mspgunner
Regular Member
I think it's time for a group hug!
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{BIG HUG}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I think it's time for a group hug!
The only reason it's not "positive" is because I happen to disagree with you. Alot.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{BIG HUG}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
whats the difference between standing outside of a city hall and standing outside of a grocery store?
Wouldn't matter. I'm not into pushing my agenda on folks that don't want to see it, no matter where it is at.
I'm not into photo-ops, sorry.
Again you are talking about stuff you do not know sir.
Doc did the photos and postings to show open carry in action as it is NOT popular within the metro area, most cops if asked about it in a fully polite manner will absolutely LIE about it and say it is illegal to DISCOURAGE it.
Doc put his photos up to show it was indeed NOT illegal and to ENCOURAGE it.
You are almost as bad as the anti's when it comes to stereotyping others and you really picked the wrong target. I have been talking with Doc for a couple of years now and one thing you are 100% off on at all levels is your assessment of HIM.
I do find it odd that you open carry but seem to think everyone else open carries for the wrong reason, odd is to say the least.
See, here we go again. I have a DIFFERENT opinion than you, and I'm " the bad guy" . :/
Again, YOU brought up why Doc does ... whatever. Again, I could care less.
Please point out where I've said ANYBODY is OC'ing for the wrong reasons . I think everyone is open carrying for protection, at least I am.
but man, you guys need to let it go when someone doesn't want to do what you think they should, I can think for myself.
Ok, take your meds.
You brought up the pictures at starbucks etc all by yourself, reread the thread if you remain confused about that.
That is not what you say and imply, you even stated the way others do it causes you harm by risking your rights.
You remain welcome to join in any time you want, you can even continue to espouse negative comments if you want, I just think it serves little to no purpose and clearly by your comments you have made a lot of stereotypical decisions about a lot of folks whom you have never met which is pretty much the basis for all prejudiced so rock on, your a full grown man do as you wish, I am out of it.
Ok. I dosed up. Thanks for reminding me.
In Brett's case, you are correct. As I remember, you and Doc weren't real thrilled with it either.
In You and Doc's case, not so. I think it's good to do what you do in a safe manner and preferably places where it's not as frowned upon. Do it with dignity and respect like you all seem to do is great. Again, it's just not for me.
Not sure how you get that, but that wasn't my intention. Again, I just have an opinion. It's different than yours.
I can't speak for Doc. I am disappointed that Maplewood opted to USE Brett as the excuse to take a totalitarian approach to the situation, I am DISAPPOINTED in Brett's handling of the situation but would put more than a little blame on YOUTH. Brett may not be a fan of myself, nor I a fan of his, however, his rights were violated I have no doubt and an anti-gun police department used an anti-gun media outlet and Brett's notoriety to exploit the rights of all, that I despise, however the blame does not lay at Bretts feet.
Too bad you can't make it Sunday night.
I suppose I simply do not understand the "how" of OC. Either you OC or you do not and if you do depending upon the area in which you live, it is accepted at differing levels.If you OC in an area it is not particularly popular, you should indeed likely protect yourself with video cameras, it is afterall the only chance you have as courts seem to give more merit to police testimony than they do citizens, something proven hundreds of thousands of times.
1. Was it because he is a thorn in their side or something we don't know about?
2. And once again I hear the talk about the camera and the courts, and again I say, how many people that have their 2nd amendment rights violated take it to court ?
3. One question here I guess. Is there a law firm/ lawyer that would take cases like this or the one that BCal was just in that would work pro-bono FOR gun rights that were violated ?
... these cases that folks say they would basically have a slam-dunk in court, but not alot do. I was just wondering aloud earlier on that one.....
I too, when first seeing the photos, felt it was a bit of showboating and more of a confrontational in your face tactic to city officials. I understand the thinking behind it on the OC side but I'm not sure if that message is properly received on the public and official side. So, I agree with festus in that respect, while I get what the STL side is saying about the city hall tour, I wouldn't personally take part in it or something similar on the KC side. But if they have seen positive response, more power to them.
You can call it coincidence if you like. But I think it because tho wool has been pulled from the eyes of many and they have awakened to a taste of freedoms and person responsibilities that is Open Carry.
Doc
You who believe exposure will affect a negative change are living in fear. If you want nothing to change keep up doing nothing and you may get your wish.
Doc
If you just freak people out with strange or even illegal tactics to try and promote your cause and prove a point, the states or cities will just pass ordinances against it and be done with it. Then what will you do? I know I hear everybody saying it's their right, but remember, all they have to do is pass an ordinance to override that right in their municipality.
I think there is also the realization that taking a department or officer to court may spur the municipality and others around it to ban OC as a preventative measure or in direct response to the case. I'm not saying this would happen, but the possibility remains.