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

[ixtow]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Hef wrote:

He (Embody) chose the AK because it was likely to cause a negative reaction and get him a confrontation with police, where the orange muzzle would confuse the officers ("is it real, or is it a toy?") and give him the opportunity to fire.

He asked about AP rounds for his AK. Why would he carry AP rounds in his AK if it's a carry weapon? Well, since he already has established the intent to engage police officers, and police officers are the only group who most citizens regularly encounter wearing armor, any reasonable person would assume he intends to use the AP rounds to defeat LEO's body armor in his confrontation.

Come on dude, you're smart enough to figure that out, aren't you?

We who bear arms do not exist in a vacuum. Public perception of what we do... 'where we do it and how we comport ourselves in the social dynamic of our environ is EVERYTHING!

I agree with this completely. But the problem is that our society is being taught that nothing gun related is ever acceptable, ever. You have to break that social norm to exercise the right at all. We are fighting an absolutist extreme, weather we want to or not.

Those of you who live in areas where it is more commonly accepted, do not realize what an island you really are. It was only a few years ago that carrying any weapon at all would bring about these same reactions. This man, intentionally or not, has moved to a 'next step.' Had he not done so, the edge of acceptable would still be you and your 1911. Because of him, you don't look so bad anymore. You've been normalized.

The next step is the only thing that ever normalizes. If you don't take the next step, then the PREVIOUS one stays at the edge of just barely tolerated. Maybe you don't like any of his steps. I don't completely agree with it either. But he did it, without killing anyone or being killed, and you call it a disaster? What ever would be an acceptable next step, please, make a suggestion...

The trend against guns has proven that 'the next step' is what normalizes all of the previous ones. How can you NOT learn from such a directly relevant example? Every step the Brady's take, is in contention until they take the next one... Then the past becomes 'normal' and nobody even contests it anymore.... The next generation grows up asking OCers "Wow, is that even legal?" because they have been taught 'normal' is helpless and brainwashed.... They never even questioned it until they waked past YOU.

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Keep tearing this guy down if you do...

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

ixtow wrote:

bohdi wrote:

ixtow wrote:

bohdi wrote:

what isn't it?

It isn't magical fairy dust that lets a person read his mind and declare that they knew his intent and that he wanted to go out hunting cops.

There are far better ways to hunt a person, cop or not, if that's what you wanted to do. Certainly, a bright orange muzzle break, or entire gun, does not facilitate any of the methods I have thus far described. Claiming that one has a mind-reading crystal ball as a result of it has been debunked thoroughly.

It's just amazing how many people became mind-readers the moment he squirted some orange paint on something. That stuff is amazing! I wonder if I squirt some on my willy, will everyone else suddenly have certain knowledge that I am not a rapist? Or will they all claim that I am a rapist?

It is also not a Banana Pancake, a Spare Tire, or a Palm Tree.

Yeah, I don' think that is why anyone is having a problem with this.

Then why do they keep citing it as the reason?

Ixtow - You for some reason are not see the point here. The fact is that a lot of us are members of other websites and have read this guys posts for ourselves. We have seen the larger context of what this guy is about. I have no "agenda" against this guy, but I am not blind to the entirety of what he represents either.

It is very clear that despite his claims otherwise, he is attempting to provoke the police deliberately and he has been preparing for that for a long time. The fact that he now points to the stupidity of his original approach does not change the underlying purpose of his actions.

Now you correct me if I am wrong, but in most OC scenarios, is it not the entire purpose to OC WITHOUT an incident? Is not the idea to normalize the activity and so therefore one of the goals is to simply walk past the LEO and have NO exchange or at most a "have a nice day" as you pass? And is not the MAIN purpose to carry the weapon IN THE OPEN, and have all present who care, know that it is a weapon?

This guy went out of his way to actually create a situation that would cause ANY reasonable person to raise an eyebrow. If anyone on this forum that did not know this guy saw him in the street and did not go on situational alert they should not be carrying a firearm. Despite his claim that hiding the nature of the weapon is not a lie, it is in fact a lie. Telling people who take the time to talk to you does not change that.

In fact it is so big a lie that in reality, in my view he was NOT in OC mode at the time of this incident. That taken in the FULL context of his writings, posting and other public record, make he and his motives questionable at best. What amazes me is that it has taken days of discussion for people to begin to consider that.

I don't use this name on every forum I visit. In fact, I don't use the same name on ANY two forums. Don't presume that I am unaware.

I see a man who has been changed by the experience.

If Florida became an Oc state overnight, even with good education to police, the officers here would still consider it open season. I wouldn't be surprised to see them killing everyone they saw with a gun from the seat of their squad car.

Why do I mention that? I think that Kwik wants to be prepared for the murderous vigilante-type of cop that would choose to confront him. You all seem to skip over the fact that a LEO confrontation of any kind is always the choice of the LEO! None of us have ever walked up to a cop while OCing and started asking "hey, asshole, why do you htink you need a gun? I should kick your ass" while pointing our guns at them... the COPS do that, not us.

If I were entering into a situation where thugs with guns and vests were prone to attacking me, I'd carry AP in a rifle caliber, too.

In fact, I do almost every day, becaue I exist in such a place. My PLR and SS109 have saved my ass on more than one occasion.

Maybe he's just rattling his sabre. But I can relate becasue there was a time when I used to think "Good lord, why wuld anyone ever need that, it's ridiculous." When meth-dealing cops are actively hunting you, you'll start to understand....

He is pushing the edges out. It puts 'the rest of us' in the realm of normalcy when he does it. And as he does it, there are many who would love to see him killed, and perhaps might just make an excuse to hide behind their badge and do just that. I wouldn't blame him for carrying steel core. You never know what kind of cop is going to find you, and if there will be any witnesses when s/he does to tell the news "Holy crap, the officer just shot him in the back of the head for no reason in broad daylight." It DOES happen. But "Open your mouth and you're next" keeps a lid on it.

He, also, has seen now that, nothing happened.... Except that he was excommunicated from the church of "We like guns and rights only if you do it our way."

You may think he's a doofus... But I encourage those who would remove the splinter from his eye, to removes the logs from theirs, first.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Hef wrote:

He (Embody) chose the AK because it was likely to cause a negative reaction and get him a confrontation with police, where the orange muzzle would confuse the officers ("is it real, or is it a toy?") and give him the opportunity to fire.

He asked about AP rounds for his AK. Why would he carry AP rounds in his AK if it's a carry weapon? Well, since he already has established the intent to engage police officers, and police officers are the only group who most citizens regularly encounter wearing armor, any reasonable person would assume he intends to use the AP rounds to defeat LEO's body armor in his confrontation.

Come on dude, you're smart enough to figure that out, aren't you?

We who bear arms do not exist in a vacuum. Public perception of what we do... 'where we do it and how we comport ourselves in the social dynamic of our environ is EVERYTHING!

I agree with this completely.  But the problem is that our society is being taught that nothing gun related is ever acceptable, ever.  You have to break that social norm to exercise the right at all.  We are fighting an absolutist extreme, weather we want to or not.

Those of you who live in areas where it is more commonly accepted, do not realize what an island you really are.  It was only a few years ago that carrying any weapon at all would bring about these same reactions.  This man, intentionally or not, has moved to a 'next step.'  Had he not done so, the edge of acceptable would still be you and your 1911.  Because of him, you don't look so bad anymore.  You've been normalized.

The next step is the only thing that ever normalizes.  If you don't take the next step, then the PREVIOUS one stays at the edge of just barely tolerated.  Maybe you don't like any of his steps.  I don't completely agree with it either.  But he did it, without killing anyone or being killed, and you call it a disaster?  What ever would be an acceptable next step, please, make a suggestion...

The trend against guns has proven that 'the next step' is what normalizes all of the previous ones.  How can you NOT learn from such a directly relevant example?  Every step the Brady's take, is in contention until they take the next one...  Then the past becomes 'normal' and nobody even contests it anymore....  The next generation grows up asking OCers "Wow, is that even legal?" because they have been taught 'normal' is helpless and brainwashed....  They never even questioned it until they waked past YOU.

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is....  Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back?  It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before.  No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt.  Do you really want that?

Keep tearing this guy down if you do...

I do not disagree with your basic premise, but there is a flaw in your thinking as it applies to this case. Your entire argument is based on an objection to the carry of the AK. There have been very few people here objecting to the AK in and of itself.

If you take the view that Kwikrnu's supporters have taken, then he was carrying a handgun and nothing more unusual than that. There is nothing new or novel about handgun carry. In theory the only thing new was carry into a park which was only recently legalized in Tenn., and disguising the weapon as an air-soft toy. Last time I looked, nobody had plans to carry air-soft toys as defensive weapons, nor was there much resistance to the public display and carry of them.

So while your premise is correct I do not believe it applies to this situation, unless you presume the issue to be the carry of the AK itself, and for me that is irrelevant.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

In fact it is so big a lie that in reality, in my view he was NOT in OC mode at the time of this incident.

If I wasn't in OC mode why did anyone call the cops? Am I in OC mode now that the tip is black?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

...SNIP
I don't use this name on every forum I visit.  In fact, I don't use the same name on ANY two forums.  Don't presume that I am unaware.

I see a man who has been changed by the experience.

If Florida became an Oc state overnight, even with good education to police, the officers here would still consider it open season.  I wouldn't be surprised to see them killing everyone they saw with a gun from the seat of their squad car.

Why do I mention that?  I think that Kwik wants to be prepared for the murderous vigilante-type of cop that would choose to confront him.  You all seem to skip over the fact that a LEO confrontation of any kind is always the choice of the LEO!  None of us have ever walked up to a cop while OCing and started asking "hey, @#$%, why do you htink you need a gun?  I should kick your ass" while pointing our guns at them...  the COPS do that, not us.

If I were entering into a situation where thugs with guns and vests were prone to attacking me, I'd carry AP in a rifle caliber, too.

In fact, I do almost every day, becaue I exist in such a place.  My PLR and SS109 have saved my ass on more than one occasion.

Maybe he's just rattling his sabre.  But I can relate becasue there was a time when I used to think "Good lord, why wuld anyone ever need that, it's ridiculous."  When meth-dealing cops are actively hunting you, you'll start to understand....

He is pushing the edges out.  It puts 'the rest of us' in the realm of normalcy when he does it.  And as he does it, there are many who would love to see him killed, and perhaps might just make an excuse to hide behind their badge and do just that.  I wouldn't blame him for carrying steel core.  You never know what kind of cop is going to find you, and if there will be any witnesses when s/he does to tell the news "Holy crap, the officer just shot him in the back of the head for no reason in broad daylight."  It DOES happen.  But "Open your mouth and you're next" keeps a lid on it.

He, also, has seen now that, nothing happened....  Except that he was excommunicated from the church of "We like guns and rights only if you do it our way."

You may think he's a doofus...  But I encourage those who would remove the splinter from his eye, to removes the logs from theirs, first.

As a frequent visitor and property owner in Florida, and a frequent Business traveler to Tennessee, I think I gather the contrasts here very well. I think it is a bit extreme to suggest that LEOs are going to shoot every armed citizen they see just because OC becomes legal, but I will accept that as hyperbola on your part.

But they are irrelevant. A I pointed out in another post, he was preparing for and attempting to provoke an armed confrontation with LEOs. People keep saying there would be better ways, by sneaking up on them, but that misses the point. I believe that he is hoping to actually provoke an incident and he plans to survive it. The purpose for such an act COULD be two fold. First to push the envelope on armed self defense against police (he would not be the first). Second to file law suits (for which he reportedly has a history).

People keep pointing out that such an act or purpose would be insane. I do not question that view for one second. But a person does not have to be sane to carry out such act, in fact it helps if you are not sane.

But all of this still side steps the point. He has not yet told the truth HERE about all of this. If he wanted AP to protect himself against the police, then just say so. Do you not find it odd how the guy side steps very straight forward and simple questions? Remember, he came here, we did not go looking for him. I think that gives people here a certain right to ask questions and have them answered honestly and directly.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Well gosh Ixtow. I'm all for supporting a fellow. Seems like you ought to move to TN and help Kwik out. You know, paint all the tips of all his guns orange, then he can carry them all at the same time, and you can video tape it while walking with him through the park. That's never been done before either. That's supportive right?

Since everyone relocating to TN and focusing on the fight there seems a bit ludicris, are you then suggesting that we all get AK pistols and paint the tips orange and carry in parks in our respective states? Maybe do it on the same day?

You've already agreed that painting the tip isn't exactly ideal if one wanted to be discreet, and doing so isn't illegal or against the law so there is no reason not to do it. So if there are no advantages of doing it, why haven't more folks done the exact same thing? Have you heard of or know of anyone else ever that has done that on purpose?

Sure, you make a point, it would have been worse if a criminal had done it. Nothing saying they won't in the future. If one does though and kills someone like a LEO, it will have much greater reprocussions than what Kwik did. The big flaw with what Kwik did though is that he could have accomplished the same thing by making a phone call or writing a letter, lots of them if need be, to illustrate that painting the tip doesn't always mean its a toy.

This is a good example of just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean someone ought to do it. So let's look at the main point:

1. What benefit is accomplished by open carrying a real handgun with the tip painted orange, that phone calls and letters can't accomplish?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

In fact it is so big a lie that in reality, in my view he was NOT in OC mode at the time of this incident.

 

If I wasn't in OC mode why did anyone call the cops? Am I in OC mode now that the tip is black?

You see it is remarks like this that have brought a lot of people out against you. And not to put too fine a point in things, but your original story did not mention people calling the cops, you said you encountered them just during their routine patrol of the park. Are you now changing that part of the story too. You see it is very difficult to trust what you say when you bend and distort the facts.

You know perfectly well that even in Tenn concealment includes disguising a firearms to hide its true nature, and you know perfectly well that is what you did. Telling people if/when they ask does not change that fact. You also know that was your actual intent, so quit trying to duck out on your actions. You can cry about painting the gun all you want, but your claim to have carried it openly is completely offset by your intentional disguising of the weapon. A belt buckle pistol is also in plain sight but it is considered concealed under the law because its true nature as a weapon is not apparent to a casual observer.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Hef wrote:

He (Embody) chose the AK because it was likely to cause a negative reaction and get him a confrontation with police, where the orange muzzle would confuse the officers ("is it real, or is it a toy?") and give him the opportunity to fire.

He asked about AP rounds for his AK. Why would he carry AP rounds in his AK if it's a carry weapon? Well, since he already has established the intent to engage police officers, and police officers are the only group who most citizens regularly encounter wearing armor, any reasonable person would assume he intends to use the AP rounds to defeat LEO's body armor in his confrontation.

Come on dude, you're smart enough to figure that out, aren't you?

We who bear arms do not exist in a vacuum. Public perception of what we do... 'where we do it and how we comport ourselves in the social dynamic of our environ is EVERYTHING!

I agree with this completely. But the problem is that our society is being taught that nothing gun related is ever acceptable, ever. You have to break that social norm to exercise the right at all. We are fighting an absolutist extreme, weather we want to or not.

Those of you who live in areas where it is more commonly accepted, do not realize what an island you really are. It was only a few years ago that carrying any weapon at all would bring about these same reactions. This man, intentionally or not, has moved to a 'next step.' Had he not done so, the edge of acceptable would still be you and your 1911. Because of him, you don't look so bad anymore. You've been normalized.

The next step is the only thing that ever normalizes. If you don't take the next step, then the PREVIOUS one stays at the edge of just barely tolerated. Maybe you don't like any of his steps. I don't completely agree with it either. But he did it, without killing anyone or being killed, and you call it a disaster? What ever would be an acceptable next step, please, make a suggestion...

The trend against guns has proven that 'the next step' is what normalizes all of the previous ones. How can you NOT learn from such a directly relevant example? Every step the Brady's take, is in contention until they take the next one... Then the past becomes 'normal' and nobody even contests it anymore.... The next generation grows up asking OCers "Wow, is that even legal?" because they have been taught 'normal' is helpless and brainwashed.... They never even questioned it until they waked past YOU.

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Keep tearing this guy down if you do...

I do not disagree with your basic premise, but there is a flaw in your thinking as it applies to this case. Your entire argument is based on an objection to the carry of the AK. There have been very few people here objecting to the AK in and of itself.

If you take the view that Kwikrnu's supporters have taken, then he was carrying a handgun and nothing more unusual than that. There is nothing new or novel about handgun carry. In theory the only thing new was carry into a park which was only recently legalized in Tenn., and disguising the weapon as an air-soft toy. Last time I looked, nobody had plans to carry air-soft toys as defensive weapons, nor was there much resistance to the public display and carry of them.

So while your premise is correct I do not believe it applies to this situation, unless you presume the issue to be the carry of the AK itself, and for me that is irrelevant.

I see the issue as not being disguising the weapon as a toy, because he stated that it was not. However, if here were a criminal, he could have. The issue I see is not about it being orange, and ak, OCed, or where. But that no one wants to do anything but name call over a non-event...

The issue that was created, for me, is the realization that the 'color protocol' is a lie itself. His intent is long gone and totally irrelevant. Continuing to cite HIS intent or HIS motives is just an immature bog on what could otherwise be a useful debate of the fact his actions exposed. I couldn't give two sh!ts who he is or why he did any of it. It just plain doesn't matter!

Facts and actual events matter. Who did it or why is totally irrelevant.

Did he conceal the weapon's identity? Step back from the discussion and say that out loud a few times to let the stupidity of it sink in... Do guns need photo Id now? He concealed it visually, yes. And it makes a very interesting point. But when ASKED, he did state that it was a real gun. You can't call him a lair or say he had deceptive intentions anymore; his actions exposed the reality. In a way, some might even consider it a way to save stupid sheeple from having a stroke "Oh, it's just an airsoft." They don't have to wet their panties and cry. This can be framed in any number of ways, so it becomes irrelevant on that point.

What remains is that he proved that Orange Tips means crap, don't keep anyo9ne safer, give criminals an advantage (which he did not use) and spared some group of people somewhere from a REAL criminal who might have thought of it first.... I don't care if he intended that or not, or even if he is the Tooth Fairy's evil twin. It just doesn't matter so why not SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT and discuss something factual instead of re-framing it over and over again (with a valid perspective or otherwise) just to be insulting? It's immature and a waste of bandwidth.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

ixtow wrote:

...SNIP
I don't use this name on every forum I visit. In fact, I don't use the same name on ANY two forums. Don't presume that I am unaware.

I see a man who has been changed by the experience.

If Florida became an Oc state overnight, even with good education to police, the officers here would still consider it open season. I wouldn't be surprised to see them killing everyone they saw with a gun from the seat of their squad car.

Why do I mention that? I think that Kwik wants to be prepared for the murderous vigilante-type of cop that would choose to confront him. You all seem to skip over the fact that a LEO confrontation of any kind is always the choice of the LEO! None of us have ever walked up to a cop while OCing and started asking "hey, @#$%, why do you htink you need a gun? I should kick your ass" while pointing our guns at them... the COPS do that, not us.

If I were entering into a situation where thugs with guns and vests were prone to attacking me, I'd carry AP in a rifle caliber, too.

In fact, I do almost every day, becaue I exist in such a place. My PLR and SS109 have saved my ass on more than one occasion.

Maybe he's just rattling his sabre. But I can relate becasue there was a time when I used to think "Good lord, why wuld anyone ever need that, it's ridiculous." When meth-dealing cops are actively hunting you, you'll start to understand....

He is pushing the edges out. It puts 'the rest of us' in the realm of normalcy when he does it. And as he does it, there are many who would love to see him killed, and perhaps might just make an excuse to hide behind their badge and do just that. I wouldn't blame him for carrying steel core. You never know what kind of cop is going to find you, and if there will be any witnesses when s/he does to tell the news "Holy crap, the officer just shot him in the back of the head for no reason in broad daylight." It DOES happen. But "Open your mouth and you're next" keeps a lid on it.

He, also, has seen now that, nothing happened.... Except that he was excommunicated from the church of "We like guns and rights only if you do it our way."

You may think he's a doofus... But I encourage those who would remove the splinter from his eye, to removes the logs from theirs, first.

I believe that he is hoping to actually provoke an incident and he plans to survive it.

You can believe that if you like. But the major flaw is in the word 'provoke.'

You cannot 'provoke' an Officer into a deadly encounter if you have not broken a law. Unless, of course, that officer is complicit with the idea of killing someone for sport just because he can use his badge to get away with it.

It is the same argument as 'baiting.' If the officer is not a predator looking for any excuse to kill, then the so-called 'bait' won't have any effect anyway!

The Police themselves use this. Undercover Officers as Prostitutes. If you aren't looking for a hooker, then you aren't a bad person, and it doesn't matter. They aren't 'baiting' anyone when they do that. We can argue the legality of prostitution in another thread, it serves only as an example here.

You cannot provoke or bait an officer who isn't already willing to cross that line on his own; just like any other person. The most you can do is provide a controlled situation into which s/he is willing to expose his/her nature and intentions. This only makes sense.

If I felt there was reason to believe that some prick out there might have a vendetta against me for exercising a right he'd rather I didn't have, I'd like to survive his attack on me, too! Having actually lived through more of that than I'd care to have had to, I speak from experience. When the cops decide to attack you, you better have an adequate weapon! And you better be a whole hell of a lot more than posturing and hot air. If you win, they will do everything they can to keep a lid on what they did. If you lose, well, the victor writes the history books....

This is a perfectly reasonable belief to have. Go look at the threads on Police Forums.... There are very clearly a great many cops out there who see nothing wrong with killing people for OCing anything at all. A 30rd mag of SS109 is the only friend you have when those assholes find you.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Ixtow - Hawk stated this earlier and it's about as clear and to the point as things can be.

"Now you correct me if I am wrong, but in most OC scenarios, is it not the entire purpose to OC WITHOUT an incident? Is not the idea to normalize the activity and so therefore one of the goals is to simply walk past the LEO and have NO exchange or at most a "have a nice day" as you pass? And is not the MAIN purpose to carry the weapon IN THE OPEN, and have all present who care, know that it is a weapon?"

Had Kwik not painted the tip to look like a toy, the ranger probably would have stopped him anyway because it was a strange looking weapon. The conversation would probably have been different. One shouldn't "have to be asked" about whether or not their weapon they are carrying is real. Especially if there is an accepted norm already that an orange tip means it's a toy.

Waaait a minute. I thought Kwik wanted to push the envelope of carrying a AK handgun, what's all this sudden baloney about pushing the colored tip envelop? Are you and Kwik in cohoots?

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Hef wrote:

He (Embody) chose the AK because it was likely to cause a negative reaction and get him a confrontation with police, where the orange muzzle would confuse the officers ("is it real, or is it a toy?") and give him the opportunity to fire.

He asked about AP rounds for his AK. Why would he carry AP rounds in his AK if it's a carry weapon? Well, since he already has established the intent to engage police officers, and police officers are the only group who most citizens regularly encounter wearing armor, any reasonable person would assume he intends to use the AP rounds to defeat LEO's body armor in his confrontation.

Come on dude, you're smart enough to figure that out, aren't you?

We who bear arms do not exist in a vacuum. Public perception of what we do... 'where we do it and how we comport ourselves in the social dynamic of our environ is EVERYTHING!

I agree with this completely.  But the problem is that our society is being taught that nothing gun related is ever acceptable, ever.  You have to break that social norm to exercise the right at all.  We are fighting an absolutist extreme, weather we want to or not.

Those of you who live in areas where it is more commonly accepted, do not realize what an island you really are.  It was only a few years ago that carrying any weapon at all would bring about these same reactions.  This man, intentionally or not, has moved to a 'next step.'  Had he not done so, the edge of acceptable would still be you and your 1911.  Because of him, you don't look so bad anymore.  You've been normalized.

The next step is the only thing that ever normalizes.  If you don't take the next step, then the PREVIOUS one stays at the edge of just barely tolerated.  Maybe you don't like any of his steps.  I don't completely agree with it either.  But he did it, without killing anyone or being killed, and you call it a disaster?  What ever would be an acceptable next step, please, make a suggestion...

The trend against guns has proven that 'the next step' is what normalizes all of the previous ones.  How can you NOT learn from such a directly relevant example?  Every step the Brady's take, is in contention until they take the next one...  Then the past becomes 'normal' and nobody even contests it anymore....  The next generation grows up asking OCers "Wow, is that even legal?" because they have been taught 'normal' is helpless and brainwashed....  They never even questioned it until they waked past YOU.

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is....  Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back?  It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before.  No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt.  Do you really want that?

Keep tearing this guy down if you do...

I do not disagree with your basic premise, but there is a flaw in your thinking as it applies to this case. Your entire argument is based on an objection to the carry of the AK. There have been very few people here objecting to the AK in and of itself.

If you take the view that Kwikrnu's supporters have taken, then he was carrying a handgun and nothing more unusual than that. There is nothing new or novel about handgun carry. In theory the only thing new was carry into a park which was only recently legalized in Tenn., and disguising the weapon as an air-soft toy. Last time I looked, nobody had plans to carry air-soft toys as defensive weapons, nor was there much resistance to the public display and carry of them.

So while your premise is correct I do not believe it applies to this situation, unless you presume the issue to be the carry of the AK itself, and for me that is irrelevant.

I see the issue as not being disguising the weapon as a toy, because he stated that it was not.  However, if here were a criminal, he could have.  The issue I see is not about it being orange, and ak, OCed, or where.  But that no one wants to do anything but name call over a non-event...

The issue that was created, for me, is the realization that the 'color protocol' is a lie itself.  His intent is long gone and totally irrelevant.  Continuing to cite HIS intent or HIS motives is just an immature bog on what could otherwise be a useful debate of the fact his actions exposed.  I couldn't give two sh!ts who he is or why he did any of it.  It just plain doesn't matter!

Facts and actual events matter.  Who did it or why is totally irrelevant.

Did he conceal the weapon's identity?  Step back from the discussion and say that out loud a few times to let the stupidity of it sink in...  Do guns need photo Id now?  He concealed it visually, yes.  And it makes a very interesting point.  But when ASKED, he did state that it was a real gun.  You can't call him a lair or say he had deceptive intentions anymore; his actions exposed the reality.  In a way, some might even consider it a way to save stupid sheeple from having a stroke "Oh, it's just an airsoft."  They don't have to wet their panties and cry.  This can be framed in any number of ways, so it becomes irrelevant on that point.

What remains is that he proved that Orange Tips means crap, don't keep anyo9ne safer, give criminals an advantage (which he did not use) and spared some group of people somewhere from a REAL criminal who might have thought of it first....  I don't care if he intended that or not, or even if he is the Tooth Fairy's evil twin.  It just doesn't matter so why not SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT and discuss something factual instead of re-framing it over and over again (with a valid perspective or otherwise) just to be insulting?  It's immature and a waste of bandwidth.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Well gosh Ixtow. I'm all for supporting a fellow. Seems like you ought to move to TN and help Kwik out. You know, paint all the tips of all his guns orange, then he can carry them all at the same time, and you can video tape it while walking with him through the park. That's never been done before either. That's supportive right?

Since everyone relocating to TN and focusing on the fight there seems a bit ludicris, are you then suggesting that we all get AK pistols and paint the tips orange and carry in parks in our respective states? Maybe do it on the same day?

You've already agreed that painting the tip isn't exactly ideal if one wanted to be discreet, and doing so isn't illegal or against the law so there is no reason not to do it. So if there are no advantages of doing it, why haven't more folks done the exact same thing? Have you heard of or know of anyone else ever that has done that on purpose?

Sure, you make a point, it would have been worse if a criminal had done it. Nothing saying they won't in the future. If one does though and kills someone like a LEO, it will have much greater reprocussions than what Kwik did. The big flaw with what Kwik did though is that he could have accomplished the same thing by making a phone call or writing a letter, lots of them if need be, to illustrate that painting the tip doesn't always mean its a toy.

This is a good example of just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean someone ought to do it. So let's look at the main point:

1. What benefit is accomplished by open carrying a real handgun with the tip painted orange, that phone calls and letters can't accomplish?

I've already answered your question, and you've put words in my mouth. I no longer have any use for talking to you now that you've proved willing to 'go there.'

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

Ixtow - Hawk stated this earlier and it's about as clear and to the point as things can be.

"Now you correct me if I am wrong, but in most OC scenarios, is it not the entire purpose to OC WITHOUT an incident? Is not the idea to normalize the activity and so therefore one of the goals is to simply walk past the LEO and have NO exchange or at most a "have a nice day" as you pass? And is not the MAIN purpose to carry the weapon IN THE OPEN, and have all present who care, know that it is a weapon?"

Had Kwik not painted the tip to look like a toy, the ranger probably would have stopped him anyway because it was a strange looking weapon. The conversation would probably have been different. One shouldn't "have to be asked" about whether or not their weapon they are carrying is real. Especially if there is an accepted norm already that an orange tip means it's a toy.

Waaait a minute. I thought Kwik wanted to push the envelope of carrying a AK handgun, what's all this sudden baloney about pushing the colored tip envelop? Are you and Kwik in cohoots?

Exactly!

 

[suntzu]

imported post

kwikrnu,

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

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


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

 

[bohdi]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

bohdi wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Well gosh Ixtow. I'm all for supporting a fellow. Seems like you ought to move to TN and help Kwik out. You know, paint all the tips of all his guns orange, then he can carry them all at the same time, and you can video tape it while walking with him through the park. That's never been done before either. That's supportive right?

Since everyone relocating to TN and focusing on the fight there seems a bit ludicris, are you then suggesting that we all get AK pistols and paint the tips orange and carry in parks in our respective states? Maybe do it on the same day?

You've already agreed that painting the tip isn't exactly ideal if one wanted to be discreet, and doing so isn't illegal or against the law so there is no reason not to do it. So if there are no advantages of doing it, why haven't more folks done the exact same thing? Have you heard of or know of anyone else ever that has done that on purpose?

Sure, you make a point, it would have been worse if a criminal had done it. Nothing saying they won't in the future. If one does though and kills someone like a LEO, it will have much greater reprocussions than what Kwik did. The big flaw with what Kwik did though is that he could have accomplished the same thing by making a phone call or writing a letter, lots of them if need be, to illustrate that painting the tip doesn't always mean its a toy.

This is a good example of just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean someone ought to do it. So let's look at the main point:

1. What benefit is accomplished by open carrying a real handgun with the tip painted orange, that phone calls and letters can't accomplish?

I've already answered your question, and you've put words in my mouth. I no longer have any use for talking to you now that you've proved willing to 'go there.'

Seriously? Your taking your ball and going home because what you aren't comfortable with what you have already stated anymore? What words did I put in your mouth? Or Kwiks?

If the general population has taken the AK abnormalty out of the question as being "OK", why is it not then fair to ask the question of the benefit?

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

You see it is remarks like this that have brought a lot of people out against you. And not to put too fine a point in things, but your original story did not mention people calling the cops, you said you encountered them just during their routine patrol of the park. Are you now changing that part of the story too. You see it is very difficult to trust what you say when you bend and distort the facts.

You know perfectly well that even in Tenn concealment includes disguising a firearms to hide its true nature, and you know perfectly well that is what you did. Telling people if/when they ask does not change that fact. You also know that was your actual intent, so quit trying to duck out on your actions. You can cry about painting the gun all you want, but your claim to have carried it openly is completely offset by your intentional disguising of the weapon. A belt buckle pistol is also in plain sight but it is considered concealed under the law because its true nature as a weapon is not apparent to a casual observer.

The news stories reported that people called the cops. The second ranger said he had gotten lots of calls. I am assuming lots of people called an complained. I didn't see anyone call except for the first ranger.

I am permitted to carry open or concealed.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu,

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

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


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

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

 

[suntzu]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu,

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

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


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

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

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

 

[ixtow]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

ixtow wrote:

bohdi wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I'd prefer to take back rights one step at a time, instead of standing still and waiting for a bloody revolt, as history has shown us the cycle is.... Why take one step and then wait to be pushed back? It only looks outlandish because it's never been done before. No nation has ever won back it's right to self-defense by any means other than eventuall collapse of gornment and bloody revolt. Do you really want that?

Well gosh Ixtow. I'm all for supporting a fellow. Seems like you ought to move to TN and help Kwik out. You know, paint all the tips of all his guns orange, then he can carry them all at the same time, and you can video tape it while walking with him through the park. That's never been done before either. That's supportive right?

Since everyone relocating to TN and focusing on the fight there seems a bit ludicris, are you then suggesting that we all get AK pistols and paint the tips orange and carry in parks in our respective states? Maybe do it on the same day?

You've already agreed that painting the tip isn't exactly ideal if one wanted to be discreet, and doing so isn't illegal or against the law so there is no reason not to do it. So if there are no advantages of doing it, why haven't more folks done the exact same thing? Have you heard of or know of anyone else ever that has done that on purpose?

Sure, you make a point, it would have been worse if a criminal had done it. Nothing saying they won't in the future. If one does though and kills someone like a LEO, it will have much greater reprocussions than what Kwik did. The big flaw with what Kwik did though is that he could have accomplished the same thing by making a phone call or writing a letter, lots of them if need be, to illustrate that painting the tip doesn't always mean its a toy.

This is a good example of just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean someone ought to do it. So let's look at the main point:

1. What benefit is accomplished by open carrying a real handgun with the tip painted orange, that phone calls and letters can't accomplish?

I've already answered your question, and you've put words in my mouth. I no longer have any use for talking to you now that you've proved willing to 'go there.'

Seriously? Your taking your ball and going home because what you aren't comfortable with what you have already stated anymore? What words did I put in your mouth? Or Kwiks?

If the general population has taken the AK abnormalty out of the question as being "OK", why is it not then fair to ask the question of the benefit?

No, I'm taking my Basket Ball away from you because you keep swinging a Golf Club at it. It isn't productive to allow that to continue.

I never said it wasn't 'fair' to ask. I said I have already answered it. You've made it clear that you aren't interested in a debate by repeating the same ol' over again.

I'm cutting you off before you waste any more of my time trying to re-frame and re-ask.

There, I said it 3 different ways, happy?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

suntzu wrote:

kwikrnu,

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

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


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

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

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

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