Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Idaho has open carry laws.
In Coeur d’Alene the peaceful protesters were on You Tube thanking all the people who showed up with guns to stop any rioters or looters. All protests were peaceful.
In Sandpoint a friend of mine wrote there was someone with a gun on almost every corner protecting the business owners, and no looters, no riots.
Having lived in CDA in the 1970's I really don't know which is sadder.
Guns on the street corners of Sandpoint!!! and CDA or that people thought it necessary to protect themselves.
Meh...This is just another right wing, wannabe Arpaio sheriff pandering to his constituency. Someone breaks into your house and poses an imminent threat, yes, someone obviously has a right to defend themselves and their family.
But the incendiary way this sheriff is communicating is not the messaging that's needed right now, except for trigger happy types, who get gleeful over this kind of perverse bravado. This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to the senseless loss of life like Florida (of all places) saw with Trayvon Martin.
Some idiot is going to take this to mean if they see some kid walking up in their yard to get some fruit off their tree (yes, they should ask first), to shoot and kill them over that because the hothead sheriff said so. Part of their job as a law enforcement professional is to keep the peace, and also encourage the people in their jurisdictions that they serve to keep the peace too, and not let violence be the go-to. Not every incident needs to be met with deadly force. There's something troubled about people who think otherwise.
That sheriff needs to check his loose lips, which is a big part of the mentality causing the unrest in the USA right now.
So much for the "nobody needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds" argument.
You misquoted the argument. They don't say "nobody needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds", they say "nobody needs a clip that holds more than 10 rounds", because they are so knowledgeable about firearms. Don't forget their extensive knowledge and hands on experience!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowel
Meh...This is just another right wing, wannabe Arpaio sheriff pandering to his constituency. Someone breaks into your house and poses an imminent threat, yes, someone obviously has a right to defend themselves and their family.
But the incendiary way this sheriff is communicating is not the messaging that's needed right now, except for trigger happy types, who get gleeful over this kind of perverse bravado. This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to the senseless loss of life like Florida (of all places) saw with Trayvon Martin.
Some idiot is going to take this to mean if they see some kid walking up in their yard to get some fruit off their tree (yes, they should ask first), to shoot and kill them over that because the hothead sheriff said so. Part of their job as a law enforcement professional is to keep the peace, and also encourage the people in their jurisdictions that they serve to keep the peace too, and not let violence be the go-to. Not every incident needs to be met with deadly force. There's something troubled about people who think otherwise.
That sheriff needs to check his loose lips, which is a big part of the mentality causing the unrest in the USA right now.
No, he does not. He needs to let the citizens know that they have nothing to fear if they see a mob of people coming to destroy their property or cause harm to them. Despite the laws in some areas, people do still worry about what they can and cannot do. This sheriff is letting them know, very clearly, that they most certainly have the right to protect themselves, do not get injured while hesitating because you fear legal repercussions for doing so.
It's ludicrous that you dare use the word 'incendiary" when speaking about someone telling others it's okay to protect themselves from scum bags who have lit things on fire in order to destroy. In addition to that, you belch about "perverse bravado" and "senseless loss of life" against the sheriff, but not the rioters and looters who have perverse bravado and have killed and also injured many. Your wording is laughably, but also grotesquely, misplaced.
Meh...This is just another right wing, wannabe Arpaio sheriff pandering to his constituency. Someone breaks into your house and poses an imminent threat, yes, someone obviously has a right to defend themselves and their family.
But the incendiary way this sheriff is communicating is not the messaging that's needed right now, except for trigger happy types, who get gleeful over this kind of perverse bravado. This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to the senseless loss of life like Florida (of all places) saw with Trayvon Martin.
Some idiot is going to take this to mean if they see some kid walking up in their yard to get some fruit off their tree (yes, they should ask first), to shoot and kill them over that because the hothead sheriff said so. Part of their job as a law enforcement professional is to keep the peace, and also encourage the people in their jurisdictions that they serve to keep the peace too, and not let violence be the go-to. Not every incident needs to be met with deadly force. There's something troubled about people who think otherwise.
That sheriff needs to check his loose lips, which is a big part of the mentality causing the unrest in the USA right now.
Grady Judd was elected sheriff of Polk County in 2004...…….. His views are consistent with the overwhelming majority of people there. He is absolutely law and order and is probably the best sheriff in the United States today.
Meh...This is just another right wing, wannabe Arpaio sheriff pandering to his constituency. Someone breaks into your house and poses an imminent threat, yes, someone obviously has a right to defend themselves and their family.
But the incendiary way this sheriff is communicating is not the messaging that's needed right now, except for trigger happy types, who get gleeful over this kind of perverse bravado. This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to the senseless loss of life like Florida (of all places) saw with Trayvon Martin.
Some idiot is going to take this to mean if they see some kid walking up in their yard to get some fruit off their tree (yes, they should ask first), to shoot and kill them over that because the hothead sheriff said so.
Obviously you know nothing about gun owners and have the preconceived notion that we all act like the savage barbarians we are defending against.
People that have valid CCW (concealed carry permits) know how & when to use a firearm. Most have never had to draw down on somebody and pulling the trigger is the last thing anyone wants to do, but if the situations warrants it, most would not hesitate.
You are also misinterpreting what this sheriff said, but that is typical of the left. Having the right to defend yourself and your property isn't the same as going John Wayne on somebody for no reason. Only the looters and rioters on left do that.
I am a female CHL holder. The psychological aftereffect of shooting a human being is something that really stayed with me during my training. The LAST THING in life that I want to do is take another’s life.
I’ve thought very long and hard about my spec ops while driving my car, or while inside a store, theater, etc. My prerogative is to get myself far away from volatile situations if at all possible. That’s my first option. I’m no vigilante, and opening fire in a panicky situation is not at all my first choice. Cooler heads must prevail whenever possible. Escape is preferable to firing my weapon.
That said, If I am ever trapped by adrenaline-rushed maniacs threatening my safety, either in my car, my home, or out in public, my 16+1 mag ought to minimize the threat. Shooting someone will be the worst thing that I’ve ever had to do, but it will be a little worse for the fool threatening me.
Meh...This is just another right wing, wannabe Arpaio sheriff pandering to his constituency. Someone breaks into your house and poses an imminent threat, yes, someone obviously has a right to defend themselves and their family.
But the incendiary way this sheriff is communicating is not the messaging that's needed right now, except for trigger happy types, who get gleeful over this kind of perverse bravado. This is exactly the type of attitude that leads to the senseless loss of life like Florida (of all places) saw with Trayvon Martin.
Some idiot is going to take this to mean if they see some kid walking up in their yard to get some fruit off their tree (yes, they should ask first), to shoot and kill them over that because the hothead sheriff said so. Part of their job as a law enforcement professional is to keep the peace, and also encourage the people in their jurisdictions that they serve to keep the peace too, and not let violence be the go-to. Not every incident needs to be met with deadly force. There's something troubled about people who think otherwise.
That sheriff needs to check his loose lips, which is a big part of the mentality causing the unrest in the USA right now.
the poster above wants law enforcement to tell everyone these are just frustrated kids and they need to let those frustrations out.
I am a female CHL holder. The psychological aftereffect of shooting a human being is something that really stayed with me during my training. The LAST THING in life that I want to do is take another’s life.
I’ve thought very long and hard about my spec ops while driving my car, or while inside a store, theater, etc. My prerogative is to get myself far away from volatile situations if at all possible. That’s my first option. I’m no vigilante, and opening fire in a panicky situation is not at all my first choice. Cooler heads must prevail whenever possible. Escape is preferable to firing my weapon.
That said, If I am ever trapped by adrenaline-rushed maniacs threatening my safety, either in my car, my home, or out in public, my 16+1 mag ought to minimize the threat. Shooting someone will be the worst thing that I’ve ever had to do, but it will be a little worse for the fool threatening me.
agree 100%
it is however a blessing that we have this option.
Yes, anarchy is a great strategy. Until YOU get shot.
I think most anarchists fantasize about a society free of gov’t and police but fail to take into consideration the MILLIONS of American gun owners who believe in law and order and won’t hesitate to terminate threats to their safety.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
