TN state park OC trouble

[dburkhead]

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.

But would you pull a gun and point it at him? If so, then you are more dangerous than he is. If not, then would you really argue in favor of the folk who did exactly that?

What really concerns me is that so many people are afraid of the antis. They are afraid to exercise their rights because of fear of what the antis will do. They are afraid to even look like they are supporting people exercising their rights because of fear of what the antis will do.

This fear does half the antis job for them. The gun rights movement can survive a few "over the top" individuals. It cannot survive the rank and file being too afraid of the antis to strongly assert their rights.

 

[finity]

BUT, it appears that this guy is doing his best to have a wrong attitude.

So?

The way I understand it he was dressed in a camo jacket, black skull cap, and military style boots.

So?

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.

Not really. I carry a hunting rifle with a sling & there are plenty of times I don't have my hand on it. That's sort of the point to a sling, to carry the firearm while leaving your hands free for other tasks.

Now we get a picture not of a guy out for a day of hiking, but of a guy looking for trouble.

OR

We get a picture of a guy exercising his rights in a completely legal manner that you're twisting into something it's not.

You sound exectly like any other anti-gun person who's ever complained about being scared of a person innocently & legally carrying. Why can't you see IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT.

It doesn't matter what YOU can IMAGINE that SCARES YOU. That's not his problem. That's your problem.

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 will admit that I would be in a heightened state of awareness around him. But I would also be in a heightened state of awareness around someone carrying a "normal" handgun, an axe, a club, sporting Neo-Nazi tattoo's or gang-banger attire, etc. To do otherwise is irresponsible. But...I will never say that those people doing those completely legal activities should be locked up or otherwise have their rights infringed upon JUST BECAUSE I don't agree with them.

Suspicion is one thing. Eyeing him while PREPARING TO DRAW is another. Suggesting that he be stripped of his rights, held at gun point, face planted, thrown in jail or assaulted/killed is just totally ridiculous.

We have many more important battles to win in the gun rights war....this IMO is a bit out of line.

So anyone who feels that he "crossed the line", could you please tell me where EXACTLY that line is so that I or others won't violate your sensibilities. While you're at it please tell me EXACTLY what things I should never say, EXACTLY which religion to follow or EXACTLY how I should act & live my life so that you feel more comfortable. It sure would make life a lot easier if everybody looked & acted exactly the same.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[public servant]

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.

All of this talk on this board about carrying a gun to defend one's life and family, and about situational awareness.....yet when it comes to a guy dressed in camo bopping around with an AK pistol on a sling with the tip painted orange....well, nothing to see here!





Then again, it may be a lost cause to discuss such things with people who can't tell 1959 from 2009, and don't know the difference between racial discrimination and legitimate public concern about odd and unusual behavior from a well armed individual.

and

 

[groovatron]

But would you pull a gun and point it at him? If so, then you are more dangerous than he is. If not, then would you really argue in favor of the folk who did exactly that? When did I argue in favor of that.....read my post....if a cop did that to me, I would sick a team of lawyers on them that they have only seen in the movies. (and it's not because I'm rich...I just happen to have alot of friends)

What really concerns me is that so many people are afraid of the antis. They are afraid to exercise their rights because of fear of what the antis will do. They are afraid to even look like they are supporting people exercising their rights because of fear of what the antis will do.

This fear does half the antis job for them. The gun rights movement can survive a few "over the top" individuals. It cannot survive the rank and file being too afraid of the antis to strongly assert their rights.

The only time I would draw is if I had a reason to. In this case, the moment I saw his hand on the grip or finger on the trigger, then out she comes. If the AK stays on his shoulder and he tips his cap, then I'm fine. Being the open person that I am, I'm sure I would strike up a conversation with the guy and we would be friends in no time. I am just saying that the average person, gun familiar ones included, would be a bit freaked out by the situation.

And as far as being "afraid" of the antis. That's not me my friend. I'm not afraid of anything. I just try to choose my battles wisely. You must be able to look at this situation subjectively and realize the pros and cons. Although I don't believe that this guy technically did anything wrong, his decision to make a spectacle of himself was not the most intelligently tactful thing to do. It's no different then if I dressed in black and strolled around NWI with me AR-15. Sure, it's legal, but it's not going to help my cause. It has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with conversion. We need to make the antis see the light, and pushing the boundries for attention like this is no way to do that.

Seriously, tell me that this was a positive step in the 2A movement. Tell me that this clarified things for the fence sitters. Unfortunately, it does the exact opposite. TN had a 2A victory by overturning the gun ban in state parks. No matter how you look at the guys actions, this situation may help prevent future positive gun legislation.

 

[dburkhead]

TN had a 2A victory by overturning the gun ban in state parks. No matter how you look at the guys actions, this situation may help prevent future positive gun legislation.

And that is being afraid of the antis. Oh, no! They might prevent future positive gun legislation.

Well, they are going to try their best to do that regardless of what this guy did or not.

The same people who are raising a fuss about the "sawed off AK47" object just as much to the idea of anyone carrying anything more "lethal" then a tethered cork popgun. And they're just as opposed whether this guy carried that gun while dressed that way or not.

I'm not saying that specifically what the guy did was helpful. I'm not even saying it wasn't "harmful" in the grander scheme of things (I'm not saying it was either). I am saying that the tendency of supposedly pro-gun people throwing someone who was engaging in perfectly legal activity under the bus is more harmful. It smacks of attempted appeasement and is as likely to be as successful as appeasement usually has been. Appeasement: the belief that one can turn a tiger into a vegetarian by feeding him steaks.

I have seen some people here criticize some "hunters" who are willing to give up "assault weapons" or semiautomatic handguns in order to protect their hunting arms, calling them "fudds" and the like. Well, the folk who want to throw this guy under the bus are doing the same thing.

When it comes to Gun rights, there is strength in unity, weakness in division, exactly as was the case with the early colonies that eventually became the US:

 

[groovatron]

[quote/]"I will admit that I would be in a heightened state of awareness around him. But I would also be in a heightened state of awareness around someone carrying a "normal" handgun, an axe, a club, sporting Neo-Nazi tattoo's or gang-banger attire, etc. To do otherwise is irresponsible. But...I will never say that those people doing those completely legal activities should be locked up or otherwise have their rights infringed upon JUST BECAUSE I don't agree with them.

Suspicion is one thing. Eyeing him while PREPARING TO DRAW is another. Suggesting that he be stripped of his rights, held at gun point, face planted, thrown in jail or assaulted/killed is just totally ridiculous.



So anyone who feels that he "crossed the line", could you please tell me where EXACTLY that line is so that I or others won't violate your sensibilities. While you're at it please tell me EXACTLY what things I should never say, EXACTLY which religion to follow or EXACTLY how I should act & live my life so that you feel more comfortable. It sure would make life a lot easier if everybody looked & acted exactly the same.[/quote]


I swear, I have to repeat myself more on this forum than with my two year old. It's like you only read the parts of my post that you don't agree with. Do you work for a newspaper? Jeez...where do I start?.......

Suspicion vs. eyeing and preparing to draw.....
If a dude is in the woods with an AK wearing camo, that is beyond suspicion. Unless you are in some kind of militia, this is not the norm at a state park....anywhere. When I say "eyeing", that basically means that I have spotted an obviously suspiscious person and it is in my best interest to keep my eyes glued to him. When I say "preparing to draw"....this is a mental state that anyone who carries often will encounter frequently. You have spotted a suspicious person, you are "eyeing" him, and the next logical thing to enter your mind is "how and when will I need to pull out my firearm.

Next.....When did I ever suggest that this guy be "locked up or otherwise have his rights infringed upon?"....And I NEVER suggested that "he be stripped of his rights, held at gun point. :wtf:....Where did you get that from? This selective reading crap has got to end. Take a deep breath, re-read my post, and see the error in your ways.

As far as your last paragraph, it's hard to even figure out where to begin.
You are blowing this way out of proportion. It has nothing to do with religion and how you should act in life. It has everything to do with a not-so-tactful decision that was based mostly on causing a stir rather than proving a point. The bottom line is this....TN over-ruled a recent gun ban in state parks which was a 2A victory This situation is NOT going to help future pro 2A legislation. You can cry all day about how you have the right and everyoneis afraid, but when it comes down to it, you need to be a realist and choose your battles wisley.

 

[groovatron]

And that is being afraid of the antis. Oh, no! They might prevent future positive gun legislation.

Well, they are going to try their best to do that regardless of what this guy did or not.

The same people who are raising a fuss about the "sawed off AK47" object just as much to the idea of anyone carrying anything more "lethal" then a tethered cork popgun. And they're just as opposed whether this guy carried that gun while dressed that way or not.

I'm not saying that specifically what the guy did was helpful. I'm not even saying it wasn't "harmful" in the grander scheme of things (I'm not saying it was either). I am saying that the tendency of supposedly pro-gun people throwing someone who was engaging in perfectly legal activity under the bus is more harmful. It smacks of attempted appeasement and is as likely to be as successful as appeasement usually has been. Appeasement: the belief that one can turn a tiger into a vegetarian by feeding him steaks.

I have seen some people here criticize some "hunters" who are willing to give up "assault weapons" or semiautomatic handguns in order to protect their hunting arms, calling them "fudds" and the like. Well, the folk who want to throw this guy under the bus are doing the same thing.

When it comes to Gun rights, there is strength in unity, weakness in division, exactly as was the case with the early colonies that eventually became the US:

Quite contrere mon frere.....It has nothing to do with fear and all to do with reality. I will admit that I do "fear" (may not be the right word but I'll play along) more anti-gun legislation. I don't want anymore of my rights taken away. And if this means using common sense to flip some of the fence sitters, then so be it. Your last quote is interesting, because the way I read it, it proves my point. It's not us (gun owners) against them (non-gun owners).......You say it's about unity. Well I agree. But raising eyebrows like this does nothing to unify, or educate for that matter.

And for the record in case any of you selectively read my other posts.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GUY DID ANYTHING WRONG IN A LEGAL SENSE AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL.

 

[samot]

I can see both sides... A pistol is a pistol!!!!! I have several " asault pistols" . I have some that make that AK pistol look cute . I dont think the man should of been harrased because he was carrying his legal pistol. Having said that i would probably not carry my Vector 51 .308pistol loaded in the passenger seat of my car or slung over my shoulder @ the park, Not because its illegal but because it would draw unwanted attention.People just dont generaly know that much about those type of pistols. Hell i had an FFl @ a range tell me " man u better be carefull with that thing" i had to explain to him (A FFL dealer) that it was mearly a pistol!!!! Just imagine being pulled over for no turn signal with a 51 loaded in the passenger seat. Is it leagal ?HELL YA. But i could just see it going south real quick. Most people that see my HK pistols refer to them as "machine guns"which gives me the oportunity to explain the difference between a pistol a rifle & a machine gun to these uneducated people

Maybe we should all start carrying are rifle caliber pistols Or maybe not

 

[dburkhead]

Quite contrere mon frere.....It has nothing to do with fear and all to do with reality. I will admit that I do "fear" (may not be the right word but I'll play along) more anti-gun legislation. I don't want anymore of my rights taken away. And if this means using common sense to flip some of the fence sitters, then so be it. Your last quote is interesting, because the way I read it, it proves my point. It's not us (gun owners) against them (non-gun owners).......You say it's about unity. Well I agree. But raising eyebrows like this does nothing to unify, or educate for that matter.

You'll note that Franklin's cartoon does not contain England nor France (the opponent at the time the cartoon was first published), nor any other actual enemies/opponents.

Unity against the enemy. Not unity with them. It's trying to play nice with the antis and letting them seize the "high ground" of "common sense" (or so they call it) that has gotten the rights we've had taken away.

It was not Martin Luther King, Jr. that made the "civil rights movement" work. It was Martin Luther King, Jr. plus Malcolm X plus others that made it work. Likewise, in India, everyone points to Ghandi's "non violent" "civil disobedience" at what pushed the British out and gave India its independence. The only problem was that just wasn't the case. Even leaving aside the whole side of the equation that the British empire was in major contraction mode after WWII, Ghandi and his followers was only one of the forces at work in India, and quite a few of them were quite violent. Then we have the "gay rights" movement. Advocates had been recommending a "low key", make no waves, go along and be as invisible as possible approach for more than a century before the Stockton riots (in response to government raids). That century was marked by essentially zero movement in reduction of discriminatory laws and practices. It was only after the more public approach--yes, one that even offended some if not most people--that movement in the issue began.

I'm not advocating violence--I don't think (or rather I hope) that it's not necessary in this case--but I do believe that a "stronger" approach is a viable, even an important, part of the entire "get back our rights" picture.

We've tried the "don't rock the boat", "be careful not to alarm the soccer moms", "don't rile the antis" approach. It's what got us where we are today where 55.555...% of a panel of political appointees who are supposed to know and judge the law decided that the 2nd Amendment grants an individual right to some firearms, but only if one is living in the District of Columbia (for the rest of the country it hasn't been decided yet).

And for the record in case any of you selectively read my other posts.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GUY DID ANYTHING WRONG IN A LEGAL SENSE AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL.

Then that's the thing to focus on. Were the actions of the person in TN inadvisable on some level? Depends on where one draws the line on what counts as "advisable" and that is based on value judgments that really are an individual thing. However, someone obeying the law and making no overt threat to anyone does not call for someone being held at gunpoint by the police.

Basically, he ran afoul of the fashion police. They didn't like his clothes or the type of gun he was carrying.

 

[dross]

And for the record in case any of you selectively read my other posts.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS GUY DID ANYTHING WRONG IN A LEGAL SENSE AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED LIKE A CRIMINAL.

I understand your point.

We should be uncompromising on the matter of RIGHTS, but on STRATEGY, there is room for disagreement.

As to whether the guy's strategy was a good one, I'd say, probably not. At this point in time, it would be best for our cause if only squeaky-clean, clean-cut, handsome people with broad winning smiles in business suits and advanced degrees were the one's OCing. It's not always that way.

It is one thing to discuss and argue and try and convince each other, and yes, to also police (with persuasion and peer pressure, not coercion) ourselves as to the best strategy - assuming we can reach some agreement as to what that is.

When, however, someone's rights are violated - as it appears they were in this case - we must stand beside him, even if he proves to be a complete idiot. Even complete idiots (not saying he necessarily is one) have the same rights we do. Camoflage and choice of weapon don't change his rights, even if they aren't the best choice for public relations.

Dburkhead, I understand your Martin and Malcolm reference. Some of that has to do with timing, however. Much of the country had acknowledged the rights part of the equation by the time Malcolm X came along. The argument by then was over strategy. I doubt Malcolm's rhetoric would have worked if it had been tried much earlier. We might have never heard of him because he would have been killed or jailed. I for one, doubt that strategically it's the right time to be militant about this issue.

 

[finity]

When did I ever suggest that this guy be "locked up or otherwise have his rights infringed upon?"....And I NEVER suggested that "he be stripped of his rights, held at gun point. ....Where did you get that from? This selective reading crap has got to end. Take a deep breath, re-read my post, and see the error in your ways.

You didn't. Thankfully you stopped short of that. Others in this thread & on other gun-related boards & members of law enforcement did, though. I was pointing out the progression of ridiculousness in those views.

As far as your last paragraph, it's hard to even figure out where to begin.
You are blowing this way out of proportion. It has nothing to do with religion and how you should act in life.

I'm sorry if you don't see the connection between restricting our rights under the rest of the Bill of Rights & not supporting this guys legal actions because it makes you or your mom "freak out". My point was that everyone's "line" will be in a different place for all those things & once we start drawing random lines (especially for legal activities) for no other reason than your comfort level then nobody's rights are truly secure.

This situation is NOT going to help future pro 2A legislation.

Why? Because a person freaked out over a completely legal activity & a cop went overboard in his handling of the situation? The real problem is that subsequently the supposed pro-2A people jumped on board & threw him under the bus out of fear.

What's more dangerous to 2A rights? Having the pro-2A folks say "we see nothing wrong with what this guy did, he didn't break any law or harm anyone. We do not support any legislation to further infringe on our rights, especially if based on this one non-event" OR "We agree with you mister anti-gunner. What this guy did, though not illegal or harmful to anyone, crossed the line & made us feel uncomfortable." At that point the anti-gun crowd says "see even the pro-2A people agree that this kind of stuff shouldn't be allowed. Let's pass a law. It should easily pass since we have the pro-2A support for this common sense legislation."

 

[finity]

I for one, doubt that strategically it's the right time to be militant about this issue.

I disagree.

We are at a point, right now, where gun-rights have not been stronger in the last 60 years. Look at all the guns that have been bought in the last year. As much as many here don't want to believe, a lot of those gun buyers were Democrats/liberals. The SCOTUS has declared gun-rights an individual right, the majority of states are "shall issue" & have some form of "Castle Doctrine" in place. There is a strong percentage of the legislature that is pro-2A among both Republicans & (though not nearly as strong) Democrats. The anti-gun forces have backed off the reinstatement of the AWB & have not pushed forward on ANY gun-control legislation. Any that has been proposed has met with a timely death.

When would there be a better time to flex our pro-rights muscle to let anyone in charge know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we stand fully behind the expansion of our rights & any attempt to infringe on them will likely see them out of a job?

 

[lashicoN]

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.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reason enough for you? If not, that's too bad. Move to China. I am suspicious of every person I don't know when I'm out in public. A man carrying an AK pistol on his shoulder poses no more threat to me than the group of guys wearing baggy clothes eyeballing me. Should we also ban baggy clothes? Because I just don't see the point in baggy clothes. It looks bad. They could be hiding things in there! They could be concealing TWO AK pistols! Fortunately this isn't how we act in the United States. I have never read a post like this before. I've never seen so many gun owners talk about "that's just not needed" on this forum. It's depressing. It's like watching the kid who gets picked on pick on another kid so he can finally feel normal. We don't carry firearms to send out positive messages. We carry firearms because we're Americans and to protect ourselves. It's our right, plain and simple. It is looking to me like there are a lot of gun owners on this forum. The other half are actual supporters of the Second Amendment and fully understand what it means. The Second Amendment doesn't give your mom the RIGHT to feel safe and comfortable at all times. We're supposed to be the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. I hate watching us turn into the land of the comfortable and the home of the terrified, whiny, children. Right is right and rights are rights. I'm not even going to go into how LEGAL the entire thing was.

The most important battle in our "gun rights war" is the preservation of the entire second amendment. Fortunately your opinions do not matter to my natural rights as a human being.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

Big words for a man behind a computer.

Really?

Which words do you have a problem with?

If you're telling me you wouldn't have some kinda raised inner self defensive reaction...your spider senses heightened...as Tennessee Rambo rolled past your crib, then yes, I'm not only calling you a liar, but I'm also calling you a fool.

And I'd say it right to your face.

Signed,

Donny Baker

 

[Denny347]

A man carrying an AK pistol on his shoulder poses no more threat to me than the group of guys wearing baggy clothes eyeballing me.

Hmmm, really?

 

[Denny347]

 

[dburkhead]

Why, yes, just because one can hold someone who is obeying the law at gunpoint doesn't mean one should.

Or does that not work both ways?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You can point guns at people for obeying the law now?

Hmmm, is that a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling?

 

[cce1302]

Really?

Which words do you have a problem with?

If you're telling me you wouldn't have some kinda raised inner self defensive reaction...your spider senses heightened...as Tennessee Rambo rolled past your crib, then yes, I'm not only calling you a liar, but I'm also calling you a fool.

And I'd say it right to your face.

Signed,

Donny Baker

Well, there's actually no sidewalks within sight of my house, so I guess I'd never see him if he walked on the sidewalk nearest my house. I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for being clueless as to what you're talking about, and not take it personally that your flapping your gums without them being connected to a brain of any sort. I don't live in the city or in an apartment. I live outside of town, in a quiet neighborhood between a cornfield, some woods, and the mint fields. It's pretty common to see people dressed up in military coats this time of year because they're warm and inexpensive. I would not pay him any more attention than I pay the others I see walking in my neighborhood every day. It's also relatively common to see people walking in the neighborhood carrying handguns. I do it all the time. Really, I'm not scared of "assault pistols" or "sawed off AKs" or whatever the popular terminology is for them these days. If you want to pretend everyone is scared of "tennessee rambo" as you like to call him (in order to flippantly detract from the validity of his position/action) then that's fine if it makes you feel better. No need to bring it out in public though.


Now, granted, if he got anywhere near my crib I'd be a mite concerned, as the only way to get to it would be to come inside, go upstairs, and into my daughter's room. Though my sons would probably pull their cap guns on him if he tried. They're very protective of their sister.

Oh, I just checked with Mrs. CCE 1302. She said, "Oh, I'd probably think he was just going to the end of the road, to shoot." Pretty reasonable reaction, I might add.

*I don't like him having painted his barrel orange, as I mentioned before. seems ill-advised.