East_TN_Patriot

I very seriously doubt that the whomever originated the petition did so with the idea that the US should seriously consider changing the national anthem to R. Kelly.  Of course, sarcasm does tend to get lost over the Internet. 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-women-giving-guns-shooting-clubs-shot/story?id=18658189       I just wish I could get my wife to think like this!

And the point I've been trying to make over and over again regarding these panic-based theories:   http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342161/great-ammunition-myth-charles-c-w-cooke

Whatever the case, there is absolutely no evidence these are for the UN other than the typical "reliable anonymous source" who is never identified.

  Yes, it really is dangerous.  There seems to be a growing trend on the right with this sort of conspiratorial worldview and it's very detrimental to freedom loving people in this country.  First, it feeds into the rhetoric of the left that portrays the right, especially gun owners, as dangerous and lacking rational thought.  Second, it will be a matter of time before one of these people are crazy enough and pissed off enough to pull another Timothy McVeigh.  What's even more concerning to me is that some of the people I know who unquestioningly buy into this crap should be smart enough to know better.

Just when you think that the "zero-tolerance" BS couldn't get any stupider...

Here's another one making the rounds on the web and Facebook. Someone posted a photo claiming it is UN tanks parked near Charleston, West Virginia. Here is a screen shot from Facebook. I've blocked the last names to protect the dumb. Notice that there are 889 shares, so this will likely make it to an InfoWars site near you in the near future. The comments on the Facebook thread demonstrate the very problem we have in this country; people are so incapable of rational thought that they will believe anything that is told to them if it fits their pre-existing worldview. In one respect, Alex Jones is right; there is a war for your mind and it's between his flavor of Kool Aid over the flavor being handed out by other groups who want you to believe what they say without question. I elect to free my mind. Like most of these conspiratorial threads, there are many errors that are immediately obvious. First, the UN doesn't have their own military vehicles or equipment. The organization relies on the equipment, vehicles, aircraft, and personnel from member nations. Second, vehicles used in UN missions are painted white with "UN" painted in large black letters on the side. These are painted desert tan, hardly a color that would be useful for an invasion of the eastern United States. Third, if this were some covert effort for the UN to take over the United States, I highly doubt they would be so dumb as to leave their vehicles in the wide open for people to photograph. Fourth, Interstate 70 doesn't run anywhere near Charleston, West Virginia. Fifth, and perhaps most important, these are United States Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Here is a photo of one located on the website of the 1st Infantry Division in Fort Riley, Kanas: http://www.riley.army.mil/NewsViewer.aspx?id=2713

I caught the sarcasm in the first part, but I'm not so sure that was sarcasm in the second part.  While I was a LEO, my coworkers regularly said that PhD stood for "post hole digger" and other comments I've read from other gun owners are pretty much in line with that one.

So does that mean my PhD in criminology is useless, I lack honesty and objectivity, and any research I produce is only for the purpose of convincing people to buy into the liberal agenda?  I guess I'll stop fooling with the research I am currently working on that examines the role of media rhetoric in shaping flawed gun policies.  Too bad I didn't realize how liberal and "owned" I am before I started on it.  I guess someone needs to call John Lott and Gary Kleck and let them know that they are really liberal hacks too. Sounds to me like you are just as biased and incapable of objective thought as the authors of that study.    

I am currently writing a book chapter for an edited volume on "narrative criminology," which is a perspective that tries to pick apart the way people shape their views of the world, including crime, through the use of rhetoric and narratives.  Good video.

Today, someone asked me which of my guns is my favorite.  I said I like my Sig because of the quality and accuracy, my Glock because of its ruggedness and simplicity, etc.  Then he said, "If you could only grab one, which would it be?"  I thought for a second, and said it would be my 4" Smith & Wesson model 65 revolver in .357 magnum.  Simple, rugged, reliable, multiple cartridge choices, and enough power for most needs.  

  No, I don't think we are.  The same general rules apply regardless of whether you are on foot, in your vehicle, or in your home.  There are just different nuances about how the rules are applied.  Generally, the courts have said that an officer is lawfully authorized to take possession of a weapon during a police/citizen encounter.  I posed the question in this debate to a Tennessee prosecutor I know and he confirmed that the possession of a TN carry permit doesn't change the circumstances as it relates to 4th Amendment issues and taking possession of a weapon during a police/citizen contact.  I don't necessarily disagree that an officer doesn't need to seize a weapon to assure safety, but the courts have generally said that seizing the weapon is perfectly acceptable.  Take for instance the search incident to arrest and the "wingspan" rule that says an officer can search anywhere within a suspect's "wingspan" for weapons and contraband following arrest.  In that case, the suspect is arrested and presumably totally separated from any weapons, but the police can still search.  If the officer makes contact with you and legally detains you to investigate any infraction of the law, the officer can disarm you and take possession of the weapon for the duration of the contact.   To reiterate my earlier point, what you or I think is constitutional is essentially irrelevant to what the law deems constitutional (for better or worse).  Our system is based on the principle of judicial review and precedent, which serves to interpret the law and how it is applied.  I don't know off hand of any specific cases that have made a constitutional challenge related to a permit holder and I suspect there aren't any because someone with a valid carry permit and a lawfully carried weapon is not charged with a crime, thus no real constitutional dilemma is triggered as the law sees it.  I know there are multiple cases related to search and seizure and officer safety, which is the basis for my points here.  It would seem that this question has no clear answer and likely won't be answered by the SCOTUS because there is no criminal case to require an appeal.  More likely, there may be an Attorney General's opinion out there somewhere, so I'll peruse the web a bit for that.  Being a criminologist and not a legal scholar, my access to legal resources is limited. EDIT:  I did some searches of Tennessee AG opinions, but did not find anything specifically related to the permit holder question (at least as I am interpreting it here).  The few I looked at related to search & seizure tend to follow the basic case law.  I found a site that has a good overview of search and seizure law so if people are interested, there is the link: http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crimpro/crimpro01.htm

No kidding. I got rid of all my .40 a few months ago in favor of the 9mm expecting it would be the easiest to find.

Except the courts would disagree with you.  They would say that it is not unreasonable for the officer to temporarily disarm you.  In fact, they have made several exceptions to the 4th Amendment allowing officers latitude in situations specifically related to firearms.  The police can search your home while there for another lawful purpose if they have reasonable suspicion that there is an armed person hiding there who may pose a threat.  The police are able to search you and the area within your immediate reach if you are arrested inside of your home pursuant to an arrest specifically to search for weapons.  The police do not have to get a warrant in order to search your vehicle pursuant to an arrest specifically to look for weapons.  The police can pat down your outer clothing for a weapon if they have reasonable suspicion you possess a weapon.    A stop is a lawful detention under the 4th Amendment as long as there is reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal activity or they have witnessed a violation of the law. While you are detained, the officer has the authority to investigate to determine whether you are actually involved in a crime.  If the officer knows you have a weapon in your possession, it has long been determined that it is not unreasonable for the officer to disarm you until the conclusion of the stop and/or the determination that you do not pose a threat.  This is why many officers will choose to disarm the individual until they can confirm the individual's carry permit is valid, that the person isn't wanted, etc.   Let's just say, for instance, that you are the officer and you have stopped a car for speeding.  You contact the driver, he makes a statement that he is a permit holder and has a gun in the vehicle.  You decide to let him keep the firearm, take his permit and license, and go back to your patrol car to run everything.  You then discover that he is wanted for a violent crime like killing his wife or something.  Now you get to figure out how to arrest the guy and hope that in the meantime he hasn't decided to put a bullet in you because he's not eager to sit on death row.  Or, perhaps the driver bought the gun from someone he met in the parking lot of a gun show and it turns out that the gun is stolen.  Or maybe the guy's permit has been revoked.  Whatever the case, the courts are very likely going to say that being temporarily disarmed by a LEO during a legal investigative stop is not "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment.  Now, you may not like that, but at the end of the day, it's up to the courts to decide what is "unreasonable" and we can't pick and choose which court decisions we want to follow.  The officer retains discretion on whether or not they choose to disarm someone.  When I was a LEO, I generally allowed permit holders to maintain possession of their firearm unless there was some other set of circumstances that made me do otherwise.  In the few times I have been stopped by law enforcement, I have never been disarmed.  If I were to be disarmed, I personally wouldn't like it, but I don't blame the officer either as long as it's done in a professional manner without idiotic lectures about why I don't need to carry a weapon or incorrect statements about firearms law.

No, you broke it.  Because I am a nice guy, I'll buy it from you for $50 and see if I can fix it somehow.  :pleased:

Yes, as far as I am aware, that is the story.  I was teaching part-time at one of the police academies and helped with the range one day.  The guy who was in charge of the range was telling me about it.

Yes, I agree that this is an idiotic policy.  To make matters worse, there has been some resistance to printing silhouette targets using black ink.  When I was a LEO in Florida, most police departments and training academies got their B-27 targets through an organization called Pride Enterprises, which is a company that partners with the state department of corrections and uses inmates to make various products including printing.  The targets used to be printed with black ink, but after people complained that it was "desensitizing" officers to shooting black people, Pride was told to print them with blue ink instead.

I don't disagree with that point at all, but my point is that people like Alex Jones and his fans wouldn't see efforts by the government to demonstrate its legitimacy because they are only looking for ways to make every action by the government into an act of illegitimate government power.  Again, if that's all one is looking for then they are sure to find it.

OK, people are not understanding the issue here.  The issue as I understand it in this debate is whether or not an officer has the authority to run the serial number on your firearm during a police/citizen encounter.  At the end of the day, the answer is yes with two key points: 1) was the reason for the initial stop lawful, and 2) did the officer have opportunity to view the serial number lawfully.  Assuming the answer to number 1 is yes, then the focus is on point number 2.  The question is now, can the officer disarm you without your consent?  Not being an attorney and not feeling like doing a bunch of legal research, I can only speak in generalities in my capacity as a criminologist and former LEO.  Generally, the SCOTUS has given law enforcement pretty broad latitude in seizing a weapon from people they encounter.  Once the officer has lawfully taken possession of your firearm, then plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run that serial number.  If they ask and you consent to hand your weapon to them, plain view doctrine applies and the officer can run the serial number.  Tack on the fact that Tennessee law generally prohibits the carrying of firearms in public.  Determining that one is in possession of a firearm in the State of Tennessee easily meets the reasonable suspicion standard required under the Terry v. Ohio (1968) to frisk an individual and take possession of any weapons they discover.   The Fourth Amendment doesn't guarantee an absolute right to privacy, but protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government.  I think that it would be somewhat extremely difficult to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regards to serial numbers on firearms that are legally possessed by the police.  

I don't know if DHS is buying no-hesitation targets, and frankly, neither do you. And even if they are, that is not evidence that a government takeover is in the works. The use of no-hestation targets is not new in law enforcement, but has been going on for decades. Yet somehow it's suddenly sinister because Obama is in the White House and Alex Jone suggests that is all the proof we need. Perhaps this will be a shock to some people, but it's not only young black men and people of Middle Eastern descent who shoot and kill cops. What I am saying here is that this is the typical attempt to stir up controversy where none appears to exist. My problem is not with the information, but how the Alex Jones crew frames it, which is facts without actual context and the hint that the Obama/DHS/FEMA cabal is preparing to commit revolution and genocide against American citizens. This gives people who the opportunity to fill in the blanks themselves with whatever interpretation fits their own individual views, hence why I said if you are only looking for one possibility, you are sure to find it. Let's think through this a little more. There seems to be a suggestion that use of these target will render law enforcement officials robots who will kill people without hesitation or regret. That is simply absurd. Further, at the same time while people are jumping up and down about arming teachers, school administrators, and placing armed officers in schools to shoot potentially murderous young people, people are lamenting and gnashing their teeth about targets with a kid holding a gun. I strongly - no very strongly - believe that this wouldn't have even been a story if people on the targets had been black, Middle Eastern, or Hispanic/Latino. If there is a story here, the Alex Jones crew certainly didn't provide information to justify it. Rather, they provide just enough information to give people who are predisposed to think the absolute worst of their government the opportunity to make a leap of logic that seems to make sense without any real evidence to back it up. The people who buy into the right wing propaganda and conspiracy machine without even a slight bit of hesitation or reflexive thought are sheep just like the kool-aid drinkers and Obama zombies on the left. Being a sheep doesn't apply to any specific political ideology. As for me, I will file this little tidbit of information in my mind for future days should some solid set of circumstances come to light that puts this target story into some sort of legitimate context that justifies heightened concern. I am quite aware of the concept of incrementalism, but a set of random events does not serve as proof a conspiracy is afoot. Instead of putting forward rational arguments and evidence-based policy proposals, too many on the right are wasting time on creating elaborate fairly tales. While people are in panic mode chasing down non-existent conspiracies, they are taking their eye off the ball. Besides wasting energy and resources, these stories feed into the left's narrative of the right as irrational and dangerous, which discredits Obama's opponents in general. This is exactly why the left has been able to maintain power. I am not a "comrade." I am a free-thinking individual who doesn't blindly trust media of any sort, especially sources run by ideologues like Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Piers Morgan, or Keith Olbermann. I guess there is something morally superior about being shot and killed by pregnant women and young people with guns. Perhaps these targets are less troubling and will make people feel better:

Of course, in true InfoWars fashion, they use creative liberties to make a story.  Unless I missed it, nowhere does it say that DHS is purchasing those targets, just that the same supplier that sells to DHS also sells those targets.  It feeds into this BS narrative that the Obama controlled DHS is preparing to wage war on the American people.  It also proves that when that's the only explanation you are looking for, you are guaranteed to find it.

Or even worse, they think that it's morally superior to allow yourself to be a victim rather than use a weapon to defend yourself.  Notice they aren't talking pepper spray, Tasers, batons, or any object used as a defensive weapon.  They are talking about passive efforts. 

The pic with the flash looks like ODG, but the pic without the flash looks like foliage green.  They are actually closer in color that one might think.  

  This.  Brian appears to be an honest journalist looking to write objective reports backed by honest information.  

I always complain.  What I have found is that many of these places use a software program or service that blocks these by default.  I have generally found that places will change the settings, but can't do it if you don't gripe.  You may be one of the first people to ever try to search a gun related website in their business.