• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Procarryguy

Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
32
Location
Tennessee
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.

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.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
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?

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'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.

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.

He read about a guy in New Mexico who was actually harassed by cops for open carry and was awarded $21,000.

This proves you were not, "There at the beginning". St. John occurred AFTER Leonard began engaging in his various 2A activities.


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 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 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.

Not true whatsoever.

He had made plenty of commentary that the HCP system was unconstitutional prior to Bell Meade, and Radnor Lake.


He claimed the state of TN requiring a carry permit to carry a pistol was against his right to bear arms.

Oh, nevermind. You admitted it.


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.

This is prior to his HCP getting revoked:

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.

Located here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...cause-cops-don-t-know-definition-pistol/page7

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I guess law enforcement should have the express liberty to enforce laws without equity, and at their own behest.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

Don't bite the hook, and it won't be an issue.

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.

Why should we agree with a man who goes out of his way to try and sue people for a quick buck?

Sue "people" for a quick buck? You mean sue LEA and state agencies that are acting in an unconstitutional manner?

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.

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.

Leonard Stanni Embody is nothing more than a crook.

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.

You see, that's what a conman who tried to swindle money from hard working tax payers in his community is, plain and simple.

Yeah, "F" his rights. Only the collective should matter. Yeehaw.


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.

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.

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.

"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".

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
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?

His reasons for carrying are none of my business, nor yours. As long as he doesn't demonstrate any intent whatsoever to damage persons or property, I say, "Leave him the hell alone."

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...

I don't care what kind of light people view him in. I care about the fact that he is being piled on and subjected to some really hateful, anti-freedom comments (I read people in another thread saying things like "I hope he goes to jail" and "I hope they yank his permit").

...and not caring about hurting others rights that bring him negative attention from people like me.

I'm not sure how one goes about "hurting" a right, but please cite an example of kwikrnu violating any other person's inherent rights. Please don't make up "rights" like "the right to feel comfortable" or some such nonsense; again, that is what the left does, and we should be better than that.

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.

The "hunter" comment was more or less directed at those who own some rifles and shotguns, and maybe even CC, but don't see a problem with the government infringing on the 2nd Amendment with background checks, registration, permits, etc. Congratulations on your hobby.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.

Wow! He was carrying a lawful AK 47 pistol. It was not modified.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Cops saw someone carrying a rifle unlawfully and acted accordingly.


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.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
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.

Considering the peaceful interaction with Leonard, would it not have been appropriate to ask him to merely wait to have the firearm checked, prior to releasing him with the commentary that it is, and I quote, "Technically legal."?

What kind of construction must one fabricate to validate ambushing an individual who has been so peaceful an compliant as to hand over his HCP when requested? I can answer that.

One hell of a hyperbole bridge.

The presence of an "Illegal firearm" by itself should not necessitate a felony stop, specifically after the individual has proven himself to be compliant, and peaceful.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.

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."
2. Kwik had a permit.
3. Who cares?
4. It is an AK 47 pistol. Designed as such, sold as such.
5. It's not a modified rifle.
 
Last edited:

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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."
It is not a recognized right.
2. Kwik had a permit.
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.
"Kwik moved his slung firearm from back to front immediately before encountering the first ranger."3. Who cares?
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.)
4. It is an AK 47 pistol. Designed as such, sold as such.
5. It's not a modified rifle.
The rangers and cops did not know that.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
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.

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.
 

Kingfish

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
1,276
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
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.
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.

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.)
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Fail to plan = plan to fail

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.)

Why wouldn't Kwik plan? I plan every day. Prudent people plan all the time.

Fail to plan = plan to fail

My plan often includes sterile open carry and open carry at times and places designed to emphasize my freedom of movement with a firearm.

For example, when BHO came to Norfolk, I was outside to protest and booed when his limo drove by, all of course while open carrying. I planned on being harassed, but it didn't happen.

Kwik may have planned on an encounter, but an advocate should always be prepared for these sorts of encounters.
 

Procarryguy

Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
32
Location
Tennessee
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:

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.

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

Should his rights be infringed, as an individual, he has the right to address his government for grievances, up to, and including, monetary compensation.

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


I have likewise followed, and even corresponded with Leonard privately about these issues since day #1.

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.

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.

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?



This proves you were not, "There at the beginning". St. John occurred AFTER Leonard began engaging in his various 2A activities.

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



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.

In other words you're incapable of providing them so you're trying to cop out huh? I figured as much.

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."

Like I said, you're incapable of providing them.


He had made plenty of commentary that the HCP system was unconstitutional prior to Bell Meade, and Radnor Lake.

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:



Which makes it ok, for this loophole law to exist and be used at an officers discretion. That is what you are implying.

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.

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.

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.



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.

Again, you're stating just your opinion, not any fact.



I guess law enforcement should have the express liberty to enforce laws without equity, and at their own behest.

You guess huh? Again, more opinion and no facts to back them up.



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.

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.



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?

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

You are incapable of processing the reality that this country is founded on INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not collective.

And you are incapable of processing the reality of one person can negatively effect others rights by bringing negative attention to himself.


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?

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

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.

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


Usually, Leonards supporter say their piece, then move on.

Really? Because I thought I saw the same "very small handful" of backers continually swearing that what he is doing is right.

There's no need for this same old tired crap over and over again as the detractors have seen as necessary.

And yet you tirelessly unload your same old tired opinionated crap over and over again. Kinda like your use of the word "hyperbole"..lol


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.


And yet you still responded to it anyways even though you didn't have anything intelligent to add..lol

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.

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.


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.

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.



Sue "people" for a quick buck? You mean sue LEA and state agencies that are acting in an unconstitutional manner?

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. lol 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.


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?

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

-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.

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.


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.

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:

Yeah, "F" his rights. Only the collective should matter. Yeehaw.

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.


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.

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

Maybe you can libel or insult him some more.
It makes you look really smart, and brave.

I'm only speaking the truth. If the truth offends him maybe he should reevaluate the person that he is.


"the people's" as you put it, infers that rights must be collective.

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.

I don't HAVE to look out for you. You don't HAVE to look out for me.

You are correct for only the 2nd time in your entire post so far. Congratulations. :lol:

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".

Wow what a bunch of nonsensical rambling..lol


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.

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:

Your ability to collect guns does not directly translate to ballistic knowledge. That is for sure.

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. ;)
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
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.
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?
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
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:

Yes, in my "hast" it appears it has, hasn't it? [/sarcasm]

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

"lol"


Incorrect. The response was completely in context as it displayed your point of view is limited, and not consistent with the concept of individual rights.

Instead of discussing kwiks rights at the individual level, you repeatedly point out the fact that he has stated he is not doing it for any specific group or cause, and that it is being conducted for his own well-being.

Not having had a conversation with Thundar, I could approximate his answer to be within the scope of what I have explained.

The concept being that dismissing those who's individual rights are trampled, merely by their lack of association with the organization, is also inherently selfish, and not conducive to the cause of furthering individual rights.

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

"lol"

Too easy.

By repeatedly spitting the same crap that since he is not fighting for a collective cause, his method is "inappropriate".


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.

Oh indeed! I recall several posts of this nature.

This would be akin to a business executive dressing like a transient, and suddenly becoming stereotyped and/or harassed, or treated in an inequitable fashion in consideration of their rights, merely based on their social status.

It is truly shameful that you think that "calling attention to ones self" should require unlawful, and/or unconstitutional harassment.


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?

I apologize for my diverse vocabulary and high level English. I can attempt to dumb down my speaking to a level suitable for you to converse with me if you desire?

Hyperbole is a fantastic word that describes specifically what your argument is made out of.

Here is another big word for you to process:

"Sensationalism".

A good example of this is equating the lawful carry of a firearm, combined with the peaceful interaction with law enforcement, and respect for law, with the actions of the unibomber, Nidal Hassan, or Osama Bin Laden.

All of which have been made by Leonards detractors as they cower in fear of an orange tip, camouflage, and a AK pistol.


Actually you better check the date on that one slick, it occurred BEFORE Leonard tried to pull the same stunt at Radnor Lake.

The "same stunt". Ah.

So you truly equate Leonards carry of a firearm to that of St. Johns?

That's good because I do too.

Hopefully the court will agree that lawful behavior does not constitute RAS or PC, and that the presence of a firearm does not, likewise, constitute RAS or PC.


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

"lol"

You are correct in my misrepresentation of the date. I knew they were close in time.


In other words you're incapable of providing them so you're trying to cop out huh? I figured as much.

Keep running your mouth because it gets funny below...

Like I said, you're incapable of providing them.

Keep running your mouth because it gets funny below...

Actually you might wanna check your dates again, he made that comment AFTER Radnor Lake not prior to as you just stated.

Conceded above.

Well you finally got one right so far. :lol:

Undeniable proof that you haven't paid as much attention as you claim.

Try paying attention next time.


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.

The presence of the law itself is all the proof that is required.

It by definition is in contradiction to preemption, and furthermore is only casually dismissed by law enforcement officers, who frankly, if they were doing their job, would be enforcing it.

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.

Like the quote of Leonard prior to his permit being suspended that proved your comment was ignorant, and that you ******* into the wind with your commentary?

You got proven wrong, and should really just consider taking a seat.

So the law is on the books, and Leonard was not arrested nor cited for complying with the law.

Yet you deny the fact that the law is still valid, and state that I am expressing an opinion, while making substantiating commentary like, "It simply isn't enforced.".

Cute.

Do you often chase your own tail?

Again, you're stating just your opinion, not any fact.

Newsflash to "Procarryguy":

I talk with Leonard outside of the forums. (Although we didn't for probably a year +)

DUN DUN DUN.

You guess huh? Again, more opinion and no facts to back them up.

Completely dismissing the valid meaning of the commentary makes you look really smart.


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.

It is understandable that LEO/LEA cannot possibly know every law that is on the books. However, making felony stops for legal activity is certainly above and beyond the scope of their power as well.

If your "point" that you are trying to make here, was even remotely valid, there would not be any process with which the officer would be denied prosecutorial immunity.

LEO is provided with legal resources to validate activity.

It also does not take a genius to realize that a peaceful, compliant man, who is abiding by your demands without disrespect or argument, is not necessary to felony prone at the end of your duty shotgun.

I am sorry you are incapable of realizing these facts.


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

"lol"

You mean debating with false commentary like "Leonard never had a problem with the HCP system until his permit got revoked.", then getting refuted easily by a very quick perusing back through previous threads?

You have filled entire posts with denigrating commentary to the point that I think you have a serious social disorder, preempting your ability to hold a reasonable conversation.

Yet you are inferring that I am the one can't debate.

Hilarious.


And you are incapable of processing the reality of one person can negatively effect others rights by bringing negative attention to himself.

One person can indeed.

So can many people with a common cause.

When it comes to rights, you should not settle on what is best for the group, but for that which is right, proper, and caters to the individual.


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

"lol"

You have been proven wrong in a bad way concerning one of your comments, which I backed up with irrefutable proof that you are clueless as to Leonards intent or desires.


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

You must be getting really nervous. You sure "lol" a lot.

Oh here...

paul@paul-fisher.com
MCX
Thundar
ManInBlack
Butch00
gutshot
Fallschirmjäger
ijusam
jayspapa
buzzsaw
fullauto223cal
marshaul
cscitney87
aadvark
LV XD9

...just to name a few that a very quick, casual glance at some old threads, show to be expressly supportive of kwik.








Really? Because I thought I saw the same "very small handful" of backers continually swearing that what he is doing is right.

That's because you skip past them to look for the next post that is supportive of your views.

It must be all of kwiks supporters that threaten people, stalk them, and generally harass them and wish them ill-will repeatedly.

Oh wait, that has not ever even happened once from kwiks supporters.

The same cannot be said for his detractors unfortunately.


http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?50319-LV-XD9
And yet you tirelessly unload your same old tired opinionated crap over and over again. Kinda like your use of the word "hyperbole"..lol

"lol"

Remember that one time you made an idiotic comment about how Leonard didn't have a problem with the HCP system until his permit was revoked?

Oh yeah,...that just happened.

Remember when I took all of 5 seconds to find a single post in some random thread that proved you blatantly wrong?

Yeah, that was pretty cool. I enjoyed that.

You don't like the word "Hyperbole" for some reason. Maybe because it is a fitting adjective for everything you say?


And yet you still responded to it anyways even though you didn't have anything intelligent to add..lol

"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.

That is not what he said at all. It is merely what you would like to imply.

What he stated was that IF HE, as a law abiding citizen, could not lawfully carry, WHY SHOULD ANYBODY ELSE.

Go exercise some reading comprehension on his actual comment. Then come back to me when you think you have it figured out.


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.

Wow.

You have sworn, denigrated, insulted, and don't everything you an to ME on this purported "censored forum".

You have even called into question my service to this nation, and directly insulted that as well.

I wonder what kind of expletives or insults you could conjure up if you were to let yourself go all willy-nilly with your rather large mouth, were it permitted...


No I mean sue people. Where do you think that money comes from if a settlement is paid by a state agency?

Oh wow, let's not EVER pursue damages from the government again.

It is too much to ask for the agency to be run properly. That would be terrible, because then they could actually focus on using their budget for things other than to violate citizens rights!

The best way to hit a government agency, is square in its pocketbooks.

You must have voted for Obama because you think they just print money to pay lawsuits instead of actually using tax payers money.

Cute strawman.

I did not vote for Obama.

Thanks for making the blind accusation though.



"lol"

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.

"Checking on a man with a gun" may have been fine with the first ranger, as he and Leonard had a peaceful and compliant interaction, but use of force is severely limited, particularly when you have no RAS or PC to detain an individual, but perform a felony stop on a peaceful citizen anyways.

I like your statement though. It's enlightening as to what you truly stand for.

"Checking on a man with a gun", to you, is an acceptable reason to violate ones constitutional rights.

Very enlightening.

What is it like to be against Constitutional carry?

I couldn't imagine myself thinking that way...


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

"lol"

Oh because that never occurs anywhere else. You are right, carry of a "normal, properly holstered handgun" has NEVER caused the type of harassment Leonard has endured...

Oh wait...

IT HAS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMaJKEVTAo
St. John vs Alamgordo

etc. etc.

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.

Because conducting ones self with specific adherence to the law while carrying out an inalienable right, should ever be construed as "looking for attention".

You're not very smart for an old guy. I usually have much better, intellectual conversations with my peers and elders. Ones that give me great pause, and cause significant reflection.

With you though it's like open mouth inhaling a fart.

Nothing pleasant, informative, or intelligent about it.


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're all talk.

I'd happily arrange something involving a cage with you if you would like? We can have it reffed and everything. I will be relocating to Virginia within 3 weeks.

Hell I will float the cage time if you like?

You see "Procarryguy", I back up my words with action. I have no qualms whatsoever about giving you a crack at me, to back up your tough talk, in a safe and refereed environment. One that provides medics, which would likely be necessary.

Either put up, or stop the talk like you're hard.

From my perspective you're kind of like a vanilla cupcake with pink frosting screaming at me. Cute, and probably tasty, but not a threat whatsoever.

Hell man, I am not even 6', and I weigh about 220.

Must be a fatass. :)

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.

The "collective" is not the "cause".
Numbers, do not equal "right".

Remember, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

The same individualism applies to the understanding of our rights. Just because you and one other think open carry of an AK pistol is wrong, does not expressly make it so.


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

"lol"

Nobody is assured of winning a case. Your argument to this point is completely nonsensical.


I'm only speaking the truth. If the truth offends him maybe he should reevaluate the person that he is.

You never stated this so directly while Leonard was still here, hence you are a coward.

It's funy that neither you, nor any other individual who claim Leonard is a criminal, have EVER been able to substantiate it.

Guess you are just a liar.


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.

A group of individuals is know as a collective. What you cannot comprehend is that the presence of a collective does not justify the revocation, trampling, or usurping of individual liberty.

Here is a quote by none other than Mark Twain, which illustrates the concept you are not well-learned enough to understand:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
- Notebook, 1904

You are correct for only the 2nd time in your entire post so far. Congratulations. :lol:

Oh unless there is more of YOU than there is of ME.

Then, no matter what, whatever you and your cohorts decide is good for me, is good for me.

Right?

What an undereducated snob.


Wow what a bunch of nonsensical rambling..lol

"lol"

"Nonsensical" to you because you are severely uneducated on the concept of individual liberty.

In an attempt to vindicate your diatribe you repeatedly infer that you have "more on your side", and that "the masses must be right".

You're hilarious.

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.

The consistency of gel is a pretty good facsimile for human tissue, which has an uneven consistency by comparison. The important thing to notice, is the cavitation, or energy transfer of the round as it enters the gel. This will give a good indication of what the round does when it strikes human tissue.

What you are dismissing in your ignorance, is that the Gel does not contain thick inner organs, bones, cartilage, ligaments, and other travel impeding characteristics of the living human body.

A 7.62.39mm has a tip with an air pocket built to it. Not only does the round transfer tremendous energy via cavitation upon entry, but loses momentum due to yaw as well.

It is extremely interesting to me, that as a "knowledgable gun collector", you are completely ignorant to these pretty well established facts about the 7.62x39mm.

That means once the bullet passed through a person it would continue on.

Most rounds north of .22lr can pass through the body with little effort depending on where a person is struck.

.38spc and 9mm are extremely poor at cavitation, but extremely good at punching neat, tiny, undramatic little holes that maintain velocity upon exit.

The only true argument against 7.62x39mm is that the holes it leaves via cavitation, are not pretty, and whatever you hit, will likely die, and most definitely be stopped.

The same cannot be said about 9mm, or .38spc.

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:

Battalion Trainer - MK19 MOD3
Battery Trainer:

-M16A2
-M203
-M4

Nor does your so called "combat experience" say much about you..lol

Keep collecting guns.

You're funny because you are like a car collector who can't drive for crap, and refuses to spin his own wrenches.

Yet you have a lot of firearms, and feel that gives you credibility.

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:

In other words "lol", you are tucking tail and running after being proven wrong repeatedly. Especially after I posted significant facts.

Have a nice day. ;)

You too.

Take a brief window of time out of your life, and learn some basic ballistics.

Starting with the 7.62x39mm
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Irregardless
:exclaim:

Can't we discuss anything with dignity anymore? Picking on spelling and grammar is not going to do any good. Whether its "hast" or "irregardless", its pointless and counterproductive.

People have different opinions. Some hail him as an advocate, some view him as a provocateur. A court of law will settle this dispute when he sues for a civil rights violation. A group of anonymous forum members will not reach a consensus because most forums are the electronic version of trench warfare: tons of posts, endless name calling, zero ground gained. The second amendment lays in no man's land.

The years have not been kind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top