imported post
Spanky wrote:
Holly Cow! When is your next book coming out?
Articulate responses offend you?
Spanky wrote:
You either know him personally or you two are related because you sure talk like it.
I do not know Leonard at ALL. We are not related. I am not his buddy. I am not his friend. I am not his pal.
I am some other random dude on the internet who is capable of thinking outside of your tiny box, so it is more convenient for you to lump me together with your intended target for classification purposes.
Spanky wrote:
-Jogging with a weapon in your hand is in itself dangerous.
It was his only option if he opted to jog in that place, at that given time. Jogging without any form of personal defense is likewise dangerous, and as clearly stated by you, you are against this practice as well.
Furthermore, there are specifics about carrying the revolver he carried, that certainly apply to the *dangerous* nature of the weapon, as you try to categorize it.
For instance, it is impossible for it to fire without the hammer being pulled back, as it is a double-action revolver. This is one consideration.
Interestingly enough I went on a severely large amount of tactical operations that led me to deploy at greater than double-time speeds with an M16A2, and no babies, nuns, or elderly individuals were injured in the process.
Hrmm,...couldn't be so blatantly dangerous, as you would like to describe it.
Spanky wrote:
-Painting the tip of a REAL weapon to have it resemble a fake weapon is not only crazy but a good way to attract negative attention towards ones self. Besides, what was HIS purpose for doing so?
Originally, when I sat and thought about the purposes for doing so, I likewise thought it was merely "unusual" (although a complete non-point), but as things played out in his story, it began to make more and more sense.
#1. His original reason, per his statements, was simply to get officers to ask if it were real, instead of simply shooting him. The legality (and restored Constitutionality) of his ability to carry in state parks was only recently instituted (The day prior). Perhaps law enforcement officers who did not know about the revision, or simply wanted to make an example of Leonard, would have simply shot first, and asked questions later, instead of engaging in dialogue.
This sounded odd, until the ranger asked "Is that airsoft?" (engaging in said dialogue), to which he was able to inform the Ranger that it was not, clearly indicating no malicious purpose.. It seems his desire for LEO to prompt his intent and the reality of the firearm was successful. Knowing this, your entire argument that it somehow incriminates him is completely and totally baseless. When prompted he replied quite distinctly with "No sir its real". What criminal intent can you even possibly dredge up for this?
#2. Had you even remotely been following this factor of your argument, you would have discovered, to your utter dismay, that children are shot to death on occasion for pointing even the shiniest, brightest of orange tipped toys at officers.
Frankly, the orange-tip is such a non-issue that it isn't worth trying to cling to as a factor in your argument.
If you had looked at many, MANY officer forums when this incident was fresh, you would have discovered statements like:
"Orange tip or not, if someone points anything resembling a gun at me, I am going to do what I have to do. I just want to go home to my family at the end of the shift!".
Wow,...seems like orange tips are not an issue at all.
Spanky wrote:
-Jogging in a city for the SOLE PURPOSE of CHALLENGING/TESTING his limits is what us normal permit holders call stupid. He wasn't there for exercise, he was there for a confrontation.
Oh so it is acceptable for the police, or other law enforcement agencies to conduct sting operations, or prostitution operations to test the morality and ethics of their constituents, in most cases, completely unchecked, but it is unacceptable to do so in return?
Here's news for you guy.
If you are a public official or servant, your credibility
should be absolutely held to accountability! Do NOT expect privacy, and do NOT expect that you are now an all-powerful being with super federal or state derived powers that no citizen could ever test.
That is a falsity. Completely and totally incorrect.
Whereas complaints, claims, and other "normal routes"
rarely do any good whatsoever, legal confrontation within the limits of the law is
completely acceptable! Have you ever actually even read the Constitution? Do you have any idea who
by law our state and federal governments derive their power from?
The citizen. Kwik. Me. You. Normal Jane and John America.
Sounds like you "normal permit holders" need to grow a pair, and stop cowering at the feet of your government for "allowing you" to carry a firearm.
Spanky wrote:
-Strapping an AK style weapon to yourself and walking through a state park frequented by children is an out cry for attention.
Another one of those "My weapon is ok, but yours is not" types right? Do you even have any clue what the KE and Ballistic difference is between a .357 and a 7.62x39mm is?
I would wager you wouldn't know your posterior from a molehill, but you sure are quick to vilify a weapon.
Spanky. I am for whatever you want to carry. Maybe this site is not for that specific right, and to that end I deem it not to be wholly embracing of the constitution, BUT, to me, carry what you want.
If you want to lend credence to the antis by stating that "gun-x is worse than gun-y", then sit on a heavy traffic site and justify AK's as these horrible death killing machine-guns of mass destruction, then you go right ahead.
By the way Spanky, I am noticing a pattern here:
--You don't think people need to carry a firearm for defense while jogging.
--You think that AK's are not "necessary" and anybody who decides to open-carry a AK pistol as a personal choice is mentally disturbed.
--You seem to be throwing "think of the children" in there quite a bit, in an effort to appeal to the emotional and paternal/maternal side of people who read this, in some sort of effort to undermine any form of critical thought.
Wow guy. These all seem to be directly in line with extremely typical, commonly used anti-firearm campaigns.
You sure you have your HCP? I am having second thoughts here...
Spanky wrote:
The bottom line is, he wants to do nothing but push his limits and make a name. He doesn't go jogging down his street or the numerous other parks in his area (with a gun in his hand) but singles out a city and its ord. to stir up s&%#. If there was a city that said for instance; "No weapons what so ever allowed" you bet your sweet back side Leotard would be there tomorrow to test the waters.
So let me get this straight:
You are upset (and crying like a baby I might add), that Leonard has the intestinal fortitude to pursue what he feels are affronts to personal liberty in this country, by confronting them, in a legal, sane, and educated manner, while summarily skipping all of the bureaucratic crap and paperwork that ultimately, and likely lead to nothing anyways?
You are aware that
nationally, people have been falsely arrested for exercising their rights, are you not? I am not just talking about those who choose to carry either.
Raw footage is all over youtube. Maybe stop denying whats right in front of your face?
You are likewise against any woman or man standing up for what is
right by defying and challenging completely unconstitutional laws?
Sounds to me you may have backbone envy!
As a liberty loving American, and firm believer in our Constitution, I find your attacks on Leonard completely and wholly baseless.
Don't worry though, I will always support your right to carry whatever you like.
Spanky wrote:
Leave me alone he says, yet he forces confrontation and does interviews. What does his past employment have to do with it? Or his past as you say? Everything. The fact he would try and lie about it makes it even worse.
He did not initiate contact. He did not in any way, shape, or form force those officers to pull him over, and detain him. The burden of the necessity for detainment,
and
the initiation of contact, was on the officers.
There is no critical thought process or hyperbole you can generate that will waft away the stinking excrement of an argument you are trying to make here.
You don't have ANY insight into why he was actually asked to resign. None whatsoever.
While you are on this train of thought, what do you think of the man in Oregon, whose house was raided, he was FORCED to take a mental evaluation, and his firearms stripped from him, simply because he bought a couple of firearms after being terminated?
Interesting to me that this guy in Medford didn't have to do any of the following, yet he was still arrested:
--Paint the tip of his firearms orange.
--Walk through a state park, with a wholly legal firearm.
--Carry a firearm in his hand, legally, while out jogging in Bell Meade.
Wow....and he still got raided and sent up the river for a head job. Crazy.
By the way, I don't bash Law Enforcement. You sit here and say "Two wrongs don't make a right", but the down and dirty reality of it, whether you like it or not, is that kwik was wholly legal in his actions, and never, not
once did I ever hear him attempt to say something false to the officers.
Crazy how that works.
