paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
I really wish that we wouldn't engage in trying to decide for other people which weapons are appropriate and which are not. That is what the antis do, and we should be better than that.
Exactly!
I really wish that we wouldn't engage in trying to decide for other people which weapons are appropriate and which are not. That is what the antis do, and we should be better than that.
I really wish that we wouldn't engage in trying to decide for other people which weapons are appropriate and which are not. That is what the antis do, and we should be better than that.
EDIT: To be clear, I do understand the negative publicity that kwikrnu's actions may cause (although I would suspect this is mainly in people who are already inclined to view guns negatively, or the "hunter" crowd), and I would certainly not take his path. However, just as I want society to respect my natural right to live as I see fit as long as I do not harm persons or property, I must extend that respect to others. We need to be consistent in principle, and that principle is SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Please explain this statement. When was quick the defender of anyone else's rights? Can you cite specifically where he stated he was fighting for anyone's rights besides his own?
I've followed kwik from the beginning and it all started out of greed and trying to pull a con for personal gain. Not about 2nd A rights or civil rights.
He read about a guy in New Mexico who was actually harassed by cops for open carry and was awarded $21,000.
Before he started attention whoring, can you cite where he stated that the state of TN was against open carry so he was going to do something about it?
He only claimed the state of TN was against open carry after the fact that he didn't get a payout like he had hoped he would so he claimed his rights were being oppressed to try and get people to agree with him.
He claimed the state of TN requiring a carry permit to carry a pistol was against his right to bear arms.
Can you cite where he was against carry permits before his was suspended? He had no problem with it before, it was only a problem after his was suspended.
kwikrnu said:Actually, we have a God given right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment recognizes the right. The Tennessee Constitution doesn't and saysmy God givenright may be regulated by the Legislature. Basically the Legislature took away my God given right and granted me a limited privilege in its place.
He bragged about getting a law taken off the books that kept people from open carrying in Belle Meade. The fact is, it was an out of date law that wasn't enforced. People who live there legally carry all the time. I have legally open carried there myself with no problems what so ever as have my friends who live there.
Can you cite where kwik complained about his rights being violated while openly carrying in Belle Meade before he went there to attract attention with the black powder pistol?
Actually can you cite for me anywhere that Belle Meade has arrested anyone for carrying a handgun after the state of TN started issuing carry permits? There has never been a case because it was never an issue.
Kwik found an old law and tried to exploit it in the hopes he could sue for personal gain. How is that in any way pro open carry or pro 2nd A?
He has made multiple claims that he feels it is all about him and his rights, not anyone else and their rights. As a matter of fact he even stated that he felt that if he didn't get what he wanted that he would work to ruin it for everyone else.
Now can you show me where other rights lobbyists have said that if they didn't get what they wanted that they would do their best to see that nobody had any rights?
How is that in any way, shape or form pro 2nd A, pro open carry or pro civil rights? It has been all about him from day one yet a very small handful of people rally behind him as if he is fighting for their rights in some way.
He even gloated about since he claimed to make case law about a TN leo not needing to sign off on form 1 or form 4 paperwork that he sent out copies of the case to local leo's to try and ruin other's chances at getting their paperwork signed. That's not the act of a gun rights lobbyist, that's the act of a spoiled child screaming that he didn't get what he wanted so he will just try and ruin it for everyone.
Again, you'll have to explain what you mean in this paragraph. You're saying it's a disgrace for people to disagree with a conman for trying to use the 2nd A rights of the people as a means to a quick payday?
Why should we agree with a man who goes out of his way to try and sue people for a quick buck?
When was any of his complaints an issue before he tried to swindle money from the city? Cite where he wanted to change how things were before his actions went south and didn't play out as he had hoped.
Leonard Stanni Embody is nothing more than a crook.
You see, that's what a conman who tried to swindle money from hard working tax payers in his community is, plain and simple.
The only difference is, he isn't smart enough to get away with it. Instead of getting money from the city, it has actually cost him money and time by way of paying for filing lawsuits, acquiring documents and hours upon hours of research online.
If anyone feels I'm incorrect in my judgment, please feel free to cite any proof that you have that Leonard is in fact a lobbyist for the people's rights.
But to set you straight, I have been collecting guns for 18-20 yrs so I don't look at them negatively. Also I've never hunted a day in my life. I'm not against it, it's just not something that interests me. But I do happen to own everything from belt feds to suppressors so it's safe to say I'm not average Joe blow who knows very little about guns.
I believe you're mistaken. He is viewed negatively due to his actions of trying to bring negative attention to himself and gun owners. Why else would he go on a forum and ask people their opinion on what gun would draw more attention? Before he went to Radnor Lake he asked around trying to find a gun that would draw the most attention because the 44 mag that he was carrying hadn't caused anyone to call the police on him and he wanted something to draw more attention. Does that sound like someone who is simply carrying for protection?
You try and make it seem like it was just his choice of gun that has caused "people who are already inclined to view guns negatively, or the "hunter" crowd" to view him in a negative light in which case you couldn't be further from the truth. It was his showboating, attention whoring...
...and not caring about hurting others rights that bring him negative attention from people like me.
But to set you straight, I have been collecting guns for 18-20 yrs so I don't look at them negatively. Also I've never hunted a day in my life. I'm not against it, it's just not something that interests me. But I do happen to own everything from belt feds to suppressors so it's safe to say I'm not average Joe blow who knows very little about guns.
A MODIFIED AK-47 as in cutting down the barrel and cutting off the stock would most certainly NOT be legal to carry in TN. Which is what started the mess at the State Park. Cops saw someone carrying a rifle unlawfully and acted accordingly.HvyMtl:
What is Legal is LEGAL!
A Modified AK-47 to have a Barrel of less than 12 Inches in Length is a Pistol, under Tennessee Law, AND with a HCP one CAN Openly Carry a Pistol in State Parks throughout Tennessee.
aadvark
A MODIFIED AK-47 as in cutting down the barrel and cutting off the stock would most certainly NOT be legal to carry in TN. Which is what started the mess at the State Park. Cops saw someone carrying a rifle unlawfully and acted accordingly.
Cops saw someone carrying a rifle unlawfully and acted accordingly.
A MODIFIED AK-47 as in cutting down the barrel and cutting off the stock would most certainly NOT be legal to carry in TN. Which is what started the mess at the State Park. Cops saw someone carrying a rifle unlawfully and acted accordingly.
...wouldn't it have made more sense to approach him calmly and determine whether or not the weapon was legal before pointing a shotgun at him and conducting a felony stop?
A couple things you may not be aware of.Wrong. The cops saw someone carrying a weapon of a type they could not correctly determine, and overreacted. Even if the LEO's legitimate suspicion was that he was carrying a rifle (although I doubt that your average street LEO knows the specifics of the different treatment of the law with respect to long guns and handguns), since kwikrnu was not acting suspiciously, recklessly or dangerously, wouldn't it have made more sense to approach him calmly and determine whether or not the weapon was legal before pointing a pistol at him? It is the same principle as someone OC'ing in a state that supposedly requires a license to OC...the cop has to approach the situation from the standpoint that the citizen is acting lawfully unless there is RAS to believe otherwise. However, this goes back to the militarized mindset of modern law enforcement: instead of citizens with rights to be protected, we are increasingly being treated as potential enemy combatants on a 360-degree battlefield by police who act more like an occupying army than peace officers.
A couple things you may not be aware of.
FACTS:
1) There is no RIGHT to carry a firearm in TN. It is a State granted privilege.
2) Carrying a gun in TN is unlawful. PERIOD. Having a permit is a defense to that crime..
3) Kwik moved his slung firearm from back to front immediately before encountering the first ranger.
4) Rifle carry in TN is unlawful even with a permit.
5) Carrying a "sawed off rifle" is unlawful in TN.
OPINION:
1) The first ranger was not comfortable arguing with a man dressed as Kwik was with a firearm that might defeat his soft armor and called for backup and followed him.
2) If Kwik had been carrying a properly holstered handgun we would not be having these discussions.
It is not a recognized right.1. Bullcrap. From the TN Constitutuion "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
In TN it does not matter. LE may stop anyone with a firearm and can even arrest them if they want. Not all states are this way. In GA a lack of permit is an element of the crime not the other way around.2. Kwik had a permit.
Goes to what he might be planning or to his possible mental issues (I am not saying he has any but this would be some good evidence.)"Kwik moved his slung firearm from back to front immediately before encountering the first ranger."3. Who cares?
The rangers and cops did not know that.4. It is an AK 47 pistol. Designed as such, sold as such.
5. It's not a modified rifle.
It is not a recognized right.
In TN it does not matter. LE may stop anyone with a firearm and can even arrest them if they want. Not all states are this way. In GA a lack of permit is an element of the crime not the other way around.
Goes to what he might be planning or to his possible mental issues (I am not saying he has any but this would be some good evidence.)
The rangers and cops did not know that.
It was NOT verified as a pistol. Kwik told the ranger it was a pistol. The ranger basically agreed with him to avoid a confrontation with someone who outgunned him big time, let him continue down the path, called in backup and followed him. It was not verified that it was a handgun until the ATF was called.OK, once again, your explanation covers the 1st Ranger encounter, not the 2nd one. By the time the 2nd Ranger was encountered,permit was checked, pistol was verified as a pistol, not a modified rifle.
The bottom line is that Kwik PLANNED this encounter and it went exactly how he planned it. (Not an opinion...This has been admitted to.)
This country is founded on individual rights. By exercising his individual rights within the limitations of the law, he is conducting himself in a constitutional manner.
Should his rights be infringed, as an individual, he has the right to address his government for grievances, up to, and including, monetary compensation.
I have likewise followed, and even corresponded with Leonard privately about these issues since day #1.
Your commentary is nothing but the same hyperbole and fear generation espoused by who place limitations on rights based on personal comfort and not rational thought. Frankly, it's getting boring.
This proves you were not, "There at the beginning". St. John occurred AFTER Leonard began engaging in his various 2A activities.
He has made various comments that the HCP system is not constitutional, and in violation of his rights. No cite is needed because that is common knowledge.
If you are incapable or unwilling to source the many places he has stated such, I might then make an effort to show you. Shouldn't have to though if you have, "Been following Leonard since the beginning."
He had made plenty of commentary that the HCP system was unconstitutional prior to Bell Meade, and Radnor Lake.
This is prior to his HCP getting revoked:
Located here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...cause-cops-don-t-know-definition-pistol/page7
Which makes it ok, for this loophole law to exist and be used at an officers discretion. That is what you are implying.
Due to the sheer laziness of legislators, and the shirking of duty by law enforcement, the law existed, and was not enforced.
That's the truth of the matter.
I would say his test was to see if Law Enforcement or the city of Bell Meade in general, was capable of abiding by the confines of the law. He acted legally, and indeed was not the one who created a dangerous situation, as a self proclaimed "NRA Pistol Trainer and firearms enthusiast" pointed a loaded pistol at oncoming traffic and a country club for over a minute.
I guess law enforcement should have the express liberty to enforce laws without equity, and at their own behest.
It addresses the lesser approached facet of an uneducated police force, and the fact that they typically do not even know the laws they are meant to enforce. It also clarified that law enforcement is not necessarily the "safest place" for a handgun to be.
If he is the only one who will look after HIS rights, and after listening to your hyperbole and fear mongering for months and months, why SHOULD he exhibit concern for YOUR rights?
You are incapable of processing the reality that this country is founded on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not collective.
Organizations by design draw their support/power from the "people". Using this as an example of what is "right" in the face of a single person protecting their individual rights, displays a lack of equity, and frankly a lack of knowledge of the principles on which this nation was founded.
You are claiming that because he does not represent others, like an organization would, that he is inherently wrong.
Shame he will not kowtow to his organized masters. Right?
Thank you for referring to the "very small" handful. Irregardless of the fact that many have bailed because they are tired of hearing the same diatribe, fear mongering, and bias towards collective rights that you and your friends espouse.
There are tons of threads where you will notice a multitude of people supporting Leonard, yet repeated, uncountable threads of the same old song, from the same old detractors, over and over again.
Usually, Leonards supporter say their piece, then move on.
There's no need for this same old tired crap over and over again as the detractors have seen as necessary.
Not only is this such a poor attempt at grammar that I am compelled not to respond to it, but the claim and the purported light it casts on Leonard is hilarious.
It is incumbent upon LEO to know the laws and their internal policies. There is nothing Leonard could do from the outside that would affect their processing, unless they were stupid enough to let it happen.
I like your inference that Leonard is a conman without him being here to back himself up.
Must have summed up all of your bravery to do that.
Sue "people" for a quick buck? You mean sue LEA and state agencies that are acting in an unconstitutional manner?
Do you call up law enforcement to let them know you will be conducting yourself in a legal and constitutional manner during the discourse of your day?
-He respected the park law, and waited for it to be repealed before carrying in the park.
-He respected the HCP process, even though he felt it was unconstitutional prior.
-He respected the limitation on firearm choice, and chose to operate within the law.
-He respected the requests of the park ranger, and was compliant, polite, and courteous with him.
-He stopped in Bell Meade when directed.
-He wore a reflective vest as mandated. ("Aw its a shame I can't cite him for not having a vest".)
-He carried as specifically mandated by Bell Meade law.
Wow. What a brave guy. So brave he can call another man a crook when the other man has no means of defending himself against.
Big balls.
Yeah, "F" his rights. Only the collective should matter. Yeehaw.
You're not very smart at all if you don't think that any human being on the face of the planet would obviously know they would incur significant costs, and lose a ton of time, to fight a legal battle on their own.
Maybe you can libel or insult him some more.
It makes you look really smart, and brave.
"the people's" as you put it, infers that rights must be collective.
I don't HAVE to look out for you. You don't HAVE to look out for me.
If you choose not to support Leonard, that is your right. However, your belief that somehow numbers equal "right", is a constitutional tragedy in action.
You need to do some studying, and read the works of the founders.
You need to learn to cater to the lowest common denominator. The right of the individual.
...or you can keep pointing out that there is a lot in your flock, therefore you must be right. Then you can bleat again about how Leonard isn't doing something for your flock.
Leonard is for Constitutional rights.
Sorry that he doesn't support an organizations collective box of "rights".
Yet you were shut down quite easily in another thread where you made an assessment that the 7.62x39mm, after striking flesh, would continue on for 100+ yards.
I even shared my combat experiences with you, but you simply respond with some smug commentary about "Call of Duty", completely dismissing my operations experience within OIF I, March 20th 2003.
I then showed you specific ballstic charts and gel comparos, proving a .38spc, .357, .44mag, and 9mm all had less cavitation, and carried on far further upon exit than a 7.62x39.
Gee, might have something to do with round design.
Your ability to collect guns does not directly translate to ballistic knowledge. That is for sure.
Just to be clear, do you understand that I, for one, am not engaged in trying to decide for other people which weapons are appropriate and which are not?I really wish that we wouldn't engage in trying to decide for other people which weapons are appropriate and which are not. That is what the antis do, and we should be better than that.
Wow you really missed the boat on all of these didn't you? In your hast to prove me wrong, you're reading comprehension has failed you miserably. :lol:
What does that answer have to do with the question I asked Thundar? He stated that "The banning of Kwik will certainly not help open carry.org, the rights of free men or the 2A." as if he was fighting for the rights of free men. So I said, "Please explain this statement. When was quick the defender of anyone else's rights? You answered a question out of context. Very smooth. lol
Where did I say that his right's should be infringed and he didn't have the right to address his government for grievances? It's like you're reading from another forum and have no clue what this conversation is about..lol
If that were the case you would know he was asking for information about how to draw attention to himself such as which gun would get more attention and talking about "dressing down" to get people to notice him.
You use the word "hyperbole" a lot. Is it a new word for you or do you just have a limited vocabulary? Or maybe you use it as a cop out because you can't dispute what I said about him doing all this for personal gain?
Actually you better check the date on that one slick, it occurred BEFORE Leonard tried to pull the same stunt at Radnor Lake.
That's what gave him the idea. Maybe you weren't in it from the beginning or maybe you just weren't paying attention..lol
In other words you're incapable of providing them so you're trying to cop out huh? I figured as much.
Like I said, you're incapable of providing them.
Actually you might wanna check your dates again, he made that comment AFTER Radnor Lake not prior to as you just stated.
Well you finally got one right so far. :lol:
Prove to me it was a loophole law. This is simply you're opinion of it, that's why you can't back it up with proof and why you can't cite a single case where someone was arrested for carrying a pistol.
Umm actually that's not the truth of the matter, that again is just your opinion. Like I said, you're having a hard time providing any proof of your claims. You're simply stating your own opinion which doesn't make it fact.
Again, you're stating just your opinion, not any fact.
You guess huh? Again, more opinion and no facts to back them up.
I hate to keep correcting you but cops aren't required to know every law on the books. Actually that's impossible for any one man to know all the laws on the books. That's why we have a court system for guilt to be proven and lawyers to represent people. I would have thought you would have known these things.
Hyperbole and fear mongering. Those are easy words to throw out when you can't provide any facts. Debating is obviously not your strong suit..lol
And you are incapable of processing the reality of one person can negatively effect others rights by bringing negative attention to himself.
Wrong again, what I said was based on some people's beliefs that Leonard does in fact lobby for 2nd A rights. I guess your lack of reading comprehension is right up there with giving your opinion with no facts to back it up. lol
You act like me saying "very small handful" takes away from the larger backing that he has. I guess it's like you using words such as "tons", "multitudes" and "uncountable" to try and make it sound like there are more people than there really is who back him up. lol
Really? Because I thought I saw the same "very small handful" of backers continually swearing that what he is doing is right.
And yet you tirelessly unload your same old tired opinionated crap over and over again. Kinda like your use of the word "hyperbole"..lol
And yet you still responded to it anyways even though you didn't have anything intelligent to add..lol
See you missed the whole point yet again. The point was he was doing what he thought he could to hurt someone else's rights. I didn't say he did hurt them, only that he was doing what he could to try and hurt them.
Since when has my opinion changed of him? For some reason you think I only said that because he was gone. I can assure you, I've proudly called him much worse in other forums where posts aren't so censored.
No I mean sue people. Where do you think that money comes from if a settlement is paid by a state agency?
You must have voted for Obama because you think they just print money to pay lawsuits instead of actually using tax payers money.
Oh and by the way, they weren't acting in an unconstitutional manner. They were called to check on a man with a gun, that's called doing their job.
I've never had to, they've never bothered me even though I open carry my pistol everywhere I go. It's funny how it's always Leonard who is the innocent victim and they obviously just single him out..lol
Yep and he didn't do any of that in a way to try and draw negative attention to himself in the hopes his rights would be violated so he could sue for personal gain. He's a real stand up guy. :lol:
Too bad it didn't work out for him the way he had planned.
What does that have to do with being brave? I'm just calling it as I see it. I can assure you that what I say on here is no different than what I would say to a person face to face. That doesn't include you though because so far I've been nice to you on behalf of the forum. I'd say much worse to your face. :lol:
You forget the collective is made up of individuals. Everyone has rights, not just Leonard. You're just incapable of getting that through your head.
But you don't realize that people spend that money as an investment because they will win it back and then some. Leonard wont win his back..lol
I'm only speaking the truth. If the truth offends him maybe he should reevaluate the person that he is.
Who is the collective made up of? That's right, individual people. I would have thought you would have picked up on that by now.
You are correct for only the 2nd time in your entire post so far. Congratulations. :lol:
Wow what a bunch of nonsensical rambling..lol
How was I shut down? You posted some useless facts of gel and shooting depths many of which the depth of the bullet went further than the thickness of most men's torsos.
That means once the bullet passed through a person it would continue on.
It doesn't get much more simple than that yet with all your "military" experience you don't even know that. Were you in the cub scouts or something? :lol:
Nor does your so called "combat experience" say much about you..lol
Even though it was a complete waste of my time I easily countered all your opinionated babbling which lacked any facts. I won't be wasting my time on you again. :lol:
Have a nice day.
Incoherent babbling
:exclaim:Irregardless