Weed shouldn't even be illegal and probably half the population would agree.

 

God bless you troubled child.

God bless you troubled child.

Lol Troubled child eh? that's a new one...

I must agree with Slimory in some aspects on this one. The open/concealed carry laws should be abolished in my opnion. Nobody needs to carry a firearm in public and besides, those that do usually cannot handle high stress situations and wouldn't be able to shoot straight if they needed to.

 

I do however, believe that arms should be legal inside your own property. It's your right to protect your property and your family by whatever means necessary from intruders. Outside of your home, then it's the job of a LEO.

 

I also agree that weed should be legalized. Compare alcohol related deaths to weed related deaths during any year and you'll see my reasoning.

I must agree with Slimory in some aspects on this one. The open/concealed carry laws should be abolished in my opnion. Nobody needs to carry a firearm in public and besides, those that do usually cannot handle high stress situations and wouldn't be able to shoot straight if they needed to.

 

I do however, believe that arms should be legal inside your own property. It's your right to protect your property and your family by whatever means necessary from intruders. Outside of your home, then it's the job of a LEO.

 

I also agree that weed should be legalized. Compare alcohol related deaths to weed related deaths during any year and you'll see my reasoning.

Good to have you back, Tom H, I wish I would have worded it like that (lol) however, in some cases people that have had their homes broken into have been sued by burglars/ trespassers for getting injured, I don't know how that even works but what a fucked up world we live in, logic went out the window.

Yeah the guy who made this video is an asshole, he deliberately draws attention to himself so people call the police, then jumps into legal technicalities that he has just spent the last few days researching. The officer isn't there to infringe on his rights or be a dick, he's simply there to sort out what's going on and respond to the concerns of citizens. It isn't the police officer's fault that the state has fucked up carrying laws, and if the guy is doing this is protesting against those laws he is going the wrong way about it. 

Couldn't have said better. 

I must agree with Slimory in some aspects on this one. The open/concealed carry laws should be abolished in my opnion. Nobody needs to carry a firearm in public and besides, those that do usually cannot handle high stress situations and wouldn't be able to shoot straight if they needed to.

 

I do however, believe that arms should be legal inside your own property. It's your right to protect your property and your family by whatever means necessary from intruders. Outside of your home, then it's the job of a LEO.

Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm. The fact is that the only people who wouldn't carry should a law like that go into effect are law abiding citizens. Illinois had it nearly impossible to carry concealed until recently, and that never stopped the hundreds of gang bangers in Chicago (where it is illegal to step out of your house with a gun unless disassembled, let alone carry) from shooting each other.

 

Besides that major flaw in it being for "public safety", police have proven they can't shoot straight either. My primary example being Chris Dorner. The LAPD mistook 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color truck for a 6 foot tall black guy. They opened fire on the truck, firing a total of 113 shots and only hitting the truck 43 times. Of those shots, only one women was grazed with a bullet. Out of 113 shots, only one hit.

 

Another example is this story from Ogden, Utah. Police felt the need to SWAT Team a veteran with PTSD, but no violent history, who was growing marijuana in his basement to self medicate (they couldn't find any evidence of dealing). Because of the need to act like tactical special ops badasses, they raided his home in the middle of the night. I don't know about any of you, but I don't think clearest when I have just woken up, especially to a high stress situation. The veteran walked out with a handgun and killed one officer, while wounding another 6 with only 30 shots. The 12 man SWAT Team fired 250 rounds in return, and only hit the suspect twice. Keep in mind, this was at point blank distance.

 

However, when citizens are able to legally carry outside their home, it is not just their family they are saving from the too long average 7.5 minute response time of police, but other citizens.

 

During the Clackamas Mall shooting just days before Sandy Hook in December, a man armed with an AR-15 attempted to go on a mass shooting. After killing two people and wounding one other, his gun had repeated jams, leaving him unable to fire until the casing was cleared. It was at this point that Nick Meli, a 22 year old concealed carry permit holder who failed to see the gun free zone sign, pulled out his Glock 22 and took aim at the shooter. While he didn't fire, fearing missing and hitting a civilian behind the shooter, the shooter noticed he wasn't the only one armed and ran around a corner, putting a fatal bullet in his head.

 

Had he simply waited for police to respond, the shooter could have continued his rampage, resulting in more tragedy.

Slimory, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic-only firearm; assault rifles MUST be selective fire (meaning they MUST have fully-automatic capabilities). It IS extremely expensive to acquire full-auto weapons in the US; the only weapons that can legally be full-auto were made before 1986, so they cost a lot of money because there aren't many of them left.

Also, the Second Amendment isn't going away for a long, long time. Not sure how constitutional amendments work in Canada, but here they need two-thirds of each house of Congress to even be formally proposed, and then need three-fourths of the states to ratify it. There have only been 27 , and the first 10 and the 27th were proposed together (yeah, the 27th Amendment was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 and ratified in 1992). The only amendment that actually took away an individual right was the 18th (allowing Prohibition), and that was also the only amendment to be repealed by another. It's really, really hard to amend the US constitution.

Also, what are you talking about when you dare someone to go into a gun shop and say they're buying a gun for self-defense? That's going to get a reaction of "Oh, OK." It's not weird or anything, it's a perfectly normal reason to buy a gun. I'd imagine that the only other reason that's around as common would be "I like to go to gun ranges, and I think this gun would be fun to shoot" and "I like hunting". c13 knows more about this than I do, but gun store clerks are generally armed themselves to protect themselves and the store (people might try to rob a gun store to get more/better guns, so clerks are armed to prevent it).

Please list crimes committed by people legally carrying a firearm. The fact is that the only people who wouldn't carry should a law like that go into effect are law abiding citizens. Illinois had it nearly impossible to carry concealed until recently, and that never stopped the hundreds of gang bangers in Chicago (where it is illegal to step out of your house with a gun unless disassembled, let alone carry) from shooting each other.

 

Besides that major flaw in it being for "public safety", police have proven they can't shoot straight either. My primary example being Chris Dorner. The LAPD mistook 2 hispanic women in a wrong make, model and color truck for a 6 foot tall black guy. They opened fire on the truck, firing a total of 113 shots and only hitting the truck 43 times. Of those shots, only one women was grazed with a bullet. Out of 113 shots, only one hit.

 

Another example is this story from Ogden, Utah. Police felt the need to SWAT Team a veteran with PTSD, but no violent history, who was growing marijuana in his basement to self medicate (they couldn't find any evidence of dealing). Because of the need to act like tactical special ops badasses, they raided his home in the middle of the night. I don't know about any of you, but I don't think clearest when I have just woken up, especially to a high stress situation. The veteran walked out with a handgun and killed one officer, while wounding another 6 with only 30 shots. The 12 man SWAT Team fired 250 rounds in return, and only hit the suspect twice. Keep in mind, this was at point blank distance.

 

However, when citizens are able to legally carry outside their home, it is not just their family they are saving from the too long average 7.5 minute response time of police, but other citizens.

 

During the Clackamas Mall shooting just days before Sandy Hook in December, a man armed with an AR-15 attempted to go on a mass shooting. After killing two people and wounding one other, his gun has repeated jams, leaving him unable to fire. It was at this point that Nick Meli, a 22 year old concealed carry permit holder who failed to see the gun free zone sign, pulled out his Glock 22 and took aim at the shooter. While he didn't fire, fearing missing and hitting a civilian behind the shooter, the shooter noticed he wasn't the only one armed and ran around a corner, putting a fatal bullet in his head.

 

Had he simply waited for police to respond, the shooter could have continued his rampage, resulting in more tragedy.

 

 

Slimory, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic-only firearm; assault rifles MUST be selective fire (meaning they MUST have fully-automatic capabilities). It IS extremely expensive to acquire full-auto weapons in the US; the only weapons that can legally be full-auto were made before 1986, so they cost a lot of money because there aren't many of them left.

Also, the Second Amendment isn't going away for a long, long time. Not sure how constitutional amendments work in Canada, but here they need two-thirds of each house of Congress to even be formally proposed, and then need three-fourths of the states to ratify it. There have only been 27 , and the first 10 and the 27th were proposed together (yeah, the 27th Amendment was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 and ratified in 1992). The only amendment that actually took away an individual right was the 18th (allowing Prohibition), and that was also the only amendment to be repealed by another. It's really, really hard to amend the US constitution.

Also, what are you talking about when you dare someone to go into a gun shop and say they're buying a gun for self-defense? That's going to get a reaction of "Oh, OK." It's not weird or anything, it's a perfectly normal reason to buy a gun. I'd imagine that the only other reason that's around as common would be "I like to go to gun ranges, and I think this gun would be fun to shoot" and "I like hunting". c13 knows more about this than I do, but gun store clerks are generally armed themselves to protect themselves and the store (people might try to rob a gun store to get more/better guns, so clerks are armed to prevent it).

 

Thank you, when the media classifies an AR-15 as an assault rifle, I just turn off the T.V. And what else gets on my nerves, is when people call a magazine a clip. Like oh my God, an M1 Garand uses a clip, not your Glock 17.

Slimory, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic-only firearm; assault rifles MUST be selective fire (meaning they MUST have fully-automatic capabilities). It IS extremely expensive to acquire full-auto weapons in the US; the only weapons that can legally be full-auto were made before 1986, so they cost a lot of money because there aren't many of them left.

Also, the Second Amendment isn't going away for a long, long time. Not sure how constitutional amendments work in Canada, but here they need two-thirds of each house of Congress to even be formally proposed, and then need three-fourths of the states to ratify it. There have only been 27 , and the first 10 and the 27th were proposed together (yeah, the 27th Amendment was proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 and ratified in 1992). The only amendment that actually took away an individual right was the 18th (allowing Prohibition), and that was also the only amendment to be repealed by another. It's really, really hard to amend the US constitution.

Also, what are you talking about when you dare someone to go into a gun shop and say they're buying a gun for self-defense? That's going to get a reaction of "Oh, OK." It's not weird or anything, it's a perfectly normal reason to buy a gun. I'd imagine that the only other reason that's around as common would be "I like to go to gun ranges, and I think this gun would be fun to shoot" and "I like hunting". c13 knows more about this than I do, but gun store clerks are generally armed themselves to protect themselves and the store (people might try to rob a gun store to get more/better guns, so clerks are armed to prevent it).

I'm not gonna write a story book about my point, but my point is, Canadians don't need to open carry firearms, why do Americans? I don't get how it is a right to carry a firearm at all are people REALLY that paranoid that they NEED to carry a gun, I don't know much about the American Constitution but i'm learning as I go, there is no reason big enough to carry a firearm unless hunting or going to a range, no average person needs one.

the kid said over and over what crime do you suspect me of commiting and the cop answered him muiltple times i think this kid has some hearing issues and being a pain in the butt to

the kid said over and over what crime do you suspect me of commiting and the cop answered him muiltple times i think this kid has some hearing issues and being a pain in the butt to

 

The cop did not answer either two questions.

 

A). Am I being detained? He never answered, just asked for his name (Which you are not legally required to give, unless you are being detained/arrested.)

 

B). What crime do you suspect me of committing? He did not answer the question, but kept saying he needed to determine if he was a felon (Which is Illegal unless the officer suspects you of committing a crime.)

The cop did not answer either two questions.

 

A). Am I being detained? He never answered, just asked for his name (Which you are not legally required to give, unless you are being detained/arrested.)

 

B). What crime do you suspect me of committing? He did not answer the question, but kept saying he needed to determine if he was a felon (Which is Illegal unless the officer suspects you of committing a crime.)

do you not listen he asked the cop what is the crime you suspect me of commiting the cop answered none but the guy continued to ask the same question which tells me that this guy has some hearing issues

do you not listen he asked the cop what is the crime you suspect me of commiting the cop answered none but the guy continued to ask the same question which tells me that this guy has some hearing issues

 

No dipshit. The guy was trying to let the cop know he was being illegally detained.

No dipshit. The guy was trying to let the cop know he was being illegally detained.

the guy recived calls from civilans saying he had a gun sounds like a good reason to me he was detained for a reason im not going to argue i made my opinion if you want to defend this moron be my guest

I'm not gonna write a story book about my point, but my point is, Canadians don't need to open carry firearms, why do Americans? I don't get how it is a right to carry a firearm at all are people REALLY that paranoid that they NEED to carry a gun, I don't know much about the American Constitution but i'm learning as I go, there is no reason big enough to carry a firearm unless hunting or going to a range, no average person needs one.

Because unlike Canada, America is filled with violence. But like Canada, a majority of violence occurs in major cities. What has been proven time and time again in America is that areas with strict gun control (California, New Jersey, Chicago, Philidelphia) have the highest rates of gun violence, while suburbs and rural areas, where gun ownership is highest, have some of the lowest.

the guy recived calls from civilans saying he had a gun sounds like a good reason to me he was detained for a reason im not going to argue i made my opinion if you want to defend this moron be my guest

If you were to call the police and report someone saying "I hate the government," but not making any threats, would the cops come and illegally detain them?

Because unlike Canada, America is filled with violence. But like Canada, a majority of violence occurs in major cities. What has been proven time and time again in America is that areas with strict gun control (California, New Jersey, Chicago, Philidelphia) have the highest rates of gun violence, while suburbs and rural areas, where gun ownership is highest, have some of the lowest.

If you were to call the police and report someone saying "I hate the government," but not making any threats, would the cops come and illegally detain them?

fist off we have freedom of speech there is no way anyone would call 911 for someone yelling i hate the government. what are you trying to prove here

fist off we have freedom of speech there is no way anyone would call 911 for someone yelling i hate the government. what are you trying to prove here

And keeping and bearing arms is a right too. Just because you don't agree with the way someone exercises their right doesn't mean you can call the police on them (until and unless they harm or attempt to harm others).

 

The fact is you clearly have no clue on legality. In order for a police officer to detain you, they need to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Under Terry v Ohio, police can not stop and detain someone unless there is evidence that they are connected to a crime or one is about to take place. Carrying a firearm where permitted is not against the law, which means no reasonable suspicion, which would mean the cops can not detain someone solely for doing that legally.

And keeping and bearing arms is a right too. Just because you don't agree with the way someone exercises their right doesn't mean you can call the police on them (until and unless they harm or attempt to harm others).

 

The fact is you clearly have no clue on legality. In order for a police officer to detain you, they need to have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Under Terry v Ohio, police can not stop and detain someone unless there is evidence that they are connected to a crime or one is about to take place. Carrying a firearm where permitted is not against the law, which means no reasonable suspicion, which would mean the cops can not detain someone solely for doing that legally.

you are driving me crazy. I thinks its best for the both of us not to speak to each other on this website ever again goodbye also one more thing he wasnt detaining he he was trying to talk to him if the cop was detaining him he would be in handcuffs for everybodys protection have a nice day and get your facts right about detaining someone

We also have the right to bear arms (by the way, Slimory: "bare arms" means you're wearing short sleeves. The term is "bear", meaning to carry). The Supreme Court has ruled that "man with a gun" is legally rather similar to "man with a wallet". In general, the police may not detain you except if they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed or are about to commit a crime. If they detain you, then they may frisk you and ask for your name. However, if there is no reasonable suspicion (carrying a firearm isn't reasonable suspicion where it's legal to do so), you are free to walk away without providing any information. Simply possessing a firearm generally isn't reasonable suspicion, absent other factors. If you're peering into the windows of closed stores at night, that counts as reasonable suspicion; if you're just walking down the street and happen to be carrying a gun, that isn't, unless you're carrying it in an illegal way.

you are driving me crazy. I thinks its best for the both of us not to speak to each other on this website ever again goodbye also one more thing he wasnt detaining he he was trying to talk to him if the cop was detaining him he would be in handcuffs for everybodys protection have a nice day and get your facts right about detaining someone

Handcuffs aren't required to detain someone. If he wasn't being detained, then the cop wouldn't skirt around the question "Am I free to go?" and said yes, he was free to leave.

 

Unless someone is actually being detained/arrested or on a traffic stop (pretty sure it is still detainment), police can not order people to stay in an area.