Fine....but who gets to define idiot? Nancy Pelosi? We'd all be in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911marine
Printable View
Fine....but who gets to define idiot? Nancy Pelosi? We'd all be in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911marine
IMO Americans that set Old Glory on fire needs themselves to be set on fire. :firedevil: If you don't like the USA as my mother would say when I was 3 "use your words".
As for the guy in the article...He is the type of gun owning person who puts forth a bad image of we responsible and law abiding gun owners. There was no need for his actions.
IMO he has a child mentality for the law. Sort of like when the parent says you better not touch your brother so you instead wave your hands around his head and say "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!". You may not be touching him but the annoyance will still get you a swat. :twak:
This isn't the first occurrence. He was walking down the street with a percussion cap pistol in hand. He was stopped by police. You pull that **** here in Ohio and you are in a heap of trouble. The only time you should be holding your gun in your hand is if you intend to use it. You will be hit with a brandishing charge minimum.
Painting the muzzle of a firearm blaze orange, making it appear to be a toy, is not a good sign. Something is very wrong with this guy.
+1 :congrats:Quote:
Originally Posted by obxned
I am just tired of hearing about this guy. He went about a right thing the wrong way.
I have mixed feelings about pulling his permit, but if I was the judge I think I would pull em!!:aargh4:
No he wasn't in strict compliance the ordinance allows an ARMY of NAVY pistol. These are black powder replicas of models from the 1800's I believe. He was carrying an AK-47 type pistol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treo
As far as painting the tip orange, this may not be illegal but since toys are required to be painted orange I would think it should be illegal. At worse it might cause an officer to hesitate to shoot because he is unsure if a suspect is armed with a toy.
He was not (as has been pointed out numerous times) carrying an AK in Belle Mead.Quote:
Originally Posted by TedBeau
There was an earlier incident in which he was carrying (slung) an AK pistol in a state park and was accosted by a ranger.
Also...should anyone who does something with which you don't agree lose their permit?
Or, he is very calculating about reaching his goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by obxned
Progress gets made by difficult people. I gets made by gadflys and questioners. It gets made by people who as the Tea Party folks make noise (much as I don't agree with them). It gets made by flag burners as well when they raise our collective consciousness to an injustice. It gets made by kids who wear arm bands to school and deliberately violate some dress codes that are moronic and designed to stifle free speech.
I don't think there's a thing wrong with the guy. I do think he is absolutely calculating in the way he is going about tweaking the authorities on hypocritical gun laws.
Many in the civil rights era of the late 50s and early 60s warned that things were being pushed too far too fast; that there would be an inevitable backlash, that demonstrators and protesters, and freedom riders, would keep justice from coming about instead of pushing justice forward.
Maybe the guy is a deranged idiot, but he has not been arrested or charged, and there appears to be no basis for lifting his license other than retribution for giving some people in authority a red face.
As for painting the tip of the gun red, that was wrong, but it is apparently mostly custom and not law that real guns should not have the barrel tip painted red. There is a big difference between a law that says toy guns must have the barrel tip painted red, and a law that says real guns must not have the barrel tip painted red.
I want him pilloried for aiding and abetting the Brady Bunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treo
As has been posted several times on this forum the law in Belle Meade Tn. specificially restricts carry to an Army or Navy pistol and specifies that it must be carried in the hand .
The guy was in strict compliance W/ the city ordinance how is that wrong?
This goes back to my thread about trusting other people W/ guns. This guy didn't break any law and there are people here on a "pro gun" website that want him pilloried. Brady ain't our worst enemy , we are
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaxMentis
Sorry PaxMentis, but your question/statement is completely and totally specious to an incredible degree: There is obviously a huge difference between what this cretin did as compared to whether we would agree that someone should lose his CCW because he was carrying/not carrying a chambered round, or CCW'ing with a mouse gun, or carrying/not carrying OC spray, or using/not using his manual safety, or some other equally its-really-none-of-our-personal-business opinions, since these issues do not directly affect us, nor do they affect our privilege to carry a concealed weapon.
Certainly, even with your declared Pax Mentis (peace of mind), you must see the difference?
-Bill :tired:
PS: In other words, this gun toting idiot's behavior, and those like him (if there are any others this clueless), are a black eye to us all in the mind of the average citizen (and the typical middle-of-the-road politician). Not good. :twak:
Exactly. If he indeed broke a law that results in revocation of the CCP, then charge him, prosecute, and let the chips fall where they may. In the absence of having objective criteria that are consistently enforced, a person might not like what the deciding entity doesn't agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaxMentis
Hypothetical Example: Let's say that an average law-abiding citizen named Fred is a member of a public forum and he posts pictures of silhouette targets he has shot and ballistic tests he has conducted in gelletin. Both of these activities are legal. What would stop the entity (perhaps an anti 2A is now in that position) getting to decide with no objective criteria that since Fred practices shooting personlike shapes and has researched varying types and calibers of rounds in personlike gel that he has a desire to shoot a person, is dangerous to society, and should not have a CCP? He has broken no law, but in the opinion of the person deciding absent objective criteria, they think he is dangerous. Give an inch, and they will take a mile. It isn't that far of a leap...once a line is crossed, who gets to decide where it is re-drawn?
Another hypothetical example: Have you ever had a speeding ticket? What would keep an anti 2A entity in a position to decide from saying, "Either this person lacks the intelligence to or consciously chose to break a simple law such as speed limit that is posted every quarter mile. Therefore, how can they be trusted to know and obey the very serious laws regarding firearms and defense and shouldn't have a CCP." Again, give an inch, and they can take a mile. It isn't far fetched for some antis to make such a leap.
If you think these are far fetched hypothetical examples, remember that in this situation he was open carrying....and they took his concealed carry permit. That would still not prevent him from continuing to OC. One is not related to the other. Something to think about.
Said difference is entirely in your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Calley
I personally think that people like youself who are willing to accept the assertion that carrying a gun is a privelege validly subject to bureaucratic whim are far more dangerous to the 2nd Amendment than anyone who carries a gun perceived as "evil" or who points out the foolishness of an archaic law by following it.
The "cretins" who believe that we must be careful not to offend the tender sensitivities of of those who would attempt to deny our rights are incredibly short-sighted and have no appreciation for (or understanding of) the lessons that history teaches.
Mr. Embody acted strictly W/ in the law in both incidents. There's nothing in either story that suggests that he threatened or endangered anyone.
I don't see any reason to revoke his permit. Either the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or it shall
Which is it?
This guy's actions could have easily been that of an Anti and y'all would be ripping him on this forum. (not that most of y'all aren't) Imagine if he were an Anti and did the same things and went on an Anti forum and got applauded for bringing guns in a negative light.
Then, this forum would have gotten hold of it and rip him. But because he poses as a gun rights advocate, his **** don't stink. I'm pro-firearms but I'm also anti-stupidity.
We had an open carry group here in michigan go into a local ponderosa, one of them had an AR15 across his back. Now its legal, but come on. Imagine sitting there with your daughter and a guy walks in with an AR, to be honest I might have taken him out. This guy is no different. Rights are rights, but common sense should play a part here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treo