• 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.

Gunman vowings to continue carrying AK-47 to parks draws ire from open carry advocates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Blackburn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
43
Location
, Tennessee, USA
imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:
Blackburn wrote:
Exposing your subliminal thoughts is child's play.

It's called divining your true intent. Learn something about forensic writing analysis, why dontcha?
Still afraid to answer the question aren't you.

Do you or do you not support everything this guy did and the intent with which he did it as a matter of supporting Second Amendment rights?

Why are you afraid to answer? This does not take a profilers analysis of me for you to answer, but your failure to do so says more about you than my writing does about me.
:lol:

Holy smokes and you people say I'm back peddling.:lol:


You're taking backpedaling and crawfishing to a new level of artform.

For a moment, let'signore your blatant attempts to frame the discussion in terms and angles of your choosing. I don't agree with everything he did. If I had to only support people who I only agreed with 100%, nothing would ever get done. You, of course, would rather that I snapped into lockstep with you. Respect for individual thought and positions, my ass.

Next you'll be talking about how anyone who doesn't dress in church-suitable attire is causing problems for carry laws, because the sheeple might be scared.

Would you prefer thatsomeone notdress in "hip hop" gangsta type clothing while open carrying? It would be better if they dressed nicely for church, right? Now what about someone dressed hip hop style and open carrying... while being black.

Would you defend this? Would you criticize it? Would you have thoughts in the back of your head about how that "uppity" boy is "asking for it?"

This is just a logical extension of the position you hold now.

As for what everyone keeps calling you on- the first time someone calls you a horse, punch him in the mouth. The second time, do it again. Someone calls you a horse a third time.. might be time to go shopping for a saddle.

I've destroyed your pathetic argumentsseveral times and everyone knows it. The only person left in denial here is you.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,941
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Agent19 wrote:

+10 Agent.

What law did Kwikrnu break, exactly??

I support an American's right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't care if it is unorthodox. Don't care about the color of his gun barrel or the clothes he wears or the "scariness" of his chosen firearm. If he is legal, he is OK.

If he is legal, he is a Law abidingcitizen (LAC), not a bad guy.

Sorry if I offended some with the half sheeple comment, but I think it is quite accurate.

OCers that try to put reasonable caveats on legal behavior sound a lot like:

1) the CCers that get pissed because OC will "ruin it" for them

or

2) the Brady Bunch in placing their own arbitrary reasonable limits on the freedom and liberty of others.

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

Again I ask, what law was broken? Do you support all gun rights, or are you a half sheeple?
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
doesn't include smiling kitty assault rifles does it?

Hello Kitty doesn't smile, she just gets even!

peace1.jpg

5.jpg
 
M

McX

Guest
you know kwick, i had to save smiling kitty to my desktop, after seeing the fresh pic here, i didn't save the chick though, figured you'd b-slap me if you ever came to visit and saw that. but smiling kitty will be here for a few days for my viewing enjoyment!
 

spioi

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
107
Location
cincinnati, Ohio, USA
So, I take it that TN's open carry law does not require the weapon to be in a holster like other states do?

ohio is one state that doesen't require a holster unless in a car. I carry a CZ in my front pocket and a 1911 in a vest pocket in the fall. winter is a charter arms hammerless in a coat pocket.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
Depositions and interrogatories for my lawsuit were in September & October. State represented park ranger just motioned for summary judgment on November 30, 2010. I'll get around to scanning it in later, but the case is 3:10-cv-00126 in the Middle Tennessee District, 6th Circuit.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
Oh well. Now we are going to have to look in the newspaper, or check with the court to find out how well he did, or not.
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
HvyMtl:

What is Legal is LEGAL!

A Modified AK-47 to have a Barrel of less than 12 Inches in Length is a Pistol, under Tennessee Law, AND with a HCP one CAN Openly Carry a Pistol in State Parks throughout Tennessee.

aadvark
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
What is legal is legal. Well, no. But, I won't go towards that argument, as it would take the thread away from topic.

What he did was within the letter, but perhaps not the spirit of the law...

However, he did not act safely, by not planning for the "what if" which easily could have happened, placing others at risk. When asked about the risk to others, he stated that was not his responsibility. Even though, had things gone worse, he could have been held liable in civil court, and possibly even criminally.

Nor, has he acted in the view that your rights, my rights, and the rights of all under the 2nd A are important. Far from that. His view: "If I cannot have this, you can't either" type of attitude.

Not the way to re-expand the 2nd A.

In addition, the officers did what was within the letter. Stopping a person with a modified Draco, with its tip painted orange, to see if it was either a legal Draco, or the illegal folding stock AK. The differences are minimal between the two, and the officers, unfamiliar with the Draco (few people are) had to get in touch with the ATF on a Sunday to figure it out.
In addition, Kwik's own request to get the supervisor further delayed the stop.

So. Was the stop mishandled? IMHO, I do not see it rise to the point where there would be a violation of law.

But, that is for the Court to decide. And since Kwik, supposedly, trolled another thread, we will have to find out in another place.

Unless, some of the Kwik supporters or detractors want to keep the forum updated....
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
What is legal is legal. Well, no. But, I won't go towards that argument, as it would take the thread away from topic.

What he did was within the letter, but perhaps not the spirit of the law...

However, he did not act safely, by not planning for the "what if" which easily could have happened, placing others at risk. When asked about the risk to others, he stated that was not his responsibility. Even though, had things gone worse, he could have been held liable in civil court, and possibly even criminally.

Nor, has he acted in the view that your rights, my rights, and the rights of all under the 2nd A are important. Far from that. His view: "If I cannot have this, you can't either" type of attitude.

Not the way to re-expand the 2nd A.

In addition, the officers did what was within the letter. Stopping a person with a modified Draco, with its tip painted orange, to see if it was either a legal Draco, or the illegal folding stock AK. The differences are minimal between the two, and the officers, unfamiliar with the Draco (few people are) had to get in touch with the ATF on a Sunday to figure it out.
In addition, Kwik's own request to get the supervisor further delayed the stop.

So. Was the stop mishandled? IMHO, I do not see it rise to the point where there would be a violation of law.

But, that is for the Court to decide. And since Kwik, supposedly, trolled another thread, we will have to find out in another place.

Unless, some of the Kwik supporters or detractors want to keep the forum updated....

While we can argue all day as to whether the 1st Ranger encounter was legal or not, the 2nd Ranger encounter was definitely not good on the Ranger's part. Drawing down on kwik was not needed. By that time, it was established that there was no RAS let alone PC.
 

HvyMtl

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
271
Location
Tennessee
That may be possible with the 2nd officer. Again, court will decide. Wish he would have bothered to pay for an attorney. Obviously would improve his odds.

Why Kwik is no longer here? He was banned supposedly due to trolling another member in another thread set. It was not due to his viewpoints or beliefs, but due his supposed trolling.

I read the thread he was banned for. IMHO, he overstepped, and got banned.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
The entire document kwik provided for us is nothing but an elaborate story that no doubt would have been different had Leonard not been audio recording.

As far as kwik getting banned, well, I don't blame him for getting pissed off.

Reading through the threads here it is easy to see the selective belief in a right that cannot be infringed.

I am in agreement that the 2nd Ranger was where the **** hit the fan.

Kwik was polite, respectful, and even made a comment about how he would talk to them if they wanted to back at the parking lot, after his peaceful and compliant encounter with the first ranger.

Going rambo because geriatric Jim and busted-hip Betty knock on your door out of an unnecessary panic on their behalf, is just mentally retarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top