Did The Feds just admit to having a gun registry?

#126
#126
Grand Vol said:
Okay, let me throw a hypothetical at you...

Say there's a car going down an interstate during rush hour traffic. Car has no headlights save one fog lamp and no taillights save the brakes. And it's a major metro area rush hour traffic going from 65-80 MPH with two interstates merging. Said vehicle is traveling around 75-80 MPH.

Are the police justified in pulling over said vehicle out of concern for safety of other drivers? Even without injury at the time.
Click to expand...

No. Because he/she (most likely a female Birmingham driver) hasn't commited a crime yet. Failing to observe a speed limit isn't a real crime, to me at least.
Where the situation changes is when she crashes into another driver. Then a crime is committed, you have a victim.
 
#128
#128
Grand Vol said:
Okay, let me throw a hypothetical at you...

Say there's a car going down an interstate during rush hour traffic. Car has no headlights save one fog lamp and no taillights save the brakes. And it's a major metro area rush hour traffic going from 65-80 MPH with two interstates merging. Said vehicle is traveling around 75-80 MPH.

Are the police justified in pulling over said vehicle out of concern for safety of other drivers? Even without injury at the time.
Click to expand...

The problem with your analogy is that the vast majority of issues between law enforcement and civilians do not involve the contrived and extreme scenario you create here. Its not some madman driving 90 mph 95% of the time... its something far less trivial. Its a regular guy or gal going 20 mph over on a lonely highway while the cops are behind the trees, a rolling stop at midnight, or improper lane change.

The reasonable answer to your scenario would be yes, the police need to do something in this extreme, hypothetical situation you've just concocted. But this is where cops and law enforcement can take this one extreme case to propel them down the slippery slope to where they now have us being ticketed for busted taillights, no car seats or seat belts, and driving with dark tinted windows.

Once you draw the line in the sand, LE will push to move the goalposts in the direction of more authoritarian enforcement.
 
#129
#129
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No. Because he/she (most likely a female Birmingham driver) hasn't commited a crime yet. Failing to observe a speed limit isn't a real crime, to me at least.
Where the situation changes is when she crashes into another driver. Then a crime is committed, you have a victim.
Click to expand...

Actually an Oklahoma driver, but I lol'ed at your answer.

The speed limit isn't the problem. I did fail to mention in my "hypothetical" it was dark out. So my mistake. Would no taillights and only a single fog lamp be suitable for interstate driving without raising safety concerns to the surrounding drivers? I figure you've driven with fog lamps before and know they aren't the greatest for illuminating anything beyond twenty feet or so.

I know there is no "crime" so to speak, but certainly an unsafe condition a single driver is putting on dozens of other drivers through their careless behavior.
 
#130
#130
Rasputin_Vol said:
The problem with your analogy is that the vast majority of issues between law enforcement and civilians do not involve the contrived and extreme scenario you create here. Its not some madman driving 90 mph 95% of the time... its something far less trivial. Its a regular guy or gal going 20 mph over on a lonely highway while the cops are behind the trees, a rolling stop at midnight, or improper lane change.

The reasonable answer to your scenario would be yes, the police need to do something in this extreme, hypothetical situation you've just concocted. But this is where cops and law enforcement can take this one extreme case to propel them down the slippery slope to where they have now us being ticketed for busted taillights, no car seats or seat belts, and driving with dark tinted windows.

Once you draw the line in the sand, LE will push to move the goalposts in the direction of more authoritarian enforcement.
Click to expand...

TL/DR and you used up whatever good faith you had earlier today.

Try talking reasonably to me next week.
 
#131
#131
Grand Vol said:
Actually an Oklahoma driver, but I lol'ed at your answer.

The speed limit isn't the problem. I did fail to mention in my "hypothetical" it was dark out. So my mistake. Would no taillights and only a single fog lamp be suitable for interstate driving without raising safety concerns to the surrounding drivers? I figure you've driven with fog lamps before and know they aren't the greatest for illuminating anything beyond twenty feet or so.

I know there is no "crime" so to speak, but certainly an unsafe condition a single driver is putting on dozens of other drivers through their careless behavior.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. It's careless, but shouldn't be illegal.
I just don't like the whole preventive thing. Where does it stop? As a former cop, you know most stops are simply a fishing expedition looking for something bigger. It leads us to where we are today. A nanny state run amok.
 
#132
#132
Grand Vol said:
TL/DR and you used up whatever good faith you had earlier today.

Try talking reasonably to me next week.
Click to expand...

Why the need to create such an extreme example to defend your position? Lets not toy around... you feel that there is a need for LE to protect people from themselves by controlling their behavior.

Its no different than a pro-choicer using rape and incest as their defense for supporting abortion, when statistically, rape and incest are the least likely reasons for women to get abortions.

You cleverly created a hypothetical and extreme event to try and tilt people to your side.
 
#133
#133
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
A true anarchist? Wtf?

Taxation is theft period.

You're not about to pull out the old tired muh roads argument are you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed you were an anarchic living in an anarchic country, somewhere, as a self-contained and sufficient human being with no government or one that works for free, as I'm not sure of what the option is.

Noooo...I wouldn't dare sully the conversation by pulling out obvious (and true) old saws like roads, police, national security, etc.

Now, what's your alternative to a society with at least some taxation and government?
 
Last edited:
#134
#134
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You answered your own question. It's careless, but shouldn't be illegal.
I just don't like the whole preventive thing. Where does it stop? As a former cop, you know most stops are simply a fishing expedition looking for something bigger. It leads us to where we are today. A nanny state run amok.
Click to expand...

Something like that really isn't as much a fishing expedition as it is a valid safety concern. Because that car was weaving in and out of traffic and caused several other vehicles to have to slam on their brakes to avoid contact. Perhaps the action isn't illegal, but at the same time, having the authority to tell someone who has a vehicle in that condition to park it until daylight should be an option on the table.

My problem with your whole no victim/no crime thing is the complete lack of concern from others. If something along those lines can be prevented, it could/should be. Otherwise, you have people out there with their give-o-damn-ometer pegged into the max without a care in the world. And if said driver was to cause someone to wreck, what are the chances they stick around and assume responsibility? I've investigated my fair share of hit and run accidents and know 99% of the time you never find the person responsible.
 
#135
#135
Rasputin_Vol said:
You cleverly created a hypothetical and extreme event to try and tilt people to your side.
Click to expand...

Actually, I cleverly recollected an event that happened to me on I240 and I40 about a week ago.

Which is why I put the rabbit ears on "hypothetical" a couple of times. Thought you might get the hint like the others did.
 
#136
#136
NCFisher said:
Sorry, I assumed you were an anarchic living in an anarchic country, somewhere, as a self-contained and sufficient human being with no government or one that works for free, as I'm not sure of what the option is.

Noooo...I wouldn't dare sully the conversation by pulling out obvious (and true) old saws.

Now, what's your alternative to a society with at least some taxation and government?
Click to expand...

I'm an anarchist/abolitionist which means I oppose all forms of human slavery. Which forms do you oppose?

My alternative? A voluntary society with peaceful people participating in free market trade of products and ideas.
 
#137
#137
Grand Vol said:
Actually, I cleverly recollected an event that happened to me on I240 and I40 about a week ago.

Which is why I put the rabbit ears on "hypothetical" a couple of times. Thought you might get the hint like the others did.
Click to expand...

The point being still that it is an unusual occurrence and not representative of the norm. Lets not make that situation the bar that all other traffic stops are set to.
 
#138
#138
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm an anarchist/abolitionist which means I oppose all forms of human slavery. Which forms do you oppose?

My alternative? A voluntary society with peaceful people participating in free market trade of products and ideas.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting on the "If you don't like it here, just leave" to be coming pretty soon.
 
#140
#140
Grand Vol said:
Actually, I cleverly recollected an event that happened to me on I240 and I40 about a week ago.

Which is why I put the rabbit ears on "hypothetical" a couple of times. Thought you might get the hint like the others did.
Click to expand...

I only saw it in one post after you revealed it occurred in OK. I had already made my responses by then.

Doesn't change the fact that it is an extreme example to use to justify state intrusion in our lives.
 
#142
#142
Grand Vol said:
Something like that really isn't as much a fishing expedition as it is a valid safety concern. Because that car was weaving in and out of traffic and caused several other vehicles to have to slam on their brakes to avoid contact. Perhaps the action isn't illegal, but at the same time, having the authority to tell someone who has a vehicle in that condition to park it until daylight should be an option on the table.

My problem with your whole no victim/no crime thing is the complete lack of concern from others. If something along those lines can be prevented, it could/should be. Otherwise, you have people out there with their give-o-damn-ometer pegged into the max without a care in the world. And if said driver was to cause someone to wreck, what are the chances they stick around and assume responsibility? I've investigated my fair share of hit and run accidents and know 99% of the time you never find the person responsible.
Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way. Some people err on the side of caution and safety, others err on the side of freedom and liberty. You cannot save people from themselves, if anything, America has proven that time and time again in the 20th century alone.
 
#143
#143
Rasputin_Vol said:
The point being still that it is an unusual occurrence and not representative of the norm. Lets not make that situation the bar that all other traffic stops are set to.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are dismissing this personal, real world experience as being "outside the norm" and "unusual" as it doesn't happen that often.

Now, if I'm prohibited from using my example since it doesn't happen that often and is an, how did you put it, extreme example of behavior; wouldn't that prohibit you from screaming like a little girl at a One Direction concert every time a cop uses excessive force? I see idiot drivers each and every day as well as extreme examples of stupidity behind the wheel. But it doesn't mean I blame each and every driver out there for piss poor examples of driving habits. If I was to do that, I'd drag myself down to your level and would be no different than you when you blame all cops for the actions of the few.
 
#144
#144
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Don't take this the wrong way. Some people err on the side of caution and safety, others err on the side of freedom and liberty. You cannot save people from themselves, if anything, America has proven that time and time again in the 20th century alone.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to take it the wrong way. It's not really a slam on me or the profession of LEO as a whole. In an instance where I described, you'd likely support an officer pulling said driver off the road if they were being a hazard to others. I figure your deeply held principles have a limit on them and had you been in my shoes, you wouldn't be saying "well, that's his right." You'd have been just as pissed as I was at the raw stupidity of said driver in putting others at risk.

It's not about saving people from themselves as much as it is saving others. Call me an idealist though.
 
#145
#145
Grand Vol said:
I'm not sure how to take it the wrong way. It's not really a slam on me or the profession of LEO as a whole. In an instance where I described, you'd likely support an officer pulling said driver off the road if they were being a hazard to others. I figure your deeply held principles have a limit on them and had you been in my shoes, you wouldn't be saying "well, that's his right." You'd have been just as pissed as I was at the raw stupidity of said driver in putting others at risk.

It's not about saving people from themselves as much as it is saving others. Call me an idealist though.
Click to expand...
Yes, but these things happen. Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law are always in effect. Saving others is a lofty goal, unattainable, but noble nonetheless.

Edit: Not sure why spell check changed 2nd to and, oh well.
 
Last edited:
#146
#146
Grand Vol said:
Oh, so you are dismissing this personal, real world experience as being "outside the norm" and "unusual" as it doesn't happen that often.

Now, if I'm prohibited from using my example since it doesn't happen that often and is an, how did you put it, extreme example of behavior; wouldn't that prohibit you from screaming like a little girl at a One Direction concert every time a cop uses excessive force? I see idiot drivers each and every day as well as extreme examples of stupidity behind the wheel. But it doesn't mean I blame each and every driver out there for piss poor examples of driving habits. If I was to do that, I'd drag myself down to your level and would be no different than you when you blame all cops for the actions of the few.
Click to expand...

Honestly... no BS. Are the majority of the tickets and citations written more reflective of the case you presented or is it more reflective of incidents far less dangerous like I have presented? Using your experience and those other officers around you. Are you more likely to see citations written for trivial infractions or the scenario you illustrated?
 
#147
#147
Grand Vol said:
I'm not sure how to take it the wrong way. It's not really a slam on me or the profession of LEO as a whole. In an instance where I described, you'd likely support an officer pulling said driver off the road if they were being a hazard to others. I figure your deeply held principles have a limit on them and had you been in my shoes, you wouldn't be saying "well, that's his right." You'd have been just as pissed as I was at the raw stupidity of said driver in putting others at risk.

It's not about saving people from themselves as much as it is saving others. Call me an idealist though.
Click to expand...

I have a hypothetical of my own.

You're on a 4 lane divided highway going northbound on a bright clear day and you notice a motorcyclist in the southbound lane not wearing a helmet. Do you make a U-turn and chase this guy down to either tongue-lash or cite him? Or do you just let it go? (Assume OK had the helmet laws on the books)
 
#148
#148
Rasputin_Vol said:
I have a hypothetical of my own.

You're on a 4 lane divided highway going northbound on a bright clear day and you notice a motorcyclist in the southbound lane not wearing a helmet. Do you make a U-turn and chase this guy down to either tongue-lash or cite him? Or do you just let it go? (Assume OK had the helmet laws on the books)
Click to expand...

OK doesn't have helmet laws. Neither did Colorado when I was there. Not sure about Florida as that was a lot of beers ago.

Germany did though, as well as the military had a regulation requiring helmet wear on base. Had to do with safety concerns as well as insurance issues. I mean, you could take your chances off base, but whether the insurance would cover it was another matter entirely. Adding in the non-deployment factor if you were injured tends to go a long way.

Yes, in the jurisdictional situation I was in, I would pull someone over for that. From a mission readiness standpoint as a minimum. Not sure about the north south thing you are speaking to though.
 
#149
#149
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes, but these things happen. Newton's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd law are always in effect. Saving others is a lofty goal, unattainable, but noble nonetheless.

Edit: Not sure why spell check changed 2nd to and, oh well.
Click to expand...

I figured since you didn't believe in laws, you were omitting stuff from Newton since he doesn't own you and you own yourself. :p
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top