Open Carry: I appreciate the effort but...

[TurtleDude]

First Turtle - you are not a WE - you are one person - an I, just like myself and every other person here. Calling yourself WE does NOT give your personal opinion and assumed gravitas or weight beyond your personal opinion no matter how many times you use the term.

Second, I provided a police officers message board which discussed this very topic and lots of cops said there were NOT civilians in posts there. The opinion of the military is irrelevant as previously discussed since they look at everyone not in the military as a civilian and it is NOT military law nor military subculture that defines this issue. But then, you knew that from our mornings posting.



Acceptance in our society by a very broad and wide range of educated people.



Devoting their lives to the subject and acceptance by the broader society. You can go to war in your right wing cause celebre to redefine a commonly accepted term - but it matters not.

what makes the people experts on language? and what makes one of several definitions appropriate? actually lawyers like me are experts on the LAW and you are wrong. Where you fail is using the WRONG definition and then pretending that those who have written down the definitions support your CHOICE of definitions.

its sort of like consulting a pharmacy book that merely says what the normal dosage is for say Tetracycline and you saying that proves your prescription for say herpes is right



First, Blacks DOES NOT SAY THAT POLICE ARE CIVILIANS. They simply not that a military person is not a civilian. It certainly does NOT give you all the people not civilians and does not intend to do that. But the idea that cops are civilians while the clergy in England are not is mind boggling if not hilarious. What makes them NOT civilians in the eyes of Blacks?

and where does Blacks get this from? There is nothing in the LAW - something Blacks is suppose to be using as their authority - which states this. But feel free to do now what you have been unable to do to this point - produce a definition from a law in the USA which states that the police in the performance of their
Law Dictionary: What is CIVILIAN? definition of CIVILIAN (Black's Law Dictionary

so much dishonesty in so few words

black law dictionary says-if you aren't in the military, you are a civilian (which is what a private citizen is-DUH)

are you saying civilian police officers are in the military

your frantic need to pretend
you are right is hilarious but you are wrong

civilian police are not military and what cops claim they are is NOT RELEVANT-we all noted COPS pretend that there is a different

they are not lying but calling other non military citizens civilians but they are CIVILIANS TOO even if they pretend they are not. IS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO-go on what some cops say (and none were asked it in the context of this discussion)

CIVILIAN COPS ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY

therefore they are civilians for legal purposes

 

[haymarket]

Most gun owners-like most Americans, don't pay much attention to the scummy schemes of the Democrat party to ban guns.

You totally and completely miss the point that most American gun owners pay no attention to the NRA and the far right of this issue.

 

[TurtleDude]

You totally and completely miss the point that most American gun owners pay no attention to the NRA and the far right of this issue.

you totally miss the point that most Democrats are not gun banning schemers

 

[haymarket]

so much dishonesty is s few words

black law dictionary says-if you aren't in the military, you are a civilian

are you saying civilian police officers are in the military

your frantic need to pretend you are right is hilarious but you are wrong

civilian police are not military

therefore they are civilians for legal purposes

1 - you are unable to tell us how they arrived at this rather unique definition since it is NOT based on the LAW.

2- when Black's starts passing laws for the USA, you be sure to post here and let me know. Until that happens, it is irrelevant.

are you saying civilian police officers are in the military

never did. That was your strawman.

your frantic need to pretend you are right is hilarious but you are wrong

I did not invent the dictionaries nor did I write the definitions that say a police officer is NOT A CIVILIAN.

civilian police are not military

therefore they are civilians for legal purposes

Aha - the brilliance of libertarian logic. Police are also not apes. Does that make them birds? Can you comprehend that there is more in the reality of the universe than can be reduced to a simple A or B rigid all or nothing choice? Apparently not.

You may want to read this site

http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

LIBERTARIANISM MAKES YOU STUPID. They have a very good section explaining the faulty 'logic' that single minded libertarians attempt to employ.

Often, the "chain of logic" used by a Libertarian will be a fairly valid set of deductions. But along the way, there will be very subtle assumptions slipped in, such as "contract" (meaning business) as a fundamental right. It can be quite difficult to spot, such as a redefinition of terms, or a whopper like the above. But again, it's very "logical", very "axiomatic".

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid: from 2+2=5 to 1=2

The whole thing reminds me of joke "proofs" that one equals two, e.g. (these come from the University of Toronto Mathematics Network "Classic Fallacies" pages)
1=2: A Proof using Beginning Algebra

The Fallacious Proof:

* Step 1: Let a=b.
* Step 2: Then a^2 = ab,
* Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab,
* Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab,
* Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab.
* Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b),
* Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.
Now, the proselytizer might say, isn't every one of those steps a perfectly justified statement backed up by hundreds of years of mathematical thought? Here is a stack of great algebra books, read through the pile before criticizing the conclusion.
Then, if someone points out the fallacy (and I won't do so, to underline the difficulty of even this skeleton of an example) they can come at you again and say "Well, that had a problem, but here's a proof by a completely different method" (isn't it just amazing how these come out the same?)

1=2: A Proof using Complex Numbers

The Fallacious Proof:

* Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1
* Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1)
* Step 3: Simplifying: sqrt(-1) / sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) / sqrt(-1)
* Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i.
* Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i),
* Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i),
* Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ),
* Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/2i = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i),
* Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2,
* Step 10: and this shows that 1=2.
Even more advanced! Complex numbers have been used for centuries, who can doubt the soundness of their principles?
This is why, as a pure matter of tactics, it's dangerous to get into preaching contests with Libertarians. Sometimes it's better to say "1=2 is utter nonsense, and if you believe that from the Libertarian Mathematics, you've had your mind rotted". Now, this does leave an opening for a reply "Nyah, nyah, you didn't go over every line of that proof and find the error, you have to do that, or you're close-minded". But someone could do more good at times by pointing out that there are people walking around spouting the political equivalent of "1=2" than getting into an involved discussion about part x of step y. This is where Libertarianism Makes You Stupid, the grip of subtly flawed logic can overwhelm everything else.

read and learn and try to avoid its pitfalls in the future.

 

[TurtleDude]

1 - you are unable to tell us how they arrived at this rather unique definition since it is NOT based on the LAW.

2- when Black's starts passing laws for the USA, you be sure to post here and let me know. Until that happens, it is irrelevant.



never did. That was your strawman.



I did not invent the dictionaries nor did I write the definitions that say a police officer is NOT A CIVILIAN.



Aha - the brilliance of libertarian logic. Police are also not apes. Does that make them birds? Can you comprehend that there is more in the reality of the universe than can be reduced to a simple A or B rigid all or nothing choice? Apparently not.

once again

legally American citizens are either

MILITARY

or CIVILIAN

there is no third group for Police officers to be in as much as you pretend there is

 

[haymarket]

you totally miss the point that most Democrats are not gun banning schemers

And what does that point have to do with my post? :roll::doh

 

[haymarket]

once again

legally American citizens are either

MILITARY

or CIVILIAN

there is no third group for Police officers to be in as much as you pretend there is

From a military perspective - perhaps that sort of ALL OR NOTHING... THEM OR US .... BLACK OR WHITE .... group think mentality does exist. But there is nothing in US law which says that is the reality for those not in the military.

And by your own standard.... by your own rule .... by your own definition... the site that you went to for CIVILIAN - Black's Dictionary - says you are wrong since they include people outside the military. So even your own source does not agree with you Turtle.

Thats a really revealing truth when even your own witnesses turn against your own position leaving you with nothing.

 

[TurtleDude]

From a military perspective - perhaps that sort of ALL OR NOTHING... THEM OR US .... BLACK OR WHITE .... group think mentality does exist. But there is nothing in US law which says that is the reality for those not in the military.

is there anything in the law that supports your silly definition that cops are neither civilians nor military?

 

[TurtleDude]

And what does that point have to do with my post? :roll::doh

use your imagination. Most Democrats don't agree with the schemes of your leaders to ban our guns

 

[haymarket]

is there anything in the law that supports your silly definition that cops are neither civilians nor military?

How many times do we have to go over the same ground? I have repeatedly told you that the law in the USA does NOT define the word civilian. I cannot find that. You cannot find that.

Are we clear on that Turtle?

So in the absence of that legal definition, we go to the standard authorities on the English language in the USA and they tell us that cops are NOT civilians.

And by your own standard.... by your own rule .... by your own definition... the site that you went to for CIVILIAN - Black's Dictionary - says you are wrong since they include people outside the military. So even your own source does not agree with you Turtle.

Thats a really revealing truth when even your own witnesses turn against your own position leaving you with nothing.

 

[haymarket]

use your imagination. Most Democrats don't agree with the schemes of your leaders to ban our guns

And your suggested exercise in creative imagination building is important to your case why exactly????? :doh:roll:

Sorry Turtle, but I do not see the point you are trying to make here nor what it has to do with my posts on this issue.

 

[TurtleDude]

How many times do we have to go over the same ground? I have repeatedly told you that the law in the USA does NOT define the word civilian. I cannot find that. You cannot find that.

Are we clear on that Turtle?

So in the absence of that legal definition, we go to the standard authorities on the English language in the USA and they tell us that cops are NOT civilians.

And by your own standard.... by your own rule .... by your own definition... the site that you went to for CIVILIAN - Black's Dictionary - says you are wrong since they include people outside the military. So even your own source does not agree with you Turtle.

Thats a really revealing truth when even your own witnesses turn against your own position leaving you with nothing.

give it up Haymarket. The charade is over. Civilian cops are civilians and weapons used by civilian cops in a civilian environment are suitable for other civilians to at least own

 

[haymarket]

give it up Haymarket. The charade is over. Civilian cops are civilians and weapons used by civilian cops in a civilian environment are suitable for other civilians to at least own

You can say that 10,000 times in the same post and that does NOT make it real. You still have at least three problems
1- the dictionary disagrees with you stating that cops ARE NOT civilians
2 - no law supports your interpretation defining cops as civilians
3- even your own source of Black's turns on you and shows your Military or Civilian rule is jut plain WRONG.

 

[TurtleDude]

You can say that 10,000 times in the same post and that does NOT make it real. You still have at least three problems
1- the dictionary disagrees with you stating that cops ARE NOT civilians
2 - no law supports your interpretation defining cops as civilians
3- even your own source of Black's turns on you and shows your Military or Civilian rule is jut plain WRONG.

you have far more than three problems

 

[Master PO]

Who is Subject to the Provisions of the UCMJ

Article 2 of the UCMJ. Persons subject to this chapter

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.

(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.

(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.

(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.

(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.

(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Canal Zone, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—

(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;

(2) met the mental competence and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;

(3) received military pay or allowances;and

(4) performed military duties;

(d)

(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 81 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of

(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);

(B) trial by court-martial; or

(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).

(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was

(A) on active duty; or

(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.

(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under para-graph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.

(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.

(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not

(A) be sentenced to confinement; or

(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (l)).

(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876(d)(2) of this title (article 76b(d)(2).

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/ucmjsubject_2.htm

 

[Master PO]

Are police officers Civilians or not?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719120932AA4vHHE

 

[TurtleDude]

Are police officers Civilians or not?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719120932AA4vHHE

but but but but

those are not EXPERTS at what definitions are :roll::lamo

 

[haymarket]

you have far more than three problems

Any 'problem' you have presented has been refuted by me.

 

[haymarket]

Are police officers Civilians or not?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070719120932AA4vHHE

Today must be the day when people do not read their own links. Just read your own link to these people (whoever they may be ) and the opinion is expressed that COPS ARE NOT CIVILIANS.The one who actually cites verifiable evidence outside of their own personal opinion agrees with me that police are not civilians. Earlier another poster provided a citation from a book which then proved their own standard of either you are military or you are a civilian wrong as it included those outside of the military.

 

[haymarket]

Who is Subject to the Provisions of the UCMJ

Article 2 of the UCMJ. Persons subject to this chapter

Here is the top line to your link:

Congressional Code of Military Criminal Law applicable to all military members worldwide.

Not applicable to anyone else. Thus your whole argument is not applicable to this discussion and is irrelevant as Americans outside of the military DO NOT live under this code.

 

[Crimefree]

Prove it. Simply link to and quote me making a statement of fact and then your post where you proved me wrong. Lets see it.

You claimed Lotts research was wrong and have yet to prove that. You attempted to trash that evidence by slinging mud at Lott. Only a moron would think that any kind of rebuttal. You have offered no proof any more restrictive gun control law has worked as advertised. Not one yet you claim more must be instituted to do exactly the same thing all others were supposed to do.

I don't usually waste my time debating with assholes who cannot see when they have been refuted and deny that. You can deny all you like nobody here believes the drivel you write except the paranoid gun grabber lunatics and I am not even sure how many of them. Never in my life have I seen so much butt ripped conjecture.

You can take your objection to government and civilian authorities about the naming convention and report back on how well you did. How's that as a way of proving your claims which have no basis in validity. You can try to change history but even your inflated ego is not big enough to do that so why do you try. Do you accept that the origin and intent of the police is as a civilian unit with special powers? Have you claimed different and been advised it is incorrect and you not shown history is wrong? The police certainly is not a military unit. I have no idea what you think the origin is and care even less but you have not proven the origin incorrect have you?

You insist the word not infringed means ability to excessive yet cannot produce a citation for that. I actually don't know of anything you have said that is true. Your bully tactic and attempting to brow beat every one simply make you a despicable person. Go ahead and report me like a coward would. I think you have proven beyond any doubt your nature.

Just a small selection of how wrong you are.

Since that is your example you FAIL miserable as I never made such a claim. You see - for you "prove me wrong" I first have to take that position. You are simply battling your own created strawman. No wonder you think you are so effective.

There you go again projection, talking about yourself. It's OK we understand do get help soon.

 

[haymarket]

You claimed Lotts research was wrong and have yet to prove that.

I provided you with many links to authoritative works that destroyed Lott. read them.

 

[TurtleDude]

Any 'problem' you have presented has been refuted by me.

:lamo:lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

I provided you with many links to authoritative works that destroyed Lott. read them.

no you didn't You presented the opinions of hacks who started with a desire to refute Lott and did all they could to try to prove that. However, as noted before, those hacks didn't share research (unlike Lott).

Lott presented what the evidence demonstrated.

 

[Master PO]

Today must be the day when people do not read their own links. Just read your own link to these people (whoever they may be ) and the opinion is expressed that COPS ARE NOT CIVILIANS.The one who actually cites verifiable evidence outside of their own personal opinion agrees with me that police are not civilians. Earlier another poster provided a citation from a book which then proved their own standard of either you are military or you are a civilian wrong as it included those outside of the military.

no it more of a YOU dont read the links provided...


Q------Are police officers Civilians or not?


A----As a member of the military, we have been taught that police officers are civil authorities. This would imply that they are civilians in an position of authority.



A---- Police are civilians...in a sense. They are such because like you said, they are not members of the country's armed forces. The reason they call citizens who are not police officers civilians, is because they want to separate themselves from the general population, rightly so.
Source(s):I work for a state police department

posting previously that cops subscribe to civilian law, and then turning around and saying they are part of the military,...shows how disingenuous you are.

10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter

a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(13) Individuals belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316), who violate the law of war.
(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who—
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such person’s active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.
(d)
(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of—
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was—
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.
(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not—
(A) be sentenced to confinement; or
(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).


10 U.S. Code § 802 - Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter | LII / Legal Information Institute