Guidelines Regarding Law Enforcement Threads on TGO

[gregintenn]

As I figure this thread is aimed squarely at me, I'll tell you I like this forum, and appreciate all the time and effort David and the mods put into it. Therefore, I'll do my best to not mention anything further about LEOs.

 

Thanks for the warning.

Edited September 18, 2013 by gregintenn

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have my doubts about that, Greg.

[Lumber_Jack]

I may razz you, but will never set out to berate you. I only berate Erik88, and when they ban that I'm outta here

FTFY

[mikegideon]

FTFY

 

He's my buddy. It's a tradition from another place :). If I was really gonna berate him, I would post the picture of him in the Gay Cabalero outfit :)

Edited September 18, 2013 by mikegideon

[JayC]

Unless you got some PM or feedback, I doubt it's aimed at you directly...  I'm sure myself, and some others are being lumped in there with you ;)  You know all of us anarchist anti-government types ;)

 

As I figure this thread is aimed squarely at me, I'll tell you I like this forum, and appreciate all the time and effort David and the mods put into it. Therefore, I'll do my best to not mention anything further about LEOs.

 

Thanks for the warning.

Edited September 18, 2013 by JayC

[DaveTN]

As I figure this thread is aimed squarely at me, I'll tell you I like this forum, and appreciate all the time and effort David and the mods put into it. Therefore, I'll do my best to not mention anything further about LEOs.

 

Thanks for the warning.

And you leveled a personal attack aimed squarely at me because you used my name. I can assure you and the mods can verify; I complained to no one about you, or the cop bashing threads. I have no problem with discussing or even arguing anything; but when it comes down to personal attacks I have to take the hits and not shoot back.

[mav]

I can assure you and the mods can verify; I complained to no one about you, or the cop bashing threads.

 

Dave, I don't think anyone on this forum would have thought that about you; it is just not your personality.  Anyway, you are much too cantankerous and opinionated to do that.  ;)

[mikegideon]

Dave, I don't think anyone on this forum would have thought that about you; it is just not your personality.  Anyway, you are much too cantankerous and opinionated to do that.   ;)

 

No shit :)

[MacGyver]

As I figure this thread is aimed squarely at me, I'll tell you I like this forum, and appreciate all the time and effort David and the mods put into it. Therefore, I'll do my best to not mention anything further about LEOs.

 

Thanks for the warning.

Greg, please hear me say that this thread was not aimed at anyone.  Period.

 

Rather, we're in a pretty politically charged time, and the staff thought that we could all back away from the cliff with our rhetoric a little bit. 

[RobertNashville]

To figure out that I didn't edit anything?

I'll admit I kept looking at it for a while...even made sure the punctuation was all the same.  ROTFLMAO

[mikegideon]

I'll admit I kept looking at it for a while...even made sure the punctuation was all the same.  ROTFLMAO

 

I KNEW you would :rofl:  

[JayC]

MacGyver,

 

Not to be argumentative, but the OP and the quoted text doesn't seem to match...  In your original post you specifically call out a group of people who are being "anti-law enforcement" and "anti-government"...  Again you guys make the rules, and we need to follow them...

 

But this thread has the potential to have a chilling effect only on one set of viewpoints being expressed on this forum, and not the competing viewpoints.  And that may very well be your intention?

 

But, instead of asking everybody to tone down the rhetoric during these politically charged times, you're asking one group of people to do so and not the other group involved in these discussions.

 

So which is it, are we all being asked to tone the rhetoric down, or do you specifically mean the 'small government', 'libertarian' types only?

 

I'm not questioning your ability to set the rules, or the fact we're guests here and need to follow the rules, just that the OP has a number of 'us' that fit that description concerned, like we have a target on our backs.  And we're the only ones who need to watch what we're posting and saying in regards to the rhetoric 

 

 

Greg, please hear me say that this thread was not aimed at anyone.  Period.

 

Rather, we're in a pretty politically charged time, and the staff thought that we could all back away from the cliff with our rhetoric a little bit. 

Edited September 18, 2013 by JayC

[MacGyver]

Jay,

 

I didn't have a single member in mind when I composed the original post.  When I feel there's a need to call someone out individually, I'll do exactly that, but privately.

 

I'm asking folks to be mindful of their tone in whatever they post - but mentioned law enforcement here, as it's been a subject of a lot of the unduly negative posts of late.  The tipping point that caused me to write the post was being questioned by a couple of new members with whom I have relationships about the anti law enforcement tone.  They're new shooters and weren't able to reconcile how one group that carries guns can be so spiteful towards another group that carries guns.  They weren't complaining - they were seeking some clarification.  What struck me in both of the conversations was that if that was the first observation a new member to our site has, and it had enough of an impact to cause them to ask me about that instead of the myriad other new shooter questions they could ask, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

You won't find a bigger proponent of small government than me.  I can't call myself a "L"ibertarian, because I think that term has been coopted by people who aren't really sure what they believe.  But, we aren't trying to stifle any particular voices - unless, again you're only posting something to poke the proverbial hornet's nest and get people stirred up. 

 

So long as anyone is bringing intelligent discourse to the table, we won't have a problem. 

[TMF]

I've noticed that we don't see postings from many of the LEOs I used to see around here. Some of them were local to me. I figured its because they get dog piled when they feel they have to constantly defend the profession. Wish I'd see more of them but don't expect to. I don't think they feel welcome here.

[JayC]

Thank you for the clarification.

[RichardR]

Welp JayC, like yourself I'm not "anti-government" or "anti-leo" but I am "pro-liberty" & "pro-freedom" there used to be a time when these concepts were not mutually exclusive, but sadly it appears that it has become that way.

Fear is a powerful motivator, I can guarantee that Stalin would be smiling if he could see what America has become.

MacGyver,

Not to be argumentative, but the OP and the quoted text doesn't seem to match... In your original post you specifically call out a group of people who are being "anti-law enforcement" and "anti-government"... Again you guys make the rules, and we need to follow them...

But this thread has the potential to have a chilling effect only on one set of viewpoints being expressed on this forum, and not the competing viewpoints. And that may very well be your intention?

But, instead of asking everybody to tone down the rhetoric during these politically charged times, you're asking one group of people to do so and not the other group involved in these discussions.

So which is it, are we all being asked to tone the rhetoric down, or do you specifically mean the 'small government', 'libertarian' types only?

I'm not questioning your ability to set the rules, or the fact we're guests here and need to follow the rules, just that the OP has a number of 'us' that fit that description concerned, like we have a target on our backs. And we're the only ones who need to watch what we're posting and saying in regards to the rhetoric

[mikegideon]

Jay,

 

I didn't have a single member in mind when I composed the original post.  When I feel there's a need to call someone out individually, I'll do exactly that, but privately.

 

I'm asking folks to be mindful of their tone in whatever they post - but mentioned law enforcement here, as it's been a subject of a lot of the unduly negative posts of late.  The tipping point that caused me to write the post was being questioned by a couple of new members with whom I have relationships about the anti law enforcement tone.  They're new shooters and weren't able to reconcile how one group that carries guns can be so spiteful towards another group that carries guns.  They weren't complaining - they were seeking some clarification.  What struck me in both of the conversations was that if that was the first observation a new member to our site has, and it had enough of an impact to cause them to ask me about that instead of the myriad other new shooter questions they could ask, then we have an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

You won't find a bigger proponent of small government than me.  I can't call myself a "L"ibertarian, because I think that term has been coopted by people who aren't really sure what they believe.  But, we aren't trying to stifle any particular voices - unless, again you're only posting something to poke the proverbial hornet's nest and get people stirred up. 

 

So long as anyone is bringing intelligent discourse to the table, we won't have a problem. 

 

Good clarification!

[JAB]

I think I understand where you are coming from here but I can also see the view that stories that do or tend to paint police in a bad light are probably not needed here unless they have some local connection.

 

I remember the totally out of control cop in Akron, OH about a year ago that was posted here (and just about everywhere else)...I admit that I was a bit interested because I'm from Ohio and know Akron a bit but I doubt the story had any real relevance to firearms in Tennessee.

 

My other problem with these types of stories is that we hardly ever have all the facts; sometimes even weeks or months after the event and what could seem like a horrible overreaction of a bad cop when the story first breaks could be 100% the opposite once all the facts come out (assuming they ever do) but all those facts rarely get posted because by then we've all moved on to a new story.

 

I would argue that such an incident taking place in another state absolutely has relevance to firearms ownership and carry in Tennessee.  I say that for two, specific reasons:

 

1.  Just because we are residents of TN and our carry permits may be TN issued permits that does not mean we never travel outside of TN.  Being that our TN carry permits are recognized as 'legal' in other states (such as Ohio, for instance) and that some of us may well chose to legally carry in those states then I would say that it is pertinent (although maybe only somewhat), to us, if there is an incident in one of those states which could indicate how we might be treated if we carry there or, as a result of legally carrying, end up having contact with local police.  Much more pertinent, however, would be if that incident were followed by still more incidents from the same state - which could be indicative of a trend and just might serve as a 'word to the wise' to avoid the state or specific area of the state in question.

 

Further, I would argue that it is important that people who are likely as a whole a bit more 'aware' than some, other citizens discuss such incidents on a national level.  We need to be aware, in this era of increased militarization of our police force, if these incidents really are simply acts of one or two 'bad seeds' or if the problem is more systemic.  I have to say that, in my experience - as someone who has never been 'in trouble with the law' (unless a speeding ticket here or there counts), there does seem to be at least something of a 'systemic' element that often seems to run along deparmental lines.

 

2.  Our Second Amendment rights do not exist in a vacuum but are, instead, part of an overall system  Further, the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that guarantees them do not end at the TN state line.  Therefore, a violation of a person's Constitutional rights in any state is, to my mind, a pertinent topic of discussion for all Americans who are interested in preserving Constitutional rights whether those Americans live in the state where the violation occurred or not.  Such topics are especially important to those of us who hold those rights in high regard and depend upon observance of those rights, especially by authorities who are both entrusted and employed by the public to help protect the innocent and pursue the guilty - with particular attemtion to the Second Amendment, perhaps, but with an interest in liberty, as a whole - to preserve freedom in our nation.

Edited September 18, 2013 by JAB

[DaveS]

I've noticed that we don't see postings from many of the LEOs I used to see around here. Some of them were local to me. I figured its because they get dog piled when they feel they have to constantly defend the profession. Wish I'd see more of them but don't expect to. I don't think they feel welcome here.

Boy Howdy!

 

DaveS

[RobertNashville]

I would argue that such an incident taking place in another state absolutely has relevance to firearms ownership and carry in Tennessee.  I say that for two, specific reasons:

 

1.  Just because we are residents of TN and our carry permits may be TN issued permits that does not mean we never travel outside of TN.  Being that our TN carry permits are recognized as 'legal' in other states (such as Ohio, for instance) and that some of us may well chose to legally carry in those states then I would say that it is pertinent (although maybe only somewhat), to us, if there is an incident in one of those states which could indicate how we might be treated if we carry there or, as a result of legally carrying, end up having contact with local police.  Much more pertinent, however, would be if that incident were followed by still more incidents from the same state - which could be indicative of a trend and just might serve as a 'word to the wise' to avoid the state or specific area of the state in question.

 

Further, I would argue that it is important that people who are likely as a whole a bit more 'aware' than some, other citizens discuss such incidents on a national level.  We need to be aware, in this era of increased militarization of our police force, if these incidents really are simply acts of one or two 'bad seeds' or if the problem is more systemic.  I have to say that, in my experience - as someone who has never been 'in trouble with the law' (unless a speeding ticket here or there counts), there does seem to be at least something of a 'systemic' element that often seems to run along deparmental lines.

 

2.  Our Second Amendment rights do not exist in a vacuum but are, instead, part of an overall system  Further, the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that guarantees them do not end at the TN state line.  Therefore, a violation of a person's Constitutional rights in any state is, to my mind, a pertinent topic of discussion for all Americans who are interested in preserving Constitutional rights whether those Americans live in the state where the violation occurred or not.  Such topics are especially important to those of us who hold those rights in high regard and depend upon observance of those rights, especially by authorities who are both entrusted and employed by the public to help protect the innocent and pursue the guilty - with particular attemtion to the Second Amendment, perhaps, but with an interest in liberty, as a whole - to preserve freedom in our nation.

I can't quite see how a "bad LEO" in another state has any real relevance to Tennessee other than something to talk about.

 

In any case, the direction was clearly given that such stories taking place in other states are not to be on TGO any longer so I'd say the relevance is somewhat moot anyway.  That aside; it's been my experience that any "ban LEO" story gets PLENTY of play/discussion of dozens of other forums...if that's what someone wants' to discuss TGO is hardly the only place where one can do that. ;)

[NRA]

"Further, I would argue that it is important that people who are likely as a whole a bit more 'aware' than some, other citizens discuss such incidents on a national level.  We need to be aware, in this era of increased militarization of our police force, if these incidents really are simply acts of one or two 'bad seeds' or if the problem is more systemic.  I have to say that, in my experience - as someone who has never been 'in trouble with the law' (unless a speeding ticket here or there counts), there does seem to be at least something of a 'systemic' element that often seems to run along deparmental lines."

 

What?  I was called to a wreck scene this weekend and the woman involved must have stated that she had a handgun on her 6 or 7 times almost like she was bragging. I told her that if she did not draw hers I would not draw mine.  Almost like she was trying to set me up. I told her I was pro 2nd and wish more honest people had permits.  3 other officers happen to stop by and she repeated her comment about being armed. BTW most all LEO are pro 2nd.

[Smith]

MacGyver,

 

Not to be argumentative, but the OP and the quoted text doesn't seem to match...  In your original post you specifically call out a group of people who are being "anti-law enforcement" and "anti-government"...  Again you guys make the rules, and we need to follow them...

 

But this thread has the potential to have a chilling effect only on one set of viewpoints being expressed on this forum, and not the competing viewpoints.  And that may very well be your intention?

 

But, instead of asking everybody to tone down the rhetoric during these politically charged times, you're asking one group of people to do so and not the other group involved in these discussions.

 

So which is it, are we all being asked to tone the rhetoric down, or do you specifically mean the 'small government', 'libertarian' types only?

 

I'm not questioning your ability to set the rules, or the fact we're guests here and need to follow the rules, just that the OP has a number of 'us' that fit that description concerned, like we have a target on our backs.  And we're the only ones who need to watch what we're posting and saying in regards to the rhetoric 

 

This warning comes up about once or twice a year and has since the beginning. It will cool down for awhile then when enough new people join up that missed the last cycle the mods or David (as it used to be) will send out another reminder. It truly isn't a new thing or a personally directed thing.

 

I've noticed that we don't see postings from many of the LEOs I used to see around here. Some of them were local to me. I figured its because they get dog piled when they feel they have to constantly defend the profession. Wish I'd see more of them but don't expect to. I don't think they feel welcome here.

 

Eh, there are just as many guys that defend them as bash them ... if not more. Cops have thicker skin than that, I hope. Heck, I see as much God bashing as cop bashing but believers haven't left. Cops like other folks may just not post like they used too. I used to post like crazy. Especially if it was something I was passionate about. I was even ahead of some of those super poster guys, but found it better to leave somethings alone for my own sanity. ;) 

[DaveS]

I think I understand where you are coming from here but I can also see the view that stories that do or tend to paint police in a bad light are probably not needed here unless they have some local connection.

 

I remember the totally out of control cop in Akron, OH about a year ago that was posted here (and just about everywhere else)...I admit that I was a bit interested because I'm from Ohio and know Akron a bit but I doubt the story had any real relevance to firearms in Tennessee.

 

My other problem with these types of stories is that we hardly ever have all the facts; sometimes even weeks or months after the event and what could seem like a horrible overreaction of a bad cop when the story first breaks could be 100% the opposite once all the facts come out (assuming they ever do) but all those facts rarely get posted because by then we've all moved on to a new story.

Robert; I spent many years in Akron (lived off S. Arlington then Firestone Park) and that story is very interesting to say the least. Just thought I'd mention that since you lived in Akron.

 

DaveS

[Hozzie]

I can't quite see how a "bad LEO" in another state has any real relevance to Tennessee other than something to talk about.

 

In any case, the direction was clearly given that such stories taking place in other states are not to be on TGO any longer so I'd say the relevance is somewhat moot anyway.  That aside; it's been my experience that any "ban LEO" story gets PLENTY of play/discussion of dozens of other forums...if that's what someone wants' to discuss TGO is hardly the only place where one can do that. ;)

 

This is the exact issue I have with all of this.  I think the LEO topic was used as the example and I am sure the intention was actually to point out something much bigger which is basically, think about what you say.  Again, if the rule for LEO threads is that it must relate to TN, then all threads should relate to TN if that is the standard by which we are going by now.  I don't actually think that was the intention, but used as an example which probably in the end wasn't the best.  I could also be wrong on this, maybe they really do want to limit all of this to just things in TN.

 

We have people from more than just TN on this board and I think the goal is to discuss all kinds of topics, even if some aren't directly related to TN, or even guns for that matter. If someone's only goal is to bash a specific person or group of people, please do so with some level of thought and tact.   Robert, you are very good at this meaning you always give a good reason for your opinion, even if others disagree.

 

I have to admit, sometimes it is hard to not respond to some things in a personal way.  When someone makes a statement, especially a very opinionated statement, they should expect some level of personal response to that opinion.  Your opinion does represent you, you cannot simply hide behind your computer and say it's just my opinion so don't respond to me personally.

 

At the end of all of this, I don't think anything has changed or will change other than hopefully everyone will think a little more about what they say.  As the old adage goes, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. 

Edited September 18, 2013 by Hozzie

[mav]

Eric, my six year old saw your Avatar on my iPad last night and commented, that man looks really angry...

 

I couldn't quite explain to her that the picture wasn't really you :)

 

Your six year old may not a have a problem with my new avatar, but she might not know who it is either.  :)