AP reports: Man with AK-47-style gun in park not helpful to gun rights agenda

[ixtow]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

44Brent wrote:

The "Hero" of OpenCarry.org

I think you sir are way out of line posting anyones address and phone number. I think this information should be deleted by the moderators.

44Brent is way over the line on several counts. Trying to write his own definitions of what a pistol is, really takes the cake for 'douche nozzle of the year.' I'd say posting the address and so forth does as well, but he wouldn't be the first here to pull that crap, so he is merely tied with those pricks on that count....

Suggesting someone have some sense knocked into him and then posting his address and phone number? 44Brent may get to hire his own lawyer.

With people like 44Brent around, perhaps he really does 'need' and AK Pistol....

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Point: how can a gun be legal and still questionably legal? I can make a Glock (or any gun of any make for that matter) full-automatic, and you can't tell at all by looking at it... So what it looks like fails miserably as any kind of basis for the argument.

It's the same old bogus 'assault weapons' argument... It looks scary to stupid people, so lets tell them that it is somehow worse to reinforce their false perception...

I pistol is a gun with no butt. It really is that simple (excepting AOWs). Anyone who would argue otherwise is either totally clueless, or deliberately lying. In either circumstance, not a person who can claim to be an authority on the mater. Especially when he goes posting someone's address and advocating violence. What a douche.

Really, Brent. You wanna go beat down the guy with the AK Pistol? Brent has proven himself to be the perfect reason why someone should have a need to carry an AK Pistol. Posting this man's address and saying "Hey, lets all go beat/kill him for doing something I want to lie about!!" You'd think he was a Democrat in the Media.... He acts just like a Leftist 'reporter.'

 

[44Brent]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Hey, lets all go beat/kill him for doing something I want to lie about!!"

You, ixtow, are lying and know that you are lying, while knowing full well, that everyone sees that you are lying.

 

[PaxMentis]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Hey, lets all go beat/kill him for doing something I want to lie about!!"

You, ixtow, are lying and know that you are lying, while knowing full well, that everyone sees that you are lying.

Did you or did you not write "I hope that there are some other people in TN that can knock some sense into him..." in a public forum?

Did you or did you not then post his address on the same public forum...in the same thread?

I think you had better start hoping that nobody takes your suggestion...

I don't like what the guy is doing either...and would be making sure my cover shirt was loose if I ran across him...however, I also recognize that his right to carry as he desires is exactly the same as my right to carry as I desire...and am unwilling to throw him to the dogs in the hopes that it will appease those who would endanger that right.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Hey, lets all go beat/kill him for doing something I want to lie about!!

You, ixtow, are lying and know that you are lying, while knowing full well, that everyone sees that you are lying.

You've so thoroughly discredited yourself, I feel like I'm beating not just a dead horse, but an entire farm of dead animals.

 

[44Brent]

imported post

PaxMentis wrote:

Did you or did you not write "I hope that there are some other people in TN that can knock some sense into him..." in a public forum?

Did you or did you not then post his address on the same public forum...in the same thread?

Why yes, I did. So, let's examine the meaning of the phrase "knock some sense". Is this an implication of an act of violence as you suggest? The answer can be found in the MacMillan Online Dictionary which provides an explanation of the term as follows:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/british/knock/knock-some-sense-into-someone_1/To-make-someone-behave-in-a-particular-way

To make someone behave in a particular way
influence
verb

to affect the way that someone thinks or behaves, or to affect the way that something happens

motivate
verb

to make someone behave in a particular way

condition
verb

if someone is conditioned by their experiences or by another person, they are influenced by them so that they think or behave in a particular way

incline
verb

to make someone likely to behave in a particular way or to have a particular opinion or attitude

hold sway

to be the main influence on people’s opinions or behaviour

enter
verb

to begin to affect someone’s actions or behaviour

implant
verb

to put an idea or attitude into someone’s mind so that it influences their character or behaviour

predispose
verb

to make someone likely to think, feel, or behave in a particular way

programme
verb

to make a person or animal behave in a particular way

throw back on

to force someone to use their own abilities, powers etc because there is nothing else to use

PaxMinimus is quite aware of what the phrase "knock some sense" really means. However, this is nothing more than a cloud of flack to cover up the fact that Leonard Embody (aka Kwikrnu) complained to a reporter that the State of Tennessee wasn't quick enough to revoke his handgun license after being charged with a domestic crime.

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=11438845

Leonard Embody is a good example of how permits are not monitored very well.

Embody was wrongly charged with a domestic crime, but still, his permit wasn't revoked until two days after his record was cleared.

"I was supposed to lose my handgun carry permit on April 3, 2008, and it took the government a little over 30 days to revoke my handgun carry permit," he said.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Poor, naive, 44Brent, so quick to believe anything in the media, when they have historically stopped at nothing to harm law-abiding gun owners.

They know they can afford to defend defamation suits, while few of us can even afford to bring them.

 

[PaxMentis]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

PaxMentis wrote:

Did you or did you not write "I hope that there are some other people in TN that can knock some sense into him..." in a public forum?

Did you or did you not then post his address on the same public forum...in the same thread?

Why yes, I did. So, let's examine the meaning of the phrase "knock some sense". Is this an implication of an act of violence as you suggest? The answer can be found in the MacMillan Online Dictionary which provides an explanation of the term as follows:

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/thesaurus/british/knock/knock-some-sense-into-someone_1/To-make-someone-behave-in-a-particular-way

To make someone behave in a particular way
influence
verb

to affect the way that someone thinks or behaves, or to affect the way that something happens

motivate
verb

to make someone behave in a particular way

condition
verb

if someone is conditioned by their experiences or by another person, they are influenced by them so that they think or behave in a particular way

incline
verb

to make someone likely to behave in a particular way or to have a particular opinion or attitude

hold sway

to be the main influence on people’s opinions or behaviour

enter
verb

to begin to affect someone’s actions or behaviour

implant
verb

to put an idea or attitude into someone’s mind so that it influences their character or behaviour

predispose
verb

to make someone likely to think, feel, or behave in a particular way

programme
verb

to make a person or animal behave in a particular way

throw back on

to force someone to use their own abilities, powers etc because there is nothing else to use

PaxMinimus is quite aware of what the phrase "knock some sense" really means. However, this is nothing more than a cloud of flack to cover up the fact that Leonard Embody (aka Kwikrnu) complained to a reporter that the State of Tennessee wasn't quick enough to revoke his handgun license after being charged with a domestic crime.

http://www.wkrn.com/global/story.asp?s=11438845

Leonard Embody is a good example of how permits are not monitored very well.

Embody was wrongly charged with a domestic crime, but still, his permit wasn't revoked until two days after his record was cleared.

"I was supposed to lose my handgun carry permit on April 3, 2008, and it took the government a little over 30 days to revoke my handgun carry permit," he said.

You really are 100% the south end of a northbound horse aren't you?

And full of the same substance as well.

I'm through wasting my time with you as if you had someting to say worth listening to.

 

[44Brent]

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

Poor, naive, 44Brent, so quick to believe anything in the media, when they have historically stopped at nothing to harm law-abiding gun owners.

They know they can afford to defend defamation suits, while few of us can even afford to bring them.

Poor naive N6ATF (from the ATF?) doesn't think that the media would ever take advantage of poor Leonard to agitate for a reinstatement of the park ban by taking pictures of him running around in war gear and terrorizing mommies, and then presenting it to the legislature.

Why, that would make it twice that the media would do such a terrible thing!

1. "Unfair" media attack #1: Agitate for restrictions on handgun licenses and quote him complaining about how long it took to get his license revoked.
2. "Unfair" media attack #2: Agitate for a reinstatement of the park ban (or worse).

I wonder why the media keeps picking on poor Leonard? Come to think of it, I wonder why those nastyadmins at AR15.com (and all the other forums) gave him the boot.

Poor Leonard, poor Leonard, is just a misunderstood soul.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

The only reason to respond to anything 44Brent says, is simply to make it known that you saw it and still don't care.

We don't need a lesson on what the media will spin. The true crux is that a lot of people know the media is bullshit, and that they advertise, willingly or not, that noting bad happened in spite of the 'alarming' big fat nothing they cry about. the bigger stink they make, the more idiotic the appear next the fact that nothing happened.

Even though they don't want to, they spread the news of both. Some people really are smart enough to notice that.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

44Brent, if you had any common sense, you would edit your previous post to remove that mans name, address and phone number. I will be complaining to the admins if you do not do so. But first I will wait to see if you have sense.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

HankT wrote:

Physical violence?

Bad form 44B.....bad form...

Maybe HankT as a self-advertised "State Researcher" doesn't understand the laws in Tennessee. So, here's a little refresher for the "State Researcher": Tennessee used to ban carry in parks.Then they removed the ban, but allowed municipalities to opt out, and implement their own local ban.

There is one person who presents a persona of threatening physical violence, and that is kwikrnu. People with peaceful intentions don't dreses up in war gear andcarry an AK rifle posing as a "pistol" in a public park. It takes a retard to do that. Of course, kwikrnu will continue to do this and cry about his "rights" until the local officials decide they have had enough, and then implement their local ban on carry in parks.

One thing we will never see is an admission from HankT and kwikrnuthat kwikrnu was the direct cause of the ban, just as Don Ortega was never willing to admit that it was his retarded behavior that caused a city council to ban carry within a government building. One thing is certain: HankT and kwikrnu will cry for OpenCarry.org members to protest the very ban that kwikrnu is going to create.

So, I say this:bad form... bad form... from kwikrnu and HankT for promoting an image of physical violence.

You are seriously complaining about the clothes a man choses to wear???????? You sound like a hardcore liberal. You have no right to tell others what clothes to wear or what guns to carry, or how to carry them.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

44Brent wrote:

Poor naive N6ATF (from the ATF?) doesn't think that the media would ever take advantage of poor Leonard to agitate for a reinstatement of the park ban by taking pictures of him running around in war gear and terrorizing mommies, and then presenting it to the legislature.

Why, that would make it twice that the media would do such a terrible thing!

1. "Unfair" media attack #1: Agitate for restrictions on handgun licenses and quote him complaining about how long it took to get his license revoked.
2. "Unfair" media attack #2: Agitate for a reinstatement of the park ban (or worse).

I wonder why the media keeps picking on poor Leonard? Come to think of it, I wonder why those nastyadmins at AR15.com (and all the other forums) gave him the boot.

Poor Leonard, poor Leonard, is just a misunderstood soul.

I'm not a spokesman for any movement. I open carry and really careless if you approve or not.

AR15.com can choose what they want on their website and what they don't want. They didn't like the orange tip on an AK. That is fine. It doesn't kill me to not post on their website I wasn't too active I was only a member for a year or two. I'll continue to open carry.

Glock talk doesn't want me to post after 5 years, that's fine. The admin didn't like the orange tip on an AK.

The internet is fun, but it isn't my existance.

 

[simmonsjoe]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

44Brent wrote:

HankT wrote:

Physical violence?

Bad form 44B.....bad form...

Maybe HankT as a self-advertised "State Researcher" doesn't understand the laws in Tennessee. So, here's a little refresher for the "State Researcher": Tennessee used to ban carry in parks.Then they removed the ban, but allowed municipalities to opt out, and implement their own local ban.

There is one person who presents a persona of threatening physical violence, and that is kwikrnu. People with peaceful intentions don't dreses up in war gear andcarry an AK rifle posing as a "pistol" in a public park. It takes a retard to do that. Of course, kwikrnu will continue to do this and cry about his "rights" until the local officials decide they have had enough, and then implement their local ban on carry in parks.

One thing we will never see is an admission from HankT and kwikrnuthat kwikrnu was the direct cause of the ban, just as Don Ortega was never willing to admit that it was his retarded behavior that caused a city council to ban carry within a government building. One thing is certain: HankT and kwikrnu will cry for OpenCarry.org members to protest the very ban that kwikrnu is going to create.

So, I say this:bad form... bad form... from kwikrnu and HankT for promoting an image of physical violence.

You are seriously complaining about the clothes a man choses to wear???????? You sound like a hardcore liberal. You have no right to tell others what clothes to wear or what guns to carry, or how to carry them.

Telling someone the clothes they are wearing are stupid and attempting to regulate those things through law are two different things. It is the difference between the 1A and socialism. You seem to not know the difference.

 

[Jonesy]

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

44Brent wrote:

HankT wrote:

Physical violence?

Bad form 44B.....bad form...

Maybe HankT as a self-advertised "State Researcher" doesn't understand the laws in Tennessee. So, here's a little refresher for the "State Researcher": Tennessee used to ban carry in parks.Then they removed the ban, but allowed municipalities to opt out, and implement their own local ban.

There is one person who presents a persona of threatening physical violence, and that is kwikrnu. People with peaceful intentions don't dreses up in war gear andcarry an AK rifle posing as a "pistol" in a public park. It takes a retard to do that. Of course, kwikrnu will continue to do this and cry about his "rights" until the local officials decide they have had enough, and then implement their local ban on carry in parks.

One thing we will never see is an admission from HankT and kwikrnuthat kwikrnu was the direct cause of the ban, just as Don Ortega was never willing to admit that it was his retarded behavior that caused a city council to ban carry within a government building. One thing is certain: HankT and kwikrnu will cry for OpenCarry.org members to protest the very ban that kwikrnu is going to create.

So, I say this:bad form... bad form... from kwikrnu and HankT for promoting an image of physical violence.

You are seriously complaining about the clothes a man choses to wear???????? You sound like a hardcore liberal. You have no right to tell others what clothes to wear or what guns to carry, or how to carry them.

Telling someone the clothes they are wearing are stupid and attempting to regulate those things through law are two different things. It is the difference between the 1A and socialism. You seem to not know the difference.

Well it is good that I have you around to tell me what is stupid, right? Do any of you clowns know the meaning of freedom? If you or others don't like the way he acted, it's too damn bad. Leave the man alone, he broke no laws, threatened no one, and sounded perfectly friendly when confronted by the police.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

Leave the man alone, he broke no laws, threatened no one, and sounded perfectly friendly when confronted by the police.

He was certainly more pleasant towards his would-be oppressors than his supposed brothers have been towards him...

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

Leave the man alone, he broke no laws, threatened no one, and sounded perfectly friendly when confronted by the police.

He was certainly more pleasant towards his would-be oppressors than his supposed brothers have been towards him...

Big +infinity, ixtow.

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

Jonesy wrote:

Leave the man alone, he broke no laws, threatened no one, and sounded perfectly friendly when confronted by the police.

And is this not how we tell each other to behave? Be friendly, be nice, but stand up for our rights?

I'm surprised that Kwik is still posting here, personally. If it were be, I'd had gotten my self banned long ago with venomous retaliation oth the personal attacks. So, I'll add this, nice work keeping your cool so far, Kwik.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

Jonesy wrote:

Leave the man alone, he broke no laws, threatened no one, and sounded perfectly friendly when confronted by the police.

And is this not how we tell each other to behave? Be friendly, be nice, but stand up for our rights?

I'm surprised that Kwik is still posting here, personally. If it were be, I'd had gotten my self banned long ago with venomous retaliation oth the personal attacks. So, I'll add this, nice work keeping your cool so far, Kwik.

I'd have to agree, he's been more rational and civilized than any of his detractors.

Kinda like the war between Anti-theists and Christians.... Just hearing the deceptions and rants of the anti-theist is enough to make you consider going to Church....

I'd still rather be associated with an 'asshat,' than those who would persecute him.

 

[RussP]

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

...So, I'll add this, nice work keeping your cool so far, Kwik.

Why did you feel compelled to add the "so far"?