Bill Maas, Glocks, and airport security.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by croatan

It's my understanding that the shire reeve was really more the King's man or agent in the region, tasked with making sure judicial decrees were followed. Not so much there to protect the populace in the way we think of "call the Sheriff, there's a break in at Ned's place" but more in terms of "I've got a judgment; now have the Sheriff levy on that property". I believe that there were basically volunteer civilians who reported directly or indirectly to him who handled some of the minor functions. And I don't think London had what we would recognize as a true police force today until the 1820s-30s when the Metropolitan Police Force was established. Not really sure how all of this is germane to the discussion as I don't think it really bolsters either side, but that's my understanding of "Sheriff" anyway.

actually, both and more James. He was the law, and the Kings collection agent, and the tax collector, and the.........you get the picture. \

For the executive function, Anglo-Saxon England did not have a professional standing law enforcement body like our modern police. In general, if a crime was committed then there was a victim, and it was up to the victim - or the victim's family - to seek justice. However, during the tenth century, a number of administrative changes took place in England which led to the formation of a semi-professional constabulary of sorts. The first step was to divide the shires into hundreds (in Danish areas, the term wapentake was used), a reorganisation which probably occurred during the reigns of Edward the Elder and Athelstan. After this, each hundred was further divided under Athelstan into groups of ten freemen called tithings, of which there seem to have been ten in every hundred........

http://www.regia.org/law.htm

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

LOL Man alive. Lets use that phrase in context (free or any connection to traveling, or airplanes, or private companies) then I'll explain it one more time.
Privacy is a right, isn't it?
Carrying a gun is a right, isn't it?

What I'm trying to say is that people can yell and scream that privacy is their right (even though we've determined they don't have this right because they are voluntarily boarding a plane) and some how they feel this is a righteous argument and everyone should stand up for it. But if I were to say its my right to carry a gun on the plane (even though its not) those same people who wanted to defend the right to privacy are silent on this right. The people who say "Privacy is a right, isn't it?" when they are tired of being searched on a plane are silent when I say "Carrying a gun is a right, isn't it?" when they don't let me take it on the plane. What makes their cause any more righteous than mine?


I think he went off on a different tangent with that lol

You can try to spin his comment all you want. From how I read his comment, he believes his right should not stop at the gate to board a plane. It seems to me like you are attempting to make a connection he did not intend or clearly state, if he was. I have no idea if you are trying to be condescending, but it comes off that way without the benefit of your body language or tone. Connecting the privacy theme you are harping on has nothing to do with one's right to board a plane carrying a gun. It seems more like a weak attempt to explain that you were wrong in your assumption. But, I could be wrong.

[IrishCorona]

I own an Arseload of Weapons(even some .50BMG's and a couple Class III's and Supressed weapons). On a bad day I'm one ADHD mother f'er and even I would NEVER forget to leave a gun in my Luggage.

Gimmie a Break........

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

My point was that outside of my home, you really don't have to concern yourself with whether I'm protecting you or not, so whether you have more confidence in me or in icehog protecting you is really a moot point. And if you want to trust your safely to people who have no duty to protect you, go for it.

There is not "duty" to protect an individual unless there has been a "special relationship" established, but that doesn't mean that the poice aren't charged with the responsibility to protect the public and respond to calls for help. I totally understand having a gun in the home, as it will be easier to protect yourself than to dial the phone, and hope the police arrive before a crime has been committed. I also understand the desire to do the same outside the home, believe me the concept isn't lost on me. I have fears that more harm will come to good people who carry concealed weapons than good. That's my opinion, and mine alone. I don't expect anyone to agree, and I do know there are decent arguments to be made for the contrary position.

Originally Posted by cedjunior

But don't try to force that option on me. Thats really the main problem pro-gunners have with anti-gunners. We just want you to accept out beliefs on this matter, you can do what you want with yourself. But the anti-gunners not only want you to understand their beliefs, they want to force you to adhere to them too.

I personally don't seek to force my opinions on anyone, but as I have alluded to earlier in the thread, I am glad the powers that be in my home state have similar views to mine. I applaud and will defend others' right to their opposing opinions, and I again applaud everyone's civility in this thread.

[cedjunior]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

You can try to spin his comment all you want. From how I read his comment, he believes his right should not stop at the gate to board a plane. It seems to me like you are attempting to make a connection he did not intend or clearly state, if he was. I have no idea if you are trying to be condescending, but it comes off that way without the benefit of your body language or tone. Connecting the privacy theme you are harping on has nothing to do with one's right to board a plane carrying a gun. It seems more like a weak attempt to explain that you were wrong in your assumption. But, I could be wrong.

Well I wasn't attempting to spin his comment, I just didn't actually think he'd assume he has the right to carry a gun on a plane, and thats where I made my mistake. While I do believe I should be allowed to carry a gun on a plane, its not my right to do so seeing as a airplane is private property. You would have the same right to not allow me armed on your property. It was my mistake for assume he understood that as well....

[cedjunior]

Originally Posted by icehog3

aled weapons than good. That's my opinion, and mine alone. I don't expect anyone to agree, and I do know there are decent arguments to be made for the contrary position.

I respect your opinion and you you certainly have the right to it. But with 47 states in the country having some type of ccw laws, 35 of them being required by law to issue a ccw if you quality, and none of those concerns have actually become reality.

Originally Posted by icehog3

I personally don't seek to force my opinions on anyone, but as I have alluded to earlier in the thread, I am glad the powers that be in my home state have similar views to mine. I applaud and will defend others' right to their opposing opinions, and I again applaud everyone's civility in this thread.

Well I can definitely respect you for that, but you're in the minority when it come to people who have your view point.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

Well I can definitely respect you for that, but you're in the minority when it come to people who have your view point.

My job has helped me become more tolerant of other people's views....in most cases.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

Well I wasn't attempting to spin his comment, I just didn't actually think he'd assume he has the right to carry a gun on a plane, and thats where I made my mistake. While I do believe I should be allowed to carry a gun on a plane, its not my right to do so seeing as a airplane is private property. You would have the same right to not allow me armed on your property. It was my mistake for assume he understood that as well....

Understood.

[BigVito]

My opinion is pro RTC...that is all

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by BigVito

My opinion is pro RTC...that is all

Must.....resist....response....

[BigVito]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Must.....resist....response....

I respect your position

[davemo]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

Well I wasn't attempting to spin his comment, I just didn't actually think he'd assume he has the right to carry a gun on a plane, and thats where I made my mistake. While I do believe I should be allowed to carry a gun on a plane, its not my right to do so seeing as a airplane is private property. You would have the same right to not allow me armed on your property. It was my mistake for assume he understood that as well....

The people/companies who own private property have the right to make their own rules. But it isn't company policy - it's forbidden by law. That is my bone of contention.

Think of it much as smoking in public places and anti-smoking laws. Bars/restaurants have the right to allow or disallow smoking as they choose, but increasingly the government is passing laws to make that choice for them.

[Major Captain Silly]

I would just like to point out that I have chosen not to participate in this thread.

MCS

[BigVito]

Originally Posted by Major Captain Silly

I would just like to point out that I have chosen not to participate in this thread.

MCS

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by BigVito

I think you particpated quite a bit!