City of Washington OC ban

ChiangShih said:

This right before,



Man, thanks for the good PR Bess *sarcasm x10*

Thankfully the OC ban failed, but come on. If this is the kind of s**** I am going to be affiliated with by OCing I'm almost embarrassed to do so.

Click to expand...

Then stop OCing if you are so embarassed.

Sent from my M865 using Tapatalk 2

WCrawford said:

Then stop OCing if you are so embarassed.

Sent from my M865 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Trust me brah, I'm a happy CCW holder. Backing out of the OC movement because it seems to be plagued with cop baiting beta males looking for confrontation has and always will be an option for me. However, driving away level headed, politically minded, active supporters, in order to back you buds, is a pretty bad idea, IMO.

We've all got opinions though.

ChiangShih said:

Trust me brah, I'm a happy CCW holder. Backing out of the OC movement because it seems to be plagued with cop baiting beta males looking for confrontation has and always will be an option for me. However, driving away level headed, politically minded, active supporters, in order to back you buds, is a pretty bad idea, IMO.

We've all got opinions though.

Click to expand...

First, brah, I'm not your brah.

Second, why is it "baiting the cops" when they are the ones who are violating laws and rights?

Third, drop your statist drivel. You are either in support of legal open carry or you are not. Backroom deals in dark smoke filled rooms are the tools of those who want power to control, not those who care anything about freedom and liberty.

cshoff said:

I intended for it to sound "junior high-ish", because that is the tone of the majority of this thread. Like it or not, there are folks out there that do plenty of things in a manner that you and I might not agree with. However, as long as they are doing them in accordance with the law, it's really not any of our business.

But I digress, whether or not any of us agree with the manner that Mr. Bess conducted himself in this situation is entirely irrelevant. There isn't anyone here who gets to be the arbiter of conduct for everyone else. And I find it disturbing that supposed freedom-loving individuals would go to such great lengths to belittle a person for their LAWFUL conduct just because said person exercised said conduct in a manner in which they don't necessarily agree with. What the heck kind of freedom is that?

Folks who believe that open carry is a God given right, protected by our Constitution, should understand better than anyone that you can't "guarantee rights" by NOT exercising them. And they should also understand that sometimes the very act of exercising that right is, in and of itself, enough for the media (or some over-zealous LEO or town council member) to latch onto like a rabid dog and use to control the narrative in their attempt to make everyone involved in the activity out to be an "ass". NEWSFLASH - Not everyone who OC's is a member of this site, or is even aware of it. NEWSFLASH - Not everyone who chooses to OC is trying to be a "visible representative of the group", in fact, I'd guess that the majority of people who OC in this state have never given "the group" much thought one way or the other.

The amount of self-importance being displayed around here is borderline ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Well said Sir.

cshoff said:

Just so we all know, which one of you folks should be "the decider" for how the rest of us lawfully conduct ourselves from here on out? I sure wouldn't want to accidentally cast any stones towards your glass house...........

Click to expand...

I believe the point has been made fairly clear, but if not, I can help.

It is not MY, or any other party working for OC opinion of bess's actions that are important at all, it is the response of the politician that is important.

The politicians are the "decider" sir, not me, if I was the "decider" 680 would have been passed years ago and we would not be having this discussion.

When laying the groundwork for this years campaign somewhere around June of last year when meeting with the one of "deciders" they highly recommended that we have no incidents similar in nature to the one that happened with Brett Darrow.

I believe your response indicates power exist where none does. Giving feed back and asking someone to refrain from activities that are specifically unpopular in an area because of feedback is not power, it is simply doing what was recommended by the "deciders" and when that request is ignored and the feedback from the "deciders" it becomes what it is.

being asked specifically not to stir up the authorities in Washington until after the end of session, in contrast to what is being implied are different. Being asked not to do so because it will trigger an event is also not this power monger decider thing that is being implied, it is nothing more than good politics, don't bring intentional negative press.

As a free man he ignored those request, we got the negative press, the miseryian got their shot and they took it. The ban in Washington is/was never the point, the impact it had at the state capitol is the only one that counts and its impact was poor.

1A and 2A at the same time....priceless.

WCrawford said:

First, brah, I'm not your brah.

Second, why is it "baiting the cops" when they are the ones who are violating laws and rights?

Third, drop your statist drivel. You are either in support of legal open carry or you are not. Backroom deals in dark smoke filled rooms are the tools of those who want power to control, not those who care anything about freedom and liberty.

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not your brah, pal!

Baiting cops is a term used when the OCer is actively seeking confrontation, BRAH. Has nothing to do when cops are clearly in the wrong or actively approaching non-confrontational OCers. Also that black and white, with us or against us, fox news tactic can take a hike. "Freedom and liberty" like it or not, are often negotiated through backroom deals. Those of us who understand OC is not a secured liberty (as it can be restricted) know the complexities and issues of the politics involved.

Based on current law, the cops do not have to take the bait, yet they do.

Vilifying the lawfully acting citizen when the cops initiate the contact is illogical. The cops could have just kept on about their business, if they know the law, and nothing would have occurred. It seems that the local cops know and have known about these two for quite some time and yet they periodically take the 'bait'.

Another case of 'blame' the citizen for the actions of the state.

LMTD said:

I believe the point has been made fairly clear, but if not, I can help.

It is not MY, or any other party working for OC opinion of bess's actions that are important at all, it is the response of the politician that is important.

The politicians are the "decider" sir, not me, if I was the "decider" 680 would have been passed years ago and we would not be having this discussion.

When laying the groundwork for this years campaign somewhere around June of last year when meeting with the one of "deciders" they highly recommended that we have no incidents similar in nature to the one that happened with Brett Darrow.

I believe your response indicates power exist where none does. Giving feed back and asking someone to refrain from activities that are specifically unpopular in an area because of feedback is not power, it is simply doing what was recommended by the "deciders" and when that request is ignored and the feedback from the "deciders" it becomes what it is.

being asked specifically not to stir up the authorities in Washington until after the end of session, in contrast to what is being implied are different. Being asked not to do so because it will trigger an event is also not this power monger decider thing that is being implied, it is nothing more than good politics, don't bring intentional negative press.

As a free man he ignored those request, we got the negative press, the miseryian got their shot and they took it. The ban in Washington is/was never the point, the impact it had at the state capitol is the only one that counts and its impact was poor.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about how "the system" works, rather, my argument is that your "recommendation" to Mr. Bess is of no consequence when on any given day, there are multiple other individuals openly carrying their firearms around this state who don't have a clue (or possibly care) that any such recommendation was made and that, at any time, could have a similar event take place in their own little corner of the state.

In other words, if this "cause" is on such shaky ground that it can't withstand the potential of some "bad press" from a single LAWFUL event, or if these politicians are so soft in their determination and conviction that they can't see to it to press on despite something like this happening, then this issue was never worth the time and effort you folks put into it in the first place. It is DOOMED to fail each and every time if all it takes is some anti-gun biased newspaper to write an anti-gun hit piece the first time somebody open carries a firearm anywhere near their circulation area, because some anti-gun newspaper will ALWAYS take to the pen just like they did here and just like the media did last year after the Maplewood deal.

This isn't a Mr. Bess (or others like him) problem, IMHO, this is a problem with politicians who don't really care much about the issue in the first place and will look to any excuse they can find to not support it. And to allow those politicians off the hook just because something like this happened will be a good indicator as to just how much support there actually is here at the grass roots level for the issue. Perhaps letting these so-called "deciders" know that the REAL deciders (the voters) will be actively working against them in their next run for re-election if they give up on this so easily, could light a little fire under their butts......

OC for ME;Post #17 said:

Well, quite a bit to consider.

[edit out, not relavent to the main point of cshoff]

The alleged support for the 2A in JC is just that, alleged. If the pols are for the 2A and Art I, Sec 23 as they are wont to state during election cycles, then this 'deal' would have been done 'long' ago. Obviously it has not, so their 'support' as they term it is suspect. With overwhelming majorities in both houses what are they afraid of? Who are they afraid of? Anti-gunners? Basically there aren't any. Filibuster? Those who would try could not get a darn thing if the 2A supporters told them so.

Saying you support is different than actually supporting. I'll be voting based on the current track record of my rep and senator and their lack of leadership on this vitally important issue. I'll be wearing out some shoe leather too. They had their chance as far as I'm concerned....time for another change.

Click to expand...

cshoff, some folks didn't care about your point when I made it back on April 27th. They don't care about your point now.

cshoff said:

I'm not arguing about how "the system" works, rather, my argument is that your "recommendation" to Mr. Bess is of no consequence when on any given day, there are multiple other individuals openly carrying their firearms around this state who don't have a clue (or possibly care) that any such recommendation was made and that, at any time, could have a similar event take place in their own little corner of the state.

Click to expand...

But it wasn't other individuals involved in this it was specifically Bess, who was specifically asked(likely due to his specific reputation), not to cause any negative attention in this specific town.

cshoff said:

In other words, if this "cause" is on such shaky ground that it can't withstand the potential of some "bad press" from a single LAWFUL event, or if these politicians are so soft in their determination and conviction that they can't see to it to press on despite something like this happening, then this issue was never worth the time and effort you folks put into it in the first place.

Click to expand...

Of course these efforts sat upon shaky ground, this is a pretty shaky movement and subject even among 2A supporters. But how can you claim it was not worth it? If it took time and effort of more dedicated members to gain support and there was even a narrow opportunity for success, no matter how shaky, it was worth it.

It is DOOMED to fail each and every time if all it takes is some anti-gun biased newspaper to write an anti-gun hit piece the first time somebody open carries a firearm anywhere near their circulation area, because some anti-gun newspaper will ALWAYS take to the pen just like they did here and just like the media did last year after the Maplewood deal.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true/ assumption / hypothetical - take your pick.

This isn't a Mr. Bess (or others like him) problem, IMHO, this is a problem with politicians who don't really care much about the issue in the first place and will look to any excuse they can find to not support it.

Click to expand...

If we know politicians are willing to look for any reason they can not to support it then it IS the fault of trouble makers and negative attention getters, especially if WHILE knowing this, and having had been ASKED SPECIFICALLY not to make waves, they did the exact opposite leading to subsequent negative repercussions. You are right though, it is not the problem of Bess or others like him; their problem is over after the incident. It does, however, become the problem of people like Brian Nieves and Marc. It is hard to have any progress in a political movement when your best supporters are constantly playing damage control because of your dumbest members.

And to allow those politicians off the hook just because something like this happened will be a good indicator as to just how much support there actually is here at the grass roots level for the issue. Perhaps letting these so-called "deciders" know that the REAL deciders (the voters) will be actively working against them in their next run for re-election if they give up on this so easily, could light a little fire under their butts......

Click to expand...

OC in an unpopular movement. We don't even have much support from the other 2A groups, we don't have the numbers to impress anyone, let alone scare them (or make a dent) in voting numbers. Don't kid yourself. This is what the more politically savvy members of our movement have already figured out, that is why it is necessary to function in a more "backroom" sort of manner. That is also why it is important not to get negative press as it stirs up anti-gun and anti-oc response (and they out number us).

OC is not a secured right folks. It can still be restricted into non-existence. Bad PR especially during legislative sessions does hurt the movement. No matter how "legal" it was. Also this adherence to "if its legal he is never to fault" mentality is a bit childish, there is such thing as professional or at the minimum adult-like conduct. It may not be technically illegal to do the kinds of things the Bess does, but they are pretty childish and stupid (pulling over to video tape cops during a traffic stop on the highway while OCing). Also, that is not just my opinion that is the general opinion, on that subject, of the larger voting populace.

ChiangShih said:

But it wasn't other individuals involved in this it was specifically Bess, who was specifically asked(likely due to his specific reputation), not to cause any negative attention in this specific town.

Click to expand...

Last year it was Bret Darrow, this year it was Bess. Who will you blame next year?

Of course these efforts sat upon shaky ground, this is a pretty shaky movement and subject even among 2A supporters. But how can you claim it was not worth it? If it took time and effort of more dedicated members to gain support and there was even a narrow opportunity for success, no matter how shaky, it was worth it.

Click to expand...

I think whether or not it was "worth it" this year, is actually up to the folks who spent the time and money pushing it all session long. Marc, Rich, and others who were involved deserve our respect and gratitude for the time, effort, and money they spent, regardless. That said, that is time, effort, and money they will never get back, and it appears to have been for naught.

Not necessarily true/ assumption / hypothetical - take your pick.

Click to expand...

Sure it is an assumption, but it is an assumption that is being made based off of the statements of Marc, Rich, and (apparently), Mr. Nieves. They have come out and said that any negative press will pretty much kill any chance of getting an OC preemption bill passed. If that is the case, as they have said, then odds are pretty good that this issue is DOA each year. The anti-gun press can ALWAYS gin up some kind of negative spin to this issue.

If we know politicians are willing to look for any reason they can not to support it then it IS the fault of trouble makers and negative attention getters, especially if WHILE knowing this, and having had been ASKED SPECIFICALLY not to make waves, they did the exact opposite leading to subsequent negative repercussions. You are right though, it is not the problem of Bess or others like him; their problem is over after the incident. It does, however, become the problem of people like Brian Nieves and Marc. It is hard to have any progress in a political movement when your best supporters are constantly playing damage control because of your dumbest members.

Click to expand...

So you will let those politicians off the hook that easy? You will allow them to ignore the State Constitution and the oath they took to uphold it because somebody did something (something legal I might add) that caused a bit of negative press? Talk about a convoluted way of thinking. Those folks should be expected to support this legislation because it is right, and it is just, and it is congruent with our Constitution, and they should be expected to do that DESPITE any negative press that comes around. What you seem to want to do is provide them with excuses for not doing their jobs.

OC in an unpopular movement. We don't even have much support from the other 2A groups, we don't have the numbers to impress anyone, let alone scare them (or make a dent) in voting numbers. Don't kid yourself. This is what the more politically savvy members of our movement have already figured out, that is why it is necessary to function in a more "backroom" sort of manner. That is also why it is important not to get negative press as it stirs up anti-gun and anti-oc response (and they out number us).

Click to expand...

You might be surprised just how much "noise" a small handful of vocal, determined, well-educated activists can make. However, if those activists really aren't very determined, vocal, or well-educated, then they sound like nothing more than a whimper.

OC is not a secured right folks. It can still be restricted into non-existence. Bad PR especially during legislative sessions does hurt the movement. No matter how "legal" it was. Also this adherence to "if its legal he is never to fault" mentality is a bit childish, there is such thing as professional or at the minimum adult-like conduct. It may not be technically illegal to do the kinds of things the Bess does, but they are pretty childish and stupid (pulling over to video tape cops during a traffic stop on the highway while OCing). Also, that is not just my opinion that is the general opinion, on that subject, of the larger voting populace.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with the fact that perception is a large part of politicking. Popular opinion is shaped by popular, and not so popular, ideas and actions. That opinion in turn fuels the rhetoric of those seeking office, or already holding office. With that said, a very big part of freedom and liberty is in having the restraint to allow others to do things which you might not agree with. There is a very fine line between respectfully asking for restraint in how someone lawfully exercises his/her rights, and getting downright dictatorial in demanding restraint in how someone lawfully exercises his/her rights; a line that freedom-loving people shouldn't cross. Coming here and with the intent to belittle and malign a specific person because of a specific lawful action sure seems to place some folks mighty close to that line (if not over it).

ChiangShih said:

Hey, I'm not your brah, pal!

Baiting cops is a term used when the OCer is actively seeking confrontation, BRAH. Has nothing to do when cops are clearly in the wrong or actively approaching non-confrontational OCers. Also that black and white, with us or against us, fox news tactic can take a hike. "Freedom and liberty" like it or not, are often negotiated through backroom deals. Those of us who understand OC is not a secured liberty (as it can be restricted) know the complexities and issues of the politics involved.

Click to expand...

If you and your little playmates want to play hide the salami with politicians in dark rooms (I bet you are the catcher, right) fine, but don't expect any of the rest of us to respect your pillow talk deals.

There was no "seeking a confrontation" except by the criminal thugs who work for the city. The OCer in question was 100% legal in his activities. If you can't get that in your statist head, just go and cry to your "boy friends" in the dark room to make the bad men stop.

aadvark said:

To ALL Whom are Concerned:

http://www.emissourian.com/news/washington_news/article_e544c96b-39c6-56e4-966a-7ef8ded31c86.html

aadvark

Click to expand...

Yep. Just as was reported a page ago. Yet these folks in this thread dont really seem to care. I live across the country and did my part to help because its my home town.

WCrawford said:

If you and your little playmates want to play hide the salami with politicians in dark rooms (I bet you are the catcher, right) fine, but don't expect any of the rest of us to respect your pillow talk deals.

There was no "seeking a confrontation" except by the criminal thugs who work for the city. The OCer in question was 100% legal in his activities. If you can't get that in your statist head, just go and cry to your "boy friends" in the dark room to make the bad men stop.

Click to expand...

Lul, gay jokes, classy. Usually, the projections of an insecure, bible-belt, closet case.

But really, this really exemplifies the level of maturity and intelligence you bring to the OC movment. It is no wonder you are in Bess' corner.

Also, you aren't from the Missouri side, nor do show any sign of knowing the details. So just wtf are you doing here besides making yourself look like a idiot?

P.S.- "statist head" ? really, you must be a nutter, please suck start your pistol.

ChiangShih said:

Lul, gay jokes, classy. Usually, the projections of an insecure, bible-belt, closet case.

P.S.- "statist head" ? really, you must be a nutter, please suck start your pistol.

Click to expand...

No, prostitution reference. and I'm not sure who the ***** is.

As for the PS, you first.

WCrawford said:

As for the PS, you first.

Click to expand...

Oh no, no, no Mr. Crawford. Us from the Kansas City side must insist. Idiots first. Idiots first.

Well since the city attorney same as told the Chief of Police he was a dumb ass and to sit down and shut up what are we to blame the inaction of the politicians on now? Oh I know, they had to work on the budget and other things and just didn't have time.

cshoff said:

Sure it is an assumption, but it is an assumption that is being made based off of the statements of Marc, Rich, and (apparently), Mr. Nieves.

Coming here and with the intent to belittle and malign a specific person because of a specific lawful action sure seems to place some folks mighty close to that line (if not over it).

Click to expand...

Assumptions are the mother of all screw ups.

It does not take a political supporter to kill it, it only takes the non-supporters to rescind a loose agreement not to filibuster it that brings its rapid death.

It seems a lot of folks around OCDO for MO seem not to understand, while it takes a lot of politicians to get something passed, it only takes about 3 to get it killed.

Any and every politician knows bad press is just that, bad. Anyone who does not think that a political foe who agrees not to kill a bill, just register a no vote, does not have the potential to change their feeble minds in the light of bad press has their head in the sand.

Missouri does not make things legal, it makes them illegal. When you are trying to reverse something already made illegal, your sales pitch has to be that it is not a problem. When you get negative press, they again get to point and say it is a problem.

Senator Nieves did not change his position, in fact I remain kind of hopeful that the kick in the groin fires him up a bit and he pushes even harder.

As to the others referencing back room deals, your basically Per just demonstrating you have no concept of how the political system in this screwed up country works. Perhaps instead of just wondering why SB 680 has sat in committee as long as it has, and why it is going to die right there some 17 days from now, you should educate yourselves.

LMTD said:

Assumptions are the mother of all screw ups.

It does not take a political supporter to kill it, it only takes the non-supporters to rescind a loose agreement not to filibuster it that brings its rapid death.

It seems a lot of folks around OCDO for MO seem not to understand, while it takes a lot of politicians to get something passed, it only takes about 3 to get it killed.

Any and every politician knows bad press is just that, bad. Anyone who does not think that a political foe who agrees not to kill a bill, just register a no vote, does not have the potential to change their feeble minds in the light of bad press has their head in the sand.

Missouri does not make things legal, it makes them illegal. When you are trying to reverse something already made illegal, your sales pitch has to be that it is not a problem. When you get negative press, they again get to point and say it is a problem.

Click to expand...

I contend that therein lies the real problem. The fact is, this is NOT something Missouri has made illegal. Open carry, as far as the state is concerned, is a legal act. If it wasn't, I believe some of these politicians could probably be convinced that it is a more pressing issue and would therefore be more likely to take a more "firm" stand on it. As it stands now, these folks can afford to be fence sitters because they can claim it is "legal" on one hand, but subject to local regulation on the other.

With that said, I am well aware how "the game" works in Jeff City. I've been to enough hearings and watched enough bills die in the committee process to understand that it's not just a one man show. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the voters have to hold their elected representatives responsible for those kind of actions rather than re-electing them every few years just to have them do the same type of thing over and over again.

Senator Nieves did not change his position, in fact I remain kind of hopeful that the kick in the groin fires him up a bit and he pushes even harder.

Click to expand...

I never claimed he did. Best I can tell he's been pretty consistent with this. And it wouldn't surprise me if he got more fired up. My guess is that he will become a great friend in Jeff City to Missouri gun owners while he holds office. He seems to be more than willing to not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. But, as I said above, it's not a one man show. There are others there that claim to be staunch gun rights supporters that all to often back down when the heat is on.