Pistol-Packing Pennsylvania Mom Sues PC
- Thread starter dcal
- Start date
- Status
Unless she painted scary faces on the holster I don't see why her decision to open carry upsets people. I'm much more scared to see power junky security guards or cops with guns than a mother, but somehow people blindly trust those "officers" to be better than a normal citizen.
General Geoff
Member
Legislation is not ok for either one! Where did you get the idea that it was?
Look around - where was the big outrage? Where was the big conservative movement saying "hey - that's not right, you can't do that!"
Nobody had to say "oh - that's okay, no big deal" (although some have implied it in this thread).
What's that saying again? All that's required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing?
Actions speak louder then words..
General Geoff
Member
You're asking nonsmokers to stand up and actively fight for smokers. Do you see the problem here?
Sure you should have the choice and ability to smoke if you want. I support your right to do so. I'm not going to waste my time advocating against smoking bans other than voting "no" on a proposition to ban it. There are bigger fish to fry.
edit; Sinixstar, do you actively campaign against seat belt laws? How about prostitution bans? Or laws against public drunkenness? Or gay marriage? If you've said "no" to any one of these, well, now you understand my point.
Sure you should have the choice and ability to smoke if you want. I support your right to do so. I'm not going to waste my time advocating against smoking bans other than voting "no" on a proposition to ban it. There are bigger fish to fry.
edit; Sinixstar, do you actively campaign against seat belt laws? How about prostitution bans? Or laws against public drunkenness? Or gay marriage? If you've said "no" to any one of these, well, now you understand my point.
two points
smoking is legal, if it wasn't she would be breaking the law, see write your rep for remediation. possession is not useage, therefore she's legal
As for Hamilton I see your point, however the states rights advocates feared a strong central government. Militias were local companies who ultimately reported to the govenor, not the feds. In their time it was the militia, intiated to defend British colonies, that stood to at Lexington and Concord to fight Britain. That's the beauty of check and balance, fed to state to individual who would muster. In the end it was the citizen who would muster or not, kind of a jury nullification in a way. That's why the individual has the right.
smoking is legal, if it wasn't she would be breaking the law, see write your rep for remediation. possession is not useage, therefore she's legal
As for Hamilton I see your point, however the states rights advocates feared a strong central government. Militias were local companies who ultimately reported to the govenor, not the feds. In their time it was the militia, intiated to defend British colonies, that stood to at Lexington and Concord to fight Britain. That's the beauty of check and balance, fed to state to individual who would muster. In the end it was the citizen who would muster or not, kind of a jury nullification in a way. That's why the individual has the right.
So then why should you expect the same consideration when it comes to 2nd amendment rights?
what it comes down to, very simply, is "Right is Right".
There may be plenty of people out there who feel the same way about the 2nd amendment as you feel about smoking. "I'll vote on it if it comes up, but why should I fight for it?" Well let me ask you, did people get to vote on the '93/'94 legislation?
Leading by example is always the best leadership. If we want to lead the average mindless masses out of this "it doesn't effect me" fog - falling into the same trap ourselves on other issues is a pretty bad example...
So what you're saying is that going back as far as 1787, there has been some debate as to the purpose (and if you read some of the other opinions out there) and the usefulness of the militia, what it means, how it operates, how it's commanded....
General Geoff
Member
I DON'T expect non gunnies to be passionate about the RKBA. I don't even expect them to be in favour of it at all. I hope they are, but definitely don't expect it.
As I said in my previous post, do you actively campaign for prostitution, and gay marriage? If not, well, then you're a pot calling the kettle black.
Well, that's where you might be surprised to an extent.
As with any issue - there's a "for" population, and and "against" population. At the end of the day however - neither one tends to be a majority - and the issue is up to the percentage in the middle to decide. Heck - even look at the last few elections. They weren't decided by the partisans - they were decided by the "independants" and the "undecideds".
If you only look at the people who are already solidly on your side, and don't look to the middle of the road people - the "non gunnies" who are also not "anti gunnies" - guess who's going to try to pick all those people up to their side?
General Geoff
Member
The entire point of this website is to spread the word about the RKBA, and to help keep it preserved. How would I be surprised at this 'revelation" that most people are fence sitters? The very reason I'm a member of this forum is to help educate and hopefully turn a few of these fence sitters to our side. I don't see what you're getting at, at all.
I just caught this line, and as a matter of fact on the gay marriage thing, I do. The prostitution issue doesn't really seem to have a whole lot of traction, or a whole lot to really get behind, especailly here in NV where it's already legal.
I'm not gay, but personally i could care less if two dudes got married. If it's really a sin like some people like to believe, well - they'll end up answering for it sooner or later - whether they're married or not.
Prostitution, same thing. I'd rather see it legalized and controlled in some way - then have these girls walkin the streets spreading disease.
General Geoff
Member
Well sir, you have more free time than I do, if you can actively campaign for so many things. Kudos to you.
M203Sniper
member
I don't see a problem with that. There are people who do not Carry a sidearm for whatever reason and still fight for your ability to do so. I'm not a homosexual but I do believe that they can marry whoever they want. I don't believe in abortion but believe it's a woman's choice and a first step on a the road to an educated society.
General Geoff
Member
Big difference between "working towards" and "expecting" something to happen. I'm a cynical bastard.
moi_self26
Member
The LEO was completely out of line. I don't think that what this woman having her firearm out where people could see it was "being an arrogant/selfish prick" or in any way comparable to blowing smoke in people's faces. Aside from the fact that it's her right to carry openly, you don't even know if that was her intention...or how "open" it was...perhaps her shirt that was covering it rode up and exposed part of the holster, perhaps she had a coat on and removed it without thinking (since she was carrying legally). The fact is is that she was within the law and I'll bet that had the officer approached her and said something to the effect of "excuse me mam', I'm sorry to bother you, but your open carrying is making other parents/children nervous or scared, would you mind please covering it up?" she probably would have happily done so. It is completely absurd that people are so easily scared by the mere presence of a gun, especially in an oc/cc state. This woman in particular was at her kids soccer practice where the other parents likely were familiar with her at least on a level to know she wasn't a threat, it sounds like it was merely some catty, expletive-ey, woman non-sence stuff going on.
moi_self26
Member
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying "perhaps", because you seem to be making lots of assumptions to the other line of reasoning. I'm just trying to point out that from the information given there, there is not enough details to conclude that she was being inconsiderate or intentionally provocative.
General Geoff
Member
No, she was open carrying deliberately, no shirt hike-up or anything like that. And no officer made contact with her at the game. One of the other parents "taddled" on her and told the sheriff, and the sheriff subsequently revoked her license to carry.
Meleanie appealed the revocation, and subsequently had her license returned at the hearing.
Meleanie appealed the revocation, and subsequently had her license returned at the hearing.
For most uses, I agree.
You shouldn't be going around a populated area shooting at trash on the sidewalk anymore than you should be going around poisoning people with second-hand smoke.
But there are some extreme situations where a gun can be used in public to save lives. Under normal circumstances discharging your firearm in a mall would be totally unacceptable but if some nut walked in and opened fire it would be logical for an armed person to stop him. Obvisously, this is why police officers carry guns. (I highly doubt that they carry them around all day just because they're planning to go to the range after work.)
While I think it's hard to make a valid argument for lighting up a cigarette in a public place where it may harm someone else under most circumstances, I suppose if you were being mugged and you could get one lit fast enough to fend off your attacker with it, maybe then it would make sense.
This should be regularly included in most of these kind of cases. In most jurisdictions, perhaps all, malicious prosecution is a felony and should be filed as a criminal charge in the State courts.
More of these should take much of the zeal out of some of the official oppression that goes on in this country right now.
---------------------------
http://gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
I'll drive my Corvette to the soocer game. But we all know that Corvettes are fast dangerous cars, and should be kept away from children, and only the police and the military are competent enough to drive a car that goes that fast. So someone calls the police because a Corvette is parked near where kids play soccer, an obvious threat to public safety...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
