• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy official caught on camera threatening young men with a gun

Celebrity said:
This man exercised his right to bear arms as a private citizen, on his own private property, in a domestic dispute. If we can't trust a government employee to bear arms responsibly, then should we ban arms for government employees while not on duty? I don't think it's the government employee that's the problem. I bet this guy wouldn't have even got up out of his chair, if he didn't have a gun. How unprofessional and uncivil.

We should not enact a societal age limit to prevent old people from carrying arms. We should take steps to prevent senile people from threatening kids. Maybe there's a line that needs to be crossed in order to make sure that lethal force isn't thrown around at random.

Navy official caught on camera threatening young men with a gun | WUSA9.com
Click to expand...



your comments do not relate to the facts.
 
BretJ said:
Most gun Prohibitionists assume everyone with a gun is a gunman...they are not capable of telling the difference...
Click to expand...

Much like the term "Brandishing"

Most anti gunners use the term "Brandishing" when reporting a person that is carrying. You just cannot fix stupid.
 
BretJ said:
Pretty broad sweeping generalizations. Is the shooting of legally armed African Americans a common occurance or a rarity? If it is a rarity, that was a pretty stupid statement.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men

Despite making up only 2% of the total US population, African American males between the ages of 15 and 34 comprised more than 15% of all deaths logged this year by an ongoing investigation into the use of deadly force by police. Their rate of police-involved deaths was five times higher than for white men of the same age.

Paired with official government mortality data, this new finding indicates that about one in every 65 deaths of a young African American man in the US is a killing by police.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
He's not an old person.

In Illinois, I think I would have been arrested. He was NOT on his property, first of all, he was on the public sidewalk. Here, that would be considered brandishing a weapon. I'd probably lose my permit. Im assuming that was his wife trying to de-escalate the situation. My guess is that he was drunk. PS...that is not a domestic dispute.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm not really sure whether or not it was a domestic dispute. The women on camera did appear to be his wife, and she did appear to be trying to de-escalate the situation, but we don't really know what she said.
 
BretJ said:
Then why even bring up senility or age at all??. Call him what he is, an asshat that needs to be hammered.
Click to expand...

Just looking out for the early symptoms; impairments in communication, focus and reasoning, mood swings, apathy, confusion.

Calling anyone crazy is a slippery slope toward loss of credibility. For some people, that means a race to the bottom, taking anyone and everyone with them. From my limited knowledge of the court system, it's generally not useful in court except as a defense.
 
Point 1: Guy should be charged for brandishing.
Point 2: When an unstable guy pulls a gun, shut up, leave, and call the cops.
 
BretJ said:
The issue was police shootings of African Americans carrying legally....
Click to expand...

Yes and I opened it wider.
We both moved from the OP.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Much like the term "Brandishing"

Most anti gunners use the term "Brandishing" when reporting a person that is carrying. You just cannot fix stupid.
Click to expand...

Why did he resort to retrieving a weapon?
 
Celebrity said:
This man exercised his right to bear arms as a private citizen, on his own private property, in a domestic dispute. If we can't trust a government employee to bear arms responsibly, then should we ban arms for government employees while not on duty? I don't think it's the government employee that's the problem. I bet this guy wouldn't have even got up out of his chair, if he didn't have a gun. How unprofessional and uncivil.

We should not enact a societal age limit to prevent old people from carrying arms. We should take steps to prevent senile people from threatening kids. Maybe there's a line that needs to be crossed in order to make sure that lethal force isn't thrown around at random.

Navy official caught on camera threatening young men with a gun | WUSA9.com
Click to expand...

The man was stupid and showed us why people don't need to be carrying weapons. His temper got the better of himself over three boys.

The man's an idiot and gets what he deserves.
 
JANFU said:
Why did he resort to retrieving a weapon?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are asking here.

I was talking about what brandishing means in a legal sense, and you come up with some off the wall question as to why he had a gun?

Why don't you email the idiot and ask him personally.
 
jet57 said:
The man was stupid and showed us why people don't need to be carrying weapons. His temper got the better of himself over three boys.

The man's an idiot and gets what he deserves.
Click to expand...

Stupid is as stupid does.....much like your comments on 2nd amendment rights.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Stupid is as stupid does.....much like your comments on 2nd amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that guy is a stupid person. My analysis and comments on the second amendment are right on the money. If you wish to debate it, start a thread. This is not the thread for it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I have no idea what you are asking here.

I was talking about what brandishing means in a legal sense, and you come up with some off the wall question as to why he had a gun?

Why don't you email the idiot and ask him personally.
Click to expand...
No need to get upset.
I asked a question relevant to the OP.
From what I understand he went back to the house, retrieved a weapon, stepped onto public property.
Appears he was intent on threatening the people,
Why else retrieve a weapons
Clear he was angry and his first resort, with no evident threat, was to retrieve a weapon.
Aside from that I am not hung up on brandishing or carrying.
People will report using language they are accustomed to.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The man in Dallas was carrying his rifle in a legal manner....he was not brandishing. To be considered brandishing, he would have to unshoulder the weapon and wave it around in a threatening manner, or in order to just scare people.

Technically:.... any person with a gun, whether concealed or open, is considered a man with a gun. But that doesn't meany anything other than .....the guy has a gun with him. Perfectly fine if it is legal in that state, and not in a no firearms allowed area. (restricted)

Dallas shooter = gunman Bad guy.
Click to expand...

The phrase "man with a gun" has always been used as a warning to police to let them know that one is involved. The guy carrying in the parade, although legal, was acting pretty stupid, as he now knows, but "man with a gun" would still be the call in circumstances like that, because intention is not known in the moment.

Nothing wrong with "man with a gun".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom