Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Racist Editorial Says Open Carry Is Not "Responsible"

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.timesonline.com/articles/...0270705531.txt

    Common sense: Don’t forget that responsibility is part of constitutional rights

    Published: Tuesday, September 9, 2008 7:16 AM EDT
    The arrest of John Noble for disorderly conduct has led to a debate over the right to bear arms.

    But while many people are wrapped up in the argument over the Second Amendment, few are talking about the responsibility that comes with exercising any constitutional right.

    The Industry resident was arrested near the political rally for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and vice presidential nominee Joe Biden in Beaver on Aug. 29. He was wearing a loaded, holstered Glock 9mm handgun, wielding a Bible and distributing fliers about gun rights.

    He has been charged with one count each of disorderly conduct and disrupting meetings and processions.

    Noble and his defenders argue that he was exercising his constitutional right as protected by the Second Amendment and did not violate state law, which allows people to wear a weapon out in the open without a permit.

    Law enforcement officials argue that the presence of an armed Noble violated another constitutional right — people’s right to peaceful assembly. State police contend that Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him, thus the disorderly conduct charge.

    So which constitutional right, if any, should take precedence over the other? Perhaps it would help to look at this incident from another angle.

    What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?

    Would you shrug that off as American citizens exercising their constitutional rights, or would their presence alarm and intimidate you? Would you be comfortable with law enforcement officials observing constitutional niceties and leaving them alone, or would you prefer that the police arrest them?

    Suddenly, the matter isn’t so black and white, even though the underlying constitutional principles are the same.

    One thing that constitutional absolutists of all stripes forget is that rights come with responsibilities. And as the Noble incident shows, a little common sense when exercising them doesn’t hurt, either.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.timesonline.com/articles/...0270705531.txt wrote
    One thing that constitutional absolutists of all stripes forget is that rights come with responsibilities. And as the Noble incident shows, a little common sense when exercising them doesn’t hurt, either.
    Especially when the 'sense' is pleasing to the tyrant.

    The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Law enforcement officials argue that the presence of an armed Noble violated another constitutional right — people’s right to peaceful assembly.

    My comment submitted to them:

    One little factual error in the police's (and perhaps your) logic... The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people against the GOVERNMENT, not other people.

    If you want to sue another individual for impeding your right to free speech or for an unreasonable search and seizure, you file a civil lawsuit -- it's not a criminal matter.

    Let's take the situation and look at it like this... You have an African-American walking down the street of a rich neighborhood with a bunch of elderly who are completely terrified. If they called the police, would the African-American be arrested? Not if they didn't want the ACLU breathing down their neck.

    Property rights trump most other rights... it's why proprietors can have protesters arrested for trespassing on their property or how your local Costco can request bag searches as a condition to entry; however, your "right" to feel safe doesn't not trump my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    In your example the Quran, the chanting Death to America, and the Middle Eastern heritage combined together makes it disorderly conduct, not the gun. You arrest for the legitimate disorderly conduct in that case and seize the gun pending the case. That is a very unfair example to Mr Noble who is obviously a good American. Gun carrying is an American right not a terrorist right.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    He was wearing a loaded, holstered Glock 9mm handgun, wielding a Bible and distributing fliers about gun rights.
    Oh, he was wielding a Bible. Fortunately it didn't go off. It could have devastated the crowd with it's words of Christianity. Phew, glad the State Police prevented that.
    Law enforcement officials argue that the presence of an armed Noble violated another constitutional right — people’s right to peaceful assembly.
    LE officials seem to have overlooked that Noble was a person peacefully assembling.
    State police contend that Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him, thus the disorderly conduct charge.
    State police's contention then is that his appearance was alarming, thus the charge. So one's appearance could be hideous, distasteful or otherwise disturbing enough to others to warrant a charge of disorderly conduct.
    What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?
    Chanting "Death to America" should clearly be considered a threat if the utterance occurs in America. Otherwise they should be allowed to assemble peacefully.
    Would you shrug that off as American citizens exercising their constitutional rights, or would their presence alarm and intimidate you?
    I support their presence as legally armed American citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. Their actions however, threatening"Death to America." would serve to alarm and intimidate me.
    Clearly the Times editorial is attempting to compare apples to oranges to fool the readers. For shame.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Post imported post

    The only disruption I see is from the police arresting this man.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Wynder wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    Law enforcement officials argue that the presence of an armed Noble violated another constitutional right — people’s right to peaceful assembly.

    My comment submitted to them:

    One little factual error in the police's (and perhaps your) logic... The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people against the GOVERNMENT, not other people.

    If you want to sue another individual for impeding your right to free speech or for an unreasonable search and seizure, you file a civil lawsuit -- it's not a criminal matter.

    Let's take the situation and look at it like this... You have an African-American walking down the street of a rich neighborhood with a bunch of elderly who are completely terrified. If they called the police, would the African-American be arrested? Not if they didn't want the ACLU breathing down their neck.

    Property rights trump most other rights... it's why proprietors can have protesters arrested for trespassing on their property or how your local Costco can request bag searches as a condition to entry; however, your "right" to feel safe doesn't not trump my Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
    You might want to reflect on that a bit about the "Costco" comment. Costco doesn't "request" bag searches, it is a condition of the contractual agreement between Costco and it's members. WalMart can also request bag searches, but there is nothing requiring customers to comply with those searches, unless it is proscribed in law, be it state or local. I know it's nitpicking, that's why I won't take offense if you dismiss it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647

    Post imported post

    State police contend that Noble’s wearing the gun was alarming to others around him, thus the disorderly conduct charge.
    In other words the cops "think" he may have "alarmed" others but were there people acting all scared and panicky? From what I've read on this the only person who was "alarmed" was the guy who told the cops about Noble.

    I smell ******** here.
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    O.K. this alarming argument is BS. His intent was not to alarm, his intent was to lawfully carry a firearm. Using that flawed argument Obama should have been arrested because what he says should alarm others. If we play this game nothing can be done without alarming others.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Count wrote:
    If we play this game nothing can be done without alarming others.
    Or offending them.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    332

    Post imported post

    I'm not sure what's "racist" about the editorial. Aside from that, I've read through the Constitution repeatedly and have found nothing that addresses anyone's right to "feel" safe, or to "feel" anything else for that matter. Am I just missing it?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    http://www.timesonline.com/articles/...0270705531.txt


    What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?

    Would you shrug that off as American citizens exercising their constitutional rights, or would their presence alarm and intimidate you? Would you be comfortable with law enforcement officials observing constitutional niceties and leaving them alone, or would you prefer that the police arrest them?

    If they aren't doing anything illegal, does the newspaper advocate arresting them based upon their Muslim or anti government demeanor?

    To answer your question Beaver Times, No the 5 middle eastern looking men do not make me uncomfortable. What makes me very uncomfortableis the advocation by a member of the fourth estate thatthe abuse of power and violation of constitutional rights of some "abnormal" Americans to make the "normal" Americans feel comfortable is justified.

    How very sad that the question is first postulated without the presence of firearms or the chanting, just Middle Eastern. When does this rag start advocating pushing us into the ovens for daring to assert our constitutional rights?

    This is really disturbing on a level far deeper than the ignorant anti-civil rights mantra that gungrabbers usually subscribe to.





    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Maybe we should license pens so idiots can't write racially insensitive generalizations.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    "What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?


    That didn't happen nor is it the issue. The article including this statement is out of line. What if? What if there was a riot in a first grader school. Totally irrevelant.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    Which famous person said you can beat the rap but can't beat the ride?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    OT to Mark: Mike at Mike's Cycle said congrats. I worked with him at Exxon and I retired to Ky. We stay in touch.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Well, if the apparently Muslim appearing persons were doing all the above and chanting "Exercise your constitutionally protected right to free speech, peaceful assembly and bearing arms" which is more closely aligned to what Mr. Noble was doing I wouldn't be alarmed. It is the "death to America" part which would alarm me and also what makes it an apples to oranges comparison.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    370

    Post imported post

    Apparently to the leftmedia, a McCain sign is equivalent to "Death to America."

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Post imported post

    But we scored with Palin!!!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Florida, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?

    I would have thought Barak Obama was having a family reunion...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,268

    Post imported post

    JimmyD8681 wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    What if five Middle Eastern-looking men and two women wearing burqas were within a block of a joint outdoor appearance of Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin? What if the men were wearing holstered handguns, waving the Quran and chanting “Death to America”?

    I would have thought Barak Obama was having a family reunion...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Well, if the apparently Muslim appearing persons were doing all the above and chanting "Exercise your constitutionally protected right to free speech, peaceful assembly and bearing arms" which is more closely aligned to what Mr. Noble was doing I wouldn't be alarmed. It is the "death to America" part which would alarm me and also what makes it an apples to oranges comparison.
    As far as I'm concerned they can shout anything they want. This is after all America.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    ianto94 wrote:
    As far as I'm concerned they can shout anything they want. This is after all America.
    Rest assured that shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is not protected free speech.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    Unless of course there is a fire. However, shouting "Death to America" is protected speech armed or not.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    Since bomb vests covered by burqas or other loose fitting clothing are the preferred weapon of Islamofascist terrorists, the actors and their actions must be considered in totality when determining a probable threat. So while their words alone may be protected speech, when combined with their actions/demeanor they become a threat. Thus not protected speech.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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