1st Time Carrying. Practicing in Public.
- Thread starter Spenary
- Start date
BluesStringer
Les Brers
He could just as easily be a screenwriter gauging peoples' reactions to what he's thinking of having his super-hero/sheepdog/vigilante protagonist do in the story-line so he sells more tickets when the movie comes out, or he could be as delusional as y'all have made up your minds he is. Frankly, I don't care either way. I care about what people do, not what they say. I arm myself to be prepared for others who think they can victimize me or mine with impunity. Assuming that Wild Dog is indeed armed, which I have no reason to doubt is true, it doesn't concern me in the least that he's given to stream-of-consciousness writings where he sees himself as The Shadow or Batman. There are myriad worse ways of being delusional, like for instance, thinking that voting still matters in this country. HA!
Blues
Other than that what do you have? And perhaps he's the next school shooter communicating his true thoughts. Since neither of us know how about we agree that such statements are bizarre no matter what the motive?
XD40scinNC
New member
Lives with his mom (he confirmed that), has a minimally paying TSA or mall security guard job, and probably has a prescription for some psychotropic drugs, which he has failed to refill.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I have the 1st Amendment which states clearly that he has the right to say anything that he wants to say short of threats to specific individuals for whom he has the means, opportunity and requisite intent to carry out.
I also have the 2nd Amendment which states clearly that, without the means, opportunity and requisite intent to carry out threats, or without being adjudicated by a judge, board, commission or other "legal" authority as mentally incompetent, he has the right to keep and bear arms.
Somehow, for all the attempts by you to make your opinions more legitimate than many of ours because of your status as a retired attorney, you seem to be either clueless of those legal axioms, or you don't care about the actual legalities as you plod through the membership of a gun rights forum deciding by words only who is qualified to own or carry guns, who can or cannot complain about politicians and their liberty-killing policies, even who is sane and who ain't.
What do you have besides platitudes, pronouncements of knowing stuff you couldn't possibly know the veracity of and telling people when and about whom they can or cannot complain? "Uh...I got nothin'" is the only answer available to you right now.
No thanks. When I juxtapose his statements against some of yours, I find the threat(s) to my freedoms to be much more evident in your mindset than in his.
Blues
Blueshell
Banned
I demonstrates your state of mind and looks good to the jury.
Wild Dog
Banned
Well said, sir, well said. Looks Troutking got his lil' peepee spanked.
bofh
Banned
A self-defensive shooting can only be justified by the circumstances that led up to it, not by the circumstances afterwards. Were you in fear of your life or serious bodily harm or was someone else? That is the only thing that matters in a self-defensive shooting. Being a nice guy afterwards is not part of the evaluation. The jury will likely be instructed to ignore the fact that you helped the victim afterwards.
There are two other sides to this: (1) rendering aid opens you up to civil litigation (and possible criminal charges), especially if aid was rendered incorrectly and/or you were not trained in emergency medical treatment, and (2) NOT rendering aid may lead to additional criminal charges if it was not a justifiable shooting. The second part is important when it comes to negligent discharges.
Blueshell
Banned
It's your trial, do what you want.
Waffles
Member
I guess we all have those paranoid moments.
I am 65 days into my wait for my first Bentley. I have purchased a couple of different cars for different styles of cruising. At home I've driving around the yard to get used to this luxury. I took out my Mercedes and went to the grocery store to pick up a few things. Man! It really felt strange driving around but I'm still feeling the luxury and getting a pretty good Idea of what it's going to feel like standing in line at Berger Drive-thru in my Bentley. It’s a secret from the people around me. This is an unfamiliar feeling. Any tips for a first timer while I'm still waiting for my Bentley? Besides "get a life.":cray:
I am 65 days into my wait for my first Bentley. I have purchased a couple of different cars for different styles of cruising. At home I've driving around the yard to get used to this luxury. I took out my Mercedes and went to the grocery store to pick up a few things. Man! It really felt strange driving around but I'm still feeling the luxury and getting a pretty good Idea of what it's going to feel like standing in line at Berger Drive-thru in my Bentley. It’s a secret from the people around me. This is an unfamiliar feeling. Any tips for a first timer while I'm still waiting for my Bentley? Besides "get a life.":cray:
The second amendment makes no such guarantee. You have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly not schooled on the subject. Your constitution was relegated to insignificance more than a century ago. Study constitutional law and learn how the system works. Then you can argue the constitution intelligently. Until then you have only the opinion of someone without any credentialing. Constitutional law is an extremely in-depth topic. You can't learn it on the Internet. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
And as far as restricting firearms? I won't support giving every lunatic a gun based on the limited view of a two-sentence second amendment. How would the second amendment be written if your founding fathers could see the rampant insanity, mental illness and heinous crime that plagues our world today? You insult them by thinking they wouldn't restrict dangerous people? In 1789 there was no such thing as mental illness. The second amendment was denied in most mid-west cities from the mid 1800's. Abilene, Dodge, Hays City, Tombstone, Ellsworth, Wichita, Caldwell and many, many others forbid the carrying of a weapon while in the town limits: all in violation (excepting Tombstone) of the constitution. Why? Drunks with guns at the end of the line in cattle towns. In towns where population tripled with the influx of outsiders during the cattle season the unconstitutional laws were in full effect. This is nothing new. Yes I know bad people can always get a gun. But I won't hand them one legally.
You won't deny a drunk the right to carry his gun while drunk? As an ADA I would prosecute him for creating the reckless condition and recommend suspension or revocation based on what he did exactly. In defending "Wild Dog" you show me you don't see the warning signs. Yes he has a first amendment right; blah, blah, blah. He can still be prosecuted for what he says under that right. You can't make the threat without being charged, regardless if you have the motive, opportunity or means. Don't know where you got that one but it's dead wrong. Hell in many states it's a crime to call someone multiple times and merely hang-up (Aggravated Harassment).
Your 1st amendment statement is also woefully lacking. Regulation of free speech is not limited to threats. You may not exercise either your 1st amendment rights on private property or property held by certain government agencies. You may not speak out of turn at a town meeting without an obstruction charge. You may not speak out of turn in any court without a contempt charge. You may not stand in the waiting room at the SSA office and talk on your phone or engage others in loud conversation, nor may you speak to the entire waiting room without being booted, legally. You may not appear on any private property and start speaking to the crowd about anything without permission. Life would be so easy if the only law was the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately there are many hundreds of thousands of laws that conflict with it. Those laws are upheld every day in America.
No I didn't. I was on the receiving end of nonsense from another armchair lawyer. It was an uneducated and uninformed posts from someone which was liked by a nut named "Wild Dog" who's threatening to go down in a hail of bullets.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
But voting still matters, eh? The Constitution, by your own admission, is dead and gone, but voting for people to fill the seats of power that the Constitution authorizes is still important?
Just like a lawyer. Double-minded and full of double-speak.
Yes, constitutional law is overly in-depth, made so by lawyers who have a vested interest in fomenting inaccessibility to true justice by the common man that the Constitution was written to protect the rights of. If the Constitution is dead as you yourself admit, then government of The People, by The People and for The People is every bit as dead. Understanding that relieves me of the necessity of "credentialing" myself in order to not be dismissed by one of the Constitution's murderers.
Go pound sand you holier-than-thou hack.
I praise them because I believe that they meant what they said. The Constitution is not the only writing that informs us who they were and what they believed. From the Federalist Papers to public speeches to historical writings to and from each other, the "in-depth" meanings of that two-sentence amendment are extremely easy to discern. Only professional prevaricators and tyrants get in the way of the common man's ability to understand the law. You're not quite as special as you imagine just because you spent a career in a system that you yourself say has been "relegated to insignificance more than a century ago." Presumably, you're less than 120 years old, so you spent your entire career pushing a failed and corrupted system of justice on the unsuspecting public. And you think I'm being ridiculous?
You insult the Framers by thinking that they would succumb to today's political correctness by letting every dangerous convict out of prison. And on the flip side of that same coin, you would make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves in order to defend against this failed government repopulating the country with dangerous people. And you think I'm being ridiculous? Right back atcha, cupcake.
That's funny, I would've used the same period of time and the same examples of places that prove that the Constitution is dead, inaccessible to the common man, and corrupted beyond any hope of repair. I would've bemoaned that circumstance as counter to the God-given liberty that our Founders attempted to provide for perpetuity, while you use the denial of rights during that period to validate your own jaded twisting of the rights they enumerated to mean government has final say-so over the rights that The People denied them the authority say anything whatsoever about!
I find it quite fulfilling to be criticized as "ridiculous" by you, as I have always thought it preferable to be despised by the despicable than admired by the admirable. You're making my day.
Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. I'm sure he is one of your heroes, or at least highly thought of by you, you being a Yankee and all. Go ahead and tell us how you would've disarmed him. Chances are you think more lowly of the farmers and Patriots that he slaughtered while drunk than you do of him.
Double-mindedness always shows through the thin veneer of self-deceit.
Right. You would prosecute a citizen for pre-crime. You would prosecute over "conditions" rather than any real harm that ensues from those conditions. Every time you get behind the wheel of your car you create a dangerous condition. Stats vary between 30,000 up to 45,000 fatalities every year over the last thirty years. Your F'ed-up legal system says that someone with 0.08 blood alcohol content is "drunk." You would deny the right to defend themselves of people who had a beer or two during an evening out with friends whether or not that 0.08 BAC caused any harm to someone else, not even so much as minor property damage, and then cheer yourself for your "law and order" stand against drunks?
Your commitment to constitutionally-protected liberty is underwhelming to say the least.
I haven't defended him personally at all. I even referred to some of his writings as "tough guy posturing." Hardly a defense of what he's said. I neither defend nor condemn what he says. Everything I've said in this and the other thread where I've replied directly to you was intended as commentary on what you've said.
But I'll give you that I don't see "warning signs" that an anonymous poster on the internet is some major threat to society just because he's full of more bluster than I myself would ever engage in. And the flip side of that coin is that I don't trust you to make any conclusions in that regard, or perhaps more importantly, I don't trust you to apply the law fairly when evaluating whether or not his words on this forum might rise to the level of actionable threats. You just don't like seeing him speak his mind freely, so you use your law degree as a cudgel to make your evaluations and opinions more legitimate than mine or anyone else's. You just ain't that special.
I didn't say a word about motive, I said means, opportunity and intent. Are you suggesting that none of those things matter when a prosecutor is deciding whether or not to pursue charges for words uttered with no action ever backing them up, or more to the point, without even the potential to back them up due to lack of means, opportunity or intent? Empty threats on the internet aren't actionable, and what makes them empty is if it's apparent that the person issuing them has neither the means, opportunity nor intent to carry them out.
Aside from that though, I just went back and perused Wild Dog's posts. I didn't see a single threat among the 50 or so I read. You're busy trying to ridicule me for not knowing anything about the law while you're just as busy trying to legitimize criminalizing speech that you personally find objectionable and/or bizarre. Objectionable and/or bizarre writings are not criminal. Writing a Batman scenario down on an internet forum hardly rises to the level of criminality, and only a big-government, police-state-loving hack would try to promulgate the notion that it does. Saying that one has resigned himself to the belief that he will die by gunfire is not a threat against anyone except possibly himself. Unarmed and non-threatening people die at the hands of government agents quite often in this country. Open carriers get harassed, arrested, sometimes charged, sometimes convicted, and even sometimes beaten for perfectly legal activity many times per year in this country. It is not out of the realm of predictability that someone who carries a gun, concealed or openly, might fall victim to being killed by gunfire, and saying so out loud is most certainly not threatening or illegal in any way, shape, manner or form.
And yeah, you're really helping your case when you first, tell lies about another member making threats, and then say, "Yes he has a first amendment right; blah, blah, blah." I'm sure you can imagine how liberty-loving it makes you sound when you so cavalierly dismiss his 1st Amendment rights with "blah, blah, blah." NOT!
Are you new to internet discussions? We're not talking about the action of harassing someone in the meat world, we're talking about bluster on an internet forum that you have consistently lied about being threatening, have used your status as an attorney to legitimize your lies about that bluster, and used every Alinskyite trick in the book to convert fundamental rights of The People into authorities that the Constitution grants government to put controls on!
It seems you fancy yourself as Wyatt Earp and you would turn the entire country into 1880s Tombstone with your own personal brand of what "shall not be infringed" means for The People in our daily lives. Screw dat. You just ain't that special.
Blues
Well God damn me all the way to hell.
You're the most long-winded, bellowing bovine I've heard in a while. You actually wrote that response? Who takes the time to write such an insufferable, long-winded load of crap. I'm well aware that things are bad. I'm not going argue theories and what I might or might not do when prosecuting or defending. I'm not going to argue whether attorneys are a good or bad thing because they're both. And I'm not going to petition rearward for redress of every ill you feel needs cure. I'm going to answer you in the here and now. This is 2015. And whether you like it or not it's the current rule of law as interpreted by the courts that you'll adhere to. If you don't like the law, change it. Or don't follow it. But don't bluster at me because you don't like lawyers. Drunken while armed constitutes a violation of law; one doesn't wait until he causes harm. He's charged with the offense. And that's the end of it. If doesn't want to be charged he shouldn't be drunk with a gun. And know this; I didn't murder your beloved constitution. I worked zealously to represent and defend my clients from wrongs. You know nothing of me or my work, which makes you both ignorant and lacking knowledge of law. Such explains your attitude.
And Ulysses Grant? You kidding? You're still fighting the war? From Alabama? Well, that drunk Grant kicked your ass so end-it already. And his drunk days were behind him when he did it.
mspt_99
New member
Your reply is lacking in substance. So far you got called out and lost this exchange.
Sent from my XT1254 using USA Carry mobile app
BluesStringer
Les Brers
It is my experience that the Good Lord does answer prayers, so careful what you ask for.
You already did. Part of my previous response was in direct reply to saying what you would do as an ADA:
You would not only prosecute someone who the law says is impaired regardless of their ability to function under an 0.08 BAC, you would prevent them from carrying "legally" for an unspecified amount of time thereafter regardless of his/her God-given right to defend themselves against predators, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes the "law" itself predatory.
The law doesn't distinguish between a "drunk" and someone who didn't measure their wine or beer intake at dinner just right to maintain 0.07 BAC. The law you support would treat a life-long alcoholic exactly the same as the 0.08 BAC traveler headed home after a nice relaxing get-together, assuming both are carrying weapons when pulled over.
Of course you won't argue "theory" with me, because I haven't relied on theory at all. I've relied on simple English found in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, quotes and letters by Founders and historical figures whose scholarship defined our understanding of what the Constitution was supposed to mean right up until Lincoln shredded it so that he could conquer sovereign, free states who decided they were no longer happy with the arrangement their forebears saddled them with. No, I'm not still fighting the War of Northern Aggression, I'm still decrying the freedoms and sovereignty that was stolen from The People and our states. Surprise! Lincoln didn't just steal it from us, he and his conquering armies stole it from the North too! In fact, he set the stage for implementation of gun control laws intended to keep Rebels and blacks disarmed that not only spread to the North, but expanded beyond any possible relationship to 2nd Amendment compliance by your Northern state governments, whereas, current-day Southern states are busy expanding access to 2nd Amendment rights. It doesn't surprise me in the least that you shrug your shoulders and say, "That's the law," as if any law, regardless of adherence to the Constitution, is legitimate and must be obeyed by the citizens who are the owners of the Constitution. You've made what I imagine is a pretty good living off of the Constitution's usurpations and bastardizations. It's hard to criticize a system that has put food on your and your family's table for several decades, isn't it?
The one and only Constitution that we have would, especially regarding unambiguous rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
There's not one single Section, Article, clause, phrase, paragraph, sentence, word or punctuation mark in the Constitution which gives government the authority to deny citizens their rights before they've done anything wrong. In an age where kids can't notice that they've eaten their slice of pizza into the shape of a gun without getting in trouble that the courts will say is "constitutional" for school districts to enforce, I have no confidence at all in the ability of courts to know right from "wrong." They do more harm upholding the "law" than the citizen who gets caught up in the legal system over an arbitrary number of BAC that causes no harm to anyone.
That's the end of it? No trial? No plea bargaining so you can pad your billable hours? No juries? Just charge him and that's the end of it, eh? Wow, this from an attorney. Amazing.
See, I'm one of those throwbacks who believes that the charge that he/she was "drunk" must be proven to a reasonable doubt by the jury that hears the case. My throwback beliefs also force me to challenge the notion that a person caught up in the revenue-generating schemes associated with traffic and substance abuse "laws" should not be financially ruined simply by by being charged with running afoul of them, which of course, between the fines the state imposes and the attorney's fees, would happen to the Average Joe the second he called an attorney.
Hey, it's your Constitution too, but I agree that it is quite likely that it's beloved more by me than by you. That is painfully obvious.
As an ADA, your "clients" would've been the government of the jurisdiction(s) you practiced in, "the state" as it were. If that was ever your actual job, I have no doubt that The People caught up in the bastardized and usurped system that you were a zealous representative of suffered mightily at your hand. That is an ADA's job after all. Yay government!
As a defense attorney who believes that 0.08 BAC should authorize government to steal someone's rights and put them into financial ruin, I have a hard time believing that you zealously represented their best interests, because their best interests are completely counter to your own stated-for-all-the-world-to-see beliefs. I doubt you'll grant the logic of that take, but it is my take, and it is based only on what you've said over the last few days. Like the drunk who, "If doesn't want to be charged he shouldn't be drunk with a gun," if you don't want to be taken as a big-government, police-state-loving hack, you shouldn't be saying things on an internet forum that sound like they could only come from a big-government, police-state-loving hack.
Blues
Blues, anyone who responds as you have, with such length and anal retentive detail has too much time on their hands. What kind of person tears apart a post, sentence by sentence? Crazy, simply crazy. Over a post where someone expresses an opinion? I was an ADA in the late 70's as many young, new attorneys choose, to gain experience. I spent a career in defense work, not prosecuting. Get a law degree and we'll talk about the law. Until then what you have is merely an uninformed opinion.
And if you're going to be drunk with a gun, expect to be arrested. If you hate lawyers who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
BTW, you called me a Yankee? I'm born and raised in MD, retired in NC. Merely worked in NY, CT, CO and NJ. So you really don't know what you're talking about. But in looking at some of your previous posts you seem like a grump who takes everyone to the wood shed.
And if you're going to be drunk with a gun, expect to be arrested. If you hate lawyers who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
BTW, you called me a Yankee? I'm born and raised in MD, retired in NC. Merely worked in NY, CT, CO and NJ. So you really don't know what you're talking about. But in looking at some of your previous posts you seem like a grump who takes everyone to the wood shed.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I haven't had a drink in at least 20 years, probably longer. Never did drink to excess even when I partook occasionally. I have never carried while "drunk," though it's possible that I have carried while over the 0.08 BAC "legal" limit. I don't know. Never got pulled over while armed on the exceedingly few occasions that I might've been thusly "drunk."
I don't "hate" lawyers, I just have no use for them, pretty much for experiential reasons loosely similar to why I don't associate with cops as-told in a post of mine linked in my sig-line. Like or dislike, hate or don't hate though, I would never argue that you should have your rights denied under any but the most extreme circumstances of your personal wrong-doing, and even then, I would support your right to defend yourself out in public if the justice system deemed you safe to be out in public. If that's "Crazy, simply crazy," then guilty as charged.
Anyone who responds as I have has the intellectual capacity to actually respond to what's said by the other party in an ongoing discussion. I didn't "pick apart" your posts, I responded directly to a couple of whole ones, and to parts of others. I quote what you (or anyone else) says so that it can never be said that I evaded responding to some point or assertion you made. You may not, and obviously quite often don't, agree with my responses to what you've said, but responses to what you've said they indeed are or else there wouldn't be a quote box with your user-name preceding every reply I give, except of course, for this one since it seems you're bugged by having your words directly responded to. I probably won't make this concession a habit though. I do so hope that you'll get over it without much more whining about it.
Screw you and your "get a law degree" before you acknowledge my right to talk about any subject I wish to talk about without your permission. That intellectually vapid kind of debate technique got old after the first time you said it.
Well, MD is hardly a state with Southern sensibilities. So you went from there to four of the most 2nd Amendment non-compliant states in the Union, three of which have been anti-liberty when it comes to guns for the bulk, if not the entirety, of your career, and CO lost their collective mind and went that way after Sandy Hook. Or was it after Aurora? Whichever, they lost their collective mind nonetheless. Whether or not you're technically a Yankee, like my wife is BTW, so as often as not I use the word as a term of endearment, you bring Yankee sensibilities to this forum, which would logically follow that you bring to NC as well.
But OK, you're not a Yankee. Not "technically" not a Yankee, just not a Yankee with no caveats. I'll concede that perfectly meaningless triviality. Nothing you've said, however, would dissuade me from concluding that you are indeed a big-government, police-state-loving hack though.
Blues
I don't "hate" lawyers, I just have no use for them, pretty much for experiential reasons loosely similar to why I don't associate with cops as-told in a post of mine linked in my sig-line. Like or dislike, hate or don't hate though, I would never argue that you should have your rights denied under any but the most extreme circumstances of your personal wrong-doing, and even then, I would support your right to defend yourself out in public if the justice system deemed you safe to be out in public. If that's "Crazy, simply crazy," then guilty as charged.
Anyone who responds as I have has the intellectual capacity to actually respond to what's said by the other party in an ongoing discussion. I didn't "pick apart" your posts, I responded directly to a couple of whole ones, and to parts of others. I quote what you (or anyone else) says so that it can never be said that I evaded responding to some point or assertion you made. You may not, and obviously quite often don't, agree with my responses to what you've said, but responses to what you've said they indeed are or else there wouldn't be a quote box with your user-name preceding every reply I give, except of course, for this one since it seems you're bugged by having your words directly responded to. I probably won't make this concession a habit though. I do so hope that you'll get over it without much more whining about it.
Screw you and your "get a law degree" before you acknowledge my right to talk about any subject I wish to talk about without your permission. That intellectually vapid kind of debate technique got old after the first time you said it.
Well, MD is hardly a state with Southern sensibilities. So you went from there to four of the most 2nd Amendment non-compliant states in the Union, three of which have been anti-liberty when it comes to guns for the bulk, if not the entirety, of your career, and CO lost their collective mind and went that way after Sandy Hook. Or was it after Aurora? Whichever, they lost their collective mind nonetheless. Whether or not you're technically a Yankee, like my wife is BTW, so as often as not I use the word as a term of endearment, you bring Yankee sensibilities to this forum, which would logically follow that you bring to NC as well.
But OK, you're not a Yankee. Not "technically" not a Yankee, just not a Yankee with no caveats. I'll concede that perfectly meaningless triviality. Nothing you've said, however, would dissuade me from concluding that you are indeed a big-government, police-state-loving hack though.
Blues
I'm simply not interested in what you have to say so I won't take your bait.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Translation: "Uh....I got nothin'."
