• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Racist Editorial Says Open Carry Is Not "Responsible"

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/09/09/opinion/editorials/doc48c53f9181cc0270705531.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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/09/09/opinion/editorials/doc48c53f9181cc0270705531.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 KMA$$
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
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.
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
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.
 

cccook

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
429
Location
DFW, Texas, USA
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.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
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 bullshit here.
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
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.
 

3/325

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
332
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
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?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mike wrote:
http://www.timesonline.com/articles/2008/09/09/opinion/editorials/doc48c53f9181cc0270705531.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.
 

TheMrMitch

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
1,260
Location
Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
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.
 

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

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

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 
Top