another dumb activist. his 15mins

[Rhino]

BULL. You said....

I said those people disagreed because of the attitude he presented, not because he was exercising his constitutional rights. Nothing more. Your attempt to twist my remarks into something else is dishonest. Your attempt to claim that I was endorsing any of their individual comments or claims, no matter the content, is despicable. And now you're actually defending it. I gave you more credit than that. I guess I was wrong.

 

[BluesStringer]

Yep, purposely obtuse.....that's the only explanation. Well, unless you're suffering from some reading comprehension deficiency. Link Removed

 

[fstroupe]

In the chance you weren't being completely sarcastic...

Do police have to respond to my call if I report a guy mowing his lawn? What about if I call about someone parked in a parking spot in front of a grocery store? What other legal activity can I report that they have to respond to? What if I report someone using the restroom at Wal Mart? I think the next time I see someone walk into a gun shop I'm going to report it, never know, possible crime right there......wouldn't that be a kick in the pants if Brady activist sat there all day calling in gun owners who walk into the gun store, after all police have to respond for the safety of the children.

Sheesh. Who else is going to get stupidly anal in this thread?

OK. The person responsible for the police in your town, whether the chief, mayor, whoever is responsible for the actions of the PD as a whole, has ordered all policemen in your town to not respond to any reports of people carrying guns, since open carry is legal in your state, because he does not want you to be offended or feeling that his police are jack-booted thugs. Someone calls the PD and says that someone is flashing around a gun in the park. The police do not respond, assuming that it is just some Dudley Do-Right worrying about some guy who is legally open carrying. 10 minutes later the guy uses the handgun in question and murders a dozen people. Two of those people are your wife and your child. Would you feel better about it knowing that his rights were not violated by the police?

Just because you hate law enforcement doesn't mean that every time they answer a call that you don't agree with they are wrong. I fully believe in the Second Amendment, and wish that my state did have open carry. But if some Goober is in the town park, which is about 50 yards from my house, and is purposely flashing around a weapon in hopes that he will be confronted by the police, I can assure you that I will be very pissed if the police do not confront him when I call.

No, Goober did not start the video until the cops arrived, because he didn't want anyone to see what he had to do to draw attention to his weapon. But he was doing more than just waiting for someone in the park. No one would have noticed that he was carrying if that is all he was doing. Whatever he did, he made sure that someone called the cops.

And if I was that person in the park, having lost my mind or something and acting strangely with a weapon, I would expect to have the cops called on me. Just like the guy in the video did.

The cops handled it wrong. I said that. But they were right for being there.

 

[Bikenut]

Quote Originally Posted by ~OtisM~ View Post

Originally Posted by CharlesMorrison View Post
I think the most retarded line in the whole video was the third cop saying "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it"!
He then proceeds to explain "responsibility" to not scare the sheeple should be the main concern.

That is actually the most sound logically reason that was said in the entire video. He is dead on.

You're right. That first sentence really IS the most sound, logical reason that was said in the entire video.

Anyone who believes that a right should be restricted by what someone else thinks isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" and therefor "shouldn't be done" is an elitist who arrogantly believes their values and standards should control of the rights of others.

In this case "just because someone has the right to openly carry a gun doesn't mean they should" is the belief of a person in favor of restricting the right to carry a gun according to their personal opinion of how carrying a gun should NOT be done. Which is a sentiment shared by all anti gunners since they also have a belief of how carrying a gun should NOT be done. Same belief... and the same desire to control what other people should NOT do.

Thank God the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed except for what Rhino, Otis, the cops in the video, the Brady Campaign, or anyone else who disagrees says shouldn't be done".............

 

[accidentalfelon]

My guys work at night. Quite a few times the police have been called on them. When it happens, the police usuallyrightfully respond and simply ask them what they are doing and then go on their way.

They have never detained them nor asked for any ID. The encounter usually lasts less than a minute and all of them keep working except for the crew leader.

And almost every crew has at least one member who is armed, for the protection of the crew, usually OC.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[BluesStringer]

Sheesh. Is everyone going to get stupidly anal in this thread?

Whenever a thread based on a video of some gun issue comes up around here, we all ostensibly try to view the scenario through our own eyes and discuss it from that perspective. If I believe the guy's rights in the video were violated, which I think is beyond question that they were, I will respond as though they were my rights being violated, because in the bigger scheme of things, they are, or they at least have that much more potential to be when cops get away with violating rights anywhere in this country.

With that in mind, let me be perfectly clear: I don't give one good hemorrhoid-bustin' crap that someone else thinks I'm being "stupidly anal" when arguing in defense of my rights. That's not to say that you intentionally directed that line at me personally, but since Firefighterchen and I have argued this thread from exactly the same perspective right on down the line, I'm taking it as such. I find the assertion that Firefighterchen was being any kind of anal when talking about asserting constitutional rights, or talking about cops' obligation to uphold and adhere to them, to be pretty stupid in and of itself. You simply must know by now that I don't think you're stupid, but in the context of this discussion, and directed at who you directed it at for the innocuous banter he offered in rebuttal to a post of yours, was a stupid thing to say. Sheesh, indeed.

OK. The person responsible for the police in your town, whether the chief, mayor, whoever is responsible for the actions of the PD as a whole, has ordered all policemen in your town to not respond to any reports of people carrying guns, since open carry is legal in your state, because he does not want you to be offended or feeling that his police are jack-booted thugs.

And the hits just keep on comin'.....You've got it backwards. The state passes a law making open carry fully, 100% legal for all who have no felony or mental health restrictions preventing them from legally owning/carrying. The state is the one who passed down the policy to the local cops. Any Chief, Mayor or whoever that issues edicts counter to that law, such as stop and demand papers on anyone reported open carrying, is issuing orders above his pay grade, or more to the point, above his authority. It has nothing to do with not offending anyone, or protecting his LEOs from being seen as JBTs, it has to do with upholding his oath of office to faithfully enforce the laws of both the United States and his own state/local jurisdiction.

Someone calls the PD and says that someone is flashing around a gun in the park.

This is just surreal, fstroupe. "Flashing around" a weapon has absolutely nothing to do with the video we're discussing, and I'll bet my next paycheck that in the State of Oregon there are myriad laws that cops would be 100% justified in investigating the violation of if that had been the case. But it wasn't.

The police do not respond, assuming that it is just some Dudley Do-Right worrying about some guy who is legally open carrying.

**Edited out reply to this quote after review because I misread it the first time around. Sorry about that if you already saw it fstroupe.

10 minutes later the guy uses the handgun in question and murders a dozen people. Two of those people are your wife and your child. Would you feel better about it knowing that his rights were not violated by the police?

If it was my wife, she'd have taken the sicko out. No, I mean the guy in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, not Irritating Guy in the video. Link Removed

Just because you hate law enforcement doesn't mean that every time they answer a call that you don't agree with they are wrong.

Firefighterchen hates law enforcement, or was this intended for me? He has expressed support for LE several times in this thread. I have not. I could live without 'em just fine, but even at that, I don't hate them, I only hate when I see them abusing their authority, or more accurately, when I see them imposing dictates on law-abiding citizens under the false color of authority, and that's what was happening here.

But even if I did hate LEOs in some personal sense, are you saying that just because of that character flaw of mine that they will always be in the right when dealing with me? You're not making any sense here fstroupe.

I fully believe in the Second Amendment...

You couldn't prove it by this post.

....and wish that my state did have open carry.

Why? So you could be a Dudley Do-Right too?

We don't have open carry in Bama either, but there is a movement to git 'r done. I myself prefer concealed carry, but if I can ever help the guys who want to carry openly, I'll be there for them because their rights are my rights are your rights are everybody's rights, and they should always be supported even when you have no intention of exercising them yourself.

But if some Goober....

So are we still talking about your imaginary Goober in your hyperbolic, unrealistic analogy, or the Goober in the subject-video? Because with all the wishes for the guy's death, the name-calling and the derision for deigning to stand up for his rights, I'm having a hard time following what this post of yours has to do with anything if not the OP video?

...is in the town park, which is about 50 yards from my house, and is flashing around a weapon in hopes that he will be confronted by the police (not just carrying but practicing draws, aiming, loading an unloading, etc), I can assure you that I will be very pissed if the police do not confront him when I call.

Ah, OK, we're talking imaginary Goobers. Because absolutely nothing like what you describe here happened in the 15-minute video of a guy legally open-carrying his weapon, holstered, not bothering a soul, when no less than four cops started hassling him and within 15 seconds, after only one sentence uttered by the video-Goober, was determined to be one of those who wanted "to make things difficult."

And if I was that person in the park, having lost my mind or something and acting strangely with a weapon, I would expect to have the cops called on me. Just like the guy in the video did.

Why hasn't it occurred to any of you anti-Goober types that the guy in the video expected the cops to do their jobs and leave him the heck alone since he wasn't doing anything illegal? It seems everyone who has criticisms to offer of the activist has said he went looking for a confrontation with the cops. How do any of you come to that conclusion? Because he had a phone that takes crappy, grainy video? Who doesn't have one of those these days? Because he knows the law and deigned to cite it to the cops who were harassing him? The nerve, huh?? I mean, the nerve of that gun rights activist to know his own place and to have the audacity to recite the cops' place to them! Well, he might've actually recited their place to them if one of 'em hadn't ordered him to "stop talking." Link Removed

I carry two video cams with me everywhere I go. One dedicated cam, and a better'n fair one that does HD recording in my phone. I take videos of everything from butterflies and bees outside my back door, to performance tests of my knives and guns, to extreme weather, to concerts, to truly idiotic stuff of me and my wife just laughing and having fun together. I drive more than 1,000 miles per week between personal and work, week in, and week out, and as such, if I wasn't such a danged good driver, I'm more likely than most to have encounters with cops, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if/when I ever do, it'll be videotaped. If they go from simple curiosity about why I'm carrying into actually illegally detaining me because they don't like my attitude or my irritating voice or whatever, I hope I'll do a better job than Irritating Goober-Guy did in the video of asserting his rights, but regardless, assert mine I will, and they'll either get the message and leave me alone forthwith, or their Chief of Police and/or Sheriff, the County Commission and/or the Mayor, the State Bureau of Investigations, the District Attorney and the State Attorney General will all get a copy of the video along with every YouTube viewer I can direct to my channel, and I'll do everything I can to call attention to their false detainment under color of authority. Stupidly anal is, as stupidly anal does, and that clearly defines the cops in the OP video much better than it defines Irritating Goober-Guy or anyone standing for his rights in this thread as far as I'm concerned.

The cops handled it wrong. I said that. But they were right for being there.

"Being there" and detaining the guy are completely separate issues. They very easily could've been there without saying a word to the guy, and they had absolutely no legal justification for "investigating" through direct contact why he was engaging in a perfectly legal activity. They initiated the "debate." They initiated having to suffer through hearing his irritating voice. They initiated the illegal detainment. Goober-Guy did absolutely nothing wrong throughout the video.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

Anyone who believes that a right should be restricted by what someone else thinks isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" and therefor "shouldn't be done" is an elitist who arrogantly believes their values and standards should control of the rights of others.

In this case "just because someone has the right to openly carry a gun doesn't mean they should" is the belief of a person in favor of restricting the right to carry a gun according to their personal opinion of how carrying a gun should NOT be done. Which is a sentiment shared by all anti gunners since they also have a belief of how carrying a gun should NOT be done. Same belief... and the same desire to control what other people should NOT do.

Thank God the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed except for what Rhino, Otis, the cops in the video, the Brady Campaign, or anyone else who disagrees says shouldn't be done".............

Since I can only do one small little "Like," I decided to find something with a little more oompf for this one....

.
.
.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

​

Perfect.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

I carry two video cams with me everywhere I go. One dedicated cam, and a better'n fair one that does HD recording in my phone. I take videos of everything from butterflies and bees outside my back door, to performance tests of my knives and guns, to extreme weather, to concerts, to truly idiotic stuff of me and my wife just laughing and having fun together. I drive more than 1,000 miles per week between personal and work, week in, and week out, and as such, if I wasn't such a danged good driver, I'm more likely than most to have encounters with cops, and you can bet your bottom dollar that if/when I ever do, it'll be videotaped. If they go from simple curiosity about why I'm carrying into actually illegally detaining me because they don't like my attitude or my irritating voice or whatever, I hope I'll do a better job than Irritating Goober-Guy did in the video of asserting his rights, but regardless, assert mine I will, and they'll either get the message and leave me alone forthwith, or their Chief of Police and/or Sheriff, the County Commission and/or the Mayor, the State Bureau of Investigations, the District Attorney and the State Attorney General will all get a copy of the video along with every YouTube viewer I can direct to my channel, and I'll do everything I can to call attention to their false detainment under color of authority. Stupidly anal is, as stupidly anal does, and that clearly defines the cops in the OP video much better than it defines Irritating Goober-Guy or anyone standing for his rights in this thread as far as I'm concerned.
-snip-

Blues

Yep recorders are an invaluable self defense tool!

I carry covert audio/video recorders everywhere I go because.......... I open carry everywhere I go. And I carry them so I will not only have proof of what some overzealous cop tried to pull on me while I'm legally open carrying... but also so I will have proof that what some weenie anti gunner (or some weenie gun owner who thinks just because you can doesn't mean you should.. oops.. I repeated myself) lied and said something happened... actually didn't happen.

Now... does the fact that I carry covert recording devices automatically mean I'm some kind of Dork attention whore purposefully looking for confrontation? Well... on some days that might be true when I intentionally attend a municipal council meeting while open carrying and confront council members who think I'm a Dork as I require (yep, REQUIRE! not beg or plead but REQUIRE!) them to pay attention to their illegal gun ban ordinances and REQUIRE them to obey the law just like us common folk have to.

But by and large...I carry my recording devices for exactly the same reason I carry a pistol... that being self defense from criminals... since cops stepping outside the law trying to use intimidation to cause folks to not exercise their rights are just as much a criminal as the bad guy trying to kill me for the few dollars my wallet.

And just like openly carrying a pistol is legal in Michigan... covertly recording in public (and under some circumstances even in private) is also legal. I strongly suggest folks know the applicable laws in their own State concerning recording!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Numenor]

...I strongly suggest folks know the applicable laws in their own State concerning recording!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I don't have a recorder at the moment (and haven't decided on getting one yet frankly), VA has a great law regarding this. Namely that so long as ONE of the parties being recorded agrees to recording, it's legal... and that one person can be me. No need to even inform anyone you are recording them either.

 

[cluznar]

This is why I will not open carry... even though this guy is a smart-ass, when you open carry people get nervous and call police. I know you are within your rights, but who wants the hastle? Conceal carry and no one bothers you.

:victory:

 

[Bikenut]

While I don't have a recorder at the moment (and haven't decided on getting one yet frankly), VA has a great law regarding this. Namely that so long as ONE of the parties being recorded agrees to recording, it's legal... and that one person can be me. No need to even inform anyone you are recording them either.

Please consider that a recorder could provide proof of what DIDN'T happen if someone lies and says you did something foolish while carrying.

People lie but recordings can provide proof they lied.

 

[Bikenut]

This is why I will not open carry... even though this guy is a smart-ass, when you open carry people get nervous and call police. I know you are within your rights, but who wants the hastle? Conceal carry and no one bothers you.

:victory:

Some folks do not do well when involved in a confrontation concerning rights with the police or even with ordinary folks that don't like guns. That is not anything derogatory about those folks.. it just means they aren't able to handle the hassle. And actually, I admire those folks who understand that standing up to a heated confrontation is beyond their ability and try to avoid getting involved in situations they are unable to handle. Again... that is not derogatory... it is actually a compliment for those wise enough to know their limitations.

However... I do firmly believe that if everyone avoids the hassle of standing up for their rights and not allowing anyone.. LE or other people... to intimidate them into not exercising their legal rights then it won't be long before there are no rights. It really is that simple since a right unexercised is a right that is lost.

And I also believe that those who aren't able to be on the front lines would do well to support those that are... because if those on the front lines lose... we ALL lose. And when enough folks see open carry and it becomes commonplace people will stop becoming nervous at the sight of a legally carried gun... and there won't be any hassle. But someone has to do it first to make it happen.

So.. I cannot understand why some concealed carriers ridicule and insult open carriers who suffer the slings and arrows as they fight for the right to bear arms... because they don't just fight for the right to open carry.. they fight for the right to bear arms openly and concealed since any "win" for open carry is also a "win" for concealed carry.

In many States printing or accidental exposure while concealed carrying is not an issue because............... open carry is legal so an exposed gun, even if exposed briefly, is not illegal. Y'all can thank open carry for that. But if you don't support open carry then it won't be long before printing and accidental exposure becomes a crime.

We really are all in this together....

 

[Hoganbeg]

It seems that a recorder is quickly going to become as important a tool as a gun in the defense of freedom from tyranny.

 

[BluesStringer]

I followed the YouTube channel link from one of the vids that Firefighterchen posted and found the following video on Markedguardian's channel. It was posted the day before Otis posted the LiveLeaks rip-off of Markedguardian's monetized YouTube channel. I'm not saying Otis ripped him off, but LiveLeaks did, unless they have permission to use his copyrighted video, which is a possibility I suppose, but anyway....

This vid was made for one purpose: To explain his reasons for doing what we see in the OP vid. It's kind of long and typically disjointed, but it's unrehearsed, off the top of his head as he's walking through the streets of downtown Medford carrying his Beretta sidearm and M&P 15 rifle, and his soliloquy is firmly rooted in high constitutional ideals and urgings for anyone following his lead to always be polite and peaceful. During the narration, he actually apologizes to his audience for his speech impediment! Here's a guy who is taking flack from fellow gun-owners all over the world wide internets for getting out there and actually doing something to educate the public about gun rights, when he could probably be sitting at home collecting some disability checks because of whatever deformation or illness that caused his impediment. Oh, and he also said something about "working all the time" in relation to why he hasn't replied to some of his commenters, so that's what makes me think he's not collecting aid for his impediment.

Anyway, here ya go. I think it's pertinent to answering the criticisms of his voice, and think further that someone unaware of his impediment could perceive the sound as being indicative of an attitude rather than an impediment. I guess you be the judge. For some of you, that won't be any different than how you've already participated in this thread. :dirol:

 

[BluesStringer]

And here's a great example of how a stop should go, and could have gone if the wannabe tyrants in the OP vid had approached him the same way:

 

[kerb]

Anyone who believes that a right should be restricted by what someone else thinks isn't "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable" and therefor "shouldn't be done" is an elitist who arrogantly believes their values and standards should control of the rights of others.

Wait... weren't you the one advocating not carrying into a business when the owner posts a "no carry allowed" sign in the other thread?
(I agreed with you, by the way).. so does that make both of us arrogant elitists for advocating respect for a property owner's wishes? How does that scenario differ from what I quoted above?

Few things are absolute.

 

[Greggatshack]

Are streets in the cities of USA normally that deserted or is it just because there is some dude walking around with guns and talking to himself? :laugh:

 

[nofrets1]

The guy is an idiot and should put his phallic symbol away before it goes off prematurely. He was there with his AR-15 for one purpose only and he accomplished that while hurting the majority of gun owners. If he was actually meeting a girl at the park, I'm sure her sole purpose was to film the beatdown by the police that he was doing his best to instigate.

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

The ability to carry any firearm is almost absolutely prohibited in what, three states?
The ability to carry a pistol concealed is licensed in most states.
The ability to carry an unconcealed pistol is licensed in a few states.
The ability to carry an unconcealed pistol without so much as a license is the law in very few states.

Which states even regulate the carry of long arms?
Apparently they don't see it as some kind of big problem.


This reminds me of something Orwellian "All guns are bad, but some small ones are less bad than others."

 

[Firefighterchen]

The guy is an idiot and should put his phallic symbol away before it goes off prematurely. He was there with his AR-15 for one purpose only and he accomplished that while hurting the majority of gun owners. If he was actually meeting a girl at the park, I'm sure her sole purpose was to film the beatdown by the police that he was doing his best to instigate.

And as history repeats itself...the majority of misinformation continues to come from in no particular order 1. Instructors, 2. Gun store employees, 3. Police. Good job perpetuated that truth yet again.