East_TN_Patriot

  Do I really?  How about working on your writing skills so that your points are clear and not so ambiguous?  I still have no clue who you were directing your post to me, others posting here, or society in general.  I asked in a polite manner, you replied with a smart@$$ remark, so I think that speaks volumes about your attitude.  Thanks for clearing that up at least.

  I am curious if this is directed toward me. If it's not, ignore the comments below and accept my apologies for misinterpreting your statements.   If it was, I would encourage you to re-read what I am saying, and pay attention to my signature.  I do not support authoritarianism in any way, but I also do not consider myself naive enough to believe that we can have this "calm comfortable collective" you dream of.  That I believe in the need for some minimal form of legal framework to prevent individuals from doing direct harm to one another is certainly not remotely close to authoritarianism, and if your statement was intended to be understood at face value, it's pretty obvious that you have no willingness and/or ability to engage in any sort of worthwhile political discourse.  In fact, your eagerness to categorically and immediately discount another point of view on how this "calm comfortable collective" would look is actually proof of an authoritarian mindset and unwillingness to  Marx's dream of a "calm comfortable collective" resulted in dictatorships and genocide.  The Native American's "calm comfortable collective" resulted in their virtual extermination at the hands of a more powerful society that believed that the legal safeguards afforded to specific members of white society did not apply to these "redskins" and "savages."  This is why I again state that it is essential that a definite codified legal structure outlining the fundamental ideals of individual rights and liberty coupled with a basic framework for organizing a government that is charged with the duty and responsibility to assure individual rights are protected must be in place.  What that government and legal structure looks like is open for discussion.

I will respond to your points in the same way:   1) Our government as originally conceived didn't give the mantle of legitimacy to the corrupt or yield power to the government to use against the unwilling.  I'll argue here as I have with Marxists, that the critique you make is based on American government as it exists today, not what it was intended to be.  Also, just as I argue with Marxists, I will say that the answer does not lie in destroying the political system and replace it with some alternative form, but to try and return it to what it was intended to be in the beginning.  Frankly, we are arguing "ideal types" and none of these systems work as intended.  Your concept of an anarcho-capitalist society would be no more likely to work as intended than any other system man could conceive, which is why Marxist philosophy ended up a bastardized authoritarian system of government instead of the peaceful Utopia based on the ideas of democracy and freedom that Marx envisioned (and yes, Marx did believe his solution would result in a free and democratic society).  The goal is to find the system that would best provide mechanisms to prevent the corruption and/or manage people's willingness to violate the rights of others.  I am not aware of any system of anarchy that has been successful in doing that.  That is not to say that I could be wrong, but history tells us that an absence of civil society based on rule of law does not end well for individuals. 2) It's not a "crap straw-man argument" at all.  In fact, I strongly suggest this is the Achiles heel of your position, and your portrayal of it as such suggests that you haven't really given the topic of power and wealth distribution much thought or you don't have an answer so you choose to insult the point.  If I am misinterpreting your language, I apologize and would really like to hear your position.  I am not trying to pick a fight, but enjoying a spirited debate about an interesting topic.  All that said....   Do you believe that the very same powerful interests we are both citing as a major problem in our political/economic/and legal systems would simply crumble in a social revolution that resulted in an anarcho-capitalist state as you advocate?  Based on my understandings of anarcho-capitalism and discussion I have had with followers of that philosophy, they tend to possess what I consider an overly naive and optimistic expectation of the power of the individual consumer to make change.  Individuals and entities that currently have access to extraordinary wealth and power would still possess power, wealth, and resources after the revolution.  They will use those resources to leverage additional resources and maintain their positions of power.  They control access to essential resources such as food, medicine, oil, coal, and transportation, which are resources those of us who lack power and wealth would need to survive.  How would us little guys gain access to those resources?  How do you take a corporation that controls oil reserves with the resources to defend those reserves by force and wrench that away from them?  I think the flaw in the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is that we could engage in mutual economic exchanges and reward the entities we deem to be worthy at the expense of those entities we deem to be corrupt.  Perhaps that is true to an extent, but I don't believe that in the world of corporate domination that individual economic decisions would have any impact.  Add in that these powerful entities would control access to knowledge, as they already do, and that would further corrupt the ability of individuals to engage in mutually beneficial transactions.  This is why I argued that such an anarcho-capitalist revolution would not be successful unless that revolution included a mechanism to redistribute what many would consider to be a corrupt distribution of wealth and resources to entities that have been "legitimized and rewarded" for their corrupt activities.  Please educate me on how this would work without a level playing field that everyone could have equal access to property, wealth, and resources so that everyone could then embark on this new path of a society organized and guided only be individual and mutually beneficial economic decisions that reward innovation or prudence and punish unwise or corrupt activity.  I say that existing social and economic inequality will just be reproduced under the new system thus corrupting the new system from the beginning. 3) Again, I think you are misinterpreting my words, but my assumptions were based on what you said and my understandings of anarcho-capitalism.  I was not trying to put words in your mouth.  I completely agree that such as system would require people to engage in transactions that are based on informed and voluntary decisions grounded in mutually beneficial exchange.  Returning to my point in #2 above, I maintain the position that this is simply not possible because not everyone has equal levels of the knowledge, education, or access to information that is required for this sort of ideal economic exchange to take place.  It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the powerful to exploit the powerless.  I understand the promise of private organizations to help manage these exchanges, but as we know now, the BBB is corrupted by business interests who basically pay for an "A" rating.  A better example would be the UL and their product safety testing.  I would like to think that these sorts of organizations would be good mediators, but I don't think they would be sufficient to protect basic individual rights.  This is where some sort of legal structure and statement of rights is important.   4) We have order now, it's just a system of order that is corrupted by crony capitalism.  I am arguing we return to what we had, not replace it with something new.

Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a .38 snub revolver for home defense.  Nothing.  One more time: NOTHING.  During an average self-defense shooting, the person fires a whopping two shots (my memory is saying it was actually 1.8 or something like that, but I don't recall the source).  In one study of police shootings, the average number of shots fired is less than 5 and that's with them carrying semi-auto handguns with high-cap mags.  Cops carried .38 revolvers for decades and killed plenty of people in the process, and usually with lead round nose or FMJ bullets instead of hollow-points. Putting this all in proper perspective, you need to think of a few key points:   1) The likelihood of you ever needing to use any firearm in self-defense is extremely small.  Violent crime stats show you are much safer today than 20 years ago. 2) Even if you do find an intruder in your home, it's very unlikely that they will head to your kids' room.  They want your money, valuables, etc. 3) Even if the intruder does go to your kids' room, they are very likely to flee when they encounter a very upset mother armed with a handgun. 4) That revolver has more than enough capacity and firepower to stop a threat as long as you do your part. 5) Because the firearm - any firearm - is only as good as the person using it, make sure that it is in proper working condition and you know how to shoot it well. 6) If you don't feel confident with your shooting skills, you need to get some training and practice.   7) If you still aren't comfortable, you may want to consider adding a baseball bat to your arsenal.  Getting clocked on the head is usually a threat stopper. 8) Keep a flashlight available so you can easily see what you are potentially pointing your firearm at. 9) In reference to the comment about a security system, even the illusion of a security system, such as alarm stickers or a sign outside is good enough. 10) If you don't have a dog, and don't want to get a dog, make it look like you have a dog.  A "BEWARE OF DOG" signs and a big chew toy in the yard is good enough.

Explain how a completely unregulated free-market will prevent all corruption.  The only way this could ever be an option in today's world is to seize all property, distribute it equally to assure that we all start on an even playing field, and then let individuals reorganize society using the "invisible hand" of the market to regulate all human interaction.  Further, your assumption is that there is no way that anyone would engage in any transaction than one that is entered into with a complete and total understanding of the terms and a completely ethical attitude and no intention to ever take advantage of or defraud another.  With no rules to protect property rights and no institutions to enforce those rules, we will degrade to a state of total disorder where the weak are exploited by the powerful.  Anarcho-capitalism can only result in a feudal society.

  Unfortunately, it's both.  The Founders favored individual rights, so that was the original standard.  Since that time, a major segment of our society - including most people who claim to favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - have made that qualitative shift toward the idea of collective rights.     No, it's not an unfair trade.  If you think it is, then you either, 1) don't really understand the concept of being in a "state of nature" as discussed in social contract theory, 2) you have not considered the ramifications if we lived in an anarchy, and/or 3) you haven't considered that there is no option to return to such a "state of nature" because there is no territory on the globe that is not subjected to the jurisdiction of government, which is the outcome of the hypothetical social contract.  On that final point, Locke discussed in some detail how the North American continent was one of the last frontiers on the planet where this state of nature existed.  Locke also discussed the ethical question of how much of our natural liberty can and should be given up.  Lastly, the social contract that Rousseau talked about is much older that 275 years.  The concept was talking about the formation of the first human societies at the dawn of mankind.     What your point is advocating is that you believe in anarchy where all natural rights are unrestricted and absolute.  That means that your rights can only be secured by your own efforts.  If a band of roving men armed with superior weapons want to take your life, liberty, and property, then you have no security in your natural rights.  Without the protections and legal safeguards of a civil society, one that was presumably formed under the social contract, those rights are not really yours.  Using a contemporary topic that is near and dear to us on TGO, I'll illustrate this using firearms ownership.  Let's presume that tomorrow morning the US Supreme Court ruled that the entire political structure of the United States was illegitimate and an unjust interpretation of the theoretical social contract, therefore the entire governmental structure of the US, including state and local governments must cease to exist and all powers of these governments to enforce law and regulate interactions between people is stripped.  Now what?  Using the gun example, this would mean that the world would become one where people could own any type of weapon they want, regardless of their ethics or respect for individual rights, and they could use those weapons in any way they choose.  If Charles Manson could obtain control over the entire nuclear arsenal of the US and use it to destroy all mankind if he wanted to because in a state of nature, there are no rules; it's survival of the fittest.  If your neighbors decided to band together, use their collective power to enslave your family, use you as a sex slave, and cannibalize your other family members, they can do that because that's how they choose to exercise their absolute and unrestricted natural rights.   You might be saying, "But their rights end where mine begin!"  Philosophically, you are correct, but without a civil society organized under an assumed social contract, there is no mechanism in place to make sure that standard is enforced.  You also might be saying, "But I would join up with my neighbors and we would protect our rights as a group."  Well, that may be true as well, but you have just engaged in a social contract and you'd all agree to a set of rules on how this new group will function.  EIther you go along with the program or you are cast out into the "state of nature" and fend for yourself.   If you don't believe that the social contract concept is legitimate, then you are saying that the US Constitution is not a legitimate legal document because that document specifically limits individual liberty in certain ways.  The goal of the Founders was to find a way to have a flourishing and organized civil society while still maximizing the amount of liberty that individuals could maintain, at least for white land owners.  As we all know, slaves, women, Native Americans, and those who did not own land were not entrusted with the ability to maintain maximum liberty.  

If you believe in the Enlightenment era philosophy that inspired political theorists like Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, and also the Founders, then it's understood that we are born with Natural Rights and unlimited liberty while living in a "state of nature" meaning in a complete system of wild anarchy with no organized social structure to protect you or your rights. Based on social contract theory, it is assumed that at some point in human history that humans agreed to come together and organize societies under governmental authority in order to collectively provide a more peaceful and orderly existence while relying on each other to help defend individual rights. Under this agreement, the social contract, we agree to voluntarily give up some portion of our unrestricted liberty and allow some degree of restriction of our natural rights in order to maintain an orderly society and benefit from what civil society offers. Under this concept, government cannot infringe upon those rights any more than what we voluntarily allow as part of our acceptance of the social contract. It was also assumed that the government did not have the authority to claim any more authority than was necessary to preserve our rights and assure the survival of civil society. Philosophically, the idea of freedom and liberty vary, which is visible in the differing ideologies between the American and French Revolutions. Americans emphasized individual rights and liberty (freedom of choice) while the French tended to emphasize collective rights and liberty (freedom from want). The difference is subtle, but highly significant. When you say that government exists to protect our rights, and it is believed that those rights are collective within society, that means the government has the authority to use force against any individual that is deemed a threat to collective liberty and rights. This is one of the reasons that the outcome of the French Revolution was violence and genocide. When the collective body can lay claim to rights, then no individual is safe. In the United States, we emphasize individual rights, meaning that the freedom of the individual ultimately trumps the will of the collective and the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. This is why we say that we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Now, to the original question. The philosophical statement of this perspective is found in the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." The legal framework constructed to carry out that philosophical statement is the U.S. Constitution. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not an exhaustive list of protected Natural Rights, but is a list of rights that were recognized as especially important, indeed essential, for preserving those Natural Rights and restrain the power of government. Contrary to what many people believe, these rights are not absolute as is explained in social contract theory. If they were absolute, then the social contract would be dissolved and we would return to a state of nature. The challenge in all of this is in determining to what extent the people have the ability to yield liberty to the government in order to preserve the social contract and civil society. The reason this has become a bigger issue is due to a qualitative shift in the belief that rights belong to individuals toward one of collective rights, as illustrated by FDR's list of freedoms that included "freedom from want." In fact, that "Four Freedoms" speech is a very interesting statement of collective rights over individual rights. By saying that we have a freedom from want, government now claims the authority to pursue and use force to secure that freedom, which includes restricting your freedom of choice. This works the same way, whether you are talking about economic want or moral want. Basically, what we have today is a government that has adopted this philosophy and policies driven by the desire to control people's freedom of choice in favor of collective rights favored by those in power at that time. Whether it is freedom from wanting healthcare or freedom from wanting a decline in moral values, the end game is the same. It is restricting your individual choice to live your life as you want under the rules of a civil society where we are restricted from doing direct and tangible harm to one another. I think I'm done now.

A wee bit off topic, (not by much since we are talking about a Spike's lower and the have the logo engraved on some of their lowers), but what's the significance of the Jolly Roger on gun parts these days? I totally don't get it.

I have owned a stainless Casio Tough Solar G-Shock about 10 years ago, have worn it very regularly, and other than a little wear on the high spots, it's as good today as when I got it back then. In my opinion, well worth the money.

MacGyver has my basic argument covered, but I'll ask this simple question: impeachment for what? Impeach him for trying to implement a policy he supports, that was lawfully passed by Congress, and ruled on as constitutional by the SCOTUS at least as far as the particular legal questions they were asked to decide? Impeach him for a very poorly written and extremely poorly implemented law? Where does the law say that qualifies as an impeachable offense under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause of the Constitution? Impeach him for lying about the policy? Again, show us where that is considered an impeachable offense? Impeach him for implementing a policy that is harming people? If that were an impeachable offense, then Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush should have been impeached as well for their support of the drug war and other costly and harmful policies. Simple fact of the matter is that this impeachment talk is pure nonsense. If people want real change, then they need to stop voting for candidates in the two statist major parties. If you are one who votes "the lesser of two evils", you are still voting for evil. If you believe you have to vote Republican to keep a Democrat out of office, you can see how that worked out for you these past elections. Also, in a hypothetical race between the Republican Hitler, the Democrat Stalin, and the Libertarian Gary Johnson, you'd vote for Hitler because he's the "conservative" Republican and you can't let Stalin win because he's more of a Marxist. Think about that for a minute.

I hope you are correct.  I was really surprised by the first experience and I am convinced it never landed in front of an armorer on that visit.  I was very happy that they went the extra mile this time.  I am a very reasonable person, so I didn't expect an immediate turnaround, but I was glad they did go the extra mile.

I'm not a fan of common core, but it appears the guy did not follow the protocol established for speaking.  It's not the question that got him in trouble, it was hogging the microphone.  This is no different than the "Don't taze me bro!" guy at the University of Florida a few years ago.  Go to any public meeting and ignore the rules of order, that's what is going to happen.   On a side note, I've not heard an actual alternative to the common core curriculum.  Rather, what people want is essentially a common core curriculum that requires the information they think is important as opposed to someone else.  I'm not hearing anyone say that educators should be trusted to decide what to teach and how to teach it.

So here is the update.  I had some email communication with a fellow in Spike's customer service department.  After a couple of delays, he sent me a return label and RMA number.  I sent the complete upper with BCG, copies of email correspondence including that associated with the previous RMA, photos of the malfunction posted here, and explanation of what I had tried to fix the problem including types of mags, ammo, etc.  Two days later, I received an email from the customer service rep stating that he hand-carried the upper to their armorer who, upon reading the correspondence, built a complete new upper for me and installed my LWRC quad-rail on the new upper.  I received the shipment today and it included 7 fired casings that do not have the scratches/gouges on them like the ones I got in the old upper receiver.  I asked if they knew what the problem was, they said they didn't bother to do any sort of diagnostics.  I am very confident that the feed ramps on the other barrel extension were not machined properly because these look much more flared than on the previous upper.  They also tossed in a couple of decals and a American flag velcro patch, which was nice.  The only problem is that they didn't swap out the engraved dust cover I had on the previous upper, but that is a very minor problem and I'll take credit for that because I didn't specify it was installed on the upper I returned.  Hopefully I'll be able take it out and shoot it this weekend to confirm it works properly.   I'm glad to see that Spike's has finally tried to make things right.  I'll give a range report soon.

OK, now after watching that, and assuming that is exactly the same thing that happened in the OP's story, then it would seem that the fault lies with Smith & Wesson for producing a firearm with a trigger that is so light that the the force of the recoil can cause the shooter's grip to fire a second shot.  Or is this the case of some idiot doing one of those fancy hair trigger jobs?

So if you let someone shoot one of your guns and they accidentally kill themselves, then we can expect that you will immediately call the police and turn yourself in for negligent homicide.  Yeah, m'kay....     Where does the story say she was a "new shooter" or that there is any indication she'd never shot that particular gun before?  Perhaps she's shot with them in the past and there was no reason to expect that to happen.  Perhaps she was a very experienced shooter and was simply the victim of a freak accident that could never happen again. Or... I have a better thought... Perhaps this story makes no sense and there is no logical way that a gun can miraculously spin around in your hands to the point that a double action revolver will fire a second time simply from the force of the first discharge.  Perhaps it was a suicide or a homicide being written up as an accident.  Yeah, that makes more sense.  

Perhaps some sort of shoulder holster that you can wear under a dress shirt assuming it's a button-down?  I'd hate to keep it off of my body in case I had to run to my desk or to the receptionist's desk and then have the crap hit the fan.

Yup, in what appears to be a private venue specifically organized for a firearms related event.  A far cry from OCing at a public park.   As best I can discern from all of this, the individual involved decided to open-carry and gave the police a hard time when a little cooperation would have very likely solved the problem without any legal action taken.  I'm as suspicious of the police as anyone, and I used to be a cop, but I don't ask for trouble by giving an officer a hard time when they are just trying to do their job, even if I think the job at that moment is BS.   As I have stated in multiple other threads, and as others have said in this one, go open-carrying in a world that is not comfortable with the practice, you are opening yourself up for this sort of thing.  I didn't OC as an off-duty police officer for the same reason.  

This is in my plans for a future purchase, but it is my impression that this rifle has not hit the market yet, even though it was announced some time ago.  In fact, when I looked at Mossberg's online catalog a couple of weeks ago, it wasn't even listed.  So, I'm not sure what the scoop is on that.  If they ever do hit the market, I think that is the ultimate SHTF rifle chambered in .308/7.62 NATO.  Compact, plenty of power, and a removable box mag that is not proprietary as far as I am aware.  For a SHTF rifle, I personally would avoid a .300BLK because it is no where near as common as .308/7.62 NATO.  If the world went all to poo, .308/7.62 NATO is going to be much easier to find because of it's common use as a hunting round, police sniper round, and military round.  It will be easier to reload if needed since you don't need to rework brass to load it.  Barring that hitting the market at a reasonable price-point, I have been considering picking up a simple .308 hunting rifle.  The .223/5.56 version is quite sufficient unless you plan to hunt large game with it. Another excellent option would be an SKS in 7.62x39 in its original configuration.  Simple, rugged, made to work in crappy conditions, cleaning tools on board, easy to break down, and 10 rounds of ammo on board.  Unless you expect to be engaged in an extensive firefight (very unlikely) then 10 rounds and some extras on stripper clips is more than sufficient for anyone's needs.  It would also keep you from unwisely ripping through 30 rounds, which is not wise in a SHTF situation.  I have owned several and have never experienced the problems you reported.  I will pick up another one of these in the future.  I would avoid older military bolt action rifles because parts are likely to be very difficult to find in a prolonged break-down of civil society.  The Spanish Mauser is a cool little rifle, but the rifles, much less the parts, are tough to find (trust me), and for the price of one of those, you could get a nice modern bolt action hunting rifle.   As far as lever action rifles in handgun calibers, I personally don't see the point of carrying a rifle unless it's in a rifle caliber.  The whole point of the rifle is to give you the extra distance and power that the handgun won't give you.  Why compromise on the cartridge if you are going to sacrifice mobility with the weight and size of a rifle?

It is the same "progressive liberals" in the USDOJ that are sponsoring this talk.  This is why the post-Sandy Hook legislation died a quick death.  Gun owners are always talking about the "progressive liberals" in government in academia and government trying to get their guns, but during the past five years under what many consider the most radical progressive liberal president in recent history, the government has made little effort to control access to guns, has been largely unsuccessful in the policies it has tried to pass, and is now sponsoring a talk about research showing that gun ownership is not correlated with homicide rates.   I've seen multiple academic research papers on this topic in the past 2 or 3 years, and the overwhelming majority of them say gun control does not prevent crime.  They present these findings in public (and to the USDOJ), yet gun owners still complain about these "radical progressives/Marxists" and warn about how they all want to seize our guns.   And if you want to talk about emotion trumping logic and facts, let's talk about gun owners.  Gun owners are every bit as bad - or worse - about letting emotion override their brains in comparison to gun-control advocates.  I've experienced first-hand the belligerent attacks from rabid gun owners who believe the federal government, military, law enforcement, UN, and FEMA are all currently mobilizing the full might of the government to come and seize firearms at any moment.  I've heard stories about pro-gun politicians being shouted out of meetings because they did not adopt the same venomous and frantic rhetoric of emotionally driven gun owners.  It's these same gun owners who continue to buy ammo as fast as it can hit store shelves or will pay above-retail prices for ammo sold by opportunists who clean off store shelves for a quick profit.  This is why I keep saying that in many ways, gun owners are their own worst enemy.   As I said, this does not mean we should declare victory and stop paying attention.  What it does mean is that people need to chill the frick out a bit and continue to fight the fight in a civil manner guided by logic and facts.  Certainly, there are a few in government and academia who want to ban guns regardless of what the data says, but I believe these folks are in the minority.

The National Institute of Justice is hosting a talk by Dr. Randolph Roth a professor at Ohio State University.  The title of the talk is, "Why is the United States the Most Homicidal Nation in the Affluent World?"   Keep in mind, this talk is being sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, a subordinate organization in the US Department of Justice.  They have invited a speaker to present research saying that gun ownership is not correlated with homicide rates.  Here is the description of the talk:     As I have tried to tell gun owners multiple times in the past, more and more scholars are publishing papers that are acknowledging this reality and the US government is taking notice.  I'm not posting this as a statement saying we should not be vigilant about protecting our 2nd Amendment rights; I am doing it as a reminder that folks can probably come down from DEFCON 1, other folks can loosen up their tinfoil hats a bit, and stop engaging in the constant barrage of belligerent rhetoric that alienates potential allies in the Second Amendment fight.   Another point to make note of is that other factors that many "conservatives" cite to explain homicide rates are not correlates either.  So while all of the "conservatives" out there demand harsher punishments including longer prison terms, abolition of drugs, and more cops, they are hurting the cause of liberty as much as gun-control advocates and are likely making other social problems worse.    

  Am I the only one who has gone onto Brownells AR15 Builder and tried to visualize what theirs will look like at the end?  I'm going with a Daniel Defense S2W mid-length 18" barrel and a YHM Phantom flash hider.  I think it's gonna look SAH-WEEEEEET!

That article reveals how most people don't really understand the law related to the 4th Amendment. It does not give you an unlimited right to privacy, but protects you from "unreasonable" search and seizures. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Framers didn't give us much else to work with on that standard. Instead, the courts have had to decide how to interpret the Amendment. To make an investigatory stop - aka a Terry stop named after Terry v. Ohio (1968) - an officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a set of facts that can be articulated and would lead a reasonable person, such as a juror, to reach a similar conclusion under the same set of circumstances. The stop is a temporary detention to give the officer an opportunity to investigate the circumstances and determine whether their original suspicions are gather enough evidence that would constitute probable cause and justify an arrest. In this case, I think there is most certainly enough information to give any officer reasonable suspicion that the person may be up to no good. If the individual had been more cooperative and was not violating the law, I am confident the officer would have let him go about his business, stupid as it may be. I can tell you one thing; if I was in a park with my kids and saw this douchebag wandering around, there is a good possibility I would call the police. No responsible gun owner would act like that and there are just enough lunatics walking around our streets to keep from from taking any chances with the safety of my kids. As I say frequently following stories like this, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

The only reason there is no "viable third party" is because everyone has bought into the idea perpetuated by the two major parties that third parties aren't viable.  Stop being a sheep and vote your conscience.  As long as people keep voting for the Republicans, the party will never change.  It's really that simple.

    You beat me to it.  My first thought was, "Good Lord, why?" and almost immediately I thought, "Because they can, that's why."  Normally I would say that just because you can, doesn't mean you should, but if they have the money, then go for it I say.

Lawyer or no lawyer, if this is what happened, you are going to have a very hard time justifying actions. Why?  It's very difficult to provide a reasonable explanation of how a handcuffed individual held inside of a secure correctional facility can pose a serious "security threat" by taking their hands off of the wall.  This tells me that one of three scenarios was going on here: 1) You had the inmate handcuffed in front, which is dumb, 2) the inmate was cuffed in the rear and had his back against the wall and could not pose much of a threat unless they were going to bite you or kick you, neither of which was described by you, or 3) the person was handcuffed, took his hands off of the wall, you got pissed and put hands on him because you felt your authority was being challenged, and now you are concocting this narrative to cover your bad decisions.  My vote is for option three because of the other points highlighted in red above.   Clearly, your co-worker felt the "security threat" actually came from you because they felt the need to physically restrain you and not the inmate.  I have worked around enough cops and corrections officers to know that they do not physically restrain a fellow officer unless they are completely out of control.  I believe you very likely were out of control at that moment due to your own statement about "F***ing up" your co-worker in a later debriefing.  The NYPD is known for their heavy-handed tactics - as you so eloquently state yourself - so I have little doubt that you used unjustified force against that inmate, and now you are paying the price for not following the law and policy.  I hope I am mistaken, but I'm confident I am not.