I think I agree . . . an officer can stop someone for a reason. It is my understanding that where I live a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that you are violating a law in order to stop you. "A police officer cannot stop you just because he or she thinks you are suspicious. " This officer could not articulate why he stopped the guy other than the fact that someone had a 'concern.'

I also agree that the guy was trolling for cops. He caught one. The officer was courteous, controlled, and did the right thing by calling in his supervisor. The problem is that he was outmatched. If the people in this town don't want someone openly carrying a weapon on the streets, then they need to change the law. If the law allows for open carry, which in this case it looks like it does, then what seems to be the problem?

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

Yeah that's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. I can kill someone with a knife and with my hands but I have to make a concerted effort to do so. It's a bunch of individual decisions. A Gun takes a single decision and many times in this country not even a decision to kill someone. I talk a lot about not giving the government the permission to do certain things. What about making sure that individuals aren't given the right to have such immediate control of my life? I have to walk into a store with someone who is open carry, who at anytime can decide my life is forfeit?

Every argument I've heard from Gun Supporters doesn't hold up, yet they say "LOGIC!" No it's not enough to be logical, if you think it is you're just dumb. Also DUMB logic doesn't work at all. Gun supporters aren't stupid, they just like guns, and they'll make lazy arguments unless they're stood up to and required to fucking think.

No ones thinking, everyones just moving along.

I concead your points.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.
On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.
BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:
Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.
Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

Did you even read my post? I specifically mention that I am from Canada and that the US is different. Second I have my PALR and know quite a lot about our gun laws here in Canada.

Cool story tho

EDIT: I realized I cut the "Canada vs US" out of my abbreviated post here, so I can see what you mean.

>> ^Shepppard:

@Buck
DO NOT drag Canadian gun ownership into your thought process. Your entire post is invalidated if you refer to Canadian gun ownership the way you do American gun ownership.
Buying a gun in most of (if not all) of the U.S. is basically passing a 3-15 day background check. If you don't have a felony, history of mental health problems, or even some larger misdemeanors, you get your gun.
Canadians need to first off pass a safety course (C.anadian F.irearms S.afety C.ourse) then mail away an application for gun ownership. If you're granted the PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you can then go out and buy sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns with an overall length of 660mm or greater. (Air rifles that are capable of a muzzle velocity of over 500 feet per second require the license.)
Handguns, and anything fully automatic are still prohibited.
If you want a handgun, you can take a CRFSC (R for Restricted) test and pass it, and then you're allowed to own and use Handguns. Fully automatic weapons, however, are still prohibited.
TL;DR:
Canadians have to jump through hoops and actually pass safety courses and tests before even being allowed to mail off your application and be considered for gun ownership.
Americans have to not be crazy, not have been in jail, and be able to wait up to two weeks.
Comparing gun ownership between the two is NOT valid.

>> ^hpqp:

ChaosEngine | Free Trenchcoats 2016!!!


I humbly accept your nomination. Shame neither of us live in the US, otherwise you could've been my running mate

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I have the solution to the US's gun problems: ban guns.
BUT BUT BUT the 2nd amendment! Ah, but the second amendment say people are allowed to keep their arms. No-one is proposing mass amputations (as if the health system could manage it!).
Oh, that's not what "arms" means?
Fine, solution 2.0: still banning guns but everyone gets a sword.
Seriously, this is not as crazy as it sounds.
1. It's hard to use a sword well. People will have to train with it for years. This kind of training builds character and discipline.
2. Swords are awesome.
3. It's possible to defend yourself using a sword, but pretty hard to hold up a bank with one.
4. Gun fights are boring, sword fights are epic.


ChaosEngine | Free Trenchcoats 2016!!!

>> ^Buck:

You are a troll who has no idea of what you are talking about.


Actually, I'm not and I do.

Your argument, that gun control takes guns out of the hands of citizens and into the arms of criminals has nothing to do with what's happening here.

As for your points here, none of them are against gun control. I'm not remotely for banning guns. Not for hunting, sport or even your paranoid home defence fantasies. I am against two self-entitled little gobshites parading a weapon that looks like an automatic assault rifle in the hopes of making some brave stand that they can post on youtube. Hell, I don't even think what they did should be illegal, I just think they're pathetic assholes.

On the other hand, I think that it's not unreasonable to exert a certain level of control over tools designed to kill.

BTW, I love this line:>> ^Buck:

Trying to persuade others to view the world as you do is the essence of debating, however, forcing your ideals upon another human being is the essence of tyranny. Irregardless of how honorable the intentions

Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but the real world does not work that way. Ideals are forced on people all the time. No-one is 100% free, but it's not tyranny, it's society. Otherwise we'd still have slavery, a wife could not accuse her husband of rape or any one of hundreds of ideals we enforce through laws.

Frankly, when I read bullshit like this, it makes me glad I don't live in a society where people are so fucking selfish that they think this kind of behaviour is even remotely ok.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I would rather encounter two White dudes calmly walking along with displayed guns than 3 or more of Obama's sons.
And so would you.


Fuck you, you racist cunt. Do not presume to say what I would or would not rather encounter.

Congratulations! Your video, Police officer deals with open carry activist, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 45 Badge!

>> ^Hive13:


Well done, Officer M. Nork.


I think Officer Nork was just as ready to shoot these assholes and have a calm lunch after.


BTW letting people walk around with 30 shot machine guns (even if they are reduced to semi-auto) is some Mad Max shit. How many terrified people clutching sweaty pistols in their houses that night? Or did the cops go around explaining to all the frightened people that called them that actually what they saw on the street today was normal?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, MP5, examine, second amendment' - edited by calvados

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

I'm very surprised the officer did not get out of the car with his gun drawn. I know were suppose to be a gun tolerant society but how did that officer know that they were not about to go on some kind of rampage?

You think they might be deranged and your plan to calm them down is to pull a gun on them? You may want to rethink that.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi autopmatic, examine, 2nd amendment' to 'police, officer, open carry, automatic, semi automatic, examine, second amendment' - edited by xxovercastxx