# Intersting Police Tactic.



## Titan6

Interesting Police Tactic..


----------



## Kauboy

So... they let him go, and then wait for him to continue "alarming" people by walking with a firearm, and then move in to arrest him.

I've heard of this happening elsewhere, where the definition of "alarm" is never defined, but only broadly generalized.
The idea that "alarm" can be caused by a legal action would strike a thinking man as a bit strange.

The officer's actions were illegal, through and through.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Interesting. I really have no comment on this. I know this much, I'm not donating to his defense fund. It was a dumb ass move on his part. But the cops, they were total dicks. The biggest problem here, is there will be no accountability on the part of the police. Even if he sued, doubtful he'll find a judge that won't dismiss it. 

I love how they said "Put your phone down" but not his gun as they swarmed on him. And I hope Officer Hernandez, never comes to work in my community. She's just looking for a reason to shoot somebody. Bitch likes her guns. Or maybe somebody will punch her in the mouth.


----------



## Slippy

Two sides, each making their position known, drawing lines in the sand. 
God Save This Great Republic.


----------



## omegabrock

Kauboy said:


> The idea that "alarm" can be caused by a legal action...
> The officer's actions were illegal, through and through.


this is the part that bothers me. and not even with just LEO's, but society as a whole. our government acts above the law and so many people say "well, he shouldnt have done that".

just to be clear, yes, he was pushing his boundaries at the beginning but he complied. then at the end, he was trying to leave (because they were telling him to leave) but they did not allow him access to leave.


----------



## 2Tim215

1. He was asking for it
2. They were looking for a reason and he gave it
3. They let you carry semi auto assault weapons in public? Oh, sorry they don't:grin: They arrested him and he was surprised? Started panicking at the end there.

If these guys carry on like this you guys are soon going to lose the right to carry rifles openly, nothing like putting oil on a fire to put it out. I know this is a touchy subject but dumb asses like that looking to piss the cops off is not helping IMO.


----------



## 2Tim215

omegabrock said:


> this is the part that bothers me. and not even with just LEO's, but society as a whole. our government acts above the law and so many people say "well, he shouldnt have done that".
> 
> just to be clear, yes, he was pushing his boundaries at the beginning but he complied. then at the end, he was trying to leave (because they were telling him to leave) but they did not allow him access to leave.


The cops knew what they were doing. He was surrounded on all sides so no matter what way he walked he was screwed. Poor planning on his side.


----------



## Slippy

Smitty901 put it best on a post in an Open Carry Rally thread
"Sir , you ask the wrong question. We should be asking why we even have to have the rally to support a right that should not be in question to start with." Smitty901 4 July 2014


----------



## hotpig27

Open carry idiots doing more for gun control than all of the anti gun groups combined.


----------



## bigdogbuc

What's more surprising is it went to trial, and the jury found him guilty of "Displaying a Weapon", even though it's not illegal in this state to open carry. The prosecutor dropped the trespass charges and the judge excluded all evidence of the police contact. The only evidence that was allowed was prior to police contact. Witnesses said that they were not alarmed by his actions, that he never touched the gun, held it, acted in a threatening manner, nothing; but they were alarmed at the presence of the firearm itself. BINGO!!! Winner winner chicken dinner.

The jury instructions even stated "The carrying of a semi-automatic rifle in public is not an illegal act in the State of Washington." And what we have here is what's called precedence. A jury, in a po-dunk municipal court has said "Simply allowing the firearm to be visible to the general public is enough to warrant arrest, charges and conviction." And it's bad precedence at that. 

He is going to appeal the verdict. I doubt it will go anywhere unless the higher courts find a procedural error by the court or errors in the jury instructions. 

This is how it starts. This is why I say "Just because it's legal to do, doesn't mean you should". Now there is case law. And case law begins the turn to making something legal, outright illegal, and if the conviction stands, it will be used over and over and over again, to arrest, charge and prosecute more and more and more people for doing it. There is more than one way to skin a cat. While the carrying of the firearm itself is NOT illegal, a jury just said that creating "alarm" by it's mere sight, is a crime. 

WAY TO GO.

Thanks buddy, for ****ing it up for everybody else. For those of you that just can't leave it alone, leave it alone. Please.


----------



## Kauboy

hotpig27 said:


> Open carry idiots doing more for gun control than all of the anti gun groups combined.


He's a disabled vet.
Have some respect.


----------



## bigdogbuc

2Tim215 said:


> The cops knew what they were doing. He was surrounded on all sides so no matter what way he walked he was screwed. Poor planning on his side.


In some circles, that just means you've got 'em right where you want 'em. :grin:


----------



## pheniox17

bigdogbuc said:


> What's more surprising is it went to trial, and the jury found him guilty of "Displaying a Weapon", even though it's not illegal in this state to open carry. The prosecutor dropped the trespass charges and the judge excluded all evidence of the police contact. The only evidence that was allowed was prior to police contact. Witnesses said that they were not alarmed by his actions, that he never touched the gun, held it, acted in a threatening manner, nothing; but they were alarmed at the presence of the firearm itself. BINGO!!! Winner winner chicken dinner.
> 
> The jury instructions even stated "The carrying of a semi-automatic rifle in public is not an illegal act in the State of Washington." And what we have here is what's called precedence. A jury, in a po-dunk municipal court has said "Simply allowing the firearm to be visible to the general public is enough to warrant arrest, charges and conviction." And it's bad precedence at that.
> 
> He is going to appeal the verdict. I doubt it will go anywhere unless the higher courts find a procedural error by the court or errors in the jury instructions.
> 
> This is how it starts. This is why I say "Just because it's legal to do, doesn't mean you should". Now there is case law. And case law begins the turn to making something legal, outright illegal, and if the conviction stands, it will be used over and over and over again, to arrest, charge and prosecute more and more and more people for doing it. There is more than one way to skin a cat. While the carrying of the firearm itself is NOT illegal, a jury just said that creating "alarm" by it's mere sight, is a crime.
> 
> WAY TO GO.
> 
> Thanks buddy, for ****ing it up for everybody else. For those of you that just can't leave it alone, leave it alone. Please.


and this is why I can't help respect you, some one actually gets the effects of stupidity and a political argument 

a lot will be on the other side screaming its my right its my right!! and all it dose is cause more ammo for gun control to use against us


----------



## 1skrewsloose

I think we need LE and judges, along with DA's that abide by, and follow the law. If this was a free speech thing, it might go completely different. If we submit to their paranoia and go underground, what rights or laws have we stood up for? We're here, got gear, get used to it!


----------



## bigdogbuc

pheniox17 said:


> and this is why I can't help respect you, some one actually gets the effects of stupidity and a political argument
> 
> a lot will be on the other side screaming its my right its my right!! and all it dose is cause more ammo for gun control to use against us


I heart you "P"... 

And yes, they will scream, and holler and still not understand a damn thing they're doing to **** themselves, and others, or why bad shit happens to them.

It's a total failure to see the bigger, more important picture. You can't fix stupid, especially when it comes with a big mouth.


----------



## pheniox17

bigdogbuc said:


> I heart you "P"...
> 
> And yes, they will scream, and holler and still not understand a damn thing they're doing to **** themselves, and others, or why bad shit happens to them.
> 
> It's a total failure to see the bigger, more important picture. You can't fix stupid, especially when it comes with a big mouth.


seen it first hand on a anti gun control Facebook page, funny as I support the right to own whatever firearm that floats your boat, but don't support stupidity and I was the enemy, who needs gun control... they just hang themselves, that's what happened here, stupidity aloud a convincing gun control campaign, and bingo I can no longer own whatever I want


----------



## 1skrewsloose

If something is legal to do, then why the rant about it. Anti-gun folks and animal cruelty folks voice disdain for hunting, why, they want it both ways. Kill the wolves, my children are in danger. I understand they take livestock, and should be dispatched so they hunt elsewhere. They're not dumb animals, when their family gets picked off, they will move on. But no guns for defense of a human, other than LE and the gov. Just fail to be able to wrap my head around the hypocrisy. The two legged wolves will always have guns, I guess they want us all to be pacifists, sorry, not in my genes. my .02.


----------



## bigdogbuc

1skrewsloose said:


> If something is legal to do, then why the rant about it.


My point exactly. It goes back to my post on the "Open Carry Rallies" thread; some people just look for confrontation, and they have no clue, or refuse to admit, to the damage they're doing. Narcissistic stupidity at its best.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

Reminds me of when I managed a restaurant in Dallas. Every Thursday the "Dallas Gay Alliance" would come into our cafe after their meeting. Most of them flamers, first time coming out of the closet types. It drove away all our other customers. The first time I witnessed the touchy-feely under the table I kicked them out. A couple of weeks later a gay couple who had obviously heard about our anti-gay cafe, who didn't in Dallas, said he supported my decision, thought the openly and brazen attitude was detrimental to their cause. I'm not and wasn't a homophobe, but ran a family cafe. Had folks from chain restaurants wanting to meet me, saying they wish they could do the same. Folks like to push the limits, sometimes, we need to push back. Being decent is being decent!


----------



## PaulS

2Tim215 said:


> 1. He was asking for it
> 2. They were looking for a reason and he gave it
> 3. They let you carry semi auto assault weapons in public? Oh, sorry they don't:grin: They arrested him and he was surprised? Started panicking at the end there.
> 
> If these guys carry on like this you guys are soon going to lose the right to carry rifles openly, nothing like putting oil on a fire to put it out. I know this is a touchy subject but dumb asses like that looking to piss the cops off is not helping IMO.


The man with the gun was not breaking any laws - he wasn't asking for anything.
The cops violated his right to openly carry a firearm - in public. They were breaking the law.
The cops have no say what kind of rifle someone can carry openly in public - it is a right - not a privilege!
People from foreign countries may not understand this but in our country even the cops are supposed to follow the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. In this case they arrested him for exercising his rights. I would love to be on that jury! I would also like to be on the jury that sits on the law suit for the civil rights violation. That city would never stop another person exercising their rights again - they wouldn't have enough money to do so.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

Every jury should be instructed about jury nullification, I'm pretty sure some think it's all or none once they are on the jury. The start of this may give second thoughts to DA's waiting for the libs to grease their palms. All these actions cost taxpayers money. Like most things, hit them in the pocket book, it hurts the worst. Take the money from the DA's salary, and who else on the losing side. In my mind, they really don't care who wins, long as they get paid! Shameful elected folks cater to the whim of the squeaky wheel instead of the law and constitution which they swear to uphold!


----------



## sparkyprep

PaulS said:


> The man with the gun was not breaking any laws - he wasn't asking for anything.
> The cops violated his right to openly carry a firearm - in public. They were breaking the law.
> The cops have no say what kind of rifle someone can carry openly in public - it is a right - not a privilege!
> People from foreign countries may not understand this but in our country even the cops are supposed to follow the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. In this case they arrested him for exercising his rights. I would love to be on that jury! I would also like to be on the jury that sits on the law suit for the civil rights violation. That city would never stop another person exercising their rights again - they wouldn't have enough money to do so.


I have to agree with Paul on this one. The ability to carry a gun is not a law. It is not a privilege afforded to our citizens. It is a _right_ bestowed upon us at our creation, and is _protected_ by law. This right can never be taken from us by law, because a law did not give it to us.

The civil rights violation lawsuit from me would be in the millions.

I understand the other side, when people say that these demonstrations hurt our push for acceptance, but I think people only feel that way because their culture has been tainted by the government's push to alienate the concept that people have this right. It is the slowest, and possibly the most effective form of gun control. To actually, and slowly change the *culture* of America, to make one of our most basic rights socially unacceptable is pure genius, and it's working, even on patriotic-minded individuals such as the intelligent, good people of this board.


----------



## Seneca

What's the reasoning behind the open carry. Was it simply because he can? or was he open carry across the parking lot to meet his buddy so they could go shooting together. On one hand you have some nimrod using open carry to draw attention to himself and make a political statement on the other hand it's simply a guy meeting up with his buddy to go shooting. Big difference in the intent. I support open carry when there is a reason for it other than to get attention.


----------



## PaulS

Seneca said:


> What's the reasoning behind the open carry. Was it simply because he can? or was he open carry across the parking lot to meet his buddy so they could go shooting together. On one hand you have some nimrod using open carry to draw attention to himself and make a political statement on the other hand it's simply a guy meeting up with his buddy to go shooting. Big difference in the intent. I support open carry when there is a reason for it other than to get attention.


How about self defense? How about the right to carry? Those are good and valid reasons to carry any gun where it is legal and it should be universally legal unless you are on private property.


----------



## hotpig27

It is not a self defense issue. I could walk up to one of these Rambo impersonators punch them in the face and take their rifle away from them. It is a matter of time before one of these children get hurt or killed playing their look at me game.

Some of us have worked our butts off and spent lots of our own money on gun rights. To sit back and watch these jack legs undo our work is heartbreaking.


----------



## PaulS

hotpig27 said:


> It is not a self defense issue. I could walk up to one of these Rambo impersonators punch them in the face and take their rifle away from them. It is a matter of time before one of these children get hurt or killed playing their look at me game.
> 
> Some of us have worked our butts off and spent lots of our own money on gun rights. To sit back and watch these jack legs undo our work is heartbreaking.


That is what I don't understand.... What is wrong with exercising a right. How can you possibly exercise a right in a wrong way? How does it do anything to undo our rights to exercise them? If the mere exercising of a right brings trouble then it is no longer a right - if it is not tolerated in public then the right does not exist.


----------



## Slippy

SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION;

This discussion exemplifies why we; Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who is against the evil Socialist Liberals, are doomed.
We simply cannot come to a consensus. 
Libs rally around their bullshit causes and form a consensus coalition and end up winning in many areas. 
We all believe very strongly in upholding the 2nd. But we'll continue to pick apart certain things and create a chasm between our sub groups of political allies.
Just like certain Republicans chose to stay home and not vote for Romney in '12 because he is a Mormon. Those "voters" chose to not compromise their principles and ended up helping put the gay, muslime, waste of kenyan sperm into the White House. 
Will our differences help to do away with the 2nd? FUBAR

God Save This Great Republic


----------



## PaulS

I don't care if they remove the second amendment from the constitution. It doesn't remove the right because the second amendment doesn't give the right. It is only there to remind the federal government that they are supposed to protect that right for each individual.


----------



## sparkyprep

Slippy said:


> SIMPLY AN OBSERVATION;
> 
> This discussion exemplifies why we; Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who is against the evil Socialist Liberals, are doomed.
> We simply cannot come to a consensus.
> Libs rally around their bullshit causes and form a consensus coalition and end up winning in many areas.
> We all believe very strongly in upholding the 2nd. But we'll continue to pick apart certain things and create a chasm between our sub groups of political allies.
> Just like certain Republicans chose to stay home and not vote for Romney in '12 because he is a Mormon. Those "voters" chose to not compromise their principles and ended up helping put the gay, muslime, waste of kenyan sperm into the White House.
> Will our differences help to do away with the 2nd? FUBAR
> 
> God Save This Great Republic


Observation noted, and somewhat agreed with. I didn't vote in the last election, because neither candidate shared my political ideals, and neither represented, or cared about me.


----------



## PaulS

Sparky,
Why not take a moment to see if you are Libertarian. go here > Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government < and take the test. Then you can look over their platform and see if it fits your political ideals better than where ever you are now.


----------



## bigdogbuc

It's not a privilege, it's a right...

Make that ****ing argument all day long. This stupid son of a bitch, exercising his "right", which wasn't illegal in the first place so what was the ****ing point?, has now created PRECEDENCE, otherwise known as CASE LAW. Jesus Christ, will you guys listen to yourselves for just ONE GOD DAMN SECOND?

His conviction is now ON THE BOOKS. As a former Police Officer in the State of Washington, I am going to tell you how this works. Not how you "FEEL it should work", not "the way it should be", not "the way that's fair", the way "IT IS".

I tell my students at school, "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there's the way things are. And right now, you're dealing with the way things are." Stop being so frickin' focused on "It's my right so I'm gonna walk around and carry my rifle and scare the shit out of people", and start looking at the root of the problem and come up with a solution, instead of adding to the problem. 

Jerk Off gets arrested for Trespassing. Not for carrying his rifle. Trespassing. And we CAN ALL AGREE, it was bullshit. But he was arrested none the less. As the world turns in the court room, the prosecutor says "Ya' know, I'm gonna drop the trespass charge. He was on a public sidewalk. He was legally carrying his rifle, BUT, people were scared by the presence of his rifle. I'm going to push that point." Your honor, Mr. Defendant, Mr. Defending Attorney, I'm going to amend these charges. I'm going to charge you with Display of a Weapon. 

Fair enough. Judge orders video evidence of contact with police is inadmissible. At THIS POINT, it does not matter how the defendant wound up here, just that he is here. Let's proceed. Jury comes back with guilty verdict. If this verdict stands, and I'm almost certain it will, unless there were errors or improper procedures during the trial, guess what?

That verdict, JUST LANDED ON THE DESK OF EVERY ****ING COP AND PROSECUTOR IN THE STATE. You see, there's this little publication they receive every month as well as memo's. And it says; Here is how you go about it without going about it. And if their command and the prosecutor are down with it, guess what the next little ****-**** game becomes. Yep. Every time someone see's a gun, in public. 

He was not found guilty for exercising his rights. 

He was not found guilty for legally carrying a rifle in public. 

His rights were not violated according to the court.

The police were completely absolved.

He was found guilty for SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE, he was openly carrying his rifle in public and they were not afraid of him or his actions, BUT AFRAID OF THE RIFLE itself. An inanimate object. And he chose to do it to make some point, which was ridiculous, because it was not illegal in the first place. 

Thanks Sparky. I appreciate you getting yourself jammed up because you wanted to prove a point, and now, even though it's legal for me to do so, I can expect to be charged with "something else" completely unrelated to me exercising my rights YOU STUPID ****ING MORON. 

And now, Pandora's box has been opened and every mother ****ing time someone walks to their car with their rifle and a neighbor or passerby is "alarmed", you will be subject to arrest, prosecution and conviction. Right after they're done pointing guns at you and ordering you to the ground. 

And do you know why? BECAUSE THEY GOT A CONVICTION FOR IT IN VANCOUVER WASHINGTON. Hooray!!!! And your defense attorney is going to go "let's make a deal." Here's the case law, look it over...

Is that so God Damn hard to understand? 

Instead of being in people's faces with your "rights", which are my rights as well, which are the same rights that have been jeopardized by this assholes behavior and subsequent conviction; 

Why don't you try acting like a civilized human being and taking a softer, friendlier approach. Why don't you write your local representatives when you have concerns about encroachment on our gun rights, talk to your range about sponsoring a "New Shooter Day" or "Public Information Day", have the officers or owner of your range write or call the heads of local law enforcement and ask them to write a letter or attend a meeting and explain what expectations they have of their officers when it comes to someone "exercising their rights" by carrying a gun around. Why not invite the prosecutor as well? 

What's so hard about initiating a dialogue? How about a Flea Flicker or an end around, instead of running that ball up the gut every single play? How many times do you have to run INTO the wall, before you start looking for a way around it?


----------



## Moonshinedave

OK, I might be wrong about this but this is how I am thinking. If I was out and about where, say for instance it's bear country, or perhaps the threat of wild dogs.....whatever... I'd like to know, I could strap on a firearm and be legal. Meaning there are times where carrying a firearm might be a good idea, and I like to think I have a legal right to do so. But, and again I might be wrong, just to carry a firearm somewhere to muster attention of local police, I just don't see it.


----------



## pheniox17

I can't believe the passion on the this guy is a wanker side...

its not about right and privilege, it's about one wanker that is ****ing it up for everyone, when will people LEARN

and the case will be tried, and then be passed (if innocent or guilty it now doesn't matter) and a guideline is created that now affects everyone....


----------



## PaulS

That may be how it works in Australia but in the US the prosecutors have to show him to be guilty of a crime. Since there was no crime he will be acquitted and he can sue for false arrest, and violation of his rights. 

The police should have approached him and expressed their concern. At that point he could have reassured them and they could have parted with their respect intact. All they have right now is that they bullied an ex-soldier into a false arrest under false pretenses and they will not get away with it. Not this time not ever as long as the US remains a free republic based on the constitution. If people get scared from the presence of legality then the people need to be educated. He did not "display" his weapon - there is a legal definition for that. He simply carried it on his back while he was walking down the street. There is nothing illegal or worrisome about it. The people who have shot up theaters and schools concealed their weapons until they were inside the structures. That would make them criminals because they didn't have the required permit (that shouldn't be needed).


----------



## Inor

I have to ride with the BigDog on this one. Just because douche bag has a right to carry an AR through town openly, does not make it a smart decision to do so. The fact that he had his phone handy and was recording the whole thing (and even giving commentary) shows that he intended to cause a disturbance. I mean, if a cop pointed their weapon at me, the last thing I would be thinking of is collecting the exchange on my cell phone or making play-by-play comments.

So, it seems pretty cut and dried to me that douche bag was carrying an AR through town for the express purpose of causing a confrontation with authorities. Now, I really do not have a problem with douche bag doing any of this, if... He had bothered to take the time and expense to plan the whole thing out including the arrest, trial, etc. beforehand. In other words, if he was setting out to cause a disturbance in support of our 2nd Amendment rights, fine as long as he had a well planned and well thought out strategy for how to do it. That would include having consulted one or more attorneys and having one or more of them on retainer before he ever left his house with the rifle. But ol' douche bag did not bother with any of that. Nope, he loaded up his rifle and his cell phone and left the house thinking posting a video on You Tube was all the strategy he needed.

So now, because his trial went sidewise due to his worthless planning, good ol' Joe Bob in Walla Walla, Washington has to worry about carrying his rifles from his living room to the trunk of his Chevy Impala when he takes his kids to the range. Yeah, I agree, It should not be this way. But it is. Before you do something that is controversial (even though legal) by societal norms, you have to have a strategy that goes beyond pairing taco chips with salsa.


----------



## Slippy

sparkyprep said:


> Observation noted, and somewhat agreed with. I didn't vote in the last election, because neither candidate shared my political ideals, and neither represented, or cared about me.


I agree Sparky, very few if any DC Politicians over the past 20 years have cared about the likes of most people on this forum. Nor have they cared about upholding Freedom and Liberty.


----------



## Innkeeper

Moonshinedave said:


> OK, I might be wrong about this but this is how I am thinking. If I was out and about where, say for instance it's bear country, or perhaps the threat of wild dogs.....whatever... I'd like to know, I could strap on a firearm and be legal. Meaning there are times where carrying a firearm might be a good idea, and I like to think I have a legal right to do so. But, and again I might be wrong, just to carry a firearm somewhere to muster attention of local police, I just don't see it.


Well it would depend on your locale, here in Michigan we can, I do not carry an AR with me everywhere except usually to the range, but I have been known to go hiking up in the UP, and when I do I carry My Full Frame 45 on my side, but I usually park my Jeep and hike a day or two out and then back camping along the way , and having it just incase some animal decides he does not like me on his turf is nice to have. most of the time I just carry concealed, but like I said Michigan is lucky to have an open carry law.


----------



## 2Tim215

PaulS said:


> The man with the gun was not breaking any laws - he wasn't asking for anything.
> The cops violated his right to openly carry a firearm - in public. They were breaking the law.
> The cops have no say what kind of rifle someone can carry openly in public - it is a right - not a privilege!
> People from foreign countries may not understand this but in our country even the cops are supposed to follow the constitutionally protected rights of the individual. In this case they arrested him for exercising his rights. I would love to be on that jury! I would also like to be on the jury that sits on the law suit for the civil rights violation. That city would never stop another person exercising their rights again - they wouldn't have enough money to do so.


Then why was the camera rolling? He knew his actions would have some consequence and was out to prove a point. Your police may have to follow the constitutionally protected rights of the individual but it would be a very different outcry if he was on his way to a school full of kids. The poor bastards are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. So how do they (the cops) know if it's just some prick enforcing his "constitutionally protected rights" or some wacko abusing them? I'm not justifying there actions but just because you have a right does not mean you have to flout it.


----------



## Slippy

2Tim215 said:


> Then why was the camera rolling? He knew his actions would have some consequence and was out to prove a point. Your police may have to follow the constitutionally protected rights of the individual but it would be a very different outcry if he was on his way to a school full of kids. The poor bastards are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. So how do they (the cops) know if it's just some prick enforcing his "constitutionally protected rights" or some wacko abusing them? I'm not justifying there actions but just because you have a right does not mean you have to flout it.


Yes Tim,

They are all out to prove a point, that's why they do it. 
They see the US Media gushing over the libtards protesting over things like killing babies for example. Think about the irony. A group of people protest the right to kill a baby and our press applauds them.

So, it pisses them off and they get a wild idea to protest in "support" of our 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Its sort of like burning the US Flag and being able to argue using the 1st Amendment as giving you the right to free speech by burning the flag.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Innkeeper said:


> Well it would depend on your locale, here in Michigan we can, I do not carry an AR with me everywhere except usually to the range, but I have been known to go hiking up in the UP, and when I do I carry My Full Frame 45 on my side, but I usually park my Jeep and hike a day or two out and then back camping along the way , and having it just incase some animal decides he does not like me on his turf is nice to have. most of the time I just carry concealed, but like I said Michigan is lucky to have an open carry law.


And we have a law on the books that specifically grants a person the legal right to do just that, while they are in a wilderness area. We have Open Carry here as well. It is now in jeopardy thanks to this bunghole.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Inor said:


> ...you have to have a strategy that goes beyond pairing taco chips with salsa.


I love it. Absolutely love it. Couldn't have said it better myself...::clapping::


----------



## Lucky Jim

None of my business of course but it looks like open carriers are having an easy ride so far.
If the Law wanted, they could be jailed for violating citizen's right to happiness by walking down the street with a gun and upsetting them-
_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness*" (Dec of Independence)_

Furthermore, they could have their guns seized on the grounds that no peacable citizen walks down the street with a gun-
_"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are *peaceable citizens* from keeping their own arms" (founding father Samuel Adams_

Like I said, open carriers have had an easy ride so far, but that could change if they go on police-baiting, upsetting ordinary citizens and getting all sensible gun owners a bad name.

PS- with gun ownership should come responsibility, training and discipline, but open-carrying looks irresponsible, sloppy and undisciplined..


----------



## pheniox17

PaulS said:


> That may be how it works in Australia but in the US the prosecutors have to show him to be guilty of a crime. Since there was no crime he will be acquitted and he can sue for false arrest, and violation of his rights.
> 
> The police should have approached him and expressed their concern. At that point he could have reassured them and they could have parted with their respect intact. All they have right now is that they bullied an ex-soldier into a false arrest under false pretenses and they will not get away with it. Not this time not ever as long as the US remains a free republic based on the constitution. If people get scared from the presence of legality then the people need to be educated. He did not "display" his weapon - there is a legal definition for that. He simply carried it on his back while he was walking down the street. There is nothing illegal or worrisome about it. The people who have shot up theaters and schools concealed their weapons until they were inside the structures. That would make them criminals because they didn't have the required permit (that shouldn't be needed).


again missing a point

a crime (inflict fear) has now been linked to open carry, so now the crime has been linked, it doesn't matter on the court outcome, the link now exists on paper, this is the back door way in removing rights

so you have the right to open carry, but if doing so inflicts fear on another then it becomes a crime, the charge will turn you into a criminal and my knowledge on us firearm laws is not too high but is it not a offense to own firearms if your a convicted criminal?? oh look instant gun control and your so blind you can't see it...

this starts a process where you can't open carry unless you are in a area where you can't inflict fear, this is a generational process but say bye bye to the ability (not the right, the actual ability) to carry firearms in public, all because one person in a time of heated gun control politics, took the risk and now rapes everyone...


----------



## Denton

His one and only reason for carrying a long rifle in such manner was to get contact for his camera. 

Again, a rifle is not a defensive weapon, it is for military ops. You know, if we, the people, decide to take back the country from tyranny and arbitrary rule.

On the other hand, a sidearm is for defensive purposes, and it can be carried openly even more easily. 

Then again, if you are just wanting attention....

This is not the attention we need.


----------



## Kauboy

Doing what is right is not always popular. Doing what is popular is not always right.
Stand for what is right, even if you stand alone.
This veteran did the unpopular, but right thing. Our rights are uncompromising. Shame on those who stand against him and against the free exercise of our rights.


----------



## Denton

Right idea, maybe, but wrong tactic. There is no shame in understanding this.

I, too, am a vet. Shame on you for attempting to suggest I should be ashamed.

That whole, I'm a vet!" crap might go over with those who never served, but those of us who have realize that we served with a lot of people who weren't the brightest or most honorable.

Responsibilities come with rights.


----------



## pheniox17

Denton said:


> Responsibilities come with rights.


::clapping::


----------



## bigdogbuc

PaulS said:


> That may be how it works in Australia but in the US the prosecutors have to show him to be guilty of a crime. Since there was no crime he will be acquitted and he can sue for false arrest, and violation of his rights.
> 
> The police should have approached him and expressed their concern. At that point he could have reassured them and they could have parted with their respect intact. All they have right now is that they bullied an ex-soldier into a false arrest under false pretenses and they will not get away with it. Not this time not ever as long as the US remains a free republic based on the constitution. If people get scared from the presence of legality then the people need to be educated. He did not "display" his weapon - there is a legal definition for that. He simply carried it on his back while he was walking down the street. There is nothing illegal or worrisome about it. The people who have shot up theaters and schools concealed their weapons until they were inside the structures. That would make them criminals because they didn't have the required permit (that shouldn't be needed).


Paul. He WAS convicted of a crime. Display of a Weapon. Had nothing to do with him carrying the rifle. That was legal. The Trespass was dropped. He was prosecuted and found guilty by jury, for Display of a Weapon. Seems the rifle itself scared some folks, and that's enough.


----------



## SAR-1L

From personal perspective I myself wouldn't appreciate someone walking through the streets with an ak, ar or other rifles.
However, what I feel comfortable with and don't, ISN'T law.

I cannot find a logical reason other than to exercise rights that he would be carrying a rifle vs a pistol. But it is his right,
and my ability to find reason to justify him carrying his rifle ISN'T law.

I do believe if people continue with rifle open carry rallies, so many places will make their properties anti gun that we
won't be able to carry soon as we leave the house. I feel opponents of gun rights want this and they are winning.

I was impressed with his compliance for the most part. I know you are not required to consent to search and seizure,
you are not required to identify yourself. He did everything legally right, but he didn't diffuse the situation.

I feel things would have gone smoother if he had said:

_Hello, officer how are you today? my name is __________, this is my firearm, and I am carrying, cause I am legally allowed. 
I am not here to cause any concerns and I have no intent to harm anyone, I am also proficiently trained to handle my
firearm safely and responsibly

What can I do for you to help ease this situation? Ma'am what can I do for you to put you at ease so you will lower your
firearm as it is causing me great distress that you are pointing a loaded firearm as someone who is compliant and a non threat.._

_______________________________________

Flip side, those officers didn't need to point weapons at him if he is compliant. That BITCH of an officer with a shotty was looking
for any excuse any chance to shoot him down. Her intent and desire was to put bullets in him for carrying his rifle. She in no way
and nor did the officers do anything to put anyone at ease or diffuse the situation.

They were not friendly, they were not in many ways professional, they were looking to arrest or put him down. I truly believe that
by the mannerisms they displayed. They also acted illegally, and corralled the man as they didn't want to have patience for him.
They forced him into an arrest situation by unlawful desire to do their own brand of justice.

If he would have in any way messed up I guarantee he would have been shot right there in the street, even with him recording.
They would have opened an investigation, and someone may, not likely but might have been put on suspension.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Kauboy said:


> Doing what is right is not always popular. Doing what is popular is not always right.
> Stand for what is right, even if you stand alone.
> This veteran did the unpopular, but right thing. Our rights are uncompromising. Shame on those who stand against him and against the free exercise of our rights.


No Kauboy, he did not. He was irresponsible. What he did was put my rights in jeopardy, in my state. The one I live in. Like Pheniox said, there is now a crime attached to his "exercising of rights", one that will be used to now prosecute others who are "exercising their rights".

I do not speak for everyone on this forum. I do not speak for you. I do not recall ever giving him permission to speak for me, or jeopardize my rights while he exercised his.

And, I don't give a ****, if he's a veteran. So am I. Where was his consideration for me?


----------



## Denton

SAR, that woman was looking at him as if he was an enemy. I really believe she would have blown a hole in him had she thought she could have given a reasonable explanation for it.


----------



## SAR-1L

Denton said:


> SAR, that woman was looking at him as if he was an enemy. I really believe she would have blown a hole in him had she thought she could have given a reasonable explanation for it.


Well and I don't mean to make it a race issue, but... she is Hispanic, and what do you want to bet she wanted to shoot him for being middle age white male with "white entitlement".
So many times have I had Hispanic-American or African-American's be aggressive, and posture towards me in a threatening manner for simply existing as a white male in America.

He was disarmed, everyone else had to a degree relaxed, except her, knowing he was disarmed with finger still on the trigger.

*Edit:* _not saying everyone discriminates against whites, plenty of great people with different culture plenty accepting of others.
But racism is a bad bad disease that works both ways, and it is becoming more and more common. Same as gender discrimination
men are more and more being portrayed as monsters._


----------



## bigdogbuc

Denton said:


> SAR, that woman was looking at him as if he was an enemy. I really believe she would have blown a hole in him had she thought she could have given a reasonable explanation for it.


Home Girl Hernandez, straight out the Barrio, was CRAZY eyed. Holy Shit. I have been a police officer, and I have never in my life, seen another cop with a more intent look of "I want to blow you away" than that bitch. She was ITCHIN' for a reason. She would have squirted all over herself if she had gotten to pull the trigger. She's got issues that VPD needs to re-assess.

And snotty? What a Can't Understand Normal Thinking. Probably went home and slapped her dike partner around for some relief then broke out the strap on. Damn.


----------



## bigdogbuc

SAR-1L said:


> Well and I don't mean to make it a race issue, but... she is Hispanic, and what do you want to bet she wanted to shoot him for being middle age white male with "white entitlement".
> So many times have I had Hispanic-American or African-American's be aggressive, and posture towards me in a threatening manner for simply existing as a white male in America.
> 
> He was disarmed, everyone else had to a degree relaxed, except her, knowing he was disarmed with finger still on the trigger.


Yeah, twice. Once with the shotgun, then her pistol when they arrested him. Bitch sat there the whole time after the first contact and watched him. She KNEW his weapon wasn't loaded, or presented in a threatening manner. Yet she had that Glock out like she was SWAT when she ran up on him.

She should not be a cop. Period. She apparently has too much to prove.

And there's the ticket right there. I think everyone that watched this video should e-mail the city council of Vancouver, WA and tell them how abhorred they are by the conduct of some of their police officers, highlighting their unprofessional and overly aggressive conduct based on observations in this video.

That is the sort of thing that starts making police accountable. The City Council hears enough, they go to the mayor. The mayor gets an ear full, they go to the Chief. Shit just rolls downhill from there. I have a great Police Chief, as well as the Patrol Captain, in my city, that would not accept this type of behavior by their officers.


----------



## 2Tim215

Denton said:


> SAR, that woman was looking at him as if he was an enemy. I really believe she would have blown a hole in him had she thought she could have given a reasonable explanation for it.


Agreed. The look on her face and her final comment at the end of the vid was the perfect portrayal of what the cops intended right from the start. It was almost as if the whole thing was scripted. That means that this method of confrontation that led to his eventual arrest had been discussed before hand and a method to arrest firearm owners legally carrying rifles had been planned and in this case implemented with an actual conviction for a crime that would as previously stated make it impossible to open carry. 
That my friends is what you should be more afraid of!
Next time it might be someone with less diplomacy and a more aggressive nature and the cops might shoot through "justifiable" fear for there lives - then you open a door to shoot first ask later scenarios. What then? By allowing himself to be arrested and convicted for "alarming" people he has opened a can of worms that is not going to go away. 
If causing alarm and fear through carrying a rifle openly is cause for arrest and conviction what then happens to your freedom of speech if it causes alarm or induces fear? You see where this is going? Do not for one second think you are cleverer than a government made up of a lot people working together to take away your rights. Most of these open carry guys are acting alone against a combined force. With tactics like that you would think a "vet" would know better. You have organizations that fight to protect your rights - use them. Standing alone is just stupid.


----------



## omegabrock

2Tim215 said:


> The cops knew what they were doing. He was surrounded on all sides so no matter what way he walked he was screwed. Poor planning on his side.


im not disagreeing with you lol


----------



## omegabrock

PaulS said:


> I would love to be on that jury! I would also like to be on the jury that sits on the law suit for the civil rights violation.


you understand that "sticking up for civil rights" makes you an extremist and you would be dismissed from the jury. just because someone is "judged by his peers" doesnt mean the jury can't be rigged


----------



## omegabrock

sparkyprep said:


> I understand the other side, when people say that these demonstrations hurt our push for acceptance, but I think people only feel that way because their culture has been tainted by the government's push to alienate the concept that people have this right. It is the slowest, and possibly the most effective form of gun control. To actually, and slowly change the *culture* of America, to make one of our most basic rights socially unacceptable is pure genius, and it's working, even on patriotic-minded individuals such as the intelligent, good people of this board.


this goes back to me saying you can scream "this is unconstitutional", but that means nothing if you have LEO's, judges and juries that are willing to arrest, convict and punish you for doing something they view as 'not right'. you are right that it is working- the push to make this socially unacceptable and that is the only reason gun control has as much traction as it does.


----------



## omegabrock

Seneca said:


> What's the reasoning behind the open carry. Was it simply because he can? or was he open carry across the parking lot to meet his buddy so they could go shooting together. On one hand you have some nimrod using open carry to draw attention to himself and make a political statement on the other hand it's simply a guy meeting up with his buddy to go shooting. Big difference in the intent. I support open carry when there is a reason for it other than to get attention.


a demonstration to show a couple of things. 1- just because someone has a weapon does not mean they have bad intentions
2- to show how rights are being violated on a daily basis
3- you don't need a reason to carry other than you want to

that's my interpretation. i don't support making businesses a political battleground, but this kind of demonstration i can support. maybe not solo because the outcome will always be the same. for this kind of demonstration you need numbers.


----------



## ajk1941

hotpig27 said:


> Open carry idiots doing more for gun control than all of the anti gun groups combined.


I concur! The same kind of idiot carried an AK47 in Livermore a couple of years ago and naturally was stopped by the police. I don't understand why you would look for trouble doing something like this. It just makes it easier for the gun control nuts to make a case.


----------



## pheniox17

omegabrock said:


> a demonstration to show a couple of things. 1- just because someone has a weapon does not mean they have bad intentions
> 2- to show how rights are being violated on a daily basis
> 3- you don't need a reason to carry other than you want to
> 
> that's my interpretation. i don't support making businesses a political battleground, but this kind of demonstration i can support. maybe not solo because the outcome will always be the same. for this kind of demonstration you need numbers.


this style is for 5 mins of fame, it wasn't a protest or a legal demonstration, it was a look at me tactic, I'm now famous, and I already have a deal with Oprah  and I don't care who I screw to get it, sad aye


----------



## Moonshinedave

When I was taking my CCL class my instructor, (who as ex-law enforcement) said it's true we have open carry in this state (West Virginia) but there are also laws for causing a public disturbance.
I am a lot like Forrest Gump, I am not a wise man, I try to keep things simple, or better yet, simply use common sense. I can think of no good reason to open carry a long rifle in a city other than to bring attention, of the local law enforcement.
As I wrote before, there may well be times where I find it prudent to open carry, I would like to keep that right. Having people rubbing the cops noses in the open carry law, I see no good coming from it.


----------



## Slippy

PaulS said:


> I don't care if they remove the second amendment from the constitution. It doesn't remove the right because the second amendment doesn't give the right. It is only there to remind the federal government that they are supposed to protect that right for each individual.


I totally agree PaulS,
However, IF the 2nd is repealed, TEOTWAWKI will be upon us.


----------



## Slippy

sparkyprep said:


> ...
> 
> I understand the other side, when people say that these demonstrations hurt our push for acceptance, but I think people only feel that way because their culture has been tainted by the government's push to alienate the concept that people have this right. It is the slowest, and possibly the most effective form of gun control. To actually, and slowly change the *culture* of America, to make one of our most basic rights socially unacceptable is pure genius, and it's working, even on patriotic-minded individuals such as the intelligent, good people of this board.


Very true Sparky. Public opinion being swayed through government schools, the media, and even churches.


----------



## Lucky Jim

*4:35-"If you make a move towards that weapon he's gonna shoot you in the head!"*

I just LURV this vid for the totally professional way the cops deal with this open-carrier!
It's a bit long at 17 mins but if you don't want to waste 17 mins of your life watching an open-carrier, just watch from 4 mins to about 4:40.
At one point he chickens and gives them his name because he was probably shit-scared..


----------



## Kauboy

bigdogbuc said:


> No Kauboy, he did not. He was irresponsible. What he did was put my rights in jeopardy, in my state. The one I live in. Like Pheniox said, there is now a crime attached to his "exercising of rights", one that will be used to now prosecute others who are "exercising their rights".
> 
> I do not speak for everyone on this forum. I do not speak for you. I do not recall ever giving him permission to speak for me, or jeopardize my rights while he exercised his.
> 
> And, I don't give a ****, if he's a veteran. So am I. Where was his consideration for me?


He did absolutely NOTHING irresponsible.
It baffles me that so many people give in to this line of logic.
You play right into the authoritarian's hands when you agree that he shouldn't do something that is perfectly *LEGAL*.
There is no reason you can give for demanding that he limit his rights because of what it *might* do to you.
Such a thought is the antithesis of what it is to be *FREE*.
The fact that some jury somewhere decided to slap him with a wrongful conviction is NOT a reason to back down at all.
You seem to think that precedent matters at all in the jury room.
Precedent only matters when judges get to make the decision, not when citizens do.

It is laughable that you would make the comment that you didn't "give him permission" to do anything while exercising his rights.
King George thought the same thing...

He doesn't need to give you ANY consideration when exercising a *RIGHT*!
I don't have to be considerate to anyone when I exercise my freedom of religion, speech, petition, protest, firearms, voting, etc...
Consideration, as you seem to understand it, would in fact place limits on my rights.
Are you demanding a limit to my rights?

The fact that he is a veteran earns him more respect due to the fact that he put his life on the line for this country, and what it stands for.
Just as you did, he took an oath to defend this land when called upon. He swore to defend the constitution, just as you did.
The audacity of a suggestion that he NOT exercise his constitutional rights because he didn't request permission from *YOU* is outrageous.

I can't fathom the lunacy of an anti-gun/pro-gun individual.
Fight for what is right.
Don't cower in fear because of what *might* happen.


----------



## Moonshinedave

Kauboy said:


> He did absolutely NOTHING irresponsible.
> It baffles me that so many people give in to this line of logic.
> You play right into the authoritarian's hands when you agree that he shouldn't do something that is perfectly *LEGAL*.
> There is no reason you can give for demanding that he limit his rights because of what it *might* do to you.
> Such a thought is the antithesis of what it is to be *FREE*.
> The fact that some jury somewhere decided to slap him with a wrongful conviction is NOT a reason to back down at all.
> You seem to think that precedent matters at all in the jury room.
> Precedent only matters when judges get to make the decision, not when citizens do.
> 
> It is laughable that you would make the comment that you didn't "give him permission" to do anything while exercising his rights.
> King George thought the same thing...
> 
> He doesn't need to give you ANY consideration when exercising a *RIGHT*!
> I don't have to be considerate to anyone when I exercise my freedom of religion, speech, petition, protest, firearms, voting, etc...
> Consideration, as you seem to understand it, would in fact place limits on my rights.
> Are you demanding a limit to my rights?
> 
> The fact that he is a veteran earns him more respect due to the fact that he put his life on the line for this country, and what it stands for.
> Just as you did, he took an oath to defend this land when called upon. He swore to defend the constitution, just as you did.
> The audacity of a suggestion that he NOT exercise his constitutional rights because he didn't request permission from *YOU* is outrageous.
> 
> I can't fathom the lunacy of an anti-gun/pro-gun individual.
> Fight for what is right.
> Don't cower in fear because of what *might* happen.


You know, that all sounds well and good, but for example say you and your family decide to go to the city to see the 4th of July fireworks. You walk past a bar with biker types outside, each are holding long guns, AK's shotguns.....ect. as you move on past you come across a playgound where men barely of age are playing basketball around them are people watching each carrying their own firearm. A whole city full of people carrying long guns is that what you want? Each have their own *RIGHT* do the not? Again, I fall back on common sense.


----------



## 6811

Lucky Jim said:


> None of my business of course but it looks like open carriers are having an easy ride so far.
> If the Law wanted, they could be jailed for violating citizen's right to happiness by walking down the street with a gun and upsetting them-
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness*" (Dec of Independence)_
> 
> Furthermore, they could have their guns seized on the grounds that no peacable citizen walks down the street with a gun-
> _"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are *peaceable citizens* from keeping their own arms" (founding father Samuel Adams_
> 
> Like I said, open carriers have had an easy ride so far, but that could change if they go on police-baiting, upsetting ordinary citizens and getting all sensible gun owners a bad name.
> 
> PS- with gun ownership should come responsibility, training and discipline, but open-carrying looks irresponsible, sloppy and undisciplined..


Jim the reason why it was written as "pursuit of happiness" is because the government could not guarantee the person's happiness. since happiness could not be guaranteed, you may pursue whatever it is that makes you happy. (provided that your happiness does not violate other peoples rights or physically hurt them.) the government cannot jail you because you made me unhappy. to be honest, people wearing pants all the way down to their knees make me unhappy. but they could not be arrested or jailed because they look stupid. besides, people have the right to look stupid if they want too. also, labeling these people who wear extremely loose pants are actually not stupid. It is my opinion however, that they are stupid. you know what they say, everyone has an opinion. wearing baggy pants for some is a statement. falls under 1A because this is how they express themselves. As for the open carry video, it is my opinion that the police had it out for the fellow whth the gun. he was told that he was stopped because he was disturbing the community and caused alarm which is a complete lie. there were no people out in the open and there was no outcry that this man was dangerous.

Hunting is big in the state where I reside, therefore if I see a person walking around with a gun, I would think that maybe the guy is going hunting or coming home from a hunting trip. There was a person who was beat to death with a baseball bat one time, and if I see someone walking with a basseball bat would it be reasonable for me to think that he is out to hurt someone. how about an ax or a shovel... could the guy be going somewhere to bury someone he just killed?

cops always use "other people are disturbed" so that they could stop people. better yet they say " we have a tip that you have just commited a crime" so that they could detain and search you. thats an old trick in the book.

I hope all those cops involved in arresting the guy get fired and jailed for violating the man's civil rights.


----------



## Kauboy

Moonshinedave said:


> You know, that all sounds well and good, but for example say you and your family decide to go to the city to see the 4th of July fireworks. You walk past a bar with biker types outside, each are holding long guns, AK's shotguns.....ect. as you move on past you come across a playgound where men barely of age are playing basketball around them are people watching each carrying their own firearm. A whole city full of people carrying long guns is that what you want? Each have their own *RIGHT* do the not? Again, I fall back on common sense.


You just described the society of early America.
A polite, and armed, society of men and women who own firearms and respect them and each other.

Is that what I want?
Yes.

EDIT: Had to make a correction to avoid appearing to advocate slavery. :shock:


----------



## Kauboy

mhans827 said:


> Jim the reason why it was written as "pursuit of happiness" is because the government could not guarantee the person's happiness. since happiness could not be guaranteed, you may pursue whatever it is that makes you happy. (provided that your happiness does not violate other peoples rights or physically hurt them.) the government cannot jail you because you made me unhappy. to be honest, people wearing pants all the way down to their knees make me unhappy. but they could not be arrested or jailed because they look stupid. besides, people have the right to look stupid if they want too. also, labeling these people who wear extremely loose pants are actually not stupid. It is my opinion however, that they are stupid. you know what they say, everyone has an opinion. wearing baggy pants for some is a statement. falls under 1A because this is how they express themselves. As for the open carry video, it is my opinion that the police had it out for the fellow whth the gun. he was told that he was stopped because he was disturbing the community and caused alarm which is a complete lie. there were no people out in the open and there was no outcry that this man was dangerous.
> 
> Hunting is big in the state where I reside, therefore if I see a person walking around with a gun, I would think that maybe the guy is going hunting or coming home from a hunting trip. There was a person who was beat to death with a baseball bat one time, and if I see someone walking with a basseball bat would it be reasonable for me to think that he is out to hurt someone. how about an ax or a shovel... could the guy be going somewhere to bury someone he just killed?
> 
> cops always use "other people are disturbed" so that they could stop people. better yet they say " we have a tip that you have just commited a crime" so that they could detain and search you. thats an old trick in the book.
> 
> I hope all those cops involved in arresting the guy get fired and jailed for violating the man's civil rights.


"The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself."
--Benjamin Franklin


----------



## 6811

Moonshinedave said:


> When I was taking my CCL class my instructor, (who as ex-law enforcement) said it's true we have open carry in this state (West Virginia) but there are also laws for causing a public disturbance.
> I am a lot like Forrest Gump, I am not a wise man, I try to keep things simple, or better yet, simply use common sense. I can think of no good reason to open carry a long rifle in a city other than to bring attention, of the local law enforcement.
> As I wrote before, there may well be times where I find it prudent to open carry, I would like to keep that right. Having people rubbing the cops noses in the open carry law, I see no good coming from it.


first of all what is the defenition of public disturbance? let me explain public disturbance. first the public has to be present... meaning people are all around being disturbed. they cant walk freely, they cant go on with their normal business because they are being hindered by the person causing disturbance. the mere fact that a man walking with a firearm on the street does not amount to disturbance. same as a person walking down the street with a baseball bat. now, if the guy is swinging the bat causing people to duck down, then you have a disturbance. you want to swing your bat wildly, do it in the baseball field.

a rifle slung on your back could not reasonably cause you alarm. If you a walking around with your weapon on the ready, then you can cause an alarm. any reasonable person can say that you are preparing to use the gun if you are walking with it with your fringer on the trigger. but slung behind you is not a threatening posture.

Now on the issue of practicing open carry. the question is... does it help pro 2A or not. well, here is my answer to that. If I am allowed to carry, then it should be up to me to carry when I want to carry. a lot of people say that we already know we could open carry so dont do it, but how come everytime someone does, he always gets hassled by the police. so I wont open carry now, what guarantees will there be that I wont be hassled when I think I need to carry and I carried openly.

To me this is the same as filming cops. believe me, 10 years ago, if you filmed cops... you would have your camera destroyed, you will be arrested on a made up disorderly charge (or disturbing the peace) and jailed and later let go. but people did not let up and filmed cops all the time. (dont get me wrong, Im not for baiting cops like adam kokesh) now, cops are no longer bothered by being filmed. same thing, cops carry recording devices to record you and use it against you in court, but they hate being recorded. they carry guns but we dont want you (civilians) to carry. So the real issue with open carry is that the government and a lot of cops dont believe you, the people should carry firearms. (some cops dont even want you to own at all) this is why I would like to see a massive open carry rally happen in washington DC or any other states. 2A supporters should unite and their voices be heard. tell the crooked anti 2A that we will work hard in voting them out of office and we will sue anyone that infringes our rights.

If the african americans did not protest and they just kept quiet do you think they would have equal rights today... I dont believe thay would be free by being quiet?


----------



## Denton

For the life of me, I can't understand why people who seem to be intelligent can't understand the different uses for weapons.

I carry. I don't make some issue of it, I don't make a political statement or a fashion statement. My son carries, and all of my friends carry. Although it has been many years since I've received a ticket, I can pulled over from time to time. I always give my CCP along with the drivers license. Invariably, my heavy foot takes a back seat to gun conversations, and I am then cut loose with the admonition of slowing down a bit.

I carry for self defense and the defense of others. I carry sidearm(s), as those are the weapons for such purpose.

On the other hand, I have long weapons. They have to purposes. One is for gathering food, and the other is to take back the nation from arbitrary rule and tyranny. Neither reason will cause me to walk down the street of my town with a rifle slung over my back or shoulder. For obvious reasons, it is not legal to hunt in town, and if the day comes when we decide to take back the country, it would be tactically stupid to do what your patriot did. 

This is self-evident, and should be understood by anyone. There's nothing I can say to those who do not understand this to help them grasp the concept.

It seems a day is coming when rifles will be needed, but walking down the street with them, now, doesn't make sense.

Never mind me, I'm just some ******* who lives in a part of the world where everyday carrying is as normal as taking a shower. Yes, we ******** take showers. :lol:


----------



## ekim

We have reached the state of thought and feel police. Doesn't matter if you are doing something that is legal, it has become what someone thinks or feels that the so called police are now enforcing. Like nobama and many leaders before him, the Constitution and the / Bill of Rights mean nothing, they lead by voters feelings and what ever will give the government more power / authority over the people. Just look at how this forum is morfing into a liberal feeling forum by many. Don't make waves, compromise your rights to keep those that complain quite and HOPE that they will stop or go away. It's bull shit and most know it but dam if they will stand up for a law abiding citizen. Your day will come and whom do you think will stand up for you! Guilty by cop law/rule is not how our laws are suppose to work. That whole situation was brown shirt corrupt cops, IMO. Don't walk towards me with a legal weapon (I'm a cop) and then arrest him. I'm surprised they didn't just flat out shoot him dead and then pat each other on the back for stopping a violent criminal. They created a situation to prove who was in charge. Those that think he hurt your gun rights won't have those rights much longer any way, this topic proves that it's just a matter of time.


----------



## Denton

You have a good point, Ekim. Then again, that is the political way. 

That we have to be cognizant of not handing ammo over to the enemy indicates the enemy has made a lot of ground.

Remember when the antigunners, both citizens and politicians, were nothing more than laughable?


----------



## ekim

Denton said:


> You have a good point, Ekim. Then again, that is the political way.
> 
> That we have to be cognizant of not handing ammo over to the enemy indicates the enemy has made a lot of ground.
> 
> Remember when the antigunners, both citizens and politicians, were nothing more than laughable?


I understand exactly where you are coming from, but my question is this, what can we/the people that want our rights do that won't cause some to bitch and moan / be afraid, how much do we have to compromise our legal rights to get along and when (Don't laugh) will the left ever say enough / OK we can stop and live together? The left knows they are treading on dangerous ground now and that's the biggest reason for the gun control crap, so the revolution can never happen. That is the whole idea behind all this garbage they are stirring up.


----------



## Denton

ekim said:


> I understand exactly where you are coming from, but my question is this, what can we/the people that want our rights do that won't cause some to bitch and moan / be afraid, how much do we have to compromise our legal rights to get along and when (Don't laugh) will the left ever say enough / OK we can stop and live together? The left knows they are treading on dangerous ground now and that's the biggest reason for the gun control crap, so the revolution can never happen. That is the whole idea behind all this garbage they are stirring up.


Compromise? There is no compromising with those who wish to enslave us and those who are their unwitting lackeys. They want no compromise, they are unwilling to compromise, they simply want us living under their rule of total control. We are property to them, and property has no rights and needs no liberty.


----------



## jbrooks19

I am 100% pro gun, so don't take my following comments out of context... I HATE these videos. All they accomplish is negative publicity. I know it is our right to bare arms, but do you really need to make a scene by open carrying a rifle down the side of the road? I open carry my Glock 22 all day every day and never have had an issue. These people who make these videos are looking to cause a stir and gain attention, that's all. The only thing they accomplish is making other gun owners look bad. These videos irritate the hell out of me. If you want to make a statement start open carrying your sidearm (Everywhere that is legal) and just make it a part of your everyday life. This approach may accomplish something, but open carrying a rifle down the side of the road dosnt make people wanna become a gun owner, they just think your nuts. None of them will ever say, "Oh, how i want to be that man, he's such a badass carrying his AR down the side of the road getting molested by the police. Damn that looks like fun!!!" Won't happen, ever..


----------



## Kauboy

jbrooks19 said:


> None of them will ever say, "Oh, how i want to be that man, he's such a badass carrying his AR down the side of the road getting molested by the police. Damn that looks like fun!!!" Won't happen, ever..


Black folks in Mobile were shredded by dogs and pummeled by fire hoses, just because they wanted to be treated equally.
Did other black folks see that and say to themselves, "Well, I don't want that, it doesn't look fun. Maybe I'll just sit at the back of the bus like they tell me to."?

In a society plagued by tyranny, bad things happen to people who want to assert their rights.
We have to avoid being their pawns.


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> For the life of me, I can't understand why people who seem to be intelligent can't understand the different uses for weapons.
> 
> I carry. I don't make some issue of it, I don't make a political statement or a fashion statement. My son carries, and all of my friends carry. Although it has been many years since I've received a ticket, I can pulled over from time to time. I always give my CCP along with the drivers license. Invariably, my heavy foot takes a back seat to gun conversations, and I am then cut loose with the admonition of slowing down a bit.
> 
> I carry for self defense and the defense of others. I carry sidearm(s), as those are the weapons for such purpose.
> 
> On the other hand, I have long weapons. They have to purposes. One is for gathering food, and the other is to take back the nation from arbitrary rule and tyranny. Neither reason will cause me to walk down the street of my town with a rifle slung over my back or shoulder. For obvious reasons, it is not legal to hunt in town, and if the day comes when we decide to take back the country, it would be tactically stupid to do what your patriot did.
> 
> This is self-evident, and should be understood by anyone. There's nothing I can say to those who do not understand this to help them grasp the concept.
> 
> It seems a day is coming when rifles will be needed, but walking down the street with them, now, doesn't make sense.
> 
> Never mind me, I'm just some ******* who lives in a part of the world where everyday carrying is as normal as taking a shower. Yes, we ******** take showers. :lol:


His reasons are not your reasons.
And, in this great country, they don't have to be.
He doesn't need a reason to assert a right, even if you and the officer want one.

When asked why he was carrying one, he responded correctly in asking, "Is it illegal?" He didn't try to hum and haw about it. He made the point about legality, and that was that.
No answer is needed, no justification warranted, for asserting and exercising a right. Period.


----------



## Denton

Birmingham.


----------



## jbrooks19

Kauboy said:


> Black folks in Mobile were shredded by dogs and pummeled by fire hoses, just because they wanted to be treated equally.
> Did other black folks see that and say to themselves, "Well, I don't want that, it doesn't look fun. Maybe I'll just sit at the back of the bus like they tell me to."?
> 
> In a society plagued by tyranny, bad things happen to people who want to assert their rights.
> We have to avoid being their pawns.


That is different, they were fighting for their freedom, they were slaves. He was not. He was looking to prove a point, and what he proved was he could be arrested. Like previously stated, i am 100% for our gun rights. But was open carrying a rifle down the side of the road a smart move? No. If he was open carrying a sidearm i promise that encounter would have been different. If we were fighting tyranny that would be different, there would be more shooting involved. But luckily it hasnt got THAT bad yet. My take is, do what you want but think it through first. Do what is smart. Everytime i see someone open carrying a handgun i think that is great, but if they were walking through Walmart with an AR strapped to his back, i'd be leaving.


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> Birmingham.


Thank you Denton, 
Us sophisticated Mobilians were much too busy with things like Mardi Gras and Fishing to bring out the firehoses and German Shepherds. It was the ******** up north in Birmingham.


----------



## 6811

jbrooks19 said:


> I am 100% pro gun, so don't take my following comments out of context... I HATE these videos. All they accomplish is negative publicity. I know it is our right to bare arms, but do you really need to make a scene by open carrying a rifle down the side of the road? I open carry my Glock 22 all day every day and never have had an issue. These people who make these videos are looking to cause a stir and gain attention, that's all. The only thing they accomplish is making other gun owners look bad. These videos irritate the hell out of me. If you want to make a statement start open carrying your sidearm (Everywhere that is legal) and just make it a part of your everyday life. This approach may accomplish something, but open carrying a rifle down the side of the road dosnt make people wanna become a gun owner, they just think your nuts. None of them will ever say, "Oh, how i want to be that man, he's such a badass carrying his AR down the side of the road getting molested by the police. Damn that looks like fun!!!" Won't happen, ever..


agreed... there is no good reason to open carry a rifle on the street other than to gain attention. just like a peaceful protest, what do they gain out of it? they gain attention. this maybe the only way to tell the cops and the govt. that it is ok to open carry a rifle. once these bastards get sued on the regular basis, they will quit messing with the people.

Remember those days when it was "illegal" to film cops. people started filmed cops for no valid reason other than just to simply film them. at first people got arrested with bogus charges and their property destroyed. now, cops are ordered not to interfere with the people filming them (unless the person filming is hindering the LEO's ability to do his job). police got sued and they started loosing in court. now, you can film cops all you want and for the most part, its now a non issue. yes, there is no good reason to open carry a rifle, but this maybe the only way to get the thug police to understand that it is NOT illegal to open carry. some cops think its ok for you (civilians) to own guns, but just dont carry them near me (cops). the minute you carry them in my (cop) presence, you become a threat and I (cop) dont like it. you then get arrested because some cops think they have the "power" instead of authority.

So now, how do we "the people" change this. do we stand quiet because the anti-gunners would make a complaint and we might lose our 2A rights or we make noise so we could be heard by the judges and legislators. if the black people kept quiet and said nothing about their rights, do you think they would be free today.


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> Thank you Denton,
> Us sophisticated Mobilians were much too busy with things like Mardi Gras and Fishing to bring out the firehoses and German Shepherds. It was the ******** up north in Birmingham.


It does seem the state gets loopy the farther north one goes.


----------



## jbrooks19

Denton said:


> It does seem the state gets loopy the farther north one goes.


Hey watch it! I live in Indiana.......


----------



## Kauboy

Slippy said:


> Thank you Denton,
> Us sophisticated Mobilians were much too busy with things like Mardi Gras and Fishing to bring out the firehoses and German Shepherds. It was the ******** up north in Birmingham.


My apologies, but Mobile was the template for the seating arrangement on buses, blacks in back, whites in front.


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> His reasons are not your reasons.
> And, in this great country, they don't have to be.
> He doesn't need a reason to assert a right, even if you and the officer want one.
> 
> When asked why he was carrying one, he responded correctly in asking, "Is it illegal?" He didn't try to hum and haw about it. He made the point about legality, and that was that.
> No answer is needed, no justification warranted, for asserting and exercising a right. Period.


My reason for carry is based on common sense. My reason for ownership is based on my responsibilities as an able bodied man, both the responsibility to protect myself and those around me, as well as to answer the call to protect my country. My carrying doesn't adversely effect others.

His reason for carrying the rifle and running his video is abundantly clear. He went fishing, and he got what he wanted.

Did I say he should be locked up for carrying? Nope. What I have said, on the other hand, is that his tactic is unsound and is more likely to not get the result he and you think it should get. That effects all of us.

Now, what if he were acting prudently? What if he were carrying a sidearm, and then the cops made contact? Surely, a prudent man can see how that would more effectively make the point and would cause the public to get his point.


----------



## Denton

jbrooks19 said:


> Hey watch it! I live in Indiana.......


Sorry; I was referring to my own state.


----------



## Kauboy

mhans827 said:


> agreed... there is no good reason to open carry a rifle on the street other than to gain attention. just like a peaceful protest, what do they gain out of it? they gain attention. this maybe the only way to tell the cops and the govt. that it is ok to open carry a rifle. once these bastards get sued on the regular basis, they will quit messing with the people.
> 
> Remember those days when it was "illegal" to film cops. people started filmed cops for no valid reason other than just to simply film them. at first people got arrested with bogus charges and their property destroyed. now, cops are ordered not to interfere with the people filming them (unless the person filming is hindering the LEO's ability to do his job). police got sued and they started loosing in court. now, you can film cops all you want and for the most part, its now a non issue. yes, there is no good reason to open carry a rifle, but this maybe the only way to get the thug police to understand that it is NOT illegal to open carry. some cops think its ok for you (civilians) to own guns, but just dont carry them near me (cops). the minute you carry them in my (cop) presence, you become a threat and I (cop) dont like it. you then get arrested because some cops think they have the "power" instead of authority.
> 
> So now, how do we "the people" change this. do we stand quiet because the anti-gunners would make a complaint and we might lose our 2A rights or we make noise so we could be heard by the judges and legislators. if the black people kept quiet and said nothing about their rights, do you think they would be free today.


Excellent points...

But in the end, we as free people DON'T NEED A REASON.


----------



## Slippy

Kauboy said:


> My apologies, but Mobile was the template for the seating arrangement on buses, blacks in back, whites in front.


Wasn't that Montgomery?


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> Wasn't that Montgomery?


I thought so, too, but I lump everything north of Pike county as being one in the same. Us low country folk are different, it seems.


----------



## Slippy

Ah, memories of a blonde headed girl from Crenshaw County...


----------



## Kauboy

Slippy said:


> Wasn't that Montgomery?


Not from the article I read.
Said that Mobile was the pattern other cities wanted to follow for loading buses.
Blacks could load back to front, whites front to back.


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> Ah, memories of a blonde headed girl from Crenshaw County...


Crenshaw county? Who took her from you? Her brother? :lol:


----------



## Denton

Kauboy said:


> Not from the article I read.
> Said that Mobile was the pattern other cities wanted to follow for loading buses.
> Blacks could load back to front, whites front to back.


bureaucrats from Montgomery must have come up with that. Mobilians worry more about checking crap traps and keeping the beer fridge full to worry about bus seating arrangement. :lol:


----------



## Kauboy

Denton said:


> Now, what if he were acting prudently? What if he were carrying a sidearm, and then the cops made contact? Surely, a prudent man can see how that would more effectively make the point and would cause the public to get his point.


Again, your reasons, and his reasons, don't have to correlate.

As for carrying a sidearm, I am not familiar with his state, Washington, and their gun laws.
However, I am familiar with Texas law, and down here, you cannot openly carry a handgun.
Thus, the reason for these open carry rallies where long arms are abundant is to expose the hypocrisy of allowing one form of firearm to be visible, but disallowing another.

My end goal would be that all firearms can be carried in any manner that a free citizen deems necessary.
I would love to be able to open carry my sidearm. It gets damn hot down here, and plastic or leather rubbing my tender and supple skin starts to chafe somethin' awful.
For this reason, I support open carry rallies. They are trying to bring attention to something, and I'm ok with that.

The guy in this video did not seem to have the same reason, but as I stated earlier, his reason doesn't matter. It's a right.


----------



## 6811

Lucky Jim said:


> *4:35-"If you make a move towards that weapon he's gonna shoot you in the head!"*
> 
> I just LURV this vid for the totally professional way the cops deal with this open-carrier!
> It's a bit long at 17 mins but if you don't want to waste 17 mins of your life watching an open-carrier, just watch from 4 mins to about 4:40.
> At one point he chickens and gives them his name because he was probably shit-scared..


at 8:40 the cops say it is his constitutional right to carry... BUT it hurts the cause.. who's cause? is this the same as "you have the right to free speech but you cant talk about the govt."

this cop is simply an arrogant know it all. if you watch the video its easy to see that he is itching to arrest the guy. he was looking for ways to arrest him.


----------



## Seneca

PaulS said:


> That is what I don't understand.... What is wrong with exercising a right. How can you possibly exercise a right in a wrong way? How does it do anything to undo our rights to exercise them? If the mere exercising of a right brings trouble then it is no longer a right - if it is not tolerated in public then the right does not exist.


I believe that the open carry laws are a hold over from an earlier time in the history of this nation. Does it bother me that people want to exercise their right to open carry, not at all. If a person has a good reason to openly carry great if they don't then exactly what are they doing and why?

We no longer live in the age when everybody was out and about with rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols on their hips. My friend, those days are long gone. They have been replaced by an age of fear, liberal insanity, mass shootings, gang wars and political nastiness.

The battle for our gun rights, if it is a battle to be won, will be won by reasoned and logical arguments. That is also the clear path to preserving open carry laws.

Openly carrying to make a statement about your rights may seem like the way to preserve that right, yet time may well prove that it had the opposite effect in that it gave antis exactly what they needed to play on the fears of the ignorant.


----------



## omegabrock

ekim said:


> The left knows they are treading on dangerous ground now and that's the biggest reason for the gun control crap, so the revolution can never happen.


i wouldnt single out the left. there are people on both sides that are pro 2A and people on both sides that are anti-2A. i agree that the biggest reason for gun control is to control the population...which would keep a revolution from happening. where we differ though, i would rather have the support of the impartials. both politically (to try and avoid further escalation) and if it came down to an armed revolution.


----------



## 6811

Seneca said:


> I believe that the open carry laws are a hold over from an earlier time in the history of this nation. Does it bother me that people want to exercise their right to open carry, not at all. If a person has a good reason to openly carry great if they don't then exactly what are they doing and why?
> 
> We no longer live in the age when everybody was out and about with rifles slung over their shoulders and pistols on their hips. My friend, those days are long gone. They have been replaced by an age of fear, liberal insanity, mass shootings, gang wars and political nastiness.
> 
> The battle for our gun rights, if it is a battle to be won, will be won by reasoned and logical arguments. That is also the clear path to preserving open carry laws.
> 
> Openly carrying to make a statement about your rights may seem like the way to preserve that right, yet time may well prove that it had the opposite effect in that it gave antis exactly what they needed to play on the fears of the ignorant.


good point... but are the laws written stating that you can only open carry because you have a valid reason? or does it say you may open carry period? to me that sounds like you may exercise your 1A rights, but dont talk about the blunders of the govt because it will embarass them. that does not sound free to me, sounds like restriction "yes you can, BUT...." clearly the guy open carrying has no valid reason to do so, but then again maybe open carrying makes him happy. I say let him open carry to his hearts content, I'm sure sooner or later he will get tired carrying that heavy rifle and once he does not get any attention anymore, he will go home tired and looking stupid.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> I believe that the open carry laws are a hold over from an earlier time in the history of this nation. Does it bother me that people want to exercise their right to open carry, not at all. If a person has a good reason to openly carry great if they don't then exactly what are they doing and why?


The only reason I need to carry a firearm of ANY kind in ANY manner I choose is "because I'm free and it's my right".
There is no better reason.


----------



## Kauboy

mhans827 said:


> good point... but are the laws written stating that you can only open carry because you have a valid reason? or does it say you may open carry period? to me that sounds like you may exercise your 1A rights, but dont talk about the blunders of the govt because it will embarass them. that does not sound free to me, sounds like restriction "yes you can, BUT...." clearly the guy open carrying has no valid reason to do so, but then again maybe open carrying makes him happy. I say let him open carry to his hearts content, I'm sure sooner or later he will get tired carrying that heavy rifle and once he does not get any attention anymore, he will go home tired and looking stupid.


Technically, there are no laws written stating that open carry is legal.
Laws are written to state what is illegal.
Anything not mentioned in law is legal.
Thus, there can be no "hold over" of laws concerning open carry. All carry was legal, until restricted.
What we actually have instead are new laws restricting the carrying of certain types of firearms that were previously not restricted.
Any "hold over" would equate to "we haven't restricted that yet".

Unless otherwise stated in your state's statues, it is legal to openly carry a firearm in the United States.


----------



## omegabrock

Kauboy said:


> Again, your reasons, and his reasons, don't have to correlate.
> 
> As for carrying a sidearm, I am not familiar with his state, Washington, and their gun laws.
> However, I am familiar with Texas law, and down here, you cannot openly carry a handgun.
> Thus, the reason for these open carry rallies where long arms are abundant is to expose the hypocrisy of allowing one form of firearm to be visible, but disallowing another.
> 
> My end goal would be that all firearms can be carried in any manner that a free citizen deems necessary.
> I would love to be able to open carry my sidearm. It gets damn hot down here, and plastic or leather rubbing my tender and supple skin starts to chafe somethin' awful.
> For this reason, I support open carry rallies. They are trying to bring attention to something, and I'm ok with that.
> 
> The guy in this video did not seem to have the same reason, but as I stated earlier, his reason doesn't matter. It's a right.


wouldnt it make more sense to open carry handguns and have active protests and demonstrations concerning handguns? with all of the gun control pushes for 'tactical assault rifles' (i ****ing hate that term), the intentions of showing the hypocrisy in long guns being legal and handguns being illegal is completely missed. i have only seen a few people actually talk about that.


----------



## Kauboy

omegabrock said:


> wouldnt it make more sense to open carry handguns and have active protests and demonstrations concerning handguns? with all of the gun control pushes for 'tactical assault rifles' (i ****ing hate that term), the intentions of showing the hypocrisy in long guns being legal and handguns being illegal is completely missed. i have only seen a few people actually talk about that.


Of course it would.
But that would be illegal in public, at least here in Texas.
Your demonstration would be quite short-lived/ineffective if all participants are quickly arrested, or you have to hold the rally on private property away from the public's eye.


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> bureaucrats from Montgomery must have come up with that. Mobilians worry more about checking crap traps and keeping the beer fridge full to worry about bus seating arrangement. :lol:


Hey now! I resemble that remark.


----------



## Slippy

Denton said:


> Crenshaw county? Who took her from you? Her brother? :lol:


It was 1981 and as Kid Rock sang, my thoughts were short my hair was long...But when she threw that full can of Budweiser and hit me square in the chest at a sorority party, I figured it wasn't for the long term.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Kauboy, you just don't get it. And you won't. But don't you EVER, in your life, refer to me as "anti-gun/pro-gun", or even remotely suggest that I am not a Patriotic American. That is not the case. I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment, pro-constitution, pro-God, anti-tyrrany.

I oppose OPEN CARRY not because I am "anti-gun", I oppose it so that irresponsible citizens like yourself, do not give the REAL "anti-gunners" one more piece of ammunition against us. One more reason to further their efforts toward MORE gun control. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.

I oppose it so that you do not draw negative attention to an issue that no one cared about in the first place, one that was ALREADY LEGAL. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.

I oppose it so that CASE LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENCE do not obtain a firm grasp on how to prosecute someone for "something else", when we all really know that it is BECAUSE that person was actually carrying a rifle, exercising their rights, and they didn't like it. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.

Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand? When was the last time you read about or watched an open carry video where the people cheered and went "Yeah! Open Carry! You go dude! Way to exercise your rights!"? How many times have you seen the cops respond to or drive by a guy carrying his rifle and go "Exercising your Open Carry Rights? Yeah? Right on brother! Have a great day."? 

They don't. Most people go "What an asshole." "Who does he think he is? Rambo?" "What's that guys problem?" Others go "Call 911, there's a man with a gun." And every time that happens, that RIGHT you hold so dearly and want to throw in peoples faces, gets eroded a little further, until it's eventually gone.

My stance on this issue is not to give up rights. It is to protect the ones that we have left. I am protecting the ones we have left by asking people like you not to "not exercise your right", but to simply try not to fix something that is not broken. I am asking you to STOP giving the public at large ONE MORE REASON to write their representatives and ask them to take ONE MORE right away from us. How long do you think it will be before my legislature here in the State of Washington will make Open Carry illegal? 

You want to fight against magazine capacities, great. Bans on "assault weapons", perfect. Bans on guns with scary cosmetic features. I'm with ya'. Waiting periods and NICS checks. Me too. Want to stand against the stupidity of anti-gun groups and their lies? Shoulder to shoulder. Want to support Nevada ranchers against government incursion and overreach. Let me get my things. 

In an earlier post, I discussed "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there is the way things ARE." You live in the "way things should be" world, with kind of a limited ability to process the bigger picture. Kind of like my kids. I live in the real world. Where things are the way they are. I am smart enough to recognize this, and I am smart enough to know if certain actions I take will be detrimental to my desired effect. This seems to escape you.

You can continue to scream "IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT" til the cows come home. Shit, drop on the floor, kick your feet and spin in circles while you say it. I don't give a damn. But it is your right. You are correct. And I am telling you that you are encouraging the stirring up of a hornets nest that is best left alone. 

No one was taking this right away. But people felt the need to throw that shit out there just because they could. All the while knowing that what they were doing was going to cause alarm, fear and apprehension. And they don't care. 

Here's a hypothetical scenario, and a reasonable one, to show you just how much, you have no idea the damage you're advocating for. You should know your enemy.

Let's say I was an extreme anti-gunner. I belong to an anti-gunner group. Well funded, connected to the media. I would get a rifle and do this all the time, just for the overall effect it would have and the negative publicity it would generate. And extreme leftist's are not afraid to go to jail for the cause. It's a notch in their belt. The more the better. It show's they're dedicated. They're living Martyr's for the cause. 

As soon as the contact or arrest occurs of the guy "Exercising his Open Carry Rights" with an evil black assault rifle inciting mass panic, that was magically captured on video, the rich, anti-gun allies have fodder for the media. Because every time an anti-gun group wants air time, the media gives it to them. This is an undeniable truth. When was the last time you saw the NRA on National Media because they had another victory AGAINST gun control? You don't. 

But wait. They don't need to, because there are already a bunch of assholes out there doing it for them, posting it all over YouTube. But let's say for just a moment, some of the negative publicity gains a little traction with the media, all on its own. Now the media starts digging around, does some investigating and with their spin, my God in Heaven, this is an epidemic against public safety. What ever do you mean it's legal for you to do this? Oh the horror. 

The media buddies up with the anti-gunners, the police, and this crap starts airing. Now the public is outraged. "Something needs to be done, people are fearful for their lives, if it only saves one child..."

It will cause businesses in droves to post "No Guns" on their doors and create official "No Gun Policies". It's already happening thanks to you Open Carry retards. 

Have a gun on the property where the owner says "No Guns"? Trespassing Charge. 

"But, but, it's my right." Guess what? The law regarding trespassing, doesn't give two ****s about your second amendment rights. You're not being arrested for carrying a gun per say, you're being arrested for Trespassing. 

And Disorderly Conduct for scaring these people, 

Display of a Weapon (somebody saw it, that's why the cops are there) and,

Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer for when you started your whole "I don't have to show my ID. I don't consent to Search and Seizure. I'm not answering any of your questions." bullshit. Congrats, your bail is really high now. 

In my state, a Trespassing Charge is enough to lose my Concealed Permit over. And they will take it. Now I can't carry at all. 

Permit revoked? That's a serious deal. Odds are from that point on, you won't pass a NICS checks ever again. Now I can't buy a gun unless it's a private sale. Oh sorry, maybe the state will change that too. My state has yet another initiative up for vote on expanding background checks. 

The state in turn would begin prohibiting guns damn near everywhere. The right to Open Carry would be gone. Want to move your gun from your house to the car so you can go the range? Better be in a case. Now I have to go buy cases or hope my neighbor doesn't mind. Now I can't carry in parks. Now I can't carry in businesses, banks, restaurants, on school property (which in my state you can), up the street or down the road.

But I remember back in the day when none of this was happening, when we gun owners were left alone for the most part, with the exception of a few dick head cops who hated guns and gun owners, the sleeping dog was left to lie and everyone went about their business, quietly and happy. Then some guy decided it was his legal right to carry a rifle through the local plaza...and thought it was a good idea.

SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ****ING WITH MY RIGHTS BY ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE OPENLY CARRYING YOUR RIFLE, SCARING PEOPLE. THEY WILL WRITE, PROTEST AND VOTE AGAINST US. AND YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERY REASON TO DO SO. 

YOU and OTHERS LIKE YOU, are unnecessarily jeopardizing my rights. And you're doing so for no good reason. You are bringing unwanted attention on a subject that needed neither to be addressed nor fought for. No one was taking it away. It was safe. So I ask yet again, what is the ****ING problem?

In the wise words of his majesty Inor you need a plan a little more involved than pairing taco chips with salsa. All hail the King!


----------



## jbrooks19

bigdogbuc said:


> Kauboy, you just don't get it. And you won't. But don't you EVER, in your life, refer to me as "anti-gun/pro-gun", or even remotely suggest that I am not a Patriotic American. That is not the case. I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment, pro-constitution, pro-God, anti-tyrrany.
> 
> I oppose OPEN CARRY not because I am "anti-gun", I oppose it so that irresponsible citizens like yourself, do not give the REAL "anti-gunners" one more piece of ammunition against us. One more reason to further their efforts toward MORE gun control. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that you do not draw negative attention to an issue that no one cared about in the first place, one that was ALREADY LEGAL. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that CASE LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENCE do not obtain a firm grasp on how to prosecute someone for "something else", when we all really know that it is BECAUSE that person was actually carrying a rifle, exercising their rights, and they didn't like it. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand? When was the last time you read about or watched an open carry video where the people cheered and went "Yeah! Open Carry! You go dude! Way to exercise your rights!"? How many times have you seen the cops respond to or drive by a guy carrying his rifle and go "Exercising your Open Carry Rights? Yeah? Right on brother! Have a great day."?
> 
> They don't. Most people go "What an asshole." "Who does he think he is? Rambo?" "What's that guys problem?" Others go "Call 911, there's a man with a gun." And every time that happens, that RIGHT you hold so dearly and want to throw in peoples faces, gets eroded a little further, until it's eventually gone.
> 
> My stance on this issue is not to give up rights. It is to protect the ones that we have left. I am protecting the ones we have left by asking people like you not to "not exercise your right", but to simply try not to fix something that is not broken. I am asking you to STOP giving the public at large ONE MORE REASON to write their representatives and ask them to take ONE MORE right away from us. How long do you think it will be before my legislature here in the State of Washington will make Open Carry illegal?
> 
> You want to fight against magazine capacities, great. Bans on "assault weapons", perfect. Bans on guns with scary cosmetic features. I'm with ya'. Waiting periods and NICS checks. Me too. Want to stand against the stupidity of anti-gun groups and their lies? Shoulder to shoulder. Want to support Nevada ranchers against government incursion and overreach. Let me get my things.
> 
> In an earlier post, I discussed "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there is the way things ARE." You live in the "way things should be" world, with kind of a limited ability to process the bigger picture. Kind of like my kids. I live in the real world. Where things are the way they are. I am smart enough to recognize this, and I am smart enough to know if certain actions I take will be detrimental to my desired effect. This seems to escape you.
> 
> You can continue to scream "IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT" til the cows come home. Shit, drop on the floor, kick your feet and spin in circles while you say it. I don't give a damn. But it is your right. You are correct. And I am telling you that you are encouraging the stirring up of a hornets nest that is best left alone.
> 
> No one was taking this right away. But people felt the need to throw that shit out there just because they could. All the while knowing that what they were doing was going to cause alarm, fear and apprehension. And they don't care.
> 
> Here's a hypothetical scenario, and a reasonable one, to show you just how much, you have no idea the damage you're advocating for. You should know your enemy.
> 
> Let's say I was an extreme anti-gunner. I belong to an anti-gunner group. Well funded, connected to the media. I would get a rifle and do this all the time, just for the overall effect it would have and the negative publicity it would generate. And extreme leftist's are not afraid to go to jail for the cause. It's a notch in their belt. The more the better. It show's they're dedicated. They're living Martyr's for the cause.
> 
> As soon as the contact or arrest occurs of the guy "Exercising his Open Carry Rights" with an evil black assault rifle inciting mass panic, that was magically captured on video, the rich, anti-gun allies have fodder for the media. Because every time an anti-gun group wants air time, the media gives it to them. This is an undeniable truth. When was the last time you saw the NRA on National Media because they had another victory AGAINST gun control? You don't.
> 
> But wait. They don't need to, because there are already a bunch of assholes out there doing it for them, posting it all over YouTube. But let's say for just a moment, some of the negative publicity gains a little traction with the media, all on its own. Now the media starts digging around, does some investigating and with their spin, my God in Heaven, this is an epidemic against public safety. What ever do you mean it's legal for you to do this? Oh the horror.
> 
> The media buddies up with the anti-gunners, the police, and this crap starts airing. Now the public is outraged. "Something needs to be done, people are fearful for their lives, if it only saves one child..."
> 
> It will cause businesses in droves to post "No Guns" on their doors and create official "No Gun Policies". It's already happening thanks to you Open Carry retards.
> 
> Have a gun on the property where the owner says "No Guns"? Trespassing Charge.
> 
> "But, but, it's my right." Guess what? The law regarding trespassing, doesn't give two ****s about your second amendment rights. You're not being arrested for carrying a gun per say, you're being arrested for Trespassing.
> 
> And Disorderly Conduct for scaring these people,
> 
> Display of a Weapon (somebody saw it, that's why the cops are there) and,
> 
> Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer for when you started your whole "I don't have to show my ID. I don't consent to Search and Seizure. I'm not answering any of your questions." bullshit. Congrats, your bail is really high now.
> 
> In my state, a Trespassing Charge is enough to lose my Concealed Permit over. And they will take it. Now I can't carry at all.
> 
> Permit revoked? That's a serious deal. Odds are from that point on, you won't pass a NICS checks ever again. Now I can't buy a gun unless it's a private sale. Oh sorry, maybe the state will change that too. My state has yet another initiative up for vote on expanding background checks.
> 
> The state in turn would begin prohibiting guns damn near everywhere. The right to Open Carry would be gone. Want to move your gun from your house to the car so you can go the range? Better be in a case. Now I have to go buy cases or hope my neighbor doesn't mind. Now I can't carry in parks. Now I can't carry in businesses, banks, restaurants, on school property (which in my state you can), up the street or down the road.
> 
> But I remember back in the day when none of this was happening, when we gun owners were left alone for the most part, with the exception of a few dick head cops who hated guns and gun owners, the sleeping dog was left to lie and everyone went about their business, quietly and happy. Then some guy decided it was his legal right to carry a rifle through the local plaza...and thought it was a good idea.
> 
> SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ****ING WITH MY RIGHTS BY ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE OPENLY CARRYING YOUR RIFLE, SCARING PEOPLE. THEY WILL WRITE, PROTEST AND VOTE AGAINST US. AND YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERY REASON TO DO SO.
> 
> YOU and OTHERS LIKE YOU, are unnecessarily jeopardizing my rights. And you're doing so for no good reason. You are bringing unwanted attention on a subject that needed neither to be addressed nor fought for. No one was taking it away. It was safe. So I ask yet again, what is the ****ING problem?
> 
> In the wise words of his majesty Inor you need a plan a little more involved than pairing taco chips with salsa. All hail the King!


Long winded my friend....I agree and couldn't have said it better myself! +1 to you sir!


----------



## bigdogbuc

jbrooks19 said:


> Long winded my friend....I agree and couldn't have said it better myself! +1 to you sir!


That's the edited version. If you can believe it.

I've been a member of this forum since it first began. And this "topic", is the first "no holds barred" discussion I've had with other members that I have no compromise for. Not even so much as "I respect, but disagree with your opinion". I can't even begin to understand the logic behind it.


----------



## jbrooks19

bigdogbuc said:


> That's the edited version. If you can believe it.
> 
> I've been a member of this forum since it first began. And this "topic", is the first "no holds barred" discussion I've had with other members that I have no compromise for. Not even so much as "I respect, but disagree with your opinion". I can't even begin to understand the logic behind it.


I agree with you. I do open carry my sidearm (For comfort) and have never once had a single issue. People like the Asshat in the video openly carry like that so they can get a reaction, i HATE that. All it does it diminish my freedoms and cause negative rep..In Indiana open carry is 100% legal and i exercise my rights. There is a difference between exercising and abusing. This guy is an abuser and im glad he got arrested. ::clapping:: Open carry is OK with me, if its done respectively its one thing.


----------



## Slippy

All that and no mention of my life lesson experience with little blonde ******* girls from Crenshaw County AL who throw full cans of Budweiser like Roger Clemmons? :sad:



bigdogbuc said:


> Kauboy, you just don't get it. And you won't. But don't you EVER, in your life, refer to me as "anti-gun/pro-gun", or even remotely suggest that I am not a Patriotic American. That is not the case. I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment, pro-constitution, pro-God, anti-tyrrany.
> 
> I oppose OPEN CARRY not because I am "anti-gun", I oppose it so that irresponsible citizens like yourself, do not give the REAL "anti-gunners" one more piece of ammunition against us. One more reason to further their efforts toward MORE gun control. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that you do not draw negative attention to an issue that no one cared about in the first place, one that was ALREADY LEGAL. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that CASE LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENCE do not obtain a firm grasp on how to prosecute someone for "something else", when we all really know that it is BECAUSE that person was actually carrying a rifle, exercising their rights, and they didn't like it. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand? When was the last time you read about or watched an open carry video where the people cheered and went "Yeah! Open Carry! You go dude! Way to exercise your rights!"? How many times have you seen the cops respond to or drive by a guy carrying his rifle and go "Exercising your Open Carry Rights? Yeah? Right on brother! Have a great day."?
> 
> They don't. Most people go "What an asshole." "Who does he think he is? Rambo?" "What's that guys problem?" Others go "Call 911, there's a man with a gun." And every time that happens, that RIGHT you hold so dearly and want to throw in peoples faces, gets eroded a little further, until it's eventually gone.
> 
> My stance on this issue is not to give up rights. It is to protect the ones that we have left. I am protecting the ones we have left by asking people like you not to "not exercise your right", but to simply try not to fix something that is not broken. I am asking you to STOP giving the public at large ONE MORE REASON to write their representatives and ask them to take ONE MORE right away from us. How long do you think it will be before my legislature here in the State of Washington will make Open Carry illegal?
> 
> You want to fight against magazine capacities, great. Bans on "assault weapons", perfect. Bans on guns with scary cosmetic features. I'm with ya'. Waiting periods and NICS checks. Me too. Want to stand against the stupidity of anti-gun groups and their lies? Shoulder to shoulder. Want to support Nevada ranchers against government incursion and overreach. Let me get my things.
> 
> In an earlier post, I discussed "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there is the way things ARE." You live in the "way things should be" world, with kind of a limited ability to process the bigger picture. Kind of like my kids. I live in the real world. Where things are the way they are. I am smart enough to recognize this, and I am smart enough to know if certain actions I take will be detrimental to my desired effect. This seems to escape you.
> 
> You can continue to scream "IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT" til the cows come home. Shit, drop on the floor, kick your feet and spin in circles while you say it. I don't give a damn. But it is your right. You are correct. And I am telling you that you are encouraging the stirring up of a hornets nest that is best left alone.
> 
> No one was taking this right away. But people felt the need to throw that shit out there just because they could. All the while knowing that what they were doing was going to cause alarm, fear and apprehension. And they don't care.
> 
> Here's a hypothetical scenario, and a reasonable one, to show you just how much, you have no idea the damage you're advocating for. You should know your enemy.
> 
> Let's say I was an extreme anti-gunner. I belong to an anti-gunner group. Well funded, connected to the media. I would get a rifle and do this all the time, just for the overall effect it would have and the negative publicity it would generate. And extreme leftist's are not afraid to go to jail for the cause. It's a notch in their belt. The more the better. It show's they're dedicated. They're living Martyr's for the cause.
> 
> As soon as the contact or arrest occurs of the guy "Exercising his Open Carry Rights" with an evil black assault rifle inciting mass panic, that was magically captured on video, the rich, anti-gun allies have fodder for the media. Because every time an anti-gun group wants air time, the media gives it to them. This is an undeniable truth. When was the last time you saw the NRA on National Media because they had another victory AGAINST gun control? You don't.
> 
> But wait. They don't need to, because there are already a bunch of assholes out there doing it for them, posting it all over YouTube. But let's say for just a moment, some of the negative publicity gains a little traction with the media, all on its own. Now the media starts digging around, does some investigating and with their spin, my God in Heaven, this is an epidemic against public safety. What ever do you mean it's legal for you to do this? Oh the horror.
> 
> The media buddies up with the anti-gunners, the police, and this crap starts airing. Now the public is outraged. "Something needs to be done, people are fearful for their lives, if it only saves one child..."
> 
> It will cause businesses in droves to post "No Guns" on their doors and create official "No Gun Policies". It's already happening thanks to you Open Carry retards.
> 
> Have a gun on the property where the owner says "No Guns"? Trespassing Charge.
> 
> "But, but, it's my right." Guess what? The law regarding trespassing, doesn't give two ****s about your second amendment rights. You're not being arrested for carrying a gun per say, you're being arrested for Trespassing.
> 
> And Disorderly Conduct for scaring these people,
> 
> Display of a Weapon (somebody saw it, that's why the cops are there) and,
> 
> Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer for when you started your whole "I don't have to show my ID. I don't consent to Search and Seizure. I'm not answering any of your questions." bullshit. Congrats, your bail is really high now.
> 
> In my state, a Trespassing Charge is enough to lose my Concealed Permit over. And they will take it. Now I can't carry at all.
> 
> Permit revoked? That's a serious deal. Odds are from that point on, you won't pass a NICS checks ever again. Now I can't buy a gun unless it's a private sale. Oh sorry, maybe the state will change that too. My state has yet another initiative up for vote on expanding background checks.
> 
> The state in turn would begin prohibiting guns damn near everywhere. The right to Open Carry would be gone. Want to move your gun from your house to the car so you can go the range? Better be in a case. Now I have to go buy cases or hope my neighbor doesn't mind. Now I can't carry in parks. Now I can't carry in businesses, banks, restaurants, on school property (which in my state you can), up the street or down the road.
> 
> But I remember back in the day when none of this was happening, when we gun owners were left alone for the most part, with the exception of a few dick head cops who hated guns and gun owners, the sleeping dog was left to lie and everyone went about their business, quietly and happy. Then some guy decided it was his legal right to carry a rifle through the local plaza...and thought it was a good idea.
> 
> SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ****ING WITH MY RIGHTS BY ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE OPENLY CARRYING YOUR RIFLE, SCARING PEOPLE. THEY WILL WRITE, PROTEST AND VOTE AGAINST US. AND YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERY REASON TO DO SO.
> 
> YOU and OTHERS LIKE YOU, are unnecessarily jeopardizing my rights. And you're doing so for no good reason. You are bringing unwanted attention on a subject that needed neither to be addressed nor fought for. No one was taking it away. It was safe. So I ask yet again, what is the ****ING problem?
> 
> In the wise words of his majesty Inor you need a plan a little more involved than pairing taco chips with salsa. All hail the King!


----------



## jbrooks19

Slippy said:


> All that and no mention of my life lesson experience with little blonde ******* girls from Crenshaw County AL who throw full cans of Budweiser like Roger Clemmons? :sad:


Edit it to add your story..


----------



## Inor

Slippy said:


> All that and no mention of my life lesson experience with little blonde ******* girls from Crenshaw County AL who throw full cans of Budweiser like Roger Clemmons? :sad:


It seems I missed something important here. I must go back and look it up. Anytime you can use "blond ******* girls", "Budweiser" and "Roger Clemmons" in the same sentence, there HAS to be a good story behind it!


----------



## ekim

omegabrock said:


> i wouldnt single out the left. there are people on both sides that are pro 2A and people on both sides that are anti-2A. i agree that the biggest reason for gun control is to control the population...which would keep a revolution from happening. where we differ though, i would rather have the support of the impartials. both politically (to try and avoid further escalation) and if it came down to an armed revolution.


That first Revolution wasn't fought with full support during the entire war. I don't care if those whom are impartial get involved or not. My rights are mine and that is why I'm willing to fight or do what ever to keep them. Those with they're heads in the sand will never know if I'm armed or not and won't care if there is a fight / battle or war until it's forced down they're throats. Those that want to keep they're rights have been trying to use the political course for years and it has gone no where for all practical purposes. Now we have those that are suppose to uphold the laws of the land either doing what they please or as it seems lying like the government to get the results they want. There are things that happen that I don't like/care for, but I'm not trying to stop other from doing things as long as it doesn't actually harm/hurt me or mine. I don't even care if someone wants to kill themselves I won't risk my life to stop them. People have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't adversely affect/hurt others. As a gun owner I to have rights and my walking around with an evil AR /AK on my shoulder is no more of a threat to 99% of the people than you or someone driving a 3,000 car down the road, actually much less of a threat.


----------



## Slippy

Inor said:


> It seems I missed something important here. I must go back and look it up. Anytime you can use "blond ******* girls", "Budweiser" and "Roger Clemmons" in the same sentence, there HAS to be a good story behind it!


Thanks Inor,
I thought so too. Start at post 81 or so. Since I spent my early formative years in Coastal Alabama, mention of police dogs and firehoses got my memories a-churnin'...I remember it like it was yesterday... (cue the swirly screen and organ music)


----------



## Inor

Slippy said:


> Since I spent my early formative years in Coastal Alabama, mention of police dogs and firehoses got my memories a-churnin'...I remember it like it was yesterday... (cue the swirly screen and organ music)


Yes - I heard the fathers of those southern girls can be an ornery lot, especially on the third date...


----------



## bigdogbuc

Slippy said:


> All that and no mention of my life lesson experience with little blonde ******* girls from Crenshaw County AL who throw full cans of Budweiser like Roger Clemmons? :sad:


Sorry Slip, I'll do better next time. :grin:


----------



## Slippy

bigdogbuc said:


> Sorry Slip, I'll do better next time. :grin:


Thanks BigD, just keepin' it real 'cuz.


----------



## Kauboy

bigdogbuc said:


> Kauboy, you just don't get it. And you won't. But don't you EVER, in your life, refer to me as "anti-gun/pro-gun", or even remotely suggest that I am not a Patriotic American. That is not the case. I am pro-gun, pro-second amendment, pro-constitution, pro-God, anti-tyrrany.
> 
> I oppose OPEN CARRY not because I am "anti-gun", I oppose it so that irresponsible citizens like yourself, do not give the REAL "anti-gunners" one more piece of ammunition against us. One more reason to further their efforts toward MORE gun control. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that you do not draw negative attention to an issue that no one cared about in the first place, one that was ALREADY LEGAL. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> I oppose it so that CASE LAW and LEGAL PRECEDENCE do not obtain a firm grasp on how to prosecute someone for "something else", when we all really know that it is BECAUSE that person was actually carrying a rifle, exercising their rights, and they didn't like it. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand? When was the last time you read about or watched an open carry video where the people cheered and went "Yeah! Open Carry! You go dude! Way to exercise your rights!"? How many times have you seen the cops respond to or drive by a guy carrying his rifle and go "Exercising your Open Carry Rights? Yeah? Right on brother! Have a great day."?
> 
> They don't. Most people go "What an asshole." "Who does he think he is? Rambo?" "What's that guys problem?" Others go "Call 911, there's a man with a gun." And every time that happens, that RIGHT you hold so dearly and want to throw in peoples faces, gets eroded a little further, until it's eventually gone.
> 
> My stance on this issue is not to give up rights. It is to protect the ones that we have left. I am protecting the ones we have left by asking people like you not to "not exercise your right", but to simply try not to fix something that is not broken. I am asking you to STOP giving the public at large ONE MORE REASON to write their representatives and ask them to take ONE MORE right away from us. How long do you think it will be before my legislature here in the State of Washington will make Open Carry illegal?
> 
> You want to fight against magazine capacities, great. Bans on "assault weapons", perfect. Bans on guns with scary cosmetic features. I'm with ya'. Waiting periods and NICS checks. Me too. Want to stand against the stupidity of anti-gun groups and their lies? Shoulder to shoulder. Want to support Nevada ranchers against government incursion and overreach. Let me get my things.
> 
> In an earlier post, I discussed "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there is the way things ARE." You live in the "way things should be" world, with kind of a limited ability to process the bigger picture. Kind of like my kids. I live in the real world. Where things are the way they are. I am smart enough to recognize this, and I am smart enough to know if certain actions I take will be detrimental to my desired effect. This seems to escape you.
> 
> You can continue to scream "IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT, IT'S MY RIGHT" til the cows come home. Shit, drop on the floor, kick your feet and spin in circles while you say it. I don't give a damn. But it is your right. You are correct. And I am telling you that you are encouraging the stirring up of a hornets nest that is best left alone.
> 
> No one was taking this right away. But people felt the need to throw that shit out there just because they could. All the while knowing that what they were doing was going to cause alarm, fear and apprehension. And they don't care.
> 
> Here's a hypothetical scenario, and a reasonable one, to show you just how much, you have no idea the damage you're advocating for. You should know your enemy.
> 
> Let's say I was an extreme anti-gunner. I belong to an anti-gunner group. Well funded, connected to the media. I would get a rifle and do this all the time, just for the overall effect it would have and the negative publicity it would generate. And extreme leftist's are not afraid to go to jail for the cause. It's a notch in their belt. The more the better. It show's they're dedicated. They're living Martyr's for the cause.
> 
> As soon as the contact or arrest occurs of the guy "Exercising his Open Carry Rights" with an evil black assault rifle inciting mass panic, that was magically captured on video, the rich, anti-gun allies have fodder for the media. Because every time an anti-gun group wants air time, the media gives it to them. This is an undeniable truth. When was the last time you saw the NRA on National Media because they had another victory AGAINST gun control? You don't.
> 
> But wait. They don't need to, because there are already a bunch of assholes out there doing it for them, posting it all over YouTube. But let's say for just a moment, some of the negative publicity gains a little traction with the media, all on its own. Now the media starts digging around, does some investigating and with their spin, my God in Heaven, this is an epidemic against public safety. What ever do you mean it's legal for you to do this? Oh the horror.
> 
> The media buddies up with the anti-gunners, the police, and this crap starts airing. Now the public is outraged. "Something needs to be done, people are fearful for their lives, if it only saves one child..."
> 
> It will cause businesses in droves to post "No Guns" on their doors and create official "No Gun Policies". It's already happening thanks to you Open Carry retards.
> 
> Have a gun on the property where the owner says "No Guns"? Trespassing Charge.
> 
> "But, but, it's my right." Guess what? The law regarding trespassing, doesn't give two ****s about your second amendment rights. You're not being arrested for carrying a gun per say, you're being arrested for Trespassing.
> 
> And Disorderly Conduct for scaring these people,
> 
> Display of a Weapon (somebody saw it, that's why the cops are there) and,
> 
> Obstructing a Law Enforcement Officer for when you started your whole "I don't have to show my ID. I don't consent to Search and Seizure. I'm not answering any of your questions." bullshit. Congrats, your bail is really high now.
> 
> In my state, a Trespassing Charge is enough to lose my Concealed Permit over. And they will take it. Now I can't carry at all.
> 
> Permit revoked? That's a serious deal. Odds are from that point on, you won't pass a NICS checks ever again. Now I can't buy a gun unless it's a private sale. Oh sorry, maybe the state will change that too. My state has yet another initiative up for vote on expanding background checks.
> 
> The state in turn would begin prohibiting guns damn near everywhere. The right to Open Carry would be gone. Want to move your gun from your house to the car so you can go the range? Better be in a case. Now I have to go buy cases or hope my neighbor doesn't mind. Now I can't carry in parks. Now I can't carry in businesses, banks, restaurants, on school property (which in my state you can), up the street or down the road.
> 
> But I remember back in the day when none of this was happening, when we gun owners were left alone for the most part, with the exception of a few dick head cops who hated guns and gun owners, the sleeping dog was left to lie and everyone went about their business, quietly and happy. Then some guy decided it was his legal right to carry a rifle through the local plaza...and thought it was a good idea.
> 
> SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ****ING WITH MY RIGHTS BY ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE OPENLY CARRYING YOUR RIFLE, SCARING PEOPLE. THEY WILL WRITE, PROTEST AND VOTE AGAINST US. AND YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERY REASON TO DO SO.
> 
> YOU and OTHERS LIKE YOU, are unnecessarily jeopardizing my rights. And you're doing so for no good reason. You are bringing unwanted attention on a subject that needed neither to be addressed nor fought for. No one was taking it away. It was safe. So I ask yet again, what is the ****ING problem?
> 
> In the wise words of his majesty Inor you need a plan a little more involved than pairing taco chips with salsa. All hail the King!


All that, and you still don't get it.
A right that can't be exercised is not a right, it is a privilege.
You can try to label me irresponsible all you like.
Just like the jurors in this case, you too are wrong.

You've let them take a legal activity away from you.
You've conceded to give up ground, continuing to hold out hope that if you stay quiet, they won't demand more.
I won't.
Not one more step.


----------



## sparkyprep

Wow, this thread has exploded since last night when I went to bed. Don't any of you people sleep, or work? LOL!

Anyway, BigDog, in response to your rant against me personally, in which you cursed me, and called me a moron, I expected better from you. I have held the opinion that you were an intelligent, understanding person, who could see both sides of the argument, and get your point across without lowering yourself to Neanderthal levels. Please, don't change that. I will chalk it up to passion and anger this time.

I would not, personally, walk down a city street with an AK strapped to my back just to get a rise out of the local police. That is stupid. BUT, in the case shown on the video, the "perpetrator" did NOTHING illegal. There was no grounds for the arrest. No real grounds anyway. As it was plainly put to me by a police officer a while back when someone threatened my 12 year old daughter's life over the internet-

"It's not against the law to threaten someone verbally. And _if it's not against the law, there is nothing we can do._

So, if this statement is true, how were the police in the video able to fabricate a law being broken, when there wasn't one, and make the arrest anyway?


----------



## PaulS

If a right cannot be freely exercised it no longer is a right. Perhaps some are missing that point. If a person gets hassled for just exercising his right to open carry then perhaps we have already lost that right.


----------



## Seneca

mhans827 said:


> good point... but are the laws written stating that you can only open carry because you have a valid reason? or does it say you may open carry period? to me that sounds like you may exercise your 1A rights, but dont talk about the blunders of the govt because it will embarass them. that does not sound free to me, sounds like restriction "yes you can, BUT...." clearly the guy open carrying has no valid reason to do so, but then again maybe open carrying makes him happy. I say let him open carry to his hearts content, I'm sure sooner or later he will get tired carrying that heavy rifle and once he does not get any attention anymore, he will go home tired and looking stupid.


It may be that open carry is not spelled out as law and in that I have erred in the assumption that there are laws. Each state may differ. The point is that there comes a time at which common sense has to or should kick in. People who want to hold peaceful open carry demonstrations and such, have my support in so much as it is an organized gathering of people for the purpose of demonstration. Nothing more American than that.

Exercising individual rights has always came with a caveat, that caveat being that the right be exercised responsibly. Using your 1A example the right to have free speech does not give one the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre when no fire exists. So there are responsibilities and limits to exercising ones of rights. If there were no limits or responsibilities to the exercise of ones rights then a state of anarchy would exist and nobody wants that.

A little common sense goes a long way. We all have rights, what some people fail to understand is that those rights are tied to responsibility.


----------



## PaulS

The responsibility that comes with exercising ones rights is that they don't infringe on the rights of others in the process of exercising their own. Walking down the street with a rifle or shotgun slung over your back does not infringe on the rights of others. They can choose to be afraid even when there is nothing to be afraid of. no one is responsible for another persons emotional response. Their emotional response cannot infringe on the right to bear arms.


----------



## Slippy

Hey, I've got an idea :idea:
What if we get ALL the Open Carry Rifle Guys to protest at the border?


----------



## Denton

Slippy said:


> Hey, I've got an idea :idea:
> What if we get ALL the Open Carry Rifle Guys to protest at the border?


No need. They'll be sending buses your way.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> It may be that open carry is not spelled out as law and in that I have erred in the assumption that there are laws. Each state may differ. The point is that there comes a time at which common sense has to or should kick in. People who want to hold peaceful open carry demonstrations and such, have my support in so much as it is an organized gathering of people for the purpose of demonstration. Nothing more American than that.
> 
> Exercising individual rights has always came with a caveat, that caveat being that the right be exercised responsibly. Using your 1A example the right to have free speech does not give one the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre when no fire exists. So there are responsibilities and limits to exercising ones of rights. If there were no limits or responsibilities to the exercise of ones rights then a state of anarchy would exist and nobody wants that.
> 
> A little common sense goes a long way. We all have rights, what some people fail to understand is that those rights are tied to responsibility.


The "fire in a theatre" example is a clear problem because it incites a dangerous response which can lead to injury. Carrying a slung firearm poses no such direct threat. The two scenarios are inequitable.


----------



## Kauboy

Slippy said:


> Hey, I've got an idea :idea:
> What if we get ALL the Open Carry Rifle Guys to protest at the border?


Militia groups are on their way to Laredo, TX as we speak. Does that count?


----------



## GTGallop

If you can call the police and say that you are alarmed by some one carrying and then they get the treatment seen in the video, can I call and be alarmed at all of the people not carrying?

How would they explain the inconsistencies in treatment if we are leaving "alarmed" to be a subjective guide for action.


----------



## Maine-Marine

2Tim215 said:


> semi auto assault weapons


Please post a picture of a SEMI AUTO ASSAULT WEAPON..

Would it look something like this


----------



## Slippy

GTGallop said:


> If you can call the police and say that you are alarmed by some one carrying and then they get the treatment seen in the video, can I call and be alarmed at all of the people not carrying?
> 
> How would they explain the inconsistencies in treatment if we are leaving "alarmed" to be a subjective guide for action.


Good point.
Since precedent has been set, can I call the Federal Police and let then know I'm alarmed with the influx of open and conceal disease carriers crossing our Southern Border illegally? Can I also call the police and let them know that I'm alarmed with the foolish evil socialist gay waste of kenyan sperm in the WH? Can I call the police and let them know that I'm alarmed about my money being taken from me by the Federal Government...I can go on for a long time...


----------



## GTGallop

Slippy said:


> Good point.
> Since precedent has been set, can I call the Federal Police and let then know I'm alarmed with the influx of open and conceal disease carriers crossing our Southern Border illegally? Can I also call the police and let them know that I'm alarmed with the foolish evil socialist gay waste of kenyan sperm in the WH? Can I call the police and let them know that I'm alarmed about my money being taken from me by the Federal Government...I can go on for a long time...


My point exactly. If we are going to arbitrarily enforce non-existent laws on the sole basis that an under-educated and ill-informed constituent got his panties in a twitch, then the Po-Po better get ready! Cuz I'ma bout'a unleash a whole mess of alarmed on them. And if they don't start jumping then they need to explain why they selectively enforce non-existent laws and refuse to enforce the existing ones.


----------



## Slippy

GTGallop said:


> My point exactly. If we are going to arbitrarily enforce non-existent laws on the sole basis that an under-educated and ill-informed constituent got his panties in a twitch, then the Po-Po better get ready! Cuz I'ma bout'a unleash a whole mess of alarmed on them. And if they don't start jumping then they need to explain why they selectively enforce non-existent laws and refuse to enforce the existing ones.


They be racis' against us GT! Thats why


----------



## bigdogbuc

sparkyprep said:


> Wow, this thread has exploded since last night when I went to bed. Don't any of you people sleep, or work? LOL!
> 
> Anyway, BigDog, in response to your rant against me personally, in which you cursed me, and called me a moron, I expected better from you. I have held the opinion that you were an intelligent, understanding person, who could see both sides of the argument, and get your point across without lowering yourself to Neanderthal levels. Please, don't change that. I will chalk it up to passion and anger this time.
> 
> I would not, personally, walk down a city street with an AK strapped to my back just to get a rise out of the local police. That is stupid. BUT, in the case shown on the video, the "perpetrator" did NOTHING illegal. There was no grounds for the arrest. No real grounds anyway. As it was plainly put to me by a police officer a while back when someone threatened my 12 year old daughter's life over the internet-
> 
> "It's not against the law to threaten someone verbally. And _if it's not against the law, there is nothing we can do._
> 
> So, if this statement is true, how were the police in the video able to fabricate a law being broken, when there wasn't one, and make the arrest anyway?


When did I curse you and call you a moron? :-o Like seriously, I don't think I've ever had a foul thought your direction, let alone call you names. Can you tell me the post you're referring to?

Oh, and I'm vacation for the next 8 weeks. I have no life.


----------



## sparkyprep

bigdogbuc said:


> It's not a privilege, it's a right...
> 
> Make that ****ing argument all day long. This stupid son of a bitch, exercising his "right", which wasn't illegal in the first place so what was the ****ing point?, has now created PRECEDENCE, otherwise known as CASE LAW. Jesus Christ, will you guys listen to yourselves for just ONE GOD DAMN SECOND?
> 
> His conviction is now ON THE BOOKS. As a former Police Officer in the State of Washington, I am going to tell you how this works. Not how you "FEEL it should work", not "the way it should be", not "the way that's fair", the way "IT IS".
> 
> I tell my students at school, "There is the way things should be, that are fair and just. And there's the way things are. And right now, you're dealing with the way things are." Stop being so frickin' focused on "It's my right so I'm gonna walk around and carry my rifle and scare the shit out of people", and start looking at the root of the problem and come up with a solution, instead of adding to the problem.
> 
> Jerk Off gets arrested for Trespassing. Not for carrying his rifle. Trespassing. And we CAN ALL AGREE, it was bullshit. But he was arrested none the less. As the world turns in the court room, the prosecutor says "Ya' know, I'm gonna drop the trespass charge. He was on a public sidewalk. He was legally carrying his rifle, BUT, people were scared by the presence of his rifle. I'm going to push that point." Your honor, Mr. Defendant, Mr. Defending Attorney, I'm going to amend these charges. I'm going to charge you with Display of a Weapon.
> 
> Fair enough. Judge orders video evidence of contact with police is inadmissible. At THIS POINT, it does not matter how the defendant wound up here, just that he is here. Let's proceed. Jury comes back with guilty verdict. If this verdict stands, and I'm almost certain it will, unless there were errors or improper procedures during the trial, guess what?
> 
> That verdict, JUST LANDED ON THE DESK OF EVERY ****ING COP AND PROSECUTOR IN THE STATE. You see, there's this little publication they receive every month as well as memo's. And it says; Here is how you go about it without going about it. And if their command and the prosecutor are down with it, guess what the next little ****-**** game becomes. Yep. Every time someone see's a gun, in public.
> 
> He was not found guilty for exercising his rights.
> 
> He was not found guilty for legally carrying a rifle in public.
> 
> His rights were not violated according to the court.
> 
> The police were completely absolved.
> 
> He was found guilty for SCARING THE SHIT OUT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE, he was openly carrying his rifle in public and they were not afraid of him or his actions, BUT AFRAID OF THE RIFLE itself. An inanimate object. And he chose to do it to make some point, which was ridiculous, because it was not illegal in the first place.
> 
> Thanks Sparky. I appreciate you getting yourself jammed up because you wanted to prove a point, and now, even though it's legal for me to do so, I can expect to be charged with "something else" completely unrelated to me exercising my rights YOU STUPID ****ING MORON.
> 
> And now, Pandora's box has been opened and every mother ****ing time someone walks to their car with their rifle and a neighbor or passerby is "alarmed", you will be subject to arrest, prosecution and conviction. Right after they're done pointing guns at you and ordering you to the ground.
> 
> And do you know why? BECAUSE THEY GOT A CONVICTION FOR IT IN VANCOUVER WASHINGTON. Hooray!!!! And your defense attorney is going to go "let's make a deal." Here's the case law, look it over...
> 
> Is that so God Damn hard to understand?
> 
> Instead of being in people's faces with your "rights", which are my rights as well, which are the same rights that have been jeopardized by this assholes behavior and subsequent conviction;
> 
> Why don't you try acting like a civilized human being and taking a softer, friendlier approach. Why don't you write your local representatives when you have concerns about encroachment on our gun rights, talk to your range about sponsoring a "New Shooter Day" or "Public Information Day", have the officers or owner of your range write or call the heads of local law enforcement and ask them to write a letter or attend a meeting and explain what expectations they have of their officers when it comes to someone "exercising their rights" by carrying a gun around. Why not invite the prosecutor as well?
> 
> What's so hard about initiating a dialogue? How about a Flea Flicker or an end around, instead of running that ball up the gut every single play? How many times do you have to run INTO the wall, before you start looking for a way around it?


I don't take it personally, as some on here do. Having a passionate opinion is a good thing.


----------



## Slippy

sparky and bigdog, 
You boys are both A-OK in my book. Lets focus on the evil socialist ******-assed ****** waste of kenyan sperm in the WH!


----------



## bigdogbuc

sparkyprep said:


> I don't take it personally, as some on here do. Having a passionate opinion is a good thing.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Holy Shit buddy, YOU WERE NOT THE SPARKY I WAS REFERRING TOO. I was referring to the dumbass in the video and called him Sparky. When someone I'm dealing with is being a dumbass, I call them "Sparky". I don't know when I started that, but it was decades ago.

I didn't even think of you...oh crap, that's funny. I am so sorry if you thought I was talking about you. Duly noted...


----------



## sparkyprep

No problem. My mistake. Now I'm the one apologizing. Water off a duck's back.


----------



## Slippy

Holy shit is right! Now I'm getting all misty eyed...again.^^^^^


----------



## bigdogbuc

sparkyprep said:


> No problem. My mistake. Now I'm the one apologizing. Water off a duck's back.


You're a good sport Spark. I would have really felt bad if I HAD cursed you out and called you names.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Kauboy said:


> All that, and you still don't get it.
> A right that can't be exercised is not a right, it is a privilege.
> You can try to label me irresponsible all you like.
> Just like the jurors in this case, you too are wrong.
> 
> You've let them take a legal activity away from you.
> You've conceded to give up ground, continuing to hold out hope that if you stay quiet, they won't demand more.
> I won't.
> Not one more step.


I'm not giving up anything. I'm taking a different approach. One that doesn't cause alarm, panic and apprehension. And one that doesn't give THEM, a bullshit excuse, to arrest US.

Fair Enough?


----------



## pheniox17

back to the topic, all that's really been said there is a right and wrong way of doing things

want to protest why you can't open carry a hand gun, go get legal permission for a legal open carry protest, openly carry both the rifle and hand gun in a group legal way through the main street of your city, even go one up, make it a massive USA wide event!! tee it up with the NRA and you do good for the cause, also gain support from leadership as you start dialogue about a massive problem, yes media will go off and anti gun activists go off too.... but this type of thing will help your fight.... 

as said many times here, there are ways to make rights illegal, a freedom of speech RIGHT even have laws, that's been discussed here.... if not go up to a group of Black's and call them ******* and as they are beating the shit out of you scream I'm exercising my right to free speech...


----------



## 6811

Seneca said:


> It may be that open carry is not spelled out as law and in that I have erred in the assumption that there are laws. Each state may differ. The point is that there comes a time at which common sense has to or should kick in. People who want to hold peaceful open carry demonstrations and such, have my support in so much as it is an organized gathering of people for the purpose of demonstration. Nothing more American than that.
> 
> Exercising individual rights has always came with a caveat, that caveat being that the right be exercised responsibly. Using your 1A example the right to have free speech does not give one the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre when no fire exists. So there are responsibilities and limits to exercising ones of rights. If there were no limits or responsibilities to the exercise of ones rights then a state of anarchy would exist and nobody wants that.
> 
> A little common sense goes a long way. We all have rights, what some people fail to understand is that those rights are tied to responsibility.


 your comment about 1A and yelling fire inside a movie house is 100% true... in fact i remember using that as an example once or twice before. however, the issue with open carry is a tad different. if it is ok to open carry a rifle then why does the police frown when you do so. to me this is nothing different that my mother giving me a bicycle then telling me I cant ride it because she is afraid that I might fall off the bike. Bigdogbuc has a good point in the result of the arrest being a conviction and precedence of the case however we cannot just give up and be quiet. there must be something we could do. his idea of inviting prosecutors and cops and actually judges would be good. this issue has to come out and the cops, prosecutors and judges need to know that we are watching and we are questioning this issue. we need to let them know that we will not be quiet. some prosecutors are just like some of the cops. they think they can do anything they want. judges are the same, some of them are arrogant and they think they are gods.


----------



## GTGallop

Well that turned into a tug fest quickly... 

:lol: :roll:


----------



## Seneca

Kauboy said:


> The "fire in a theatre" example is a clear problem because it incites a dangerous response which can lead to injury. Carrying a slung firearm poses no such direct threat. The two scenarios are inequitable.


Apparently open carry has the same effect in certain circles.


----------



## Kauboy

bigdogbuc said:


> I'm not giving up anything. I'm taking a different approach. One that doesn't cause alarm, panic and apprehension. And one that doesn't give THEM, a bullshit excuse, to arrest US.
> 
> Fair Enough?


In its simplest form, you are advocating for a citizen to NOT exercise their 2nd amendment right because you don't agree with how they do it.
Explain to me again how that is different from the gun-grabbers.
You are literally making their argument for them.
I, however, am advocating that ALL citizens exercise their rights and not be limited merely because the public might get "alarmed".
I support all gun carriers, you pick and choose which ones to support based on arbitrary standards.
Now, which one of us is *actually* "pro 2nd amendment"?

After the tone you took earlier, I don't feel too bad about calling you out on this. Your own words refute your self-description.


----------



## ekim

It turned into a give up / compromise thread. Like the cops, prosecutors and judges are going to sit down and talk / listen to a bunch of gun lovers explain the law to them. They know the law, they just don't agree with it so they over look what lead up to the arrest and just go from there taking the cops word for gospel. The guy with the gun had to have done something wrong so he is guilty, period. To many are afraid they will lose all they're gun rights if they don't give up on certain parts of they're rights. Like that will stop the left and people that are ignorant about guns and gun laws. They don't want to hear shit, just get rid of the guns and they think they're problems will go away and many here seem to be playing right into they're hands, both will loose in the end. There are supposedly some 22,000 gun laws on the books in this country and they haven't done shit to stop gun crimes or crimes of any kind. I would say I'm preaching to the choir here but it seems I'm not, everyone just wants to be nice and try to get along.


----------



## Kauboy

pheniox17 said:


> back to the topic, all that's really been said there is a right and wrong way of doing things
> 
> want to protest why you can't open carry a hand gun, go get legal permission for a legal open carry protest, openly carry both the rifle and hand gun in a group legal way through the main street of your city, even go one up, make it a massive USA wide event!! tee it up with the NRA and you do good for the cause, also gain support from leadership as you start dialogue about a massive problem, yes media will go off and anti gun activists go off too.... but this type of thing will help your fight....
> 
> as said many times here, there are ways to make rights illegal, a freedom of speech RIGHT even have laws, that's been discussed here.... if not go up to a group of Black's and call them ******* and as they are beating the shit out of you scream I'm exercising my right to free speech...


You can't get permission to break the law... Carrying handguns openly is illegal here in Texas.

Calling a group of black folks a racial slur is still protected speech. They may choose to beat me for it, but they would be the ones facing charges, not me.
We have many "hate groups" in this country that openly call people horrible things, and they can't be touched by the cops for it because it is protected free speech.


----------



## Kauboy

ekim said:


> It turned into a give up / compromise thread. Like the cops, prosecutors and judges are going to sit down and talk / listen to a bunch of gun lovers explain the law to them. They know the law, they just don't agree with it so they over look what lead up to the arrest and just go from there taking the cops word for gospel. The guy with the gun had to have done something wrong so he is guilty, period. To many are afraid they will lose all they're gun rights if they don't give up on certain parts of they're rights. Like that will stop the left and people that are ignorant about guns and gun laws. They don't want to hear shit, just get rid of the guns and they think they're problems will go away and many here seem to be playing right into they're hands, both will loose in the end. There are supposedly some 22,000 gun laws on the books in this country and they haven't done shit to stop gun crimes or crimes of any kind. I would say I'm preaching to the choir here but it seems I'm not, everyone just wants to be nice and try to get along.


Precisely!

For those who want to better understand my position (and I belive ekim's too), go read what the Law dog has to say on it: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html?m=1

He's a foreign-born, now American, sheriff's deputy in north Texas. His perspective on things will get you thinking real hard about where your principles lie.

He's also pretty clever.
Enjoy!


----------



## bigdogbuc

Kauboy, you are no longer worth my time. I refuse to continue to argue with a stupid person and allow you to drag me down to your level, which I concede, that you will ultimately beat me with experience. Welcome to my ignore list Puddle Pirate.


----------



## pheniox17

Kauboy said:


> You can't get permission to break the law... Carrying handguns openly is illegal here in Texas.


if the protest is handled correctly, special permission for a event can be obtained, in this case a lawful demonstration, pointing out open carry rifles and open carry pistols is not a evil thing, but to establish the legal permission means you have to obtain it

but the other way, a protest pointing out this right, and openly carrying if permission was attempted then refused, adds to the rally for the cause, and if you get only a few hundred protesters, at the protest only (providing its done in a peaceful manner) the protesters openly carry to DISPLAY THEIR POINT the police can not act, as if the police start heavy tactics, it turns to a riot, that has heavily armed people, the protest turns to a war zone, and a new debate is started....

as long as when the protest is finished or when leaving the registered area of the protest all laws are upheld....

look at protests in the USA today, look at the laws broken, from burning flags, to the nature of the demonstrations... laws can be bent to prevent mass riots, and even police are trained to prevent riots, as if they start one... the media hangs the police, with titles like peaceful demonstration turns to mass riots...

the key is keeping the protest peaceful, and attempting to get permission, that's a protest

one guy walking around with a camera just makes him look stupid and the people won't be sympathetic... but if you guys go nation wide with issues about gun control, not only will your voice be herd it will be respected (a key date also works well, I wouldn't go 4th of July but a historical event like the first battle of the us civil war or date the war was declared)

yes another nut will try and screw it, but put more passion in firearm rights than anti gun wankers and you will see a change in additude (sp) do nothing outside moaning on forums, and making you tube vids and believe me you have lost


----------



## globetruck

His opening line says it all - he decides to open carry, but then tells the cops that he's not comfortable in handling his weapon. He's just trolling for attention. OC stunts like this just give gun haters more evidence that gun lovers are nuts.


----------



## Kauboy

pheniox17 said:


> if the protest is handled correctly, special permission for a event can be obtained, in this case a lawful demonstration, pointing out open carry rifles and open carry pistols is not a evil thing, but to establish the legal permission means you have to obtain it
> 
> but the other way, a protest pointing out this right, and openly carrying if permission was attempted then refused, adds to the rally for the cause, and if you get only a few hundred protesters, at the protest only (providing its done in a peaceful manner) the protesters openly carry to DISPLAY THEIR POINT the police can not act, as if the police start heavy tactics, it turns to a riot, that has heavily armed people, the protest turns to a war zone, and a new debate is started....
> 
> as long as when the protest is finished or when leaving the registered area of the protest all laws are upheld....
> 
> look at protests in the USA today, look at the laws broken, from burning flags, to the nature of the demonstrations... laws can be bent to prevent mass riots, and even police are trained to prevent riots, as if they start one... the media hangs the police, with titles like peaceful demonstration turns to mass riots...
> 
> the key is keeping the protest peaceful, and attempting to get permission, that's a protest
> 
> one guy walking around with a camera just makes him look stupid and the people won't be sympathetic... but if you guys go nation wide with issues about gun control, not only will your voice be herd it will be respected (a key date also works well, I wouldn't go 4th of July but a historical event like the first battle of the us civil war or date the war was declared)
> 
> yes another nut will try and screw it, but put more passion in firearm rights than anti gun wankers and you will see a change in additude (sp) do nothing outside moaning on forums, and making you tube vids and believe me you have lost


Burning the flag is not illegal.


----------



## Kauboy

bigdogbuc said:


> Kauboy, you are no longer worth my time. I refuse to continue to argue with a stupid person and allow you to drag me down to your level, which I concede, that you will ultimately beat me with experience. Welcome to my ignore list Puddle Pirate.


You are far too unstable to continue conversing with anyways.
Your profanity and insults prove you have no true stance, but choose to just be aggressive in an attempt to argue your point of view.
Blocking a user is a pretty over the top reaction considering this board covers a huge breadth of topics.
But... you've shown to be one that makes rash and poor decisions, so I guess I can't be surprised.


----------



## Slippy

I enjoyed reading the article below that Kauboy suggested from the Law Dog and thought it was worth sharing. 
*"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

One of the more highly linked of my posts is the one about the "Gun Rights Cake" analogy, which I will now re-post and expand a bit:

I hear a lot about "compromise" from the gun-control camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Allow me to illustrate:

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it. *
* Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.

LawDog*


----------



## omegabrock

Kauboy said:


> Of course it would.
> But that would be illegal in public, at least here in Texas.
> Your demonstration would be quite short-lived/ineffective if all participants are quickly arrested, or you have to hold the rally on private property away from the public's eye.


it being illegal would be the point. if you have a few hundred people, peacefully protesting an unconstitutional law in order to get it overturned wouldnt be as easy as "all participants being quickly arrested". that is how i would think you would get more public favor.


----------



## omegabrock

ekim said:


> That first Revolution wasn't fought with full support during the entire war. I don't care if those whom are impartial get involved or not. My rights are mine and that is why I'm willing to fight or do what ever to keep them. Those with they're heads in the sand will never know if I'm armed or not and won't care if there is a fight / battle or war until it's forced down they're throats. Those that want to keep they're rights have been trying to use the political course for years and it has gone no where for all practical purposes. Now we have those that are suppose to uphold the laws of the land either doing what they please or as it seems lying like the government to get the results they want. There are things that happen that I don't like/care for, but I'm not trying to stop other from doing things as long as it doesn't actually harm/hurt me or mine. I don't even care if someone wants to kill themselves I won't risk my life to stop them. People have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't adversely affect/hurt others. As a gun owner I to have rights and my walking around with an evil AR /AK on my shoulder is no more of a threat to 99% of the people than you or someone driving a 3,000 car down the road, actually much less of a threat.


i agree with what you are saying, but the first revolution also wasnt fought without taking as much legal action as possible. the founding fathers took numerous steps to resolve the issues under the king and when it came down to it, they stood their ground. england brought the fight, they did not go looking for it. i would say the same should hold true here. do not go looking for a fight, but if one comes then be prepared. my comment towards the impartial was because i would rather see this play out peacefully with legislation restoring every free man's right to carry what they want, how they want...


----------



## MrsInor

I can't believe this thread is still going on.

Time for a bacon break.


----------



## Slippy

MrsInor said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going on.
> 
> Time for a bacon break.


I can't believe that a number of threads continue on as long as they do!

Having said that, I can't believe that WE THE PEOPLE have allowed our Great Republic to slip (partially in certain areas) into the swamp of socialism.


----------



## omegabrock

Kauboy said:


> The "fire in a theatre" example is a clear problem because it incites a dangerous response which can lead to injury. Carrying a slung firearm poses no such direct threat. The two scenarios are inequitable.


would you agree that if someone carried a firearm around a group of people which led to someone opening fire out of fear that it incited a response that led to injury?


----------



## Seneca

If you are going to pursue open carry be smart about it, organize, lobby, write your congressman, hold rallies, peaceful demonstrations what ever I' m okay with that. Yet some nimrod walking down the street carrying a rifle because they think they are exercising their rights, is not all that smart, actually all they are doing is inviting trouble. 

Quite frankly there are times when I may need to openly carry a firearm for legitimate purposes, like say to and from a vehicle as an example. I really don't want some clueless nimrod setting court precident and screwing that up for me. Open carry for legitimate purpose doesn't bother me, never has. 

A reasonable explanation to the LEO as to why you have an uncased firearm, is going to deescalate the situation. Not having a good reason such as because I can is going to escalate the situation. I'll type this really slow for you pro open carry guys, quit peeing in the pool.

I get it, you believe you have the God given right to openly carry and that a right not exercised is a right lost. I have a news flash for you that right gets exercised every day by law abiding citizens who have a legitimate need or a good reason to exercise it.


----------



## ekim

omegabrock said:


> i agree with what you are saying, but the first revolution also wasnt fought without taking as much legal action as possible. the founding fathers took numerous steps to resolve the issues under the king and when it came down to it, they stood their ground. england brought the fight, they did not go looking for it. i would say the same should hold true here. do not go looking for a fight, but if one comes then be prepared. my comment towards the impartial was because i would rather see this play out peacefully with legislation restoring every free man's right to carry what they want, how they want...


Have the gun owners not gone thru the court system when and if the courts would even accept the case and have won many times but to what end, nothing really changed did it. We the gun owners are not looking for a fight, but those that want to take away our rights sure are, based on feelings, which doesn't over ride my rights or my feelings does it? Playing out peacefully will get you shit when dealing with the government, as they decide what is law and what are your/our rights anymore. Who can afford to fight the government in court when the government doesn't even have to pay for they're legal lawyers, we the people pay for the whole thing and then when the people do actually win something the government just changes the rules to suit what they want. And just like england our government is bringing on this fight, starting with they're pawns the dumb cops. If you can't / don't see this as how it's happening now then we have NOTHING left to talk about / or debate. Go ahead and compromise your rights away, sorry, it seems they aren't even rights any more but government privileges now because the government and the cops don't care what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights say.


----------



## Kauboy

omegabrock said:


> would you agree that if someone carried a firearm around a group of people which led to someone opening fire out of fear that it incited a response that led to injury?


No. The reasonable response to the proclaiming of "FIRE!" in an enclosed space is to get away from the potential fire. The stampede is the danger.
The reasonable response to someone carrying a slung rifle on their back or side is not to shoot them (inept officers notwithstanding).
Does that mean that an unreasonable person could still do this?
Yes, but "reasonableness" is the root of our legal system.
Would a reasonable person agree with the response to the situation, or not.
If yes, legal. If not, illegal.

Then we get into the fun and fuzzy world of "who gets to decide what's reasonable?"
In our system, a jury.
In this man's case, luck was not in his favor, and an unreasonable jury was seated. (they ignored written law)


----------



## ekim

Seneca said:


> If you are going to pursue open carry be smart about it, organize, lobby, write your congressman, hold rallies, peaceful demonstrations what ever I' m okay with that. Yet some nimrod walking down the street carrying a rifle because they think they are exercising their rights, is not all that smart, actually all they are doing is inviting trouble.
> 
> Quite frankly there are times when I may need to openly carry a firearm for legitimate purposes, like say to and from a vehicle as an example. I really don't want some clueless nimrod setting court precident and screwing that up for me. Open carry for legitimate purpose doesn't bother me, never has.
> 
> A reasonable explanation to the LEO as to why you have an uncased firearm, is going to deescalate the situation. Not having a good reason such as because I can is going to escalate the situation. I'll type this really slow for you pro open carry guys, quit peeing in the pool.
> 
> I get it, you believe you have the God given right to openly carry and that a right not exercised is a right lost.* I have a news flash for you that right gets exercised every day by law abiding citizens who have a legitimate need or a good reason to exercise it*.


By the highlighted part I would assume you are talking about cops, and state and federal agencies, the people we pay to WORK for us, not against us, not to keep us in line with they're wishes and to hell with what the people want. Pretty lame excuse / response IMO, but what ever trips your trigger.


----------



## omegabrock

Slippy said:


> Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
> 
> I say, "No, it's my cake."
> 
> You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
> 
> Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
> 
> This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
> 
> I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."
> 
> You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
> 
> So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
> 
> And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
> 
> This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
> Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...
> 
> ... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The SCHOOL SAFETY and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
> 
> After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.
> 
> In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.
> 
> Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?
> 
> In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.
> 
> In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.
> 
> Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?
> 
> The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?


i love this analogy but let's look at it from another perspective

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half."

I turn to you and say "I will not compromise because it is MY cake."

You say, "But you do not need all of the cake. You will get fat"

Another guy walks in and says he wants my cake to be left alone and then takes my cake and throws at you and everybody else that says they want to compromise on MY cake.

I am left with no cake and there is nothing left to compromise.

This is not the victory I want. I want my DAMN CAKE.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> If you are going to pursue open carry be smart about it, organize, lobby, write your congressman, hold rallies, peaceful demonstrations what ever I' m okay with that. Yet some nimrod walking down the street carrying a rifle because they think they are exercising their rights, is not all that smart, actually all they are doing is inviting trouble.
> 
> Quite frankly there are times when I may need to openly carry a firearm for legitimate purposes, like say to and from a vehicle as an example. I really don't want some clueless nimrod setting court precident and screwing that up for me. Open carry for legitimate purpose doesn't bother me, never has.
> 
> A reasonable explanation to the LEO as to why you have an uncased firearm, is going to deescalate the situation. Not having a good reason such as because I can is going to escalate the situation. I'll type this really slow for you pro open carry guys, quit peeing in the pool.
> 
> I get it, you believe you have the God given right to openly carry and that a right not exercised is a right lost. I have a news flash for you that right gets exercised every day by law abiding citizens who have a legitimate need or a good reason to exercise it.


My "good reason"?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep *and bear* arms shall not be infringed."
I need no other.

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many people don't get this.


----------



## omegabrock

ekim said:


> Have the gun owners not gone thru the court system when and if the courts would even accept the case and have won many times but to what end, nothing really changed did it. We the gun owners are not looking for a fight, but those that want to take away our rights sure are, based on feelings, which doesn't over ride my rights or my feelings does it? Playing out peacefully will get you shit when dealing with the government, as they decide what is law and what are your/our rights anymore. Who can afford to fight the government in court when the government doesn't even have to pay for they're legal lawyers, we the people pay for the whole thing and then when the people do actually win something the government just changes the rules to suit what they want. And just like england our government is bringing on this fight, starting with they're pawns the dumb cops. If you can't / don't see this as how it's happening now then we have NOTHING left to talk about / or debate. Go ahead and compromise your rights away, sorry, it seems they aren't even rights any more but government privileges now because the government and the cops don't care what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights say.


i completely understand what you're saying but a single person here and there getting arrested is not helping the cause. especially when the entire reason it was done was to invoke an altercation. what should be talked about with that video is not what he was doing or how/why he did it, the issue *should* be how the LEO's handled the situation. 
the question is, how would this have played out if there were a couple of hundred protesters on government property. legal and illegal in their respected states, long guns, handguns, concealed and open. a mix of all of them. i guarantee we wouldnt all be on the forum here talking about what was done right and what was done wrong. we would all be in agreement (im pretty sure).



Kauboy said:


> No. The reasonable response to the proclaiming of "FIRE!" in an enclosed space is to get away from the potential fire. The stampede is the danger.
> The reasonable response to someone carrying a slung rifle on their back or side is not to shoot them (inept officers notwithstanding).
> Does that mean that an unreasonable person could still do this?
> Yes, but "reasonableness" is the root of our legal system.
> Would a reasonable person agree with the response to the situation, or not.
> If yes, legal. If not, illegal.
> 
> Then we get into the fun and fuzzy world of "who gets to decide what's reasonable?"
> In our system, a jury.
> In this man's case, luck was not in his favor, and an unreasonable jury was seated. (they ignored written law)


'reasonable response' is relative. your (and my) reasonable response to a slung long gun differs from the next person. there are concealed carry that feel it is always unreasonable to carry a long gun and if they saw it, their first thought would be "he's going to shoot everybody" so he yells "SHOOTER" in order to get the 'innocents' out of the way of a dangerous situation.

you hit the head when you said "then we get into the fun and fuzzy world of 'who gets to decide what's reasonable?' in our system, a jury" - which is why it is better to have the public support. they set precedence which leads to what is acceptable, socially.

like i said, you can scream "this is unconstitutional" all you want from a cell and you're doing nothing. right now, it is a legal battle. i don't see why you would support legally being arrested, legally not being allowed to own/purchase a firearm to show that legal laws are unconstitutional. these types of demonstrations are not going to change the laws on the books. to change those, you need numbers and public support. look at CT. mandatory gun registration was met with non compliance by the masses. if only 1 or 2 people refused, they would have been locked up.


----------



## Kauboy

omegabrock said:


> i completely understand what you're saying but a single person here and there getting arrested is not helping the cause. especially when the entire reason it was done was to invoke an altercation. what should be talked about with that video is not what he was doing or how/why he did it, the issue *should* be how the LEO's handled the situation.
> the question is, how would this have played out if there were a couple of hundred protesters on government property. legal and illegal in their respected states, long guns, handguns, concealed and open. a mix of all of them. i guarantee we wouldnt all be on the forum here talking about what was done right and what was done wrong. we would all be in agreement (im pretty sure).
> 
> 'reasonable response' is relative. your (and my) reasonable response to a slung long gun differs from the next person. there are concealed carry that feel it is always unreasonable to carry a long gun and if they saw it, their first thought would be "he's going to shoot everybody" so he yells "SHOOTER" in order to get the 'innocents' out of the way of a dangerous situation.
> 
> you hit the head when you said "then we get into the fun and fuzzy world of 'who gets to decide what's reasonable?' in our system, a jury" - which is why it is better to have the public support. they set precedence which leads to what is acceptable, socially.
> 
> like i said, you can scream "this is unconstitutional" all you want from a cell and you're doing nothing. right now, it is a legal battle. i don't see why you would support legally being arrested, legally not being allowed to own/purchase a firearm to show that legal laws are unconstitutional. these types of demonstrations are not going to change the laws on the books. to change those, you need numbers and public support. look at CT. mandatory gun registration was met with non compliance by the masses. if only 1 or 2 people refused, they would have been locked up.


I consider anyone who is incapable of following the law to be unreasonable.
The concealed carrier who decides to incite panic at the sight of a long gun being carried(legal) is acting unreasonably.
If he proceeded to draw his firearm for what is still an unjustified reason(now doing so "in a manner calculated to alarm"), he is still acting unreasonably.
If the long gun carrier then shouldered his rifle and fired at the threat now posed against him(threat of illegal use of deadly force), he is acting reasonably.

(items in parens are specific to Texas law, ymmv)

A reasonable person would follow the law, assuming the law is justified (ie: gun bans are not justified, per SCOTUS decision).
An unreasonable person would not.

Was the man in this video acting reasonably? (all actions were legal)
Were the officers in this video acting reasonably? (at least 2 actions were not legal, stopping him just for having a gun(court ruling says this is not sufficient), and "searching" his possessions without permission or warrant when they ran his gun for stolen)

Now, who was reasonable?


----------



## Kauboy

Arklatex said:


> Kauboy, I would hope that no concealed carrier would incite panic at the mere sight of a long gun. Most would just be more alert.


I would certainly hope so too.
I was merely using his example.


----------



## omegabrock

Arklatex said:


> Kauboy, I would hope that no concealed carrier would incite panic at the mere sight of a long gun. Most would just be more alert.


i would hope they wouldnt either because i would consider it unreasonable. i just used that as an example to show what 1 person considers reasonable the next person might not. just because it is unreasonable to us does not mean it wouldnt hold up in court.

the logic of reasoning went out of the window when this became a political issue. saying a magazine that holds 30 rounds is more dangerous than 3 magazines that hold 10 rounds is illogical and unreasonable...but look where that went


----------



## Seneca

ekim said:


> By the highlighted part I would assume you are talking about cops, and state and federal agencies, the people we pay to WORK for us, not against us, not to keep us in line with they're wishes and to hell with what the people want. Pretty lame excuse / response IMO, but what ever trips your trigger.


Playing the liberals game? twisting up words and such. Nice.:lol:
To clarify that for you I was referring to the average gun owner, not the police or any other enforcement types.


----------



## ekim

Seneca said:


> Playing the liberals game? twisting up words and such. Nice.:lol:
> To clarify that for you I was referring to the average gun owner, not the police or any other enforcement types.


I just figured you where preaching the liberal agenda and I wasn't buying it then and not buying it now. We disagree on some things and I don't believe that's what you where trying to say. I didn't twist anything, I responded on what you posted and how I took it, period.


----------



## Seneca

Since when is expressing common sense a liberal agenda. That's pretty funny,


----------



## PaulS

This was a better topic when we were discussing not being able to exercise a right that we believe we have.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> Since when is expressing common sense a liberal agenda. That's pretty funny,


I'm still trying to understand what you meant too. What people daily carry long arms openly for reasons *you* consider to be "good"? I gave the only true reason one needs, but I'm interested to know how you think.


----------



## Kauboy

PaulS said:


> This was a better topic when we were discussing not being able to exercise a right that we believe we have.


Yeah, after BD gave up on trying to support his unjustifiable position, and blocked me, things just kinda coasted from there.


----------



## globetruck

Part of me hopes that schools will remain gun free zones. Because if they weren't, some whacko would open carry an AR or AK to an elementary school, just to assert his constitutional rights. It's the 2nd Amendment equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

I debated whether to post or not. Reasonable and unreasonable mean different things to different people. Just as when Democrats rally for "common sense" gun control. Most folks in the gun culture don't find their measures "common sense" at all. Just sayin. Wish I could find the email comparing libs and conservs, something like, if a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants no one to have one. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he just doesn't buy one. Think there's about a dozen comparisions.


----------



## Kauboy

globetruck said:


> Part of me hopes that schools will remain gun free zones. Because if they weren't, some whacko would open carry an AR or AK to an elementary school, just to assert his constitutional rights. It's the 2nd Amendment equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


Rifles used to be the norm in schools. The kids brought their own and nobody cared or got shot.
We covered the fire in a theatre comparison, and they are nothing similar.


----------



## Kauboy

1skrewsloose said:


> I debated whether to post or not. Reasonable and unreasonable mean different things to different people. Just as when Democrats rally for "common sense" gun control. Most folks in the gun culture don't find their measures "common sense" at all. Just sayin. Wish I could find the email comparing libs and conservs, something like, if a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants no one to have one. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he just doesn't buy one. Think there's about a dozen comparisions.


As I clarified, reasonable people follow the law. Since the 2nd amendment is law, anything that contradicts it would be unreasonable.


----------



## Lucky Jim

I just seen this vid about the proposed Massachusetts H.4121 legislation.
Apparently people would have to apply for a FID (Firearms Identification Card) as the first step to being allowed to own guns, but the catch is the Authorities could refuse to issue you with a FID for any reason they choose.
Whether the proposal becomes law or not remains to be seen, but it shows how they'll try every trick and loophole they can think of to deny people the right to bear arms..


----------



## Kauboy

Lucky Jim said:


> I just seen this vid about the proposed Massachusetts H.4121 legislation.
> Apparently people would have to apply for a FID (Firearms Identification Card) as the first step to being allowed to own guns, but the catch is the Authorities could refuse to issue you with a FID for any reason they choose.
> Whether the proposal becomes law or not remains to be seen, but it shows how they'll try every trick and loophole they can think of to deny people the right to bear arms..


Such action would be considered unconstitutional, as there should never be a pre-requisite to exercising a right.
I'm aware that such institutions still exist, but they need only be challenged in court and they should get overturned just as the gun bans did.


----------



## Lucky Jim

Like I said, they'll try every trick in the book to deny people the right to pack; for example if somebody's got so much as a parking or speeding ticket or a jaywalking offence against his name, they could hit him with this quote on the grounds that he's not a "peaceable citizen".

_"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are *peaceable citizens* from keeping their own arms."
- founding father Samuel Adams (1722-1803)_

Whether they'd be able to make it fly in the face of the Constitutional right to bear arms remains to be seen, but they might well try.

PS- In fact I think there's already a law that says convicted felons can't ever own guns again for the rest of their lives, so there goes their right to bear arms out the window, maybe jaywalkers will be next..


----------



## Smitty901

So we just invent a law and convict you. Sounds like a liberal court to me.


----------



## omegabrock

Lucky Jim said:


> PS- In fact I think there's already a law that says convicted felons can't ever own guns again for the rest of their lives, so there goes their right to bear arms out the window, maybe jaywalkers will be next..


is it for life? i thought it was 10 years for a non violent felon...but i could be wrong, im not sure


----------



## Smitty901

Kauboy said:


> Rifles used to be the norm in schools. The kids brought their own and nobody cared or got shot.
> We covered the fire in a theatre comparison, and they are nothing similar.


 Even when my sons were in high school their rifle and shot gun were often in the car at school.


----------



## Smitty901

This case brings us back once again to LE and their leaders enforcing Political Agenda rather than law. It is not a crime to do stupid things that do not break the law. If it was a lot of you would spend a considerable amount of time in court.
It is not against the law to exercise a right liberals do not like. I know they wish it was and they think it is but it is not. Every day in every City in lots of places, Gangs deal dope, kill, rob and pimp. LE does little about it in fact they offer operating areas to many of them to keep the peace. But let one nut job carry his weapon with in the law and there is no holding them back.


----------



## firefighter72

You know this is alarming. Why did he need to carry around a carbine if he felt safe doing it then let him. This is the sign to something big. Why does nobody do something about this? It is his right to carry it around that's what people are forgetting. They have the right to do this so let them encourage them to use their rights. People are scared of something they don't know much about (firearms) and get "alarmed". When are people going to wake up! If we just let this happen it's going to snow ball out of control until there's only one thing to do to keep these rights.


----------



## PaulS

As I have said before; A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right.

Our rights are not "constitutional" rights - they are supposed to be constitutionally protected rights but we had the rights before the constitution existed and will have those rights after the constitution is thrown our, if we are willing to fight for them.

Governments work tirelessly to take power from the people so that they can be in control of the population. That is why we have seen "free speech zones" and "gun free zones" come into existence. They think they can convince us that restricting rights to or from certain areas is OK - after all you can still exercise your right - as long as you do it in the correct place. That is making a right into a government sponsored courtesy that can be further restricted at the whim of the government. 

Our rights don't demand a reason to exercise them. Are we so used to the government limitations on our rights that we are beginning to accept it?
Calling out "FIRE" in a movie theater is not free speech - it is inciting a riot. Yelling racial slurs is not free speech, it is an attack on a person for their race. (assault)
Carrying a gun on the public streets does not endanger anyone nor does it violate the rights of anyone. There is nothing illegal about carrying (bearing) arms in public places. It is a right. We don't need a reason and we should not be harassed for doing so. If we see someone being harassed for simply exercising their rights we should be outraged at the harassment - not at the person exercising their right.


----------



## ekim

PaulS said:


> As I have said before; A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right.
> 
> Our rights are not "constitutional" rights - they are supposed to be constitutionally protected rights but we had the rights before the constitution existed and will have those rights after the constitution is thrown our, if we are willing to fight for them.
> 
> Governments work tirelessly to take power from the people so that they can be in control of the population. That is why we have seen "free speech zones" and "gun free zones" come into existence. They think they can convince us that restricting rights to or from certain areas is OK - after all you can still exercise your right - as long as you do it in the correct place. That is making a right into a government sponsored courtesy that can be further restricted at the whim of the government.
> 
> Our rights don't demand a reason to exercise them. Are we so used to the government limitations on our rights that we are beginning to accept it?
> Calling out "FIRE" in a movie theater is not free speech - it is inciting a riot. Yelling racial slurs is not free speech, it is an attack on a person for their race. (assault)
> Carrying a gun on the public streets does not endanger anyone nor does it violate the rights of anyone. There is nothing illegal about carrying (bearing) arms in public places. It is a right. We don't need a reason and we should not be harassed for doing so. If we see someone being harassed for simply exercising their rights we should be outraged at the harassment - not at the person exercising their right.


Thank you for a lesson on our rights. Now be prepared to get told how wrong you are for speaking the truth as many here don't understand what a right means and that is especially true of many cops across this country.


----------



## Kauboy

Racial slurs are protected free speech.
If they weren't, every standup comic in the nation would be in jail.

I don't condone racism at all, and especially don't condone caustic insults.
But insults alone are not threats, nor directly injurious.
In every court case where racial slurs are brought up, it is in addendum to another crime of assault or harassment, and used to identify "hate crimes", as if that should make any difference.
Punish all crimes to the fullest extent, and do away with the unconstitutional idea of "hate crimes".
They are a violation of equal protection rights. The law should treat all people fairly and equally. Is justice blind anymore?


----------



## paraquack

When I lived in Chicago, I sure what looked like a lot of hate crimes. However, they were usually black on white, so Chicago LE didn't classify them as hate crimes. The way Chicago LE cooks the books on crimes is a crime itself. But it makes the Democrats in power look like they are doing a good job.


----------



## Kauboy

paraquack said:


> But it makes the Democrats in power look like they are doing a good job.


206 confirmed murders in Chicago in 2014 alone... they're doing a "bang" up job. :roll:
Rahm Emmanuel everyone... take your bow, Rahm.


----------



## omegabrock

PaulS said:


> As I have said before; A right that cannot be freely exercised is not a right.
> 
> Our rights are not "constitutional" rights - they are supposed to be constitutionally protected rights but we had the rights before the constitution existed and will have those rights after the constitution is thrown our, if we are willing to fight for them.
> 
> Governments work tirelessly to take power from the people so that they can be in control of the population. That is why we have seen "free speech zones" and "gun free zones" come into existence. They think they can convince us that restricting rights to or from certain areas is OK - after all you can still exercise your right - as long as you do it in the correct place. That is making a right into a government sponsored courtesy that can be further restricted at the whim of the government.
> 
> Our rights don't demand a reason to exercise them. Are we so used to the government limitations on our rights that we are beginning to accept it?
> Calling out "FIRE" in a movie theater is not free speech - it is inciting a riot. Yelling racial slurs is not free speech, it is an attack on a person for their race. (assault)
> Carrying a gun on the public streets does not endanger anyone nor does it violate the rights of anyone. There is nothing illegal about carrying (bearing) arms in public places. It is a right. We don't need a reason and we should not be harassed for doing so. If we see someone being harassed for simply exercising their rights we should be outraged at the harassment - not at the person exercising their right.


which leads to my basis argument. individuals popping up here and there, getting arrested or not, just to make a video on youtube to get likes is not the way to go. if people want to show the government that we will not tolerate our rights being dwindled down, there needs to be a march on government property (specifically the capitols - be it local or federal) with all forms of open and conceal carry, legal and illegal, handguns to long guns.

the fact is when you have someone walking down the street just to create controversy (and the youtube likes) the focus point shifts. it's no longer about the rights being exercised. it's about 'the technicalities', 'the approach he took', 'the other ways he could have handled it', 'the look on the female cop that wanted a reason to shoot him', 'the outcome if the cop would have used deadly force'...

if you want to keep the topic about "these are my damn rights and im not budging", the metaphorical (that could turn to literal) fight needs to be taken to their house to show them that "these are my rights, and the hundreds...if not thousands or millions of people behind me..."


----------



## PaulS

Our first amendment protected rights are gone - we no longer have the right to peaceably assemble to redress our grievances. You need a permit for that. Really?
Our second amendment protected rights are gone. You can't carry a gun onto the capitol grounds. Really?
Our fourth amendment protected rights are gone. You are searched before you can go into the courthouse and weapons are confiscated. Really?
Our fifth amendment protected rights are gone. You can be stopped on the street and made to identify yourself when no laws have been broken. Really?

America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. People are afraid to exercise their rights for fear that they might be punished or that it will injure the right that they can't exercise.

Yep! America might still be better than other countries but it is no longer the United States of America. It has become Amerika (United Socialist Amerika) but it is still the USA


----------



## ekim

omegabrock said:


> which leads to my basis argument. individuals popping up here and there, getting arrested or not, just to make a video on youtube to get likes is not the way to go. if people want to show the government that we will not tolerate our rights being dwindled down, there needs to be a march on government property (specifically the capitols - be it local or federal) with all forms of open and conceal carry, legal and illegal, handguns to long guns.
> 
> *the fact is when you have someone walking down the street just to create controversy (and the youtube likes)* the focus point shifts. it's no longer about the rights being exercised. it's about 'the technicalities', 'the approach he took', 'the other ways he could have handled it', 'the look on the female cop that wanted a reason to shoot him', 'the outcome if the cop would have used deadly force'...
> 
> if you want to keep the topic about "these are my damn rights and im not budging", the metaphorical (that could turn to literal) fight needs to be taken to their house to show them that "these are my rights, and the hundreds...if not thousands or millions of people behind me..."


By the highlighted part are you including the gay parades, MLK marches, the bikers riding to Washington DC, the Tea Party at election time or is it just gun owners that piss you off. You don't want to exercise your rights, that's fine, but why jump on those that wish to exercise they're LEGAL rights. This whole dam thread is about gun rights, or didn't you get that from the start. What part of "gun owners are losing they're rights" don't you understand? Hiding in the shadows will not preserve them. How do you think women got the right to vote, blacks riding in the front of the bus, gays the right to marry(In some states). Will it cause a fight, probably, since it's been a fight for years now and unless more turn to your view and wait for hell to freeze over the fight will end very soon.


----------



## Slippy

PaulS said:


> Our first amendment protected rights are gone - we no longer have the right to peaceably assemble to redress our grievances. You need a permit for that. Really?
> Our second amendment protected rights are gone. You can't carry a gun onto the capitol grounds. Really?
> Our fourth amendment protected rights are gone. You are searched before you can go into the courthouse and weapons are confiscated. Really?
> Our fifth amendment protected rights are gone. You can be stopped on the street and made to identify yourself when no laws have been broken. Really?
> 
> America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. People are afraid to exercise their rights for fear that they might be punished or that it will injure the right that they can't exercise.
> 
> Yep! America might still be better than other countries but it is no longer the United States of America. It has become Amerika (United Socialist Amerika) but it is still the USA


Excellent PaulS.
By the way I saw a poll today where a pretty high amount of 18-29 year olds (millennials is what they are referred to in some circles, here at Slippy Lodge I call them idiots) but I digress...
A large amount of these young people identify themselves with............wait for it......****ING SOCIALISM!

(Slippy checks his blood pressure and it ain't good)


----------



## omegabrock

ekim said:


> By the highlighted part are you including the gay parades, MLK marches, the bikers riding to Washington DC, the Tea Party at election time


maybe you don't see the fallacy in your rebuttal. i said "individuals popping up here and there, getting arrested or not, just to make a video on youtube to get likes is not the way to go" - and your direct response was "the gay parades, MLK marches, the bikers riding to Washington DC, the Tea Party at election time". are you saying that the gay pride parades and civil rights marches did nothing for gay rights and black right?...because it would seem THOSE approached had better results than a few people getting arrested



ekim said:


> or is it just gun owners that piss you off.


what? did you even read my comment?



ekim said:


> You don't want to exercise your rights, that's fine, but why jump on those that wish to exercise they're LEGAL rights. This whole dam thread is about gun rights, or didn't you get that from the start. What part of "gun owners are losing they're rights" don't you understand? Hiding in the shadows will not preserve them.


where you pulled this out of your ass, i have no idea but it's very obvious that i said something you disagree with and so your response is that i don't understand what the thread is about? again, did you even read my comments? what part of "your approach is not helping gun owners that are losing their rights" don't you understand? you say that i am hiding in the shadows? i guess because i am on a forum talking about other ways to approach the topic. you are quick to say "armed revolution!!" yet, here you are...talking on a forum. i guess you not being arrested (and attempting to martyr yourself) is the opposite of "hiding in the shadows".



ekim said:


> How do you think women got the right to vote, blacks riding in the front of the bus, gays the right to marry(In some states). Will it cause a fight, probably, since it's been a fight for years now and unless more turn to your view and wait for hell to freeze over the fight will end very soon.


again, especially this comment right here shows you did not read my comment in it's entirety, or you did not comprehend what i typed. the part you missed, i will highlight in bold for you

*if people want to show the government that we will not tolerate our rights being dwindled down, there needs to be a march on government property (specifically the capitols - be it local or federal) with all forms of open and conceal carry, legal and illegal, handguns to long guns.

the...fight needs to be taken to their house to show them that "these are my rights, and the hundreds...if not thousands or millions of people behind me..."*


----------



## ekim

omegabrock said:


> maybe you don't see the fallacy in your rebuttal. i said "individuals popping up here and there, getting arrested or not, just to make a video on youtube to get likes is not the way to go" - and your direct response was "the gay parades, MLK marches, the bikers riding to Washington DC, the Tea Party at election time". are you saying that the gay pride parades and civil rights marches did nothing for gay rights and black right?...because it would seem THOSE approached had better results than a few people getting arrested
> 
> where you pulled this out of your ass, i have no idea but it's very obvious that i said something you disagree with and so your response is that i don't understand what the thread is about? again, did you even read my comments? what part of "your approach is not helping gun owners that are losing their rights" don't you understand? you say that i am hiding in the shadows? i guess because i am on a forum talking about other ways to approach the topic. you are quick to say "armed revolution!!" yet, here you are...talking on a forum. i guess you not being arrested (and attempting to martyr yourself) is the opposite of "hiding in the shadows".
> 
> again, especially this comment right here shows you did not read my comment in it's entirety, or you did not comprehend what i typed. the part you missed, i will highlight in bold for you
> 
> *if people want to show the government that we will not tolerate our rights being dwindled down, there needs to be a march on government property (specifically the capitols - be it local or federal) with all forms of open and conceal carry, legal and illegal, handguns to long guns.
> 
> the...fight needs to be taken to their house to show them that "these are my rights, and the hundreds...if not thousands or millions of people behind me..."*


And all those groups started out as one or two people standing up and getting arrested, hassled and threatened but soon others join in and it became a movement. No protest starts out at capitals - state or federal they all start at the local level, just like these individuals are doing and with some support and help it will grow. Yes, I read your complete post and I believe I understand you quite well, I just question if you understand what you posted. Yes, I dis agree with a lot that you post, but that is besides the point. I made my pitch and it isn't working for you, fine. Get hundred or thousand or hopefully a million people and march on Washington DC with guns in hand, see where that gets you, but get the people first. Good luck with that one. Reply or not, your not worth the posted words to continue with.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

bigdogbuc said:


> I oppose it so that you do not draw negative attention to an issue that no one cared about in the first place, one that was ALREADY LEGAL. Your inability to control yourself is endangering MY rights.
> 
> SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ****ING WITH MY RIGHTS BY ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE OPENLY CARRYING YOUR RIFLE, SCARING PEOPLE. THEY WILL WRITE, PROTEST AND VOTE AGAINST US. AND YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU HAVE GIVEN THEM EVERY REASON TO DO SO.
> 
> YOU and OTHERS LIKE YOU, are unnecessarily jeopardizing my rights. And you're doing so for no good reason. You are bringing unwanted attention on a subject that needed neither to be addressed nor fought for. No one was taking it away. It was safe. So I ask yet again, what is the ****ING problem?


Is it really a right if you have to hide and sneak around acting as if it is illegal? Worried someone might call the cops on you? Worried about being treated by law enforcement like that man was treated? Harassed and arrested for doing nothing illegal? 
Is it really a right? Or has the govt. elevated themselves to the level of God and it is now a privilege bestowed upon you by a benevolent tyrant? 
So are you fine with living on your knees sneaking around like your a criminal while " exercising your "privileges""?


----------



## Smitty901

Civil right bills were not passed because of marches. They were passed because cities burned. And political parties saw power in passing it.


----------



## bigdogbuc

Arizona Infidel said:


> Is it really a right if you have to hide and sneak around acting as if it is illegal? Worried someone might call the cops on you? Worried about being treated by law enforcement like that man was treated? Harassed and arrested for doing nothing illegal?
> Is it really a right? Or has the govt. elevated themselves to the level of God and it is now a privilege bestowed upon you by a benevolent tyrant?
> So are you fine with living on your knees sneaking around like your a criminal while " exercising your "privileges""?


I thought I've said everything I had to say regarding this topic. Antagonistic assholes like yourself and Kauboy can put whatever spin you want on it. I don't give a shit what you have to say about it, I don't care if you accuse me of "dropping to my knees" or "sneaking around". Hell, I don't care if you like me, love me or hate me. You can sit around at night touchin' yourself thinkin' about bending me over a table. What you think of me, doesn't matter ONE ****ING BIT. And this will be the last reply I make on this subject. As a matter of fact, I won't even open this thread after I'm finished, so you can reply however you want, say what you want, I don't care. It will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes. You can say you win, you were right, I was wrong, I backed out like a coward, whatever you want to do. Okay?

Not once did I ever agree that what the police had done was proper. As a matter of fact, I pointed out not only was what he doing perfectly legal, but how unprofessional and aggressive the cops were. I questioned the wisdom in what he was doing. A concept you obviously are unable to grasp. If either one of you could read, or at least comprehend what you read;

1. What he was doing was already legal in our state and no one had even given thought to "taking that right away". So my question, what is the point of doing it, or while you're alone? And the point is to seek confrontation. He got it. I can now guarantee that the legality of it will come into question, and the ability to do so will be endangered. And I will fight against it. Because then there will be a fight.

2. I said that he was not arrested for Openly Carrying his rifle, because it is not illegal. They arrested him for Trespassing. Cops can find a thousand reasons to do it if they're assholes. Their conduct needs to be addressed, first at the department itself, then the city council, then the mayor. Openly challenging the police themselves, on the street, will get you know where accept dead, wanted or imprisoned. Right or wrong, justified or not.

3. He was ultimately charged with Displaying a Weapon, and subsequently convicted of said crime. And I do not agree with the verdict. However;

4. Now, because he decided to fight for a right that was not in jeopardy, case law has been established that A. Openly Carrying is in fact still legal, but B. if one person testifies that they were alarmed, concerned or in fear for their safety, reasonable or not, the public seeing your openly carried firearm is now a prosecutable offense that can be won, so now;

5. The police know this and because it has been brought to their attention that this is an arrestable/prosecutable/convictable crime, when I exercise my right to legally carry my rifle openly, I will most likely be charged with a crime that has nothing to do with exercising my right. Weird how that works. Perhaps it's that real world kickin' in again.

6. Said prosecution, with a guilty verdict will result in my loss of my Concealed Pistol Permit, the inability to ever obtain another one, and I will not pass a NICS check, so fundamentally, I would lose my right to own or possess firearms, let alone purchase them, unless it was a private sale (which you risk getting a stolen one - seen it dozens of times) without being convicted of a felony.

So yes, I do worry about getting arrested. But I see the bigger picture and like to think several steps ahead. Because I'm reasonable, certainly not because I'm a coward or because I subscribe to "privileges" of "benevolent tyrants". Of which I would like to point out that your gun counter rhetoric is stale, unoriginal and shows that you do nothing more than parrot whatever you've heard at your militia meetings.

Like the old joke goes, you're the type to "run down and **** one of them cows"; I'm the type that will "walk down and **** 'em all."

You subscribe to nothing more than the pairing of "taco chips to salsa" as Inor put it. I'm a bit deeper thinker than that.


----------



## Kauboy

Arizona Infidel said:


> Is it really a right if you have to hide and sneak around acting as if it is illegal? Worried someone might call the cops on you? Worried about being treated by law enforcement like that man was treated? Harassed and arrested for doing nothing illegal?
> Is it really a right? Or has the govt. elevated themselves to the level of God and it is now a privilege bestowed upon you by a benevolent tyrant?
> So are you fine with living on your knees sneaking around like your a criminal while " exercising your "privileges""?


You're wasting your time on him, man. He'll never get it.
By his response to you above, you can tell he's too far down the hole to look back now. He can't admit he's on the wrong side of the issue, because in his twisted reality, he isn't.
Nevermind that living in such a reality, one is forced to ignore the fundamental definition of what a "right" is.
Nevermind that actual rights cannot be taken away by a court, by definition.
Nevermind that free citizens are supposed to be able to do AS THEY PLEASE without giving two squirts about what someone else thinks, so long as it doesn't step on their rights.

He actually thinks that by open carrying, and then getting arrested, and then an unjust jury finding guilt, that somehow the original carrier is to blame...
Like I said, twisted.

His overt narcissism only enforces his delusion, and solidifies my opinion of him. Self-righteous, and incapable of admitting he's wrong.
Frankly, I'm happy his self-indulgence lead him to block me after I bruised his ego.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

bigdogbuc said:


> I thought I've said everything I had to say regarding this topic. *Antagonistic assholes like yourself *blah blah blah........................ Only because it was such a long post


First off, I don't think your done reading the thread so I will respond to your personal attack.
Go **** yourself. 
Second. I was trying to point out, you've already lost that right. Not because of that guy. A right you can't use because of____________ is a right you no longer have. So now you have to fight to get your rights back. Again, not because of that guy, or others like him, but because of the mentality that caused those cops to do that, and which would cause you not to exercise your "right" for fear of losing it.


----------



## omegabrock

ekim said:


> And all those groups started out as one or two people standing up and getting arrested, hassled and threatened but soon others join in and it became a movement. No protest starts out at capitals - state or federal they all start at the local level, just like these individuals are doing and with some support and help it will grow. Yes, I read your complete post and I believe I understand you quite well, I just question if you understand what you posted. Yes, I dis agree with a lot that you post, but that is besides the point. I made my pitch and it isn't working for you, fine. Get hundred or thousand or hopefully a million people and march on Washington DC with guns in hand, see where that gets you, but get the people first. Good luck with that one. Reply or not, your not worth the posted words to continue with.


i really don't think you understand me quite well. i agree with almost everything you have said on here short of wanting to start an armed revolution (maybe you havent stated that outright but it has been implied by several of your posts). it appears there is a lot that we agree on, but for the sake of this, you don't agree. i am perfectly content with that. my point was simply, do not quote me as saying one thing and then interpret it as i said another. yes, these other groups started out as individuals. they did not gain traction or ground until it was taking to the politicians. LEO's cannot change the laws so continuously making videos about encounters with LEO's does nothing in terms of rights. people who support the 2nd will say "he was just exercising his rights" while those that oppose it will scream "it offends me and it should be illegal". you will not quote me, or find a quote of me saying "he broke the law" or did anything wrong. maybe i am unclear of the pitch you provided as a course of action "we" should take but if you think this situation would have played out the same with even 50+ people open carrying, maybe throw in some signs, at a state capitol then i have to call you on that.


----------



## Badcompany

Honestly, im torn on this issue. Unfortunately times change, by that I mean the general public dumbs down over time. If you want to avoid situations like this get your concealed carry and be done with it. You make yourself a target by both law enforcement and potential attackers by carrying a long gun on your person at all times. Im a fan of practical myself, meaning a concealed handgun is far more advantageous in a public day to day situation. At the end of the day were his rights violated? Yes they were. However, you have to adapt to whatever situation you are in, and I have to say, if he was trying to prove a point he proved that the general public is ignorant and sheep like. Noting the "rude" Hispanic female officer in particular, they "officers" were very unprofessional and seemed to scared to even where a badge. Adapt and overcome my friends.


----------



## Kauboy

Badcompany said:


> Honestly, im torn on this issue. Unfortunately times change, by that I mean the general public dumbs down over time. If you want to avoid situations like this get your concealed carry and be done with it. You make yourself a target by both law enforcement and potential attackers by carrying a long gun on your person at all times. Im a fan of practical myself, meaning a concealed handgun is far more advantageous in a public day to day situation. At the end of the day were his rights violated? Yes they were. However, you have to adapt to whatever situation you are in, and I have to say, if he was trying to prove a point he proved that the general public is ignorant and sheep like. Noting the "rude" Hispanic female officer in particular, they "officers" were very unprofessional and seemed to scared to even where a badge. Adapt and overcome my friends.


Rights are not open to compromise. We've accepted their limits and regulations for too long. Adapting should only be done to acheive *more* liberty, not as a method of accepting less. Black folks didn't accept less and just adapt to being second class citizens. They took hold of their God given rights with both hands and demanded their liberty. Why should anyone be persuaded to do less?


----------



## pheniox17

I can't believe this is still going

keep in mind I live in a country that's a EXPERT at eroding rights, from firearms, to free speech, to even the "right to remain silent"

the rights themselves STILL exist (this is very important for you guys to understand)

BUT there are other crimes attached to those rights...

oh before the "you're in Australia what do I know" 

that's exactly the way it is here, Obama, us Congress and USA leaders have WOKEN UP to what Australia dose and gone "HOLY SHIT IT WORKS" 

ignore big dogs picture at your own risk as in the not so distant future we will be going "****EN TOLD YOU SO" as the police target you...


----------



## Kauboy

pheniox17 said:


> I can't believe this is still going
> 
> keep in mind I live in a country that's a EXPERT at eroding rights, from firearms, to free speech, to even the "right to remain silent"
> 
> the rights themselves STILL exist (this is very important for you guys to understand)
> 
> BUT there are other crimes attached to those rights...
> 
> oh before the "you're in Australia what do I know"
> 
> that's exactly the way it is here, Obama, us Congress and USA leaders have WOKEN UP to what Australia dose and gone "HOLY SHIT IT WORKS"
> 
> ignore big dogs picture at your own risk as in the not so distant future we will be going "****EN TOLD YOU SO" as the police target you...


If you are forbidden from exercising the right, it no longer exists.
Tyrants will always have you believe that the words on paper are what is true, all while subverting those very words by their actions.
The very "crime" in question with this thread is the exercising of a right, not some other "attached" act.
"... the right to *KEEP* and *BEAR* arms shall not be infringed."

The right to keep them is equal to the right to bear them.
If I can legally do one, but not legally do the other, that flies in the face of the specific and intended words, and is unconstitutional by definition.


----------



## Inor

Kauboy said:


> If you are forbidden from exercising the right, it no longer exists.
> Tyrants will always have you believe that the words on paper are what is true, all while subverting those very words by their actions.
> The very "crime" in question with this thread is the exercising of a right, not some other "attached" act.
> "... the right to *KEEP* and *BEAR* arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> The right to keep them is equal to the right to bear them.
> If I can legally do one, but not legally do the other, that flies in the face of the specific and intended words, and is unconstitutional by definition.


Knock knock puddin' head, ANY time you put your future in a jury or a judge, it is crap shoot and the Constitution has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. The douche bag in the video walked down the street with a long gun over his shoulder (completely legally), but obviously with the express purpose of evoking a confrontation with the police. The police ended up arresting him on a bogus charge. We agree 110% on that. BUT, by doing so the douche bag left it up to 12 jurors and a judge to make a ruling on his legality. Duh?!?! JURIES DO NOT MAKE THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON CONSTITUTION! THEY MAKE THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON HOW WELL THE ATTORNEYS PRESENT THEIR CASE!

You can say they should rule based on Constitution and I agree with you; but they do not. That is reality.

So let's look at the situation from a benefits analysis perspective. If douche bag had completed his walk without police intervention, he would have gained some level of exercise, nothing more. If he had started his walk, gotten arrested and won the court case, would he have won any new freedoms for Washingtonians? No, they already had an open carry law. So what was the point of this exercise? On the downside, he gets arrested and calls attention to the anti-gun folks; so now they win the court case and use that as president to take more rights. Pretty ****ing brilliant there...

I am four-square behind living by the Constitution. But that is not where our country is at now. You have to think strategically if you expect to take the republic back. That means, not causing legal challenges for a right that you already have without the benefit of opening new rights. Yes, you can wrap yourself in Constitution but if a judge or a jury disagrees with you, then what? You have ****ed the whole effort by setting legal president for the other side. Use your smarts people!


----------



## ordnance21xx

I though that Officer Hermandez was going to SH*T a brick. she was very unprofessional.


MOLON LABE


----------



## Kauboy

Inor said:


> Knock knock puddin' head, ANY time you put your future in a jury or a judge, it is crap shoot and the Constitution has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it. The douche bag in the video walked down the street with a long gun over his shoulder (completely legally), but obviously with the express purpose of evoking a confrontation with the police. The police ended up arresting him on a bogus charge. We agree 110% on that. BUT, by doing so the douche bag left it up to 12 jurors and a judge to make a ruling on his legality. Duh?!?! JURIES DO NOT MAKE THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON CONSTITUTION! THEY MAKE THEIR DECISIONS BASED ON HOW WELL THE ATTORNEYS PRESENT THEIR CASE!
> 
> You can say they should rule based on Constitution and I agree with you; but they do not. That is reality.
> 
> So let's look at the situation from a benefits analysis perspective. If douche bag had completed his walk without police intervention, he would have gained some level of exercise, nothing more. If he had started his walk, gotten arrested and won the court case, would he have won any new freedoms for Washingtonians? No, they already had an open carry law. So what was the point of this exercise? On the downside, he gets arrested and calls attention to the anti-gun folks; so now they win the court case and use that as president to take more rights. Pretty ****ing brilliant there...
> 
> I am four-square behind living by the Constitution. But that is not where our country is at now. You have to think strategically if you expect to take the republic back. That means, not causing legal challenges for a right that you already have without the benefit of opening new rights. Yes, you can wrap yourself in Constitution but if a judge or a jury disagrees with you, then what? You have ****ed the whole effort by setting legal president for the other side. Use your smarts people!


Irrelevant. 
He should have never been arrested. I'm not trying to change a jury's decision. The point is to change the way free citizens are treated by the public servants who are supposed to follow the law AS WRITTEN.

The insult was not necessary, nor appreciated.


----------



## Inor

Kauboy said:


> Irrelevant.
> He should have never been arrested. I'm not trying to change a jury's decision. The point is to change the way free citizens are treated by the public servants who are supposed to follow the law AS WRITTEN.
> 
> The insult was not necessary, nor appreciated.


No, it is VERY relevant if you choose to live in the real world rather the world as "it should be".

Again I go back to: why would you set out to cause animosity with the cops (or anybody else) if you have absolutely NOTHING to gain by the confrontation?


----------



## Kauboy

Inor said:


> No, it is VERY relevant if you choose to live in the real world rather the world as "it should be".
> 
> Again I go back to: why would you set out to cause animosity with the cops (or anybody else) if you have absolutely NOTHING to gain by the confrontation?


He was in the right. The officers were in the wrong. Who is "causing animosity" again?

The world only reaches the "as it should be" state when good people make it that way. Your masters surley won't help.


----------



## Inor

Kauboy said:


> He was in the right. The officers were in the wrong. Who is "causing animosity" again?
> 
> The world only reaches the "as it should be" state when good people make it that way. Your masters surley won't help.


You keep living in your fantacy land and you will forfeit the rights of all of us. Maybe try using you head for something other than a hat rack and thinking AHEAD a couple steps. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that walking down a city street with a long gun is going to attract police attention. So, if you are going to attract the attention of the police, what are trying to gain? If you cannot see that, then you are too damn stupid to continue this conversation.


----------



## hotpig27

I would rather retain a right that most do not know that I have until the day that the right is needed. Calling attention to it has proven to be 100% detrimental yet these guys push on and keep turning positive gun rights companies into neutral or negative.

You guys are on the wrong track, get your idiot heads out of your hind ends and stop your terroristic tactics.


----------



## Seneca

Kauboy said:


> I'm still trying to understand what you meant too. What people daily carry long arms openly for reasons *you* consider to be "good"? I gave the only true reason one needs, but I'm interested to know how you think.


There are how many law abiding gun owning citizens in this country? Millions? out of those millions how many on any given day may need to (even if briefly) carry a rifle in the public. Ever parked 6 blocks from a gun show, then bought a rifle at the show and walked back to your car. How often does something similar to that happen in a day? I'm betting it happens more than you think.

Ever met a friend to go shooting and decided to take one vehicle instead of two. There are times when having an uncased rifle in public even briefly is unavoidable, it has nothing to do with making a statement about exercising rights or self defense. There was a time not so long ago when having a practical reason as to why the display of a firearm was unavoidable would keep you out of trouble. Thanks this...open carry craziness...even that may not be enough.

Look if you want to do it right work within the system to either change or preserve the laws. I'll make a prediction for you. If we continue to see arrests for open carry, it won't be long before we see the legality line between open carry and brandishing disappear. If you want to preserve the right then you need to be smart about it. 
For the time being, open carry is my right is not being especially smart about it.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> If you want to preserve the right then you need to be smart about it.


So, according to you, Inor, BD, and hotpig, if I want to keep a right, I shouldn't exercise it...

Got it, thanks.
The gun grabbers thank you all too.


----------



## hotpig27

It is my right to walk around the mall picking my nose and eating it. That does not mean that I should do it.


----------



## Seneca

They cannot legitimately attack a right when the right isn't in question. Exercised or not this right was never in question. 
It wasn't even on their radar...and...Now it is.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

hotpig27 said:


> It is my right to walk around the mall picking my nose and eating it. That does not mean that I should do it.


That's a stupid analogy


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Here's what it boils down to. 
You either have the right or you don't. If you are afraid to exercise the right because you are afraid to lose it then you have already lost it.


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Seneca said:


> They cannot legitimately attack a right when the right isn't in question. Exercised or not this right was never in question.
> It wasn't even on their radar...and...Now it is.


So what? What does it matter if it was on their radar or not because you are afraid to use it for fear of losing it? The outcome is the same weather it is because you are afraid to exercise it because you are afraid to lose it, or because you can't use it for fear of being arrested. You either have it or you don't. You don't have it. You haven't had it.


----------



## hotpig27

Worn out excuse to run around playing army for kicks.

The outcome is not the same. Retaining the right is my ace up the sleeve should it be needed. These Bloomberg sponsored open carry groups that are acting like idiots with their toys are going to cost me my plan B.


----------



## Kauboy

hotpig27 said:


> Worn out excuse to run around playing army for kicks.
> 
> The outcome is not the same. Retaining the right is my ace up the sleeve should it be needed. These Bloomberg sponsored open carry groups that are acting like idiots with their toys are going to cost me my plan B.


Jefferson said the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to take it. They're already trying, and your "plan A" is to help them. You'll soon have no "plan B" thanks to your own inaction.

Picking one's nose is not a right. It is merely an act that isn't illegal. It isn't protected in any way, shape, or form.
For Pete's sake, at least have *some* understanding of what we're discissing before attempting to respond.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> They cannot legitimately attack a right when the right isn't in question. Exercised or not this right was never in question.
> It wasn't even on their radar...and...Now it is.


This right has been in question for decades. Why do you think many states had to fight hard just to be able to carry a *concealed* handgun?
Those with authority will always seek to keep that authority. The display of a firearm is a thumb in the eye to that authority, and they don't like it. You're merely helping them to maintain their unjust authority.


----------



## Slippy

A number of years ago after buying an AR15 some friends of mine invited me to go hunting in Texas. Rather than fly and go the BS at the airport, I decided to drive to Texas. So I loaded up some weapons in their cases and threw the AR at the last moment to show my buddies. I had not yet purchased a case for it and when I got to the hotel I unloaded my firearms and luggage to take to my room instead of leaving them in my truck. The AR was exposed as I walked through the lobby and a family was checking in when I passed them with two guns in cases and one AR slung over my shoulder. No one said a thing but the Mom and Kids had this look of absolute fear. The next morning at breakfast that family saw me and chose a table clear on the other side of the restaurant. I did chuckle a bit as I ate.


----------



## Seneca

Arizona Infidel said:


> So what? What does it matter if it was on their radar or not because you are afraid to use it for fear of losing it? The outcome is the same weather it is because you are afraid to exercise it because you are afraid to lose it, or because you can't use it for fear of being arrested. You either have it or you don't. You don't have it. You haven't had it.


It matters because I'd much rather pick my own battles than have someone pick them for me. Besides...This was a battle that was already won, all we had to do was sit back and play it cool. We certainly didn't need people drawing unfavorable attention to it.

Can you honestly tell how openly carrying, for no apparent reason doesn't plays into the anti's hands. Because I believe ultimately it does. I'm not afraid to exercise the right when I need to.

I will admit that, I am one of those people who actually has to have a reason for doing things and that reason has to be other than...because I can. Nor am particularly afraid of being arrested because I don't go looking for trouble.

We have seen some modest gains in the area of pro gun rights, those gains were won and secured by working within the system.


----------



## hotpig27

Seneca said:


> It matters because I'd much rather pick my own battles than have someone pick them for me. Besides...This was a battle that was already won, all we had to do was sit back and play it cool. We certainly didn't need people drawing unfavorable attention to it.
> 
> Can you honestly tell how openly carrying, for no apparent reason doesn't plays into the anti's hands. Because I believe ultimately it does. I'm not afraid to exercise the right when I need to. I will admit that, I am one of those people who actually has to have a reason for doing things and that reason has to be other than...because I can. Nor am not particularly afraid of being arrested because I don't go looking for trouble.
> 
> We have seen some modest gains in the area of pro gun rights, those gains were won and secured by working within the system.


Well put, we can only go backwards on this issue. These guys so far have managed to do just that. Stop the insanity and act normal.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein


----------



## Seneca

Kauboy said:


> This right has been in question for decades. Why do you think many states had to fight hard just to be able to carry a *concealed* handgun?
> Those with authority will always seek to keep that authority. The display of a firearm is a thumb in the eye to that authority, and they don't like it. You're merely helping them to maintain their unjust authority.


I agree that perceptions about authority may and probably do differ from state to state. I live in a state where we retain our rights intact and those rights are supported by authority. So there is no us vs them thing going on here. A right exercised irresponsibly is perhaps the quickest way I know of to loose it.


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> It matters because I'd much rather pick my own battles than have someone pick them for me. Besides...This was a battle that was already won, all we had to do was sit back and play it cool. We certainly didn't need people drawing unfavorable attention to it.
> 
> Can you honestly tell how openly carrying, for no apparent reason doesn't plays into the anti's hands. Because I believe ultimately it does. I'm not afraid to exercise the right when I need to.
> 
> I will admit that, I am one of those people who actually has to have a reason for doing things and that reason has to be other than...because I can. Nor am particularly afraid of being arrested because I don't go looking for trouble.
> 
> We have seen some modest gains in the area of pro gun rights, those gains were won and secured by working within the system.


Exercising a right in a safe and passive manner is incapable of "playing into" anything. It is a right. Does speaking openly abput religious topics "play into" a call to limit that right?
The answer is a resounding "no". A right can only be diminished when good people allow others to dictate what is acceptable based on nothing more than personal opinion.
Rights are not subject to personal opinion.

It should bother you that you even have to make the claim that we have "made modest gains" with regard to a RIGHT! That implies that we allowed the right to be diminished in the first place. Why do you continue to support such diminishing?


----------



## Arizona Infidel

Seneca said:


> It matters because I'd much rather pick my own battles than have someone pick them for me. Besides...This was a battle that was already won, all we had to do was sit back and play it cool. We certainly didn't need people drawing unfavorable attention to it.
> 
> Can you honestly tell how openly carrying, for no apparent reason doesn't plays into the anti's hands. Because I believe ultimately it does. I'm not afraid to exercise the right when I need to.
> 
> I will admit that, I am one of those people who actually has to have a reason for doing things and that reason has to be other than...because I can. Nor am particularly afraid of being arrested because I don't go looking for trouble.
> 
> We have seen some modest gains in the area of pro gun rights, those gains were won and secured by working within the system.


So you want to be able to pick your own battles, but everyone else can not pick their battles unless you agree with the battle?


----------



## ekim

Arizona Infidel said:


> So you want to be able to pick your own battles, but everyone else can not pick their battles unless you agree with the battle?


With the logic Seneca is using the left has already won the battle / war, they get to choose what,when,where,why and then give you the outcome before it starts. Just don't make waves and play by they're rules.


----------



## 1skrewsloose

It would be nice if the tree-hugging panty-waist folks were educated as to what the laws are. In Wisconsin since 2011 it has been legal to have an uncased, unloaded rifle in your vehicle. I work with a LEO, he has told me numerous times of how he gets calls about this, its LEGAL, some folks just don't know it, and think the sky is falling. This may or may not apply to this thread.


----------



## Kauboy

1skrewsloose said:


> It would be nice if the tree-hugging panty-waist folks were educated as to what the laws are. In Wisconsin since 2011 it has been legal to have an uncased, unloaded rifle in your vehicle. I work with a LEO, he has told me numerous times of how he gets calls about this, its LEGAL, some folks just don't know it, and think the sky is falling. This may or may not apply to this thread.


The unfortunate truth is, as displayed in this case, even when told what the law is and explained in depth, the public still just finds the whole thing upsetting.
You can't expect the internet age to bother themselves with lessons from history, or written words in a code of statutes.
What we have to learn to do is to bring back the positive side of firearms. We have to reintroduce them to society as a cog in the system, necessary and useful.
Only when we change the public's perception, will they start to turn around from the wrong side of this issue.

To borrow a tactic from Lenin, we have to start with the children.
Raise them up to be responsible users and owners of firearms. Teach them to respect the rights we have concerning them, and NEVER miss an opportunity to share a bit of history concerning why we have such an important right. They may find it boring at the time, but they will recall it later in life and it will strengthen them.
We have to break the stranglehold that the media and left have taken on our kids.
Misguided kids grow up to be misguided adults.
If we don't teach them, the media and the rest of society will. I promise you that.


----------



## Seneca

Arizona Infidel said:


> So you want to be able to pick your own battles, but everyone else can not pick their battles unless you agree with the battle?


Open carry was a non issue, until it was made an issue. People who pursue open carry as a right to be exercised just because they can, are people with an answer looking for a question. Why pick that battle? There is no sense in it...unless you are wanting to undermine that right. Then it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Kauboy

A "non-issue" means that nobody has an issue with it.
The fact that someone had an issue with it disproves your assertion.

You continue to blame the person doing it, when the problem actually started by some ignorant individual calling the police because of a legal activity.
Blame them, not the guy acting legally.


----------



## omegabrock

Kauboy said:


> A "non-issue" means that nobody has an issue with it.
> The fact that someone had an issue with it disproves your assertion.
> 
> You continue to blame the person doing it, when the problem actually started by some ignorant individual calling the police because of a legal activity.
> Blame them, not the guy acting legally.


i agree 100% with statement. if there was no issue then there would still not be an issue. the only problem i see is making a private business a political battleground because of it. even if it was socially acceptable by the masses and nobody was even hassled by random LEO's, a private business has the sole right to not allow firearms on their property. anybody can argue against that but if if a business owner sees a firearm and says they want you to leave, you have to leave or you can be arrested for trespassing.

point being, take it to the politicians...not the businesses


----------



## Seneca

We can run this in circles until the wheels fall off and still not agree. I enjoyed the debate. :lol:
Want to open carry? I support the right, I just don't agree with flaunting it. I can see it going away, because there are those among us who simply cannot leave well enough alone. Given that, how long do you think it will be before they start writing laws to make open carry the same as brandishing. It's coming...you know it is...


----------



## Kauboy

Seneca said:


> We can run this in circles until the wheels fall off and still not agree. I enjoyed the debate. :lol:
> Want to open carry? I support the right, I just don't agree with flaunting it. I can see it going away, because there are those among us who simply cannot leave well enough alone. Given that, how long do you think it will be before they start writing laws to make open carry the same as brandishing. It's coming...you know it is...


They did.
That's how states lost the ability to carry handguns, openly or otherwise.
Now we are fighting back, and so far, most allow concealed.
I feel the progress is moving in the right direction.


----------



## Lucky Jim

Here in England we've always had "Breach of the Peace" laws for 700 years which allows the cops to arrest and charge anybody who--in their opinion-- is disturbing the peace by upsetting people in the street in any way, such as loud drunks or crackheads etc, especially if passersby are feeling "threatened" by them.

I don't know if America has got such a law (yet), but I'm amazed the US cops are letting open-carriers get off scot-free even though they're upsetting citizens and kids by parading around with guns..

_WIKI- "..[in Britain] modern authority defines a breach of the peace as existing whether harm is actually done, or is likely to be done, to a person or his property, *or a person is in fear of being harmed *through an assault, an affray, a riot, an unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance"_
Breach of the peace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Seneca

It was a non issue because the majority of people really never questioned the right, however it's possible that a few may have. I'll give you that, one. I believe that most people who take exception to seeing a firearm in the public, and there are a lot of them...see it as a person with a firearm issue. Not as a person exercising their rights issue. So by making open carry an issue and bringing it to the fore front, we have in one fell swoop accomplished, a shift in focus from the individual to the right. Nice...


----------



## Slippy

Bit by bit, inch by inch, the fools that We The People have elected choose regulation over Liberty.


----------

