Open carry incident in Nashville gets me detained 2.5 hour at gun point carried AK-47

[JJFlash]

Thank you, sir, appreciate your taking the time to post. Welcome to the site! Hang around...I believe you will find it quite interesting overall, and it wouldn't hurt us to have your insights as well, as a 2A supporter perhaps not quite as strident as most of us are. :biggrin:

 

[festus]

Thanks for your wisdom

Have never posted here, but thought that I'd chime in for a little local feedback. I found this forum when searching for information about this event, since I live in Franklin Tennessee and this has sparked some discussion.

First, a little background. I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, and have been a lifelong firearms owner. I wholeheartedly believe that anybody of sound mind and without a serious criminal background should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere that they see fit, with few exceptions (schools, etc). I choose not to carry a concealed weapon, but believe that I should have the right to do so if I should so choose.

Most of my friends and neighbors believe the same, to one extent or another. Most of my friends and neighbors are also not nearly as passionate about gun rights as any person on this discussion board - nor are the majority of people in the US. The folks here on this discussion forum are the people that care enough to discuss, debate, and think about gun ownership and gun rights on a day to day basis. You're probably friends with people that have the same or similar interests. That's all well and good, but frankly your desire to discuss and debate the nuances of this issue (whether the gun was a pistol or an assault rifle; whether painting the tip orange was a good idea or not; etc etc etc) far exceed the level of discourse that is taking on a local, dining room level in Franklin.

What *is* occurring is this: people locally (who otherwise are generally supportive of gun rights) are saying things like "did you hear about the guy who was walking around downtown with an assault rifle? What on earth was he thinking?" I've explained that it was actually a pistol, and that he was within his rights, and the general response that I get back is "I don't really see the difference, I don't want people walking around our downtown with AK-47's. If the law now allows this to take place, then we need to get the law changed."

You can call these people misinformed (and don't try and blame the media, even though they did get most of the details of the story wrong - most of this has come about because this guy was seen by a lot of people, and a number of those people spoke to their friends and neighbors and so on...), you can call them whatever you want. They represent your average, conservative resident of Franklin, and they are generally rather vocal and educated, and don't have any problem emailing or calling their elected representatives when they see something that upsets them taking place.

I understand that this individual was well within his rights, and did nothing illegal. He has made a point, both to law enforcement and, more importantly, to the general public in my community. Kudos - he won the tactical battle, but did amazing strategic damage to the cause in the greater war.

There is sometimes a rather wide gulf between what one CAN do, and what one SHOULD do. In between those two lies judgement, and in this case it looks as if poor judgement is the consensus of the dispassionate general public.

You have given us a very valuable gift of what is going on right there right now. We do not have to second guess each other about what folks think Thanks for the post. Please keep it up!

 

[2beararms]

Thank you AHFranklin for your input. It confirms what a lot here believe, that he did much more damage to the "cause" than he did to gain support.

In reality, what the fanatics on both sides think here is irrelevant, what is important is what IS "dining room" level discussion in Franklin or other Franklins in the country and as noted moves like this create a "we need to change the law to ban this" attitude ... that is not the direction that anyone who claims they are a 2A supporter should desire to go.

 

[Axeanda45]

How many people who saw the man and or the newscast
(if you can call it that, more like a liescast)

NOW KNOW the following things they may not have known before:
(or maybe would have never had the chance to ever know if he wouldnt have done it)

1; Open carry is a legal activity

2; That there is an AK variant that is a pistol

3; That an "Evil Assault Weapon" was being carried around and it didnt go on a killing rampage?

Wow, that is just irreparable damage to the "cause" right there.:wacko:

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

The Constitution of this once great nation, specifically the 2nd Amendment, forbids ANY and ALL laws that would infringe at all or have anything whatsoever to do with firearms. No amount of discussion will change this fact.

Dude, all I can say about that is if that's what you interpret out of reading the 2nd amendment you must be delusuional.

Using Scripture 100% out of context only shows you have no clue what the Bible is for or what it means.

That's like the 3rd or maybe 4th time now you have asserted members posting here "have no clue." Yep, nothing wrong with you, it's just the rest of society that must be f'ed up. Riiiight.

the general response that I get back is "I don't really see the difference, I don't want people walking around our downtown with AK-47's...

And there you have it: What people "see." That is what matters here. That is what was intentionally instigated in the park. A perfect example of the wrong thing for the right reason.

The OP and his new buddy Axeanda45, (who I believe are probably one and the same, BTW) just don't get it. It doesn't matter what the law is, what their rights are, what color the weapon was or anything else regarding alot of what has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread. It's about people's, the general populace's perception of gun owners, their rights and those implications for THEM.

The guy's just smart enough to be dangerous to the cause, but not quite dumb enough to invoke suicide by police. Hope he finds that happy medium soon.

 

[BillW]

My last post: My main concern was how supposedly trained defenders of our rights (i.e., LEOs) responded to the situation, not how the general public perceives it. On that note, however, I believe we all need to push back real hard against those irrational notions that an orange semiautomatic nonchalantly carried on a hiking trail by--oh my god--someone in a camouflage jacket is something horrible to behold. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong OR alarming about such a thing and wish everybody did it. How long do you think the general public will allow gun freedom if they're permitted to wallow in these stupid beliefs? How effective do you think our defense of gun freedom will be when we cower with our tails between our legs and beg forgiveness whenever one of us--entirely within our rights--offends the order of political correctness? Those of you blubbering about the "strategic" loss here are apologizing our rights away.

 

[Axeanda45]

Excellent post BillW

 

[2beararms]

My main concern was how supposedly trained defenders of our rights (i.e., LEOs) responded to the situation , not how the general public perceives it. ...

Since when are LEO trained to defend our "RIGHTS"? LEO's are trained to protect the safety of themselves first and the public second (because a dead cop defends no one), and under that training believe me YOU HAVE NO DAMN RIGHTS!

It is up to the COURTS to defend your rights. That is how the PEOPLE who wrote those rights designed it, that is how it is. LEO's are taught not to violate ones rights as a matter of common sense, but when common sense challenges perceived safety, safety will trump your "rights" every time.

Your "rights" are simply law that was written by men, members of the PUBLIC who wrote that law based on their perception. Today whether you have rights or not is based on what the legislatures and the courts say. Both are made up of and highly influenced by the perception of members of the PUBLIC!

If you for a minute believe that you are going to be able to use your arms to protect your "rights" based on infringement then you will be sorely mistaken and likely dead. You may die for your cause, which puts you right there with suicide bombers and others who make little or no difference other than to rid the world of themselves.

YES, if the government took up arms and attacked the populous then the people would likely rise up and band together to defend themselves ... 'A WELL REGULATED MILITA BEING NECCESSARY'.

However that scenerio is really very unlikely to happen. If the government decided to ban all firearms and began the house to house seizure that so many predict, YOU WILL NOT see an armed uprising by the masses. You WILL see hundreds of thousands of firearms turned in and a much less safe country left behind. You may see pockets of violence, which will be quickly and fatally surpressed but not to the point of stimulating an uprising ... we are not mentally prepared as a country for that yet.

It is ONLY the perception of the people influencing those in decision making power that prevents these actions from being unleashed.

I appologize NOT for complaining about those who influence that perception negitively and if you believe that walking around with a show of force will HELP you keep those rights, I appologize NOT for what will happen to you and those rights in the future.

 

[Axeanda45]

Dude, all I can say about that is if that's what you interpret out of reading the 2nd amendment you must be delusuional.
.

Wow, I am delusional for seeing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the way they are written and how the ones that wrote them meant them be. Thank you sir, for including me in such distinguished company as our Founding Fathers.

I really dont deserve to even stand in their shadow, but thanks again for your compliment.

 

[mwd]

We all have friends, relatives or spouses that do NOT share our passion for guns but allow us to indulge and they place a tremendous amount of trust in our gun judgement and decisions. The general populous is required to do that also. Hey the guy next to you may have a gun. How does he look? How is he acting? What is he doing? Is he suspicious?

These are very valid observations and thoughts especially by those that are not interested in guns. The OP was within 'legal' and 'constitutional' rights by his stunts but he violated the common sense required to own a gun and the 'trust' of the general populous by his antics.

OK so you don't give a flyin' flip by God he did nothing illegal. The problem is 'legality' has nothing to do with the misery that can be inflicted by a majority that is fearful aka 'Chicago' or 'DC' or New Orleans. When the OP is successful in getting some 'illegal' ban instituted in his community or in TN because of the fear he created then is he then going to fight this injustice with his own money?

 

[Axeanda45]

Your "rights" are simply law that was written by men, members of the PUBLIC who wrote that law based on their perception. Today whether you have rights or not is based on what the legislatures and the courts say. Both are made up of and highly influenced by the perception of members of the PUBLIC!

If you for a minute believe that you are going to be able to use your arms to protect your "rights" based on infringement then you will be sorely mistaken and likely dead. You may die for your cause, which puts you right there with suicide bombers and others who make little or no difference other than to rid the world of themselves.

YES, if the government took up arms and attacked the populous then the people would likely rise up and band together to defend themselves ... 'A WELL REGULATED MILITA BEING NECCESSARY'.

However that scenerio is really very unlikely to happen. If the government decided to ban all firearms and began the house to house seizure that so many predict, YOU WILL NOT see an armed uprising by the masses. You WILL see hundreds of thousands of firearms turned in and a much less safe country left behind. You may see pockets of violence, which will be quickly and fatally surpressed but not to the point of stimulating an uprising ... we are not mentally prepared as a country for that yet.

It is ONLY the perception of the people influencing those in decision making power that prevents these actions from being unleashed.

I appologize NOT for complaining about those who influence that perception negitively and if you believe that walking around with a show of force will HELP you keep those rights, I appologize NOT for what will happen to you and those rights in the future.

All I see here in this part of your post is cowardice and defeatism. You are saying that YOU dont have what it takes to stand up for yourself or our Constitutional Rights.

Please stop projecting your cowardice onto others who have the fortitude to do what needs done.


"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

 

[FN1910]

Just testing but this is the original gun that kwikrnu posted as the one he carried in the park. He painted the rest of the gun after the incident.
Link Removed

 

[come-and-take-it-FL]

... don't know about the rest of you guys but I think we are wasting our time here.

At this point... I'm convinced there are some here who wouldn't even be willing to agree to disagree!! Yikes!!

 

[PascalFleischman]

I understand that you may carry 35 rds of pistol ammo on you, but I don't understand ammo that has the ability
to travel up to two miles to be use to protect your self in a park. Although the gun was manufactured as a pistol it still uses military ammo and not pistol ammo. Don't get me wrong here Its not the ammo or even the gun that is in question its the fact he drew attention to him self by having this type of weapon on him. The whole
point here is not to scare people to where they don't feel safe in a parks .Just think how you would feel if your wife was out walking in that park and saw a man with this type of gun on his chest not knowing if he was crazy
or a law abiding citizen, This day and time Women are getting raped an even KILLED in the parks.

I carry a SA 1911 A1 for protection and not to intimidate people . I'm for the Rights of the ALL GUN owners..

.45 ACP was once "military ammo"
.30-06 was once "military ammo"
9mm is now "military ammo"
In some circles, 5.7 x 28 is now "military ammo"

Shall I continue?

 

[PascalFleischman]

I also see this act similar to what the perv's do in SanFran and anywhere else there allowed to display there lifestyle. FORCING a "controversal" lifestyle on the general populous of sheeple is at best ill advised. It could also have a detrimental affect on the ENTIRE" pro-gun movement!

VERY INTERESTING new perspective to this. I like the comparison (not the mental picture).

 

[HK4U]

At this point... I'm convinced there are some here who wouldn't even be willing to agree to disagree!! Yikes!!

True but one thing that is not missing and that is a lot of bravado. Perhaps we should get a big sign and wear it that says LOOK AT ME EVERYONE I AM A GUN OWNER. Then we could walk around downtown and through the parks to prove what great 2nd Amendment supporters we are. Is that not basically what we are hearing from some, that if we do not go out and intentionally stir up trouble we are somehow not true patriots?:fie:

 

[JJFlash]

True but one thing that is not missing and that is a lot of bravado. Perhaps we should get a big sign and wear it that says LOOK AT ME EVERYONE I AM A GUN OWNER. Then we could walk around downtown and through the parks to prove what great 2nd Amendment supporters we are. Is that not basically what we are hearing from some, that if we do not go out and intentionally stir up trouble we are somehow not true patriots?:fie:

Let it go, HK. There's nothing to be gained here.

However, hereby let it be known, that when all the Patriots get together, anybody carrying an orange weapon or wearing a speedo will NOT stand next to me. :sarcastic:

 

[HK4U]

Let it go, HK. There's nothing to be gained here.

However, hereby let it be known, that when all the Patriots get together, anybody carrying an orange weapon or wearing a speedo will NOT stand next to me. :sarcastic:

especially the speedo.:sarcastic:

 

[JJFlash]

especially the speedo.:sarcastic:

Actually, I'm now thinking that I might want them next to me cause I sure don't want either one of them behind me! I wouldn't trust the one with the orange spray-painted weapon not to shoot me, and the one wearing the speedo, well... :fie:

 

[come-and-take-it-FL]

... however, hereby let it be known, that when all the Patriots get together, anybody carrying an orange weapon or wearing a speedo will NOT stand next to me. :sarcastic:

Nice! Not a great visual... but... ha!