickle]

Oh, but one was targeted as a "stop and frisk" or "terry stop" and the other was not. LaVoy died from his actions, Philandro died because of the policy.

Yet neither of them provided cause for the use of deadly force. What part of that are you not understanding?

Philando was pulled over because he matched the description of a robber in the area.

[Safety]

For some of us, it is paramount. The state exists to provide security from attacks internally and externally. Some people believe it exists to plunder our neighbors.

Sure, but at the end of the day, you only care that some citizens are protected by the constitution. Period.

[MisterVeritis]

We can agree. I am just as cool with criminal blacks murdering other blacks as you are. Let's go on supporting the murder of black citizens so the criminal blacks are not offended.

Cool, didn't know you were so emotional.
Some days I remain a mystery. Even to me.

[Private Pickle]

Yet, that isn't what the statistics show.

Because targets of high crime tend to be in low income areas where minorities commit those crimes...

[Safety]

Yet neither of them provided cause for the use of deadly force. What part of that are you not understanding?

Philando was pulled over because he matched the description of a robber in the area.

In other words, "stop and frisk" killed him. This is why so many are against the practice, but hey, since it wouldn't ever affect you, kudos.

[exploited]

Yes.

You'll note that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can only stop and search people if you have suspected them of committing a crime, or that they are about to commit a crime. It cannot be used to gather evidence, or crime prevention, or the personal protection of officers. See Terry v. Ohio.

Do you think that stop and frisk would fall outside that scope?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, but at the end of the day, you only care that some citizens are protected by the constitution. Period.
I believe high crime areas deserve a bit more constitutional protection than a no crime area like the one I live in. One's right to live is high on my list.

I am willing to set that aside so black criminals can continue to terrorize and murder other blacks.

[zelmo1234]

Sure, but at the end of the day, you only care that some citizens are protected by the constitution. Period.

You are correct, I care very much that the law abiding citizens have the right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and in these areas they have none of them. because the Gangbangers are killing people everyday!

The Felons that are committing these crimes? I don't give a shit about their rights.

[MisterVeritis]

You'll note that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can only stop and search people if you have suspected them of committing a crime, or that they are about to commit a crime. It cannot be used to gather evidence, or crime prevention, or the personal protection of officers. See Terry v. Ohio.

Do you think that stop and frisk would fall outside that scope?
Yes. Stopping somebody is an appropriate part of the safety and policing job. Frisking somebody is a reasonable search. When it is not the officer can be punished.

[DGUtley]

You'll note that the Supreme Court has ruled that you can only stop and search people if you have suspected them of committing a crime, or that they are about to commit a crime. It cannot be used to gather evidence, or crime prevention, or the personal protection of officers. See Terry v. Ohio. Do you think that stop and frisk would fall outside that scope?

Terry was a stop and frisk case. It was a decision by the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) which held that the Fourth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure) is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) to arrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest), if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

[Safety]

Because targets of high crime tend to be in low income areas where minorities commit those crimes...

Yet, in all that stopping and frisking, only 2% of those frisked turned up anything illegal. Now, you like to use statistics to support your position on race and crime, how can someone who loves the constitution so much allow such a large population of the country be subjected to a violation to their rights over 2%?

I mean, 2% is drastically lower than the number of lives that would be saved by stricter gun control measures....oops....

[Private Pickle]

In other words, "stop and frisk" killed him. This is why so many are against the practice, but hey, since it wouldn't ever affect you, kudos.

Stop and Frisk has nothing to do with pulling someone over who matches the description of a criminal... And the cop killed him without identifiable evidence of an imminent threat...same as Levoy...

And don't start with the Ad Homs... I have no problem walking you through your logical fallacies.

[zelmo1234]

Terry was a stop and frisk case. It was a decision by the United States Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) which held that the Fourth Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ) prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_and_seizure) is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause) to arrest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest), if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion) that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

AWWWW! I have to agree with a Buckeye!!!!!! :) It hurts, it hurts!!!!

Go Blue!