Open Carry: I appreciate the effort but...

[PoS]

You might want to amend Wiki with that, otherwise Haymarket won't believe you.

Im beginning to think he lives in his own universe, a bizzaro world where everything is the opposite.

 

[Jerry]

...Please, for the love of God and Country, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!

Director at Barrow Neurological Institute arrested with rifle at Sky Harbor



Look, I understand that you want to support the open carry movement and I appreciate that. I'd like nothing better than to have Constitutional carry in every state of the nation but stuff like this isn't helping that cause.

If I go to the airport to pick you up odds are that I'll be armed. I'll be armed with a pistol and it will be under my shirt but it will be there and, frankly, I'm the only one who needs to know that. If you want someone to know you're carrying then feel free to carry a pistol openly. If you are wandering around with a long gun people are going to look at you funny. I mean, seriously, what's the point? It's sure as hell no easier to carry a long gun. In an urban environment the damned thing will be banging off of door frames and furniture not to mention people you're walking by. It gives the cops (or a mugger) something else to grab on to if they feel the desire or need. It's kind of a pain in the ass to sit down to eat or get into your car no matter how you have it slung. So, again, what's the point?

I could throw around a bunch of platitudes like "Discretion is the better part of valor" and such but the fact of the matter is that these antics are more likely to turn people away from the movement than they are to generate a real, positive interest in it. So please, think before you make your statement. Getting yourself slammed in the pokey and another negative headline in the paper isn't what we need if we really want to increase awareness and acceptance.

So why did he unsling his rifle?

 

[Jerry]

Set up a table in a park, put a rifle or two on the table and invite people to observe as you explain things.

I don't think that's covered by open carry law. You aren't literaly carrying it, and that allone could get you arested, especialy if you don't have an obscure permit from the city to conduct your event.

 

[Jerry]

I completely agree. There is simply no reason to make others uncomfortable to prove your point.

Have you ever seen a gay pride parade?

 

[haymarket]

your claim that cops are not civilians is just plain stupid. You accept cops pretending that they are somehow elite or not civilians when they are. Ask Eric Holder or the US attorney in your district. Since he or she is an Obama Appointee, I am sure you can ask said Chief Law enforcement officer in your judicial district

since I don't know if you are in the ED or WD of Michigan, I don't know which US attorney is yours'

So what is your scam Turtle? What is your end game here? What is your secret plan hatched by the gun lobby that you are pushing? Why is it crucial for you to define cops as civilians when all the authoritative dictionaries on words in the English language define CIVILIAN as being other than cops or military?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

ci·vil·ian noun \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən\
: a person who is not a member of the military or of a police or firefighting force

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=definition+civilian&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

ci·vil·ian
səˈvilyən/
noun
1.
a person not in the armed services or the police force.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian

ci·vil·ian [si-vil-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

What do even gun lobby supporters not know that you know about this contention that cops are civilians?

http://gunrightsmagazine.com/civilians-are-safer-than-police/

Even people in the gun community active on these issues admit that cops and civilians are two very different things as the above article clearly explains to you.

So what is your scam Turtle? If somebody agrees with you that cops are civilians - what great leap of faith do you then make with that admission and what do you then claim results from it?

Is this really about the meaning of a word or is it more about the desire of some on the extreme far right to acquire all the most powerful weapons they can get their eager little hands on to prepare for the anticipated day of Right Wing Rebellion when they need those weapons to slaughter their fellow Americans in the streets?

Face it Turtle - that is what this is about and if you have to pretend that the authorities on the English language are wrong when they define a word - the far right has no trouble jumping on their donkey and pursuing this Don Quixotic cause celebre that simply makes them look foolish.

If a person wants to know if they are hip deep into a sub culture that is apart from the rest of American - one sign is that you have to adopt words and meanings to those words that are a departure from what the rest of society accepts. And this is a perfect example of the gun sub culture needing to define the word CIVILIAN for their own nefarious purposes in a way that is far different than the standard dictionary does.

I love using dictionary definitions in an attempt to refute US Code or say, the entire foundation of the US Constitution

Then step up and do it because in the past the only thing you have struggled to come up with is a explanation of who is who in a war zone which has no application in any way shape or form as to the definition of the police doing there job here in America and not in a foreign war zone.

Nor have you ever produced a legal definition that states that cops doing their job in the USA are civilians.

SO lets see you step up and produce this verifiable evidence just this once and for all to see complete with proper citations.

 

[haymarket]

Im beginning to think he lives in his own universe, a bizzaro world where everything is the opposite.

YOu know you belong to an extreme sub culture apart from the rest of America when somebody has to reject every standard dictionary definition of a word and substitute their own upside definition in order to further their political ideology and plans. Now that is Bizarro world. Or perhaps the Mad Hatter from Wonderland. Lewis Carroll would love it.

 

[nic11]

Your use of the term, gun-nuttery, pretty much gives it away. Of course you may love guns, and just hate the people who use them.

You get all that from the use of 2 words. Amazing.

I am a gun owner. A sane one. I don't have self esteem issues so I don't need to carry it.

As for the op, I was addressing the kind of people in our state that are not so sane.

Ever hear of J.T. Ready? Jared Loughner?

 

[tech30528]

YOu know you belong to an extreme sub culture apart from the rest of America when somebody has to reject every standard dictionary definition of a word and substitute their own upside definition in order to further their political ideology and plans. Now that is Bizarro world. Or perhaps the Mad Hatter from Wonderland. Lewis Carroll would love it.

Like "Marriage"?

How about "Person"?

Or "Is" for that matter.

Don't like the game? Change the rules. Common practice for liberals.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Have you ever seen a gay pride parade?

I'm certinly pro-gay rights but those things are a little weird right? It's like... Showing off gayness to the world that already knows what it's like and doesn't need it to be showed off to.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Like "Marriage"?

How about "Person"?

Or "Is" for that matter.

Don't like the game? Change the rules. Common practice for liberals.

Sure it is, equivocation/flat-out-changing-word-definitions isn't something everyone does, it's PURELY Liberals who always do this...

 

[PoS]

YOu know you belong to an extreme sub culture apart from the rest of America when somebody has to reject every standard dictionary definition of a word and substitute their own upside definition in order to further their political ideology and plans. Now that is Bizarro world. Or perhaps the Mad Hatter from Wonderland. Lewis Carroll would love it.

The real world isnt decided by dictionary meanings, its decided by laws and their application. You are so out of touch with reality that you continue this strange charade even though everyone says you are wrong and you are being exposed for the fraud that you are. Im beginning to question your sanity.

 

[haymarket]

Like "Marriage"?

How about "Person"?

Or "Is" for that matter.

Don't like the game? Change the rules. Common practice for liberals.

sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about and you failed to explain any of it and what they have to do with me or the dictionary definition of CIVILIAN.

 

[haymarket]

The real world isnt decided by dictionary meanings, its decided by laws and their application. You are so out of touch with reality that you continue this strange charade even though everyone says you are wrong and you are being exposed for the fraud that you are. Im beginning to question your sanity.

But yet you cannot point to a law which defines cops as CIVILIANS. So in the absence of your evidence, authoritative dictionaries carry the day.

"Everyone says" ..... I see another right wing zealot embraces the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum - . And "everyone" is not a toadies of the gun lobby in gun threads on one site.

 

[TurtleDude]

So what is your scam Turtle? What is your end game here? What is your secret plan hatched by the gun lobby that you are pushing? Why is it crucial for you to define cops as civilians when all the authoritative dictionaries on words in the English language define CIVILIAN as being other than cops or military?

Civilian - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



definition civilian - Google Search



Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com







What do even gun lobby supporters not know that you know about this contention that cops are civilians?

Civilians are Safer than Police | Gun Rights Magazine

Even people in the gun community active on these issues admit that cops and civilians are two very different things as the above article clearly explains to you.

So what is your scam Turtle? If somebody agrees with you that cops are civilians - what great leap of faith do you then make with that admission and what do you then claim results from it?

Is this really about the meaning of a word or is it more about the desire of some on the extreme far right to acquire all the most powerful weapons they can get their eager little hands on to prepare for the anticipated day of Right Wing Rebellion when they need those weapons to slaughter their fellow Americans in the streets?

Face it Turtle - that is what this is about and if you have to pretend that the authorities on the English language are wrong when they define a word - the far right has no trouble jumping on their donkey and pursuing this Don Quixotic cause celebre that simply makes them look foolish.

If a person wants to know if they are hip deep into a sub culture that is apart from the rest of American - one sign is that you have to adopt words and meanings to those words that are a departure from what the rest of society accepts. And this is a perfect example of the gun sub culture needing to define the word CIVILIAN for their own nefarious purposes in a way that is far different than the standard dictionary does.



Then step up and do it because in the past the only thing you have struggled to come up with is a explanation of who is who in a war zone which has no application in any way shape or form as to the definition of the police doing there job here in America and not in a foreign war zone.

Nor have you ever produced a legal definition that states that cops doing their job in the USA are civilians.

SO lets see you step up and produce this verifiable evidence just this once and for all to see complete with proper citations.

bwaaak cops aren't civilians bwaaaak cops aren't civilians

1) your dictionary definition is based on colloquial cop talk that has no relevance to the real world

2) you find some obscure magazine that I-an NRA Life member for 40+ years, a former part of the US Shooting team, and an all-american captain of one of the top college shooting teams in the country, and then later, general counsel for the biggest all NRA shooting club in the USA has NEVER HEARD OF until you cited it here and expect that MEANS SOMETHING to me


Sorry Haymarket-civilian law enforcement officers are CIVILIANS. the US CODE SAYS SO, the INTERNATIONAL LAW Says so, the OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SAYS SO and former COPS Say so

you are wrong and we all know it

 

[TurtleDude]

But yet you cannot point to a law which defines cops as CIVILIANS. So in the absence of your evidence, authoritative dictionaries carry the day.

"Everyone says" ..... I see another right wing zealot embraces the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum - . And "everyone" is not a toadies of the gun lobby in gun threads on one site.

I pointed to several when you started this silly charade. Including the US CODE the posse comitatus act for example

 

[TurtleDude]

But yet you cannot point to a law which defines cops as CIVILIANS. So in the absence of your evidence, authoritative dictionaries carry the day.

"Everyone says" ..... I see another right wing zealot embraces the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum - . And "everyone" is not a toadies of the gun lobby in gun threads on one site.

and yet you claim a dictionary definition and an obscure magazine actually is controlling authority

which is why another posted noted you demand others provide proof superior to what you proffer

 

[haymarket]

bwaaak cops aren't civilians bwaaaak cops aren't civilians

not exactly a scintillating intellectual refutation there Turtle.

1) your dictionary definition is based on colloquial cop talk that has no relevance to the real world

It is not my dictionary definition. It is many definitionS (plural) based on what experts and authorities in the use of the English language have come to decide what words actually mean in the real world.

2) you find some obscure magazine that I-an NRA Life member for 40+ years, a former part of the US Shooting team, and an all-american captain of one of the top college shooting teams in the country, and then later, general counsel for the biggest all NRA shooting club in the USA has NEVER HEARD OF until you cited it here and expect that MEANS SOMETHING to me

As nobody has any way to judge your claimed personal points of expertise - they are irrelevant. It really does NOT matter what you have heard of not.

Sorry Haymarket-civilian law enforcement officers are CIVILIANS. the US CODE SAYS SO, the INTERNATIONAL LAW Says so, the OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SAYS SO and former COPS Say so

But you are powerless to present any such verifiable evidence. All we have is your word of your interpretation of questionable language that nobody can look at because you cannot present it.

you are wrong and we all know it

WE ALL KNOW IT. That would be rightist gun thread posters who agree with you. Hardly a representative cross section of anything except extremism.
And you do so love the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum even when you improperly attempt to use it and it is not on your side.

btw - you missed this part of my post and failed to speak to it:

So what is your scam Turtle? If somebody agrees with you that cops are civilians - what great leap of faith do you then make with that admission and what do you then claim results from it?

Is this really about the meaning of a word or is it more about the desire of some on the extreme far right to acquire all the most powerful weapons they can get their eager little hands on to prepare for the anticipated day of Right Wing Rebellion when they need those weapons to slaughter their fellow Americans in the streets?

Apparently I hit it out of the park and identified your motives right on the money.

 

[haymarket]

I pointed to several when you started this silly charade. Including the US CODE the posse comitatus act for example

So where is it then? You never presented anything which identifies US cops doing their job duties here as cops here as civilians. But go ahead and prove me wrong and post it or link to it. I would welcome that and it would be a pleasant change to actually see some verifiable evidence for once.

 

[KevinKohler]

In 25 feet an attacker can get to you in a very short time.

So your position is to shoot people at range, rather than waiting for the potential threat to be realized?

All I'm saying is, rifles ares are designed for longer range targets. They are by their nature an offensive weapon. I wager that's why people don't like seeing others strolling down the beer aisle at the local mart with one strapped over their shoulder.

 

[TurtleDude]

So where is it then? You never presented anything which identifies US cops doing their job duties here as cops here as civilians. But go ahead and prove me wrong and post it or link to it. I would welcome that and it would be a pleasant change to actually see some verifiable evidence for once.

why should I repost stuff that you will deny you saw in a month? we all saw it. Why don't you com up with some laws that actually support the idiotic claim that civilian Law enforcement officers are not civilians

 

[haymarket]

why should I repost stuff that you will deny you saw in a month?

To prove that you are not lying and making stuff up again.

But I suspect you will NOT post anything of the kind because it does not exist.

 

[TurtleDude]

To prove that you are not lying and making stuff up again.

But I suspect you will NOT post anything of the kind because it does not exist.

You must think that I care if you call me a liar. The fact is everyone who follows gun threads have seen your claims-from the silly "enjoyment" theory of the 2A to the stupendously obtuse claim that "shall not be infringed" was never intended to prevent infringements but actually was designed to allow the federal government to infringe as much as it wanted

as to cops being civilians I posted stuff from the US CODE, I posted stuff from international law and I posted stuff from the federal Officer of Personnel Management. all of that is superior to a dictionary definition which is based on colloquial terms

 

[blackjack50]

...Please, for the love of God and Country, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!

Director at Barrow Neurological Institute arrested with rifle at Sky Harbor



Look, I understand that you want to support the open carry movement and I appreciate that. I'd like nothing better than to have Constitutional carry in every state of the nation but stuff like this isn't helping that cause.

If I go to the airport to pick you up odds are that I'll be armed. I'll be armed with a pistol and it will be under my shirt but it will be there and, frankly, I'm the only one who needs to know that. If you want someone to know you're carrying then feel free to carry a pistol openly. If you are wandering around with a long gun people are going to look at you funny. I mean, seriously, what's the point? It's sure as hell no easier to carry a long gun. In an urban environment the damned thing will be banging off of door frames and furniture not to mention people you're walking by. It gives the cops (or a mugger) something else to grab on to if they feel the desire or need. It's kind of a pain in the ass to sit down to eat or get into your car no matter how you have it slung. So, again, what's the point?

I could throw around a bunch of platitudes like "Discretion is the better part of valor" and such but the fact of the matter is that these antics are more likely to turn people away from the movement than they are to generate a real, positive interest in it. So please, think before you make your statement. Getting yourself slammed in the pokey and another negative headline in the paper isn't what we need if we really want to increase awareness and acceptance.

I 100% agree. It gets bad headlines. It does not produce good ones. Spread the cause by carrying a handgun.

 

[American]

So your position is to shoot people at range, rather than waiting for the potential threat to be realized?

All I'm saying is, rifles ares are designed for longer range targets. They are by their nature an offensive weapon. I wager that's why people don't like seeing others strolling down the beer aisle at the local mart with one strapped over their shoulder.

No .

 

[blackjack50]

So your position is to shoot people at range, rather than waiting for the potential threat to be realized?

All I'm saying is, rifles ares are designed for longer range targets. They are by their nature an offensive weapon. I wager that's why people don't like seeing others strolling down the beer aisle at the local mart with one strapped over their shoulder.

No. By their nature they are a stronger weapon than a pistol. Same goes for a shotgun. You can't define weapons as "offensive" when their purpose can be used for either offense or defense, except maybe a land mine...but Iraq has proven those can be used offensively.