Open carrier stopped in Dayton

[Fallschirjmäger]

You missed the THAT IDIOT part..... nothing to do for anyone else carrying guns.... doesn't affect a regular normal open carrier. Its on that dude that they will avoid. The word that HE is trouble will be spread. Hence them knowing him on a first/last name basis.

If anything he's drawn NEGATIVE attention to normal people so they'll be paying extra attention to the next guy who is a good dude.

No matter how this is spun,.. he's setting the movement back not forward, undoing hard work of others.

Oh, my dear, dear Primus, how you miss the point.
"...Its on[ly?] that dude that they will avoid. The word that HE is trouble will be spread..." You've just admitted that he's won, that in the future they are going to avoid starting confrontations with him. And yes, the word WILL spread, and more people will exercise their rights, and the police will learn that those people "are trouble" and they'll be avoided as well.

The alternative is that the police will 'start paying special attention.' As we already have an admission by the police that the citizen's conduct was legal, then that's only going to increase the opportunity for some dumb flatfoot to step on his richard and lose qualified immunity in a civil lawsuit. I'm sure the word is going to spread about that, too.

The police have an opportunity to go forward, but I suspect they will once again be on the wrong side of history.

 

[color of law]

I think you guys are forgetting about that Jackboot cop wanting to entrap this naive urchin so the unscrupulous cop can make a name for himself. I heard them mention Riverside. That doesn't seem far-fetched.

 

[Werz]

And for those who don't like the idea of citizens baiting cops please consider:

Only a criminal will take the bait. And it doesn't matter if the criminal is wearing his pants around his knees... or is wearing a uniform. Honest citizens and honest cops don't take the bait.

Something for you to consider:

Regardless of what fantasies you may have about the reach of the Second Amendment, our gun rights are largely subject to the votes of the various state and federal legislatures. The public perception of gun rights proponents affects those votes. Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Something for you to consider:

Regardless of what fantasies you may have about the reach of the Second Amendment, our gun rights are largely subject to the votes of the various state and federal legislatures. The public perception of gun rights proponents affects those votes. Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes, that certainly explains all the laws passed recently restricting Second Amendment rights...

• such as the fact that Illinois is no longer a "may issue" state,
• and why Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming (for residents), and Oklahoma (residents of constitutional carry states) have become Constitutional Carry states,
• and why Florida and Texas have recently modified their statutes on concealed carry to decriminalize momentary, accidental exposure of a handgun,
• and why Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had bills introduced in support of Constitutional Carry,
• and the 9th Circuit Court striking down provisions of California's concealed carry laws.

Now, we can all point at Connecticut's recent "register or turn in your ugly guns and magazines law" but we also know just how many people (about 83%) are flatly ignoring it and that there are police officers that have signed an open letter pledging not to enforce said law.

Is that French Roast, or Sumatra?

 

[color of law]

Something for you to consider:

Regardless of what fantasies you may have about the reach of the Second Amendment, our gun rights are largely subject to the votes of the various state and federal legislatures. The public perception of gun rights proponents affects those votes. Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 253 Syllabus (1886)

The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.

The provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" does not prevent a state from passing such laws to regulate the privileges and immunities of its own citizens as do not abridge their privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States.

Sounds like a catch 22.

The unorganized militia still exists in Ohio; generally consisting of those citizens of the state who are more than seventeen years, and not more than sixty-seven years of age.

Maybe that's why that young man has that right to sling that long gun and carry it in public.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Isn't it funny that the Second Amendment which says without limitation "shall not be infringed" somehow only applies to limit Congress and not the individual states and the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law" applies to all the states even when they are not mentioned in the amendment?

Regardless if the Second Amendment applies only to Congress, all an Ohioan need do is point to their state's constitution -
Article 1, Bill of Rights, §4 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

 

[Werz]

Isn't it funny that the Second Amendment which says without limitation "shall not be infringed" somehow only applies to limit Congress and not the individual states and the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law" applies to all the states even when they are not mentioned in the amendment?

Regardless if the Second Amendment applies only to Congress, all an Ohioan need do is point to their state's constitution -
Article 1, Bill of Rights, §4 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

And that Ohio constitutional provision was held to be a fundamental, individual right 15 years before the United States Supreme Court decided the same about the Second Amendment. Nevertheless, in the same breath, the Ohio Supreme Court applied a rational basis test to that right and upheld municipal ordinances banning so-called "assault weapons." Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35 (1993).

It took more than a decade for the Ohio General Assembly to pass a preemption law which would invalidate those municipal "assault weapon" bans. R.C. 9.68.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

And perhaps I should note that, after deciding Heller, the United States Supreme Court decided McDonald, which held that the Second Amendment does, indeed, apply to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Werz]

Yes, that certainly explains all the laws passed recently restricting Second Amendment rights...

• such as the fact that Illinois is no longer a "may issue" state,
• and why Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming (for residents), and Oklahoma (residents of constitutional carry states) have become Constitutional Carry states,
• and why Florida and Texas have recently modified their statutes on concealed carry to decriminalize momentary, accidental exposure of a handgun,
• and why Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had bills introduced in support of Constitutional Carry,
• and the 9th Circuit Court striking down provisions of California's concealed carry laws.

Ah. So all of those occurrences were prompted by teenage knuckleheads walking around with .22 rimfire AK-clones slung on their backs and inducing police officers to forcibly arrest them so they can "get paid"? Fascinating. If you have links to stories which establish such causation, I'm sure everyone would love to read them!

 

[Bikenut]

Something for you to consider:

Regardless of what fantasies you may have about the reach of the Second Amendment, our gun rights are largely subject to the votes of the various state and federal legislatures. The public perception of gun rights proponents affects those votes. Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Something for you to consider:

Regardless of whatever you happen to think is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" behavior for other people in regards to the right to bear arms it is still the right to bear arms for all people ....

And when everyone is willing to let what public opinion considers is "unreasonable", "inappropriate", and "unacceptable" behavior in regards to the right to bear arms then there isn't any need for gun control laws since public opinion in and of itself would be enough to squelch the right.

As for public opinion... there are many messages sent to the public in the Seaton incident. And one of those messages that most certainly will be noticed is that openly carrying a rifle in public is legal and the cops can't do a damn thing about it. Will that cause a backlash where the public demands even more harsh gun control?

I would suggest finding your answer in the current trend of the public being in favor of even less gun control as evidenced by:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger

Yes, that certainly explains all the laws passed recently restricting Second Amendment rights...

• such as the fact that Illinois is no longer a "may issue" state,
• and why Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming (for residents), and Oklahoma (residents of constitutional carry states) have become Constitutional Carry states,
• and why Florida and Texas have recently modified their statutes on concealed carry to decriminalize momentary, accidental exposure of a handgun,
• and why Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had bills introduced in support of Constitutional Carry,
• and the 9th Circuit Court striking down provisions of California's concealed carry laws.

And we all get it.... you, and some others, don't like the cops being handed a little lesson in baiting and recording those who take the bait being a two way street but attempting to use ridicule and fear mongering about "public opinion" to diminish both Fallschirmjäger's message of the current trends of public opinion .. and my message that the Seaton incident resulted in cops getting a lesson in the legality of bearing arms ........does not lend credence to your position.

The fastest way to end up not being able to exercise a right is to allow the fear of the opinions of others to stop you from actually exercising that right.

Edited to fix a context error.

 

[Grapeshot]

Something for you to consider:

--snipped--

The fastest way to end up not being able to exercise a right is to allow the fear of the opinions of others to stop you from actually exercising that right.

There is a difference between "fear of opinion" and the recognition/understanding that the public's response can and will affect elections and thereby laws/statutes......and the interpertation of the existing laws.

Good public relations (not an exact science) demands anticipation of the results of any such effort.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Ah. So all of those occurrences were prompted by teenage knuckleheads walking around with .22 rimfire AK-clones slung on their backs and inducing police officers to forcibly arrest them so they can "get paid"? Fascinating. If you have links to stories which establish such causation, I'm sure everyone would love to read them!

What causation do you want, one that supports your straw man argument?
Sorry, but with all due respect I do not debate logical fallacies.

Learn the proper techniques and I'll be happy to meet you halfway.

 

[Werz]

Yes, that certainly explains all the laws passed recently restricting Second Amendment rights...

• ...
• and why Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had bills introduced in support of Constitutional Carry ...

And we all get it.... you, and some others, don't like the cops being handed a little lesson in baiting and recording those who take the bait being a two way street but attempting to use ridicule and fear mongering about "public opinion" to diminish both Fallschirmjäger's message of the current trends of public opinion .. and my message that the Seaton incident resulted in cops getting a lesson in the legality of bearing arms ........does not lend credence to your position.

The fastest way to end up not being able to exercise a right is to allow the fear of the opinions of others to stop you from actually exercising that right.

I cannot speak to what works in Michigan, and I defer to you on that subject.

However, I can speak to what works in Ohio, and because this is an Ohio forum, I will rely on my own experience of what is effective, both on a personal level, and as part of a loosely organized group. BB62, who went to a lot of effort to post the Beavercreek Police video, and who has criticized Seaton's actions, is as active an open carry advocate as anyone whom you will meet. He is personally familiar with police confrontation and the physical force which can come with it. But he also knows what acts of open carry can advance our cause and what acts can set it back. He and I often disagree on tactics, but I have seen how he conducts himself at an open carry event, and I have no complaints about that. If BB62 criticizes an open carrier's behavior, you should listen closely.

As to what works in Ohio, you may wish to review the "test video" which I embedded earlier. That is the type of open carry event which is positive in Ohio.

And as to the so-called "constitutional carry" bills which have been introduced in various state legislatures, once again, I will speak only to Ohio. In addition to "constitutional carry," we also have bills pending which would mandate "safe storage" of firearms (HB31), which would require all firearms transactions to be conducted through a FFL (HB137), and which would ban the sale of so-called "assault weapons" and require registration of those already in the possession of citizens (SB18). The fact that a bill is introduced into the legislature does not establish the existence of a pro-gun legislative juggernaut.

 

[Werz]

What causation do you want, one that supports your straw man argument?
Sorry, but with all due respect I do not debate logical fallacies.

Learn the proper techniques and I'll be happy to meet you halfway.

OK. Let's review ...

Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect.

Yes, that certainly explains all the laws passed recently restricting Second Amendment rights...

• such as the fact that Illinois is no longer a "may issue" state,
• and why Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming (for residents), and Oklahoma (residents of constitutional carry states) have become Constitutional Carry states,
• and why Florida and Texas have recently modified their statutes on concealed carry to decriminalize momentary, accidental exposure of a handgun,
• and why Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin have had bills introduced in support of Constitutional Carry,
• and the 9th Circuit Court striking down provisions of California's concealed carry laws.

Let's reduce your argument to an Aristotelian syllogism ...

• If bad behavior by open carriers has no negative effect on gun rights, then pro-gun legislation will be passed or introduced.
• Pro-gun legislation has been passed or introduced.
• Therefore, bad behavior by open carriers has no negative effect on gun rights.

Unless I am mistaken, that is a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent or fallacy of the converse. Now what was that you were saying?

 

[color of law]

Werz,

A William F. Buckley swagger does not advance any position.

I believe you are missing the point.

Werz:
Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect.

Your statement is an absolute. Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger are challenging that absolute.

If you had said: Bad behavior by some gun rights proponents could have negative effects. Then a supposed cause and effect could be advanced. Creating a debate or promoting some theory.

There are shootings almost daily in Cleveland and most within a thousand feet of a school. It could be surmised that blood is running in the streets; yet very little protesting. But, shoot-up a movie theater and the world is coming to an end rant is advanced. In other words, don't let a good crisis go the waist!!!!!

And yes, the pot calling kettle black is not lost in my observation.

I'm just saying.

 

[Werz]

Werz,

A William F. Buckley swagger does not advance any position.

I believe you are missing the point.

Werz:
Bad behavior by gun rights proponents has a negative effect.

Your statement is an absolute. Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger are challenging that absolute.

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not subscribe to absolutes. I stated a general rule, and all general rules are subject to interpretation and exception.

In any event, I did not infer that motivation from the responses of Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger. They seem to imply that all actions in furtherance of our goals - or even purportedly in furtherance of our goals - are acceptable. Or to put it in terms of a well-worn adage, "The enemy of our enemy is our friend." Let us not forget how that policy affected us as a nation when we funded Osama bin Laden and his mujahideen to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.

If we are to maintain our credibility, there comes a time when we must say, "No, he is not one of ours, and we do not condone his behavior." I believe this is one of those times.

 

[Bikenut]

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not subscribe to absolutes. I stated a general rule, and all general rules are subject to interpretation and exception.

In any event, I did not infer that motivation from the responses of Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger. They seem to imply that all actions in furtherance of our goals - or even purportedly in furtherance of our goals - are acceptable. Or to put it in terms of a well-worn adage, "The enemy of our enemy is our friend." Let us not forget how that policy affected us as a nation when we funded Osama bin Laden and his mujahideen to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.

If we are to maintain our credibility, there comes a time when we must say, "No, he is not one of ours, and we do not condone his behavior." I believe this is one of those times.

Credibility and straw man arguments, as a general rule, don't mix.

Saying Seaton is not one of ours just because he was bearing an arm some don't approve of for reasons some don't approve of while acting in a manner some don't approve of is not supporting the right to bear arms but is supporting controlling the right to bear arms according to the opinions of some as to what is "reasonable", "appropriate", but most importantly... what they themselves deem as "acceptable".

I am so tired of hearing

-->folks should not exercise the right to bear arms in ways (or for reasons) that might offend the public because if they do the public will pass laws so folks can't bear arms that way (or for those reasons).<-- (often expressed as "Just because you can doesn't mean you should.)

After all... what difference does it make if the public passes laws to stop it or folks stop themselves because they are afraid of public opinion? Or, worse yet, folks are afraid of a negative opinion from their own gun owning supposedly right to bear arms supporting brethren? The end result of not exercising the right is the same. But then... I suspect (my personal opinion) those who don't like how others exercise the right to bear arms would be very happy if other people only carried in ways and for reasons that would be considered "acceptable".

I don't know about high falutin' Aristotelian syllogism (or why you felt the need to reference it because it failed to impress and actually had the opposite effect with this old farm boy) but I do know that the above contained in bold within the arrows--> <-- is complete and total BS mental masturbation based on a fear of rocking the boat.

Originally posted by Werz

Let's reduce your argument to an Aristotelian syllogism ...

• If bad behavior by open carriers has no negative effect on gun rights, then pro-gun legislation will be passed or introduced.
• Pro-gun legislation has been passed or introduced.
• Therefore, bad behavior by open carriers has no negative effect on gun rights.

Unless I am mistaken, that is a formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent or fallacy of the converse. Now what was that you were saying?

 

[Werz]

I don't know about high falutin' Aristotelian syllogism (or why you felt the need to reference it because it failed to impress and actually had the opposite effect with this old farm boy)

That was in response to a challenge to "debate logical fallacies," and you were not involved in that challenge. It is good for you to avoid discussions which you do not understand.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut

I don't know about high falutin' Aristotelian syllogism (or why you felt the need to reference it because it failed to impress and actually had the opposite effect with this old farm boy)

That was in response to a challenge to "debate logical fallacies," and you were not involved in that challenge. It is good for you to avoid discussions which you do not understand.

Couldn't resist the bait? Those who have nothing to support their positions resort to ridicule.....

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

Rules for Radicals ​

By Saul Alinsky - 1971
​

-snip-

7. Tactics
-snip-
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
-snip-

It might be difficult to counteract ridicule but it can be advantageous to show how ridicule diminishes the credibility of the one who tries to use it.

 

[color of law]

I think you know me well enough to know that I do not subscribe to absolutes. I stated a general rule, and all general rules are subject to interpretation and exception.

In any event, I did not infer that motivation from the responses of Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger. They seem to imply that all actions in furtherance of our goals - or even purportedly in furtherance of our goals - are acceptable. Or to put it in terms of a well-worn adage, "The enemy of our enemy is our friend." Let us not forget how that policy affected us as a nation when we funded Osama bin Laden and his mujahideen to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan.

If we are to maintain our credibility, there comes a time when we must say, "No, he is not one of ours, and we do not condone his behavior." I believe this is one of those times.

As to your first statement. I know that, but I don't think Bikenut and Fallschirmjäger know that.

After reading beyond your comment, I agree there are, generally, no absolutes.

And yes I have a concern this young man, I giving him the benefit of the doubt, needs some adult supervision.

 

[Werz]

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Mine was simply a statement of fact, prompted by your folksy criticism of words that I used in a discussion which did not involve you in the first place. You were the one who decided to play it out as ridicule, despite your own acknowledgement that you "don't know about high falutin' Aristotelian syllogism." But may I quote from some of your own words?

... you, and some others, don't like *** being handed a little lesson in baiting and recording those who take the bait ...

Take a lesson from your own playbook. In these forums, at least you can delete the record of your own indignant responses.