well.....I thought it was a good article.
Thread: News article concerning Kwikrnu
well.....I thought it was a good article.
Sorry...did read it.
But not much more to say that hasn't been said a million times....
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
I thought it was a very well written article. For some reason, it won't let me read the comments - probably would only cause me severe heartburn anyway, if I did.
the comments are interesting. Kwik himself gets in on the debate.
Every time a gun rights advocates worry about what the antis will think and do because of someone else's actions, I have to shake my head.
Look: if someone has a problem with a specific person's actions, they need to take it up with that person, not me. Pro-gun folks who fret and worry and want to shut down kwikrnu are actually feeding into the anti-gun mindset: that all people should be restricted from guns because of what some few might do.
Hmm. Interesting Kwik would write comments on the comment section of the story, but refuses to be interviewed.
If you want to comment directly to Brian Haas, he has actually joined tngunowners.com forum for direct input on his stories from actual gun owners, a rare thing in media, this day and age. Pretty fair peace, particularly since the Tennessean is very Anti.
As for Kwik, the main concern is this: Those who have a fear and lack of understanding of firearms, and their respective owners, react very poorly to actions like Kwikrnu's. Typically, what they will do is run, screaming, to the government to do something to prevent such actions again. So, it is the fear Kwikrnu's actions will create new anti laws. Valid concern? Many would say yes, others no, and has been argued here ad nauseum.
To reiterate my issues with Kwikrnu: He failed to take the safety of the general public, and the officers responding to him, in mind, and he stated he was not responsible, morally, or legally, for them. In addition, he stated he is not for the expansion of the rights of the gun owner, but expansion of his rights, even if he may damage the rights of others. And he stated, he believes if he cannot have a certain right, then others should not have that right. Not exactly the hero some make him out to be.
At least, it seems, he has learned his lesson with pro se litigation, and has hired an attorney this time.
And, too bad he would not go ahead and be interviewed, as I believe, his public perspective could have been improved, or, at least, his intent better explained.
I do hope Kwikrnu changes his mind, and does an interview. I would like the journalist to ask some specifics, like the reason behind why he canceled his law granted appeal to the suspension of his carry permit. Why he believes the carry permit law is not constitutional, both federal, and state levels (even though the state constitution allows for gun regulation for the safety of the public.) Why he went the sensationalist route to end the Belle Meade City Code, rather than showing up to a public hearing, and merely request the code be removed, before going out and showing its absurdity in public.
Last edited by HvyMtl; 02-05-2011 at 11:29 AM.
i still like the guy, even though he got tossed off of here. he goes to the edge, i can respect that; if no one goes to the edge, we wont know where the edge is, and will always stay in the area of relative safety, gaining nothing, challenging nothing...............like sheep.
If all you want to do is hide behind some permission slip and be content with your eroding freedoms, fine. But don't insult those who actually are taking the time to fight for our rights and put the spotlight on criminals with badges.
Last edited by WCrawford; 02-10-2011 at 01:16 AM.
Frankly, who gives a damn?
I don't recall that my caring about your rights was a prerequisite for my having, or exercising, my own.
Let me put it plainly, if I were to lose my "right" to carry a firearm, because of governmental criminality, I would ensure that everyone in the state of Tennessee loses that "right" as well.
Even if Leonard didn't even like guns, I would make the following argument:
The only problem with a person who makes a vocation of (legally) baiting the police into rights violations, so as to subsist or otherwise profit from the proceeds of lawsuits resulting therefrom, is the police themselves who enable such profit, by violating rights in the first place.
And that's really all there is to be said about that.
Last edited by marshaul; 02-10-2011 at 10:26 PM.
(FYI: Rosa Parks was "picked" to be the lady refusing her place on the bus. It was planned. Wisely, as you had to have a very compassionate "victim" of the law to show its absurdity. - If you do not believe me, go visit the Civil Rights Museum in Birmingham, AL.)
Personally, I do not mind the "baiting" of the cops to do wrong. I hope he planned for the possible beat down.
Personally, I really do not care if he intended to sue.
The issue I have is this: Making a hero out of him, when clearly he does not deserve the tag. He has proven, time and again, here and other places, his pure selfishness, and lack of caring for the negative impacts of his actions.
Not planning to ensure the safety of the innocent general public, when intentionally confronting the police is fool hardy, at best. And could have led to a deadly result. And saying, "but that did not happen," misses the point it bloody well could have.
And stating, if he does not "deserve" a right, then no one else should have it, questions his morals.
I wonder if your viewpoints on Kwikrnu would change, if a negative response to Kwikrnu limits your rights, due to his actions... I bet they would. Some here would claim we have been quite lucky so far this has not occurred...
He is an extremist. Yes. Is he the best thing for gun rights? Probably not. Does he have the right to act in this manner? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Obvious debate point.
Could any of his achievements been done without going to the extreme, as he has? Yes, some could. (Belle Meade could have been easily handled by going to a public meeting... something he decided not to do...)
Can his actions still lead to a negative impact on your rights? Possibly. Depends on how and what he pushes in court. If done wrong, he can set legal precedent which we all could be saddled with.
Again, I am glad he finally got legal representation, as the representation may limit this concern of bad precedent. I do wonder if the representation is now across the board, as he had few cases going on at the same time...
I DO hope Kwikrnu decides to better explain himself, than he has, so far, in multiple locations on the internet, by having a full on interview with Mr. Haas. As it seems, Mr. Haas may be the most neutral journalist he will find in Mid Tennessee on gun rights...
Last edited by HvyMtl; 02-11-2011 at 01:44 PM.