I believe this will be my last post in this thread. It's alright if you disagree with me. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree.
It's just that we commonly see pistol-caliber rounds being commonly carried, but that doesn't make other rounds unwarranted. The goal's the same: justifiable defense against violent crime.
The Israelis, by and large, survive such small-arms attacks because of the devastating return fire they're able to bring to bear on assailants who attempt such things.
Too bad in the USA we're not 90% armed in just such a manner. It's all but certain the overall rate of such attacks would plummet, if it were all but certain nearly all of them would utterly fail with the utter destruction of the assailant(s).
Seems to me that being upstanding, self-sufficient, able to defend oneself and others against crime is responsible.
Seems to me that bowing to fears of an armed upstanding populace merely because some fear it doesn't equate to being responsible. At best, it's reactionary. At worst, it's no longer being free.
When it comes right down to it, a citizen has a right to bear arms just like any other citizen ... up to the point when he/she dares harm another. Unless that occurs, the person hasn't committed a crime. Not because of pigmentation, nor clothing choice.
I will admit that painting the tip orange was a dumb thing to do, but it may well make this guy's case. He could easily argue that he painted the tip orange to AVOID a confrontation, by making people think it was merely an airsoft gun or something similar. This may very well be the case, and I CAN see why someone would do it. What I can't see is why people feel the need to rip this guy a new one for staying well within the boundaries of the law. It's ridiculous, and it makes me sick to see so many people separated by something so stupid. Especially in this day and age, when we need to stand united more than ever.
This will be my last post on the subject as I don't want to derail the thread. While I do respect the opinion of others on just about any subject, this is one that I just can't get my head around and I'll just agree to disagree on the subject and this guys actions in particular. It's still my opinion that he's a terrible spokesman for gun ownership and carry due to his decision to flaunt his "pistol" in such a flamboyant manner. I understand that he has since lost his carry permit and I think that is funny as hell! :banana: I guess now if he tries something like this, he'll find a special room with his name one it and free of charge, along with time to think on just how good his decision making skills are.
Good day all! :bier:
I've been skimming through this post and maybe I'm missing something. The guy does something perfectly legal, knowing it would attract due attention. The park ranger disarms him (perfectly legal and prudent), verifies the firearm is carried legally, and releases the individual. No where in the article does it mention any arrest or ride to jail, saying only that he was "detained." No mention of any frisking.
So what's the big issue, other than the guy wants attention? So does the person with tattoos all over. So does the guy who drives the fancy car with big wheels. So do a lot of people who...
Would this be any different, as to "violations" of 2A and 4A, if an LEO disarmed and detained any of us until we produced the required CC license (if required by law)?
Was this guy's actions smart? NO, but legally carrying a firearm doesn't require one to be "smart," or many of us on the forum might be banned from carrying. But maybe sometimes it takes something viewed as stupid to press home a point: Legal is legal and to disallow someting legal because we think it's stupid is the first step in disallowing something that's legal. And then--where does it stop? What legality is stripped next?
Maybe dumping tea into Boston Harbor was stupid. Maybe standing boldly in the face of an armed force was stupid. Sometimes it takes something stupid to accomplish something important.
That is the point.
As far a a LEO detaining you until you produce a CCP if required. You are being detained until you present documents that are required by law. It is not at the whim of a LEO
Open carrying just too provoke ignores the entire point of carrying in the first place: self-protection. All else is secondary.
Open carrying where it is legal (I'm not getting into the RKBA issue that States/Federal Government should not be regulating the 2nd Amendment) and then being asked to produce identification (otherwise being detained for any other reason when being so detained is a violation of the law) is offensive.
I understand the entire provocation argument but at the end of the day if it is legal then it is legal.
I'm sorry if I bother others with my stand. This gentleman might deserve to be called out, ridiculed, protested or whatever but it is not an issue for the Government if no law was broken. If they can abuse the rights of a man who we might not like could they not also abuse ours if they so desire?
There is a post running right now with a kid on top of a dead deer. Most folks think that is cute. How does that portray hunters? Makes them look like they do not care about wildlife nor respect it.
Did the Police know this before he was detained? Do we want the Government to be able to detain a citizen on the side of the road while they go search for proof of intent?Quote: