TN state park OC trouble

[groovatron]

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?

Well, it seems like we can all mostly agree that recent gun rights legislation has been positive and headed in the right direction. Without dragging this out any furthur, I just think it would have been better if this guy had a more organized approach to his gun rights excercise. If you think he was some sort of hero, then that's your choice. In my mind, this guy really wanted attention. He wanted attention from you and attention from me and attention from anyone else. So I suppose if you measure the success of his actions in amount of attention recieved, then he did pretty well. Is there anything illegal about seeking lawful attention? No. But, there are always going to be certain people such as myself that kind of shake their heads and maybe share a laugh about these situations. It doesn't make me any less of a gun rights activist.

 

[groovatron]

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.

I cannot argue with this

 

[groovatron]

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.

Oh my God!.!!!!...You're right. You are so enlightened. You should write a book. I would buy like at least a dozen copies.....Oh, and the baggy clothes analogy....that was awesome. I never saw that parallelism before. Half the people on this forum are just softies....you are the real deal man!!! And your understanding of the 2nd ammendment......Brilliant!!!!

 

[Denny347]

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?

Nah, it suits Rambo better.

 

[dburkhead]

Nah, it suits Rambo better.

Ah, so failing to measure up to the Fashion Police gets called on "just because you can doesn't mean you should" but pointing a gun at someone who is obeying the law doesn't.

Is that correct?

 

[Denny347]

Ah, so failing to measure up to the Fashion Police gets called on "just because you can doesn't mean you should" but pointing a gun at someone who is obeying the law doesn't.

Is that correct?

Oh stop being so dramtic....sheeesh. There are several (less political) situations that share a similar response. For instance, I see (or am called to) a person beating the snot out of a vehicle in a private driveway with a bat or similar utensil. I surely will unholster my pistol (and may point it depending on the particular situation). Well, come to find out it is ALL 100% legal. His car, his property...I pointed a gun at someone for doing something 100% legal.... Same with crawling into your own house through a window or kicking in your own front door (this happens all the time). You WILL see the business end of Mr. Glock until we figure it out...probably in handcuffs as well.

 

[dburkhead]

Oh stop being so dramtic....sheeesh. There are several (less political) situations that share a similar response. For instance, I see (or am called to) a person beating the snot out of a vehicle in a private driveway with a bat or similar utensil. I surely will unholster my pistol (and may point it depending on the particular situation). Well, come to find out it is ALL 100% legal. His car, his property...I pointed a gun at someone for doing something 100% legal.... Same with crawling into your own house through a window or kicking in your own front door (this happens all the time). You WILL see the business end of Mr. Glock until we figure it out...probably in handcuffs as well.

And I guess walking through the park, wearing clothes that you don't like, carrying a (legal) gun that you don't like also qualifies? (Remember the OP.)

 

[cce1302]

Somehow, this thread reminds me of a story I once heard.


DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? "
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......




With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....



" Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! "

 

[groovatron]

Somehow, this thread reminds me of a story I once heard.


DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? "
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......




With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....



" Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! "

Nice!

 

[Wesley929]

And I guess walking through the park, wearing clothes that you don't like, carrying a (legal) gun that you don't like also qualifies? (Remember the OP.)

How were the authorities involved supposed to know that this guy was no threat?

How were they supposed to know that the pistol he was carrying WAS legal or even a pistol for that matter? Without measuring the barrel and verifying there was no stock I would think it was a rifle which is not legal in that park evidently.

The look of that particular pistol combined with those clothes caused the authorities to profile this man and subject him to further investigations.

He wasn't charged. He was detained until all his actions were deemed legal. He proved he had a carry permit and the BATFE was called to verify the gun was registered as a pistol (I assume it said they were called but didn't say what for). That is exactly what I would expect. Now those rangers know that his actions were legal they probably won't stop him again there. The next officer he runs into that doesn't know the mans gun is a registered pistol will probably detain him again and do it all over. I didn't know the definition of an SBR vs Ak 47 pistol until researching it after this thread was started.

Everyone is ok with profiling as long as it isn't a group that they are a part of.

I think it would suck to have a gun pulled on you for doing something completely legal but I can also understand why it happens.

 

[Denny347]

And I guess walking through the park, wearing clothes that you don't like, carrying a (legal) gun that you don't like also qualifies? (Remember the OP.)

Hmmm, well in my parks it's not legal. Sorry.

 

[lashicoN]

1. What parks do you own?
2. Which clothes have you banned?
3. Which firearms have you banned?

I'd like to stay away from your parks, that's why I ask.

 

[Denny347]

And I guess walking through the park, wearing clothes that you don't like, carrying a (legal) gun that you don't like also qualifies? (Remember the OP.)

Oh, and that "pistol" looks just like a SBR with the Romanian wire folding stock which is quite illegal w/o the papers.

Legal

Illegal w/o ATF paperwork.

Fold the stock and this looks just like the pistol.

 

[Denny347]

1. What parks do you own?
2. Which clothes have you banned?
3. Which firearms have you banned?

I'd like to stay away from your parks, that's why I ask.

MY parks are MY city parks...Indianapolis. No firearms...not my rules. I own them as much as my fellow citizens. We ALL may refer to them as "my parks". No need to get snippy.

 

[samot]

Somehow, this thread reminds me of a story I once heard.


DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand? "
The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.

A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull......




With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....



" Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! "

Man u owe me a new laptop!!! i just spit soda all over mine thats damn hilarious

 

[lashicoN]

But it is a pistol because it has no stock. It cannot be fired from the shoulder. Even if you fold the stock on your second image there is still a glaring difference. The pistol has a flat back on the receiver. You cannot put a stock on it. The second image has a protrusion that allows for a stock, making it a SBR. Of course the average person in TN isn't going to know the difference. There are probably many gun owners who don't know the difference. But that little difference is what makes it a legal pistol. I don't pretend to know the legality concerning automobiles. (How load your pipes can be, if you're driving around with your hood off, if I can't see seat bets on your '32 pickup). But I don't call the cops with every little suspicion I have about your automobile. That's the difference between me and the idiots who called the cops on this guy.

 

[samot]

I pointed a gun at someone for doing something 100% legal.... Same with crawling into your own house through a window or kicking in your own front door (this happens all the time). You WILL see the business end of Mr. Glock until we figure it out...probably in handcuffs as well.

And in here lies the problem!! Not only do you have the authority to point a gun in someones face, or kick in thier front door, or crawl thru thier window... U get a RISE out of it. just like the rollers in TN. No big deal to you, after 8 hours your goin home!
My favorite part = (this happens all the time)

 

[dburkhead]

Oh, and that "pistol" looks just like a SBR with the Romanian wire folding stock which is quite illegal w/o the papers.

Legal

Illegal w/o ATF paperwork.

Fold the stock and this looks just like the pistol.

No, actually, it doesn't. A friend of mine has an AK with the wire folding stock and both the fitting on the rear and the stock itself are quite visible when it's folded.

Nobody's saying don't pay extra attention to such a situation or even stopping the person and asking him about the firearm being carried.

But those actions aren't what's under scrutiny here.

 

[ATM]

And in here lies the problem!! Not only do you have the authority to point a gun in someones face, or kick in thier front door, or crawl thru thier window... U get a RISE out of it. just like the rollers in TN. No big deal to you, after 8 hours your goin home!
My favorite part = (this happens all the time)

I believe the reference was to a homeowner sneaking in their own window or kicking in their own door (likely because they locked themselves out, which does happen all the time.) This would give the appearance of a crime being committed.

 

[cce1302]

Oh, and that "pistol" looks just like a SBR with the Romanian wire folding stock which is quite illegal w/o the papers.

Legal

Illegal w/o ATF paperwork.

Fold the stock and this looks just like the pistol.

and that's a reason to pull a gun on the guy? because you admittedly can't tell the difference between a pistol and an SBR?

You come across just like the brady people and gun grabbers back to 1936, that there are features on guns that automatically make them more dangerous. Are you worried that the AK pistol is a "cop killer"? Would you draw on a guy doing nothing more than carrying a Super Redhawk in a state park? Maybe so. As bad as South Bend is, I guess I'm fortunate not to live in Indianapolis.