• 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.

Editor admits, displays ignorance on open carry issue

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

This is a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Mr. Kohr. I apologize in advance for the length, it is just that he was wrong on so may accounts that I didn't know where to begin or stop.

Mr. Kohr,

In response to your letter in the Lebanon Daily News I feel that I must answer some of your questions and correct you on a few things that you state.



What damages did she incur?

She suffered a loss of income and public embarrassment as well as an infringement on her rights, all while violating NO laws or threatening anyone.


If you are wrongly accused of a crime, you cannot recoup your attorney costs!

You can sue for damages when your rights have been violated by a Law Enforcement Officer, ever hear of Rodney King?


She claims that Sheriff Michael DeLeo has traumatized her in some way. If I understand correctly, she was not prohibited from owning her gun after her concealed-carry permit was temporarily revoked.

No, but she was then forced to carry in the same way that started all of this because the revocation of her CCW permit made it illegal to carry concealed. The alternative was for her to remain unarmed, leaving her vulnerable to attack. This may not seem important to you, but some people take personal responsibility for their own safety very seriously.


Let me first clarify by saying that I do not like guns, have never owned one and have never shot one.

This hardly instills confidence that yours is an objective opinion.


However, I do respect the right of individuals to own them based on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Reading your letter, I would be led to believe otherwise.


But I also recognize the limitations of this amendment.

What limitations are you referring to? Would you also recognize the same limitations being placed on your other Constitutional Rights? For example, would you support a licensing requirement for being published in a newspaper?


Restrictions on gun ownership and/or gun responsibilities are not designed to take weapons away from the general populous.

Really, ever hear of the D.C. gun ban that was recently determined to be unconstitutional, or the Chicago gun bans, or the California AWB? How about the Gun Control Act of 1968? All of these have resulted in the loss of weapons by members of the general populace.


To extrapolate the Second Amendment to the degree many gun lobbyists and some (not necessarily the majority) gun advocates do would lead to the ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles by those who could afford them. To this end it must be noted that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the federal government could not raise a standing army more powerful than the state militias.

The fact is that this is simply not true. If you read the writings of the founding fathers it becomes very clear that they were defining an individual right. Why would “The People” in the Second Amendment be different from “The People” in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10? Are you saying that these amendments only apply to state sponsored groups? Even if your statement about the state militias was true, name one state militia that could defend against the active duty U.S. armed forces. Are you saying that the entire active duty military of the U.S. is unconstitutional?


I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game.

It is a matter of free choice. Why would someone who has gone through the process of getting a drivers license, walk to the grocery store instead of driving their car? Common sense would dictate that driving would be faster and more comfortable. Maybe they just prefer to do it this way over that. Who are we to judge their decision? As long as they endanger no one and break no laws, let them be. As for the advantage of open carry over concealed carry, often it is difficult or uncomfortable to conceal certain firearms, this is usually not a problem when open carrying. Also, open carry eliminates the hazards of clothing getting tangled in your firearm at inopportune moments. This is part of the reason why uniformed police officers open carry.



How is a youth soccer game different from a shopping mall, grocery store, or the street in front of a house? All have children present on a regular basis.


Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?

Personal protection and the protection of others from attack.


Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game. Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves.

No, they wish to make sure that the infringement of rights is not allowed to continue. As for the trauma suffered by people at the soccer game, this is a personal problem of the people traumatized, not the fault of Melanie Hain. Maybe they should seek counseling to address their fear of inanimate objects in the possession of law-abiding people. I have suffered trauma from the actions of other people, the way they dressed, the way they spoke, the cars that they drove, ect., as long as they were within the law, this is my problem, not theirs.


In an e-mail that I found posted on an internet forum you replied to Insane Kangaroo:


Thank you for the response to my letter. You sound like a paid political announcement. Politics have nothing to do with my writing. It is common sense that is lacking---that is the point.

I would have to agree that your writing lacks common sense.


There is no need for a gun at a soccer game for six year olds.

Unless you can see the future, there is no way that you can say this with any authority. If you can indeed see the future, then you can send the police to stop the danger before it happens, in which case she would not be a danger either. Otherwise, are you willing to accept full responsibility for the safety of every person in attendance? According to the Supreme Court, not even the police are required to come to your aid if they feel it is too dangerous to do so. Are you willing to make that commitment?


If another person showed up with a gun and started shooting, I assume that you would advocate that Ms Hain return fire

Yes, meeting force with equal force is the most efficient way to stop an active shooter.


and put even more citizens at risk.

Or, meet the attacker with equal force, thereby stopping the attack. Would you prefer that the victims just wait defenseless for their turn to die? Can you say that her return fire would be more dangerous than the attacker’s fire?

If the presence of return fire puts innocent bystanders in danger, and studies show that 11% of the time, police hit innocent bystanders, while only 2% of the time are innocent bystanders hit by shots fired by an armed citizen, are you saying that calling the police would put innocent bystanders at risk?


Your message smacks of the NRA.

The truth is true, no matter where it comes from.


As I had said, I do not advocate the move of Sheriff DeLeo and I respect the rights of citizens to arm themselves.

Then why should a law-abiding citizen be forced to sit back and take the violation of their rights?


They should have some consideration and respect for their fellow citizens though.

Why shouldn’t fellow citizens have some consideration for Melanie? She broke NO laws, she threatened no one, and she was within her rights. Are you saying that we should legislate consideration for other people’s irrational feelings?



Your personal feelings show throughout your writings. You don’t seem to be interested in truth, only your own irrational fear of weapons, which can do nothing by themselves, and the people who choose to take personal responsibility for their own safety. If I am frightened by the way that someone dresses, the way that they cut their hair, the way that they walk down the street, the presence of tattoos, or the music that they listen to (all of which can be said to be the sign of a gang banger), should we make laws banning these things to avoid my being “traumatized”? No, of course not. As long as they are not a threat to me or anyone else, they should be allowed to express themselves however they see fit.



(Name deleted from original letter for privacy reasons.)
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

This is the response to my letter to Mr. Kohr and my response to him. Once againI apologize if it's a little long.

My Kohr's letter:



Dear Ms (Mrs)XXX:

I, unlike you, define my position as casual observer. If you have ever read my writings to the editor, they are never written with any political siding---either left or right. They are always constructive in nature. This is where you, and the supporters of Meleanie Hain, differ from me. You have a direct agenda to advocate---I do not (in spite of the opinion you have already formed of me). This allows me to be objective and conversely prohibits you from doing the same.
Many, if not all, of my friends hunt and own a multitude of guns. I do not have a problem with this and at no time has this ever created any tension in our relationship. I am also a vegetarian and have no problem with those who eat meat. Unlike our subject, I respect the comfort and the uniqueness of other people, and try not to force my idea(ls) on them.
As for most of your responses, anytime you would like to debate the facts in a public forum I would be glad to accomodate. I believe this is a way for all to learn and understand another point of view. But first review what the reasoning the Founding Fathers utilized in the development of the 2nd amendment. It was not simply for a right of individuals.
Respectfully,
Karl




My response:


Mr. Kohr,

In response to your letter I have a few things for your consideration.


Dear Ms (Mrs)XXX:

If you had read the name at the bottom of the page instead of just who the e-mail account is listed under you would see that it was signed XXXXXX XXX, not XXXXXXXX.


I, unlike you, define my position as casual observer.

Your definition and mine are somewhat different. If you take a stand on an issue, which involves personal attacks, you can hardly be defined as a “casual observer”. You are correct in your assessment that I am not a casual observer. This is because I have principles in which I believe very strongly, and I am not afraid to declare what I believe in and choose sides. You need to be honest with yourself. A casual observer reports what is there to see, the facts if you will, not personal beliefs.


If you have ever read my writings to the editor, they are never written with any political siding---either left or right.

I admit that have not read any of your other letters as I am located in Nevada and have never heard of you or the newspaper in which your letter was printed before now. I don’t see what this has to do with anything. The subject of my letter was your letter on open carry and Melanie Hain. I don’t recall mentioning any political affiliation in my letter to you so I fail to see what that has anything to do with anything, unless you are equating my stand on the right to self defense to political siding. If this is the case then you cannot say that you write with no political siding, because you too have taken a stand on this issue.


They are always constructive in nature.

I find that people seldom have a clear and objective assessment of their own comments in regards to being constructive or not. I found some of your comments down right insulting. You attacked on a personal level people who you do not claim to know personally. You expressed opinions, with no verifiable facts, which would show where Melanie was wrong in her actions. How can you call this constructive?


This is where you, and the supporters of Meleanie Hain, differ from me. You have a direct agenda to advocate---I do not (in spite of the opinion you have already formed of me).

I am forced to apologize to the reading public. With so many other concerns to write about, I tried to restrain myself from writing on the Meleanie Hain story but could do so no longer.



I am appalled at people who create unusual or controversial situations and then try to profit from them. Hain’s case is typical of this process.



She appeared to revel in the publicity of the story.



I would appreciate an explanation from gun owners who have obtained a concealed-weapons permit as to why someone would go through the painstaking process of obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and then not utilize that permit (and common sense) when attending a youth soccer game.



Why would someone do something such as this unless to draw attention to a political cause advocated by that individual and other associates?



Now they wish to be rewarded in a court of law and profit from an action that traumatized many people at that soccer game.



Maybe those who attended that soccer game should seek litigation against and compensation from the individual that caused the trauma imposed on both their children and themselves.


These statements clearly show that you have an agenda to color Melanie and other self-defense advocates as having something “wrong” with them for wanting to carry a gun for self-defense. As I pointed out Melanie violated NO laws, and was well within her Constitutional rights, she threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around her. For what would you have her punished?


This allows me to be objective and conversely prohibits you from doing the same.

I would disagree with your assessment. You advocate the punishment of a person that violated NO laws, and was well within her Constitutional rights, she threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around her. How is this being objective?

What would you say if I advocated the same treatment for someone who exorcized their 1[suP]st[/suP] Amendment rights in a way that broke no laws, was well within their Constitutional rights, threatened no one, and posed no danger to those around them, yet for my own personal reasons, I found upsetting? Do you see the danger in this line of reasoning?



Unlike our subject, I respect the comfort and the uniqueness of other people, and try not to force my idea(ls) on them.

I disagree. You would have others, like Melanie (who violated NO laws) be forced to change their habits, just to make you “feel better”. If you want to take away my Constitutional rights, then you are trying to force your ideals on me and others like me.


As for most of your responses, anytime you would like to debate the facts in a public forum I would be glad to accomodate. I believe this is a way for all to learn and understand another point of view.

Gladly, you can post your replies to my challenges on OpenCarry.org where I found the copy of your letter to the editor, and a copy of my letter to you is posted as well as any further correspondence on this issue will be. I will even do what I can to keep the posters there from getting personal with the name-calling and such. If you want to defend your position in a public forum, here is your chance, or we can do it in a forum of your choosing.


But first review what the reasoning the Founding Fathers utilized in the development of the 2nd amendment. It was not simply for a right of individuals.

Since the recent ruling from the Supreme Court says otherwise, I would say that it is you who needs to review the reasoning that the Founders used when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

If you are going to advocate action, which affects a person’s Constitutional rights, you need to have more than just personal feelings as a justification. Feel free to present any factual backing for your statements that go beyond personal feelings.

XXXXXX


Once again, I hid my name and that of my wife, for reasons of personal privacy, hers, not mine. I hope that this is understood by all.
 

Hcidem

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
316
Location
RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
imported post

Gordie wrote:
...
Gladly, you can post your replies to my challenges on OpenCarry.org where I found the copy of your letter to the editor, and a copy of my letter to you is posted as well as any further correspondence on this issue will be.
...
Good gravy! You didn't actually invite an anti onto the forum, did you? This is the last thing we need, another flamer.

I wish you had not done this. I'm sure you could have found another venue in which you could have called him out. I sure hope he doesn't accept your offer.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Hcidem wrote:
Gordie wrote:
...
Gladly, you can post your replies to my challenges on OpenCarry.org where I found the copy of your letter to the editor, and a copy of my letter to you is posted as well as any further correspondence on this issue will be.
...
Good gravy! You didn't actually invite an anti onto the forum, did you? This is the last thing we need, another flamer.

I wish you had not done this. I'm sure you could have found another venue in which you could have called him out. I sure hope he doesn't accept your offer.
Why, are you afraid of him?

It is real easy to talk about someone behind their backs, I am just inviting himto come and be able to stand up for himself and present his position. If he conducts himself in an appropriate manner, then we should do the same. If you are not willing to debate the antis then you might as well turn in your guns now and save them the trouble. The only way to protect our rights is to fight them with the truth. If you only have pro 2A people here then aren't you just preaching to the choir? What good is that, besides having your own cheerleading section? Who's opinion are you going to change if you don't invite them to get to know you?

I thought that one of our goals was to educate people. How do you educate people as to who you are if youmakegun ownershipout to be a"members only" club? I also thought that we were supposed to show the antis that gun people aren't all bad, that in fact, we are just average good people that you see on the street. How do we do this if we exclude others fromjoining us, and seeing us for who we truly are?

I thought it might be nice if others were allowed to input their thoughts on the issue as well.

Also, this will negate the need to keep posting the e-mail exchange between the two of us.

Besides, how could he be any worse than some of the flamers that are already here? I get the impression from him that he has better things to do than start a flame war on this forum.

Personally, I hope that he does show up to have an honest open debate, as I am confident in our position.

Tell me, what other venue should I have used to debateself defense rights with an anti? This sight has one of the greatest pools of self defense rights information that I know.

If the debate does not interest you , just do what I do with threads that don't interest me, skip over them.
 

Hcidem

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
316
Location
RTM Rockford, Michigan, USA
imported post

Listen, I don't think of this forum as some sort of cage match where we try to lure unsuspecting antis into our midst. We have plenty of antis who come here willingly and, at times, intentionally without drawing in more. Our young "warriors" have plenty of grist for their mills already.

If you feel particularly motivated to do otherwise, I think it would be more useful to lure in someone who has a reasonable ability to logically state his point of view. This individual already has expressed a marked inability to comprehend the reasonable articulation of the concepts of due process and 2A rights.

Regarding the venue in whichI would suggest you pursue this particular fellow, either continue the e-mail correspondence you have already shared with him ortry a forum where mano a mano battles are promoted. This is not Thunderdome.

Yes, we indeed have plenty of flame warriors already. I just don't want to attract any more. They tend to disrupt the line of discussion to everyone's dentriment. Do you really understand that this guy has already stated his strong opposition to open carry? He isn't asking questions to edify himself. He only addressed the issue in an attempt to prove his preconceived notions.

I applaud your eagerness to discuss OC and 2A rights. I only ask that you temper your enthusiasm with some forethought.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

I am hardly luring an unsuspecting person here. It is clear by the name of this site what it is about. As for the antis that come here, those that are unwilling to be open to our beliefs don't stay long, but they do know that they will not get away with making outrageous statements.

If we only challenge those who we believe are the best debaters, we let those who make outrageous claims go, therefore by our inaction we encourage them to spread misinformation to an uninformed public, who then believe it to be true.

Can you tell me where Thunderdome is? If this forumis not meant for debate of different ideas, then why is there a thread debating 9mm vs. .45? Or is debate only supposed to occur between people who agree ideologically? Also, this is not just for Mr Kohr and myself, the idea was to let others join in so that it wasn't just the two of us. Besides, it was his suggestion that we take the debate to a public forum, so I don't even know if he'll accept this forum for this. It does look good that the invite was extended.

Yes, I understand that this person has stated his opposition to OC, am I to understand that anyone who disagrees is banned from the forum, even if they conduct themselves in a polite andadult manner? My point is that you cannot fight falsehoods by ignoring them and hoping that they go away. If someone is spreading falsehoods the only way to counter them is by exposing the truth and letting them know that they will not be allowed to continue unchallenged.
I applaud your eagerness to discuss OC and 2A rights. I only ask that you temper your enthusiasm with some forethought.

If your discussions only include those that agree with us, then what good do they do? As for forethought, What does it say about our cause if we are afraidto debate an opposing view on this forum? If you are not even willing to debate someone on the internet, what are you going to do when it comes down to a real fight for our rights? I only ask that you realize that we are infight for our rights, where our opposition will use lies and deceit, we must fight this wherever we can.

Once again, I would suggest thatif you are not interested in the debate taking place on a thread or a posters opinion, just skip over them like I do.
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

Mr Kohr responds:

Ms (Mrs XXX):

This will be my last response via this mode. If you wish to debate it, it will not be on a computer. It will be on a public radio show or in an open public setting where one cannot hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
-Karl-



I reply:

Mr Kohr,

Sound great, let me know when you can get to Reno. I will see if we can get some air time on the local talk station. If not then I can guarantee that I could make it happen in a "town hall" type of setting in an appropriate venue.

By the way, I will point out that I am XXXXXX XXX, not XXXXXXXX, therefore the proper title is Mr. Just wanted you to know so that it wouldn't be a shock when I show up to the debate and not my wife. I wouldn't want you to think that she is this ugly.




So this may be the end of the debate between Mr. Kohr and myself, unless he decides to come to Reno, Nv. Let's only hope.:celebrate

Name hidden for the wife's comfort, it keeps her happy.:D
 

Heartless_Conservative

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
269
Location
, Oregon, USA
imported post

This will be my last response via this mode. If you wish to debate it, it will not be on a computer. It will be on a public radio show or in an open public setting where one cannot hide behind the anonymity of the internet.
-Karl-




I think you hurt his feelings.
 

forever_frost

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
130
Location
Texas, United States
imported post

Seems he got his feelings hurt. I wonder how he'd stand up against one of us on an open radio show. Think he'd come across as nutty there as he does on his writtings?
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
imported post

forever_frost wrote:
Seems he got his feelings hurt. I wonder how he'd stand up against one of us on an open radio show. Think he'd come across as nutty there as he does on his writtings?
Actually who would come off as "nutty" would be determined by who the radio audience was. You have the standard local conservative talk show and it may well be him, but it an NPR style show, it could be us...
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

I personally would like to see Mr. Kohr come on this forum so he could get edjucated on the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and Bear Arms. I think that all people should understand their God given right to self determination.
Keep your powder dry!
 

Gordie

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
716
Location
, Nevada, USA
imported post

It would seem that Mr. Kohr just doesn't have the heart to continue the debate. Maybe if someone in the Lebanon, Pennsylvania area would be willing to contact him he would be willing to debate the issue face to face. Here is our latest exchange:

XXXXXX:

Sorry about the gender confusion. This story is based in Lebanon. Youareso vehemently opposed to my position and for Mrs Hain'sposition---you travel.Why should I go to Reno. We discuss very little about Reno here in Pennsylvania. -Karl-


My reply:

Mr. Kohr,

Why should I travel when I am perfectly willing to carry out the debate over the internet? You are the one who says that you would prefer a different forum; therefore you should be the one to make allowances. It seems to me like a pretty convenient way to avoid having to stand up for your position. You won't debate unless it's face to face, yet this didn't come about until after I had already said that I was in another state. If OpenCarry.org is not where you would feel comfortable, then you could choose another forum of your liking. I have already shown that I am willing to meet you by extending an invitation for you to come visit.

Why should you come to Reno? Well, for one, it's a great area to visit. Lake Tahoe is less than an hour away and if you've never been there you should go. It truly is something that we all should see at least once. If you've been there before, then you know how awesome it is, so come on out for another visit,the beauty of the placenever gets old. Thereare also many historical places in regards to the mining boom of the 1800s.But, more importantly, you are the one demanding a face to face,so you should come to me.

This story is about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the violation of civil rights perpetrated by law enforcement against a citizen who was in violation ofNO laws. The U.S. Constitution covers Nevada as well as Pennsylvania; therefore it is not just a Pennsylvania issue.Would you be so fast to attack the victim if they were a black man who was doing nothing wrong except for walking down the street in a "white" neighborhood? Civil rights are for everyone.As long as you are breaking no laws, the police have no right to harass you for anything.

The fact that you don't discuss things from outside your area is not my problem, as here; we do discuss constitutional issues from all over the country. This is how injustices get corrected.

Just imagine if everyone had felt that way about the civil rights movement in the South during the 60s. "I don't discuss the bombings in Birmingham, they are not in my area, and so they don't affect me." Don't bury your head in the sand, be ready to point out, and fight wrongdoers no matter where they may be. Eventually they will come to you if they are not stopped first.

XXXXXX


I guess that he feels that those of us not in his immediate area aren't worth his time. I detect an elitist attitude. Why am I not surprised?:cuss:
 
Top