(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.)
This is an oft quoted misnomer. Gray Peterson and I had a conversation about this, and actually, looking back into Rosa Parks own history, she was merely "affiliated" with the NAACP at the time (Secretary?), but not specifically chosen. There was another woman who may have footed the bill, as the NAACP WAS actively looking to push this issue, specifically in Montgomery. However, that woman was underage, pregnant, and not married.
The idea that Rosa Parks was "chosen", is not true. She merely knew about the situation, and elected to make herself the scapegoat, thinking that the NAACP, an organization her husband touted as "powerless and ineffective", may have her back.
Here is an excerpt from the library of congress:
"Although her arrest was not planned, Park's action was consistent with the NAACP's desire to challenge segregated public transport in the courts. A one-day bus boycott coinciding with Parks's December 5 court date resulted in an overwhelming African-American boycott of the bus system. Since black people constituted seventy percent of the transit system's riders, most busses carried few passengers that day."
Cite -
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/dec01.html
"Consistent with", is not the same as "planned".
Personally, I do not mind the "baiting" of the cops to do wrong. I hope he planned for the possible beat down.
Which are we to be more concerned about?
The right to act in a lawful manner, and walk amongst our countrymen freely...
OR
The possibility of being beaten, shot, and falsely detained by the all too common rogue law enforcement officer, and the security of the thin blue line?
Personally, I really do not care if he intended to sue.
Agreed.
It is incumbent upon Law Enforcement to conduct themselves within the scope of the law, and to act honorably in everything they do.
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.
There is a serious misunderstanding here in regards to what people perceive as Leonards wanton disregard for equal rights.
Consider these facts:
#1. We are ALL to be equal, specifically with recognized preexisting, enumerated human rights specified in our sovereign law.
#2. For all of us to be equal, we must support even that which we may deem not to be necessary, but is in line with the term "freedom".
Even if it is out of YOUR comfort zone.
In fact, especially so!
(This means those who conceal, should stop giving the OC'ers **** for an activity that is the whole equal of their chosen carry method, the only difference being a piece of fabric.)
#3. When we sacrifice a fellow countryman, on the basis of discomfort, instead of careful, lawfully applied scrutiny, he may become a bit frustrated with those who deem to howl with the wolves, or worse, feed him to them.
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.
Nobody should have to pre-plan the execution of civil rights, even if you are uncomfortable.
If a group of homosexuals wants to have a mini parade in Central Park, that is their right.
If a preacher wants to stand on a public corner preaching death to soldiers with his obviously morally bankrupt fellowship, that is their right. I would fight, and die, for thier right to do this,
even as they spit in my face.
Failing to do so only dissolves the bonds that form our great nation, and the unrivaled equality it contains.
It is fairly erroneous to specify that Leonard did something "dangerous", and to refer to the possibility of injury to innocent bystanders on behalf of unlawful conduct by LEO/LEA as a consequence of his lawful actions.
And stating, if he does not "deserve" a right, then no one else should have it, questions his morals.
Kwik and I have been in correspondence every now and then.
Were you aware that the self professed "freedom loving, RTKBA supporting, firearms enthusiasts" who oppose Leonards actions, have written letters to law enforcement, specifying that "what Leonard did was insane, crazy, and they do not support his actions at all, to include the carry of a AK pistol.", and to furthermore, "use their commentary as the basis for all rationality of all gun owners everywhere"?
Were you aware that Leonard has received threats, up to and including death?
I wonder if he is tired of individuals who profess to be his brethren, kicking him in the gut, and feeding him to the wolves.
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.
I think the far more relevant question is:
Why would we lay blame expressly on an individual acting in a legal manner, and substantiate the ideology that it is acceptable to support the egregious acts of law enforcement, in an unlawful manner mind you, towards a law abiding citizen.
Some here would claim we have been quite lucky so far this has not occurred...
While others would point out that he successfully got a Jim Crow law that could have easily been used as a legal loophole for harassing law abiding open carriers within Bell Meade, off the books.
Furthermore, he studied the law concerning it, and instead of yielding to a government structure that has failed us so many times, took action to ensure it would be changed.
Bell Meade now fully complies with state preemption.
Nobody has had the fortitude, and integrity and to thank Kwik for this yet.
Colorful adjectives get us nowhere.
Gun owners are "extremists" according to many naive citizens.
CC'ers are "extremists" according to "hunters", and those, "normal gun owners". (Hey there's no deer downtown!"
OC'ers are "extremists" to CC'ers, because we carry our firearms on the outside.
Kwik is an "extremist" to you and others, because he doesn't fit your definition of "sensible".
In reality, each and every categorical listing above, relates to free men, acting within the scope of liberty, and our constitutional rights.
Is he the best thing for gun rights? Probably not.
Well...he did get a law off the books. While we can dream up a thousand things we don't like about someone else activities, so long as they have not done anything illegal, who cares?
Just saying.
Does he have the right to act in this manner? Yes.
So based on this comment...
Is it the right thing to do? Obvious debate point.
...why is this deemed to be true?
Until we all can get on the same page, this sort of shifty support structure will only go so far.
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...)
You do realize the state has not a single reason to revoke his carry permit, but they did it anyways?
Do you really believe that the "good ol boy" system will cater to his request to remove the law?
There have been legal fights the better course of 5 years long to get them off the books using the method you described.
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.
This argument has always irritated me. It's as if only those who have Alan Gura as immediate counsel, may pursue their individual rights.
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...
I am likewise glad he got representation, but frankly, the guy is patient enough, and studious enough, to pursue matters on his own at the lower levels for sure.
I think he doesn't want to talk to people who have been injurious to him for no other purpose than defending their insecurities.
