Hello to you too! Please note that I do not know you, and you have not presented yourself to be capricious, nor pretentious, so I will say to you now that nothing I am about to say is meant as a personal insult or degredation of your character.
Ok?
Cool.
As to the application of Constitutionality, do you feel that your limitation of personal defense weapons is truly, and specifically limited to "pistols"?
Just curious as to your take on this.
As far as carrying in public, yes I feel a pistol is not limiting a person's ability in self defense. By your way of thinking, why stop at a rifle caliber pistol? What about a sawed off shotgun shooting 00 buck? But why stop there, why not a 50 BMG? Surely limiting it to only a pistol for self defense in public is against the constitution. But if they did limit it to 50 BMG would that be fair? What about people such as myself who own NFA items. Should I not be allowed to carry a FA AK or UZI? What about a DD? I'm sure a 40 mm round would be a good deterrent to any offender wouldn't you say?
There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Maybe you feel it's been drawn too close, but someone else might think it should be drawn further than you. So who would be right?
I think this statement is a reaction of irrational fear that is wholly parallel to the claims that antis make. As firearms enthusiasts we often get caught up in our own personal bubble of what is "appropriate" or not. Heck you can see this dissent on this forum all day long, every day. All of these little impositions that are somehow rationalized away, only to realize that one mans rationality is not a spotless mirror of anothers.
You may believe that your way is right. The reality is that we all must understand that to be truly equal, we need to cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free.
This is where your way of thinking fails. You think the way people react to a man with a gun is wrong but they react that way for a reason. Just because you don't think it's right doesn't mean it's not the way it is. Sure in a perfect world we can all "cast aside the limitations we drum up from societal norms, and promptly default to that which is most free." But I'm afraid the world doesn't work that way and it never will. That's just the way the world is, nobody said it was fair.
Despite the well worded scenario you have provided as being "dangerous", the only danger imposed is that of the reaction of the police, or the law abiding citizen you and another poster before you, have determined will simply shoot a man for having a firearm in the hand.
If anything, this is just another level of fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment. I understand you do not agree with Leonards carry, but many shooters don't believe you need that underfolder either.
There you go thinking outside of reality. You think its just a fear-laden response mirroring anti sentiment but in actuality its people reacting to a situation in a way that mirrors real life situations. A man walking down the street at night with a gun in his hand isn't a normal situation that you see everyday. When people see this type of situation with a man walking down the street with a gun in his hand it's on TV and he's taking pot shots at people as they run for cover. In this day and age you never see a man walking with a gun in his hand down a street that isn't up to no good.
I did not see any handling on Leonards behalf that would, or could, in any way be construed as "played with like a toy". I did however see an officer who claimed to be a NRA Pistol Instructor handle the firearm in such a manner.
The whole act of him creating a confrontational situation is whats unsafe. For some reason you don't see that but I believe you're looking at it as "what should be" instead of "what is". There's a huge difference between the two.
Is it your assessment that merely by abiding by the law in Bell Meade, that Leonards carry directly forced the officer to handle the pistol in an unsafe manner?
From the video I watched the officer was pointing the gun at an angle into the median. I've seen the stills of people trying to show other wise but you can plainly see the red line drawn level does not follow the barrel.
If this law was so unsafe, why was this activity legalized in the first place?
See here you are trying to justify what was done in this day and age to a law that was written 100 years ago. You can't compare the two, they were much different times by which people in general viewed guns.
Might it be that the activity itself is safe, and that it is inappropriate societal fallacies that have allowed themselves to be normalized?
I do believe the latter to be the case.
That's correct. But that doesn't in any way make what he did right in this day and age. People react to situations based on what happens now, not by what happened 100 years ago. I'm sure you can agree that times have changed and people are different than they were 100 years ago.
Without a doubt the first thing a lot of people think when they see an open carrier.
You cannot change a thing, without challenging it, or addressing it.
You educate people in a way that makes them want to hear what you have to say. Not scare them into thinking your way is right. You can't force someone to change their way of thinking or scare them into it. Many people feel that gun collectors are nuts anyhow. How do you feel dressing down in camo and walking through a park with a gun that looks like one people only see on TV when the news is showing footage if Afghanistan is in any way showing them we aren't nuts?
You do know that the presence of a firearm has been affirmed as not being legal basis for a charge of "disturbing the peace" yes? It does not clarify that the presence of a "'properly holstered' firearm" either.
I never said it was.
Since it is a normalized activity, as well as one that is specified by Bell Meade law, I think one would have quite a case to present were they to jump unreasonably into traffic because of a firearm.
Carrying a gun in the hand walking through town is not a normalized activity, that's why we are having this discussion now. Like I said before, you're trying to justify what someone did by a law that was socially accepted 100 years ago, not today.
Classic officer rebuttal for simple open carry. Just thought I would point that out. This is along the lines of "thugs will target you because you have the gun".
This same type of rationality would lead one to believe that they were justified in shooting for no reason at all. If the mere presence of a firearm in the hand were all that were needed, then so could the statement apply to other objects of less lethality.
BANG!
Oops.
Cell Phone.
My bad.
I'm not sure if you're married and have children but if you do, how comfortable would you feel if you just dropped your child off at school and when you were leaving you saw a man walking toward your child wearing a trench coat, ski mask with an AK pistol in his hand? I'm sure it wouldn't bother you in the least and would drive off feeling your child is safe and secure because the gentleman did nothing wrong since a trench coat and ski mask are not illegal and he is obviously a good citizen for caring enough about his safety that he would carry the proper firearm for protection. Am I right?
The fact is people are a product of their environment and seeing a man dressed to look like a thug carrying a gun people associate with terrorists only cause alarm and fear. It doesn't show them how safe they are, it leads them to believe we need stricter gun laws to keep things like that from happening.
This is why it would behoove people to learn the qualities of tactical assessment.
The "seconds to react" argument is unsustainable. Such ambiguity lends itself to flaws.
Which all justifies cold blooded murder. Yes?
If it does not, then clearly there is something wrong with the assessment.
I call it being justified. If a person would have walked up on me in the dark with a gun in his hand I could only assume he means trouble because normal law abiding citizens would not do such a thing. It's part of being aware of your surroundings. Maybe where you live people walk up to you in the dark with a gun all the time and mean no harm but where I'm from walking up on a man in the dark with a gun in your hand will get you shot. Who is to say it's wrong? The man on the ground with a gun in his hand and a massive chest wound? No he's not saying much, the report will be one sided and told by the man who was in fear for his life in what would appear to anyone to be a justified shooting. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't but there is only one side to the story being told. So I feel if a law abiding citizen doesn't want to be shot dead, don't carry a gun in an intimidating fashion in the dark on a public street.
Well it's a good thing he is a law abiding citizen and was not brandishing the firearm. hence why despite your hypothetical scenario, he was not shot.
He was not shot because he was trying to fabricate a confrontation but in the safest way he thought he could. Just because he wasn't shot this time doesn't mean he couldn't get shot the next time.
Most people are killed when told not to move by an officer and they proceed to pull or reach for something.
Can you post links to prove this?
Great!
So you know that the firearm is more clunky to use as a defense firearm, and that the mass-murdering that certain posters have claimed quite frankly would be very difficult to pull off with that firearm.
See this is where you fail again. Accurate fire isn't the only way to kill or harm someone. A blind man with a semi auto AK pistol pulling the trigger repeatedly in a room full of people can kill many innocents without aiming could he not?
Any engagement, at any time, possesses the possibility for collateral damage. Attaching firearm models to said truth is absolutely pointless.
This is where you are wrong again. A well placed shot by a person aware of their surroundings has less of a chance of collateral damage than someone firing off rounds out of an unwieldy weapon. Why use a sniper rifle when you could use an UZI? Because it does matter what weapon is used for a given situation. Sure a surgeon could use a chainsaw to remove a tumor but a scalpel would be a better choice.
You can knock over granny at 200m with an errant .357 shot. .357 should not be carried for personal protection. Correct?
You like extremes, no middle ground. You're to the far right what the Brady Bunch is to the far left. You think it's all black in white but it's not. That's why a lot of your thinking is flawed.
Pretty hard to mass murder and kill people with then I would imagine. Right?
--Inaccurate
--Lack of stock aids muzzle climb
--Terrible sighting system precludes consistent sight picture
--Weight bias of firearm drastically reduces presentation.
Sounds like if anything, Leonard would have had a tough time defending himself.
Here we go with the "practical weapon" thing again.
People should ONLY carry .22lr
That's my take.
Again an unwieldy weapon is more dangerous, not less. Kinda like a gang banger with a MAC 10. Sure he's probably not gonna hit what he's aiming at but the 6 people who were standing around the intended target are dead or wounded. Again your point was flawed.
People are certainly responsible for the round that leaves the weapon.
Which is why officers miss 2/3's of their shots in a role that supposedly necessitates high levels of marksmanship. All with 9mm's and .40's.
Can you show proof of this or did you read that on the Brady website?
I would bet Leonard (and any OC'er on this board for that matter, even YOU) could do better than most police officers.
I doubt Leonard would. I remember seeing a post awhile back of him saying he didn't need the practice. Maybe it was on ARFcom, I can't remember exactly. I've never met a person yet who didn't need to train to be able to better handle a gun or an adverse situation. You can't plan for everything, that's the point of training as best you can.
I will simply word it like this--
*Please provide for me a list of rounds you deem safe for urban use*
So by your way of thinking any and all calibers are perfectly fine for every situation? I thought I had read in one of your posts that you have a military background? If that's the case you should know that certain calibers and bullet types are better for certain situations. If not then maybe you should double check your training and question your trainer as to why you weren't trained properly. You can clear a room with a bazooka but I wouldn't recommend it.
Go a step further even. Send said list to your congressman. Share your firearms enthusiast/collector background, and use that to propel an "era of responsibility" by submitting said list.
Unfortunately, for those angry about the orange tip, Leonard proved his point beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Proving a point and being lucky are two different things. Even a blind pig finds and acorn every now and then.
The ranger did in fact stop and ask him if it was airsoft, easing the ranger into a conversation.
That didn't ease the ranger into a conversation, that made him wonder why a grown man would have a real gun painted to look like a toy. Something wasn't right which led to Leonard spread eagle on the grown after being told to lay the weapon down.
A criminal wouldnt have bothered.
A responsible citizen wouldn't have been in that situation to begin with if they carried correctly.
Do you have proof of this, or is this meaningless supposition?
Can you prove I'm wrong?
I would not worry any at all if he just had it in his hand. Remember, I am armed too. Maybe dude couldnt afford a holster.
So people can generally afford a pistol but not a holster? Now you're just reaching. And you being armed too doesn't matter because your gun is holstered. A man with a gun in his hand would have you dead to rights before you could draw.
Peole are weird sometimes though. Maybe guy literally thought it was one of his practicioners. Who knows.
You're reaching again.
That was added into the call to make Leonard appear to be less dangerous to help keep him from getting shot by police.
This is more supposition.
You've made a lot of assumptions yourself about Leonard, about his ability to effectively handle his unwieldy gun. Him being a better shot than most cops. Are your assumptions in some way better than mine? Are yours more educated than mine which would make your assumptions correct and mine wrong?
We could sit and theorize about aliens and ufo's too.
Yes we could.
Yet the citizens of Bell Meade may now LEGALLY arm themselves, as well as carry any protection they really want so long as it is not a NFA or CLass III item due to Leonards actions.
Citizens could already arm themselves. Like I said, I open carry there all the time and have for years with no problems at all same as friends I have there. You simply made this statement up to help justify what he did when in fact what he did had no positive effect at all.
I agree.
To be fair though, many purported "firearms enthusiasts" are too.
Education has been going on for YEARS. Education was going on when the Brady Bunch was pushing their acts. It is only when introduced to an economy where departmental budgets are getting cut and officers laid off, coupled with rising crime rates due to unemployment and stress that the truth of the 2nd Amendment begins to reveal itself unto the masses.
Open Carry in and of itself in most states was something that people would respond to just as you have in regards to Leonard. Many have in fact responded that same way.
"Blood in the streets"
"People will start shooting each other!"
Yet it never happens.
People weren't put in danger by responsible carrying of a pistol. They weren't fabricating situations in the hopes someone would call the law to cause a confrontation which is what Leonard is doing. He has already said he has plans to cause more attention. How far is too far? If he continues to not be able to collect on a fabricated law suit, how far would he go to get money that he somehow feels he deserves? Eventually he'll push too far with the wrong person. Maybe it'll be a twitchy gun hand in front of a rookie cop or walking up in the dark on the wrong person with a gun in his hand. Who knows but whatever the outcome, a person can't keep knowingly make bad decisions without having to face consequences.
Thanks for your thoughts.
1