Chucktshoes

It is true that nobody has a right to fly. Whether or not a person flies on an airplane is decided by a transaction of commerce between two private entities. What people in this country do have, is a right to travel freely without being forced to submit to a sexual assault perpetrated by government agents simply on the basis of choosing to fly as a mode of travel. Nobody has the right to travel by car either but if they do, they don't automatically consent to a cavity search by police unless they have provided RAS that they are involved in criminal activity(well, except for New Mexico that is). That is the point where the rights violations come ino play. According to the TSA choosing to fly means that you are automatically a suspect of criminal activity and therefore may be searched like an inmate being inproccessed into jail.

Just one more illustration that the TSA does nothing more than violate the rights of people while producing not one whit of increased safety.     http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/15/forget-the-tsa-you-can-buy-bomb-making-m     The link has a video where a man builds what appears to be a low powered grenade with materials purchased AFTER the security screening. 

The metal detectors on Beale only come out at night. So carry on the street shouldn't be an issue. However, downtown has a higher number of posted businesses than anywhere else in the area and not all of the signs are as easily noticeable as I would think they should be. If you remember that "concealed means concealed" you should be ok.

Exactly. I already have too much crap in my pockets.

If you question our motivations for stripping you of your 1st, 4th, 5th & 6th amendment rights then the terrorists have won!

I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.

Whether I have something to hide or not is immaterial to the discussion. I will reveal what I choose, when I choose to and in the manner I choose as long as the encounter remains consensual. I don't record my casual conversations with my cop friends & acquaintances just because they are cops. I will record any "professional" encounter with an officer not because I don't trust cops but because I don't trust people and a badge isn't a magic talisman of moral uprightness.

I have qik video and an audio recorder on my phone and set up to start working within just a couple of screen taps. I have those apps ready for the same reason I carry a gun, "just in case".

He left his driver's license in the car. He had his Georgia Weapons License on him and gave it to the officer when he was asked for ID. Earlier in the thread he stated that he always has a recorder on his person. I would say it is a good thing too as it saved his bacon this time by catching the officer in a lie when compared to the officer's reports.

Absolutely a case of fishing for a cop. The key part of the equation y'all are missing is that it is entirely up to the cop whether or not he gets hooked. If the cop acts within the limits and scope of his duties everyone goes on their way and the douche is just a douche. If the officer oversteps his limits, he gets himself into trouble or the agency on the hook for a payout and the douche gets the smug satisfaction of being right, and possibly wealthier. The lesson to takeaway from this is for cops to act within their limits. Yes, they have a difficult job. I don't think anyone denies that. It is a difficult job on purpose.

Most people assume that the LEO is recording if they are near the cruiser. Usually it is the LEO who seems to have a problem being recorded. That's why there are court cases affirming the right to do so. In this case it appears as if the recording caught the officer in a few out and out lies. If I was a cop that was prone to lying in the reports, I might not like being recorded either. 

I don't put guns in the hands of the unprepared for kicks. When I put one of my guns in someone's hands I take all possible safety measures to ensure that everyone goes home without any extra holes. There are plenty of videos all over YouTube of men and women who were unprepared to handle that gun experiencing double taps. Some of them firing quite close to the head. This woman happened to be unfortunate enough to have it turn just *that* much too much. The person who put that gun in her hands should have been aware of a known issue with that gun and is morally, if not legally responsible for an avoidable and foreseeable outcome. ~rant Like I said in my initial post, this kind of thing pisses me off. If you* are the kind of person who puts a firearm in the hands of the unprepared because you think it is funny, you're an asshole. Not only are you an asshole but you are a danger to anyone around you when you are in possession of a firearm. /rant * You is used in the generic sense, not specifically directed at anyone on particular.

I've said it before and I think it is appropriate for this thread. Concealed means concealed. I can get a new job, my family can't get a new me.

Bingo. Like I said before, this was entirely foreseeable.

Yeah, I caught that too. :lol:

This sort of thing pisses me off. This was an entirely avoidable tragedy if not for some idiot who thought it would be funny to hand an inexperienced shooter the biggest damn gun he could without even thinking "hey, let's be on the safe side and load just one round in the thing in case she loses control of it." Youtube is full of videos where the person being filmed managed to avoid this poor woman's fate by nothing more than sheer luck. The person who put that gun in her hands should be charged with negligent homicide as this outcome was entirely foreseeable. 

He's in Millington. There is only one range that I am aware of in Millington.

I got no beef with Amazon. I understand how the game works and as far as no sales tax goes, it was good while it lasted. 

So under all circumstances we must respect the officer's authoritah, eh? 

Twitter was afire with folks making the racist accusation before they even finished the skit.    I do have to say that Taylor Swift's face was hilarious. "OMG, they are making fun of the president! Can they do that?"

For some of the folks on this board who are so quickly making such harsh judgements, it might be worthwhile to consider that this gentleman's name isn't Lenny.

Well now, having all the information paints quite a different picture.

Not at all. As I mentioned before, The only rights you have are the ones you are willing to defend. If their governments oppress and strip them of natural rights, it is only because they have allowed it to do so. Our own government tramples all over our rights daily and we allow it. I say "we" because I include myself in that. Currently I am fighting it in my own way, but obviously haven't resorted to violence (even though I believe it to be morally just) as it hasn't crossed a line I am willing to die for yet. For I know that when the day comes that violence is the only option I have left, my death will soon follow. I hold no romantic notion that I will be victorious in a glorious third American Revolution. However sometimes even if you know you will lose, you still have to fight. 

:wave:

Even though I am a big supporter of the tech and am excited about the speed of advances, I would pretty much agree with your assessment. Where I personally see the value is that the democratization of manufacturing by making it cheap and easy to obtain scares the bejeezus out of the power structure. Whether practical or not, the idea than anyone can download a file and print out a working firearm is terrifying to them. They are going to run around in circles and wasting energy attempting to stop a signal that can't be stopped. All they will accomplish in the end is showing their impotence.