EssOne

Anybody here who thinks he could live under the kind of precise scrutiny and insistence on perfection this officer has been subjected to in this thread, hold up your hand.

  That's true, it's his responsibility to do the disarming without incident. The crappy part is that there are so many different pistols out there, most officers can't possibly be conversant with them all, and that leads to some "manure occureth" situations - especially since so many gun owners these days have custom trigger work done on their guns, not to mention the great number of home-butchered triggers that are unsafe under any circumstances. Bottom line - police work is a dangerous occupation.

I'd rather not discuss it with you until you go study some law and put your usually drastic emotional response to the slightest impairment of your rights into a proper legal framework.

 Here are some tidbits I learned during my career. I think you can find an application to this stop for most of them,  but not for #6 in this particular case.   (1) Nothing about police work is easy or simple.   (2) If you lose psychological control of a situation you will probably die for it.   (3) .The officer must survive. When one's rights run counter to his survival, that person's rights (temporarily) lose. For the most part the courts agree.    (4) If you don't see the other guy's gun until it is coming out of his holster, you're a dead man.   (5)  'Tis far better to apologize for scaring hell out of a citizen than to foolishly avoid scaring hell out of him at the cost of your life.   (6) Never eat barbeque in a tan uniform. :pleased:

  Good on ya, Spots. Well said.

  If they're not agin' you, they're for you. But how long will they be "for" you if you go around calling them "idiots" on nationwide internet gun forums because they slipped up and said CCW? I lived in a CCW state for 54 years and even after being given a Tennessee State Certified Handgun Instructor rating.....even after having taught the course, I slipped up once and said "CCW" instead of "HCP" just from force of habit. And just for the record I don't think that makes me an idiot and I really don't like being called one.

  You've noticed that too, huh?

OK, Richard Nixon's missing 18 minutes made me forever suspicious. :rofl:  Boy, guess I really dated m'self on that one, didn't I?

Yes, I figured the same. But wasn't the audio disrupted too?

I'd like to know why the actual "snatch" portion of the video was cut out. That really bothers me.

  Yes, you're right. I misunderstood that aspect and thought he had stowed the gun.     The officer's response bothers me too, Ugly. I can't figure why the low key response if he thought he was dealing with a felony, and that's why I said earlier that I would have gone into full blown felony stop procedures. So there has to be something else besides the armed robbery aspect. I think the officer is prolly OK on PC for the stop in that I too would have been suspicious if I saw an armed man coming out of a store with a full, face-covering helmet on and get on a motorcycle with an obscured plate, but then if that's the case, why the low key response? As far as the snatching aspect, most officers I know of who deal with legal carriers in non-threatening misdemeanor situations simply ask for the gun if they want to disarm the person, they don't snatch it. And they do the lights, siren, guns, handcuff thing if they think they're dealing with a robbery or other felony . So I guess I have to admit I'm as stumped as everybody else and I'm not sure I can figure this one out without some more information.

  No, Ugly, if he was going to get the weapon he wouldn't want to telegraph his move in the event the rider wanted to resist - remember he stopped the rider because he saw him stow a gun when coming out of a store and the license plate was obscured. Snatching the gun is consistent with that. People with obscured license plates do have a nasty habit of pulling armed robberies on stores, and it is not generally considered wise for an officer to politely ask an armed robber for his gun.  My take is that he was trying to conduct a cursory, low key investigation. If I had made that stop myself for the reasons the officer gave, I'm afraid the rider would have been treated to a lot more flashing lights, sirens, and guns, so I think maybe he ought to be happy with what he got. 

Deleted by EssOne

Deleted by EssOne

You guys can't go wrong with a membership at Unaka Gun Club. It's a first rate club.

OK, but what's the corelation of psych drugs to mass shootings? That's the subject of the thread.

  Unlike the other candidates, I can't picture Carly misspeaking on anything whatsoever. She is thoroughly professional and well schooled in everything a presidential candidate should be. I'm all for her.

I post this with great fear and trepidation as an interesting view I haven't seen before. I don't agree with everything said and there are some areas in the article where I feel like a little pandering of gun owners is going on. BUT, it's something I haven't seen explored yet so I'll offer it on that basis. There may be something to it, or there may not be. Whatchallthank?   http://www.naturalnews.com/050568_psychiatric_drugs_mass_shootings_drug-induced_violence.html

The only things I see in violation are the windshield wiper and the gas cap. No biggies there. As long as all of his required lights work, his brakes work, his exhaust isn't leaking, and his tires aren't worn out, he's good to go. Driving a motorized junk pile isn't necessarily unlawful. Heck, now that we have diplomatic relations with Cuba, I'll bet he could get a good price for it there. :pleased:  

I've dinked around with Mausers since buying my first one in 1967, and I'd definitely treasure that one as is.

  And if professionals are after him, he needs advice well beyond what he will get from an internet gun forum. He needs to be talking to dedicated security firms. There's no way we can assess the threat to him by looking at a brief post, so I think you (or he) should take your request to someone who can spend some time looking into his needs professionally.  

OK darnit, where's Netanyahu?

I recently fell prey to the Godzilla of all malware infections - the one that eats Windows 7 Home Premium programs like peanuts. I had to replace a lot of expensive stuff in order to get the computer back from Zombieland, including the entire Windows program. Luckily I didn't lose any files, but I was out about $300 to get everything corrected. So this set me to thinking about some malware protection, which I had obviously been ignorant of in the past.    From what the computer guy tells me, the ordinary security programs like McAfee, AVG, Norton, etc. etc. aren't always effective against malware, and a little malware protection plugs a big hole in computer security.   So if any of you nice folks would be interested in getting some protection from malware, my computer guy recommends the premium protection offered by this company. It costs $24.95 per year for three computers. I'm currently on their free 14 day plan that he installed and I intend to buy the premium plan for our computers when it expires. I have no personal experience with this program, but my computer guy knows his stuff so, in view of having gotten my butt kicked by malware, I'll take his advice on this one for now. BTW - This supplements your present security program, it doesn't replace it. The free 14 day plan is available here as well as the annual plan.   https://www.malwarebytes.org/lp/sem/5/?gclid=COeW3uvJkMcCFdccgQodZ-oEtA    

I hope you guys were taught cursive in school. Sounds like you're gonna need it. :pleased:

Take a look at total cost before you choose. Some of the cheaper airlines charge you for seat selection, etc., and can get pretty ridiculous about it.