Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

LCPDFR.com

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Knowing your rights.

Featured Replies

Just because you can say you've done something doesn't mean everyone else can. Look, I've had people in wheelchairs buy guns from me. Are you saying that they are all panzys who need to man up? 

Handicapped people I can understand ONLY because they can't defend themselves, but you're average joe should be able to

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

  • Replies 75
  • Views 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • 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 rese

  • There is this thing called the Black Market. People will always buy things even if they are illegal. Weed, is illegal, and a shit ton of people still buy it, same as cocaine. Just because something is

  • So when someone breaks into my house and kills my sister for her jewelry in the middle of the night, I shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm to kill him because I am not in a position of authority, n

  • Author

Handicapped people I can understand ONLY because they can't defend themselves, but you're average joe should be able to

That is like me saying only mentally handicapped people may use a calculator in math. Average Joes should be able to do it mentally right? What about Calculus 3? Some math requires a calculator, just like some situations require a firearm to protect yourself, even in public.

O8iuz7f.png

Please feel free to PM, or EMail me!

roegontv.weebly.com

Go to a gun shop and tell the gun shop clerk it's for self defence.. I dare you..

Your "right to bare arms" law shouldn't exist.. nobody knows what you're intent on using that firearm is for, which makes a cops job more difficult cause they can't do anything when they are trying to clean up the streets, once you buy a gun be prepared to face the consequences if you ever use it, I've never even fired a gun, why would I need to? I can fight and i'm sure I could hit the intruder with something and not kill anyone. there are many ways of handling a situation like that a gun is not one of them, period

 

Your logic makes sense, in a perfect world. Take away the right to bare arms won't stop gang bangers to get weapons or any other contraband.

 

In any situation, criminals will always find a way to get illegal stuff PERIOD. So go ahead and whine about more non-sense that you never experienced outside your safe little bubble.

 

But I do agree only cops should carry guns but that's never going to happen! NEVER!

 

& didn't you know weed kills more people then alcohol? :teehee:

Edited by hardsty1e

<iframe width="200" height="80" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ODKY7Y1ZeDM?autoplay=1"> </iframe>

Nope, a tip does not necessarily constitute reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266. An anonymous tip, to count for reasonable suspicion, must at the bare minimum provide some reason to believe it is reliable in its description of illegal activity. The fact that it correctly describes the appearance of a person is insufficient. An officer who searches based on an anonymous tip that a person meeting some description is carrying a gun is violating the Fourth Amendment and has an excellent chance of getting the evidence thrown out in court.

In Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, an anonymous tip was enough in a "close case", and that involved a tip that predicted non-obvious future behavior (the tip included when a woman would leave a building, and where she would go). The Supreme Court ruled that that prediction, once verified by police, showed that the informant knew something of the affairs of the suspect, even though it was close. In general, a tip can be the source of reasonable suspicion, but it depends where the tip comes from.

Handcuffs are a detention or an arrest. While handcuffs do not necessarily an arrest make, they certainly result in a situation where a reasonable person would conclude they are not free to go. That means the person has been seized in the Fourth Amendment sense (to quote Terry again, "It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person.") Seizing/detaining a person absolutely must be supported by at least reasonable suspicion. If you explain to the person that they are free to leave but you want to handcuff them, you'll get an odd look, and it still may not hold up in court. Generally, the idea is that a cop talking to someone who is free to go is like two citizens talking on the street; handcuffs aren't part of that. If you announce that you'll "talk for a second, and I'll cuff you", a reasonable person would probably assume "lets talk" is an order, which is a detention. You'd have to bend over backwards to make cuffing someone NOT a detention, and frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would agree when they could instead agree to keep their hands in view.

Also, to reply to the comment about assault rifles: It's actually a specific technical term. For you to say you don't think there's such a thing as an "assault" rifle would be like me saying there isn't such a thing as a "hybrid" car. It's a translation of the name of the first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44 (Sturmgewehr = "storm rifle"). It refers to individual selective-fire rifles firing intermediate-power cartridges. Unlike "assault weapon", there is a strict formal distinction between assault rifle and not-assault rifle.

EDIT: There was a mega researched info dump here, which took time, but it's been snipped because it was kinda excessive and we moved passed it.

 

In most cases, tips result in reasonable suspicion, in the event of an individual carrying a handgun, this could, at the officers discretion be considered disorderly conduct if he is alarming others. Even though it is his right to carry a weapon, and no legal actuon would be taken there the officer could talk to that person, based on receiving calls of ALARMED citizens. So, because a person is temp. stopped if he has a weapon the right is there depending on the officers discretion. The officer could articulate in court, that he stopped the person because he believed they were alarming residents. It would have nothing to do with his right to carry. To be specific, I am anti gun control allthe way, I carry myself. Think outside the box, an officer receives a call from multiple citizens of a man with a gun. Now, for myself, I'd expect a law-abiding concealed/open carry. However, just to twist what your saying a little bit, the officer could stop that person, and in court, articulate "I stopped this person, because I had reasonable suspicion after multiple calls from citizens that this may have been terrorizing, or just disorderly conduct" Obviously this is rubbish for an arrest, but reasonable suspicion is a very small amount. SO I could technically stop someone and if they challanged it, be almost guarenteed 100% in a court of law that i had my reasonable suspicion to stop. So I believe it meets your requirement in your first paragraph, I as an officer, had reasonable suspicion that a crime may be being committed.

 

For the third paragraph, What you say is true yes, but what i said in my earlier post, you have to tell them they are free to go. If i say, "You are being handcuffed soley for my safety, I'd just like to talk to you, if you wish to leave let me know and i will unlock the cuffs and you can be free to leave" This would not violate any law, and would most CERTAINLY stand up in a court of law. It would be recorded and presented, the person was clear cut told he could leave, he just had to ask to be unlocked. The handcuffs are only for my safety, if you explain all that like I did above, It would under technical law, not be a detention.

Whether I get an odd look or not, doesnt matter to me. I'm worried about my safety, this isnt a big Supreme court case setting case law, but there was a case in my area similar to this, where the officer told the person all of the above, and it stood up in court. So cuffing, is NOT a detention if you tell the person their right to leave and explain (quite frankly very in depth) this has, and I believe would hold up in a court again.

 

Last paragraph, I am fully aware of what people mean when they say "Assault" Rifle. My point is, 99% of these people do not assume your German Sturmgewehr. They refer to something that fires semi-auto. I say there is no such thing, because if I was to show them a semi-auto .22  rifle (just a normal rifle, not any Ar variants or anything else) They would say no that doesnt look like an assault rifle. People are sheep when it comes to this, I could take a single shot .22 in the variant of an AR-15 or AK and people would say its an assault rifle. My point here, is the general populace doesnt know exactly the terms behind it, they go off of looks, and the slightly smarter go off of actually how many rounds come and leave the chamber when the trigger is pulled. My main point is explaining that all guns are dangerous, the term "assault" is often glued to killing humans, which all guns are capable.

 

Again, to everyone reading this, I am as Pro gun right wing republican as they get. I believe everyone who wants a semi-auto rifle, should get one. IF you want to carry your .45 do it. I encourage it.

Handicapped people I can understand ONLY because they can't defend themselves, but you're average joe should be able to

No fights are ever average. Anyone that wants a fair fight must have fully accepted death or must not be smart enough to realize potential consequences, which is why cops always get backup when available for potentially dangerous calls and rarely make a fight fair (someone has a handgun, pull out a rifle and have several cops respond, someone physically fights, pull out pepper spray/tazer/baton, etc).

 

While you were able to disarm the person who attempted to mug you, chances are that he wouldn't of shot you if he could have. Most criminals aren't willing to shoot someone over pocket change. However, it is the few that are willing to do so that require people, whether able bodied males, weak males, women, the elderly or physically handicapped to be able to fight back with equal or greater force. One of my favorite expressions I've heard about this is from a cop who had been in several gun fights, both on duty and off duty, is that he has "never wished he had less ammo."

Last paragraph, I am fully aware of what people mean when they say "Assault" Rifle. My point is, 99% of these people do not assume your German Sturmgewehr. They refer to something that fires semi-auto. I say there is no such thing, because if I was to show them a semi-auto .22  rifle (just a normal rifle, not any Ar variants or anything else) They would say no that doesnt look like an assault rifle. People are sheep when it comes to this, I could take a single shot .22 in the variant of an AR-15 or AK and people would say its an assault rifle. My point here, is the general populace doesnt know exactly the terms behind it, they go off of looks, and the slightly smarter go off of actually how many rounds come and leave the chamber when the trigger is pulled. My main point is explaining that all guns are dangerous, the term "assault" is often glued to killing humans, which all guns are capable.

Pretty sure he meant that last part about assault rifles to back up what I said and to other people, not you.

Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Your logic makes sense, in a perfect world dumbshit. Take away the right to bare arms won't stop gang bangers to get weapons or any other contraband.

 

In any situation, criminals will always find a way to get illegal stuff PERIOD. So go ahead and whine about more non-sense that you never experienced outside your safe little bubble.

 

But I do agree only cops should carry guns but that's never going to happen! NEVER!

 

& didn't you know weed kills more people then alcohol? :teehee:

Reserve your name calling for someone else, we have crime here just like anyone and we FYI don't live in seclusion or what you call a safe bubble, we do have crime and do have gangs, no idea where you even got "safe bubble" from but anyway..

 

So because I disagree with you it's non sense?

Hold on.... if you agree cops should carry guns than what was all the crap you were speeling?

The point i'm trying to make is, a lot of those shootings that take place could be people that were once considered okay to carry a firearm, than something clicked bam 12 people dead..

It's a 50/50 chance when you give someone a "right" to carry a gun, something dramatic could happen that could cause a person to go over the edge, whether it be a divorce, death of a loved one, car accident, shooting perhaps, that's all i'm saying and that's why I disagree with a person being able to have access LEGALLY to something that can cause that much damage without a second thought.

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

  • Author

Then cars should be illegal too. If I wanted to kill alot of people, I would just make my car a bomb. Buy some fertilizer, stuff my shell with shrapnel, and all I would have to do is bust through one barricade at a town celebration and BAM, well over 100 people dead. I could kill more than that just driving into a crowd. You are okay with a single person being in control of a 2 ton hunk of metal, but not a firearm?

Hypocrite.

Edited by Master Yoda

O8iuz7f.png

Please feel free to PM, or EMail me!

roegontv.weebly.com

Reserve your name calling for someone else, we have crime here just like anyone and we FYI don't live in seclusion or what you call a safe bubble, we do have crime and do have gangs, no idea where you even got "safe bubble" from but anyway..

 

So because I disagree with you it's non sense?

Hold on.... if you agree cops should carry guns than what was all the crap you were speeling?

The point i'm trying to make is, a lot of those shootings that take place could be people that were once considered okay to carry a firearm, than something clicked bam 12 people dead..

It's a 50/50 chance when you give someone a "right" to carry a gun, something dramatic could happen that could cause a person to go over the edge, whether it be a divorce, death of a loved one, car accident, shooting perhaps, that's all i'm saying and that's why I disagree with a person being able to have access LEGALLY to something that can cause that much damage without a second thought.

 

I'm sorry, but you have no logic. I wonder if you've ever been outside of your home. Suppose, just play with me here, tonight someone breaks in. You own no weapons, That person is armed with a gun. They walk in and shoot your wife, child, uncle, whoever. Then turn to find you. What will you do? Call the cops, who may be minutes away? I'll tell you right now, if someone broke into my house, I'd grab my .45 that's right next to be, and end the threat. You liberals do to much thinking, for being so damn open-minded, you sure would have a hard time figuring out what to do if someone ever broke in. The same situation applies to if you out for coffee, and some criminal busts in with a will to kill every single person in there. You need to come out of your perfect little world inside your bedroom. You really do, God forbid i hope you don't have a direct family that trusts YOU to protect it.

Edited by Dayton17

I'm sorry, but you have no logic. I wonder if you've ever been outside of your home. Suppose, just play with me here, tonight someone breaks in. You own no weapons, That person is armed with a gun. They walk in and shoot your wife, child, uncle, whoever. Then turn to find you. What will you do? Call the cops, who may be minutes away? I'll tell you right now, if someone broke into my house, I'd grab my .45 that's right next to be, and end the threat. You liberals do to much thinking, for being so damn open-minded, you sure would have a hard time figuring out what to do if someone ever broke in. The same situation applies to if you out for coffee, and some criminal busts in with a will to kill every single person in there. You need to come out of your perfect little world inside your bedroom. You really do, God forbid i hope you don't have a direct family that trusts YOU to protect it.

First of all, you know nothing about me, so before you go and jump to conclusions about my "perfect little world" be sure to know what you're talking about first, that's the problem with you Americans, you shoot first, and ask questions later, you can take that as you will, what's funny is, a lot of comments are made towards my personal life, which is not your business nor anybody elses, not really your right to even question how I would protect my family, just saying, either way you look at it, it's not my "right" as you call it, to carry a firearm in city limits, so your argument is invalid.

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

You liberals do to much thinking, for being so damn open-minded, you sure would have a hard time figuring out what to do if someone ever broke in.

 

 

 that's the problem with you Americans, you shoot first, and ask questions later

Really guys?  Resorting to childish blanket statements is how you attempt to argue with each other?  Not all liberals want to abolish guns - you need to get that into your head, Dayton, as many liberals appreciate guns just as much as conservatives.  Being liberal does not necessitate having a hate for weapons.  And Slimory, not all Americans are the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  If I was a "shoot first, ask later" type I would NOT be where I am on this site.  You don't really think every American is that way, now do you now?

de816a4fa5.png

 

 

Really guys?  Resorting to childish blanket statements is how you attempt to argue with each other?  Not all liberals want to abolish guns - you need to get that into your head, Dayton, as many liberals appreciate guns just as much as conservatives.  Being liberal does not necessitate having a hate for weapons.  And Slimory, not all Americans are the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  If I was a "shoot first, ask later" type I would NOT be where I am on this site.  You don't really think every American is that way, now do you now?

There is nothing childish about honesty, why do I need to sugar coat my opinion to make someone feel better? like really, I am yet to see an American that doesn't think this way, I do NOT dislike guns, nor am I against them, there are some people that possess a firearm for the wrong reasons, playing god is most certainly one of them and by that I mean taking a life nobody has a right to take which seems to be the most popular answer in this topic, I think only CERTAIN people should have them and certain TYPES of people that shouldn't.. my cousin lives in Oklahoma and her husband has a Glock, .45 and an M4, what does anyone need that kind of firepower for unless you were planning on using it? FYI you shouldn't compare "shoot first, ask questions later" to your position on this site.

I say what's on my mind and nobody seems to like it.. and there IS a reason for that.....

To be completely honest i really don't care if anyone likes me at all, it is what it is.

 

EDIT: @ Master Yoda: you can't even compare cars to guns, cars provide jobs  guns don't plus, you need different types of licenses to operate different vehicles and from what I've heard in some states you don't need a license to own a gun, people operating any type of equipment without a license shouldn't be operating it, which is why laws are put into place, owning a vehicle is a privilege not a right.

Edited by Slimory

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

Well, most people don't. I'm not a shoot first ask questions later kind of person. Police Officers can't be that type of person. When it comes to my life being a in direct danger, it is shoot first ask questions later. There's no time to sit and articulate this and that, when a gun is being pointed at you. Iconography, Thank you so much for explaining Liberal intentions. WHen did i say all liberals want to abolish guns, Because i can't seem to find it. If you're going to qoute me atleast refer to something that i actually said. Second, Again Slimory I don't know you, you're right. I never claimed too, I did however read a direct statement that you said the ONLY people to have guns are sherriffs, LEOs, etc. My question, which you haven't answered yet by the way, was what would you do if a someone comes into your house and tries to kill you. That's my question. It's the easiest question to back you liberals into a corner and do some logical thinking. The way I see it, is you either let them or yourself die, you call the police and hide, or you fight back. Well, ever heard of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Yea. I just hope I never end up at your house looking over a dead bodies because a father/mother/uncle/aunt or whomever can't defend themself. Police will never be a house away. We are here to help, and defend the innocent we will, but cmon. We arent going to be 15 seconds out all the time.

Well, most people don't. I'm not a shoot first ask questions later kind of person. Police Officers can't be that type of person. When it comes to my life being a in direct danger, it is shoot first ask questions later. There's no time to sit and articulate this and that, when a gun is being pointed at you. Iconography, Thank you so much for explaining Liberal intentions. WHen did i say all liberals want to abolish guns, Because i can't seem to find it. If you're going to qoute me atleast refer to something that i actually said. Second, Again Slimory I don't know you, you're right. I never claimed too, I did however read a direct statement that you said the ONLY people to have guns are sherriffs, LEOs, etc. My question, which you haven't answered yet by the way, was what would you do if a someone comes into your house and tries to kill you. That's my question. It's the easiest question to back you liberals into a corner and do some logical thinking. The way I see it, is you either let them or yourself die, you call the police and hide, or you fight back. Well, ever heard of bringing a knife to a gunfight. Yea. I just hope I never end up at your house looking over a dead bodies because a father/mother/uncle/aunt or whomever can't defend themself. Police will never be a house away. We are here to help, and defend the innocent we will, but cmon. We arent going to be 15 seconds out all the time.

Yes, I also said CERTAIN people should have them referring to my previous statement and if i'm understanding right your a Police Officer which would put you in a position to carry one even so, some LEO's are still questionable, to answer your question I would do what I CAN to protect my family I wouldn't hide nor would I wait for the Police, I would find the closest thing possible and use it, never know, I may actually shoot some one if I had to, but that is something I will never know, because owning a firearm is not a right here nor do people preach that guns are the way to solve problems.

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

I support gun carry, I did long before i got involved in LE. I started carrying at 18. I realize it's not a right there. I am not out to tell you America has the best ways, we certainly CERTAINLY don't. Nor am i saying a gun is a problem solver always. The words are your best tool in LE. My point is, with that post about only sherrifs, LEOs etc. that was received by me (and many others, whether intentional or not) that regular citizens should not be allowed to carry. That is the main point I'm challenging you on. There have been far to many episodes, Not just here but around the world, of violence in public places. I do not understand even a little bit, how someone would not trust a person who has passed a mental backround check, and a quite thorough BCI backround check to be allowed to carry to defend themselves. I wish, I really do, that there was a place where i would be 100% safe, but there isnt. Not in America, Mexico, Canada, anywhere. We have one life, No-one should tell someone that can't protect that with a gun, not a person, a government, dictator, whomever. On the flip side, no-one should be FORCED to carry a weapon. This shouldn't be taken out of context, I realize my wording was harsh, but there is my main point. If we do not agree, so be it. We are humans, and we will never fully understand each other.

I support gun carry, I did long before i got involved in LE. I started carrying at 18. I realize it's not a right there. I am not out to tell you America has the best ways, we certainly CERTAINLY don't. Nor am i saying a gun is a problem solver always. The words are your best tool in LE. My point is, with that post about only sherrifs, LEOs etc. that was received by me (and many others, whether intentional or not) that regular citizens should not be allowed to carry. That is the main point I'm challenging you on. There have been far to many episodes, Not just here but around the world, of violence in public places. I do not understand even a little bit, how someone would not trust a person who has passed a mental backround check, and a quite thorough BCI backround check to be allowed to carry to defend themselves. I wish, I really do, that there was a place where i would be 100% safe, but there isnt. Not in America, Mexico, Canada, anywhere. We have one life, No-one should tell someone that can't protect that with a gun, not a person, a government, dictator, whomever. On the flip side, no-one should be FORCED to carry a weapon. This shouldn't be taken out of context, I realize my wording was harsh, but there is my main point. If we do not agree, so be it. We are humans, and we will never fully understand each other.

I'll admit, you make a good a good case, I can't argue with that.

Kmpjq5P.gif


 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.