The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 13, 2009, 07:36 AM   #51
crashm1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2007
Location: Western,WI
Posts: 243
Replaceable politicians

Jofaba reread Yellowfins post you are missing a couple points.
One of the things becoming crystal clear in the healthcare debate is that a large number of our elected leaders seems to feel they are smarter than us and get upset when we hold them accountable. They place themselves on a pedestal and exempt themselves from a variety of laws or use their position as leverage for receiving special treatment. Yellowfin is proposing a way to counteract that superiority complex by saying hey congresscritter or president you aren't so special, let's have you live by the laws you pass and see how that works for them.
__________________
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. - George Washington
1911s and V-twin sport bikes make me happy.
crashm1 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 08:21 AM   #52
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Ohh! I know! I know!

Quote:
There are two states that allow concealed carry without: an application, a permit, any testing, fingerprinting, etc...; just as a resident of the state you have this right.
Vermont and Alaska

As far as I know, VT does not issue CWP's. If you can own it, you can carry it, period. However, their statutes do not have a preemptive statement (I think that's what it's called?). Their counties/cities/towns/etc can restrict CC to the point of it being illegal in their respective jurisdictions.

Alaska adopted the VT method with a few modifications. They implemented an availability of CWP's in order to establish reciprocity (sp?) with other states. Alaska also included a preemptive statement (again, not sure if that's the right term) that says something to the effect of 'Citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon, and that right shall not be infringed by any municipality.' As far as I know, municipalities may restrict open carry, but no city/town/borough/etc can make CC illegal. Alaska also extends this right to all non-residents. However, you must be a resident of the state to apply for a CWP.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 08:48 AM   #53
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
From the framers:

Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and to protect those rights, mankind has formed Government, which has power because it is given that power by its citizens. The president is the chief of the executive branch of the government that is there to protect the rights of the citizens.

Every law that the Government passes has to respect and safeguard the rights of the individual, whether that individual is the President or the guy standing there protesting the President.

The man on the corner who is protesting the President is exercising his right to free speech. If he happens to be wearing a sidearm while doing so, he is simultaneously exercising his right to bear arms. As long as he threatens no one, he is not violating anyone's rights, and to molest him is to violate his rights of both speech and arms.

Yes, the SS has the duty to protect the President, but nowhere in the COTUS are they granted the power to trample the rights of the citizens in the name of protecting the man who is SUPPOSED to be making sure that those very rights are protected, nor does the COTUS grant power to Congress to delegate that power to the SS.

The President is both a man and a symbol. The man has rights, the symbol has powers. The man has no more, nor fewer, rights than any of us. The symbol has power, and those are specifically laid out in the COTUS.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 12:49 PM   #54
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
So....

How do you all reconcile what you feel is the right way to interpret the laws and how it is handled in reality, today?

What Mr. Kostric did was legal. I think we all agree with that statement. But, was it smart?

Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.

These are just my observations and opinions. We can agree to disagree on that.

Where we part ways, is where some of you think you can parade your rights in situations where doing so compromises the integrity of gun-rights in general.

Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks.

That's the bottom line.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:17 PM   #55
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
I see your point, and i raise you this. William Kostric offered that sometimes a point can be made that's intentionally outrageous, in order to pull folks from the opposite side a little to the middle. (paraphrasing). Antipitas makes the point that it drives public opinion away from our cause because it's too outrageous and foolhearty.

I think there may be a little of both. One thing is undeniable, the world got to see yesterday, perhaps for the first time, that a man with a gun, even at a presidential event, does not necessarily spell disaster. And with their chicken-little hand-wringing, calls for emergency injunctions, and Matthews referral to Kostric's "G.D. gun", that the media looked almost as ridiculous as the oddly demeanored William Kostric. And we are accustomed to the media looking ridiculous.

I think, on balance, this was a win. I do wish Kostric's sign had a more peaceful message. But there may be a lot of folks, even in the government who have somehow escaped hearing that Tom Jefferson quote. If it renews a healthy fear of watchful patriots, I'm not sure that given the rampant mischief underway in our gub'mint, that it is such a bad thing.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; August 13, 2009 at 03:19 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:21 PM   #56
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
"Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks." quoted Antipas.

I respectfully disagree & believe that the interpretation is in the eyes of the beholders. People with no strong opinion either pro- or anti-gun control could take that image either way depending on what they have previously been exposed to, IMO.
orangello is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:21 PM   #57
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Where we part ways, is where some of you think you can parade your rights in situations where doing so compromises the integrity of gun-rights in general.

Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks.

I think he was the poster boy for Responsible gun ownership, he obeyed the law, made a statement in a non-violent manner, and even rationally and calmly explained it to the drive-by media kooks.

As for the "what if" or the "now as a result" I would say that the next, time there should be 100 or 1000 folks show up and do what this man had the courage to do, and that is to remind everyone of what the second amendment is truly about. What is "irresponsible" is to profess to be a "responsible" gun owner, and activist, and "tuck tail" when you have a chance to use your rights for fear that if you do, they might be somehow restricted further. If that is the result, then perhaps Jefferson's statement should become a beacon.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:30 PM   #58
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
Quote:
What is "irresponsible" is to profess to be a "responsible" gun owner, and activist, and "tuck tail" when you have a chance to use your rights for fear that if you do, they might be somehow restricted further.
One could argue that by refusing to exercise the right due to fear, it has already been relinquished.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:31 PM   #59
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.
Essentially, your position boils down to this:

In order to exercise my 1A rights, I must forgo my 2A rights, because we all know that armed people who protest ALWAYS use their weapons to get their point across.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:37 PM   #60
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level.
How so ? How is a citizen, who happens to be armed, and peacefully protesting, any more of a threat than the armed SS guys ?


Quote:
One could argue that by refusing to exercise the right due to fear, it has already been relinquished.
Spot-on !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:52 PM   #61
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks.

That's the bottom line
If you believe that exercising your rights in a lawful manner "does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks" then I wonder about how one does go about exercising those rights without looking like a kook?

Where do we draw the line? How do we define "appropriate" behavior? Do we define it by other's standards who are not in agreement with our own? Slippery slope.

Regardless of your own personal opinion, whether you believed that his actions were "smart" or not, acting in a lawful manner, causing no physical harm, being rather "cool under fire" during the interview, I have respect for a man/woman who actually lives by his beliefs.

What if 50 people did the same with the same results? What if 1,000? What if more than half the population? Should not matter how many exercise the right, the right exists; popular or not, The Bill of Rights has been around for a while and exercising the rights contained within only helps to maintain those rights.

While is should not matter how frequently a right is exercised, in reality it does. I would venture to guess that the British considered the colonists a bunch of "kooks" and worse at times; not to mention that they were illegally defying the British crown.

Some folks believe that a "Right" is right. (See sig line.)

I am all for promoting responsible gun ownership. However, calling law abiding citizens exercising their rights as contained in our founding documents "kooks" I do not agree with. It well may turn out that the man in question can be shown to be a "kook", but it should not be from his actions being discussed; namely exercising his "Constitutional/Bill of Rights" rights, especially from a group of people who support and promote "responsible gun ownership".
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 02:07 PM   #62
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,079
In one sense, nothing could be more exemplary of responsible exercise of 2A rights than bearing the weapon and never, ever using it to threaten or make one's point with violence. This is where I part ways a little bit with Kostric.

The threatening content of his sign, combined with being armed, is entirely premature. We don't yet have any tyranny to resist; it is still a democracy, and we can still kick the bums out. There is much to do before and unless all peaceful options have been exercised. Our complacency and ignorance is more responsible for our having drifted so far from our founding principles than anything. Until we remedy that, we have no right to call for violent opposition, IMO.

But it is crucial that the right, and means to violent overthrow be retained overtly. Meanwhile, there it is, right there in the holster, the ultimate monument to self-governance, where it peaceably remains until needed to oppose a immediate violent threat. That, we should not have a problem with.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; August 13, 2009 at 02:26 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 02:17 PM   #63
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
:sniff: I love you guys.

Good to hear some people disagreeing with Antipitas' argument that by default, armed 1A protests are somehow "wrong."

I've seen lots of events here in AZ that have been like that.

Frankly, if a man can't carry a pistol in a supposed pro-2A state at a peaceful rally that is in favor of political ideas that he believes in, and can't express that he believes strongly in those ideas (as some other men expressed 234 years ago on a certain Lexington green), then we've lost already.

Captain Parker never intended to start a fight that day. He mustered his men as a protest against Crown interference (well... he mustered his men because of the alarm system; the alarm system was kicked off because of a protest against Crown interference). Every single time that Crown and Colonial forces met up until the retreat back to Boston, the Crown shot first.

God forbid some peaceful rally of activists meets a group of state police or national guard with intentions to violently quell the protest (Ohio State?).

Your right to self defense is not waived when you exercise the 1A for its original purpose: political expression.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 02:58 PM   #64
Ian0351
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
Some of you are as bad as Matthews was, not letting the facts speak for themselves so you can spout hyperbolic rhetoric about this patriot. Notice how Kostric said nothing about assassinations, the pundits here and in the interview took it to that level.

He was not protesting, he was demonstrating. Matthews wouldn't let him get that out (in the first minute of the interview) and it seems pretty thoroughly glossed over here as well.

The Jefferson quote, while amazing appropriate in his time, is a bit dated, and I feel was very well paraphrased by the individual in question to avoid the word blood, tyranny or patriot.
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard.
Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org

Semper Fidelis

Last edited by Ian0351; August 13, 2009 at 02:58 PM. Reason: spelling, saw it as soon as I hit 'submit reply'
Ian0351 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:07 PM   #65
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,308
Now that everyone is in an uproar over my last post (and while I have your attention), let me flesh my thoughts out a bit.

What was this town hall meeting about? Did it have anything whatsoever to do with any specific right, we possess? Or was the event about another power-grab by the Feds? <-- That could be the basis for a display of guns. I just happen to think it isn't time... yet. All other options are yet to be exhausted (paraphrasing Judge Kozinski in his dissent in Silveira).

So, other than expressing an opinion over insurrection, what do guns have to do with this particular event? How do guns, combined with the displayed message, apply to that particular meeting event?

I fail to see how Kostric furthered an agenda of protest (or demonstration, if you prefer that word) over the Federal takeover of the U.S. medical system.

I will say that the argument maestro gave in his prior post has come the closest to changing my mind.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:26 PM   #66
One way or another
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Posts: 4
I'm not in an uproar, anti....

However I am doing an awful lot of chuckling.....

(Btw...this is my first post, so please indulge me a bit!)

You stated:
Quote:
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.
I notice you reside in Idaho, a GOLD STAR open carry state, according to opencarry.org, http://opencarry.org/id.html

I also know that New Hampshire is an open carry state.....

That being said, I find it a bit disconcerting your comments about this.....

Just my opinion, but I don't think that Mr. Kostric was, in your words, "armed protesting"....

Protesting, yes, the armed part played absolutely no part....

As I said, just my opinion....
One way or another is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:35 PM   #67
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.

explain how him being armed at a function open to the public (add the fact hes on private property with permission) raise the stakes?what i see is an individual
exercising his rights as afforded him by the blood of out forefathers.you say it was down right stupid,an foolhardy.....seems to me you don't believe in his lawful right to bare arms.or maybe you do but you don't have the guts to exercise them your self so the next best thing to do is be a sideline QB and make assumptions of how it should be done or how you would have done things different.
some will say what if it had turned out different,what if he did try to discharge his weapon?well.....he didn't so why go there.you cant condemn or try to add "what iff's.

the facts .
1.he had a lawful right to be there to demonstrate peacefully (which is what he did)
2.he was on private property with permission
3.he was following the law as it pertains to open carry(obviously from the fact that he wasn't detained or arrested or otherwise molested)except by the so called news guy.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 03:46 PM   #68
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
pnac said: So you saw the video of the bombing then?
If you are asking how I know what McVeigh's shirt says, feel free to read American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing by Lou Michel, Dan Herbeck. He was still wearing it when arrested.

Back on topic......

This guy wore the gun and picked his t-shirt with the intention of getting just what has occured, media attention. He knew that wearing a visible sidearm to a Presidential town hall meeting was going to get him involved in a confrontration.

If he has a lick of common sense, he has to have known that he wouldn't get anywhere near Obama wearing a gun. As such, he had no intention of merely attending the town hall meeting and asking questions. He wanted his 15-minutes of fame.

Is it his right to wear the gun? Yup.

Did he help the 2nd Amendment cause? Nope.

To most people, his actions alone make him look like a nutcase.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:01 PM   #69
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
the problem with this whole issue is that for so long we have not been able to exercise our rights and when some one does hes a whack job.i for one am glad someone did. if we were able to exercise our rights as we have the right to but are banned from doing so due to our government people would not be alarmed. it wasn't too long ago when average citizens could carry.
we need to stop the ******* match and fight for our rights.
because if this one gets taken away the rest of them will go to the way side rather quickly.

guns set us free and its what keeps us safe from those who wish to harm us.
you take that away and your a victim.or at least a slave to the regime.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:04 PM   #70
Zilmo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2009
Location: At home.
Posts: 369
Quote:
Is it his right to wear the gun? Yup.

Did he help the 2nd Amendment cause? Nope.

To most people, his actions alone make him look like a nutcase.
That's it in a nutshell.
Zilmo is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:11 PM   #71
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Did he help the 2nd Amendment cause? Nope.
Sure he did, he quite likely opened a lot of minds, and eyes, to the fact that the 2A is still alive and well. yours is the same argument that some expressed when people went to the tea party events armed, and it just does not hold water.

While none of his rhetoric may have been specifically aimed at the healthcare issue, he was still making a broad stand against the increasingly troubling (self imposed) power of government.

This is a brilliant statement:

Quote:
But it is crucial that the right, and means to violent overthrow be retained overtly. Meanwhile, there it is, right there in the holster, the ultimate monument to self-governance, where it peaceably remains until needed to oppose a immediate violent threat. That, we should not have a problem with.
Bravo Sir !
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:17 PM   #72
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
Sure he did, he quite likely opened a lot of minds, and eyes, to the fact that the 2A is still alive and well.
In my opinion, the only minds, and eyes he opened were those of the folks that are scared of guns (and politicians that just hate them) and made them say, "You mean open carry is still legal? We better ban that quick or we'll have more nutcases showing up to confront elected officials with guns."

I'm not saying what he did was wrong. His venue however, totally sucked. You do not bring a firearm when meeting the President of the United States.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:35 PM   #73
isanchez2008
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: WA
Posts: 344
If it's legal you can. Anyone telling you otherwise is just running their mouth
isanchez2008 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:38 PM   #74
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Given time to prepare for a Chris Matthews interview...

... I'd have emphasized the importance the US government places on having the Navy perform Freedom of Navigation cruises and flights. These go through international waters and / or airspace which is claimed by another nation, such as the Economic Exclusion Zone of China which we've read about in the news quite a lot, or the Line of Death in the Gulf of Sidra off Libya in the 1980's.

The whole point of steaming or flying through those areas, even though it ostensibly antagonizes countries who are trying to claim waters and airspace outside the internationally recognized 12 nautical miles from their shorelines, is to avoid having the internationally recognized boundaries changed by tacit precedent.

In other words, it would be possible in international assemblies, for an argument to be made that by avoiding the water and air claimed by China, Libya, Cambodia, North Korea (take your pick) the US and other nations have tacitly conceded that those waters and airspaces belong to the claimant countries.

If the US government feels it is worthwhile to antagonize such countries, at risk of possible violence (actual violence, if you count the collision some Chinese F8's caused with our EP3 off Hainan island, or the shootdown of a US Lockheed Constellation off North Korea in the 60's) and politically uncomfortable situations in order to exercise and preserve the right to freedom of navigation, then how is it reasonable for the US government to expect its own citizens not to exercise and preserve their own Constitutional rights?
MLeake is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 04:45 PM   #75
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
Whoah! I had not considered that angle at all, very interesting post. I love "goose vs. gander" discussions.
orangello is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17017 seconds with 7 queries