Gunman vowings to continue carrying AK-47 to parks draws ire from open carry advocates

[suntzu]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu,

see if you can have the Ranger arrested by going down to the county courthouse in the county where you had the ranger cop wannabe pull a shotgun on you and thereby threaten your life with it and ask to file this document which is an Affidavit of Complaint--it's a criminal complaint against the ranger--and you should be able to file it at the county court house in General Sessions or Circuit Court.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/geninfo/publications/Forms/TrialCourtForms/11122004/PDF/G.S.%20CRIMINAL%20AFFIDAVIT%20OF%20COMPLAINT.pdf


You would be the Affiant as the party filing the complaint, and if you have witnesses OR AUDIO then make you a copy and take the copy of the audio with you--you will need it.

I have two complaints in right now. One to the State Parks and another to Metro Nashville IA. I had a lieutenant call me today from Metro who wanted to verify my previous complaint. AFAIK they are taking this seiously. If they do not I thank you for the complaint form and may follow up that way. Thanks.

What I have given you isn't a link to a "complaint form" as we know it--it is the form you want to ask for if you actually want to have the ranger arrested--you just have to go down to the General Sessions or Circuit Court clerk and tell them you want to file an affidavit of complaint--once that is done a warrant or criminal summons may be issued against the Ranger which the Sheriffs office will have to serve, and either the ranger will arrested and taken to the county jail or will be summoned to criminal court for an arraignment on the charges you allege under oath before the Clerk.

Yeah, cuz that'll happen... Even if he raped Baby Jesus with the leg of a broken lawn chair, they'd do jack squat.

and that is when you hold an OC event in the park/city, talk to the FBI and DOJ about the treatment, call your Congressman and complaint about the treatment by the police and rangers, file a lawsuit, and with any future OC event- get the local news to cover the event---and let them see that the gun owners of Tennessee/USA simply won't stand by and take this abuse anymore. We're not the enemy.

Don't give the park/city any heads up on any future OC event--simply do it without prior notice to them.

And at least they will know that he just did not sit quietly by and say BOHICA.

The police are not above the law--they like to think they are, but they're not--they can be charged and arrested just like anyone else can.

 

[jahwarrior]

imported post

so much for you open carry guys standing up for the right of the people to bear, and bare, arms. i guess you only support the right just as long as the firearm in question isn't a tacky looking AK variant.

my only issue is that he OCd some piece of crap AK pistol, which are as dumb as AR pistols. otherwise, my hat's off to him.

you guys are some of the most uptight, hypocritical, elitist morons i've seen on a forum. i'm also a member of www.thehighroad.org, so that's saying alot. you jump all over me because i curse out a PA park ranger, you jump all over this guy for carrying a tacky pistol, you jump all over anyone who doesn't conform to your idea of what a gun carrier should look or act like. i'm surprised you don't distance yourself from black or hispanic gun carriers, at this point, cuz we all gangsta lookin', an' shit.

let me clue you guys in, yet again: there is no mold to define a typical armed citizen. the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner we, as a group, can be a unified force to affect change. until then, you all might as well sit around, with your collective thumbs up your asses.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

every OC'er needs to be united--either you stand up for OC or you only stand up for OC when it conforms to your own ideas.

OC is OC--I can only imagine what everyone would think if we could OC long guns here like they can in AZ.....

 

[Blackburn]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

every OC'er needs to be united--either you stand up for OC or you only stand up for OC when it conforms to your own ideas.

OC is OC--I can only imagine what everyone would think if we could OC long guns here like they can in AZ.....

Yeah. You wonder why other liberal type agendas manage to keep moving?

They don't eat their own at every opportunity to satisfy their George Costanza syndrome, something most gun owning guys over 30 seem to suffer from.

Instead, they stick together for each other no matter what they've done.

We could learn a lot from their methods. Well, we could, if more of the people on our side were on the right side of the bell curve when it comes to intelligence and abstract thinking ability.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

What I have given you isn't a link to a "complaint form" as we know it--it is the form you want to ask for if you actually want to have the ranger arrested--you just have to go down to the General Sessions or Circuit Court clerk and tell them you want to file an affidavit of complaint--once that is done a warrant or criminal summons may be issued against the Ranger which the Sheriffs office will have to serve, and either the ranger will arrested and taken to the county jail or will be summoned to criminal court for an arraignment on the charges you allege under oath before the Clerk.

I'd need to talk with an attorney before I do that. I'd also like to have my complaints addressed before I talk to a lawyer.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Blackburn wrote:

They don't eat their own at every opportunity to satisfy their George Costanza syndrome, something most gun owning guys over 30 seem to suffer from.

This is an interesting point. Liberals aren't smart enough to have differing ideas, so they are always in lockstep...

 

[Blackburn]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Blackburn wrote:

They don't eat their own at every opportunity to satisfy their George Costanza syndrome, something most gun owning guys over 30 seem to suffer from.

This is an interesting point. Liberals aren't smart enough to have differing ideas, so they are always in lockstep...

Following your 'logic' (and I use the term loosely), most of the lockstep posters in this thread are Liberals.

It is apparent that you don't support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.

 

[B94]

imported post

Gun owners - If a gun owner carries his choice of weapon legally, you should support him even if you would choose not to do the same.

The gun owners that won’t support other gun owners that aren’t breaking any laws while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights are HALF/SHEEP.

Some of you HALF/SHEEP need to decide if you support the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment or not.

If the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment is to be upheld gun owners need to unite!

Your right was already lost if you won’t legally carry for fear of what the sheep will do.

As long as kwikrnu is not breaking any laws I’m 100% in support of him.

Either the sheep win or the 2nd Amendment will win.

　

PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

 

[Blackburn]

imported post

B94 wrote:

Gun owners - If a gun owner carries his choice of weapon legally, you should support him even if you would choose not to do the same.

The gun owners that won’t support other gun owners that aren’t breaking any laws while exercising their 2nd Amendment rights are HALF/SHEEP.

Some of you HALF/SHEEP need to decide if you support the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment or not.

If the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment is to be upheld gun owners need to unite!

Your right was already lost if you won’t legally carry for fear of what the sheep will do.

As long as kwikrnu is not breaking any laws I’m 100% in support of him.

Either the sheep win or the 2nd Amendment will win.

　

PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT - Live Free or Die

Couldn't have said it better myself. :celebrate

 

[fenderfreek]

imported post

I think very few people are patently against what he's doing - a lot of you miss the point and fail to see that it is the INTENT that is really being criticized here.

To responsible people, carrying a gun is not for the purpose of causing confrontations - it is for avoiding and ending those that are beyond your control.

Only to a childlike mind is a weapon something to be used in this manner. Had he simply carried it for legitimate reasons, which would have even included "because I can", that would have been reasonable, but he could not leave it at that. He wanted trouble - and he got it.

His STATED INTENT was to draw negative attention to himself. That is completely irresponsible, and that is why people are jumping all over this guy. It has nothing to do with what he was carrying and EVERYTHING to do with his childish intent in doing so.

 

[Pecker]

imported post

As a guy who likes to ride motorcycles occasionally, this incident reminds me of a saying.

"He was right, dead right, as he sped along, But he's just as dead as if he were wrong." The quote was under an illustration of a motorcycle rider who stood his ground in his lane and didn't let a car merge into traffic because the cycle rider had the right of way.

The thing is, yeah, the guy on the bike was completely in the right. He wasn't the one breaking any laws, but he's the one with the most to lose by exercising his right. The driver in the car had little to lose in a collision with a motorcycle.

This guy didn't break any laws by OCing his AK, was completely within his rights. However, he had so much to risk. Get a cop having a bad day and an itchy trigger finger out in the middle of a state park with no witnesses and he could have easily been killed in what inevitably ruled a justifiable homicide by the cop. The fact that he only was detained for 2.5 hours was probably 2 or 3 down the list for best possible outcomes.

Also, by actually exercising his right in this manner, its such bad publicity that the TN state legislature might actually revisit the "Open Carry" provisions and readdress them. The saying "a right un-exercised is a right lost" actually runs the opposite way at times. By exercising your right, you can highlight the unintended consequences. The state legislature likely didn't intend for regular OCing of AK an AR pistol variants. Instead of saving this right for when a national emergency may call for its implementation, you may lose the right very quickly when the state legislature meets up to "close this loophole."

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

fenderfreek wrote:

I think very few people are patently against what he's doing - a lot of you miss the point and fail to see that it is the INTENT that is really being criticized here.

To responsible people, carrying a gun is not for the purpose of causing confrontations - it is for avoiding and ending those that are beyond your control.

Only to a childlike mind is a weapon something to be used in this manner. Had he simply carried it for legitimate reasons, which would have even included "because I can", that would have been reasonable, but he could not leave it at that. He wanted trouble - and he got it.

His STATED INTENT was to draw negative attention to himself. That is completely irresponsible, and that is why people are jumping all over this guy. It has nothing to do with what he was carrying and EVERYTHING to do with his childish intent in doing so.

Thank you and WELCOME to the discussion. I can see you understand the problem.

People do not have to accept whole cloth and monolithically the acts of others. It is possible for people to support the full exercise of the basic right and still be critical of specific elements of behavior or intent. Any other path leads to an unacceptable destination.

Why? Because this is where we wind up-

How many here support FULLY and without reservation, Seung-Hui Cho in all aspects of what he did. Setting aside the actual shootings, he made his intent to do this sort of thing fairly clear before he did it. Everything he did was legal, right up to the moment he entered the campus and shot his first victim. Are people here prepared to say they support him and everything he did under the mantra of support of TSA? Remember you can't caveat this with I support his right to .... BUT. You have to swallow it whole. If you say you can't, or you want to critique any part of what he did then you are NOT a REAL supporter of TSA and the right to arms.

Well boys and girls, it is NOT a black and white world. Thinking people are allowed to be full fledged ardent supporters of TSA and still be discriminating as to the INTENT of the person, or any ACTS that person may commit related to the use of a firearm. If not then you MUST toss out TFA and support Cho and every other nut case with a gun in anything they have done or might do. Frankly I refuse to do that.

Using the "Can't criticize intent or acts" theorem people here are espousing, people must also stop criticizing others for having their finger on the trigger at the wrong time, unguarded triggers, cocked and unlocked carry, passing around uncleared weapons, poor muzzle control and a lot of other things people now preach. After all these things are all legal too, and we all have to support EVERYTHING a person does to be "true" supporters of TSA, no matter the intent, the skill, or the safety of the acts involved RIGHT?

For the record it is not at all clear yet that camouflaging the AK to look like an air-soft is in fact legal. If this guy had simply strapped on his firearm, and gone for a walk in the park there would be no issue. But a little research has shown that is NOT what he did. I do not support his INTENT and therefore I do not support what he did. If that offends his supporters, well ... that just too bad.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Cho.

This is a lame straw man argument.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Cho.

This is a lame straw man argument.

+10 Agent.

What law did Kwikrnu break, exactly??

I support an American's right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't care if it is unorthodox. Don't care about the color of his gun barrel or the clothes he wears or the "scariness" of his chosen firearm. If he is legal, he is OK.

If he is legal, he is a Law abidingcitizen (LAC), not a bad guy.

Sorry if I offended some with the half sheeple comment, but I think it is quite accurate.

OCers that try to put reasonable caveats on legal behavior sound a lot like:

1) the CCers that get pissed because OC will "ruin it" for them

or

2) the Brady Bunch in placing their own arbitrary reasonable limits on the freedom and liberty of others.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Cho.

This is a lame straw man argument.

No its isn't. You just don't like the rock or the hard place this puts absolutists between.

In an absolute world there can be no in between, either you support TSA or you don't. If you do not recognize that absolutist thinking leads to outrageous places then you are just being hypocritical. These are not straw man examples, every one of these guys HAD to be exercising their rights under TSA as citizens to perpetrate the acts they committed. Either you support that or you don't. Moreover under absolution theory you cannot criticize their intent, or any acts they may commit while exercising their rights under TSA.

Maybe you would prefer the example of Nidal Hasan. He set off alarms in the counter terrorism world BEFORE his mass murder of innocent soldiers. But right up until he entered that base and started shooting EVERYTHING he did was perfectly legal. Do you support what he did monolithically?

Or maybe Jason Michael Hamilton is a more comfortable example for you, because he did not actually kill anyone. Everything he did was legal right up until he entered the campus ad started shooting.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable joining the real world and allow that people may recognize that he had a right to exercise his Constitutional rights to own and carry a firearm but certain ACTS cannot be supported because of the INTENT, and that you do not support people who commit such acts.

If you cannot see that absolutism, and blind support of a cause without critical thought leads to the wrong place I feel sorry for you. There were a lot of absolutists in Russia in 1917 too and we know how that turned out.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

I support an American's right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't care if it is unorthodox. Don't care about the color of his gun barrel or the clothes he wears or the "scariness" of his chosen firearm. If he is legal, he is OK.

One problem with this view is that the scope of the right to keep and bear arms is still being determinedbyjudges, juries, politicians, and popular opinion - in fact, the contours of this right are in their infancy.

To normalize gun ownership and carry, somthing still perceived by many as abnormal and anti-social, what we needfrom open carriers is for them to be good ambassadors for gun ownership, not people who like to play games with police or execute scary antics even if at that moment their conduct is arguably legal - the law changes over time to accomodate experience - legal scary antics often lead to new and usually blunt laws to restrict conduct - that's the way public policy works.

As a nation we are slowly moving toward acceptance of responsible citizen gun carry in public life - let's keep it moving in the right direction by looking and acting like responsible upstanding citizens. Open carriers should look and act such that after people see them, talk to them, do business with them, etc., even if they do see their holstered sidearm, find it hard to have anything negative to say about them even if they are very anti-gun people - open carriers should be otherwise indistinguishable from other responsbile citizens who are not open carrying, that's how we advance normalization of gun carry - its an information war that we have been winning so far.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Cho.

This is a lame straw man argument.

No its isn't. You just don't like the rock or the hard place this puts absolutists between.

In an absolute world there can be no in between, either you support TSA or you don't. If you do not recognize that absolutist thinking leads to outrageous places then you are just being hypocritical. These are not straw man examples, every one of these guys HAD to be exercising their rights under TSA as citizens to perpetrate the acts they committed. Either you support that or you don't. Moreover under absolution theory you cannot criticize their intent, or any acts they may commit while exercising their rights under TSA.

Maybe you would prefer the example of Nidal Hasan. He set off alarms in the counter terrorism world BEFORE his mass murder of innocent soldiers. But right up until he entered that base and started shooting EVERYTHING he did was perfectly legal. Do you support what he did monolithically?

Or maybe Jason Michael Hamilton is a more comfortable example for you, because he did not actually kill anyone. Everything he did was legal right up until he entered the campus ad started shooting.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable joining the real world and allow that people may recognize that he had a right to exercise his Constitutional rights to own and carry a firearm but certain ACTS cannot be supported because of the INTENT, and that you do not support people who commit such acts.

If you cannot see that absolutism, and blind support of a cause without critical thought leads to the wrong place I feel sorry for you. There were a lot of absolutists in Russia in 1917 too and we know how that turned out.

There were a lot of absolutists in Lexington and Concord as well as Virginia in 1775.

They had a radical absolutist concept called Lex Rex. The law is King. Living under Rex Lex gave the tyrannical government abusive power.

Lex Rex is what we are preaching. It might not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.

The comparison of Kwirnu to murderers is a straw man, because scary firearms, camo clothing and painted barrels don't kill people. People kill people. Each of your straw man arguments compares the legal behavior of Kwikrnu to the illegal behavior of bad guys.

Kwikrnu = LAC. No bashing of him is warranted, unless you buy into half sheeple ideas.

 

[RussP]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Agent19 wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Cho.

This is a lame straw man argument.

No its isn't. You just don't like the rock or the hard place this puts absolutists between.

In an absolute world there can be no in between, either you support TSA or you don't. If you do not recognize that absolutist thinking leads to outrageous places then you are just being hypocritical. These are not straw man examples, every one of these guys HAD to be exercising their rights under TSA as citizens to perpetrate the acts they committed. Either you support that or you don't. Moreover under absolution theory you cannot criticize their intent, or any acts they may commit while exercising their rights under TSA.

Maybe you would prefer the example of Nidal Hasan. He set off alarms in the counter terrorism world BEFORE his mass murder of innocent soldiers. But right up until he entered that base and started shooting EVERYTHING he did was perfectly legal. Do you support what he did monolithically?

Or maybe Jason Michael Hamilton is a more comfortable example for you, because he did not actually kill anyone. Everything he did was legal right up until he entered the campus ad started shooting.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable joining the real world and allow that people may recognize that he had a right to exercise his Constitutional rights to own and carry a firearm but certain ACTS cannot be supported because of the INTENT, and that you do not support people who commit such acts.

If you cannot see that absolutism, and blind support of a cause without critical thought leads to the wrong place I feel sorry for you. There were a lot of absolutists in Russia in 1917 too and we know how that turned out.

Another good post...

 

[Marco]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

.

The world isn't absolute and neither is my opinion but yours apparently is.
Comparing stupid but legal actions to mass murderers is lame.

By your same standards we all can be compared to those killers.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

...SNIP

There were a lot of absolutists in Lexington and Concord as well as Virginia in 1775.

They had a radical absolutist concept called Lex Rex.  The law is King.  Living under Rex Lex gave the tyrannical government abusive power.

Lex Rex is what we are preaching.  It might not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.

The comparison of Kwirnu to murderers is a straw man, because scary firearms, camo clothing and painted barrels don't kill people.  People kill people.  Each of your straw man arguments compares the legal behavior of Kwikrnu to the illegal behavior of bad guys.

Kwikrnu = LAC.  No bashing of him is warranted, unless you buy into half sheeple ideas.

Not true. In each case I cited the person was LAWFULLY in possession of a firearm. The cloths are irrelevant the paint is irrelevant, and it is you who keep dragging that in to the conversation not me.

The people who were here during the revolutionary war were NOT absolutists. They were careful and analytical thinkers. You don't have to read all of the history but you should try to read some of it.

I will agree that in an actual shooting war there is a certain absolutist mindset about killing the enemy. But that does not carry over into everyday life, and even in battle people do not kill everything in front of them. Drummers on either side during the revolution were not intentionally targeted as they were usually unarmed children. Regulars did not target officers on either side as this supposedly lead to disorder among the troops.

There was a lot of questioning going on back then. The revolutionary war arguably started on Boston Common March 5, 1770, fully five years BEFORE the Declaration of Independence was signed. There was a LOT of debate as to what should or should not have been done, and it took five years just to WRITE DOWN a list of grievances. Heck it took almost a year to pen the list after the shooting started in ernest in April 19, 1775.

Absolutists? Give me a break, it took until 1791 just to agree on the Constitution, and the Bill of rights was an after thought. Why? Because they HAD TO THINK ABOUT IT.

Try taking a look at the Federalist Papers, More to the point take a look at the ANTI-Federalist papers then tell me these people were absolutists.

No sir they were very thoughtful and measured and they would NOT support EVERY act of a person who wanted to carry a gun just because it was legal. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done.

I will remind you again, the Americas were NOT filled with absolutists in 1770, but Russia was in 1917, as was Germany in 1933.

Thankfully, I do not have to fall into your formation of locked minds, as it is my right to question, disagree, and speak out until absolutists like you have their way with the Constitution and start disappearing people in the night.