I will differ with this moron's comments. I personally hold my rights to be absolute whether or not the handwringing, bed-whetting, PC crowd, and the SCOTUS does not. How about viewing it from the other side of the window. I guess you follow in the path of those that say laws and statutes enacted in conflict with the Constitution are correct?!!! Should be an interesting conflict to say the least; this is truly white hat vs. black hat.
In response to the linked article, I would say this- Those who would argue, ‘The courts have ruled no right is absolute’ don’t understand that court rulings are also not absolute, nor are they incontrovertible. Nor do they understand the meaning of “unalienable rights”, or “shall not be infringed”, or our U.S. Constitution which states in part: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
"Men like Nixon, who think that they should be able to carry any firearm they desire, to any place they desire, for any reason, come off as extremists to the vast majority of citizens in this country. This includes all anti-gunners (who think everything we do is extreme), the supermajority of those who don’t really think about guns much at all in the course of their daily lives, and the majority of gun owners as well."
Ah yes the old "super majority". Well well. Bracken is an optimist.
"I’m going to get called a “butter” again over pointing out this inconvenient bit of reality (it’s meant as an insult, deriving from moderate’s argument of, “I support the Second Amendment, but…”), but here’s the thing: Nixon, and radicals like him, are viewed as extremists by most voters on both sides of the issue."
Well yes there "butter bob" you are equivocating in the face of evil so yes I view you as a quisling.
And "voters" on both sides of the issue can continue to "vote" if they think it will help them. It hasn't and it won't.
I agree. Jack Asses like this guy may have already screwed us out of getting licensed open carry in Texas. We will have to wait for this session to wrap up to find out.
Open Carry is a movement . Just as burning your draft card was a movement . You will have good examples and very poor examples of how to go about it . The gun grabber politicians are constantly under some sort of legal indictments but not a word from Mr. Owens . Mr. Owens is constantly armchair editing those that want to stand up for firearms rights . What impresses me most is the age of those demonstrating , they are all young.
Watch the video. It was the cops who acted aggressively. If a man is minding his own business and has committed no crime, leave him alone! If he is an attention whore, ignore him! If he is trying to educate people, most especially the cops, let him educate them. If a dispatcher receives a call of man with a gun, the dispatcher should ask the questions, "What is he doing? Is he harming anyone? Is he threatening to harm anyone? Is he damaging any property?" Then, if dispatching a policeman to take a look is called for, the policeman will now he is approaching a citizen who has, thus far, committed no crime!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you use the analogy that, much like the gay pride parades, open carry normalizes that behavior which people were previously uncomfortable with. We may not agree 100 percent with the methods others use to exercise a right, but we're all fighting for the same thing, I believe. Turmoil amongst our group only aids and comforts the gun grabbers. "Stop bickering amongst yourselves."
There are no absolute rights out there. For example, to have the absolute right to stand in front of your house in the middle of the night screaming, "You're a jackass!!!"? Why not? I have the right of free speech don't I? All rights are subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. If that wasn't the case then laws that preclude bringing a handgun into a prison and giving it to an inmate would be subject to a simple motion in federal court which, if I am not mistaken, has yet to be successful. We have the right, as people, to organize our society within reasonable limits. If you come into my house with an AR-15 I can ask you to leave and if you refuse I can call the police because I don't like that you have a gun on you and they can arrest you. If the right to keep and bear arms was absolute, that would also be the target of simple constitutionality motion.
The truth of the matter is that how you carry and present yourself when discussing your differing views is important. If you don't like that fact that's just too bad. Take recreational marijuana. They had terrible spokespeople that no one would listen to so their cause went nowhere. For decades. Then they got former sheriffs, cops, DEA agents and reasonable sounding lawyers to champion there cause and now Washington, Colorado, Oregon and likely soon Californian came around to their way of thinking.
Even Martin Luther King was willing to wear a tie and speak in eloquent terms to get his point across.
That, however, is just my point of view. And no, I have no objection to you owning a gun but I do get nervous when I see a disheveled man in cammo with a ZZ Top beard staring intensely at me with a multitude of firearms on his person. I am, after all, human.
How much is known about Shawn Nixon? Is there anyone who knows this guy personally for a long time? Reason I ask is: how do we know he's really working for gun rights? Sometimes things aren't what they appear to be. Was Lee H. Oswald really a communist? I put nothing past the powers-that-be when it comes to propaganda ops. If this was an op to make open-carry folks look like wild eyed extremists to the general population then they carried it out quite well.
Aye, our "rights"... the "rights" that will get legislated away if anyone has the audacity to ever exercise them. Those durned extremists!
Inalienable rights aren't supposed to be delicate knick-knacks to be admired in a locked glass case. If one breaks the first time it gets taken out for a spin then I say best to find out now and fix it so it works properly when we really need it.
Doesn't Bob have a bureaucrat to fellate or something?
I wish people would stop publicizing Bob Owens’ “work.” That article is nothing more than a watered down paraphrase of much better pieces written by both Mat Bracken and Mike Vanderboegh. Additionally, Owens is a copsucker of the first order. I stopped following his blog after he celebrated the cops summarially executing Chris Dorner by burning the house down around him a la Waco. To add insult to that injury, he blocked me (and presumably all other dissenters) from comments after I criticized his praise of the barbecue by posting a comment stating that the police state response was irresponsible, reprehensible, and way over the top (remember how the cops wounded several innocent people, riddling their vehicles with dozens of rounds, despite the fact that neither the people nor the vehicles matched the description of Dorner or his vehicle any more than I and my F150 would match a BOLO for the Incredible Hulk driving the Batmobile.) Owens also goes overboard in criticizing the open carry movement and any other gun rights activity that offends his Fuddness. In short, IMNSHO, Owens is a pontificating gasbag unworthy of a following.
Supposed rights defenders and supposed gun rights advocates are POSERS when they chastise someone who does nothing more than openly exercise their rights. It doesn't matter if it is First Amendment Speech, assembly, or Second amendment CARRY rights. As SCOTUS ADMITTED- "The Second Amendment is no different."
They are, with their derision, admitting that they don't care about rights AT ALL. Their goal is to convince someone NOT TO DARE exercise their rights openly. They are, in fact, controllers POSING as advocates! They are liars. Straight up liars.
Owens is a statist lemming who apparently still believes rights are privileges that the govt allows one to have. I stopped reading his crybaby drivel a while ago. Glad I did since it seems I haven't missed much.
Well, I know my opinion is going to go over like a lead brick...
I think Shawn Nixon's heart and soul were in the right place, but I must admit his execution was sloppy. Honestly, I was afraid for Shawn as I was watching that video. My stomach was in knots worried that he was going to get shot by one of those cops.
Shawn made a number of salient points. What struck me is why did he have to be so mean about it. All he was doing was setting a bad example for those cops. Cops don't need anymore bad examples. They have enough bad examples among themselves. It seems to me that Shawn missed an opportunity to make his valid points and educate those cops in a manner that might have resulted in them being a tad more open-minded — or at least more willing to listen to the points Shawn wanted to make.
It makes sense to me to be nice until there is a good reason not to be nice. Then, it's on as the saying goes.
My vote is thumbs up for Shawn's spirit and intentions, but thumbs down on a sloppy execution. This could have provided so much more educational value if only there wasn't all of the meanness going on. Instead, I got an upset stomach and 18 minutes of worry being afraid for Shawn. I'm really glad he didn't get hurt.
Yeah, the guy from article is an asshole. But guess what, being an asshole isn't illegal, just annoying. And any one can be a asshole, just because their opinion or values annoy someone else. I am an asshole, just because I don't hold with the bicoastal values of most of the faux intellectual elite who make up the liberal upper crust, or the Republican house leaders, like Boehner, et al. And remember, assholes get rid of shit.
For how long must we be "nice"? For how long must we have our right infringed and be "nice" about standing up to that usurpation? Those of you whining about the carrier - the one hassled by cops for EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS- why aren't you blaming the cops for STARTING IT, when clearly they had ZERO cause to hassle him to START WITH?!
Oh calls for service have to be answred huh? Yeah. Here's how those "man with a gun" calls should be handled - 9-11.... What's your emergency? Caller.... I just saw a man walking down the street with a gun!!!! 9-11... Sorry, I don't understand your emergency. What's the man doing with the gun? Caller... He's WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH IT!!! 9-11.... Sorry, I still don't understand your emergency. Is he pointing it at people? Caller..... NO, it's slung over his back BUT HES CARRYING IT OUT IN THE OPEN RIGHT DOWN THE SIDEWALK!!!! 9-11.... Ok, I understand now. Ma'am, you need to understand that carrying a gun isn't itself a crime or an emergency due a call to 9-11. Caller.... BUT BUT BUT HES GOT A GUUUNNNN!!!!! 9-11.... Ma'am, please calm down. It's ok that he has a gun in his possession until the point he does something besides carry it - like threaten you or another directly in a robbery attempt or crime of that nature. He has a right to carry that firearm, do you understand that people have the right to keep and bear arms? Caller....click.
24 comments:
I will differ with this moron's comments. I personally hold my rights to be absolute whether or not the handwringing, bed-whetting, PC crowd, and the SCOTUS does not. How about viewing it from the other side of the window. I guess you follow in the path of those that say laws and statutes enacted in conflict with the Constitution are correct?!!! Should be an interesting conflict to say the least; this is truly white hat vs. black hat.
Forrest Gump said it best.
In response to the linked article, I would say this- Those who would argue, ‘The courts have ruled no right is absolute’ don’t understand that court rulings are also not absolute, nor are they incontrovertible. Nor do they understand the meaning of “unalienable rights”, or “shall not be infringed”, or our U.S. Constitution which states in part:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Correction to previous post. Quote is from Declaration of Independence, not U.S. Constitution.
Quoting the 'article':
"Men like Nixon, who think that they should be able to carry any firearm they desire, to any place they desire, for any reason, come off as extremists to the vast majority of citizens in this country. This includes all anti-gunners (who think everything we do is extreme), the supermajority of those who don’t really think about guns much at all in the course of their daily lives, and the majority of gun owners as well."
Ah yes the old "super majority". Well well. Bracken is an optimist.
"I’m going to get called a “butter” again over pointing out this inconvenient bit of reality (it’s meant as an insult, deriving from moderate’s argument of, “I support the Second Amendment, but…”), but here’s the thing: Nixon, and radicals like him, are viewed as extremists by most voters on both sides of the issue."
Well yes there "butter bob" you are equivocating in the face of evil so yes I view you as a quisling.
And "voters" on both sides of the issue can continue to "vote" if they think it will help them. It hasn't and it won't.
I agree. Jack Asses like this guy may have already screwed us out of getting licensed open carry in Texas. We will have to wait for this session to wrap up to find out.
Open Carry is a movement . Just as burning your draft card was a movement . You will have good examples and very poor examples of how to go about it . The gun grabber politicians are constantly under some sort of legal indictments but not a word from Mr. Owens .
Mr. Owens is constantly armchair editing those that want to stand up for firearms rights . What impresses me most is the age of those demonstrating , they are all young.
Watch the video. It was the cops who acted aggressively. If a man is minding his own business and has committed no crime, leave him alone! If he is an attention whore, ignore him! If he is trying to educate people, most especially the cops, let him educate them. If a dispatcher receives a call of man with a gun, the dispatcher should ask the questions, "What is he doing? Is he harming anyone? Is he threatening to harm anyone? Is he damaging any property?" Then, if dispatching a policeman to take a look is called for, the policeman will now he is approaching a citizen who has, thus far, committed no crime!
Mike,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you use the analogy that, much like the gay pride parades, open carry normalizes that behavior which people were previously uncomfortable with. We may not agree 100 percent with the methods others use to exercise a right, but we're all fighting for the same thing, I believe. Turmoil amongst our group only aids and comforts the gun grabbers. "Stop bickering amongst yourselves."
HinMO
"The right to keep & BEAR arms shall not be infringed". No except, no but, no nothin'.
There are no absolute rights out there. For example, to have the absolute right to stand in front of your house in the middle of the night screaming, "You're a jackass!!!"? Why not? I have the right of free speech don't I? All rights are subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. If that wasn't the case then laws that preclude bringing a handgun into a prison and giving it to an inmate would be subject to a simple motion in federal court which, if I am not mistaken, has yet to be successful. We have the right, as people, to organize our society within reasonable limits. If you come into my house with an AR-15 I can ask you to leave and if you refuse I can call the police because I don't like that you have a gun on you and they can arrest you. If the right to keep and bear arms was absolute, that would also be the target of simple constitutionality motion.
The truth of the matter is that how you carry and present yourself when discussing your differing views is important. If you don't like that fact that's just too bad. Take recreational marijuana. They had terrible spokespeople that no one would listen to so their cause went nowhere. For decades. Then they got former sheriffs, cops, DEA agents and reasonable sounding lawyers to champion there cause and now Washington, Colorado, Oregon and likely soon Californian came around to their way of thinking.
Even Martin Luther King was willing to wear a tie and speak in eloquent terms to get his point across.
That, however, is just my point of view. And no, I have no objection to you owning a gun but I do get nervous when I see a disheveled man in cammo with a ZZ Top beard staring intensely at me with a multitude of firearms on his person. I am, after all, human.
How much is known about Shawn Nixon? Is there anyone who knows this guy personally for a long time? Reason I ask is: how do we know he's really working for gun rights? Sometimes things aren't what they appear to be. Was Lee H. Oswald really a communist? I put nothing past the powers-that-be when it comes to propaganda ops. If this was an op to make open-carry folks look like wild eyed extremists to the general population then they carried it out quite well.
Aye, our "rights"... the "rights" that will get legislated away if anyone has the audacity to ever exercise them. Those durned extremists!
Inalienable rights aren't supposed to be delicate knick-knacks to be admired in a locked glass case. If one breaks the first time it gets taken out for a spin then I say best to find out now and fix it so it works properly when we really need it.
Doesn't Bob have a bureaucrat to fellate or something?
#OREGON HOBO#
This video looks like a staged event. The whole incident doesn't pass the smell test.
Can you say "Controlled Opposition"?
I wish people would stop publicizing Bob Owens’ “work.”
That article is nothing more than a watered down paraphrase of much better pieces written by both Mat Bracken and Mike Vanderboegh.
Additionally, Owens is a copsucker of the first order.
I stopped following his blog after he celebrated the cops summarially executing Chris Dorner by burning the house down around him a la Waco.
To add insult to that injury, he blocked me (and presumably all other dissenters) from comments after I criticized his praise of the barbecue by posting a comment stating that the police state response was irresponsible, reprehensible, and way over the top (remember how the cops wounded several innocent people, riddling their vehicles with dozens of rounds, despite the fact that neither the people nor the vehicles matched the description of Dorner or his vehicle any more than I and my F150 would match a BOLO for the Incredible Hulk driving the Batmobile.)
Owens also goes overboard in criticizing the open carry movement and any other gun rights activity that offends his Fuddness.
In short, IMNSHO, Owens is a pontificating gasbag unworthy of a following.
Supposed rights defenders and supposed gun rights advocates are POSERS when they chastise someone who does nothing more than openly exercise their rights. It doesn't matter if it is First Amendment Speech, assembly, or Second amendment CARRY rights. As SCOTUS ADMITTED- "The Second Amendment is no different."
They are, with their derision, admitting that they don't care about rights AT ALL. Their goal is to convince someone NOT TO DARE exercise their rights openly. They are, in fact, controllers POSING as advocates! They are liars. Straight up liars.
Nice comment longbow. Well said.
Owens is a statist lemming who apparently still believes rights are privileges that the govt allows one to have. I stopped reading his crybaby drivel a while ago. Glad I did since it seems I haven't missed much.
Well, I know my opinion is going to go over like a lead brick...
I think Shawn Nixon's heart and soul were in the right place, but I must admit his execution was sloppy. Honestly, I was afraid for Shawn as I was watching that video. My stomach was in knots worried that he was going to get shot by one of those cops.
Shawn made a number of salient points. What struck me is why did he have to be so mean about it. All he was doing was setting a bad example for those cops. Cops don't need anymore bad examples. They have enough bad examples among themselves. It seems to me that Shawn missed an opportunity to make his valid points and educate those cops in a manner that might have resulted in them being a tad more open-minded — or at least more willing to listen to the points Shawn wanted to make.
It makes sense to me to be nice until there is a good reason not to be nice. Then, it's on as the saying goes.
My vote is thumbs up for Shawn's spirit and intentions, but thumbs down on a sloppy execution. This could have provided so much more educational value if only there wasn't all of the meanness going on. Instead, I got an upset stomach and 18 minutes of worry being afraid for Shawn. I'm really glad he didn't get hurt.
If you can legislate something away, how can that something be a right?
Fakery. Pure and simple.
Yeah, the guy from article is an asshole. But guess what, being an asshole isn't illegal, just annoying. And any one can be a asshole, just because their opinion or values annoy someone else. I am an asshole, just because I don't hold with the bicoastal values of most of the faux intellectual elite who make up the liberal upper crust, or the Republican house leaders, like Boehner, et al. And remember, assholes get rid of shit.
For how long must we be "nice"? For how long must we have our right infringed and be "nice" about standing up to that usurpation? Those of you whining about the carrier - the one hassled by cops for EXERCISING HIS RIGHTS- why aren't you blaming the cops for STARTING IT, when clearly they had ZERO cause to hassle him to START WITH?!
Oh calls for service have to be answred huh? Yeah. Here's how those "man with a gun" calls should be handled -
9-11.... What's your emergency?
Caller.... I just saw a man walking down the street with a gun!!!!
9-11... Sorry, I don't understand your emergency. What's the man doing with the gun?
Caller... He's WALKING DOWN THE STREET WITH IT!!!
9-11.... Sorry, I still don't understand your emergency. Is he pointing it at people?
Caller..... NO, it's slung over his back BUT HES CARRYING IT OUT IN THE OPEN RIGHT DOWN THE SIDEWALK!!!!
9-11.... Ok, I understand now. Ma'am, you need to understand that carrying a gun isn't itself a crime or an emergency due a call to 9-11.
Caller.... BUT BUT BUT HES GOT A GUUUNNNN!!!!!
9-11.... Ma'am, please calm down. It's ok that he has a gun in his possession until the point he does something besides carry it - like threaten you or another directly in a robbery attempt or crime of that nature. He has a right to carry that firearm, do you understand that people have the right to keep and bear arms?
Caller....click.
Plant material
Post a Comment