• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Our Lady of the Lakes Audio

PDinDetroit

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
stainless1911 said:
I went for a walk, and was confronted while minding my own business for exercising a right in an area known as a soft target. One which can be assumed by thier own doctrines to be OC friendly.

It is not a Public Park where you can just "go for a walk". It is Private Property upon which a Business is operated, one of which you apparently have no purpose with.

It's an area known as a "soft target"? What does that even mean? Is this a "everyone does it so it's OK" arguments?

Do you have evidence that Firearms are welcome on their Private Property? Some policy statement from their website maybe?

I was found responsible for a civil infraction. That isnt convicted for something that I was not responsible for, if you have evidence to the contrary, Id like to see it.

In my book, you were found Guilty of a Civil Infraction. You had the help of a Lawyer, yet refused to follow her sound legal advice and direction. She came on these forums and posted about it even. The fact that, at that time, you were posting that you were not responsible for CC in a PFZ and I bet you still cannot accept that.

Im on private property at a store, garage sale, or any other place that isnt public property. There was no locked or closed gate, and no sign forbidding entry.

In the examples you list above, these are Businesses that own Private Property where you *MAY* have business with them and engage in such. By your own admission, you were "minding your own business" and were not there to engage in Business with the Private Property Owner.

I engaged them as faculty, because thats the information that was available to me.

You didn't even ask! You didn't even ask the person in a car while you were on Public Property!

I did immediately leave, and protested that they would have me take a longer way.

They informed you that you were trespassing and to leave. You then argued about which way to go (which is up to the Property Owner/Agent). That is not immediately leaving! You then continued a conversation after the clear verbal clues were given the conversation was over, asking hypothetical questions about "protection for the children". IMO, that is still engaging with the Property Owner/Agent when unwarranted.

I didnt sign anything.

There are agreements to using Forum Websites and by signing up for a User ID, you agree to follow their Acceptable Usage Practices.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
As a Christian, I am assumed to be one of the brethren, seeing that this is a church.

A soft target is an area where laws have restricted self defense either completely or partly.

Luke 22:36. They claim to be a church under the teachings of Jesus Christ. That teaching is far and above an ad or a statement on a website.

In the eyes of the state, I was found responsible. The lawyer did a questionable job although I am grateful for her services. And no, I do not accept it, ans I was not CC.\ I doubt anyone on either of the forums that I frequent, believes for a second, that I am likely to CC. On the contrary, I am against it.

I dont need to be engaged in business with a private property owner to be able to legally be on the property. You are welcome until you are not, This isnt a private home. Had the gate to the fence been shut, I would have gone around. An open door is an open door, its thier gate, they can close it if they wish.

I did immediately leave. As soon as they directed me to go, I started to move, they immediately moved into my path blocking my way. Then they insisted that I go the other way. I took the opportunity to point out thier inconsistencies.

Whether you like my tactics or not, I did promote and educate people about open carry, both on the spot and afterwards in the comments section of the video, PMs on youtube, here, and on MGO.
 
smellslikemichigan

smellslikemichigan

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
2,307
Location
Troy, Michigan, USA
some of his answers seem pretty clear to me
soft target= PFZ (an area where criminals generally assume they will not encounter much in the way of armed resistance)
private property? all stores and businesses are private property, how does that differ from school/church?
evidence that firearms are welcome???? i've never walked into private property/business that had that (i know MOC gives out stickers, but i have yet to see one)
 
S

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
Not only did this man openly challenge two "police officers" to stop him from harming kids while open carrying...he recorded it and felt it was worth publicizing!! I don't care if the question was "hypothetical"...it was insane for you to utter those words to anyone. How does that audio help OC in the least?? It does more harm than you can possibly know.
 
PDinDetroit

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I have reviewed different Interpretations of Luke 22:36 and associated verses. I can see how it can be interpreted the different ways that it has been, not that I agree with them based upon My Interpretation. I believe it is poor form to Judge a Religious Organization as you are now doing.

As for the rest, I have clearly stated my position as a reviewer of this interaction whether you agree with it or not.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
What is your interpretation of Luke 22:36?

King James Bible
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

ETA it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Since its a part of my religion and belief in Jesus Christ our Lord, it would be against the first amendment to prohibit me from carrying there to begin with.
 
S

scot623

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
1,421
Location
Eastpointe, Michigan, USA
stainless1911 said:
I wasnt challenging anyone to try to stop me. They got that point readily. I was, at that point, already walking away in thier escort, complying with thier wishes.
Click to expand...

You can not even comprehend how idiotic your statement was. "I don't know how you expect to protect kids from people with guns unless you bring you own." "You could stop ME?" "No you couldn't" WTF?!?!?!?!?!!? You are a walking ad for the anti's. The longer this thread and that audio is public, the more harm YOU do to the rest of us. YOU sound unstable. NO ONE in the right mind has THAT conversation with anyone, much less record it and make it public.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
People live in thier own little bubble, thinking that some sign could save them from a Columbine. When I said that to them, it was the clearest possible illustration of just how much protection some sign or law can give them. It was a cold water in the face wake up to those two hypocrites. It was not a threat.

ETA, asking them how they could protect someone from a gun without thier own, is common sense. You can't.
 
Last edited:
PDinDetroit

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
stainless1911 said:
What is your interpretation of Luke 22:36?

King James Bible
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

ETA it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Since its a part of my religion and belief in Jesus Christ our Lord, it would be against the first amendment to prohibit me from carrying there to begin with.
Click to expand...

Without going into a Full-On Religious Discussion on Different Interpretations, the following is mine...

1. Jesus Put Self-Protection over Protection from the Elements and over Status in Society.

2. 2 of the Apostles had Swords Previous to Jesus' Command in Luke 22:36, which he clearly knew about.

3. Since Jesus was about to be taken away, he knew the Apostles would no longer be under his Immediate Protection and would have need of Providing for their Own Self-Protection.

4. When Peter cut-off the ear of a Guard, Jesus told him to Put The Sword Away, not Get Rid of It, due to Peter's Offensive Use of the Sword (not done in Self-Defense).
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
scot623 said:
You can not even comprehend how idiotic your statement was. "I don't know how you expect to protect kids from people with guns unless you bring you own." "You could stop ME?" "No you couldn't" WTF?!?!?!?!?!!? You are a walking ad for the anti's. The longer this thread and that audio is public, the more harm YOU do to the rest of us. YOU sound unstable. NO ONE in the right mind has THAT conversation with anyone, much less record it and make it public.
Click to expand...

stainless1911 said:
People live in thier own little bubble, thinking that some sign could save them from a Columbine. When I said that to them, it was the clearest possible illustration of just how much protection some sign or law can give them. It was a cold water in the face wake up to those two hypocrites. It was not a threat.

ETA, asking them how they could protect someone from a gun without thier own, is common sense. You can't.
Click to expand...

It may well have been the "cold slap in the face to them." But, it is dangerous to leave that audio with that verbiage where antis and LE can listen to it, whether you are willing to admit the asinine construction or not.
 
stainless1911

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
PDinDetroit said:
Without going into a Full-On Religious Discussion on Different Interpretations, the following is mine...

1. Jesus Put Self-Protection over Protection from the Elements and over Status in Society.

2. 2 of the Apostles had Swords Previous to Jesus' Command in Luke 22:36, which he clearly knew about.

3. Since Jesus was about to be taken away, he knew the Apostles would no longer be under his Immediate Protection and would have need of Providing for their Own Self-Protection.

4. When Peter cut-off the ear of a Guard, Jesus told him to Put The Sword Away, not Get Rid of It, due to Peter's Offensive Use of the Sword (not done in Self-Defense).
Click to expand...

That is pretty much how I see it as well. Jesus woudnt ever bow to evil, he prepared for, and confronted it.
 
Last edited:
SpringerXDacp

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
I went for a walk, and was confronted while minding my own business for exercising a right in an area known as a soft target. One which can be assumed by thier own doctrines to be OC friendly.
Click to expand...


You went for a walk and ended up 8 miles or so from where you live? :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top