Actually, it's too bad he wasn't wearing a turban. The media might very well get instantly informed about carry rights, and how it's perfectly legal, and people do it all the time, and the guy in the turban was stopped due to profiling.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Actually, it's too bad he wasn't wearing a turban. The media might very well get instantly informed about carry rights, and how it's perfectly legal, and people do it all the time, and the guy in the turban was stopped due to profiling.
MACHINEGUN
Shooter
This guy sounds like a total nut job who shouldn't even have the right to carry.. he makes us all look very bad.
Why on earth would he paint his muzzle orange? He went out looking for attention.. and he found it. Boo freaking hoo!
Why on earth would he paint his muzzle orange? He went out looking for attention.. and he found it. Boo freaking hoo!
Wow....wtf....
I am all for the right to carry cc or oc but that...was just plain stupid.
Sounds to me like the guy is just seeking attention rather then exercising his rights. I also don't tend to judge what people carry, but I don't see what purpose a person would need to OC an AK type rifle slung over their shoulder in public for whatever reason. Unless they were ocing outside somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not only that, but the way he claimed he would re test this idiocy just proves he's an attention seeker.
I am all for the right to carry cc or oc but that...was just plain stupid.
Sounds to me like the guy is just seeking attention rather then exercising his rights. I also don't tend to judge what people carry, but I don't see what purpose a person would need to OC an AK type rifle slung over their shoulder in public for whatever reason. Unless they were ocing outside somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not only that, but the way he claimed he would re test this idiocy just proves he's an attention seeker.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
*spits tobacco*
Yup, I say, I say, he's right uppity about them thar rights.
Yup, I say, I say, he's right uppity about them thar rights.
I just don't get it...
We are all (supposedly) pro-gun rights supporters here, yet we constantly attack others who are also gun-rights supporters because we disagree with the way they exercise those rights.
The guy wasn't doing anything illegal...or unsafe. All he did was dress in camo (which I'm sure a lot of us here also do at times) & open carried a firearm in a legal location. Who cares what KIND of gun it was. IT WAS HIS RIGHT.
Haven't several people on this board participated in OC walks to protest gun rights being taken. That was the point, wasn't it - trying to get attention? Do you think all those who participated in those protests should also have their gun rights taken away, been arrested or even (as some fools on other gun boards suggested) been assaulted or killed?
Jump off the bandwagon folks & think for yourselves.
What's the point of having a right if you're never going to (let anybody else) exercise it?
Why should WE give the anti-gun crowd more support than they already deserve by not by not backing the legal actions of one of our own.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights does not exist to protect the rights of only the people you agree with. The First Amendment adage "I may not agree with what you're saying but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it" also has a direct parallel to the Second Amendment.
Think about it.
We are all (supposedly) pro-gun rights supporters here, yet we constantly attack others who are also gun-rights supporters because we disagree with the way they exercise those rights.
The guy wasn't doing anything illegal...or unsafe. All he did was dress in camo (which I'm sure a lot of us here also do at times) & open carried a firearm in a legal location. Who cares what KIND of gun it was. IT WAS HIS RIGHT.
Haven't several people on this board participated in OC walks to protest gun rights being taken. That was the point, wasn't it - trying to get attention? Do you think all those who participated in those protests should also have their gun rights taken away, been arrested or even (as some fools on other gun boards suggested) been assaulted or killed?
Jump off the bandwagon folks & think for yourselves.
What's the point of having a right if you're never going to (let anybody else) exercise it?
Why should WE give the anti-gun crowd more support than they already deserve by not by not backing the legal actions of one of our own.
The Constitution & Bill of Rights does not exist to protect the rights of only the people you agree with. The First Amendment adage "I may not agree with what you're saying but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it" also has a direct parallel to the Second Amendment.
Think about it.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
We're here, we're armed, you better get used to it!
Where's my rainbow flag? You all look fabulous today!
Where's my rainbow flag? You all look fabulous today!
This just goes to show that a lot of people, including people here, are all for exercising your rights. Just so long as they agree with the manner in which you choose to exercise them.
In Michigan there is an individual who has received police attention numerous times for open carrying his pistol. In one of his most recent encounters the officer is heard in the video saying, "Look it's all fine and good for you guys to carry like this at your picnics and get togethers. But you can't be doin this stuff (OC'ing) out here".
To me a lot of you sound the exact same way. It sounds like your all for having rights but feel that people have no business using them.
Would you be saying the same things if he had been carrying a more common pistol? What if it was a .45? Those things are powerful. Why would need that. A .380 would work just as well. What if he was carrying more than one magazine? I mean do you really need more than 10 bullets?
It makes my stomach turn the way some of you supposed 2A supporters are putting down a man for conducting himself in a completely lawful manner. The only thing he did that I don't agree with was painting the tip of his pistol orange. However, he broke no law in doing so and I won't fault him for doing something that is legal.
A lot of you seem to feel that he is doing more harm to gun rights than good. As I said in an earlier post. What hurts our rights more. People exercising them or people who claim to believe in our rights bashing those that choose to do so?
Isn't this behavior how we got where we are today? The compromising of our rights to appease those who want to take them away from us?
In Michigan there is an individual who has received police attention numerous times for open carrying his pistol. In one of his most recent encounters the officer is heard in the video saying, "Look it's all fine and good for you guys to carry like this at your picnics and get togethers. But you can't be doin this stuff (OC'ing) out here".
To me a lot of you sound the exact same way. It sounds like your all for having rights but feel that people have no business using them.
Would you be saying the same things if he had been carrying a more common pistol? What if it was a .45? Those things are powerful. Why would need that. A .380 would work just as well. What if he was carrying more than one magazine? I mean do you really need more than 10 bullets?
It makes my stomach turn the way some of you supposed 2A supporters are putting down a man for conducting himself in a completely lawful manner. The only thing he did that I don't agree with was painting the tip of his pistol orange. However, he broke no law in doing so and I won't fault him for doing something that is legal.
A lot of you seem to feel that he is doing more harm to gun rights than good. As I said in an earlier post. What hurts our rights more. People exercising them or people who claim to believe in our rights bashing those that choose to do so?
Isn't this behavior how we got where we are today? The compromising of our rights to appease those who want to take them away from us?
Last edited:
Good catch. I know it is a pistol. I was reffering to something more common such as Glock, Kimber, S&W etc.
If it was a 1911, of course it would be OK. Especially in a good looking leather holster with a basket weave pattern.
Seriously, though.
I understand what Beau is saying, We all participate in some sort of attention grab when we assert our 2A rights. The majority of people do not carry side arms. Being in the minority, we get attention anytime we let it be known that we are carrying. This has to be done. We have to get the word out before the right to carry is lost due to gross apathy.
BUT, it appears that this guy is doing his best to have a wrong attitude. The way I understand it he was dressed in a camo jacket, black skull cap, and military style boots. He was carrying the scariest gun that he could find at the time. If you look at it beside, say, a Beretta 92, it is like 2 1/2 times bigger. The AK pistol that he had was not even in a holster. It was slung across his shoulder, which implies and it logically follows that he had at least one hand on it. Now we get a picture not of a guy out for a day of hiking, but of a guy looking for trouble. Appearance is everything.
People are so oblivious that if he had dressed normally and carried my example gun, a Beretta M92, most of them would not have even noticed. So, he went all out and did everything he could think of to get noticed. That scared people. Most of us would never want to intentionally scare the unsuspecting people spending a day in a state park. That's the line that was crossed IMHO. We have a lot of rights and with these rights comes the repsonsibility of enjoying our rights without violating others sensibilities.
Apearances matter, plain and simple.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
No, trust me, a 1911 in a nice holster does not make an impression.
No, trust me, a 1911 in a nice holster does not make an impression.
More like an unimpression.
Would I have walked through the park dressed like he was described, carrying that? Probably not.
Would I dress like half the people here? Probably not.
Not saying anything against anyone, just different styles.
He was described as wearing military garb by the same person that called that an sawed of AK-47.
First off....as has been pointed out, the description of the pistol was completely inaccurate. (BTW aren't pistol's supposed to have pistol grips? If it had a stock it would be an Illegal SBR.....)
Now if the first sentence (and several there after) that come out of the reporter’s mouth are wrong, what makes you think the description was accurate?
Have we seen a picture of what he was wearing? Now I could be wrong, but I have reviewed several of the articles and only saw pictures of the gun, not the man.
Now apparently his reputation is not the greatest, so maybe he was dressed to the T of what was described.
HOWEVER....my hunting clothes are the warmest ones I have....I even bought an extra jacket because I liked it so much....and its CAMO!!! Never once was a picture or wording used to suggest military camo, and even if it was, the military probably chose that camo for a reason...it blends in. Now he was wearing a skull cap, black in fact. Google "black skull cap" and look at the images. Most look very similar to standard beanie style hats a lot of INGOers like.
As for the combat boots....many hiking boots are modeled after combat boots, rugged sole, good ankle support, light. Is it possible that a pair of black hiking boots (if they were even black) were mistaken for combat boots?
At this point, just reading the article, I see that the guy did nothing wrong. Unless you are saying OC-ing a pistol is in wrong.
Maybe it was the sling? I would imagine he has better retention of that pistol with a sling than many do in their carry holster.
Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean nobody should.
Would I dress like half the people here? Probably not.
Not saying anything against anyone, just different styles.
He was described as wearing military garb by the same person that called that an sawed of AK-47.
First off....as has been pointed out, the description of the pistol was completely inaccurate. (BTW aren't pistol's supposed to have pistol grips? If it had a stock it would be an Illegal SBR.....)
Now if the first sentence (and several there after) that come out of the reporter’s mouth are wrong, what makes you think the description was accurate?
Have we seen a picture of what he was wearing? Now I could be wrong, but I have reviewed several of the articles and only saw pictures of the gun, not the man.
Now apparently his reputation is not the greatest, so maybe he was dressed to the T of what was described.
HOWEVER....my hunting clothes are the warmest ones I have....I even bought an extra jacket because I liked it so much....and its CAMO!!! Never once was a picture or wording used to suggest military camo, and even if it was, the military probably chose that camo for a reason...it blends in. Now he was wearing a skull cap, black in fact. Google "black skull cap" and look at the images. Most look very similar to standard beanie style hats a lot of INGOers like.
As for the combat boots....many hiking boots are modeled after combat boots, rugged sole, good ankle support, light. Is it possible that a pair of black hiking boots (if they were even black) were mistaken for combat boots?
At this point, just reading the article, I see that the guy did nothing wrong. Unless you are saying OC-ing a pistol is in wrong.
Maybe it was the sling? I would imagine he has better retention of that pistol with a sling than many do in their carry holster.
Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean nobody should.
I rest my case your Honor.
And you give your client grounds for a mistrial.
You see, the person you're quoting would not have walked through the park dressed like that. Neither would I. But then, I also wouldn't walk through the park eating a bagel with cream cheese and lox (don't particularly care for lox). I also wouldn't walk through the park with pants hanging down around my knees. Nor would I walk through the park wearing a Sikh turban (not a Sikh). I also wouldn't walk through the park wearing a tutu and geta (not my kink).
But I would never endorse anyone, LEO or otherwise, pointing a gun at someone for doing any of those things.
Anyway, I think we can mostly agree that his heart was in the right place.
I just think he was over the top.
Others on the forum don't think so, so we disagree...
Situation Normal
I'm sure some thought refusing to go to the back of the bus was "over the top" too and Rosa Parks was just grandstanding.
Walter Zoomie
Shooter
The Rosa Park references are weak.
This isn't 1959, and we're not talking about a black woman, where she sits on a bus, and asking her, "What's up?"
I guarantee every member of this site would be asking themselves "what's up?" if this douche nozzle strolled by their house on the sidewalk all kitted up like combat town and rocking his "sawed off AK47."
And if you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.
This isn't 1959, and we're not talking about a black woman, where she sits on a bus, and asking her, "What's up?"
I guarantee every member of this site would be asking themselves "what's up?" if this douche nozzle strolled by their house on the sidewalk all kitted up like combat town and rocking his "sawed off AK47."
And if you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.
Something doesn't become "weak" simply because you say so.
1959, however, was 1959. And in 1959 the actions of one Rosa Parks were just as objectionable, more so in fact, than the actions of the individual described in the OP. You might say that times are different now but they are different in large part because of people like Rosa Parks.
I wouldn't, however point a gun at the person and if the only "crime" was walking down the street as described carrying an AK pistol (if it was actually a "sawed off AK47 then we'd be hearing about charges being filed for an unlicensed SBR), I would just as much object to police holding him at gunpoint to.
You can call me a liar all you want, but that doesn't change either the facts or my belief or my probable actions.
groovatron
Master
I have heard no reason why this guy did all this. We can all only assume that he was in it for the attention. Like Walter Zoomie stated, everyone on this forum would be suspicious if they saw a character as described in the newscast. If I was strolling along my favorite trail and saw this dude, I would probably cautiously eye him while preparing to draw.
I mean, look at someone like my Mom. She absolutely supports gun rights and has never badgered me about my enthusiasm for firearms. She actively asks me questions about how, what, and when I carry. On the other hand, carrying is not for her. She just wouldn't be comfortable with carry herself. But as comfortable as she is with citizens excercising their right to carry, a situation like this would freak the crap out of her.
We have many more important battles to win in the gun rights war....this IMO is a bit out of line. I wouldn't be suprised if it screwed the next guy out of being able to excercise his 2A rights in a TN SP. This was not good publicity for the gun world. As far as the cops drawing on him and detaining him.......not cool. I would be one verbally pissed off mofo if the cops pulled that crap on me. Especially if they had their fingers on the trigger. And yes, I would have attorneys barking down their throats.
I mean, look at someone like my Mom. She absolutely supports gun rights and has never badgered me about my enthusiasm for firearms. She actively asks me questions about how, what, and when I carry. On the other hand, carrying is not for her. She just wouldn't be comfortable with carry herself. But as comfortable as she is with citizens excercising their right to carry, a situation like this would freak the crap out of her.
We have many more important battles to win in the gun rights war....this IMO is a bit out of line. I wouldn't be suprised if it screwed the next guy out of being able to excercise his 2A rights in a TN SP. This was not good publicity for the gun world. As far as the cops drawing on him and detaining him.......not cool. I would be one verbally pissed off mofo if the cops pulled that crap on me. Especially if they had their fingers on the trigger. And yes, I would have attorneys barking down their throats.
Site Supporter
Members online
- bocefus78
- gus1989
- Jim5528
- Steelworker
- rb288
- 2WheelinTrucker
- Lefty Lawless
- jspy5
- cgoodman21
- KG1
- BoilerWes
- Magyars
- Jowl1
- mwg
- pmbiker
- Bugzilla
- Sigasaurus
- rabbit hunter mab
- keeph8n
- hhi7410
- Hoosier Carry
- TheSpookyCat
- COOPADUP
- mikek
- Joniki
- Mgderf
- mike4sigs
- Butch627
- A. Ramon
- Keith_Indy
- slims2002
- Beretta76
- JamesV
- erasure
- DoggyDaddy
- lovemachine
- BeDome
- XDdreams
- edwea
- led4thehed2
- Principal Skinr
- cmamath13
- draftyranger
- OneBadV8
- BP84
- JTL165
- Roadman
- gamshar
- HKFaninCarmel
- simpleman44