Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Idaho Statesman: "OpenCarry.org members visited Zoo Boise to make a point"

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Kind of interesting when the newspaper used OpenCarry.org in the headline!
    --


    http://www.idahostatesman.com/localn...ry/447064.html
    OpenCarry.org members visited Zoo Boise to make a point
    BY ANNA WEBB -
    awebb@idahostatesman.com
    Edition Date: 07/20/08
    When you go to the zoo, you expect to see monkeys, ducks in a pond. You don't usually expect to see visitors with handguns.
    But you would have, had you visited Zoo Boise Saturday morning.


    About 10 members of the local chapter of OpenCarry.org, a national group that advocates for citizens' rights to openly carry handguns, met there.

    After a little confusion at the front desk about whether it's legal to bring an unconcealed handgun into the zoo - it is - the group bought tickets and sauntered through the front gates like all the other visitors.

    That they were no different from all the other visitors was the point the group members were trying to make.

    "Coming to the zoo was something we could do together, like any family would," said Carol Schultz of Nampa. She is never without her handgun and holds her holster in place with a heart-studded belt.

    Schultz has gone through the steps, the training and the background check to qualify for a concealed weapons permit. Though her holster is now an integral part of her wardrobe, she can still imagine an unarmed world.

    "In an ideal society, one of peace and people taking control of their own lives, ideally, you wouldn't need a gun," she said.

    Unfortunately, said fellow OpenCarry.org member Blaine Tewell, of Eagle, the world is a dangerous place of random shootings in malls, even churches.

    The former military man, who's in the process of getting a concealed weapons permit, openly carries for now. He's not a vigilante and has no desire to chase down criminals. He just wants to be safe, he said.

    "When seconds count, police are still minutes away," he said.

    Neither Schultz nor Tewell has ever had to use a gun in self-defense. They have been asked to leave private property, though, such as restaurants and stores where their guns made people nervous.

    Lt. Alan Cavener of the Boise Police Department said reason must play a part in the open carrying of guns.

    "We support peoples' constitutional rights, but we also want to ensure public safety. People need to use common sense about where they choose to bring a firearm," Cavener said.

    Zoo visitor Laura Greaves, from Salem, Ore., questioned whether it was really necessary for someone besides a staffer working closely with dangerous animals to carry a gun at the zoo - legality aside. Saturday morning, the most ominous threats appeared to be runaway strollers and kids throwing tantrums.

    "Legal and appropriate are two different things," said another visitor, Boisean Alex Lundgren.

    Anna Webb: 377-6431

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    This is a three year old necro post.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    So what if it's a three-year-old thread? Most of the members here have been here less than three years. For us, it's new.

    "Lt. Alan Cavener of the Boise Police Department said reason must play a part in the open carrying of guns."

    I agree 100%! By my reasoning, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, I reason if it's exposed, since criminals will be less likely to attack someone they know who're armed, I stand a better chance of not being attacked in the first place. To me, that's a win-win situation. Finally, if they attack anyway, I am best prepared to respond appropriately, with minimal fuss, and my bearing of a firearm is not infringed by having to lift my shirt, pull back my jacket, or unzip some pouch.

    Forcing People to Concealed Carry is an Infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    So what if it's a three-year-old thread? Most of the members here have been here less than three years. For us, it's new.

    "Lt. Alan Cavener of the Boise Police Department said reason must play a part in the open carrying of guns."

    I agree 100%! By my reasoning, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, I reason if it's exposed, since criminals will be less likely to attack someone they know who're armed, I stand a better chance of not being attacked in the first place. To me, that's a win-win situation. Finally, if they attack anyway, I am best prepared to respond appropriately, with minimal fuss, and my bearing of a firearm is not infringed by having to lift my shirt, pull back my jacket, or unzip some pouch.

    Forcing People to Concealed Carry is an Infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    It matters because the person I was responding to (aka the post above me) stated that the story in the link was no longer there. Well it's most likely not there anymore because of how old the article is.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    It matters because the person I was responding to (aka the post above me) stated that the story in the link was no longer there. Well it's most likely not there anymore because of how old the article is.
    Publishers delete stories all the time.

    The issues remain, as well as the need for continued scrutiny, follow-up, and successful resolution.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Publishers delete stories all the time.

    The issues remain, as well as the need for continued scrutiny, follow-up, and successful resolution.
    And you still seem to be missing my point. The point I was making had nothing to do with the validity of the subject. It had to do with why the article was no longer there.

    Though if one looks at the person who brought the thread back from the dead it looks like a necro troll as they didn't even add anything useful to the debate, was posted by a low post person, and one could easily wonder what exactly the poster was trying to say as his sentence appears to ramble on about stuff that doesn't even relate to the OP incident (which is standard for a necro troll). I mean he could have at least asked if the zoo has had any incidents involving OCing (as in, hassling OCers) or if one were to OC there if they would be left alone.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Hampton, AR
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I refuse to knowingly post in a thread that is >3 years old!
    then what do you call this????

    gotta love that oficer mentality! lol

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by aosailor View Post
    then what do you call this????

    gotta love that oficer mentality! lol
    As a retired officer, aosailor, I concur.

    I do ask you get the spelling right, though. It's "officer." Thanks.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And you still seem to be missing my point. The point I was making had nothing to do with the validity of the subject. It had to do with why the article was no longer there.
    Ok, so why is the article no longer there?

    Though if one looks at the person who brought the thread back from the dead...
    As I mentioned either here or elsewhere, so what? If it's old to you, bug off and let the rest of us play. It's new to those of us who've not been around as long as you. We're still figuring things out.

    That can't happen in an oppressionist environment.

    it looks like a necro troll
    As a 25-year+ forum moderator/admin, it doesn't look like that to me at all. What this looks like to me is your attempt to slap a derrogatory label as a logically fallacious way of discrediting someone with who you personally disagree. No? Prove me wrong.

    ...as they didn't even add anything useful to the debate
    Your opinion. Only.

    was posted by a low post person...
    If Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Churchill, Eisenhower, or any of the other modern great leaders were to posted here just once, do you think the "low post" argument would hold a thimble-full of water?

    and one could easily wonder what exactly the poster was trying to say as his sentence appears to ramble on about stuff that doesn't even relate to the OP incident
    Perhaps. Lots of folks here ramble.

    I mean he could have at least asked if the zoo has had any incidents involving OCing (as in, hassling OCers) or if one were to OC there if they would be left alone.
    Tell you what. Start a new thread regarding OC incidents at the zoos. Good luck with that.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    so what if it's a three-year-old thread? Most of the members here have been here less than three years. For us, it's new.

    "lt. Alan cavener of the boise police department said reason must play a part in the open carrying of guns."

    i agree 100%! By my reasoning, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Furthermore, i reason if it's exposed, since criminals will be less likely to attack someone they know who're armed, i stand a better chance of not being attacked in the first place. To me, that's a win-win situation. Finally, if they attack anyway, i am best prepared to respond appropriately, with minimal fuss, and my bearing of a firearm is not infringed by having to lift my shirt, pull back my jacket, or unzip some pouch.

    Forcing people to concealed carry is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
    qft
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Ok, so why is the article no longer there?
    Because it's three years old and most likely removed. Which has been my whole point on this thing that you keep seeming to miss.

    As I mentioned either here or elsewhere, so what? If it's old to you, bug off and let the rest of us play. It's new to those of us who've not been around as long as you. We're still figuring things out.
    The person who responded to the necro troll (NavyLCDR) has already stated he wouldn't of responded had he realized how old the thread is. Many other people also refuse to knowingly post in a necro'ed post that doesn't have any new information or questions.

    That can't happen in an oppressionist environment.
    This statement doesn't even make sense and I don't see how it relates to anything that I said.

    As a 25-year+ forum moderator/admin, it doesn't look like that to me at all. What this looks like to me is your attempt to slap a derrogatory label as a logically fallacious way of discrediting someone with who you personally disagree. No? Prove me wrong.
    And as a 10+ year forum user who has been regularly using gaming forums with the ocasional browsing of sites like 4chan, it looks exactly like a necro troll from my experiences with them. Followed by you seeming to get angry with me stating that I think the person is a troll. And what do you mean "discrediting someone with who you personally disagree with." It's hard to "disagree" with someone who doesn't give an opinion or facts that which one views as wrong. The only thing one could say I "disagree" with is the fact that he posted in the thread, but I didn't use a "derrogatory label," I used the proper term for someone who purposely necros an old thread while not actually adding to the discussion. You are free to disagree with the label, but it's not being used in a derrogatory way and I'm not using it to try and "discredit" him. I'm simply stating how he appears to me. Without adding anything useful or asking for an update on the post he appears to be a necro troll (and simply reviving the thread isn't "useful").

    You're "No? Prove me wrong." is also very trollish. It moves the onous of proving your arguement right to making other people prove you wrong and I've seen it employed by trolls on numerous occasions. You can even find it on the urban dictionary site, which should give you an idea of how younger people use the term.

    Your opinion. Only.
    Given that the person in question is banned and how Navy LCDR stated he wouldn't of posted had he known how old the thread was, I would say it isn't "only" my opinion, but that it is shared with others on the forum. This would be a perfect place to say "No? Prove me wrong." as I would love to see you try and prove that no one else on this board shares my opinion. And it would be a better use of the phrase (though still trollish) as you were the one to make the original statement without actually backing it up.

    If Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Churchill, Eisenhower, or any of the other modern great leaders were to posted here just once, do you think the "low post" argument would hold a thimble-full of water?
    Hyperbole. If any of them were to post here I'm and we didn't know who they were (or even if we did) I'm sure they would post in a manner that made sense, was polite, use proper English/grammer, etc that make up a well thought out and reasonable post regardless of post count. If they were to post in such a way that is typical of trolls (and trolls can have a high post count, though it is uncommon on most serious boards that are properly moderated) then they would likely get labelled as a troll; but both you and I know that they wouldn't post in such a manner that could reasonably be taken as trollish.

    Perhaps. Lots of folks here ramble.
    And that rambling helps paint the whole picture. Rambling, posting in an old thread, not asking a question relating to the original incident, and not adding about the original incident all make it look like a troll. Having a low post count just helps further support that as trolls typically have a low post count

    Tell you what. Start a new thread regarding OC incidents at the zoos. Good luck with that.
    This doesn't even relate to what I was saying. I was saying that the NOW BANNED troll could have done something such as asking about OCing in the zoo that the OP is about and that doing such would have made his post appear less trollish as it would have at least related to the thread. Again, it's about the whole picture of his post and the things that he did or did not say for coming to my conclusion.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1319129723.523357.jpg 
Views:	179 
Size:	62.9 KB 
ID:	7176
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    ...is also very trollish...
    The chat forums on gaming sites are far different than quality standard message forums.

    I don't frequent gaming sites.
    Last edited by since9; 11-07-2011 at 04:53 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    The chat forums on gaming sites are far different than quality standard message forums.

    I don't frequent gaming sites.
    Not really. Most forums are relatively similar in that they have a subject that is discussed and that most people who post are relatively civil and nice people so long as you follow the rules of the forum and don't come across as abrasive/demeaning/confrontational/etc. The car forum I used to browse daily was relatively similar to the WoW forums. The main difference between a "gaming" forum and a "standard" forum is that I have found gaming forums to be more tolerant of certain types of trolling (especially when they have a playerbase of over 5million players; as even a fraction of those players using the forum is a lot of posts to try and moderate); which also means that one who visits gaming forums likely has more experience in dealing with trolls. And to imply that gaming forums aren't standard quality forums is, well, arrogant and close minded to what a "standard quality" forum is.

    Oh and while you might not frequent gaming sites, that doesn't mean that one of "their" trolls can't visit this site.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Not really.
    Yes, really.

    And I think I'm done with this pointless "yes it is, no it's not banter."

    See 'ya...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Yes, really.

    And I think I'm done with this pointless "yes it is, no it's not banter."

    See 'ya...
    So what was the point of your post again? You don't even attempt to show how they are fundamentally different and you avoid the subject of "quality forum" that you brought up.

    Not that I expect a response as you have already avoided the subject simply to say "im right, you're wrong, bye."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •