Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Mayor of Maplewood, MO says that 2a is "irresponible"

  1. #1
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    Mayor of Maplewood, MO says that 2a is "irresponsible"

    "The open carry of a firearm is allowed by the second amendment, but it is also completely irresponsible and an affront to most citizens today," White said

    http://maplewood-brentwood.patch.com...ency-provision

    Glad to see our elected officials are constitutional scholars.

    Here is his email if your interested.

    j-white@CityofMaplewood.com

    Just to clarify, he is speaking about Missouri 2A
    Last edited by zekester; 04-14-2011 at 06:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by zekester View Post
    "The open carry of a firearm is allowed by the second amendment, but it is also completely irresponsible and an affront to most citizens today," White said

    http://maplewood-brentwood.patch.com...ency-provision...
    Another person who thinks that fundamental rights, as they existed at the time of the Framing, can disappear as times change. If that is the case, then there are no fundamental rights except the right of the more powerful to exert his will on the less powerful.
    Last edited by eye95; 04-14-2011 at 01:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    The best response to the article

    This is from Chris..I fowarded it to the Mayor...

    "What in the world is this supposed to mean, Mayor White?

    (Quote from Mayor White - "The open carry of a firearm is allowed by the second amendment, but it is also completely irresponsible and an affront to most citizens today,")

    Is he saying that the Second Amendment is subject to his whim, that it is invalid, and subject to be usurped by local politicians who have an anti-gun agenda? Clearly Mr. White does not understand the Constitution and is in no way qualified to discuss it or any of its amendments. If Mr. White had a clue, he would understand that those amendments weren't added to protect the opinion of the majority, but rather, they were added to protect the opinion of the minority from over-reaching politicians and mob rule.

    Sorry to inform you, Mayor White, but we don't live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic and we have a very specific and very implicit rule book by which we govern. It's called the Constitution. Get a clue."

    I think we should all do the same...thanks Chris!!
    Last edited by zekester; 04-14-2011 at 06:41 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137

    maple where???

    Yes, the rest of the country hangs on ever word that this nowhere mayor yammers out. I suppose that the town and their irrelevant mayor deserve each other.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Good Grief!

    Their logic is so warped and twisted it's pathetic. Take the following quote as an example:

    "Today a Maplewood police officer would generally not be able to stop an individual with an open carry to determine his or her identification. Unfortunately, in many cases, the officer can only take action after the individual has committed a crime with the weapon and this is simply not acceptable. We as government officials have the right and authority to legislate such conduct, and to me it would be a violation of our oath of office not to protect the majority of our citizens who do not approve of open carry."

    Three questions:

    Mayor James White says when a person is OCing, officers are unable to stop them and determine their identification.

    1. However, when a person is CCing, whether legally or illegally, how is the officer going to know they're carrying at all?

    At least with OC, they know the individual is armed.

    2. What need exists to determine the identification of a law-abiding citizen engaged in a lawful activity?

    This is just ridiculous (slippery slope), akin to someone claiming they "need" to stop all drivers to ascertain their identity simply because they're driving one to three ton vehicles whose accidental death rate is more than 20 times greater than that for firearms.

    3. How does disapproval of a law-abiding activity translate into a need for protection from that law-abiding activity?

    This too is ridiculous (faulty premise). Since OC is a lawful activity in the state of Missouri, a law-abiding citizen who engages in the lawful activity of OC is NO threat to other citizens. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

    I could spend an hour deconstructing the mayor's comments with a rigorous analysis involving logical fallacy. Suffice it to say that when it comes to law-abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, the mayor is "conceptually challenged."

    Missourans are in desperate need of a change to their state laws so as to allow Constitutional carry and preempt backwater anti-Constitutionalists such as those running the town of Maplewood.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    This is the first actual strike against gun right I have heard in a while. It goes against the trend of good fortune we've had.

  7. #7
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665

    May mean nothing to you!

    Quote Originally Posted by c45man View Post
    Yes, the rest of the country hangs on ever word that this nowhere mayor yammers out. I suppose that the town and their irrelevant mayor deserve each other.
    But I have not heard of half the places on this forum, but, the facts remain..This mayor has taken upon his self to circumvent the constitution. Only the people of the State can vote on a constituional change...

    This may be a little city ....but if they all follow suit....where will you be!!!

    Z

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    Posts
    118
    C'mon guys, have a little sympathy. What the mayor means by saying this is that he's tired of his job and needs to be voted out as soon as possible, by recall if that can be done sooner. He's obviously no longer interested in serving the people and he expresses this by opposing essential individual rights. Help him out if you can, as he's a poor miserable soul in need of retirement and never to be seen in public office of any kind ever again.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    31
    As Mr Wizard said to Tooter Turtle, "Time for this one to come home".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •