Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => General FSP Discussion => Topic started by: kelteckiller on June 12, 2008, 01:59:54 pm

Title: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 12, 2008, 01:59:54 pm
I just wanted to say something in here.  I am not a part of the Free State Project.  I think that your core ideas and values are good.  I do, however, disagree with the way you project your message.  I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.  I am not saying it is wrong to open carry, or wrong to fight for your right to open carry.  I just think there are better ways to go about it.  Those cops are just trying to do what is right. I realize it is legal to open carry.  They are merely just responding to people complaining about someone with a gun.  They don't know the situation.  They have to at least check it out to make sure it is kosher.  I just think you are making their difficult job even harder.  I have MANY guns and carry and shoot them often.  I will never give them up and also agree with fighting to keep them, but there is a responsible way to do this.  Provoking incident and arrest is not one of them...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: error on June 12, 2008, 02:18:25 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 12, 2008, 02:20:32 pm
Me neither
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 12, 2008, 03:05:47 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 12, 2008, 04:15:11 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

hi dittle dittle...and all that ditto jazz...

It should be noted however, that there is nothing "in the law" about whether you have a body part on your sidearm or not...
And if a person wanted to use a hand on the grip as their weapon retention method...then so be it...
Holding on to your sidearm is not a crime...nor is it a threat...weapon retention is discretionary...

Many people walk around with their sidearms in their hands in their pockets, purses, and bags...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 12, 2008, 04:18:08 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

It is the video your group posted on Youtube.  They are claiming to be apart of your group.  I forget the town in NH they were in, but it was DEFINITELY a free stater.  Also you guys did the public disgrace at the airport when your leader wanted to get arrested to prove a point about the national ID...again....no need to provoke arrest...  Just my opinion.  I just think you guys are going about making your point in the complete wrong way.  You are coming off as a bunch of nut jobs.  I am not saying you are nuts, but that is the public perception.  This is a view from outside the box....you should listen to it.  I am not saying I am right, not saying I am wrong...just an opinion.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 12, 2008, 04:19:54 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

hi dittle dittle...and all that ditto jazz...

It should be noted however, that there is nothing "in the law" about whether you have a body part on your sidearm or not...
And if a person wanted to use a hand on the grip as their weapon retention method...then so be it...
Holding on to your sidearm is not a crime...nor is it a threat...weapon retention is discretionary...

Many people walk around with their sidearms in their hands in their pockets, purses, and bags...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



Well, the guy doing the open carry said to the officer that he felt threatened by the officer resting his arm on HIS firearm, so apparently your people think it IS threatening
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 12, 2008, 04:31:58 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

It is the video your group posted on Youtube.  They are claiming to be apart of your group.  I forget the town in NH they were in, but it was DEFINITELY a free stater.  Also you guys did the public disgrace at the airport when your leader wanted to get arrested to prove a point about the national ID...again....no need to provoke arrest...  Just my opinion.  I just think you guys are going about making your point in the complete wrong way.  You are coming off as a bunch of nut jobs.  I am not saying you are nuts, but that is the public perception.  This is a view from outside the box....you should listen to it.  I am not saying I am right, not saying I am wrong...just an opinion.

please advise video location and the exact time during the video where an identifiable person puts their hand on their sidearm so we can authenticate this event...

thanks!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 12, 2008, 04:34:57 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

hi dittle dittle...and all that ditto jazz...

It should be noted however, that there is nothing "in the law" about whether you have a body part on your sidearm or not...
And if a person wanted to use a hand on the grip as their weapon retention method...then so be it...
Holding on to your sidearm is not a crime...nor is it a threat...weapon retention is discretionary...

Many people walk around with their sidearms in their hands in their pockets, purses, and bags...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



Well, the guy doing the open carry said to the officer that he felt threatened by the officer resting his arm on HIS firearm, so apparently your people think it IS threatening

first of all...
there is no "your people"...
we are all Individual Sovereign Human Beings...

while it is possible that someone making a video stated to another person that they felt "threatened"...that doesn't mean that any other person would feel that way...

thanks!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 12, 2008, 09:47:31 pm
Also you guys did the public disgrace at the airport when your leader wanted to get arrested to prove a point about the national ID...again....no need to provoke arrest... 

What the heck are you even talking about?  Leader?  What leader?  There is no leader of "us guys".  You must have "us" confused with a different group.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 12, 2008, 09:55:46 pm
Well, the guy doing the open carry said to the officer that he felt threatened by the officer resting his arm on HIS firearm, so apparently your people think it IS threatening

Touching gun... not a threat.

Touching gun while ordering someone around... threat.

Simple, yes?

Joe

[edited for random spelling error]
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 13, 2008, 06:25:06 am
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

hi dittle dittle...and all that ditto jazz...

It should be noted however, that there is nothing "in the law" about whether you have a body part on your sidearm or not...
And if a person wanted to use a hand on the grip as their weapon retention method...then so be it...
Holding on to your sidearm is not a crime...nor is it a threat...weapon retention is discretionary...

Many people walk around with their sidearms in their hands in their pockets, purses, and bags...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!




http://youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

Ridley conducted himself professionally.  The other guy was just abrasive.  NOT necessary!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Denis Goddard on June 13, 2008, 06:34:32 am
wanted to get arrested to prove a point about the national ID...again....You are coming off as a bunch of nut jobs
I agree, that guy is a complete nut job.

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 13, 2008, 07:05:50 am
But, a nice nutjob ;D

Keltec,  The first thing the nutjob would suggest to you is that you are free to move to NH and work on the Freedom Front any way that pleases you.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 13, 2008, 07:56:08 am
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

hi dittle dittle...and all that ditto jazz...

It should be noted however, that there is nothing "in the law" about whether you have a body part on your sidearm or not...
And if a person wanted to use a hand on the grip as their weapon retention method...then so be it...
Holding on to your sidearm is not a crime...nor is it a threat...weapon retention is discretionary...

Many people walk around with their sidearms in their hands in their pockets, purses, and bags...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!




http://youtube.com/watch?v=5FWXnK5UyRI

Ridley conducted himself professionally.  The other guy was just abrasive.  NOT necessary!

IIRC...
This event was initiated by a NH "state" "trooper" when said perpetrator "authoritarian" was present in a vehicle on Elm Street in Manchester.  Said "authoritarian" observed a peaceful and peace-loving victim walking northbound on the west sidewalk along Elm Street in front of the Rockwell facility.  Said "authoritarian" initiated an aggressive confrontation with the victim and restricted the victim's peaceful movement while verbally and physically threatening and harassing the peaceful and peace-loving victim.  The perpetrating "authoritarian" used radio communications to call other, more informed(state less informed than city?!?) "city" "authoritarians" to the location.  The additional "city" "authoritarians" were able to educate the deficient "state" "authoritarian" and the perpetration of the aggression towards the peaceful and peace-loving victim was terminated by the responding "city" "authoritarians".

Peaceful and peace-loving victim "Ridley" was conducting himself just fine BEFORE the aggression/force/fraud was perpetrated against him by the "authoritarian"...

"Ridley" wasn't performing any "profession"...he was WALKING...peacefully along a sidewalk...and there was NO "legitimate" "reason" for being victimized...

"Ridley" didn't NEED to "act" in ANY certain way...other than to continue peacefully along his way...IGNORING any perpetrations and/or intrusions along his peaceful journey...

The "other" "guy" was entirely correct in his outrage of this perpetration of aggression/force/fraud upon a peaceful and peace-loving Individual Sovereign Human Being...

It's just unfortunate that there weren't MORE video cameras and MORE outraged peaceful and peace-loving Individual Sovereign Human Beings there EXPRESSING their OUTRAGE...

As time progresses we will observe MANY MORE outraged Individual Sovereign Human Beings rightfully expressing their ANIMOSITY and OUTRAGE at the aggression/force/fraud of the "authoritarians" and all the rest of the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

For most of us...this can't happen quick enough...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 13, 2008, 08:02:53 am
But, a nice nutjob ;D

Keltec,  The first thing the nutjob would suggest to you is that you are free to move to NH and work on the Freedom Front any way that pleases you.

It's a sad period in human history when peaceful and peace-loving Individual Sovereign Human Beings, as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle (which FULLY respects each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being's Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights), are disrespected so viciously by being related to as "nutjobs"...

The only "nutjob" we see is "kelteckiller"...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 13, 2008, 08:03:58 am
Well, the guy doing the open carry said to the officer that he felt threatened by the officer resting his arm on HIS firearm, so apparently your people think it IS threatening

Touching gun... not a threat.

Toughing gun while ordering someone around... threat.

Simple, yes?

Joe

Simple Indeed!

go figure...

rad

enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: error on June 13, 2008, 08:28:14 am
Russell definitely seems over the top in that video. Then again he was pretty pissed off. And you might be pissed off too if someone was harassing one of your friends for no reason.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 13, 2008, 08:38:13 am
Russell definitely seems over the top in that video. Then again he was pretty pissed off. And you might be pissed off too if someone was harassing one of your friends for no reason.

Well founded animosity and outrage indeed...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 13, 2008, 09:37:32 am
But, a nice nutjob ;D

Keltec,  The first thing the nutjob would suggest to you is that you are free to move to NH and work on the Freedom Front any way that pleases you.

It's a sad period in human history when peaceful and peace-loving Individual Sovereign Human Beings, as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle (which FULLY respects each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being's Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights), are disrespected so viciously by being related to as "nutjobs"...

The only "nutjob" we see is "kelteckiller"...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!


The only inherent inalienable irrevocable human right... is freedom of will. The right to life, liberty, and property is a social contract, and is many times ignored by sovereign individuals.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 13, 2008, 09:42:58 am
The only inherent inalienable irrevocable human right... is freedom of will. The right to life, liberty, and property is a social contract, and is many times ignored by sovereign individuals.

Just because someone can violate another's rights, does not make those rights a "social contract" (especially given that there is no such thing as a social contract).

The right inherent in humanity is self-ownership.  All other actual rights are derivatives thereof.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 13, 2008, 01:36:24 pm
But, a nice nutjob ;D

Keltec,  The first thing the nutjob would suggest to you is that you are free to move to NH and work on the Freedom Front any way that pleases you.


I was born and raised here...I want to make this very clear...I AGREE with open carry, gun rights, constitutional rights, etc...My argument is the method in which you go about projecting your ideas to the public.  Constructive criticism...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 13, 2008, 01:47:55 pm
I was born and raised here...I want to make this very clear...I AGREE with open carry, gun rights, constitutional rights, etc...My argument is the method in which you go about projecting your ideas to the public.  Constructive criticism...

I don't mind constructive criticism.  I just didn't think your criticism was particularly constructive.  Further, you were criticizing something that, to the best of my knowledge, never even occurred.  Your facts are all wrong, either intentionally or by mistake.  Nowhere did a free stater (nor anyone else I'm aware of) "go up to a police officer and provoke them" by putting a hand on a weapon.  And no "leader" of any group that I'm aware of intentionally got arrested at an airport.

So, criticism?  Fine.  Constructive criticism?  Even better.  Criticism of things that you either made up or confused with other events?  Totally useless!

I'm glad you're more or less on board with the core ideas of the FSP.  The FSP needs all the friends it can get -- particularly NH natives!  You just need to refine your technique a little bit, and offer constructive criticisms of things that actually happened.   :)   <---- Now THAT is constructive criticism.   ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 08:42:05 am
I was born and raised here...I want to make this very clear...I AGREE with open carry, gun rights, constitutional rights, etc...My argument is the method in which you go about projecting your ideas to the public.  Constructive criticism...

I don't mind constructive criticism.  I just didn't think your criticism was particularly constructive.  Further, you were criticizing something that, to the best of my knowledge, never even occurred.  Your facts are all wrong, either intentionally or by mistake.  Nowhere did a free stater (nor anyone else I'm aware of) "go up to a police officer and provoke them" by putting a hand on a weapon.  And no "leader" of any group that I'm aware of intentionally got arrested at an airport.

So, criticism?  Fine.  Constructive criticism?  Even better.  Criticism of things that you either made up or confused with other events?  Totally useless!

I'm glad you're more or less on board with the core ideas of the FSP.  The FSP needs all the friends it can get -- particularly NH natives!  You just need to refine your technique a little bit, and offer constructive criticisms of things that actually happened.   :)   <---- Now THAT is constructive criticism.   ;D

Those two events did happen.  The airport thing was back in 2003 or maybe 2004...around there.  There were MANY Porcupines there.  The other one is on Youtube, I just can't find it.  He also stated he was with the FSP and there were a couple other guys with him.  He was inappropriate in his interaction.  Am I saying the cops were right or wrong?  No.  I am merely speaking on the actions of that one individual.
Bottom line is, I just don't agree with your groups method of voicing opinions.  That is MY opinion.  You aren't going to sway me and I am not going to sway you, but I will put my opinion out there.  Don't feel like I am attacking you, but if I think someone is a nut job...I will call em that.  I have lived in this state for 3 decades, my ENTIRE life, and it has been great.  I carry a weapon ALL the time and NEVER get a problem.  I use COMMON sense and COMMON courtesy where I carry the thing.  I don't bring it ANYWHERE near alcohol I.E. bars...that is just irresponsible, and I don't carry it a few other choice places.  I lock it in my vehicle out of sight.  Why create a scene?  I understand it is your right, but there is common sense and common courtesy that comes into play...in my opinion...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 08:54:44 am
#
Keene man arrested in airport protest
Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:54:05 AM · by kingattax · 38 replies · 899+ views
Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2005
MANCHESTER, N.H. - A Keene man who planned to try to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence was arrested Saturday at Manchester Airport. Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures and refusing to leave the screening area, according to the Rockingham County sheriff's department. He was charged with criminal trespassing and was being held at the Rockingham County jail. Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion. ``They're not going...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 08:57:38 am
#
Keene man arrested in airport protest
Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:54:05 AM · by kingattax · 38 replies · 899+ views
Associated Press ^ | June 11, 2005
MANCHESTER, N.H. - A Keene man who planned to try to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence was arrested Saturday at Manchester Airport. Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures and refusing to leave the screening area, according to the Rockingham County sheriff's department. He was charged with criminal trespassing and was being held at the Rockingham County jail. Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion. ``They're not going...


http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1007

There is one of the ones I was talking about.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 14, 2008, 10:16:03 am
Those two events did happen.  The airport thing was back in 2003 or maybe 2004...around there.  There were MANY Porcupines there.

Yes, I'm aware that Russell Kanning went to the airport and was arrested.  You specifically said that "our leader" was arrested.  That's why I went out of my way to point out that there is no leader, and that you must be thinking of something else.  All you had to do was say, "Ok, some guy who happens to be in the FSP intentionally got arrested at the airport", and there wouldn't be a problem.  Don't play fast and loose with the facts, that's all I'm saying.

Quote
The other one is on Youtube, I just can't find it.  He also stated he was with the FSP and there were a couple other guys with him.  He was inappropriate in his interaction.  Am I saying the cops were right or wrong?  No.  I am merely speaking on the actions of that one individual.

Maybe you're thinking of Dave Ridley's run-in with Manchester cops?  As far as I know, he did not "go up to a police officer and provoke them" by putting a hand on a weapon.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it.  Dave acted totally appropriately with the cops, and the cops were the ones who initiated the confrontation.  Dave was just walking from his car to Murphy's if I'm remembering it right.  He was polite, completely non-threatening, and abided by the law during the entire encounter.  I fail to see how anyone would object to his behavior in that video.  In fact, as a result of that incident, the mayor of Manchester issued a memorandum to his police force to remind them that open carry is lawful, and to stop harassing people who are breaking no law.

Quote
Bottom line is, I just don't agree with your groups method of voicing opinions.  That is MY opinion.  You aren't going to sway me and I am not going to sway you, but I will put my opinion out there.  Don't feel like I am attacking you, but if I think someone is a nut job...I will call em that.  I have lived in this state for 3 decades, my ENTIRE life, and it has been great.  I carry a weapon ALL the time and NEVER get a problem.  I use COMMON sense and COMMON courtesy where I carry the thing.  I don't bring it ANYWHERE near alcohol I.E. bars...that is just irresponsible, and I don't carry it a few other choice places.  I lock it in my vehicle out of sight.  Why create a scene?  I understand it is your right, but there is common sense and common courtesy that comes into play...in my opinion...

I understand and respect your opinion.  I'm in favor of common courtesy and common sense as well.  Some people do things a bit differently, but I can hardly fault someone for acting lawfully (i.e., not going out of his way to provoke anyone), politely, and justly.  If you're trying to attack Dave Ridley's polite method of conducting himself lawfully -- or disobeying what he believes to be unjust laws -- you're not going to find much sympathy.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 11:00:23 am
Those two events did happen.  The airport thing was back in 2003 or maybe 2004...around there.  There were MANY Porcupines there.

Yes, I'm aware that Russell Kanning went to the airport and was arrested.  You specifically said that "our leader" was arrested.  That's why I went out of my way to point out that there is no leader, and that you must be thinking of something else.  All you had to do was say, "Ok, some guy who happens to be in the FSP intentionally got arrested at the airport", and there wouldn't be a problem.  Don't play fast and loose with the facts, that's all I'm saying.

Quote
The other one is on Youtube, I just can't find it.  He also stated he was with the FSP and there were a couple other guys with him.  He was inappropriate in his interaction.  Am I saying the cops were right or wrong?  No.  I am merely speaking on the actions of that one individual.

Maybe you're thinking of Dave Ridley's run-in with Manchester cops?  As far as I know, he did not "go up to a police officer and provoke them" by putting a hand on a weapon.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it.  Dave acted totally appropriately with the cops, and the cops were the ones who initiated the confrontation.  Dave was just walking from his car to Murphy's if I'm remembering it right.  He was polite, completely non-threatening, and abided by the law during the entire encounter.  I fail to see how anyone would object to his behavior in that video.  In fact, as a result of that incident, the mayor of Manchester issued a memorandum to his police force to remind them that open carry is lawful, and to stop harassing people who are breaking no law.

Quote
Bottom line is, I just don't agree with your groups method of voicing opinions.  That is MY opinion.  You aren't going to sway me and I am not going to sway you, but I will put my opinion out there.  Don't feel like I am attacking you, but if I think someone is a nut job...I will call em that.  I have lived in this state for 3 decades, my ENTIRE life, and it has been great.  I carry a weapon ALL the time and NEVER get a problem.  I use COMMON sense and COMMON courtesy where I carry the thing.  I don't bring it ANYWHERE near alcohol I.E. bars...that is just irresponsible, and I don't carry it a few other choice places.  I lock it in my vehicle out of sight.  Why create a scene?  I understand it is your right, but there is common sense and common courtesy that comes into play...in my opinion...

I understand and respect your opinion.  I'm in favor of common courtesy and common sense as well.  Some people do things a bit differently, but I can hardly fault someone for acting lawfully (i.e., not going out of his way to provoke anyone), politely, and justly.  If you're trying to attack Dave Ridley's polite method of conducting himself lawfully -- or disobeying what he believes to be unjust laws -- you're not going to find much sympathy.

I tried to be very clear, in that, I did not think that Ridley was doing anything wrong.  The other guy was overreacting.  The Manchester PD is not the video I am referring to.  I will find the one I am referring to...give me a little time.  there are a couple videos on Youtube apparently...The guy I am talking about is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 14, 2008, 03:47:32 pm
I tried to be very clear, in that, I did not think that Ridley was doing anything wrong.  The other guy was overreacting.  The Manchester PD is not the video I am referring to.  I will find the one I am referring to...give me a little time.  there are a couple videos on Youtube apparently...The guy I am talking about is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed...

Are you talking about a video in which Lauren Canario was pulled over and refused to say anything to the police officer, and refused to hand over her license and registration (which she does not have)?  Later in the video, her passengers are standing outside the car at night with some police officers, and the person with the camera is questioning why the police officers have their hands on their guns.  When the police officers state something like "that's just how we like to keep our hands, we're not threatening you" or something along those lines, the cameraman asks, "would it be OK if we put our hands on our guns then?"  Of course the police officers tell them no, and the cameraman points out that he believes the cops are being hypocritical.

Is that the video you're talking about?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 04:11:15 pm
I tried to be very clear, in that, I did not think that Ridley was doing anything wrong.  The other guy was overreacting.  The Manchester PD is not the video I am referring to.  I will find the one I am referring to...give me a little time.  there are a couple videos on Youtube apparently...The guy I am talking about is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed...

Are you talking about a video in which Lauren Canario was pulled over and refused to say anything to the police officer, and refused to hand over her license and registration (which she does not have)?  Later in the video, her passengers are standing outside the car at night with some police officers, and the person with the camera is questioning why the police officers have their hands on their guns.  When the police officers state something like "that's just how we like to keep our hands, we're not threatening you" or something along those lines, the cameraman asks, "would it be OK if we put our hands on our guns then?"  Of course the police officers tell them no, and the cameraman points out that he believes the cops are being hypocritical.

Is that the video you're talking about?

YES!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 14, 2008, 04:26:41 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 14, 2008, 06:08:40 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of exactly which video it was you were referring to.

Unfortunately we find -- once again -- that your original criticism is based on things that never happened.  You had complained that FSPers provoked cops by approaching them with their hands on their weapons.  This did not happen.  The FSPers (if they are FSPers; I don't know who these people are actually) were complaining about the police putting hands on their own weapons, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the police disallowing them from doing the same.

You have repeatedly asserted that certain things happened that never happened, and proceeded to criticize them.  What is anyone supposed to make of this?

If you want people to take your opinions seriously, I would suggest being a little more careful with your facts in the future.  Your credibility is seriously compromised when you accuse people of doing things they didn't, and then berate them for it.  It makes it much harder for people to take you seriously.  That's just a little bit of candid, no BS advice -- completely free of charge.  :)

I understand that the cops are people too, and that they have families to worry about.  How about the people detained in the video?  Do they not have families to worry about?  Lauren committed the egregious act of speeding (sarcasm), and then refusing to speak to the officer.  The other people in the video committed the heinous (sarcasm) offense of daring to ask a police officer why their hands are on their weapons -- a reasonable question in my opinion.  One person was arrested and went to jail, and the others were stranded on the side of the road that night.  I understand that you have sympathy for the cops, but what about your sympathy for the rest of the people in the video who harmed no one?  It seems you have a rather one-sided view of things -- just something for you to consider.

As for your comment on speeding: are you kidding me?  I dare you to claim that you, your family, your friends, and 99% of the people on the road in NH never speed.  Because if you do so, you'll be lying.  Don't try to pretend that speeding is some horrible sin, and then attach that to the FSP in some lame attempt at guilt-by-association.  It's a ridiculous and absurd red herring.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 14, 2008, 06:17:40 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

THOSE jackboots and their friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

ARE NO MORE "IMPORTANT" OR "VALUABLE" OR "PRIVILEGED" THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING...

Each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights...

Along with the right to life, liberty, and property...each and every one has the right to be left alone and an OBLIGATION to leave everyone else alone...

Looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries perpetrate aggression/force/fraud as they violate the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Ron Helwig on June 15, 2008, 07:43:52 am
THOSE jackboots and their friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

ARE NO MORE "IMPORTANT" OR "VALUABLE" OR "PRIVILEGED" THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING...

Rob is absolutely correct, although I would try to put it in less strident language.

The idea that cops can have their hands on their guns but commoners can't is the same as the idea that cops can have guns and commoners can't. That idea "is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind". (see NH Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 10 - Right of Revolutiuon (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html))
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:49:23 am
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of exactly which video it was you were referring to.

Unfortunately we find -- once again -- that your original criticism is based on things that never happened.  You had complained that FSPers provoked cops by approaching them with their hands on their weapons.  This did not happen.  The FSPers (if they are FSPers; I don't know who these people are actually) were complaining about the police putting hands on their own weapons, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the police disallowing them from doing the same.

You have repeatedly asserted that certain things happened that never happened, and proceeded to criticize them.  What is anyone supposed to make of this?

If you want people to take your opinions seriously, I would suggest being a little more careful with your facts in the future.  Your credibility is seriously compromised when you accuse people of doing things they didn't, and then berate them for it.  It makes it much harder for people to take you seriously.  That's just a little bit of candid, no BS advice -- completely free of charge.  :)

I understand that the cops are people too, and that they have families to worry about.  How about the people detained in the video?  Do they not have families to worry about?  Lauren committed the egregious act of speeding (sarcasm), and then refusing to speak to the officer.  The other people in the video committed the heinous (sarcasm) offense of daring to ask a police officer why their hands are on their weapons -- a reasonable question in my opinion.  One person was arrested and went to jail, and the others were stranded on the side of the road that night.  I understand that you have sympathy for the cops, but what about your sympathy for the rest of the people in the video who harmed no one?  It seems you have a rather one-sided view of things -- just something for you to consider.

As for your comment on speeding: are you kidding me?  I dare you to claim that you, your family, your friends, and 99% of the people on the road in NH never speed.  Because if you do so, you'll be lying.  Don't try to pretend that speeding is some horrible sin, and then attach that to the FSP in some lame attempt at guilt-by-association.  It's a ridiculous and absurd red herring.

First of all, I apologize for speaking incorrectly.  I was making statements off of memory.  I was wrong and I do sincerely apologize.  I still disagree though.  Lauren did not JUST speed and not speak to the officer.  She didn't have a license and a registration.  It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

The other people were "stranded" on the side of the road on their own accord.  The police officer politely asked them if they had someone that could come down and give them a ride.  They chose to not say anything.  The cop can't just give her car to someone that doesn't own it....  Stop making victims out of people who are making their own bed.

Listen, some of my "facts" were HIGHLY distorted due to me going off of memory of something I watched a while back, but my bottom line stands.  I really think FSP needs to reevaluate their method of dispersing their message.  FSP is coming off as a bunch of gun toting whackos.  I KNOW this isn't the case, but if you ask the majority of the people outside the group, that is what they think.

The only reason I think you guys need to seriously address that is because of the effectiveness of your message.  As I stated in the beginning, I think you guys have some GREAT standpoints, I don't agree with how you put it out there.  I think if you changed strategy a little you would get more people on your side and probably get some good changes in this state.  I don't think that is harsh criticism...I have a tough time getting across what I am trying to say, but I hope this came off as helpful and not attacking....
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:56:56 am
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

THOSE jackboots and their friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

ARE NO MORE "IMPORTANT" OR "VALUABLE" OR "PRIVILEGED" THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING...

Each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights...

Along with the right to life, liberty, and property...each and every one has the right to be left alone and an OBLIGATION to leave everyone else alone...

Looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries perpetrate aggression/force/fraud as they violate the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



They aren't LESS important, but in that situation the cops are REACTING to their REACTION...what i mean by that, is the cops can't just go up and shoot them...If one of the guys with a gun (or even a fist) decides to shoot or throw a punch.  That person has already started their action. The cop then has to (in a split second) see the threat, and REACT to it.  I think if that were me, I would have my hand pretty close to the piece.  We need to look at the totality of the circumstances here.  It is the middle of the night (grandma isn't out then!), people in the car are acting strange (99% of people are going to at least speak with the cops), and two people have guns.  I don't think the cop having his wrist resting of the tang of his HOLSTERED weapon is a threat.  The gun couldn't accidentally go off, it wasn't pointed in an unsafe direction.  I think the cops were VERY professional in this video...matter of fact I would say the initial officer was OVER kind (is that a word?  :-) )
 
What the hell is a jackboot anyway???  You need to come up with a 21st century word for that one...

That's all I got...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:58:06 am
THOSE jackboots and their friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

ARE NO MORE "IMPORTANT" OR "VALUABLE" OR "PRIVILEGED" THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING...

Rob is absolutely correct, although I would try to put it in less strident language.

The idea that cops can have their hands on their guns but commoners can't is the same as the idea that cops can have guns and commoners can't. That idea "is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind". (see NH Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 10 - Right of Revolutiuon (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html))

That is a COMPLETE apples and oranges scenario!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:55:48 am
First of all, I apologize for speaking incorrectly.  I was making statements off of memory.  I was wrong and I do sincerely apologize.  I still disagree though.  Lauren did not JUST speed and not speak to the officer.  She didn't have a license and a registration.  It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.

Why not?  If you want to get legal about it, the State Constitution says that you are supposed to resist unjust laws, not just go along with them...

"The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

If you want to be practical about it, it was "the law" that my ancestors were supposed to be exterminated, and that anyone who knew where one was hiding was supposed to turn them in.  I'm sure glad that some folks had the courage to ignore "the law" and shelter them, instead of doing the "legal" thing and turning them in...

They aren't LESS important, but in that situation the cops are REACTING to their REACTION...what i mean by that, is the cops can't just go up and shoot them...If one of the guys with a gun (or even a fist) decides to shoot or throw a punch.  That person has already started their action. The cop then has to (in a split second) see the threat, and REACT to it.  I think if that were me, I would have my hand pretty close to the piece.  We need to look at the totality of the circumstances here.  It is the middle of the night (grandma isn't out then!), people in the car are acting strange (99% of people are going to at least speak with the cops), and two people have guns.  I don't think the cop having his wrist resting of the tang of his HOLSTERED weapon is a threat.  The gun couldn't accidentally go off, it wasn't pointed in an unsafe direction.  I think the cops were VERY professional in this video...matter of fact I would say the initial officer was OVER kind (is that a word?  :-) )

The cops were the "attackers" in this case.  They attacked peaceful people who were minding their own business.  If anyone was justified in "reacting," it was those who managed to "behave professionally" and simply ask a question.

If it's not threatening when someone attacks you and them grabs his gun, then it certainly is not threatening if you grab your gun when you are the victim of an attack...  Which they didn't even do.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 15, 2008, 10:45:53 am
THOSE jackboots and their friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

ARE NO MORE "IMPORTANT" OR "VALUABLE" OR "PRIVILEGED" THAN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN HUMAN BEING...

Rob is absolutely correct, although I would try to put it in less strident language.

The idea that cops can have their hands on their guns but commoners can't is the same as the idea that cops can have guns and commoners can't. That idea "is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind". (see NH Constitution Bill of Rights, Article 10 - Right of Revolutiuon (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html))

That is a COMPLETE apples and oranges scenario!

Please explain why you feel this way.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 11:07:20 am
First of all, I apologize for speaking incorrectly.  I was making statements off of memory.  I was wrong and I do sincerely apologize.

It's OK, people make mistakes.  Kudos for admitting you were wrong.  That's hard to do (especially in a protracted debate), and you stepped right up and did it.  I certainly appreciate that 

Quote
I still disagree though.  Lauren did not JUST speed and not speak to the officer.  She didn't have a license and a registration.  It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

If part of your core belief is resistance against unjust  laws, then yes -- you do just ignore those laws you feel are unjust.  I can understand 100% that you aren't comfortable with civil disobedience, or think it's a bad idea.  You know what?  I'd wager that a majority of free staters aren't really into it either.  However, please consider the 'harm' that Lauren actually did.  She traveled without government authorization.  That's it.  One of her big issues is 'right to travel', and so it's no surprise that she feels it's unjust to be required to pay the government and get government permission to travel.  I challenge you (as in, please take the time to carefully think it through without any kneejerk reactions) to name one person that Lauren was harming by driving without registration.  I'm not asking you to agree with her, feel sorry for her (after all, she knew there was a good chance she'd end up in jail, and she willingly took that risk), or to have some epiphany and start thinking civil disobedience is a smart idea.  I'm only hoping that you'll be able to see her point and realize that she was harming nobody.

You might still be having trouble accepting the fact that some people have a more direct, risky way of dealing with injustice.  Your preference might be to try to have the law changed, petition the government, etc.  But I think it would be a little hasty to dismiss civil disobedience as an ineffective or foolish approach.  Doing so would also mean that you think Thoreau, Gandhi, and MLK were ineffective and/or foolish.  Most people would disagree with you however.  In fact, most view these people with admiration and respect for their willingness to endure hardships while standing up to injustice.  It's fine if you don't think 'right to travel' is on par with the issues that others were willing to commit civil disobedience to protest.  But I'm sure you could acknowledge that different people have legitimate reasons for feeling strongly about one cause or another.
 
Quote
Listen, some of my "facts" were HIGHLY distorted due to me going off of memory of something I watched a while back, but my bottom line stands.

Thanks again for owning up to your mistakes.  :)

Quote
I really think FSP needs to reevaluate their method of dispersing their message.  FSP is coming off as a bunch of gun toting whackos.  I KNOW this isn't the case, but if you ask the majority of the people outside the group, that is what they think.

Again, please consider that the FSP doesn't have any control over how individuals act.  You're citing perhaps the most extreme activities by a free stater, and using them to paint the entire FSP.  That's a broad brush.  You might be right that a majority of people who see those videos think that Lauren and Russell are wackos, and maybe a lot of them even assume the FSP is hence comprised by all wackos.  But from my experience, most of the people living in NH who have actually dealt with free staters regularly do not feel this way.

Quote
The only reason I think you guys need to seriously address that is because of the effectiveness of your message.  As I stated in the beginning, I think you guys have some GREAT standpoints, I don't agree with how you put it out there.  I think if you changed strategy a little you would get more people on your side and probably get some good changes in this state.

I certainly agree that the delivery of a message is important in shaping how that message is received.  Unfortunately we're not talking about a single message as delivered by the FSP.  We're talking about a multitude of messages, each delivered by individuals who happen to be in the FSP.  There is no way to control what each individual does, and if a handful of individuals are sending a message that makes some people uncomfortable -- so be it.  What do you want anyone to do about it?  That wasn't meant as a sarcastic question -- I'm being quite serious.

Quote
I don't think that is harsh criticism...I have a tough time getting across what I am trying to say, but I hope this came off as helpful and not attacking....

In my opinion, this last post of yours was the most reasonable I've seen.  I do understand your concern: that mainstream observers of decidedly non-mainstream tactics and tacticians will have a negative view of the FSP.  It's a valid concern, and I can't deny that it happens.  That's really outside of anyone's control though.  I think a fair observer will look at the entire body of evidence rather than cherry picking the most extreme examples, and will come to a different conclusion about the FSP.  Those who are not fair-minded enough to do so are likely people who aren't going to be friendly to the FSP anyway.  That's how I see it at least.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 02:46:14 pm
If I drive across your property without your authorization, am I harming you?
Do you, or your agent, have a right to make certain requirements of me to trespass on your property? Can that involve financial payment?

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 03:00:19 pm
If I drive across your property without your authorization, am I harming you?

Do you, or your agent, have a right to make certain requirements of me to trespass on your property? Can that involve financial payment?

Go ask a right-to-travel activist.   :P   :)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 03:02:24 pm
If I drive across your property without your authorization, am I harming you?
Do you, or your agent, have a right to make certain requirements of me to trespass on your property? Can that involve financial payment?



Well, I can guarantee you wouldn't make it across my property, but that is a different issue than you are addressing I believe...  I am not sure what you are looking for with this question.  Are you inferring that public roads are private property?  Not following you with this one...sorry...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 03:35:50 pm
Well, I can guarantee you wouldn't make it across my property, but that is a different issue than you are addressing I believe...  I am not sure what you are looking for with this question.  Are you inferring that public roads are private property?  Not following you with this one...sorry...

I took it to mean that he was challenging the assertion that Lauren hurt nobody, since she was driving on government roads without paying or getting permission.  Basically equating public roads with private property.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 03:50:48 pm
Public property (including roads) are owned by the association of citizens... and are under the control of those citizen through their agents.
If 199,000 friends and you owned a property... even if I was one of the friends I would have limits to my usage dependent on agreement within the group. The original agreement to control would set the level of agreement... and selection of agents in our proxy.

It makes no difference as to the size of the group... or that they were party to the original... as the agreement can be amended.

The NH Constitution is very astute in where its power originates from...

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. But no part of a man’s property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.





Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 03:57:11 pm
Unfortunately the "social contract" as well as the idea that "government is founded of and by the people, instituted for the common good" -- these are ideas that are constantly used to justify all manner of infringement on liberty.  It's pretty easy for one to mask almost any government mischief or atrocity behind the cover of "for the common good."

I wouldn't hang my hat on these ideas, or on any constitution that I didn't personally agree to and sign.   :)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 04:06:59 pm
Fair enough... but you would also have no right to life, liberty, or property... these social agreements only occur because of this contract.
This is why the Right to Travel unfettered does not exist... there is no societal agreement to such.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 15, 2008, 04:14:22 pm
I wouldn't hang my hat on these ideas, or on any constitution that I didn't personally agree to and sign.   :)

Not a terrible idea itself.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 04:30:47 pm
Then there is no right to travel unfettered...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 04:54:17 pm
So say we don't need registration or license or road tolls, etc...How do we pay to maintain the roads?  Just curious...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 05:08:42 pm
Public property (including roads) are owned by the association of citizens... and are under the control of those citizen through their agents.

Really?  Where is this association, and how does one join?

The NH Constitution is very astute in where its power originates from...

Article 1. [Equality of Men; Origin and Object of Government.] All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.

[Art.] 3. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.

[Art.] 12. [Protection and Taxation Reciprocal.] Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. But no part of a man’s property shall be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. Nor are the inhabitants of this state controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.

I do NOT consent.

Fair enough... but you would also have no right to life, liberty, or property... these social agreements only occur because of this contract.

Those rights are inherent in the human condition.  No "agreement" can give you rights which you do not have, by nature of your humanity.  The only thing you can gain by forming agreements and contracts are privileges.

So say we don't need registration or license or road tolls, etc...How do we pay to maintain the roads?  Just curious...

You think that registration and licensing fees pay for the roads?

Tolls are a completely different question.  Not that they pay for the roads, either - most (if not all) tollbooths are operating at a loss.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 05:20:43 pm


You think that registration and licensing fees pay for the roads?

No, but they do help pay for enforcement of the laws upon the road.  I have been to and seen a society without rules and laws upon the roadway.  There are a ridiculous amount of fatal accidents and just accidents resulting in major injuries.  I think the US should put into place a system more like Europe's, where the speed limit signs are electronic and change with the conditions i.e. weather, traffic volume, time of day, etc.  When the weather is clear and there is little traffic, there is practically no speed limit, but once the weather gets bad, traffic volume increases, etc the limit drops.

I didn't even want to bring up taxes to pay for roads...I have a fair understanding of the groups philosophy on taxes.  Just curious...How do you pay for road maintenance with no taxes or tolls???
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 05:28:53 pm
No, but they do help pay for enforcement of the laws upon the road.  I have been to and seen a society without rules and laws upon the roadway.  There are a ridiculous amount of fatal accidents and just accidents resulting in major injuries.

Oh?  Is that as factual as your other unsupported claims?

I think the US should put into place a system more like Europe's, where the speed limit signs are electronic and change with the conditions i.e. weather, traffic volume, time of day, etc.  When the weather is clear and there is little traffic, there is practically no speed limit, but once the weather gets bad, traffic volume increases, etc the limit drops.

Um, the speed limit in NH is 65, except in some towns.  The signs are recommendations, but as long as your speed is "reasonable and prudent," you are not violating any law.  Last I checked, anyway...

I didn't even want to bring up taxes to pay for roads...I have a fair understanding of the groups philosophy on taxes.  Just curious...How do you pay for road maintenance with no taxes or tolls???

Um, you do have tolls.  Tolls are user fees, and only apply to those who want to use a certain portion of the road.  That has nothing to do with taxation, which is applied to folks who don't even drive on that road.  Why should I pay for your road?  I have no problem paying for my road, but demanding that I pay for your road is just socialist nonsense.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 06:29:04 pm
Tolls go to pay for turnpikes. Registration has two parts the first goes to the State... the second to the municipality to help pay for the cost of road maintenance.

Your life is inherent (not granted from society)... your right to life is not.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 06:45:49 pm
Tolls go to pay for turnpikes. Registration has two parts the first goes to the State... the second to the municipality to help pay for the cost of road maintenance.

Yeah, those few dollars really pay for the roads... ::)

Your life is inherent (not granted from society)... your right to life is not.

Rights are inherent in being human.  No one can "grant" a right.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:26:03 pm
No, but they do help pay for enforcement of the laws upon the road.  I have been to and seen a society without rules and laws upon the roadway.  There are a ridiculous amount of fatal accidents and just accidents resulting in major injuries.

Oh?  Is that as factual as your other unsupported claims?

I think the US should put into place a system more like Europe's, where the speed limit signs are electronic and change with the conditions i.e. weather, traffic volume, time of day, etc.  When the weather is clear and there is little traffic, there is practically no speed limit, but once the weather gets bad, traffic volume increases, etc the limit drops.

Um, the speed limit in NH is 65, except in some towns.  The signs are recommendations, but as long as your speed is "reasonable and prudent," you are not violating any law.  Last I checked, anyway...

I didn't even want to bring up taxes to pay for roads...I have a fair understanding of the groups philosophy on taxes.  Just curious...How do you pay for road maintenance with no taxes or tolls???

Um, you do have tolls.  Tolls are user fees, and only apply to those who want to use a certain portion of the road.  That has nothing to do with taxation, which is applied to folks who don't even drive on that road.  Why should I pay for your road?  I have no problem paying for my road, but demanding that I pay for your road is just socialist nonsense.

Joe

65 is the maximum speed limit in the state. Any road and speed limit is based upon the conditions that exist, but no more than 65...that's the max.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 07:36:29 pm
65 is the maximum speed limit in the state. Any road and speed limit is based upon the conditions that exist, but no more than 65...that's the max.

What is "any road and speed limit is based upon the conditions that exist" supposed to mean?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:49:24 pm
65 is the maximum speed limit in the state. Any road and speed limit is based upon the conditions that exist, but no more than 65...that's the max.

What is "any road and speed limit is based upon the conditions that exist" supposed to mean?

Joe

What they mean when they say that, is that if it is snowing, for instance, and the roads are snow covered and the speed limit is 50 mph.  If you are driving 50 mph, you can get a ticket for going faster "than reasonable for the conditions that exist".  It can work the other way as well.  If the speed limit is 35 and it is the middle of the day, no traffic, and great weather and you get a speeding ticket for 45 in a 35, you can argue to a judge that your speed was reasonable for the conditions that existed.  However, NH has a "maximum speed limit".  That speed is 65 mph.  By law, you can not go over that.  Of course everyone does, within reason, but in court that is the MAX...
Hope that helped.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 07:55:05 pm
What they mean when they say that, is that if it is snowing, for instance, and the roads are snow covered and the speed limit is 50 mph.  If you are driving 50 mph, you can get a ticket for going faster "than reasonable for the conditions that exist".  It can work the other way as well.  If the speed limit is 35 and it is the middle of the day, no traffic, and great weather and you get a speeding ticket for 45 in a 35, you can argue to a judge that your speed was reasonable for the conditions that existed.  However, NH has a "maximum speed limit".  That speed is 65 mph.  By law, you can not go over that.  Of course everyone does, within reason, but in court that is the MAX...
Hope that helped.

Um, that's what I said.

However, since "everyone does," that means that you are breaking "THE LAW," doesn't it?  I thought that was unacceptable behavior?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 07:57:50 pm
What they mean when they say that, is that if it is snowing, for instance, and the roads are snow covered and the speed limit is 50 mph.  If you are driving 50 mph, you can get a ticket for going faster "than reasonable for the conditions that exist".  It can work the other way as well.  If the speed limit is 35 and it is the middle of the day, no traffic, and great weather and you get a speeding ticket for 45 in a 35, you can argue to a judge that your speed was reasonable for the conditions that existed.  However, NH has a "maximum speed limit".  That speed is 65 mph.  By law, you can not go over that.  Of course everyone does, within reason, but in court that is the MAX...
Hope that helped.

Um, that's what I said.

However, since "everyone does," that means that you are breaking "THE LAW," doesn't it?  I thought that was unacceptable behavior?

Joe

Sure everyone speeds.  It is not necessarily breaking the law though.  As I previously stated, I go above the posted speed limit, but it is a speed I feel is reasonable for the conditions that exist.  It is very subjective...As far as it being "unacceptable behavior", I would say that officer that stopped Lauren felt that her speed was not reasonable for the conditions that existed. If it wasn't the case, she should have brought it before a judge to argue her side as to why her speed was reasonable...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:01:54 pm
Sure everyone speeds.  It is not necessarily breaking the law though.  As I previously stated, I go above the posted speed limit, but it is a speed I feel is reasonable for the conditions that exist.  It is very subjective...

Nope.  65 is the max.  No speed above that is considered "reasonable and prudent," according to the law.  Anything in excess of 65 is, prima facie "unreasonable," according to the law.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-mrg.htm

As far as it being "unacceptable behavior", I would say that officer that stopped Lauren felt that her speed was not reasonable for the conditions that existed. If it wasn't the case, she should have brought it before a judge to argue her side as to why her speed was reasonable...

Why should she have to do that?  She was minding her own business, when she was attacked by someone.  How does that place any obligation on her?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 08:05:21 pm
Sure everyone speeds.  It is not necessarily breaking the law though.  As I previously stated, I go above the posted speed limit, but it is a speed I feel is reasonable for the conditions that exist.  It is very subjective...

Nope.  65 is the max.  No speed above that is considered "reasonable and prudent," according to the law.  Anything in excess of 65 is, prima facie "unreasonable," according to the law.  http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xxi/265/265-mrg.htm

As far as it being "unacceptable behavior", I would say that officer that stopped Lauren felt that her speed was not reasonable for the conditions that existed. If it wasn't the case, she should have brought it before a judge to argue her side as to why her speed was reasonable...

Why should she have to do that?  She was minding her own business, when she was attacked by someone.  How does that place any obligation on her?

Joe

First of all, I KNOW 65 IS THE MAX!!!!!

Secondly, I don't know how fast she was going, but the officer thought it wasn't a reasonable speed.  If she thought it was, you bring it before a judge to mediate the issue...That's the system.  If you don't like the system, get a seat in the house and change it.

It's all good...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 08:06:28 pm
Tolls go to pay for turnpikes. Registration has two parts the first goes to the State... the second to the municipality to help pay for the cost of road maintenance.

Yeah, those few dollars really pay for the roads... ::)

Your life is inherent (not granted from society)... your right to life is not.

Rights are inherent in being human.  No one can "grant" a right.

Joe

Few dollars? Along with the gas tax, its quite a bit.
Rights can not be inherent... if they were they could not be removed without consent. Your life, liberty, property can be taken without your consent.
Freedom of will (conscious) can not be removed without consent.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:10:48 pm
First of all, I KNOW 65 IS THE MAX!!!!!

So, you know that's the max, and you were breaking the law.  Explain yourself.  You said that was unacceptable behavior, when others did it...

Secondly, I don't know how fast she was going, but the officer thought it wasn't a reasonable speed.

So?  I think it's unreasonable when folks drive slower than 65mph on the highway.  Can I threaten them and then drag them off in chains?

If she thought it was, you bring it before a judge to mediate the issue...That's the system.  If you don't like the system, get a seat in the house and change it.

Why?  I didn't agree to that system.  No one said, "sign here if you agree to these rules."  I doubt anyone asked Lauren, either...

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:13:06 pm
Few dollars? Along with the gas tax, its quite a bit.

No adding in the gas tax.  We were talking about registration and license fees, only.

Rights can not be inherent... if they were they could not be removed without consent. Your life, liberty, property can be taken without your consent.

Just because something can be damaged or destroyed, does not mean it does not exist.  I can damage or destroy your car.  Are you going to claim that means your car is imaginary?

Freedom of will (conscious) can not be removed without consent.

Sure, it can.  A few drugs, and a bit of torture and rewards, and you'll say whatever is desired, and believe it, too.  Look up Stockholm Syndrome, for a minor example.

H. sapiens is not a rational animal - he is a rationalizing animal, and his thought processes can easily be modified.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 08:15:46 pm
First of all, I KNOW 65 IS THE MAX!!!!!

So, you know that's the max, and you were breaking the law.  Explain yourself.  You said that was unacceptable behavior, when others did it...

Secondly, I don't know how fast she was going, but the officer thought it wasn't a reasonable speed.

So?  I think it's unreasonable when folks drive slower than 65mph on the highway.  Can I threaten them and then drag them off in chains?

If she thought it was, you bring it before a judge to mediate the issue...That's the system.  If you don't like the system, get a seat in the house and change it.

Why?  I didn't agree to that system.  No one said, "sign here if you agree to these rules."  I doubt anyone asked Lauren, either...

Joe

I never said I was going above 65.  I said I was speeding.  I didn't elaborate on my speed. I thought you would know I was talking of a back road.

As far as driving slower than 65 on the highway, they can go slower than 65, but not slower than 45.  It is not safe.  People would be coming up too quick on someone going 35-40.  That is why there is a minimum speed on the highways...

As far as the court system, like I said before.  Lobby it, run for a seat, change the laws.  I say go for it.  You sound passionate.  Run a campaign and let your voice be heard.  Don't sit behind a computer and tell me.  Tell everyone in the right forum.  I think things are fine, so I will type in here! ;-)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:20:29 pm
I never said I was going above 65.  I said I was speeding.  I didn't elaborate on my speed. I thought you would know I was talking of a back road.

Yeah, I'm sure you've never driven in excess of 65mph on the interstate.  I'll believe that if you buy this oceanfront property that I have for sale in Conway...

As far as driving slower than 65 on the highway, they can go slower than 65, but not slower than 45.  It is not safe.  People would be coming up too quick on someone going 35-40.  That is why there is a minimum speed on the highways...

Nope, I think anything less than 65mph is unreasonable.  Can I drag them off in chains?

As far as the court system, like I said before.  Lobby it, run for a seat, change the laws.  I say go for it.  You sound passionate.  Run a campaign and let your voice be heard.  Don't sit behind a computer and tell me.  Tell everyone in the right forum.  I think things are fine, so I will type in here! ;-)

Why do I care about words on paper?  You're the one who seems to think that words on paper have some sort of magical power.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 08:24:26 pm
I never said I was going above 65.  I said I was speeding.  I didn't elaborate on my speed. I thought you would know I was talking of a back road.

Yeah, I'm sure you've never driven in excess of 65mph on the interstate.  I'll believe that if you buy this oceanfront property that I have for sale in Conway...

As far as driving slower than 65 on the highway, they can go slower than 65, but not slower than 45.  It is not safe.  People would be coming up too quick on someone going 35-40.  That is why there is a minimum speed on the highways...

Nope, I think anything less than 65mph is unreasonable.  Can I drag them off in chains?

As far as the court system, like I said before.  Lobby it, run for a seat, change the laws.  I say go for it.  You sound passionate.  Run a campaign and let your voice be heard.  Don't sit behind a computer and tell me.  Tell everyone in the right forum.  I think things are fine, so I will type in here! ;-)

Why do I care about words on paper?  You're the one who seems to think that words on paper have some sort of magical power.

Joe

The law allows you to drive less than 65...and if the cop thinks it is unreasonable, he will write me a ticket.  If I disagree with the ticket I will go to court.  I won't get arrested because I have a valid license, registration, and inspection.

Also, I never said I don't go above 65.  I speed all the time. If I get stopped and I was speeding, I take responsibility for MY actions.  I chose to speed, I chose to disregard the rules.  If the cop writes me, I deal with it.  I am an adult and take responsibility for my conscious decisions...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 08:28:35 pm
Also, I never said I don't go above 65.  I speed all the time. If I get stopped and I was speeding, I take responsibility for MY actions.  I chose to speed, I chose to disregard the rules.  If the cop writes me, I deal with it.  I am an adult and take responsibility for my conscious decisions...

Isn't that exactly what you complained about Lauren Canario doing?  She chose to drive without a license and registration, and she dealt with it.  She spent three months in prison for it.  So why again were you complaining about her tactics, when you just affirmed the same basic ethos?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:30:22 pm
The law allows you to drive less than 65...and if the cop thinks it is unreasonable, he will write me a ticket.  If I disagree with the ticket I will go to court.  I won't get arrested because I have a valid license, registration, and inspection.

I didn't ask about a cop.  I want to chain up anyone who behaves unreasonably, in my opinion.  Then drag them away and toss them in a cage.  Are you implying that I'm not allowed to do that, but some other individual or group of individuals is?

Also, I never said I don't go above 65.  I speed all the time. If I get stopped and I was speeding, I take responsibility for MY actions.  I chose to speed, I chose to disregard the rules.  If the cop writes me, I deal with it.  I am an adult and take responsibility for my conscious decisions...

Ah, but you said that breaking the law is never acceptable...

It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

You "just want to" go faster than 65mph on the highway.  So you do it.  You ignore the law and do what you want.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 15, 2008, 08:32:58 pm
The law allows you to drive less than 65...and if the cop thinks it is unreasonable, he will write me a ticket.  If I disagree with the ticket I will go to court.  I won't get arrested because I have a valid license, registration, and inspection.

I didn't ask about a cop.  I want to chain up anyone who behaves unreasonably, in my opinion.  Then drag them away and toss them in a cage.  Are you implying that I'm not allowed to do that, but some other individual or group of individuals is?

Also, I never said I don't go above 65.  I speed all the time. If I get stopped and I was speeding, I take responsibility for MY actions.  I chose to speed, I chose to disregard the rules.  If the cop writes me, I deal with it.  I am an adult and take responsibility for my conscious decisions...

Ah, but you said that breaking the law is never acceptable...

It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

You "just want to" go faster than 65mph on the highway.  So you do it.  You ignore the law and do what you want.

Joe

Never said Never...

Also, I would love for you to drive around and chain whoever you want up.  Seriously, do that!  I would laugh...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 08:35:46 pm
Never said Never...
It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

Looks like you did.  I don't see any "except" in there, so you are saying that it is never acceptable.

Also, I would love for you to drive around and chain whoever you want up.  Seriously, do that!  I would laugh...

Well, you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable behavior, right?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 15, 2008, 08:50:55 pm
Few dollars? Along with the gas tax, its quite a bit.

No adding in the gas tax.  We were talking about registration and license fees, only.

Rights can not be inherent... if they were they could not be removed without consent. Your life, liberty, property can be taken without your consent.

Just because something can be damaged or destroyed, does not mean it does not exist.  I can damage or destroy your car.  Are you going to claim that means your car is imaginary?

Freedom of will (conscious) can not be removed without consent.

Sure, it can.  A few drugs, and a bit of torture and rewards, and you'll say whatever is desired, and believe it, too.  Look up Stockholm Syndrome, for a minor example.

H. sapiens is not a rational animal - he is a rationalizing animal, and his thought processes can easily be modified.

Joe
Licensing fees don't go to the highways. Tolls go to the turnpikes... and a portion of registration goes to the Department of Safety - Division of Motor Vehicles with the other portion going to the municipality to offset road maintenance expenses.  Exactly how the municpality expends them is a matter of locality.

Not imaginary... not inherent. The destruction of my car represents the destruction of my labor... and thus a period of my life... but my car is not inherent to my life.

If H.sapiens are irrational... then how can logic be inherent to the human condition?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 15, 2008, 08:57:07 pm
then how can logic be inherent to the human condition?

Inherent is probably too strong a word there. ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 15, 2008, 09:14:24 pm
Rights are inherent in being human.  No one can "grant" a right.

Joe

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 10:15:27 pm
Licensing fees don't go to the highways. Tolls go to the turnpikes... and a portion of registration goes to the Department of Safety - Division of Motor Vehicles with the other portion going to the municipality to offset road maintenance expenses.  Exactly how the municpality expends them is a matter of locality.

So now they don't pay for the roads?

Not imaginary... not inherent. The destruction of my car represents the destruction of my labor... and thus a period of my life... but my car is not inherent to my life.

Can your car be destroyed?  Yes.  Is it still real, regardless of it's potential to be destroyed?  Yes.

Ergo, your claim that just because a right can be violated, it does not actually exist, is false.

If H.sapiens are irrational... then how can logic be inherent to the human condition?

Logic is inherent in physical reality, not in the human condition.

People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

The moment you attempt to use reason to argue against self-ownership, you have admitted that your opponent does, indeed, own himself.  Else you would have no cause to use reason, and could just use force.  The moment you elect to set aside reason and attempt to use force to oppose his self-ownership, you have chosen to make yourself a non-reasoning entity and, therefor, no longer a person.  Once you choose to lower your status to that of an animal, he may violently oppose your attack just as he could violently oppose an attacking rabid dog, and not violate your rights (since you chose to give them up when you attacked him).

Self-defense (force in response to aggression) is justified, but the initiation of force is not.

By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 15, 2008, 10:45:54 pm
By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.

Joe -

It would be useful if there were a link handy to point people in the direction of Liberty 101.  It would probably cut down on the number of obtuse questions about it, and it might even prevent you from getting carpal tunnel.   ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 15, 2008, 10:50:02 pm
By the way, this is a gross simplification.  As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here.  These are things which you should research on your own.  So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details.  That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.
It would be useful if there were a link handy to point people in the direction of Liberty 101.  It would probably cut down on the number of obtuse questions about it, and it might even prevent you from getting carpal tunnel.   ;D

There are an awful lot of books on the subject.  I don't know of any online "reading list," although perhaps someone else is aware of one.  Searching the web for terms like "self ownership" and such can yield some references.

If I ever find the time, I'll write a book-length treatise on the subject, but I'm not likely to have that kind of time in the near future.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 15, 2008, 11:02:09 pm
No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

Only ignorance or obstructiveness? Those are quite extremes to argue from. Neither is the case.

You may notice that John Edward Mercier above seems to be also using a different meaning than you.

You're telling us you're not using any non-standard definition: there is one right, self-ownership. And that all other rights are simply derivatives thereof. Yet, as you have said, there is only one right. What are these other rights, if there is only one right? To even attempt to differentiate "rights from privileges" is to misstate the relationship between them, and it uses "privilege" in an incorrect, colloquial sense.

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 07:40:08 am
Only ignorance or obstructiveness? Those are quite extremes to argue from. Neither is the case.

So you claim, but I have yet to see you make any actual contribution here.  Your posts seem to be designed for nothing but obstructiveness.

You're telling us you're not using any non-standard definition: there is one right, self-ownership. And that all other rights are simply derivatives thereof. Yet, as you have said, there is only one right. What are these other rights, if there is only one right?

Anything that derives from self-ownership.  Self-defense, for example.

To even attempt to differentiate "rights from privileges" is to misstate the relationship between them, and it uses "privilege" in an incorrect, colloquial sense.

Um, no.  But you're welcome to try and prove that sort of nonsense.

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.

Yes, they certainly are.  Through ignorance or dishonesty.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 10:42:14 am
Your posts seem to be designed for nothing but obstructiveness.

...

I'm not saying, "You're wrong." Just that other people are using the same words to mean different things.

Yes, they certainly are.  Through ignorance or dishonesty.

Joe

I can understand your position. I usually ask to back up what you say. To elucidate what you mean. To tell us what you're talking about. And why you think a certain way. If a person wanted to avoid doing these things--communicating clearly--he might certainly call my posts obstructionist. It's certainly as effective as the other avoidance arguments, so far essentially consisting of "you're wrong", "you're stupid", or some combination of the two.

If mere questioning dogmatic assertions of opinion, presented as well-known facts, where those opinions rationalize acts of violence against others, earns me the new labels of "ignorant" or "dishonest", I'll gladly take them. I will be in good, honest company.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 10:48:40 am
I can understand your position. I usually ask to back up what you say. To elucidate what you mean. To tell us what you're talking about. And why you think a certain way. If a person wanted to avoid doing these things--communicating clearly--he might certainly call my posts obstructionist. It's certainly as effective as the other avoidance arguments, so far essentially consisting of "you're wrong", "you're stupid", or some combination of the two.

Your posts seem to be generally devoid of content, other than simply demanding that people prove your claims wrong.  You make repeated positive assertions, then claim that you didn't, and insist that everyone else prove you wrong, rather than proving your own claims.  And then demanding that they prove things which are so basic that it is clear you are just being obstructionist.  Demanding someone prove self-ownership is like demanding that someone prove that the Earth is round - it's immature, obstructionist behavior, generally reminiscent of the behavior of politicians.

If mere questioning dogmatic assertions of opinion, presented as well-known facts, where those opinions rationalize acts of violence against others, earns me the new labels of "ignorant" or "dishonest", I'll gladly take them. I will be in good, honest company.

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 11:19:00 am
Your posts seem to be generally devoid of content, other than simply demanding that people prove your claims wrong.  You make repeated positive assertions, then claim that you didn't, and insist that everyone else prove you wrong, rather than proving your own claims.  And then demanding that they prove things which are so basic that it is clear you are just being obstructionist.  Demanding someone prove self-ownership is like demanding that someone prove that the Earth is round - it's immature, obstructionist behavior, generally reminiscent of the behavior of politicians.

I haven't ask anyone to disprove my claims. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

I've only asked for some positions to be proved or explained or expanded upon. I've pointed out where there have been ambiguities in word usage. Particularly, when dealing with language common to different ethical and legal sytems (e.g., rights) it can become unclear what is meant. To further complicate matters, people internalize their own conceptions of these systems and combine them with their personal beliefs. But rather than come to any understanding of what's being spoken of, you seem to hold fast that your beliefs and definitions are the only absolute, correct ones. In all likelihood, we will continue to disagree on this point in perpetuity.

I've never demanded you do these things. I've certainly asked though. And even then, only because, as a rhetorical argument, support has been lacking.

Again with the name calling? If you simply don't want or are not able to discuss civilly, completely, and honestly, then don't.

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.

Joe

I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 11:47:25 am
The problem is the difference between natural order and social contract. Natural order is simply might makes right.
Social contract can be between any size group... Joe sees it in an individual sense (neighbor to neighbor) and BD you see it in a large social sense. This is why the term 'general good' within many documents has debate surrounding it.
We each sense the need for general good, but at different levels. As the populous has grown it has shifted more towards society... but liberty requires it more towards the individual.

Like he doesn't get that road maintenance is paid for... ergo, there must be a means to pay for them.
The fact that the local agents may not collect the full amount they expend every year... or worse use excess for some other means... is completely a local act of management.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 11:50:20 am
More importantly he's posting of the system preferred rather than existing. Its not impractical to believe that his system would function at least as well, as the current system is not inherent...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 12:51:08 pm
I haven't ask anyone to disprove my claims. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Yes, you have.  And I've quoted you doing it, in other threads.

I've only asked for some positions to be proved or explained or expanded upon. I've pointed out where there have been ambiguities in word usage. Particularly, when dealing with language common to different ethical and legal sytems (e.g., rights) it can become unclear what is meant. To further complicate matters, people internalize their own conceptions of these systems and combine them with their personal beliefs. But rather than come to any understanding of what's being spoken of, you seem to hold fast that your beliefs and definitions are the only absolute, correct ones. In all likelihood, we will continue to disagree on this point in perpetuity.

You are using non-standard definitions which you apparently seem to make up out of thin air.

Again with the name calling? If you simply don't want or are not able to discuss civilly, completely, and honestly, then don't.

What name calling is that?

Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

The problem is the difference between natural order and social contract. Natural order is simply might makes right.

Social contract nonsense is might makes right.  "We outnumber you, so we are in charge!"  Yeah, that's so very civilized...::)

We each sense the need for general good, but at different levels. As the populous has grown it has shifted more towards society... but liberty requires it more towards the individual.

The general good can only exist by enhancing the good of the individual.  Every attempt to shift towards a societal view of liberty has been destructive.

Like he doesn't get that road maintenance is paid for... ergo, there must be a means to pay for them.

Who doesn't get that?  The question was whether registration and license fees were the means that were being used.  Which is clearly not the case.  Ergo, registration and licensing is not paying for the roads, and failing to get one or both does not impact road maintenance.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 01:13:23 pm
Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 01:15:42 pm
Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 01:21:31 pm
Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Noise Ordinances have been found to be subjective...
But if you could give an example it might make us understand your position.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 01:27:33 pm
Um, you're the one claiming that you have rights to engage in violence against others, apparently whenever you get the whim.
I'm not sure what possible evidence you would have to support that. Nor is it really maintainable: it's simply false. At very best, it's a gross exaggeration of what I've said on quiet enjoyment.

No, it's exactly what you've said.

Show me.
Noise Ordinances have been found to be subjective...
But if you could give an example it might make us understand your position.


An example of what? I'm confused on who or what you're addressing.
I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 16, 2008, 01:46:02 pm
Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

You are conflating the right, with the power to exercise that right.  They are two different things.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Try again.  Road maintenance is not paid for by registrations.  That's already been established.

I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.

You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 02:53:04 pm
You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Huh?

I asked you to show me the statements that you're saying I've made exactly.
But your response is to assert that I believe a certain something? Because I've established it?
Show me where I made the statement.
I don't think you'll find one.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 06:10:22 pm
If 199,000 friends and you owned a property... even if I was one of the friends I would have limits to my usage dependent on agreement within the group. The original agreement to control would set the level of agreement... and selection of agents in our proxy.

You’re ignoring that when those 199,000 people begin to have children, the contract wouldn’t apply to them. Even assuming that every single original founder of New Hampshire signed the original New Hampshire Constitution, their children didn’t, so it doesn’t apply to them, or their children, or anyone else.

or that they were party to the original... as the agreement can be amended.

And this is what makes the “social contract” concept a load of bollocks: No real contract can be inherited just because it includes an amendments clause.


[Edit: typo]
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 06:42:39 pm
People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 07:02:13 pm
Privilege was granted by the monarchy to individual or groups; where as rights are withheld by the individual from the society.

My right to life means the society can not just kill me... my right to liberty means the society can not just imprison me... and my right to property means the society can not just take it from me.

Society's might is greater than my might... so without some agreement to these principles they would simply take them.
The Quiet Enjoyment is one such issue... society trying to overcome the rights of liberty and property where no threat to others life/liberty/property exists.

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 16, 2008, 07:04:06 pm
Without social contract the right to life, liberty, and property would only exist through individual might... natural order.

You are conflating the right, with the power to exercise that right.  They are two different things.

Local roads are maintained through property tax... the portion of registration paid to the local municipality is a property tax.
Whether it is used directly, or not... depends on the local management of revenue.

Try again.  Road maintenance is not paid for by registrations.  That's already been established.

I was responding to MaineShark. To show me where I exactly said I have a right to engage in violence against others at my whim.

You've already established that you believe that rights only exist at the whim of, apparently, yourself (since you can't seem to manage to find any other basis for them), and that violence is perfectly acceptable in response to violations of these rights you invent for yourself.

Joe

So how is road maintenance paid for?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 08:44:57 pm
People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 16, 2008, 08:53:47 pm
People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.

I was speaking of the word rights, not privileges.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 16, 2008, 11:54:38 pm
People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.

No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term.  They are two separate things.

As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".

I'm not using any non-standard definition.  You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term.  The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.

There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership.  All other rights are simply derivatives thereof.  Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights.  Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.

B.D. Ross:—

In mediæval times, people did use right as synonymous with privilege, but the idea of rights as inherent and privileges as granted has been around since the time of the enlightenment. It may have been a philosophical term of art then, but that was 3–400 years ago, and it went mainstream with things like the Declaration of Independence.

And the anarchist concept of rights is merely a simplification and refinement of that, paring a number of “rights” down to a single right (ownership of oneself), from which all other “rights” are derived.

It's not really a term of art: it's a word with a real definition. Check out the etymology (privus + lex) and Black's. Most of us hear it colloquially: "You've just lost your privileges, Mister." But it did have a very specific meaning then. And it's nearly impossible to read the Enlightenment authors if you're not using their vocabulary. "Privileges" doesn't show up in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm not sure what you meant there by "it went mainstream". But it does show up twice in the U.S. Constitution (once in the original and later in the 14th Amendment. And the very probable intended meaning is closer to the original legal term (e.g. "privileges and immunities") rather than the colloquial sense of "something granted". But keep in mind, most people consider the U.S. Constitution a legal document. So adjust your frame of reference accordingly.

I was speaking of the word rights, not privileges.

Ah, my bad there.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 17, 2008, 09:24:38 am
I asked you to show me the statements that you're saying I've made exactly.
But your response is to assert that I believe a certain something? Because I've established it?
Show me where I made the statement.
I don't think you'll find one.

I've already done so.  I don't intend to waste my time repeatedly quoting the same passages.

So how is road maintenance paid for?

A variety of other taxes.  Not registration and licensing fees.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on June 17, 2008, 07:31:44 pm


So how is road maintenance paid for?

gas tax and toll tax
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 17, 2008, 07:48:27 pm


So how is road maintenance paid for?

gas tax and toll tax

And in my town, property tax (on homes -- not the car registration/property tax).  At the town meeting we (they) voted to spend $x00,000 to repair some town roads that are in bad shape.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 08:30:21 am
Margomaps,
You'll find the town rolls the registration (property tax) into the budget... generally under other revenue.
Its delayed one year (revenue was from the previous fiscal year). This is purely managerial in nature, as the town could make it a separate fund.

Tolls go to the turnpike system. A portion of the gas tax goes to State highway and municipal road grants. To my knowledge, no other in-State revenues go to NH DOT. NH, unlike other States, is highly departmentalized with dedicated revenue sources.

The other portion of the gas tax goes to DOS, DES, the courts...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 18, 2008, 08:41:37 am
Margomaps,
You'll find the town rolls the registration (property tax) into the budget... generally under other revenue.
Its delayed one year (revenue was from the previous fiscal year). This is purely managerial in nature, as the town could make it a separate fund.

I don't doubt that the vehicle registration/property tax gets added into the budget.  But I also don't believe that the amount apportioned to spend on road maintenance is in any way limited by the amount from the registration/property tax.  The town needed X dollars to repair some roads, and the town voted to approve that in competition with other proposed expenditures.  I just think it might be inaccurate to state that the monies collected from registration/property tax on vehicles is what's used for road maintenance.  It may be partly true, but it certainly is not the entire story.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 09:33:46 am
Its dependent on the management of the town.
In some municipalities it may be that the registrations pay for more than the expenditure on road maintenance, in others its less (usually this varies year to year).
I would guess in most cases that registrations and State gas tax municipal grants do not cover the entire cost of road maintenance in most municipalities.
But that would mean that the entire revenue from registrations, and then some, are being used for road maintenance in these city/towns.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 18, 2008, 09:37:51 am
Its dependent on the management of the town.
In some municipalities it may be that the registrations pay for more than the expenditure on road maintenance, in others its less (usually this varies year to year).
I would guess in most cases that registrations and State gas tax municipal grants do not cover the entire cost of road maintenance in most municipalities.
But that would mean that the entire revenue from registrations, and then some, are being used for road maintenance in these city/towns.


Thank you...I knew I wasn't an idiot...err...not as much as they thought I was at least!   :)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 18, 2008, 09:48:29 am
Its not so much being an idiot.
I completely agree with Joe in that  the current system can and should be improved.

The statist hate for motorized users... while employing them to provide the system is ignorant at best, untenable most likely.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 18, 2008, 10:05:39 am
Its dependent on the management of the town.

And upon the number of miles of roads, their current condition, the towns "collective tolerance" tolerance for potholes, the number, age, and MSRP of cars registered in the town (affects revenue), etc.

Quote
I would guess in most cases that registrations and State gas tax municipal grants do not cover the entire cost of road maintenance in most municipalities.
But that would mean that the entire revenue from registrations, and then some, are being used for road maintenance in these city/towns.

Exactly.  But your last statement could be almost meaningless in a town that has very little vehicle registration/property tax revenue, but votes to spend a lot of money on road maintenance.  It's sort of like saying I'm going to buy some groceries with the change in my pocket: all the change in my pocket (58 cents) and then some will pay for my $100 of groceries.   ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 18, 2008, 04:42:41 pm
Its not so much being an idiot.
I completely agree with Joe in that  the current system can and should be improved.

The statist hate for motorized users... while employing them to provide the system is ignorant at best, untenable most likely.



This is where I agree a lot with this group.  I have some friends that are democrats and they are always saying, "if we raise taxes here, we will have enough money to do X"  It is not that there isn't enough money, it is that it isn't spent wisely.  We don't need more taxes, just to be smarter in how we use the money.  I know a lot of you in here are against taxes, and I don't agree with you there...I don't knock it because I don't know of a better way.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 18, 2008, 07:59:10 pm
I know a lot of you in here are against taxes, and I don't agree with you there...I don't knock it because I don't know of a better way.

Much of what the government does with the taxes it collects could be better done by private entities within the free market. I’m not even talking about “extreme” stuff like privatizing the roads and police; I’m talking about easy stuff like social services (replaced with private charities), environmental protection/conservation agencies (replaced with private groups like the WWF and Audubon), and so on.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 18, 2008, 08:56:41 pm
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 18, 2008, 09:06:33 pm
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Specifically, kelteckiller, what do you think of this incident (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 05:21:09 am
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Specifically, kelteckiller, what do you think of this incident (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)?

I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 08:18:15 am
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Specifically, kelteckiller, what do you think of this incident (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)?

I think that "incident" was fine.
  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

"I think that "incident" was fine."

"I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them"

one of these things is not like the other...
one of these things just doesn't belong...

wtf...

These two "opinions" or "perceptions" are polar opposites and require extreme cognitive dissonance within a single consciousness...

The victims were assaulted by the perpetrators...they were physically disarmed...

Reverse the actions of the actors here to see why a "double standard" exists...

And to see that we have a perception of two classes of human beings here...

One that uses aggression/force/fraud to perpetrate physical assault...

And the other which "must" "submit" to this victimization or ultimately be gunned down for their refusal to be victimized...

Repel and Destroy may not have been used here...
But that was fully the discretion of the victims...
In the future this will most certainly change...

And, with that being said, we still humbly ask all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries to quit their jobs and become Philosophically Mature in the Non-Aggression Principle...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 08:39:56 am
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 19, 2008, 09:05:15 am
Its dependent on the management of the town.

And upon the number of miles of roads, their current condition, the towns "collective tolerance" tolerance for potholes, the number, age, and MSRP of cars registered in the town (affects revenue), etc.

Quote
I would guess in most cases that registrations and State gas tax municipal grants do not cover the entire cost of road maintenance in most municipalities.
But that would mean that the entire revenue from registrations, and then some, are being used for road maintenance in these city/towns.

Exactly.  But your last statement could be almost meaningless in a town that has very little vehicle registration/property tax revenue, but votes to spend a lot of money on road maintenance.  It's sort of like saying I'm going to buy some groceries with the change in my pocket: all the change in my pocket (58 cents) and then some will pay for my $100 of groceries.   ;D
How can a town have 'very little' registration/property tax revenue when the rate of taxation is variable to meet the budgeted expenditure?
Towns acquire roads through accepting them as 'gifts' from private owners... also a management decision.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on June 19, 2008, 09:08:06 am
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe
Assuming truth in every detail... YES.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 11:08:24 am
Assuming truth in every detail... YES.

Yeah, I pretty much know how most folks here will respond, but I'm honestly curious what the originator of this topic is going to say.  After all, "the law is the law," right?

Shouldn't each of those cops get a few dozen years in prison?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MengerFan on June 19, 2008, 12:06:14 pm
Assuming truth in every detail... YES.

Yeah, I pretty much know how most folks here will respond, but I'm honestly curious what the originator of this topic is going to say.  After all, "the law is the law," right?

Shouldn't each of those cops get a few dozen years in prison?

Joe

So we can all be victimized by paying for it?

How about the cops have to pay out of their own pockets each of their victims for their time and suffering?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 19, 2008, 12:11:41 pm
How can a town have 'very little' registration/property tax revenue when the rate of taxation is variable to meet the budgeted expenditure?

We might be having a terminology misunderstanding again.  I was attempting to use your language (I think) in saying 'registration/property tax revenue'; I mean specifically the monies that are collected when people register their cars and pay money to the state, and some to the town.  I specifically meant to not include property taxes levied on homes.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Given that definition, hopefully you see my point: regardless of the tax rate, in the scenario I presented a town would be collecting very little revenue from taxes on vehicles, and the bulk of taxes raised for road maintenance would have to come from property taxes on homes.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 01:31:53 pm
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Specifically, kelteckiller, what do you think of this incident (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)?

I think that "incident" was fine.
  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

"I think that "incident" was fine."

"I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them"

one of these things is not like the other...
one of these things just doesn't belong...

wtf...

These two "opinions" or "perceptions" are polar opposites and require extreme cognitive dissonance within a single consciousness...

The victims were assaulted by the perpetrators...they were physically disarmed...

Reverse the actions of the actors here to see why a "double standard" exists...

And to see that we have a perception of two classes of human beings here...

One that uses aggression/force/fraud to perpetrate physical assault...

And the other which "must" "submit" to this victimization or ultimately be gunned down for their refusal to be victimized...

Repel and Destroy may not have been used here...
But that was fully the discretion of the victims...
In the future this will most certainly change...

And, with that being said, we still humbly ask all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries to quit their jobs and become Philosophically Mature in the Non-Aggression Principle...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



Listen...Our opinions are polar opposites.  The way I see things is this:
A responsible gun owner/shooter uses common sense and common courtesy.  This is not 1887.  This is 2008.  Even though it is our right to open carry, a little discretion and common sense is in order.  Every gun owner should have their conceal permit and whenever you are in public, a city, etc, you carry your gun, but you conceal it.  There is NO need to draw unnecessary attention to your firearm.  The MAJORITY of people are not used to people openly carrying firearms.  Now, I understand you all want people to just accept it...well, that isn't the case.  So use some common sense and stop trying to be this social hero and just conceal the thing...A mother in Border's with her children isn't going to understand or be accepting to someone walking around with a pistol hanging off their side openly.  They should be concerned...especially taking in the totality of the circumstances in today's age with school shootings, etc.  I am not saying that it should be illegal to open carry...just saying use some common sense and stop being a social outlaw...it's not as cool as you think it is...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 01:34:00 pm
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe

Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 01:47:24 pm
So... back on the original topic... I'm curious what the original poster thinks of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Specifically, kelteckiller, what do you think of this incident (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)?

I think that "incident" was fine.
  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

"I think that "incident" was fine."

"I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them"

one of these things is not like the other...
one of these things just doesn't belong...

wtf...

These two "opinions" or "perceptions" are polar opposites and require extreme cognitive dissonance within a single consciousness...

The victims were assaulted by the perpetrators...they were physically disarmed...

Reverse the actions of the actors here to see why a "double standard" exists...

And to see that we have a perception of two classes of human beings here...

One that uses aggression/force/fraud to perpetrate physical assault...

And the other which "must" "submit" to this victimization or ultimately be gunned down for their refusal to be victimized...

Repel and Destroy may not have been used here...
But that was fully the discretion of the victims...
In the future this will most certainly change...

And, with that being said, we still humbly ask all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries to quit their jobs and become Philosophically Mature in the Non-Aggression Principle...

Go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



Listen...Our opinions are polar opposites.  The way I see things is this:
A responsible gun owner/shooter uses common sense and common courtesy.  This is not 1887.  This is 2008.  Even though it is our right to open carry, a little discretion and common sense is in order.  Every gun owner should have their conceal permit and whenever you are in public, a city, etc, you carry your gun, but you conceal it.  There is NO need to draw unnecessary attention to your firearm.  The MAJORITY of people are not used to people openly carrying firearms.  Now, I understand you all want people to just accept it...well, that isn't the case.  So use some common sense and stop trying to be this social hero and just conceal the thing...A mother in Border's with her children isn't going to understand or be accepting to someone walking around with a pistol hanging off their side openly.  They should be concerned...especially taking in the totality of the circumstances in today's age with school shootings, etc.  I am not saying that it should be illegal to open carry...just saying use some common sense and stop being a social outlaw...it's not as cool as you think it is...

Here's one for your "mother in Border's"...

How about our very own FSP Porcupine MOTHERS who strapped their sidearms on their hips(open carry) and went to the polling places(schools) to vote for Ron Paul in the primary!?!(Personal witness to this...no confrontations or questions at all...not even by the jackboots that were present)

and as far as your opinion goes...
assholes...yours isn't the only one...

go figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 01:57:25 pm
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe

Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

Killer,
I'm reasonably convinced that you are one or more of the following:

A looter...someone who accepts part of the loot and booty stolen by the bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

A bureaucrat...someone who participates directly and/or indirectly in the aggression/force/fraud of the "state" and receives part of the loot and booty...

A jackboot...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against peaceful and peace-loving people and who steal and receive loot and booty...

A mercenary...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against individuals, groups, regions, and/or whole land masses and receives loot/booty...

Killer?
How's that label workin' for ya...

Go Figure...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 02:21:47 pm
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe

Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

Killer,
I'm reasonably convinced that you are one or more of the following:

A looter...someone who accepts part of the loot and booty stolen by the bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

A bureaucrat...someone who participates directly and/or indirectly in the aggression/force/fraud of the "state" and receives part of the loot and booty...

A jackboot...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against peaceful and peace-loving people and who steal and receive loot and booty...

A mercenary...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against individuals, groups, regions, and/or whole land masses and receives loot/booty...

Killer?
How's that label workin' for ya...

Go Figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



You can call me any name under the sun...I am none of those...I am merely saying, if you think it is wrong and you KNOW you are right...DO SOMETHING...CHANGE IT!!  Don't sit on the sidelines and cry about it.  Is it going to change itself?  Bring a lawsuit up.  You want to see shit change REAL quick...hit a wallet. I am not being condescending, I am being brutally honest.  That is how it works...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 02:23:04 pm
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe

Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

Killer,
I'm reasonably convinced that you are one or more of the following:

A looter...someone who accepts part of the loot and booty stolen by the bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

A bureaucrat...someone who participates directly and/or indirectly in the aggression/force/fraud of the "state" and receives part of the loot and booty...

A jackboot...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against peaceful and peace-loving people and who steal and receive loot and booty...

A mercenary...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against individuals, groups, regions, and/or whole land masses and receives loot/booty...

Killer?
How's that label workin' for ya...

Go Figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



Oh and I would be a mercenary if I had to be any of those!  Do I get to chose the group I get to harass?   >:D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 02:36:16 pm
Listen...Our opinions are polar opposites.  The way I see things is this:
A responsible gun owner/shooter uses common sense and common courtesy.  This is not 1887.  This is 2008.  Even though it is our right to open carry, a little discretion and common sense is in order.  Every gun owner should have their conceal permit and whenever you are in public, a city, etc, you carry your gun, but you conceal it.  There is NO need to draw unnecessary attention to your firearm.  The MAJORITY of people are not used to people openly carrying firearms.  Now, I understand you all want people to just accept it...well, that isn't the case.  So use some common sense and stop trying to be this social hero and just conceal the thing...A mother in Border's with her children isn't going to understand or be accepting to someone walking around with a pistol hanging off their side openly.  They should be concerned...especially taking in the totality of the circumstances in today's age with school shootings, etc.  I am not saying that it should be illegal to open carry...just saying use some common sense and stop being a social outlaw...it's not as cool as you think it is...

Why don't people open carry?  Because it might upset folks.

Why might it upset folks?  Because they aren't used to people open-carrying.

Circular logic... automatically fails.

you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.

I'm not the injured party, so I don't have standing to sue.  But I'm not talking about a civil suit.

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Answer the question, why don't you?

You keep saying that "the law is the law."  Shouldn't they be prosecuted?  They committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

I will.  From now on, until the city of Manchester makes amends for its crimes against these individuals, I will not conceal my sidearm any time I visit Manchester, except in inclement weather.  I often open-carry there, anyway.  Now I will always do so.

http://www.pledgebank.com/OpenCarry

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: error on June 19, 2008, 03:17:55 pm
I've said my piece (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/06/16/strap_on_a_holster_gun_owners/) already. No pun intended.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 03:38:08 pm
Listen...Our opinions are polar opposites.  The way I see things is this:
A responsible gun owner/shooter uses common sense and common courtesy.  This is not 1887.  This is 2008.  Even though it is our right to open carry, a little discretion and common sense is in order.  Every gun owner should have their conceal permit and whenever you are in public, a city, etc, you carry your gun, but you conceal it.  There is NO need to draw unnecessary attention to your firearm.  The MAJORITY of people are not used to people openly carrying firearms.  Now, I understand you all want people to just accept it...well, that isn't the case.  So use some common sense and stop trying to be this social hero and just conceal the thing...A mother in Border's with her children isn't going to understand or be accepting to someone walking around with a pistol hanging off their side openly.  They should be concerned...especially taking in the totality of the circumstances in today's age with school shootings, etc.  I am not saying that it should be illegal to open carry...just saying use some common sense and stop being a social outlaw...it's not as cool as you think it is...

Why don't people open carry?  Because it might upset folks.

Why might it upset folks?  Because they aren't used to people open-carrying.

Circular logic... automatically fails.

you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.

I'm not the injured party, so I don't have standing to sue.  But I'm not talking about a civil suit.

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Answer the question, why don't you?

You keep saying that "the law is the law."  Shouldn't they be prosecuted?  The committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

I will.  From now on, until the city of Manchester makes amends for its crimes against these individuals, I will not conceal my sidearm any time I visit Manchester, except in inclement weather.  I often open-carry there, anyway.  Now I will always do so.

http://www.pledgebank.com/OpenCarry

Joe

Joe,
I say you MARCH into Manchester PD and demand criminal charges be pressed against these officers!  You are SO right.  They should sit in jail for decades!!!  Who do they think they are???????????????
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 19, 2008, 03:58:06 pm
A responsible gun owner/shooter uses common sense and common courtesy.  This is not 1887.  This is 2008.  Even though it is our right to open carry, a little discretion and common sense is in order.  Every gun owner should have their conceal permit and whenever you are in public, a city, etc, you carry your gun, but you conceal it.  There is NO need to draw unnecessary attention to your firearm.  The MAJORITY of people are not used to people openly carrying firearms.  Now, I understand you all want people to just accept it...well, that isn't the case.  So use some common sense and stop trying to be this social hero and just conceal the thing...A mother in Border's with her children isn't going to understand or be accepting to someone walking around with a pistol hanging off their side openly.  They should be concerned...especially taking in the totality of the circumstances in today's age with school shootings, etc.  I am not saying that it should be illegal to open carry...just saying use some common sense and stop being a social outlaw...it's not as cool as you think it is...

People who are open carrying are aiming to change that perception by doing so. By seeing it everywhere, people will eventually get used to it.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 19, 2008, 03:58:37 pm
Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

A lawsuit is being discussed (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0) over in the other thread about this. What, you think all we do is debate online?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 04:00:52 pm
Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

A lawsuit is being discussed (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0) over in the other thread about this. What, you think all we do is debate online?


Most?  Yes
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 04:01:37 pm
Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

A lawsuit is being discussed (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0) over in the other thread about this. What, you think all we do is debate online?

and again...you guys are talking about it...There is NO action.  Keep typing!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 19, 2008, 04:12:11 pm
Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

A lawsuit is being discussed (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0) over in the other thread about this. What, you think all we do is debate online?

and again...you guys are talking about it...There is NO action.  Keep typing!

It’s called planning.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 04:13:50 pm
Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

A lawsuit is being discussed (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=813.0) over in the other thread about this. What, you think all we do is debate online?

and again...you guys are talking about it...There is NO action.  Keep typing!

It’s called planning.

Uh-huh...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on June 19, 2008, 05:38:26 pm
Uh-huh...

At first I thought you were just here to state your opinion about something you disagreed with freestaters about.  Namely the tactics used by a few of the civil disobedience folks.  They're into activism you know, as opposed to going on the internet and complaining about the types of activism others do.   ;)

Now it appears that you're just here to irritate people and waste their time.  That's also known as trolling.  I didn't want to think of you as such before, because it just seemed like you just had a different viewpoint and wanted to share your concern about how the FSP might be perceived by outsiders.  Even though I disagreed with you on several things, believe it or not I understand where you were coming from.  No more though.  For a couple days now you haven't said anything that wasn't petty, snarky, and designed to push someone's buttons.

I don't know if you realized that's how you're coming off, but it is.  Just thought I'd let you know that.  Hopefully this new persona isn't your permanent one.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 06:45:21 pm
I say you MARCH into Manchester PD and demand criminal charges be pressed against these officers!  You are SO right.  They should sit in jail for decades!!!  Who do they think they are???????????????

I want a straight answer.  You keep saying that "the law is the law," and no one should violate the law, even if they think it is wrong.  Shouldn't the cops who did this be prosecuted?  They committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

I want a straight yes or no answer.  No sarcasm.  No nonsense.  If you can't answer straight, then it's pretty obvious that margomaps is right, and you are just a troll.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 07:35:02 pm
Uh-huh...

At first I thought you were just here to state your opinion about something you disagreed with freestaters about.  Namely the tactics used by a few of the civil disobedience folks.  They're into activism you know, as opposed to going on the internet and complaining about the types of activism others do.   ;)

Now it appears that you're just here to irritate people and waste their time.  That's also known as trolling.  I didn't want to think of you as such before, because it just seemed like you just had a different viewpoint and wanted to share your concern about how the FSP might be perceived by outsiders.  Even though I disagreed with you on several things, believe it or not I understand where you were coming from.  No more though.  For a couple days now you haven't said anything that wasn't petty, snarky, and designed to push someone's buttons.

I don't know if you realized that's how you're coming off, but it is.  Just thought I'd let you know that.  Hopefully this new persona isn't your permanent one.

I have been giving exactly what I have been given.  I came in to debate and see what this is all about.  I got attacked on a few occasions, and was named called MANY times without doing so prior...i.e. "jackboot" etc...If I get it, I AM giving it
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 07:37:01 pm
I say you MARCH into Manchester PD and demand criminal charges be pressed against these officers!  You are SO right.  They should sit in jail for decades!!!  Who do they think they are???????????????

I want a straight answer.  You keep saying that "the law is the law," and no one should violate the law, even if they think it is wrong.  Shouldn't the cops who did this be prosecuted?  They committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

I want a straight yes or no answer.  No sarcasm.  No nonsense.  If you can't answer straight, then it's pretty obvious that margomaps is right, and you are just a troll.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Joe

If you think a crime has been committed than yes.  There isn't a straight answer here because we don't see eye to eye on whether or not a "law" was broken.  You realize that we are not going to agree on everything...We have VERY similar viewpoints and VERY different ones...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 19, 2008, 07:47:35 pm
I think that "incident" was fine.  The "incident" I just witnessed with MY eyes, so I can judge the actions of all involved was two young guys open carrying getting interviewed.  I am not going to throw an opinion out on two people's recount of a situation.  I am sure that Manchester was wrong in stopping them, but not going to get into it without seeing it...

Let's assume that they are telling the truth in every detail, for the sake of argument.

If that's the case, what do you think of the criminal acts of the police in unlawfully detaining individuals for open carry?

Each officer is, as a result of such behavior, a felon several times over.  Should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Joe

Joe,
you really think it's wrong?  You really want to be the big man and do what is"right" to these cops?  STEP UP then!  Quit talking about what should be done and do what YOU think is right.  Sue em.  Fight back.  Stop yaking about it and do what YOU think is right.  I bet you just sit behind your computer and type about it...

Killer,
I'm reasonably convinced that you are one or more of the following:

A looter...someone who accepts part of the loot and booty stolen by the bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

A bureaucrat...someone who participates directly and/or indirectly in the aggression/force/fraud of the "state" and receives part of the loot and booty...

A jackboot...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against peaceful and peace-loving people and who steal and receive loot and booty...

A mercenary...someone who uses aggression/force/fraud directly and indirectly against individuals, groups, regions, and/or whole land masses and receives loot/booty...

Killer?
How's that label workin' for ya...

Go Figure...

RAD

Enjoy!



You can call me any name under the sun...I am none of those...I am merely saying, if you think it is wrong and you KNOW you are right...DO SOMETHING...CHANGE IT!!  Don't sit on the sidelines and cry about it.  Is it going to change itself?  Bring a lawsuit up.  You want to see shit change REAL quick...hit a wallet. I am not being condescending, I am being brutally honest.  That is how it works...

there is no relief from the jester in the jester's court...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on June 19, 2008, 08:15:22 pm
BTW  was is the thread in the Liberty Forum directory?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 08:22:24 pm
BTW  was is the thread in the Liberty Forum directory?

?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on June 19, 2008, 08:25:59 pm
BTW  was is the thread in the Liberty Forum directory?

?
The thread was started in teh Liberty Forum directory.

I will move it and then all will be right in the world.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 19, 2008, 08:44:27 pm
BTW  was is the thread in the Liberty Forum directory?

?
The thread was started in teh Liberty Forum directory.

I will move it and then all will be right in the world.

I thought it felt like the stars and moons weren't aligned properly!   ;)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 19, 2008, 10:43:26 pm
I want a straight answer.  You keep saying that "the law is the law," and no one should violate the law, even if they think it is wrong.  Shouldn't the cops who did this be prosecuted?  They committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

I want a straight yes or no answer.  No sarcasm.  No nonsense.  If you can't answer straight, then it's pretty obvious that margomaps is right, and you are just a troll.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?
If you think a crime has been committed than yes.  There isn't a straight answer here because we don't see eye to eye on whether or not a "law" was broken.  You realize that we are not going to agree on everything...We have VERY similar viewpoints and VERY different ones...

They broke the law.  That's an open-and-shut case.  They detained individuals who they did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct.  The conduct of these individuals who were open-carrying was not criminal, and no one with the vaguest understanding of the laws in NH could believe that it was.  The police certainly have no such excuse.  So, they had no reason to believe a crime was being committed.

When the police detain someone without cause, that is a crime.  So says the NH RSA's.  So says the United States Code.  So says the Supreme Court.

So these cops are criminals.  No room for doubt on that count.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Yes, or no?  Those are the only possible answers to that question.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 20, 2008, 08:07:33 am
I want a straight answer.  You keep saying that "the law is the law," and no one should violate the law, even if they think it is wrong.  Shouldn't the cops who did this be prosecuted?  They committed several major felonies, each, as well as numerous misdemeanors.  If "the law is the law," and it were applied, they would each be looking at dozens of years in prison.

I want a straight yes or no answer.  No sarcasm.  No nonsense.  If you can't answer straight, then it's pretty obvious that margomaps is right, and you are just a troll.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?
If you think a crime has been committed than yes.  There isn't a straight answer here because we don't see eye to eye on whether or not a "law" was broken.  You realize that we are not going to agree on everything...We have VERY similar viewpoints and VERY different ones...

They broke the law.  That's an open-and-shut case.  They detained individuals who they did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct.  The conduct of these individuals who were open-carrying was not criminal, and no one with the vaguest understanding of the laws in NH could believe that it was.  The police certainly have no such excuse.  So, they had no reason to believe a crime was being committed.

When the police detain someone without cause, that is a crime.  So says the NH RSA's.  So says the United States Code.  So says the Supreme Court.

So these cops are criminals.  No room for doubt on that count.

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Yes, or no?  Those are the only possible answers to that question.

Joe

yes

they should be terminated and prosecuted and the positions they were terminated from should be eliminated in favor of Peace Persons...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on June 20, 2008, 10:15:51 am
So we can all be victimized by paying for it?

How about the cops have to pay out of their own pockets each of their victims for their time and suffering?

After losing their jobs.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 20, 2008, 06:57:50 pm
62% there on the pledge...

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 21, 2008, 08:37:19 am
71% there...

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 21, 2008, 06:37:20 pm
71% there...

Joe

wonder if killer signed up yet...

of course it wouldn't be much trouble for him since he's MPD...lol...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on June 22, 2008, 06:50:50 am
71% there...

Joe

wonder if killer signed up yet...

of course it wouldn't be much trouble for him since he's MPD...lol...



?  Are you trolling?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 22, 2008, 06:56:49 am
71% there...

Joe

wonder if killer signed up yet...

of course it wouldn't be much trouble for him since he's MPD...lol...


?  Are you trolling?

Y...
R U bytng...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on June 22, 2008, 11:04:28 pm
wonder if killer signed up yet...

of course it wouldn't be much trouble for him since he's MPD...lol...
?  Are you trolling?

No, it appears that you are.

I mean, you come here to moan and complain about things that never happened, insist that breaking the law is never acceptable, then admit to breaking the law, and displaying an unwillingness to answer even a simple question like:

Should the cops be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Yes, or no?  Those are the only possible answers to that question.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on June 23, 2008, 04:47:52 pm
I think that when you go up to a police officer with an open carry and provoke them by placing your hand on the weapon, that is wrong.

Who did that? I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing, in this movement or out of it.

I ditto Lloyd's ditto.

I plan to. No, I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on June 23, 2008, 04:58:37 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

I want to go home too. I don't know them from the next person but I do know that the blue light gang murders more people every year than any other gang.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 23, 2008, 05:01:05 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xndEhn8EUdc

These cops have families that they want to go home to.  They don't know you from the next person.  If someone has a gun, wouldn't it make sense to have your hand resting on it in case the person decides they want to do something?  Them standing like that is not "threatening"  They just want to make it through their shift and see their wife and kids.  They weren't "harrassing" them.  They were very professional.  Sounds like Lauren needs to SLOW DOWN.  Does the FSP promote speeding?  Sounds like a good stop and arrest...errr "kidnapping"  to me!

This is were you guys go to far for me.  Too bad you had to pick NH to live in.  30 years, never been stopped and harassed, never been arrested, and never been stopped from doing what I want.  I am free here and the laws that are in place are good.  You can carry a gun, just leave it at that...

I want to go home too. I don't know them from the next person but I do know that the blue light gang murders more people every year than any other gang.

"blue light gang"...

comprised of looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

RAD

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: seamas on June 25, 2008, 09:27:34 pm
It strikes me as a bit funny that someone with the user name "kelteckiller" is giving pro-carry advocates PR advice.  Still, I also think that he (or she) did the right thing by "manning up" about the misconceptions about what he remembered about the actions of some FSP activists.  Hopefully, he will realize that the FSP is not monolithic.  Perhaps the later arguing from him was not trolling but just defensiveness due to everyone here picking apart the flaws in his posts and his unwillingness to criticize the MPD for their unlawful acts. 

After taking in this whole thread, I'm even more eager to move to NH.  I wonder what would happen if I chose to open carry on my commute from NJ to NYC.  I suspect that either: 1) it would end very poorly for me or 2) everyone would assume that I'm a detective/fed.  I'm not eager to find out and it's great that in NH open carry is a viable way of educating the government and one's fellow citizens.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Alli on June 26, 2008, 05:41:34 am
Wow, I must say the YouTube video made me uncomfortable, at least at first.  However, why should it make me feel uncomfortable other than it challenges the pro-statist brainwashing we all endure throughout our lifetime, preparing us for an existence of subjugation. Whence "We the People" become "We the Sheeple".

My only advice is that we always remain calm as he did in the video, and perhaps not wear threadbare t-shirts or knee-hiked tube socks - lol.  >:D

And I hereby do solemnly swear to never participate in any marches where anyone wears socks with sandals, regardless of their reason.  If we are going to fight for liberty, there is no reason we shouldn't look good while conducting ourselves.

Other than that, count me in...
(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/LGBT_Gadsden.png)

Armed Lesbians Don't get Bashed
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 26, 2008, 08:22:09 am
Wow, I must say the YouTube video made me uncomfortable, at least at first.  However, why should it make me feel uncomfortable other than it challenges the pro-statist brainwashing we all endure throughout our lifetime, preparing us for an existence of subjugation. Whence "We the People" become "We the Sheeple".

My only advice is that we always remain calm as he did in the video, and perhaps not wear threadbare t-shirts or knee-hiked tube socks - lol.  >:D

And I hereby do solemnly swear to never participate in any marches where anyone wears socks with sandals, regardless of their reason.  If we are going to fight for liberty, there is no reason we shouldn't look good while conducting ourselves.

Other than that, count me in...
(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/LGBT_Gadsden.png)

Armed Lesbians Human Beings Don't get Bashed

FTFY

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on June 26, 2008, 08:27:13 am
Wow, I must say the YouTube video made me uncomfortable, at least at first. However, why should it make me feel uncomfortable other than it challenges the pro-statist brainwashing we all endure throughout our lifetime, preparing us for an existence of subjugation. Whence "We the People" become "We the Sheeple".

My only advice is that we always remain calm as he did in the video, and perhaps not wear threadbare t-shirts or knee-hiked tube socks - lol. >:D

And I hereby do solemnly swear to never participate in any marches where anyone wears socks with sandals, regardless of their reason. If we are going to fight for liberty, there is no reason we shouldn't look good while conducting ourselves.

Other than that, count me in...
(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/LGBT_Gadsden.png)

Armed Lesbians Human Beings Don't get Bashed

FTFY



Right on. 8)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Alli on June 26, 2008, 09:21:11 am
If you prickly porcupines really are cool with the rainbow Gadsden, then that is alright by me.  Because you know you are right, we all do get bashed when liberty is squelched in the name of collectivism.  Here here.

But I am not budging on the sock and sandals thing.


Oh this morning on NBC 5 Chicago they asked people to write in and sound off on "the Chicago Gun Ban" very topical in not only is the Supreme Court se to rule today, but the streets of Chicago are becoming filled with blood as homicide after homicide keeps occuring.

So I wrote in and they read my email on the air this morning. woo-woo
Here is what I wrote...

Quote
Allison B.
Crown Point, Indiana

It would seem that criminals realize the good residents of Chicago are unarmed. Therefore, this common knowledge emboldens the criminals as they know there is little chance of resistance. Disarming the citizens of Chicago was a mistake. Since the inception of Chicago’s handgun ban, it has failed year after year. Moreover it seems prudent to look at another solution. Perhaps returning the natural right of individuals to defend themselves would be a good start. The simple idea that regular citizens can fight back will remind the criminals who prey on the defenseless, that the good citizens of Chicago are no longer easy targets.

The numbers do not lie, jurisdictions with open carry or conceal carry have less homicides and those jurisdictions with high restrictions on guns end up becoming war zones.

And they have since posted my reply along with the others on the NBC 5 Chicago website (http://www.nbc5.com/morning/16715812/detail.html?dl_trayclick).
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 26, 2008, 09:25:33 am
If you prickly porcupines really are cool with the rainbow Gadsden, then that is alright by me.  Because you know you are right, we all do get bashed when liberty is squelched in the name of collectivism.  Here here.

No offense intended...
but historically that's...

"Hear, hear"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear_hear


Welcome to the group...
Nice Quills...lol...

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on June 26, 2008, 09:26:06 am
This is my flag (http://www.freestateproject.org/images/FSPGadsdenFlag.240.jpg)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Alli on June 26, 2008, 09:32:37 am
Quote from: Powerchuter
No offense intended...
but historically that's...

"Hear, hear"

None taken, thank you for the correction.

I am planning to sew a "Rainbow Gadsden" to fly on our flag pole especially by Independence Day.
(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/LGBT_Indiana_Flag.jpg)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: cathleeninnh on June 26, 2008, 10:51:04 am
Great letter, Allison!!!

It may be too late for Chicago. We are waiting for you in NH. I can't speak for all of NH, but rainbows or not, a fellow liberty lover is welcome!

Cathleen
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on June 26, 2008, 11:04:52 am
Great letter, Allison!!!

It may be too late for Chicago. We are waiting for you in NH. I can't speak for all of NH, but rainbows or not, a fellow liberty lover is welcome!

Cathleen

She speaks for me. You should get yourself the FSP Porcupine flag and fly that too Alli. It would go well with the others.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 26, 2008, 01:43:14 pm
And I hereby do solemnly swear to never participate in any marches where anyone wears socks with sandals, regardless of their reason.

Only in marches? I wouldn't suggest wearing socks with sandals. Ever. ;)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 26, 2008, 03:34:04 pm
If you prickly porcupines really are cool with the rainbow Gadsden, then that is alright by me.  Because you know you are right, we all do get bashed when liberty is squelched in the name of collectivism.  Here here.

I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with it. :)

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.

By the way, you can put images in your sig instead of pasting them into each message.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on June 26, 2008, 04:44:14 pm

And I hereby do solemnly swear to never participate in any marches where anyone wears socks with sandals, regardless of their reason. 

Now this I can get behind.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 26, 2008, 06:44:24 pm

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Alli on June 26, 2008, 08:28:41 pm

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.

When I designed the flag in Illustrator, my initial idea was to attempt to coordinate them to a PMS number. However, I agree the blue and purple are too dark for a cloth version.  So in the sewn version I will opt to use a lighter fabric, or perhaps give the letters a 1/8" white border in order to help them stand out.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 26, 2008, 09:32:18 pm

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.

When I designed the flag in Illustrator, my initial idea was to attempt to coordinate them to a PMS number. However, I agree the blue and purple are too dark for a cloth version.  So in the sewn version I will opt to use a lighter fabric, or perhaps give the letters a 1/8" white border in order to help them stand out.

The border would probably make that stand out nicely... just opining away here. You're making a sewn version? Yourself or you're having it made? If the latter, I'm sure there's other people out there that'd be interested in them.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 26, 2008, 11:47:35 pm

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.

When I designed the flag in Illustrator, my initial idea was to attempt to coordinate them to a PMS number. However, I agree the blue and purple are too dark for a cloth version.  So in the sewn version I will opt to use a lighter fabric, or perhaps give the letters a 1/8" white border in order to help them stand out.

(http://i.eprci.net/lgbt-gadsden-flag-450x300)

Combination of Wikipedia’s Gadsden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gadsden_flag.svg) and LGBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_flag.svg) flags.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 27, 2008, 12:00:37 am

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.

When I designed the flag in Illustrator, my initial idea was to attempt to coordinate them to a PMS number. However, I agree the blue and purple are too dark for a cloth version.  So in the sewn version I will opt to use a lighter fabric, or perhaps give the letters a 1/8" white border in order to help them stand out.

(http://i.eprci.net/lgbt-gadsden-flag-450x300)

Combination of Wikipedia’s Gadsden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gadsden_flag.svg) and LGBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_flag.svg) flags.

Very nice, J. The rattlesnake is sharper too :)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 27, 2008, 12:06:28 am

From a design perspective I’d suggest making the snake and text stand out more (the black doesn’t show up well on the lower two bands of the rainbow), either by making them white, or making them not stretch across the last two bands.


Had a similar thought about the colors. It gets kinda dark at the bottom. Neat idea though. Franklin's "Join-or-Die" comic might take on an interesting look. It's already segmented nicely.

When I designed the flag in Illustrator, my initial idea was to attempt to coordinate them to a PMS number. However, I agree the blue and purple are too dark for a cloth version.  So in the sewn version I will opt to use a lighter fabric, or perhaps give the letters a 1/8" white border in order to help them stand out.

(http://i.eprci.net/lgbt-gadsden-flag-450x300)

Combination of Wikipedia’s Gadsden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gadsden_flag.svg) and LGBT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_flag.svg) flags.

Very nice, J. The rattlesnake is sharper too :)

There seem to be two popular versions of the rattlesnake out there. The flag I have uses this one; I take it the company just used Wikipedia’s source file to print their flags. I’ve also seen the “simpler” version of the snake used in Alli’s image; the flag Dave Ridley usually has (seen in his videos) is that one, too.

The most accurate version is probably this one:—
(http://jwhanley.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/gadsden.jpg)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Alli on June 27, 2008, 05:45:31 am
Quote
B.D. Ross said:

The border would probably make that stand out nicely... just opining away here. You're making a sewn version? Yourself or you're having it made? If the latter, I'm sure there's other people out there that'd be interested in them.


I plan on sewing  a 4' by 6' and then grommeting them myself using cloth and not nylon, as well as sewing on letters and the snake.  So they will look older, but will suffer from fading / mold if someone left it up continuously.  If enough people wanted them I could produce them on UV nylon with the snake and letters printed using UV inks.

Personally, my preference is for the more crude illustration of the snake and letters.  They remind me of some of the old hand cut wood block letters used in printing from the 17th century.

Oh also a thought on merchandising....

(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/FSP_DTOM_PORCUPINE.jpg)

We would sooo buy a couple of these.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on June 28, 2008, 02:02:58 pm
Personally, my preference is for the more crude illustration of the snake and letters.  They remind me of some of the old hand cut wood block letters used in printing from the 17th century.

Indeed, the Wikipedia version is too “clean” looking to be from that era.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on June 28, 2008, 03:20:52 pm

(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/theloupe_photos/FSP_DTOM_PORCUPINE.jpg)

We would sooo buy a couple of these.

Heh. Would be great for the office.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on June 30, 2008, 07:15:46 pm
I was in NH for the Paul campaign in Dec/Jan, and I think it's a great state, and Manchester is an excellent little city. I met a lot of good people. There's no doubt I've thought a lot about coming up there. (I almost made it to Porcfest, but couldn't). It's threads like this that make me weary about being part of FSP and especially about potentially moving to NH.

Here you have a native NHer who agrees with your sentiments coming to offer you advice and you spit in his face. I think that for FSP to be successful, you have to engage the "natives" and win them over, not alienate them by pigeonholing the group as a a bunch of gun wielding anarchists. Now, I realize the project has no "leader" but if it is perceived by the public to have one, then their actions will be seen as the groups, and the group will be pigeonholed. Maybe groups in the state will pass laws *against* open carry because you have done such a bad job marketing yourself. It's like a local newspaper columnist/ex-state house rep told me as I was talking to him outside a polling precinct on the seacoast "All the free state people want to do is own bazookas and smoke hemp".

So, like I said, I'm still thinking over moving up and figured I'd offer my 2 cents. I know my views might not flow with the "non agression" principle or whatever links you want to float from Mises, but I think they mesh with reality quite well. Don't alienate the two groups you need most, people who already live there and people who want to move. Build consensus for change, don't just take a bunch of small feel good actions that win you no support on the community. The project will backfire.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Pat K on June 30, 2008, 07:39:52 pm
Yeah guys stop exercising your rights
or the state will take them away.

"All the free state people want to do is own bazookas and smoke hemp".

Well we don't want to smoke hemp.

Now remember guys and Gals, don't speak  out you might
loose your right to speech.

Don't wear guns, you might loose your right to guns.

Don't live free cause government might take away your right to
be free.

P.S. Now get out there and fight for liberty.

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on June 30, 2008, 09:13:06 pm
I guess my point is just that if your devotion to open-carry is making people mad, it might be worth toning down or doing it different, as killetnic noted. If the point of this project is real change in the name of liberty, then concessions and compromise might have to be made. To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC. I'd prefer to be part of something that aims to hit the IRS and the Mil-INDUS complex, not just keeping seatbelt laws off the books and making sure we can carry our guns to county fairs. I think that's what he meant by "not being a social hero", even if your action is philosophically sound.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on June 30, 2008, 09:25:26 pm
I was in NH for the Paul campaign in Dec/Jan, and I think it's a great state, and Manchester is an excellent little city. I met a lot of good people. There's no doubt I've thought a lot about coming up there. (I almost made it to Porcfest, but couldn't). It's threads like this that make me weary about being part of FSP and especially about potentially moving to NH.

Here you have a native NHer who agrees with your sentiments coming to offer you advice and you spit in his face. I think that for FSP to be successful, you have to engage the "natives" and win them over, not alienate them by pigeonholing the group as a a bunch of gun wielding anarchists. Now, I realize the project has no "leader" but if it is perceived by the public to have one, then their actions will be seen as the groups, and the group will be pigeonholed. Maybe groups in the state will pass laws *against* open carry because you have done such a bad job marketing yourself. It's like a local newspaper columnist/ex-state house rep told me as I was talking to him outside a polling precinct on the seacoast "All the free state people want to do is own bazookas and smoke hemp".

So, like I said, I'm still thinking over moving up and figured I'd offer my 2 cents. I know my views might not flow with the "non agression" principle or whatever links you want to float from Mises, but I think they mesh with reality quite well. Don't alienate the two groups you need most, people who already live there and people who want to move. Build consensus for change, don't just take a bunch of small feel good actions that win you no support on the community. The project will backfire.

jrod...chances are we met if you were here with the rp campaign.
Most of the locals have accepted 'us'. (again there are many different types of FSPers who moved).
The fact that the local newspaper person grouped us all together is somewhat funny.
All democrats are not the same.
All GOPers are not the same.
All FSPers are not the same.

People bring up stuff to me all the time about 'you freestaters'... I gently correct them.

There are people bring consenus for change.
Don't judge the whole movement based on the forums.
Also... the OPs facts were wrong on many points..... Dave was just walking to a bar... there was no protest going on.

We welcome you to NH.
If you want specific info ...feel free to PM me.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Pat K on June 30, 2008, 09:52:47 pm
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

 
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 01, 2008, 07:23:13 am
Yeah guys stop exercising your rights
or the state will take them away.

"All the free state people want to do is own bazookas and smoke hemp".

Well we don't want to smoke hemp.

Now remember guys and Gals, don't speak  out you might
loose your right to speech.

Don't wear guns, you might loose your right to guns.

Don't live free cause government might take away your right to
be free.

P.S. Now get out there and fight for liberty.



grovel for liberty....

sorry...

massa wouldn't lets me do that...

wipin' de sweat boss...

don't shoot me...


ps...
note to massa...
massa be all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...
massa...your days are numbered...
each and every day more and more slaves wake up to your tyranny...
soon you'll need all those Chinese peace-keeping troops to get their equipment out of those shipping containers staged all over the continent...
hey, the Russians didn't succeed in Afghanistan...the Amerikans won't either...what makes you think the Chinese will succeed in Amerika...
oh, that's right...I forgot...America: population 300 million...China: population 3.3 billion...
Wolverines(apologies to Patrick Swayze and the cast and crew of Red Dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dawn), we're outnumbered a thousand to one...
Go figure...

dark days ahead...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 01, 2008, 07:26:07 am
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

Quote
"concessions and compromises" are what got us here to begin with...

so true...so true...

go figure...

enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: cathleeninnh on July 01, 2008, 07:51:46 am
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 01, 2008, 11:20:36 am
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

Quote
"concessions and compromises" are what got us here to begin with...

so true...so true...

go figure...

enjoy!



No "Rad"??
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 01, 2008, 11:41:41 am
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

Quote
"concessions and compromises" are what got us here to begin with...

so true...so true...

go figure...

enjoy!



No "Rad"??

 ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 01, 2008, 12:13:20 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 01, 2008, 12:15:34 pm
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

 

So being a firebrand libertarian revolutionary is going to get you out of it? Or do you mean, we have to start revolting with guns and the like?

I might be cynical, but I still believe in the system.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 01, 2008, 02:02:45 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.

but when that "neighbor" puts on the "tax collectors" costume...or the "jackboots" costume...or the "bureaucrats" costume...
and commits aggression/force/fraud against someone...no matter how "small" and/or "benign" it appears to be...
the correct and appropriate response should be to inform them of their errors and if they don't cease and desist...

Then each and every one of them should be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...
That would get right of the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries in short order...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 01, 2008, 02:06:15 pm
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

Quote
"concessions and compromises" are what got us here to begin with...

so true...so true...

go figure...

enjoy!



No "Rad"??

It's NEVER Rad...
It's either RAD or rad...

Enjoy...

Go figure...

Rand was right...
What a looter-fest...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Pat K on July 01, 2008, 02:15:57 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.

Well yes I suppose it is "nicer" to stick a gun in a mans face and demand he pay for
the fire house that is near him rather than say some tanks in Korea. But really not that much nicer, now is it.
 
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Pat K on July 01, 2008, 02:26:49 pm
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

 

So being a firebrand libertarian revolutionary is going to get you out of it? Or do you mean, we have to start revolting with guns and the like?

I might be cynical, but I still believe in the system.

When there is compromise's  on liberty , liberty is weakened.
This is what has happened.
We have reached a point were people actually believe they can
vote away or rescind other peoples rights.

There can be no comprimise
 on rights or liberty .




Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: error on July 01, 2008, 03:59:01 pm
So being a firebrand libertarian revolutionary is going to get you out of it? Or do you mean, we have to start revolting with guns and the like?

I might be cynical, but I still believe in the system.

Plenty of FSPers are using the political process to make change, with some success. If that's what appeals to you, there are plenty of ways to get involved (http://www.nhliberty.org/).
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 01, 2008, 04:17:52 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.

Well yes I suppose it is "nicer" to stick a gun in a mans face and demand he pay for
the fire house that is near him rather than say some tanks in Korea. But really not that much nicer, now is it.
 

Look, the situation doesn't conform easily to your philosophy. Reality usually isn't distilled into ideology so easily. Fact is, you have to pick and choose your battles. I'd rather take on bigger injustices than the local schools, firemen or the public transport. But I'm a pragmatist like that. I'd vote for a peaceful "socialist" like Kucinich or Nader over someone like Barr any day of the week.

But, thank you to Error and Dreepa for pointing me towards NHLA.



Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: gadsdenflag on July 01, 2008, 04:19:24 pm

First of all, I apologize for speaking incorrectly.  I was making statements off of memory.  I was wrong and I do sincerely apologize.  I still disagree though.  Lauren did not JUST speed and not speak to the officer.  She didn't have a license and a registration.  It is a law.  Whether you agree with it or not, you don't just ignore it.  You go for a seat in the House of Representatives and change it, you lobby people, put signs up, etc.  You don't just ignore it and do whatever you want.  I have never smoked pot.  I think it should be legal...I am not going to smoke it just because I want to though...

The other people were "stranded" on the side of the road on their own accord.  The police officer politely asked them if they had someone that could come down and give them a ride.  They chose to not say anything.  The cop can't just give her car to someone that doesn't own it....  Stop making victims out of people who are making their own bed.

Listen, some of my "facts" were HIGHLY distorted due to me going off of memory of something I watched a while back, but my bottom line stands.  I really think FSP needs to reevaluate their method of dispersing their message.  FSP is coming off as a bunch of gun toting whackos.  I KNOW this isn't the case, but if you ask the majority of the people outside the group, that is what they think.

The only reason I think you guys need to seriously address that is because of the effectiveness of your message.  As I stated in the beginning, I think you guys have some GREAT standpoints, I don't agree with how you put it out there.  I think if you changed strategy a little you would get more people on your side and probably get some good changes in this state.  I don't think that is harsh criticism...I have a tough time getting across what I am trying to say, but I hope this came off as helpful and not attacking....

By this logic Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus, and sought a seat on the city counicl?  Better yet, Franklin and his peers should have hopped the pond and bought their way into the parliament?

LOL

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Pat K on July 01, 2008, 04:52:46 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.

Well yes I suppose it is "nicer" to stick a gun in a mans face and demand he pay for
the fire house that is near him rather than say some tanks in Korea. But really not that much nicer, now is it.
 

Look, the situation doesn't conform easily to your philosophy. Reality usually isn't distilled into ideology so easily. Fact is, you have to pick and choose your battles. I'd rather take on bigger injustices than the local schools, firemen or the public transport. But I'm a pragmatist like that. I'd vote for a peaceful "socialist" like Kucinich or Nader over someone like Barr any day of the week.

But, thank you to Error and Dreepa for pointing me towards NHLA.





Reality is reality it does not have to be distilled into any thing.
The reality is Government is force, nothing more and nothing less,
when this is forgotten bad things happen.

I glad you found out about the NHLA I am for all peaceful means
for rolling back government.

I just don't kid myself about what government is and won't
moderate my tone for those to delicate for the truth.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on July 01, 2008, 06:08:15 pm
So being a firebrand libertarian revolutionary is going to get you out of it? Or do you mean, we have to start revolting with guns and the like?

I might be cynical, but I still believe in the system.

Plenty of FSPers are using the political process to make change, with some success. If that's what appeals to you, there are plenty of ways to get involved (http://www.nhliberty.org/).

Very true.  Someone mentioned this earlier, but I think it bears repeating/rephrasing yet again: the FSP is not represented by the opinions of the few visiting these forums.  Some in the FSP are hardcore NAP/anarchist types (arguably over-represented on the forums), some are heavily involved in the various political processes, and many others fall somewhere inbetween.  If the statement of intent appeals to you, you can almost certainly find a like-minded group of FSPers to help you work toward liberty your way and at your pace.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 02, 2008, 01:58:05 am
"concessions and compromise"

Are what got us to were we are now.

But Chris is right, plenty of different opinions amongst
them their Free Staters.

 

So being a firebrand libertarian revolutionary is going to get you out of it? Or do you mean, we have to start revolting with guns and the like?

I might be cynical, but I still believe in the system.

I believe in using the system to dismantle itself.

Oh, and welcome. ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 02, 2008, 02:06:57 am
Look, the situation doesn't conform easily to your philosophy. Reality usually isn't distilled into ideology so easily. Fact is, you have to pick and choose your battles. I'd rather take on bigger injustices than the local schools, firemen or the public transport.

Indeed, an incrementalist strategy is how we got into the mess we’re in, and it’s the way to get us out. Roll back the worst abuses of government before tackling the things that far too many people accept as good.

All in good time…
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 02, 2008, 07:57:03 am
Look, the situation doesn't conform easily to your philosophy. Reality usually isn't distilled into ideology so easily. Fact is, you have to pick and choose your battles. I'd rather take on bigger injustices than the local schools, firemen or the public transport.

Indeed, an incrementalist strategy is how we got into the mess we’re in, and it’s the way to get us out. Roll back the worst abuses of government before tackling the things that far too many people accept as good.

All in good time…

Optimistic thinking at best...
The neighbor who had your compromise yesterday...to "allow" them to walk into your home to "borrow" a cup of sugar "every so often"...
Today walks in and needs that hundred dollar bill in your sock drawer to pay their utility bill...hey it's for the children...you don't mind do you...

Looters DO NOT take "no" for an answer...they just look for another "way"...
When all the "compromisers" are fed up with "compromising"...the looters still "need" their loot and booty...
Then the looters aren't so "compromising" and "nice" anymore...
They then turn to the bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries and the tyranny of the mob-mentality "majority"...to get what they want...

That's pretty much where we are "at" right now...

How's that working for ya...

Still...I support Ron Paul in his continued efforts to awaken the masses(www.campaignforliberty.com)...
After all, his message just might keep your hands out of my pockets...

At least for awhile...

Go figure...




-Rand was right-
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 02, 2008, 08:43:37 am
Here you have a native NHer who agrees with your sentiments coming to offer you advice and you spit in his face.

No, we have some random Internet troll who may or may not live anywhere near NH, who came here to spit in our face.  And who clearly does not agree with our "sentiments," if he thinks that liberty is only for having but never using, that cops should be above the law, and such.

Don't alienate the two groups you need most, people who already live there and people who want to move. Build consensus for change, don't just take a bunch of small feel good actions that win you no support on the community.

Your notion of "consensus" seems to be that we do whatever they say.  That's not consensus.

I guess my point is just that if your devotion to open-carry is making people mad, it might be worth toning down or doing it different, as killetnic noted.

My ethnic background makes some people mad.  Should I pretend I don't have Jewish blood from half my family?

If the point of this project is real change in the name of liberty, then concessions and compromise might have to be made. To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC. I'd prefer to be part of something that aims to hit the IRS and the Mil-INDUS complex, not just keeping seatbelt laws off the books and making sure we can carry our guns to county fairs.

The only reason that the government is as big as it is, is because individuals think that guns don't need to be carried and, potentially, used.  George Washington should have gone to the gallows, along with the rest of the Federalist traitors.  But your philosophical predecessors talked some irate farmers out of that notion, and got us in the mess we're in today.  Appeasement is never a workable strategy, in the long term.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: cathleeninnh on July 02, 2008, 02:41:45 pm
To me, the enemies of liberty aren't the Manchester PD, or the state of NH but the folks in DC.

The enemies of liberty are all those who think it is ok to use "someone else's money" to do or get what they want. DC is a reflection of that;  local and state government is a reflection of that. Enlightenment can happen many ways and many places.

Cathleen

So you are gonna go to small town New Hampshire and tell them that their school house and firehouse and policemen are the products of thievery for generations and they are enemies of liberty? Don't you think you are gonna run into problems telling people this?

Sorry, I happen to think that the more local the government, the better chances the spending isn't wasteful, especially in New Hampshire, when the school board members/general court rep is your neighbor.

It may be easier to live with a neighbor who doesn't want to pay for the firehouse, but if he never considers force wrong, he will continue to send reps to DC and Concord to do his bidding. You will spin your wheels trying to deal with the big picture while the force of everyone's neighbor keeps feeding the fire.

Cathleen
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 02, 2008, 07:07:28 pm
Well, you guys got your opinions and I got mine. I don't think the "idealism versus pragmatism" debate is going away anytime soon. Perhaps we can discuss at Murphys, which brings me to my next topic...

I just signed up for the "Next 1000" pledge. I'm gonna work some good hours the next few months, maybe get a transfer to the "greater Manchester area" and hopefully be up for the next round of elections.

Do you guys know how long one must be a resident to vote there? And how many porcs have moved in?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Dreepa on July 02, 2008, 08:11:37 pm
Well, you guys got your opinions and I got mine. I don't think the "idealism versus pragmatism" debate is going away anytime soon. Perhaps we can discuss at Murphys, which brings me to my next topic...

I just signed up for the "Next 1000" pledge. I'm gonna work some good hours the next few months, maybe get a transfer to the "greater Manchester area" and hopefully be up for the next round of elections.

Do you guys know how long one must be a resident to vote there? And how many porcs have moved in?
To be a resident to vote?  I think it is immediate.
I believe about 300 porcs have moved.  And at least 10-20 more that moved to NH because of the FSP but never joined and then there are the 100s of natives who welcomed us.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 02, 2008, 08:24:39 pm
Well, you guys got your opinions and I got mine. I don't think the "idealism versus pragmatism" debate is going away anytime soon. Perhaps we can discuss at Murphys, which brings me to my next topic...

I just signed up for the "Next 1000" pledge. I'm gonna work some good hours the next few months, maybe get a transfer to the "greater Manchester area" and hopefully be up for the next round of elections.

Do you guys know how long one must be a resident to vote there? And how many porcs have moved in?

As soon as you can prove TO THE MAN  ::) that you live here i.e. mortgage, electricity bill, rental agreement, you can vote. 
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 02, 2008, 09:18:34 pm
As soon as you can prove TO THE MAN  ::) that you live here i.e. mortgage, electricity bill, rental agreement, you can vote.

Not really.  A very large percentage of the voters in our elections are from neighboring states and Canada, crossing the border and voting illegally.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 03, 2008, 02:58:38 am
As some fellow sign wavers told me on primary day "Just go say your last name is smith or wilson and you could probably vote".

I'll take small shenanigan vote fraud over diebold corporate kickback type any day.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 05:10:20 am
As soon as you can prove TO THE MAN  ::) that you live here i.e. mortgage, electricity bill, rental agreement, you can vote.

Not really.  A very large percentage of the voters in our elections are from neighboring states and Canada, crossing the border and voting illegally.

Joe

OK...To vote LEGALLY...that is the process
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 05:12:16 am
As some fellow sign wavers told me on primary day "Just go say your last name is smith or wilson and you could probably vote".

I'll take small shenanigan vote fraud over diebold corporate kickback type any day.

I live in a very small town just outside concord and, even though everyone knows me, they still check my ID...but who wants ID's???  They are so invasive on my personal freedom MAN!   ::)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 03, 2008, 08:10:51 am
As soon as you can prove TO THE MAN  ::) that you live here i.e. mortgage, electricity bill, rental agreement, you can vote.

Not really.  A very large percentage of the voters in our elections are from neighboring states and Canada, crossing the border and voting illegally.

Joe

OK...To vote LEGALLY...that is the process

Quote
OK...To vote LEGALLY...that is the process

Quote
To vote LEGALLY

Quote
vote

Quote
LEGALLY

Ok, now that we've broken down the above quotation...lets look at it rationally and logically...

First, I will concede that some "voting" is legitimate...as in a call for a unanimous consent vote where ALL voting parties have voluntarily committed to some contractual agreement where said contract is totally voluntary with full disclosure and ONLY binding upon same said voluntary signatories...

We'll take a look at this concept as it applies to the chronological lifespan of a human being...apologies in advance for leaving anything out...

The AFF(aggression/force/fraud) becomes immediately apparent when your parents can't just purchase birth control products from the shelf adjacent to the aspirin...
Who voted to give someone else authority over our choices...

More AFF when young adults are turned away from the medical community when they have decided they don't want children and try to get "fixed"...
Again, who voted to only "allow" certain "licensed" human beings to practice medicine...and to refuse to perform certain procedures due to social pressure and litigation...

Continued AFF when ANYONE ELSE(including the government) is "included" or "consulted" or "has a say" in any/all personal, private medical/health related issues existing between a physician/provider and any/all prospective and current patients...
How is it possible that a third-party is allowed to do this...I don't remember my vote for that...

So now "Adam" and "Zeva", two Individual Sovereign Human Beings, our young "couple" who have decided to enjoy each other intimately...
Looked on the shelf but could find their particular choice of birth control method...
Looked to the medical/health community for their particular choice of "getting fixed" but were refused and turned away...
Looked to the medical practitioners for another choice...but were turned away because they didn't have their parents permission...

So along come the twins...a boy and a girl...
The hospital accidentally performs a circumcision(male mutilation) on the boy, but thankfully does not do the same with the girl(clitoris removal - as performed by different social "groups" across the globe)...
The parents are then arrested as they attempt to take their children home...without the hospital's "permission"...thereby setting off the RFID alarms...
Then the parents learn that their twins have been implanted with microchips...as mandated by "vote" of "congress"...as part of their attempts to use biometric identifiers to ascertain which human beings are physically present within the "borders" of the "nation"...
And that it is a crime to remove, deactivate, or alter...the chip or it's functioning or it's contents...
Adam and Zeva know that they only have a limited amount of time to easily remove the chip before the cranial plates fuse together necessitating more dangerous and invasive procedures later on...to include a hole being drilled in the skull to facilitate the removal of the foreign object placed there by a vote from "congress"...

Then, of course, come the mandatory "voted" immunizations which result in both of the twins getting severe autism and also both being partially paralyzed from another rare and potentially deadly side effect...

Then Adam and Zeva have a parallel experience to Brian and Ruth Christine(http://oregonfamilyrights.com/christines/) and they are incarcerated and their twins are put into a state home for the disabled...to await mandatory termination as "voted" in by "congress" under the new "legal" "definition" of "living" and "productive life-forms" and "vegetable" and "brain-dead" and "unproductive life-forms"...

When Adam and Zeva learn that the twins were murdered by the state, as mandated by "congress" and the "vote" and "will" of the mobster-mentality looter majority...they commit suicide rather than live as political prisoners of the state...with the memories of their thwarted choices...the aggression/force/fraud used against them at every twist and turn...and the subsequent mutilation, manipulation, poisoning, and murder of their children by the state...by some vote...by some majority...

Hey...
As long as it's not happening to you or yours...right...RIGHT...
As long as your "vote" only infringes on someone else's Basic Human Rights...
As long as your "tax money" only goes to imprison, torture, and murder others...
Others you don't give a shit about because they are "another" color, gender, orientation, faith, etc...

The Romans had their bread and circuses...
You've got your beer and football...
Your wine coolers and Amerikan Idol...

Hey, your eight children are being indoctrinated via the public fools system facilitated by the theft and robbery inherent in the "property taxes" that your neighbor pays...
And, of course, you'd cry "foul" and send out the other looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries if you thought that someone else wasn't "paying their fair share"...

Well let me tell you what...you looters...you bureaucrats...you jackboots...you mercenaries...
Ayn Rand was right...oh so right...and we have been oh so wrong...for so long...
Producers must not produce one penny to benefit the looters of any stripe or costume...
Producers must not share cures that they have discovered nor beneficial procedures they have developed nor new and world enhancing products/services...
Producers must remain removed from the looters, to deny them any substance...that they might consume themselves and every other looter around them...

The only relief from the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries is to deny them at every turn...and to repel, destroy, and eliminate each and every one who attempts to live even one more day...at your expense...by your blood...by your sweat...by your tears...by your efforts...by your knowledge...



that being said, a "vote" for Ron Paul is a battle cry...
and justifiable...In my honest and humble opinion...


Looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries DON'T have to continue on their current destructive paths of aggression/force/fraud against peaceful and peace-loving human beings...they can QUIT...TODAY...RIGHT NOW...

Some will...
Some won't ...

Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights and should demand, respect, and interact with ALL other Individual Sovereign Human Beings utilizing the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle!

Simple...
So easy...
So very effective...
So very immediate and life-changing...

100 Percent NAP equals World Peace...

Oh, but we couldn't have that could we...what ever would the military/industrial cartels do...what ever would the sex/drug cartels do...
How would Lord Cheney and his agents of death and destruction continue to rule their global gulag on the prison planet...
How would Lords Bush and Clinton and their agents of annihilation continue to rule the pedophile priests, cocaine christians, and meth MS13...

You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes...
You might just ask Vince Foster...
Oops, Hitlery got there first...
Oh well...you're next...

WHAT!?!?!

never...

Go figure...

enjoy!



-you'regonnagetwhatyoudeserve-

www.campaignforliberty.com



Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 08:32:34 am
I live in a very small town just outside concord and, even though everyone knows me, they still check my ID...but who wants ID's???  They are so invasive on my personal freedom MAN!   ::)

Who wants ID's?  The government, and those who love sticking their noses in other people's business.

I can't recall how long it's been since I showed an ID to anyone.  Speaking of which, though, you've never answered some very basic questions...

Should the cops who illegally detained four individuals for open carry last month be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their crimes?

Yes, or no?  Those are the only possible answers to that question.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 10:30:46 am
As soon as you can prove TO THE MAN  ::) that you live here i.e. mortgage, electricity bill, rental agreement, you can vote.

Not really.  A very large percentage of the voters in our elections are from neighboring states and Canada, crossing the border and voting illegally.

Joe

OK...To vote LEGALLY...that is the process

Quote
OK...To vote LEGALLY...that is the process

Quote
To vote LEGALLY

Quote
vote

Quote
LEGALLY

Ok, now that we've broken down the above quotation...lets look at it rationally and logically...

First, I will concede that some "voting" is legitimate...as in a call for a unanimous consent vote where ALL voting parties have voluntarily committed to some contractual agreement where said contract is totally voluntary with full disclosure and ONLY binding upon same said voluntary signatories...

We'll take a look at this concept as it applies to the chronological lifespan of a human being...apologies in advance for leaving anything out...

The AFF(aggression/force/fraud) becomes immediately apparent when your parents can't just purchase birth control products from the shelf adjacent to the aspirin...
Who voted to give someone else authority over our choices...

More AFF when young adults are turned away from the medical community when they have decided they don't want children and try to get "fixed"...
Again, who voted to only "allow" certain "licensed" human beings to practice medicine...and to refuse to perform certain procedures due to social pressure and litigation...

Continued AFF when ANYONE ELSE(including the government) is "included" or "consulted" or "has a say" in any/all personal, private medical/health related issues existing between a physician/provider and any/all prospective and current patients...
How is it possible that a third-party is allowed to do this...I don't remember my vote for that...

So now "Adam" and "Zeva", two Individual Sovereign Human Beings, our young "couple" who have decided to enjoy each other intimately...
Looked on the shelf but could find their particular choice of birth control method...
Looked to the medical/health community for their particular choice of "getting fixed" but were refused and turned away...
Looked to the medical practitioners for another choice...but were turned away because they didn't have their parents permission...

So along come the twins...a boy and a girl...
The hospital accidentally performs a circumcision(male mutilation) on the boy, but thankfully does not do the same with the girl(clitoris removal - as performed by different social "groups" across the globe)...
The parents are then arrested as they attempt to take their children home...without the hospital's "permission"...thereby setting off the RFID alarms...
Then the parents learn that their twins have been implanted with microchips...as mandated by "vote" of "congress"...as part of their attempts to use biometric identifiers to ascertain which human beings are physically present within the "borders" of the "nation"...
And that it is a crime to remove, deactivate, or alter...the chip or it's functioning or it's contents...
Adam and Zeva know that they only have a limited amount of time to easily remove the chip before the cranial plates fuse together necessitating more dangerous and invasive procedures later on...to include a hole being drilled in the skull to facilitate the removal of the foreign object placed there by a vote from "congress"...

Then, of course, come the mandatory "voted" immunizations which result in both of the twins getting severe autism and also both being partially paralyzed from another rare and potentially deadly side effect...

Then Adam and Zeva have a parallel experience to Brian and Ruth Christine(http://oregonfamilyrights.com/christines/) and they are incarcerated and their twins are put into a state home for the disabled...to await mandatory termination as "voted" in by "congress" under the new "legal" "definition" of "living" and "productive life-forms" and "vegetable" and "brain-dead" and "unproductive life-forms"...

When Adam and Zeva learn that the twins were murdered by the state, as mandated by "congress" and the "vote" and "will" of the mobster-mentality looter majority...they commit suicide rather than live as political prisoners of the state...with the memories of their thwarted choices...the aggression/force/fraud used against them at every twist and turn...and the subsequent mutilation, manipulation, poisoning, and murder of their children by the state...by some vote...by some majority...

Hey...
As long as it's not happening to you or yours...right...RIGHT...
As long as your "vote" only infringes on someone else's Basic Human Rights...
As long as your "tax money" only goes to imprison, torture, and murder others...
Others you don't give a shit about because they are "another" color, gender, orientation, faith, etc...

The Romans had their bread and circuses...
You've got your beer and football...
Your wine coolers and Amerikan Idol...

Hey, your eight children are being indoctrinated via the public fools system facilitated by the theft and robbery inherent in the "property taxes" that your neighbor pays...
And, of course, you'd cry "foul" and send out the other looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries if you thought that someone else wasn't "paying their fair share"...

Well let me tell you what...you looters...you bureaucrats...you jackboots...you mercenaries...
Ayn Rand was right...oh so right...and we have been oh so wrong...for so long...
Producers must not produce one penny to benefit the looters of any stripe or costume...
Producers must not share cures that they have discovered nor beneficial procedures they have developed nor new and world enhancing products/services...
Producers must remain removed from the looters, to deny them any substance...that they might consume themselves and every other looter around them...

The only relief from the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries is to deny them at every turn...and to repel, destroy, and eliminate each and every one who attempts to live even one more day...at your expense...by your blood...by your sweat...by your tears...by your efforts...by your knowledge...



that being said, a "vote" for Ron Paul is a battle cry...
and justifiable...In my honest and humble opinion...


Looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries DON'T have to continue on their current destructive paths of aggression/force/fraud against peaceful and peace-loving human beings...they can QUIT...TODAY...RIGHT NOW...

Some will...
Some won't ...

Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being has Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights and should demand, respect, and interact with ALL other Individual Sovereign Human Beings utilizing the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle!

Simple...
So easy...
So very effective...
So very immediate and life-changing...

100 Percent NAP equals World Peace...

Oh, but we couldn't have that could we...what ever would the military/industrial cartels do...what ever would the sex/drug cartels do...
How would Lord Cheney and his agents of death and destruction continue to rule their global gulag on the prison planet...
How would Lords Bush and Clinton and their agents of annihilation continue to rule the pedophile priests, cocaine christians, and meth MS13...

You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes...
You might just ask Vince Foster...
Oops, Hitlery got there first...
Oh well...you're next...

WHAT!?!?!

never...

Go figure...

enjoy!



-you'regonnagetwhatyoudeserve-

www.campaignforliberty.com





Huh!?  We are talking about voting...and showing residency... :o
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 10:36:06 am
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 10:39:59 am
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...

And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 03, 2008, 11:13:41 am
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...

And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...

Joe

And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 03, 2008, 11:59:31 am
And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

Now, now. You'll find some humble and convincing rhetoric no matter which ideology or party you're examining.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 12:19:15 pm
And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...
And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

Not voting from the rooftops is pretty darn humble of me, actually.  The "powers that be" have certainly earned it, many times over, with their gross crimes against humanity.

The fact that I am willing to let them continue breathing should be pretty "convincing" that libertarians are committed to doing whatever is realistically possible to find a peaceful solution.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 01:00:17 pm
And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...
And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

Not voting from the rooftops is pretty darn humble of me, actually.  The "powers that be" have certainly earned it, many times over, with their gross crimes against humanity.

The fact that I am willing to let them continue breathing should be pretty "convincing" that libertarians are committed to doing whatever is realistically possible to find a peaceful solution.

Joe

"you're willing to let them continue breathing"???  That's bold...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 03, 2008, 04:09:45 pm
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...

And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...

Joe

And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

If you don't stand for something...you'll fall for anything...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 03, 2008, 04:31:23 pm
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...

And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...

Joe

And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

If you don't stand for something...you'll fall for anything...



Yes and those who give up essential liberty for temporary secruity deserve neither, the power to tax is the power to destroy,  an armed society is a polite society, yes I've heard all the Libertarian go-to-quips before.  I stand for nuance. I stand for slow meaningful change. My only knee jerk reaction is against kneejerk reactions, my only absolute is against absolutes. Like I said, reality is tougher and complicated than using little quotes to preach liberty to the choir. Maybe I'll violate the non-agression principle or whatever along the way, I don't care. I guess I'm a soft libertarian, but that's alright. In 2 months we can talk it over at Murphs.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 03, 2008, 04:34:19 pm
And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...
And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

Not voting from the rooftops is pretty darn humble of me, actually.  The "powers that be" have certainly earned it, many times over, with their gross crimes against humanity.

The fact that I am willing to let them continue breathing should be pretty "convincing" that libertarians are committed to doing whatever is realistically possible to find a peaceful solution.

Joe

Seconded...

And not only that...
But...
And I only speak for myself and no one else...
Although I sincerely believe that there are many(as in even one percent would be a million) ready right now...and many more "getting there"...

Who sincerely believe(since the government admits to the indefinite detention of...and torture of...and injury of...and murder of..."some" human beings)...
Sincerely believe that ANY encounter with anyone, in costume or not...might very well end in kidnapping, torture, imprisonment, mutilation, murder, etc...

I've stepped up my observations of all facets of the MSM and I have noted a very marked INCREASE in HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS in the "name" of someone's twisted idea of "justice"...these include, but are not limited to, unwarranted searches and seizures, kidnapping, abuse, torture, imprisonment, mutilation, and murder...

For those of us who see this as a very real possibility, given the aggression/force/fraud of the police state and the military-industrial complex...each and every day may very well be our last...

What a way to live...all courtesy of the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Hey...you're either with US...or you're with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...all of them are...of course...terrorists...directly and/or indirectly...

And...

Have you ever tried...as you walked down the sidewalk...or driven down the street...to scan ALL the rooftops for those costumed riflemen...

Whew...

Ever wondered why it's against the "law" for non-bureaucrats to wear body armor...

Hey, we're just making the streets and sidewalks safer for you and yours...

Hey, it's for the children...right...


This has been a public service announcement brought to you by your local branch of Blackwater International...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bread and circuses, beer and football, wine coolers and Amerikan Idol...






-you'regoingtogetwhatyoudeserve-

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: sj on July 03, 2008, 04:38:04 pm
Ever wondered why it's against the "law" for non-bureaucrats to wear body armor...


I'm not sure that's true.  All I've seen is that it's illegal to wear body armor while committing a felony.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: sj on July 03, 2008, 04:38:53 pm
Yes and those who give up essential liberty for temporary secruity deserve neither, the power to tax is the power to destroy,  an armed society is a polite society, yes I've heard all the Libertarian go-to-quips before.  I stand for nuance. I stand for slow meaningful change. My only knee jerk reaction is against kneejerk reactions, my only absolute is against absolutes. Like I said, reality is tougher and complicated than using little quotes to preach liberty to the choir. Maybe I'll violate the non-agression principle or whatever along the way, I don't care. I guess I'm a soft libertarian, but that's alright. In 2 months we can talk it over at Murphs.

There are plenty of soft libertarians in the project, but they don't frequent the forums much.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 03, 2008, 04:44:50 pm
Also...why are you telling me what I vote for?  I DO think marijuana should be legalized...I DO think there should be LESS government...I DO think what people do in the privacy of their home should be their business....I AM against helmet and seatbelt laws, etc....!!!
Don't try and guess what my standpoints are...

And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...

Joe

And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

If you don't stand for something...you'll fall for anything...



Yes and those who give up essential liberty for temporary secruity deserve neither, the power to tax is the power to destroy,  an armed society is a polite society, yes I've heard all the Libertarian go-to-quips before.  I stand for nuance. I stand for slow meaningful change. My only knee jerk reaction is against kneejerk reactions, my only absolute is against absolutes. Like I said, reality is tougher and complicated than using little quotes to preach liberty to the choir. Maybe I'll violate the non-agression principle or whatever along the way, I don't care. I guess I'm a soft libertarian, but that's alright. In 2 months we can talk it over at Murphs.

Your "slow meaningful change" shit will go right out the window once you've been waterboarded a few times after what you thought was a "tail-light out traffic stop" turns into fun at Gitmo...

Reality is most certainly NOT "tougher" and "complicated"...NOT AT ALL...
Everyone...including you...and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries should cease and desist...
No direct or indirect aggression/force/fraud...
None at all...

Come on...wouldn't you just like to work the job of your choice and give eight hours of labor...and actually get your full eight hours worth of pay!?!
Just say no to aggression/force/fraud and the delusions and illusions of the global gulag prison planet military-industrial complex...

Imagine...
The Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...it's not just for breakfast anymore...





www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 05:05:03 pm
And yet you seem to think that the cops should be able to harass, steal from, and detain by force anyone they feel like, without just cause.

Yeah, really liberty-minded...
And to think I used to wonder why libertarians or Ron Paul didn't do better in elections. Your rhetoric is humble and convincing.

Not voting from the rooftops is pretty darn humble of me, actually.  The "powers that be" have certainly earned it, many times over, with their gross crimes against humanity.

The fact that I am willing to let them continue breathing should be pretty "convincing" that libertarians are committed to doing whatever is realistically possible to find a peaceful solution.

Joe

Seconded...

And not only that...
But...
And I only speak for myself and no one else...
Although I sincerely believe that there are many(as in even one percent would be a million) ready right now...and many more "getting there"...

Who sincerely believe(since the government admits to the indefinite detention of...and torture of...and injury of...and murder of..."some" human beings)...
Sincerely believe that ANY encounter with anyone, in costume or not...might very well end in kidnapping, torture, imprisonment, mutilation, murder, etc...

I've stepped up my observations of all facets of the MSM and I have noted a very marked INCREASE in HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS in the "name" of someone's twisted idea of "justice"...these include, but are not limited to, unwarranted searches and seizures, kidnapping, abuse, torture, imprisonment, mutilation, and murder...

For those of us who see this as a very real possibility, given the aggression/force/fraud of the police state and the military-industrial complex...each and every day may very well be our last...

What a way to live...all courtesy of the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Hey...you're either with US...or you're with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...all of them are...of course...terrorists...directly and/or indirectly...

And...

Have you ever tried...as you walked down the sidewalk...or driven down the street...to scan ALL the rooftops for those costumed riflemen...

Whew...

Ever wondered why it's against the "law" for non-bureaucrats to wear body armor...

Hey, we're just making the streets and sidewalks safer for you and yours...

Hey, it's for the children...right...


This has been a public service announcement brought to you by your local branch of Blackwater International...
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bread and circuses, beer and football, wine coolers and Amerikan Idol...






-you'regoingtogetwhatyoudeserve-



Not saying you are wrong, but where is the RSA against wearing body armor?  I've never heard that one...especially since you can buy it on e-bay...not that that makes it right
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 06:15:18 pm
"you're willing to let them continue breathing"???  That's bold...

Not really.  For example, I've been armed in the presence of Bush.  If I decided it was worth it, I could have killed him.  True, I likely would not have survived, but anyone with the least bit of skill could pull off an assassination, if he was willing to pay the price for it.

I just don't think it's anywhere near that point, yet.

I'm not sure that's true.  All I've seen is that it's illegal to wear body armor while committing a felony.

Watch the "FBI warning" at the beginning of a rented movie.  Displaying a copyrighted video can be a felony.  There are lots of felonies.  I daresay the majority of Americans are unindicted felons, at this point.

Not saying you are wrong, but where is the RSA against wearing body armor?  I've never heard that one...especially since you can buy it on e-bay...not that that makes it right

For the love of chair... http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/search.html

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 06:24:01 pm
"you're willing to let them continue breathing"???  That's bold...

Not really.  For example, I've been armed in the presence of Bush.  If I decided it was worth it, I could have killed him.  True, I likely would not have survived, but anyone with the least bit of skill could pull off an assassination, if he was willing to pay the price for it.

I just don't think it's anywhere near that point, yet.

I'm not sure that's true.  All I've seen is that it's illegal to wear body armor while committing a felony.

Watch the "FBI warning" at the beginning of a rented movie.  Displaying a copyrighted video can be a felony.  There are lots of felonies.  I daresay the majority of Americans are unindicted felons, at this point.

Not saying you are wrong, but where is the RSA against wearing body armor?  I've never heard that one...especially since you can buy it on e-bay...not that that makes it right

For the love of chair... http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/search.html

Joe

It probably isn't wise to talk about a time that you could have assassinated the president if you wanted to online...Just lettin ya know...

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 06:25:11 pm
"you're willing to let them continue breathing"???  That's bold...

Not really.  For example, I've been armed in the presence of Bush.  If I decided it was worth it, I could have killed him.  True, I likely would not have survived, but anyone with the least bit of skill could pull off an assassination, if he was willing to pay the price for it.

I just don't think it's anywhere near that point, yet.

I'm not sure that's true.  All I've seen is that it's illegal to wear body armor while committing a felony.

Watch the "FBI warning" at the beginning of a rented movie.  Displaying a copyrighted video can be a felony.  There are lots of felonies.  I daresay the majority of Americans are unindicted felons, at this point.

Not saying you are wrong, but where is the RSA against wearing body armor?  I've never heard that one...especially since you can buy it on e-bay...not that that makes it right

For the love of chair... http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/search.html

Joe

It probably isn't wise to talk about a time that you could have assassinated the president if you wanted to online...Just lettin ya know...

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!

I've been armed in the presence of Bush too...Not the president of course tho!  :P
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 06:33:48 pm
It probably isn't wise to talk about a time that you could have assassinated the president if you wanted to online...Just lettin ya know...

Why?  The Secret Service agents certainly knew I was armed, and therefore knew that I could have done so.  If they weren't worried, why are you?

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!

No, it's illegal to wear body armor.  Just not all the time.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 06:49:07 pm
It probably isn't wise to talk about a time that you could have assassinated the president if you wanted to online...Just lettin ya know...

Why?  The Secret Service agents certainly knew I was armed, and therefore knew that I could have done so.  If they weren't worried, why are you?

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!

No, it's illegal to wear body armor.  Just not all the time.

Joe

Joe,
Please don't ever confuse my statement for me showing concern.  I could careless what you do...I mean that sincerely.  With that being said, one should take responsibility for their own actions...I would think that is a common ground between us.

I would really like to see where you are getting that it is illegal to wear body armor...I really disagree with ya there...I think it is illegal if you are committing a felony...Someone can walk down the street with it on though...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 07:10:32 pm
With that being said, one should take responsibility for their own actions...I would think that is a common ground between us.

I do take responsibility for my own actions.  I do not take responsibility for your - or anyone else's - irrational reactions.

And no, there is not common ground on that, since you seem to think that cops don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

I would really like to see where you are getting that it is illegal to wear body armor...I really disagree with ya there...I think it is illegal if you are committing a felony...Someone can walk down the street with it on though...

By your repeated requests to "show you the law" here, it's clear that you aren't familiar with the laws in NH.  If you were walking down the street here, how would you know whether or not you were committing a felony of some sort?  Not to mention Federal felonies, and I doubt you're any more familiar with the US Code than you are with the NH RSA's.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 03, 2008, 07:58:57 pm
With that being said, one should take responsibility for their own actions...I would think that is a common ground between us.

I do take responsibility for my own actions.  I do not take responsibility for your - or anyone else's - irrational reactions.

And no, there is not common ground on that, since you seem to think that cops don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

I would really like to see where you are getting that it is illegal to wear body armor...I really disagree with ya there...I think it is illegal if you are committing a felony...Someone can walk down the street with it on though...

By your repeated requests to "show you the law" here, it's clear that you aren't familiar with the laws in NH.  If you were walking down the street here, how would you know whether or not you were committing a felony of some sort?  Not to mention Federal felonies, and I doubt you're any more familiar with the US Code than you are with the NH RSA's.

Joe

Can someone cite to the law or not? I'd be curious to see it too; whether it's a crime or a sentencing "enhancement".
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 08:37:16 pm
Can someone cite to the law or not? I'd be curious to see it too; whether it's a crime or a sentencing "enhancement".

Um, did you notice where I posted the search link?

You type "body armor" in that, and it pulls up the statute.

It's RSA 650-B for those who are two lazy to click a link, type two words, and click "search."

And yes, it is a separate crime - a class B felony, with the additional provision that the sentence cannot be served concurrently with any other other sentence.

In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: sj on July 03, 2008, 08:51:41 pm
Can someone cite to the law or not? I'd be curious to see it too; whether it's a crime or a sentencing "enhancement".

Um, did you notice where I posted the search link?

You type "body armor" in that, and it pulls up the statute.

It's RSA 650-B for those who are two lazy to click a link, type two words, and click "search."

And yes, it is a separate crime - a class B felony, with the additional provision that the sentence cannot be served concurrently with any other other sentence.

In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.

Joe

That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 10:39:50 pm
With that being said, one should take responsibility for their own actions...I would think that is a common ground between us.

I do take responsibility for my own actions.  I do not take responsibility for your - or anyone else's - irrational reactions.

And no, there is not common ground on that, since you seem to think that cops don't have to take responsibility for their actions.

I would really like to see where you are getting that it is illegal to wear body armor...I really disagree with ya there...I think it is illegal if you are committing a felony...Someone can walk down the street with it on though...

By your repeated requests to "show you the law" here, it's clear that you aren't familiar with the laws in NH.  If you were walking down the street here, how would you know whether or not you were committing a felony of some sort?  Not to mention Federal felonies, and I doubt you're any more familiar with the US Code than you are with the NH RSA's.

Joe

Can someone cite to the law or not? I'd be curious to see it too; whether it's a crime or a sentencing "enhancement".

I have been saying for a while that it is a sentencing enhancement...I am asking for the law because I can't find something that does NOT exist...THat is why I am saying SHOW ME...it is not my ignorance
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 03, 2008, 10:40:49 pm
Can someone cite to the law or not? I'd be curious to see it too; whether it's a crime or a sentencing "enhancement".

Um, did you notice where I posted the search link?

You type "body armor" in that, and it pulls up the statute.

It's RSA 650-B for those who are two lazy to click a link, type two words, and click "search."

And yes, it is a separate crime - a class B felony, with the additional provision that the sentence cannot be served concurrently with any other other sentence.

In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.

Joe

AMEN!

That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 03, 2008, 11:59:48 pm
In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.
That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.[/quote]

Um, no, actually it's not.

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

You don't exactly have to be committing a murder, or even doing anything remotely immoral, to trigger that particular law.

And it is not a sentencing enhancement.  It is a separate statute.  They do not have to be able to convict you of the original felony, to convict you under 650-B.

For example, let's say that you were stopped and searched for some legally-allowable reason, and they found that you were carrying a quantity of "amateur pharmaceuticals," and wearing armor.  Let's further imagine that sometime prior to trial, they corrupt the drug case, and the judge throws it out.  Since the original felonious action (carrying certain drugs) can be proven (pursuant to a lawful search), you can still be charged and convicted under 650-B, even though the original case was thrown out.

A sentencing enhancement just adds a penalty if you are convicted.  For example:
Quote
637:11 Penalties. –
    I. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services exceeds $1,000, or
       (b) The property stolen is a firearm, or
       (c) The actor is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the theft, except that if the deadly weapon is a firearm, he shall be sentenced in accordance with RSA 651:2, II-g.
    II. Theft constitutes a class B felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services is more than $500 but not more than $1000, or
       (b) The actor has been twice before convicted of theft of property or services, as a felony or class A misdemeanor, or
       (c) The theft constitutes a violation of RSA 637:5, II(a) or (b), or
       (d) The property or services stolen are from 3 separate business establishments within a 72-hour period.
    III. Theft constitutes a misdemeanor if the value of the property or services does not exceed $500.

Notice that stealing a firearm is a class A felony, due to the nature of the property that was stolen.  That's a sentencing enhancement.  You have to be convicted of the actual theft, for the enhancement to take effect.  The same is not in any way true of 650-B - you can be convicted on that charge, regardless of whether you were convicted of the original felony.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 04, 2008, 08:15:20 am
In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.
That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.

Um, no, actually it's not.

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

You don't exactly have to be committing a murder, or even doing anything remotely immoral, to trigger that particular law.

And it is not a sentencing enhancement.  It is a separate statute.  They do not have to be able to convict you of the original felony, to convict you under 650-B.

For example, let's say that you were stopped and searched for some legally-allowable reason, and they found that you were carrying a quantity of "amateur pharmaceuticals," and wearing armor.  Let's further imagine that sometime prior to trial, they corrupt the drug case, and the judge throws it out.  Since the original felonious action (carrying certain drugs) can be proven (pursuant to a lawful search), you can still be charged and convicted under 650-B, even though the original case was thrown out.

A sentencing enhancement just adds a penalty if you are convicted.  For example:
Quote
637:11 Penalties. –
    I. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services exceeds $1,000, or
       (b) The property stolen is a firearm, or
       (c) The actor is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the theft, except that if the deadly weapon is a firearm, he shall be sentenced in accordance with RSA 651:2, II-g.
    II. Theft constitutes a class B felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services is more than $500 but not more than $1000, or
       (b) The actor has been twice before convicted of theft of property or services, as a felony or class A misdemeanor, or
       (c) The theft constitutes a violation of RSA 637:5, II(a) or (b), or
       (d) The property or services stolen are from 3 separate business establishments within a 72-hour period.
    III. Theft constitutes a misdemeanor if the value of the property or services does not exceed $500.

Notice that stealing a firearm is a class A felony, due to the nature of the property that was stolen.  That's a sentencing enhancement.  You have to be convicted of the actual theft, for the enhancement to take effect.  The same is not in any way true of 650-B - you can be convicted on that charge, regardless of whether you were convicted of the original felony.

Joe
[/quote]

Holy crap...

OK...It is NOT illegal to JUST wear body armor...say you are petting kittens at a pet store...committing NO crimes and you have body armor on...that is LEGAL...if you are committing a FELONY and wearing BODY ARMOR it is an E N H A N C E D   P E N A L T Y.  The act of actually wearing body armor is not illegal
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 04, 2008, 08:16:42 am
In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.
That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.

Um, no, actually it's not.

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

You don't exactly have to be committing a murder, or even doing anything remotely immoral, to trigger that particular law.

And it is not a sentencing enhancement.  It is a separate statute.  They do not have to be able to convict you of the original felony, to convict you under 650-B.

For example, let's say that you were stopped and searched for some legally-allowable reason, and they found that you were carrying a quantity of "amateur pharmaceuticals," and wearing armor.  Let's further imagine that sometime prior to trial, they corrupt the drug case, and the judge throws it out.  Since the original felonious action (carrying certain drugs) can be proven (pursuant to a lawful search), you can still be charged and convicted under 650-B, even though the original case was thrown out.

A sentencing enhancement just adds a penalty if you are convicted.  For example:
Quote
637:11 Penalties. –
    I. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services exceeds $1,000, or
       (b) The property stolen is a firearm, or
       (c) The actor is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the theft, except that if the deadly weapon is a firearm, he shall be sentenced in accordance with RSA 651:2, II-g.
    II. Theft constitutes a class B felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services is more than $500 but not more than $1000, or
       (b) The actor has been twice before convicted of theft of property or services, as a felony or class A misdemeanor, or
       (c) The theft constitutes a violation of RSA 637:5, II(a) or (b), or
       (d) The property or services stolen are from 3 separate business establishments within a 72-hour period.
    III. Theft constitutes a misdemeanor if the value of the property or services does not exceed $500.

Notice that stealing a firearm is a class A felony, due to the nature of the property that was stolen.  That's a sentencing enhancement.  You have to be convicted of the actual theft, for the enhancement to take effect.  The same is not in any way true of 650-B - you can be convicted on that charge, regardless of whether you were convicted of the original felony.

Joe
[/quote] 

It is the same as if you have a police scanner/radio while committing a felony...there is an enhanced penalty...both of those are legal to use otherwise...Please don't ever be a lawyer...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 04, 2008, 08:38:08 am

And, of course, the whole point here being...that...some people dressed in some costumes with some equipment and some fancy illuminated vehicles(or bicycles...or horses)...

"Believe"...based on some erroneous mob-mentality/tyranny majority...that they have some sort of Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power over the rest of mere mortal humanity...

We can take Joe's example of video-taping these costumed clowns assaulting another human being while wearing body armor(or, for that matter, a metal trash can with arm and head holes...yes that DOES qualify as "body armor" under the RSA)...

Or...

We could use another example where the clowns are carrying their own "throw down" drugs/guns/etc. to conveniently "find" while they come after you because they see you walking down the street with said body armor/trash can on...

After all...they do (supposedly/erroneously) have that Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power...and the backing of millions of looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...in some supposed "democracy/mob-majority"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com)...

What happens when Individual Sovereign Human Beings...being so scared/afraid/suspicious of some people in some costumes...refuse to be a victim of these perpetrators for any reason what-so-ever...

What happens when it gets to the point(and it has already gotten to this point for some...witness certain "detainees") where what you think might only be a "tail-light out" stop...becomes your kidnapping/waterboarding/detention in Syria or Gitmo...

If they want you to "disappear"...you're GOING to DISAPPEAR...no "ifs" "ands" or "buts"...

In Conclusion...

With our current technology it is entirely possible to sufficiently enroll and educate the masses as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

This action has the incredible potential to change this nation(and quite literally, the world) OVERNIGHT...

It's an awesome task...that we've undertaken...to spread the PMNAP everywhere...
And because it "takes something from" all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

GUESS WHO IS GOING TO BE ETERNALLY OPPOSED TO IT...YEP, YOU'RE RIGHT...

So...
Again...

Your task, if you so choose to accept it, is to BECOME a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

AND...

To devote the rest of your existence to it's adoption by each and every other willing Individual Sovereign Human Being...

Those then unwilling to cease and desist from their aggression/force/fraud should be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated so that we(or at least our children/grandchildren) can live in a peaceful and peace-loving world devoid of the strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, hopelessness, etc. that supposed "governments" all across the globe are so fond of creating to control the masses everywhere including here in "Amerika"...one of the slave-nations... in the global-gulag... on the prison-planet... we call "earth"...

Hey...
You're either with us...
Or with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Even the Shrub knows you can't have it both ways...go figure...

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 04, 2008, 09:30:04 am
OK...It is NOT illegal to JUST wear body armor...say you are petting kittens at a pet store...committing NO crimes and you have body armor on...that is LEGAL...

How do you know that you are committing no crimes?  You don't even know what the laws are.

if you are committing a FELONY and wearing BODY ARMOR it is an E N H A N C E D   P E N A L T Y.  The act of actually wearing body armor is not illegal

No.  It is a separate crime.  If you don't understand the difference between a separate crime and an enhanced penalty, especially after it was just explained in detail, that's just plain sad.  I mean, back when I took criminal law, I don't think a single individual in the class asked to have that clarified - it's really pretty simple.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 04, 2008, 09:31:19 am
As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 04, 2008, 09:47:52 am
As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

Quote
"get a good lawyer"...

You do understand that it's the lawyers(and their conspiratorial organizations and affiliations) who are "behind" most of the problems we face these days(and throughout much of recorded history as well)...

"Government" "courts"..."government" "lawyers"..."government" "approved" "lawyers"..."government approved" "this" and "that"...

Looters...

Go figure...

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 04, 2008, 10:24:32 am
As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

Quote
"get a good lawyer"...

You do understand that it's the lawyers(and their conspiratorial organizations and affiliations) who are "behind" most of the problems we face these days(and throughout much of recorded history as well)...

"Government" "courts"..."government" "lawyers"..."government" "approved" "lawyers"..."government approved" "this" and "that"...

Looters...

Go figure...

Enjoy!


I disagree. But so long as we're attributing malice to an entire group of people, I suggest substituting "humans" for "lawyers".
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 04, 2008, 10:32:01 am

And, of course, the whole point here being...that...some people dressed in some costumes with some equipment and some fancy illuminated vehicles(or bicycles...or horses)...

"Believe"...based on some erroneous mob-mentality/tyranny majority...that they have some sort of Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power over the rest of mere mortal humanity...

We can take Joe's example of video-taping these costumed clowns assaulting another human being while wearing body armor(or, for that matter, a metal trash can with arm and head holes...yes that DOES qualify as "body armor" under the RSA)...

Or...

We could use another example where the clowns are carrying their own "throw down" drugs/guns/etc. to conveniently "find" while they come after you because they see you walking down the street with said body armor/trash can on...

After all...they do (supposedly/erroneously) have that Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power...and the backing of millions of looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...in some supposed "democracy/mob-majority"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com)...

What happens when Individual Sovereign Human Beings...being so scared/afraid/suspicious of some people in some costumes...refuse to be a victim of these perpetrators for any reason what-so-ever...

What happens when it gets to the point(and it has already gotten to this point for some...witness certain "detainees") where what you think might only be a "tail-light out" stop...becomes your kidnapping/waterboarding/detention in Syria or Gitmo...

If they want you to "disappear"...you're GOING to DISAPPEAR...no "ifs" "ands" or "buts"...

In Conclusion...

With our current technology it is entirely possible to sufficiently enroll and educate the masses as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

This action has the incredible potential to change this nation(and quite literally, the world) OVERNIGHT...

It's an awesome task...that we've undertaken...to spread the PMNAP everywhere...
And because it "takes something from" all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

GUESS WHO IS GOING TO BE ETERNALLY OPPOSED TO IT...YEP, YOU'RE RIGHT...

So...
Again...

Your task, if you so choose to accept it, is to BECOME a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

AND...

To devote the rest of your existence to it's adoption by each and every other willing Individual Sovereign Human Being...

Those then unwilling to cease and desist from their aggression/force/fraud should be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated so that we(or at least our children/grandchildren) can live in a peaceful and peace-loving world devoid of the strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, hopelessness, etc. that supposed "governments" all across the globe are so fond of creating to control the masses everywhere including here in "Amerika"...one of the slave-nations... in the global-gulag... on the prison-planet... we call "earth"...

Hey...
You're either with us...
Or with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Even the Shrub knows you can't have it both ways...go figure...

Enjoy!



That has nothing to do with that point we were talking about...body armor is legal...
You need to stop watching movies and TV...it's really making you paranoid....kidnapping...pfff
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 04, 2008, 10:46:11 am

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!

Now that's funny!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 04, 2008, 12:07:51 pm
Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out.

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 04, 2008, 01:14:14 pm

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.


I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime.

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings. A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public. There's Supreme Court opinion up and down the wall on this. (Now, if the cops start putting up privacy fences around their victims before they beat him senseless....) If a cop approaches you saying, "Hey, put the camera away!"--he's definitely exhibiting that he believes his communications are subject to interception. Nor, really, could a cop claim that unlawfully beating a pedestrian in public is a circumstance that justifies the officer's expection that his oral communications are not subject to interception.

Every point of liability in the class B felony section covers "telecommunications" or "oral communications". The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

You could be charged for attempted suicide for eating a Big Mac. --You can be charged for just about anything.
If a cop didn't want you to videotape him, sure he might get pissed and use this law as a pretense to stop you.

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 04, 2008, 02:13:44 pm

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.


I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime.

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings. A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public. There's Supreme Court opinion up and down the wall on this. (Now, if the cops start putting up privacy fences around their victims before they beat him senseless....) If a cop approaches you saying, "Hey, put the camera away!"--he's definitely exhibiting that he believes his communications are subject to interception. Nor, really, could a cop claim that unlawfully beating a pedestrian in public is a circumstance that justifies the officer's expection that his oral communications are not subject to interception.

Every point of liability in the class B felony section covers "telecommunications" or "oral communications". The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

You could be charged for attempted suicide for eating a Big Mac. --You can be charged for just about anything.
If a cop didn't want you to videotape him, sure he might get pissed and use this law as a pretense to stop you.

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

Maine shark just uses quips not knowledge to get his point out...He watches V for Vendetta and thinks he's a badass revolutionary...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 04, 2008, 03:45:30 pm
I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

I've read it, including the definitions.  And the case law.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up! ::)

A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 04, 2008, 03:47:02 pm
Maine shark just uses quips not knowledge to get his point out...He watches V for Vendetta and thinks he's a badass revolutionary...

I was a "badass revolutionary" long before that movie was even a pipedream.

And I do actually know the law, because I actually do research before making comments or accusations.  Unlike yourself, as anyone who clicks the first few pages of this thread can easily determine.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 04, 2008, 05:29:40 pm
What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up! ::)

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions. Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of. I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation. Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 04, 2008, 06:16:15 pm
What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up! ::)

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions. Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of. I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation. Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.

 ;D...I like this guy
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 05, 2008, 08:49:18 am
That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

Oh?  And what do they use to determine that?  Their spacio-temporal-mind-probe-o-matic, which lets them discover what the legislators were thinking when they actually voted, in a different location, in the past?

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

You should really un-tape that mirror from your monitor.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Actually, no.  To claim that I said things which I never said is very politician-like.

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions.

I think you should get a new job.

Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of.

Specific case?  There are more than one.

I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation.

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

See commentary on competence, and not commenting on things which are beyond your knowledge level.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 05, 2008, 08:51:24 am
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2008, 09:58:26 am
Who should punish them?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 05, 2008, 10:07:26 am
Who should punish them?

Well, kelteckiller claims that "the law is the law," and no one should ever break it under any circumstances, no matter how vile some law is (unless he, personally, feels like speeding).  Therefore, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, he needs to unconditionally state that cops who break the law should be arrested, tried, and convicted just like anyone else.

Of course, he can't bring himself to do that, because he is a hypocrite.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 05, 2008, 11:29:04 am
Who should punish them?


Good question. What's your answer?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2008, 12:27:09 pm
There is no answer...
The mere consensus of society works only when no one is above the whole.
Once a segment is oppressed or raised above... tyranny is the outcome.

And thus Joe becomes correct... we become hypocrites. But more importantly we become a flock with a higher fence around the thinning pasture, while dreaming of the lush green beyond.

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 05, 2008, 12:57:15 pm
Who should punish them?

Well, kelteckiller claims that "the law is the law," and no one should ever break it under any circumstances, no matter how vile some law is (unless he, personally, feels like speeding).  Therefore, in order to avoid being a hypocrite, he needs to unconditionally state that cops who break the law should be arrested, tried, and convicted just like anyone else.

Of course, he can't bring himself to do that, because he is a hypocrite.

Joe

Who isn't a hypocrite?  That is human nature
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2008, 01:13:34 pm
i.e. why social order will never exist regardless of the effort.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 05, 2008, 03:44:50 pm
i.e. why social order will never exist regardless of the effort.


Post of the century!  Humans being human...

Go figure

RAD

GFY!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 05, 2008, 04:20:17 pm
Who isn't a hypocrite?  That is human nature

No, that's the nature of immature thugs with delusions of humanity.

No one with the least bit of maturity is hypocritical.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 05, 2008, 04:47:04 pm
You know, you should add in "maze of underground sidewalks" to the 101 reasons to move to New Hampshire list. It sounds awesome.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 05, 2008, 11:50:59 pm

Oh?  And what do they use to determine that?  Their spacio-temporal-mind-probe-o-matic, which lets them discover what the legislators were thinking when they actually voted, in a different location, in the past?


Books, usually. Written records. The standard fare we use when trying to determine what other people are thinking at "some other coordinates in the space-time continuum".

Really, it depends on what's put in front of the judge or how motivated the judge is to conduct her own search of the record. Or how good the judge's underlings (i.e. clerks) are in doing the same research (quality varies rather widely). As I'm sure you're aware, quite a record trail is created before and after a law is passed. Legislators frequently write down what they wanted the law to do. Usually, the legislators actually meet and discuss what the particular law is supposed to accomplish. Very often, the annotated version of the statutes will themselves contain citations to a statement of purpose or intent or a record of the statute's history. For example, in this case may note the original law was passed in 1969. Do you really think the legislators actually contemplated the pervasive use of video recorders to record police attacking innocent people? Probably not. As I said before, this appears to be a wire-tapping law that someone would now like to use in a more expansive capacity. The legislators probably did not intend for the law to be used in the way you're describing.

As far as mind-probing device, I'm not aware of any such device. Or why you'd even use it--since the information is usually written down. If your confusion is that legislators decide what the law is and judges have no function, perhaps you don't quite understand how powers are separated in our current system.

Quote
You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Actually, no.  To claim that I said things which I never said is very politician-like.

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian. (Read it here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg186987#msg186987)). Personally, I can't say I've heard of someone walking in a private place being called a "pedestrian". But we could argue about who-said-whats or no-that's-not-what-I-meants all day.

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area. I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

Earlier in this thread, you were making conclusions left-and-right about what's legal and illegal--incorrectly I might add--about body armor and videotaping police. And now you're telling us that "[you] don't comment on subjects [you] don't have competence in." But given your own reasoning that you would not be competent, I'm not sure why you're commenting in the first place--unless you wish to continue making more fallacious special pleadings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading).

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities. But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on. Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

I think you should get a new job.

That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3263.msg16936#msg16936). Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I'd be quite surprised for a "legal professional" to interpret it much differently, as that would probably qualify as professional malpractice. Especially for a criminal defense attorney. The plain language of the law is not really in debate. And I mean that literally--you have not put forth any analysis or authority to support your position that videotaping a cop beating a random pedestrian is either wiretapping or eavedropping. But regardless of what the law clearly and obviously states, the question I have been asking is whether there is any case law interpreting the statute where the case resulted in a conviction (and in a situation similar to the one you've presented).

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

If you did mean attorneys, perhaps you can provide me with the names of one or two of the competent "legal professionals" who've read it and think the statute applies to the situation you've described for us? Unless there's contrary, guiding case law, they would be clearly incorrect. And I would be more than happy to call them up for a quick chat over their interpretation. It's an important issue after all. You can post the names of the attorneys here, send me a private message, or an email. Whatever you're comfortable with.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015). If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of. But for clarity's sake:

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

I could really care less about more negative, chatty commentary. I'm interested to know what's out there. And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.
Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 06, 2008, 12:08:48 am
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 06, 2008, 04:41:34 am
[

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian. (Read it here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg186987#msg186987)). Personally, I can't say I've heard of someone walking in a private place being called a "pedestrian". But we could argue about who-said-whats or no-that's-not-what-I-meants all day.

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

I don't comment on subjects I don't have competence in.  You won't find me giving cooking advice.  Or anything more than basic computer advice.  For a couple examples.  Like any mature individual, I don't pretend to have any high level of competence in fields which I do not.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area. I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

Earlier in this thread, you were making conclusions left-and-right about what's legal and illegal--incorrectly I might add--about body armor and videotaping police. And now you're telling us that "[you] don't comment on subjects [you] don't have competence in." But given your own reasoning that you would not be competent, I'm not sure why you're commenting in the first place--unless you wish to continue making more fallacious special pleadings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading).

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities. But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on. Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

I think you should get a new job.

That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3263.msg16936#msg16936). Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

Excepting, of course, that the plain text of the law says that it does apply.  And so does every competent legal professional who's read it.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I'd be quite surprised for a "legal professional" to interpret it much differently, as that would probably qualify as professional malpractice. Especially for a criminal defense attorney. The plain language of the law is not really in debate. And I mean that literally--you have not put forth any analysis or authority to support your position that videotaping a cop beating a random pedestrian is either wiretapping or eavedropping. But regardless of what the law clearly and obviously states, the question I have been asking is whether there is any case law interpreting the statute where the case resulted in a conviction (and in a situation similar to the one you've presented).

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

If you did mean attorneys, perhaps you can provide me with the names of one or two of the competent "legal professionals" who've read it and think the statute applies to the situation you've described for us? Unless there's contrary, guiding case law, they would be clearly incorrect. And I would be more than happy to call them up for a quick chat over their interpretation. It's an important issue after all. You can post the names of the attorneys here, send me a private message, or an email. Whatever you're comfortable with.

What questions or issues haven't I addressed?  Every time you've made that childish accusation, I've asked that same question, and you've never answered it.

It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015). If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of. But for clarity's sake:

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

I could really care less about more negative, chatty commentary. I'm interested to know what's out there. And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

Because, of course, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack my character to hide your own failings.

Joe

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.
Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.
[/quote]

Incompetently speaking about things and saying you shouldn't do so???  Sure sounds HYPOCRITICAL!...Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 06, 2008, 04:43:47 am
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 06, 2008, 07:05:23 am
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D

Quote
"because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all"

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Unfortunately, you seem to approve of at least some of the aggression/force/fraud of the supposed "state" and it's looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Those perpetrators running around in costumes, thinking erroneously that they have some magical mystical murder wand of power given to them by some supposed mob-mentality "majority" "democracy"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com) are conducting themselves in violation of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle and in violation of Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights.

You can't have it both ways...
You can't have different "classes" of human beings...some with this mystic power...and some without...
Either you're a looter...or an Individual Sovereign Human Being, student, and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...
A slave to the mob-mentality "majority" or an equal to each and every other human being willing to repel, destroy, and eliminate the looters and their minions...

May your chains weigh heavily as they carry you to the depths...

Enjoy!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 06, 2008, 10:34:45 am
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D

Quote
"because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all"

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Unfortunately, you seem to approve of at least some of the aggression/force/fraud of the supposed "state" and it's looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Those perpetrators running around in costumes, thinking erroneously that they have some magical mystical murder wand of power given to them by some supposed mob-mentality "majority" "democracy"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com) are conducting themselves in violation of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle and in violation of Basic Inherent Inalienable Irrevocable Human Rights.

You can't have it both ways...
You can't have different "classes" of human beings...some with this mystic power...and some without...
Either you're a looter...or an Individual Sovereign Human Being, student, and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...
A slave to the mob-mentality "majority" or an equal to each and every other human being willing to repel, destroy, and eliminate the looters and their minions...

May your chains weigh heavily as they carry you to the depths...

Enjoy!



I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 06, 2008, 10:35:10 am
Books, usually. Written records. The standard fare we use when trying to determine what other people are thinking at "some other coordinates in the space-time continuum".

Yeah, good luck with that.  There are no Federalist Papers in this case.

Very often, the annotated version of the statutes will themselves contain citations to a statement of purpose or intent or a record of the statute's history.

Yeah, look at all those statements...

For example, in this case may note the original law was passed in 1969. Do you really think the legislators actually contemplated the pervasive use of video recorders to record police attacking innocent people? Probably not. As I said before, this appears to be a wire-tapping law that someone would now like to use in a more expansive capacity. The legislators probably did not intend for the law to be used in the way you're describing.

Yes, clearly the date determines everything... ::)

As far as mind-probing device, I'm not aware of any such device. Or why you'd even use it--since the information is usually written down. If your confusion is that legislators decide what the law is and judges have no function, perhaps you don't quite understand how powers are separated in our current system.

Powers are not separated in the current system.  Anyone who thinks they are has his head in the sand, at best.

Actually, yes. You did, in fact, say pedestrian.

Straw man.  I said pedestrian, and never claimed that I did not.  What I do assert that I did not say is "public."

Since you seem to think it's important to now point out that you left ambiguous whether the pedestrian was in public, let's just cut to the guts of this question: was your pedestrian in public or not? If I didn't interpret what you wrote correctly, what did you mean?

Given that I stated that RSA570-A applies, you have prima facie evidence that he was not in public.

Not that it's even relevant to the actual topic, which was body armor, not making audio recordings.  RSA570-A was one example of a felony that one could engage in, triggering the body armor prohibition.

I'm not sure of your purpose for randomly stating this. It's not really responsive to anything I've said. Perhaps you're suggesting that you're also not competent to speak in this area.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.

I do recall you attempted to use the fact that I am not licensed in NH to suggest that I was not competent to interpret a statute. By implication, you would also not be competent to comment either. (Though, I completely disagree with that original premise.)

I have never claimed any such thing.  I can assert that completely without reservation because there is no possible situation ever, in history or any conceivable future event, in which I would ever claim that lacking a government license displays incompetence.  You really need to work on your reading comprehension, if it is poor enough that you could imagine I said anything of the sort.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying you're not competent. Personally, I don't think attorneys are particularly special in their reading abilities.

Given that you've implied (but never explicitly stated) that you are an attorney, and given your apparently skill with reading comprehension, and given that "special" typically means "outside the normative range," I'd suggest that at least one attorney has "special" reading abilities.  Which direction on the Bell curve that deviation is in, is left as an exercise to the reader...

But by your own hand, you appear to be saying this is an area that you should not be commenting on.

No, I'm quite competent to comment on these topics.

Still, you do seem to be representing that you've done the research in this area and you have the specific citations to controlling authority. And yet, you were quite eager--before anyone asked for it--to declare that you're unwilling to put any of your sources on this thread.

A) RSA570-A was an side-example, not particularly relevant to the topic, so it would be a useless tangent.
B) Your lack of research ability should be corrected by practice.
C) Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A, because it is a major point of contention, so replicating things that "we" already know, simply so that you do not have to do any research, would be rather pointless.

I think you should get a new job.
That's very kind of you to say so. As you previously shared, you don't comment on things in which you aren't competent in. Perhaps you shouldn't be commenting--at least without something more compelling to base your decision on than a few posts that criticize your own. If you truly wish to avoid addressing any actual criticisms of your posts by further personally attacking my ability to perform in my professional capacity, I would encourage you to review the Forum Posting Policies (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3263.msg16936#msg16936). Do be a civil, non-libelous poster :)

For a supposed-attorney, you really don't seem to understand the law very well.  Libel has a very specific meaning, and you would be benefited by researching that meaning before making such implications.

Seems to me the situation you described--quite clearly--falls outside the plain language of the statute.
In the situation you've described, there is no utterance that would qualify as a "telecommunication" or an "oral communication" under the statute.
There's really no way around that. The statute's language simply doesn't support a criminal act in your situation.
And if you disagree, please contribute by telling us why--upon what reasoning--you disagree.

I did say something about "competent," did I not?  In the situation I gave, the plain language of the statute applies.

"Every competent legal professional who's read it?" Really? You do mean attorneys, right? You didn't actually say "attorneys" or "lawyers". I wouldn't want you to now later claim, "Oh, I meant paralegals."

I would never claim that competence is related to having a license from the government.  Quite the contrary - competent professionals (at least, those who have thought about it with any degree of rationality) oppose licensing.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 06, 2008, 10:35:21 am
It's hardly an accusation. It's an accurate description of the discussion transpiring in this thread. In your previous post, you explicitly quoted the questions I asked (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015). If you refer to your response, you essentially refused to answer the questions. So I assume you were, in fact, aware of the questions you now claim to be ignorant of.

I don't claim to be ignorant of them.  I suggest you re-read your accusation, and my response.  I did address your questions.

To summarize this into a single question: Is there a case in New Hampshire where a person has been convicted of wiretapping/eavesdropping for using a video camera to record the police beating up a pedestrian? And now, in addition, what's the case? And if you cannot answer this question, it really is okay to say, "I don't know."

There is a difference between "willingness" to waste time here, and "ability."

And if you have ulterior motives for withholding information from the thread, that's quite alright. By being here, I suppose I just assumed you're trying to help the cause of freedom, rather than hinder it.

I fail to see how pandering to those who are unwilling to do their own research, but perfectly willing to make (false) comments about things which they do not understand, is in any way hindering the cause of freedom.

Joe, I have no need or desire to attack your character.

Probably shouldn't do it, then.

Your own demeanor speaks volumes more about that than I could ever say.
Despite how you seem to approach the boards here, the whole world is not against you.

While you're working on reading comprehension, you should probably work on a bit of psychology.  Although maybe it is just the lack of comprehension that is leading you to false psychological conclusions.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 06, 2008, 10:40:16 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 06, 2008, 10:43:28 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 06, 2008, 10:52:20 am
I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!

You spend 80% of your productive capacity funding the government.  You apparently don't want to do anything that is illegal, if your freedom is not being restricted.  You must not mind that governments murdered over a quarter of a billion people in the last century, and are working on topping that record, this century.  Need I go on?

You aren't enjoying "life."  You're enjoying a fantasy world.

I do enjoy life.  The real thing.  Not some delusional fantasy.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 06, 2008, 11:48:59 am
I am a slave to nothing.  The best thing about my situation is knowing how great I have it.  I am a very lucky person and appreciate my situation every day.  I wish one day you too can share in my pure enjoyment for life!

You spend 80% of your productive capacity funding the government.  You apparently don't want to do anything that is illegal, if your freedom is not being restricted.  You must not mind that governments murdered over a quarter of a billion people in the last century, and are working on topping that record, this century.  Need I go on?

You aren't enjoying "life."  You're enjoying a fantasy world.

I do enjoy life.  The real thing.  Not some delusional fantasy.

Joe

Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

Good Figure
rad
GFY!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 06, 2008, 05:32:55 pm
Straw man.  I said pedestrian, and never claimed that I did not.  What I do assert that I did not say is "public."

I directly asked you whether you meant "in public" or not and you call Straw Man?
That's not a Straw Man argument.
Or an argument.
It's a question.

Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?

If you continue to avoid the question, I assume you agree that it's a reasonable to assume your pedestrian was in public. If your pedestrian was being beaten in public, RSA 570-A clearly does not apply to the situation you presented. I'm far from excited to debate this minor point. But you seem to think it's important to point out that you didn't explicitly state "public". (More on that later.)

Given that I stated that RSA570-A applies, you have prima facie evidence that he was not in public.

Now, now. There's no need to bring in law latin to shroud your lack of support.
I mean, I could just as well respond that you said "the cop was beating a random pedestrian."
As pedestrians are in public, you also gave "prima facie evidence" that he was not in public.
You could easily fix this ambiguity by answering the question in the previous paragraph.

Now, you didn't state that that "the statute applies."
(At least, not until your post that I'm commenting on right now).

You wrote that that the plain language of the statute applies.
And I disagreed. Because it clearly does not.
Furthermore, I told you why the plain language doesn't apply.
But you haven't responded to this.
(More on the that at the bottom.)

Sounds almost like, you're now trying to twist the statute into applying by declaring, "Well, of course I meant the pedestrian wasn't in public! If he were in public, what I've claimed would be completely absurd."

And you'd be right. Because trying to "rewrite" the statute to make it much more onerous that it is really doesn't make any sense.
The plain language of the statute doesn't apply.
If you think it does, again, I'd be happy to hear why you think so.
But if you can't justify your conclusion, just bow out gracefully and be done with it.
Then, we'll all go home happy knowing that videotaping a cop beating up a random pedestrian won't land you a prison sentence.

Not that it's even relevant to the actual topic, which was body armor, not making audio recordings.  RSA570-A was one example of a felony that one could engage in, triggering the body armor prohibition.

Well, I think the actual topic was about open carrying. The topics do tend to shift over time as people discuss. Especially on a long thread.

I originally stated, that I don't think 570-A would trigger the felony body armor prohibition, because 570-A has absolutely no relationship to the crime of committing a felony while using body armor. The law doesn't explicitly carve out that exception. But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful. But now we've moved on, and I've said 570-A doesn't even apply to the situation you've presented anyway.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.

Yet--by what you've said--you still appear to be doing it.
You're saying one thing. But then doing another.

Again, I'm not saying you're not competent. Just pointing out you're not being consistent. (More at the bottom.)

I have never claimed any such thing.  I can assert that completely without reservation because there is no possible situation ever, in history or any conceivable future event, in which I would ever claim that lacking a government license displays incompetence. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, if it is poor enough that you could imagine I said anything of the sort.

Never?
Completely without reservation?
No possible situation ever?
In history or in any conceivable future event?

No need to imagine. 'Cause it sure looks like you're trying to say something "of the sort": Right here. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015) (More on this at the bottom of the post.)

A) RSA570-A was an side-example, not particularly relevant to the topic, so it would be a useless tangent.
B) Your lack of research ability should be corrected by practice.
C) Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A, because it is a major point of contention, so replicating things that "we" already know, simply so that you do not have to do any research, would be rather pointless.

A. I absolutely agree. As I've been saying from the very beginning, this law is not relevant.

B. That's quite a conclusion. Are you publishing on this forum that I lack the ability to do legal research?

C. "Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A. . . ." ?!

I see we've downgraded from "Every competent legal professional [agrees]," to, "most anyone actually involved with the liberty movement is aware of . . . ."

In the next backpedal, should we expect that No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) would ever disagree with you?

What happened to every competent legal professional who's read it? Where did they go?
Again, who are these attorneys?
I'm not joking around.
This is a serious issue.
I would like to call them up.

If you can post some contact information, that'd be great.
If you can't, just say it, so I won't be wasting my time.

For a supposed-attorney, you really don't seem to understand the law very well.  Libel has a very specific meaning, and you would be benefited by researching that meaning before making such implications.

It appears you have no concept of what you're writing about. By your own rule of not commenting on things you're not competent on, why again are you commenting?

However, I would encourage you to continue researching the law of libel. Particularly you may wish to try looking under "Libel, per se". I'm sure your search engine of choice will also bring up some useful reference material. Or, if you have access to a library, try Prosser on Torts or Dobbs on Tort will do the trick. And after doing so, again, please review the Posting Forum Guidelines (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3263.msg16936#msg16936). Do be a friendly and courteous FSPer :D

I did say something about "competent," did I not?  In the situation I gave, the plain language of the statute applies.

That's a conclusion.
Again, how did you get there?
Please explain why you think the statute does apply.
If you want anyone to believe you, you're going to have to tell us why you think the statute applies.
Just concluding that "the plain language of the statute applies" doesn't mean that it actually does.
Unless you want to keep "begging the question."

I would never claim that competence is related to having a license from the government.  Quite the contrary - competent professionals (at least, those who have thought about it with any degree of rationality) oppose licensing.

Never? Because you do seem to imply it. Read here again (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015").

Unless, despite implying it, you're saying the reader should not have inferred it because you didn't explicitly write it. Seems to be a trend in your responses; that readers should never imply anything further than what you've explicitly written. And if that's the case, you're holding yourself to a vastly different standard than the one you're holding others to:

But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what [Kelteckiller] said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above. I think it reveals the absurdity of the position you're clinging to. And where your posts don't hold water or a person disagrees with them, you're attacking the writer rather than the writing. I really encourage you to elevate the level of discourse here. (And I'm quite guilty for perpetuating it.) But by calling other FSPers (and prospective FSPers) ignorant, or uneducated, or whatever--sure doesn't make FSP look like an inviting place. At some point, I hope you sit down and think about whether that's the kind of attitude that welcomes people to join and contribute.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 07, 2008, 12:22:54 pm
Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

No, I enjoy life.  You enjoy a fantasy world that you have constructed in your own mind.

I directly asked you whether you meant "in public" or not and you call Straw Man?
That's not a Straw Man argument.
Or an argument.
It's a question.

You did not ask a question.  You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say.  Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.

Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?

No.

Now, now. There's no need to bring in law latin to shroud your lack of support.

"Law latin?"  That's laughable.  "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law.  And is part of my normal speech.

I originally stated, that I don't think 570-A would trigger the felony body armor prohibition, because 570-A has absolutely no relationship to the crime of committing a felony while using body armor. The law doesn't explicitly carve out that exception. But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful.

Which displays a laughable lack of understanding of the legal system.  Unrelated laws are used all the time to attack folks.  Chances are, anyone you meet has committed at least one felony during his lifetime, probably without even knowing it.

Some jurisdictions (Maine, for example) enshrine the de minimis defense in the statutes, but even with that text right there, I wouldn't imagine any good success rate at trying that with a felony.

I think you need to take Reading Comprehension 101.  I don't comment on things which I do not have the competence to comment on.
Yet--by what you've said--you still appear to be doing it.
You're saying one thing. But then doing another.

Again, I'm not saying you're not competent. Just pointing out you're not being consistent.

But I am competent to discuss these matters.

Never?
Completely without reservation?
No possible situation ever?
In history or in any conceivable future event?

No need to imagine. 'Cause it sure looks like you're trying to say something "of the sort": Right here. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187015#msg187015)

You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter.  I agreed.

B. That's quite a conclusion. Are you publishing on this forum that I lack the ability to do legal research?

You are demonstrating a lack of ability.  I would suggest that you correct it.

C. "Most anyone here who is actually involved in the liberty movement is aware of RSA570-A. . . ." ?!

I see we've downgraded from "Every competent legal professional [agrees]," to, "most anyone actually involved with the liberty movement is aware of . . . ."

In the next backpedal, should we expect that No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) would ever disagree with you?

What happened to every competent legal professional who's read it? Where did they go?

Reading comprehension, again.  Saying that one group (those involved in the liberty movement in NH) is "aware" of some issue does not imply that another group (competent legal professionals) may not have a higher understanding.

Again, who are these attorneys?
I'm not joking around.
This is a serious issue.
I would like to call them up.

If you can post some contact information, that'd be great.
If you can't, just say it, so I won't be wasting my time.

You're wasting my time, not yours.  Go do some research.

However, I would encourage you to continue researching the law of libel. Particularly you may wish to try looking under "Libel, per se". I'm sure your search engine of choice will also bring up some useful reference material. Or, if you have access to a library, try Prosser on Torts or Dobbs on Tort will do the trick. And after doing so, again, please review the Posting Forum Guidelines (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=3263.msg16936#msg16936). Do be a friendly and courteous FSPer :D

I'm aware of the laws involved in libel.  And the forum posting guidelines.

Unless, despite implying it, you're saying the reader should not have inferred it because you didn't explicitly write it. Seems to be a trend in your responses; that readers should never imply anything further than what you've explicitly written.

Anything I've written necessarily implies many things.  You, however, imagine that all manner of un-stated and even contradictory things are implied, which are not.  That's your problem, not mine.

You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above. I think it reveals the absurdity of the position you're clinging to.

I apply the same standards to all people, including myself.  It's rather a hallmark of libertarianism.  Odd that you don't seem to know that...

And where your posts don't hold water or a person disagrees with them, you're attacking the writer rather than the writing. I really encourage you to elevate the level of discourse here. (And I'm quite guilty for perpetuating it.)

When you claim that you are right, simply because you have made the statement, with no ability to support it, then you are setting yourself up as an authority on that subject, and your competence is a valid topic of discussion.

But by calling other FSPers (and prospective FSPers) ignorant, or uneducated, or whatever--sure doesn't make FSP look like an inviting place. At some point, I hope you sit down and think about whether that's the kind of attitude that welcomes people to join and contribute.

I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute."  I want to welcome those who will work for liberty, research things before making claims, and generally behave as rational adults (excepting those who are, by virtue of age, compelled to behave as children - they have an excuse for non-adult behavior).

This is not some socialist PC hug-fest where there are no stupid questions and no wrong answers, and everyone gets a gold star at the end of the day.

I'm all for being warm and fuzzy, but towards those who have actually earned respect and friendship.

I'm even quite civil, polite, and helpful towards those who are working towards liberty and not concurrently damaging the cause.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 07, 2008, 07:09:33 pm
I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute."  I want to welcome those who will work for liberty, research things before making claims, and generally behave as rational adults (excepting those who are, by virtue of age, compelled to behave as children - they have an excuse for non-adult behavior).

This is not some socialist PC hug-fest where there are no stupid questions and no wrong answers, and everyone gets a gold star at the end of the day.

I'm all for being warm and fuzzy, but towards those who have actually earned respect and friendship.

I'm even quite civil, polite, and helpful towards those who are working towards liberty and not concurrently damaging the cause.

Joe

Seconded Most Intently!

The majority are...and most will continue to be...looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, mercenaries and other assorted scoundrels and such...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 07, 2008, 08:58:57 pm
Quote from: kelteckiller
Good we have something in common!  We both enjoy life! All right!

No, I enjoy life. You enjoy a fantasy world that you have constructed in your own mind.

Wow. You got him good there.

You did not ask a question.  You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say.  Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.

And if they do, they will clearly see, I asked you directly. Twice.
Here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187061#msg187061).
And here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187091#msg187091).
That squiggly thing at the end of a sentence is a question mark.

You can pretend no questions were asked if that makes you feel better.
But so long as you're visiting the fantasy world you think Keltec inhabits, send us a postcard.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
Let's try again: in your situation, was your pedestrian in public?
No.

Then what kind of pedestrian did you imagine?
Was he a random pedestrian walking in the private New Hampshire catacombs?

Quote from: MaineShark
"Law latin?"  That's laughable.  "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law.  And is part of my normal speech.

The phrase prima facie is fairly confined to law. And in the way you (slightly mis-)used it: "prima facie evidence". Like other latin phrases, it can be used outside that context. But not very frequently. Most would be hard-pressed to claim they use it regularly as part of their normal vocabulary, daily or even semi-weekly. Maybe not if you're studying ethics, philosophy or law. Otherwise, probably not. Because most of us here use English, et les anglophones sains d'esprit n'utilisent pas une langue étrangère quand l'anglais travaille bien.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
But in actuality, in a courtroom, in front of a judge, that's the argument you make and you'd have a very, very good chance of being successful.
Which displays a laughable lack of understanding of the legal system.  Unrelated laws are used all the time to attack folks.

Again, it appears you're attempting to comment on something you're not competent in. (Special pleading: again, these are your competency rules.)

Instead, how about a question: Do you have any first-hand experience in defending yourself or others against criminal charges? Or perhaps you regularly attend pre-trial motion hearings? If none of these, upon what do you base your competence in this area?

Furthermore, what are these "unrelated laws [] used all the time to attack folks"?

And don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying laws cannot be abused. Rather, what are a few pairs of unrelated laws, used together, to attack people all the time?

(Note: question marks.)

Quote from: MaineShark
But I am competent to discuss these matters.

So you say, so you say.
See previous paragraph.

Quote from: MaineShark
You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter.  I agreed.

Can you point to where I suggested this?

I did say I was not licensed to practice in New Hampshire. But I said nothing of competence.

If you maintain that this is "suggesting" that I'm not competent to interpret a statute, again--applying the same standards that "[you] apply to all people, including [yourself]"--you would also not be competent. So again, I'm not sure why you're commenting.
Unless you don't actually follow the rules you make for yourself.

Now, we both agree, government licensure alone is irrelevant to the issue of competence.
So there would be no reason for you to even interpret my statement as referring to competence.
Which just tends to show, as usual, you were just hurling an insult.

Quote from: MaineShark
You are demonstrating a lack of ability.  I would suggest that you correct it.

Again, you may wish to follow your own rules.
If you are not competent to comment in this area, by what measure could you think I'm demonstrating this? (that's rhetorical.)
Could you please explain how my interpretation of the statute demonstrates a lack of ability?
You may need to actually read, interpret, and refer us to the statute to do this.

(Again, note the question mark.)

Quote from: MaineShark
Saying that one group (those involved in the liberty movement in NH) is "aware" of some issue does not imply that another group (competent legal professionals) may not have a higher understanding.

Yet, when I originally asked you for the attorneys, you did not respond.
Instead, you dodged the question and instead said most anyone actually involved in the liberty movement was aware.
It does not imply another group may not have a good understanding. No one said that.
But it tends to show you're avoiding the question.

In fact, I'm quite interested to know if another group of people has an understanding.
Specifically, the "competent legal professionals" you've mentioned before.
Who are the they?
What are their names?
Do you have this information?
Yes or no?

If you keep avoiding it, I'll assume the answer is no.

Quote from: MaineShark
I'm aware of the laws involved in libel.  And the forum posting guidelines.

Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice :)

Quote from: MaineShark
Anything I've written necessarily implies many things. You, however, imagine that all manner of un-stated and even contradictory things are implied, which are not.  That's your problem, not mine.

I work with what you give me.
I'm not sure what imagined, contradictory things you're speaking of.
Feel free to specifically point it out, so I know. I am often wrong.
I'd enjoy rereading and explaining anything you may have misread or I may have written incorrectly.
But now, just looks like you're grasping at straws.

Quote from: MaineShark
Quote from: B.D. Ross
You may wish to review my previous post where I mentioned "special pleading". Might elucidate what's going on. Take the standard you just announced here and apply it to nearly everything you've written above.
I apply the same standards to all people, including myself.  It's rather a hallmark of libertarianism.  Odd that you don't seem to know that...

Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:

1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.

You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.

#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.

You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.

Quote from: MaineShark
When you claim that you are right, simply because you have made the statement, with no ability to support it, then you are setting yourself up as an authority on that subject, and your competence is a valid topic of discussion.

No idea what issue you're speaking of.
I am unsure of where I've claimed I've been right simply because I've made a statement with no ability to support it.
When I say something that hasn't been supported and I'm called on it, I don't try to weasle my way out of it. I rather try to foster understanding of what I've written. So please, if you could point me to specific examples so I know what you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.

My competence could be a valid topic of discussion. Never said it wasn't.
I'd be glad to talk about my experience and practice if you would like to.
But I don't think I've called my own competence into question by "not supporting my statements".
Competence only came up because--rather than addressing an issue--you thought you could make a clever, dismissive insult.
Again, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything you'd like.

Quote from: MaineShark
I'm not particularly interested in welcoming everyone.  I do not want the vast majority of the population to "join and contribute." 

I don't think this sentiment has been missed by anyone.

And I guess that's also where we differ.
I think it'd be great if everyone did genuinely want to join.
Looking at the SOI, seems to be the whole point.
But when people who do seem interested come to the site, you seem to be telling many of them:
"You don't 100% agree with me. Your beliefs about liberty are stupid and useless. Scram."
Which appears very unwelcoming.

Quote from: MaineShark
I want to welcome those who will work for liberty . . . .

Fantastic. You seem to be in the right place.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: JAC on July 08, 2008, 01:12:52 am
I thought Dave handled the situation fine.  That second guy maybe shouldn't have waved his hand in the cop's face, but he's understandably upset by the cop's actions.  On the whole, the open-carry demonstrations, I thought, were a great idea.  Nice job.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 08, 2008, 06:04:23 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 08, 2008, 07:34:39 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

I'll take the light work Joe...lol.

Dear Killer,
"FREEDOM" exists with each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being...
Since it already exists...it doesn't need to be forced into existence...or "won"...we all already have it...

Acknowledging your own and others...and respecting your own and others...and demanding your own and others...

Is another story altogether...

You said...
Quote
In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom

Let's take a brief look at that...

Those exact words could be said by...or to...Hitler or Bush for example...and they probably do accept their delusions of being the "decider" and might very well have erroneously convinced themselves to just "accept", "live", and "simply teach themselves to just...let it be" their horrific terrifying global tyranny...

and...

I sincerely doubt that you will personally come to my doorstep to attempt to interfere, disrupt, or deny my freedom...
But I bet you think it's just fine and dandy to "employ" "direct" and "pay" others to perpetually perpetrate aggression/force/fraud on behalf of you and your minions of delusional looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Eventually...you'll turn from your erroneous ways...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...or just starve to death when your minions don't return with any loot or booty...

Maybe it won't happen tomorrow...maybe it will happen to your looter children...or looter grandchildren...

But someday it will happen...as history has shown and proven...time and time again...





www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 08, 2008, 11:22:17 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

I'll take the light work Joe...lol.

Dear Killer,
"FREEDOM" exists with each and every Individual Sovereign Human Beings...
Since it already exists...it doesn't need to be forced into existence...or "won"...we all already have it...

Acknowledging your own and others...and respecting your own and others...and demanding your own and others...

Is another story altogether...

You said...
Quote
In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom

Let's take a brief look at that...

Those exact words could be said by...or to...Hitler or Bush for example...and they probably do accept their delusions of being the "decider" and might very well have erroneously convinced themselves to just "accept", "live", and "simply teach themselves to just...let it be" their horrific terrifying global tyranny...

and...

I sincerely doubt that you will personally come to my doorstep to attempt to interfere, disrupt, or deny my freedom...
But I bet you think it's just fine and dandy to "employ" "direct" and "pay" others to perpetually perpetrate aggression/force/fraud on behalf of you and your minions of delusional looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Eventually...you'll turn from your erroneous ways...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...or just starve to death when your minions don't return with any loot or booty...

Maybe it won't happen tomorrow...maybe it will happen to your looter children...or looter grandchildren...

But someday it will happen...as history has shown and proven...time and time again...





www.campaignforliberty.com



Wow...did you take that completely out of context!

I take this to say.  Freedom is a state of mind. 

I do not take money from other people and am not those things you "think" that I am.  My children will always be free as long as their children.  You are not in the position to say who will be "repelled, destroyed, or eliminated"...even though we will ALL, without any argument, be dead one day...so I guess in a sense you are right, but then again...SO WILL YOU
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 08, 2008, 11:23:31 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

I'll take the light work Joe...lol.

Dear Killer,
"FREEDOM" exists with each and every Individual Sovereign Human Beings...
Since it already exists...it doesn't need to be forced into existence...or "won"...we all already have it...

Acknowledging your own and others...and respecting your own and others...and demanding your own and others...

Is another story altogether...

You said...
Quote
In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom

Let's take a brief look at that...

Those exact words could be said by...or to...Hitler or Bush for example...and they probably do accept their delusions of being the "decider" and might very well have erroneously convinced themselves to just "accept", "live", and "simply teach themselves to just...let it be" their horrific terrifying global tyranny...

and...

I sincerely doubt that you will personally come to my doorstep to attempt to interfere, disrupt, or deny my freedom...
But I bet you think it's just fine and dandy to "employ" "direct" and "pay" others to perpetually perpetrate aggression/force/fraud on behalf of you and your minions of delusional looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Eventually...you'll turn from your erroneous ways...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...or just starve to death when your minions don't return with any loot or booty...

Maybe it won't happen tomorrow...maybe it will happen to your looter children...or looter grandchildren...

But someday it will happen...as history has shown and proven...time and time again...





www.campaignforliberty.com



oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 08, 2008, 11:27:30 am
But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

There is no exaggeration.  That's what he said.  Or, has implied and repeatedly failed to address.

Like I said...EVERYONE (including myself) is hypocritical. some more than others....it's human nature

No, it's not.  Claiming that one's own failings are "just human nature" in order to avoid addressing those failings and growing has a fancy psychological name, but basically boils down to gross immaturity.

I was born free, I am free, and I will always be free.  My freedom has NEVER been restricted.  If you think this country and its situation is bad....you haven't seen bad.  I've seen bad...This place is the greatest country on the planet....is it perfect? No...but you can chase your Eutopian dreams to the depths...

Sounds like a slave defending slavery...  LOL

"Massa is nice.  Massa never mistreats me.  Massa only punishes me for my own good."

Joe

"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

I'll take the light work Joe...lol.

Dear Killer,
"FREEDOM" exists with each and every Individual Sovereign Human Beings...
Since it already exists...it doesn't need to be forced into existence...or "won"...we all already have it...

Acknowledging your own and others...and respecting your own and others...and demanding your own and others...

Is another story altogether...

You said...
Quote
In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom

Let's take a brief look at that...

Those exact words could be said by...or to...Hitler or Bush for example...and they probably do accept their delusions of being the "decider" and might very well have erroneously convinced themselves to just "accept", "live", and "simply teach themselves to just...let it be" their horrific terrifying global tyranny...

and...

I sincerely doubt that you will personally come to my doorstep to attempt to interfere, disrupt, or deny my freedom...
But I bet you think it's just fine and dandy to "employ" "direct" and "pay" others to perpetually perpetrate aggression/force/fraud on behalf of you and your minions of delusional looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Eventually...you'll turn from your erroneous ways...or be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...or just starve to death when your minions don't return with any loot or booty...

Maybe it won't happen tomorrow...maybe it will happen to your looter children...or looter grandchildren...

But someday it will happen...as history has shown and proven...time and time again...





www.campaignforliberty.com



oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...

But reknowned for being oppressed and not fighting back.
I think that's the mindset he was viewing it through.
Maybe he'll opine.

I was wondering where the quote came from :)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 08, 2008, 12:00:35 pm
You did not ask a question.  You made a statement regarding what I did and did not say.  Anyone who cares to read it can easily scroll back and do so.
And if they do, they will clearly see, I asked you directly. Twice.
Here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187061#msg187061).
And here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187091#msg187091).
That squiggly thing at the end of a sentence is a question mark.

You can pretend no questions were asked if that makes you feel better.
But so long as you're visiting the fantasy world you think Keltec inhabits, send us a postcard.

And yet another rather pathetic straw man.

I never said that you have never asked any questions.  I was referring to a specific case, which was not a question.  You keep trying to build these straw men, but they seem to be burning down around you...

Quote from: MaineShark
"Law latin?"  That's laughable.  "Prima facie" is used in many situations, not just law.  And is part of my normal speech.
The phrase prima facie is fairly confined to law. And in the way you (slightly mis-)used it: "prima facie evidence". Like other latin phrases, it can be used outside that context. But not very frequently. Most would be hard-pressed to claim they use it regularly as part of their normal vocabulary, daily or even semi-weekly. Maybe not if you're studying ethics, philosophy or law. Otherwise, probably not. Because most of us here use English, et les anglophones sains d'esprit n'utilisent pas une langue étrangère quand l'anglais travaille bien.

English is a bastard language, which includes words and phrases in common use from many other languages.  Living relatively-near Quebec, we even use some French in our speech, around here.  C'est la vie.

Again, it appears you're attempting to comment on something you're not competent in. (Special pleading: again, these are your competency rules.)

Instead, how about a question: Do you have any first-hand experience in defending yourself or others against criminal charges? Or perhaps you regularly attend pre-trial motion hearings? If none of these, upon what do you base your competence in this area?

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have defended myself, both with and without counsel as assistance.  Even picked a jury.  That was quite the interesting time - judges tend to be quite annoyed when defendants insist on actually participating, instead of sitting idly at the table.  Given the gross level of corruption of the police and prosecutors, and the sheer amount of critical evidence that they willfully destroyed, tampered with, or fabricated, coupled with the fact that I've never taken a single breath inside a prison, would tend to indicate that I have a rather high level of competence.

And don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying laws cannot be abused. Rather, what are a few pairs of unrelated laws, used together, to attack people all the time?

Laws are abuse.  They are not abused.

And, again, I would suggest doing some research.

Quote from: MaineShark
You suggested that you were not competent to discuss the matter.  I agreed.
Can you point to where I suggested this?

I did say I was not licensed to practice in New Hampshire. But I said nothing of competence.

If you maintain that this is "suggesting" that I'm not competent to interpret a statute, again--applying the same standards that "[you] apply to all people, including [yourself]"--you would also not be competent. So again, I'm not sure why you're commenting.
Unless you don't actually follow the rules you make for yourself.

Now, we both agree, government licensure alone is irrelevant to the issue of competence.
So there would be no reason for you to even interpret my statement as referring to competence.
Which just tends to show, as usual, you were just hurling an insult.

Yes, because you were just mentioning that you were not licensed in NH, just for the sake of inserting a random factoid about yourself?

I'll bet you also aren't a little green man from Mars.  There's an extremely good chance that you are not the Dalai Lama, as well.  Odds are very good that you are not 23 feet tall.  Why didn't you insert any other random lists of things which you are not?

The only possible reasons you would mention something specific like not being licensed in NH would be that you felt it related to your competence in these discussions.

Could you please explain how my interpretation of the statute demonstrates a lack of ability?
You may need to actually read, interpret, and refer us to the statute to do this.

We've already been over this, and I don't feel like repeating it.  Use the little links at the end of each page of text, which allow you to switch from page to page.

Yet, when I originally asked you for the attorneys, you did not respond.
Instead, you dodged the question and instead said most anyone actually involved in the liberty movement was aware.
It does not imply another group may not have a good understanding. No one said that.
But it tends to show you're avoiding the question.

I didn't dodge any question.  Another straw man.  The two discussions ("attorneys" and "those in the liberty movement") were two separate discussions.

Specifically, the "competent legal professionals" you've mentioned before.
Who are the they?
What are their names?
Do you have this information?
Yes or no?

If you keep avoiding it, I'll assume the answer is no.

I really could care less what you assume.  Do some research.  I'm sure you could find some attorneys to consult, if you liked, just for one group.

Quote from: MaineShark
I'm aware of the laws involved in libel.  And the forum posting guidelines.
Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice :)

What advice is that, precisely?

I work with what you give me.

No, you work with what you imagine that I say, rather than what I actually say.  Reading comprehension...

I'm not sure what imagined, contradictory things you're speaking of.
Feel free to specifically point it out, so I know.

We were just discussing some of them.  Or are you going to claim memory issues, now?

I am often wrong.

Well, we can most assuredly agree on that.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 08, 2008, 12:00:59 pm
Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:

1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.

You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

No idea what issue you're speaking of.
I am unsure of where I've claimed I've been right simply because I've made a statement with no ability to support it.
When I say something that hasn't been supported and I'm called on it, I don't try to weasle my way out of it. I rather try to foster understanding of what I've written. So please, if you could point me to specific examples so I know what you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

I don't think this sentiment has been missed by anyone.

And I guess that's also where we differ.
I think it'd be great if everyone did genuinely want to join.
Looking at the SOI, seems to be the whole point.
But when people who do seem interested come to the site, you seem to be telling many of them:
"You don't 100% agree with me. Your beliefs about liberty are stupid and useless. Scram."
Which appears very unwelcoming.

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 08, 2008, 12:09:03 pm
"Freedom can not be forced into existence, nor can it be won through painful struggle.  Freedom can not be bought or sold.  It has nothing to do with one's social status; one's profession is of no consequence.  In order for you to accept yourself as you are and live with your soul at peace, you must simply teach yourself to let it be, only then will you discover freedom."

Rob did a pretty good number on this.

I'll add a little.

Hitler did not kill tens of millions.  Even among the population of Germany, those who directly carried-out the genocides were a small number.  Such is usually the case with any similar action.  Those who just "accepted" the situation easily outnumbered those who had any direct hand in it.

Bending over whenever the government comes calling is not freedom, just because they let you choose which chair you will bend over.

oh and that quote is from a Buddhist monk...they are renowned for being oppressive...

They are, however, renowned for standing back and letting themselves and others be oppressed, rather than doing anything meaningful to oppose systems of oppression.

I was wondering where the quote came from :)

Really?  Why?  That was pretty obviously of Buddhist origin.  One would imagine that anyone who goes as far out of his way to imply a high level of "education" as yourself would have studied enough philosophy to recognize such a blatantly-Buddhist statement as that one.  Curious...

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 08, 2008, 12:10:23 pm
Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:

1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.

You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

No idea what issue you're speaking of.
I am unsure of where I've claimed I've been right simply because I've made a statement with no ability to support it.
When I say something that hasn't been supported and I'm called on it, I don't try to weasle my way out of it. I rather try to foster understanding of what I've written. So please, if you could point me to specific examples so I know what you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

I don't think this sentiment has been missed by anyone.

And I guess that's also where we differ.
I think it'd be great if everyone did genuinely want to join.
Looking at the SOI, seems to be the whole point.
But when people who do seem interested come to the site, you seem to be telling many of them:
"You don't 100% agree with me. Your beliefs about liberty are stupid and useless. Scram."
Which appears very unwelcoming.

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

Joe

We've gone from "bureaucrats, jackboots, etc" being the phrase of the day to "straw man"... Quippy quipper quippington
Title: The Longest, Most Pointless, Argumentative (But Slighly Humorous) Thread Ever.
Post by: rossby on July 08, 2008, 02:20:24 pm
I never said that you have never asked any questions.

And I never said that you said that I never asked any questions. (Whew. :p)
I asked questions. You said I didn't.
Reality hurts (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187107#msg187107).

Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have defended myself . . . coupled with the fact that I've never taken a single breath inside a prison, would tend to indicate that I have a rather high level of competence.

Ah, that's great! :D Let us officially dub thee "competent". Now, let's answer the complete question: what are a few pairs of unrelated laws used to attack people all the time?

Yes, because you were just mentioning that you were not licensed in NH, just for the sake of inserting a random factoid about yourself?
...
The only possible reasons you would mention something specific like not being licensed in NH would be that you felt it related to your competence in these discussions.

Only possible reason? For telling me to "go read" all the time, you might wanna try it. Go look at what I explicitly wrote. All of it.

If you look through a number of legal books, treatises, periodicals, etc. you will nearly always see a (much longer) disclaimer like that. It's a warning to people. To let them know the author isn't writing as their personal attorney, and that no attorney-client relationship is formed, and that advice shouldn't be relied on. Honestly, it's more an insurance reason than anything else. Sounds like a possible reason to me; and the the correct one.

I didn't dodge any question. Another straw man. The two discussions ("attorneys" and "those in the liberty movement") were two separate discussions.

Do you know what a straw man argument is?
You've used it quite a few times now.
But not once correctly.

I really could care less what you assume.  Do some research.  I'm sure you could find some attorneys to consult, if you liked, just for one group.

No, no, no. You misunderstand.
I don't just want "some attorneys to consult". Not just any 'ole attorneys.

Who are a few of the attorneys you previously said have read the particular statute?

Quote from: B.D. Ross
Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice :)

What advice is that, precisely?

That you further research the law of libel. To claim you're aware of those laws, you would've had to look into it a bit more, since there was a gap in your understanding. Since you're now aware, you must've looked into it some more.

We were just discussing some of them. Or are you going to claim memory issues, now?

Well, I don't recall "we" discussing them.
So if you're not being ambiguous on purpose, my memory just might be deficient!

If yours isn't deficient, could you please point out where these supposed contradictory statements are?
Again, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that wasn't clear.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:

1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.

You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.

Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.

Quote from: B.D. Ross
#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.

Ah, but it rather is important what you believe.  As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense.  If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.

What?! No. Just... no.
(hangs head in shame... I have failed to reach theeese keeeds.)
What I believe (about libertarianism) is not relevant to telling us whether you apply a differing standard by which you're treating other posters.
Even if, my personal beliefs would not alone tell anyone whether my posts are trolls or strawmen.
I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something equally crazy).
But I could still look at the ocean, and exclaim, "Oh. It looks wet."
And I'd be correct.
But neither of those facts tells us anything--not even remotely--about how you're treating other people when you communciate with them.

Contrarily, as we like to hold people to a uniform standard, would it also be rather important what you believe in? You seem to believe my posts are trolls and full of straw men. As the thread grows in size, the former looks more-and-more tenable. But the latter, I think, I've addressed that a few times already in this post. I don't think I've exaggerated any of your opinions so-far as to distort them beyond your actual claims. But if you can point it out (and convincingly tell me why you think it's not fair), I'll certainly own up to it.

Hmm, maybe I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I'm a communist. --Or a vampire!
Still wouldn't change the fact that you're holding other posters to a different standard than you're holding yourself to.
When you say that you don't.

And, hey, look Ma', I can argue fallaciously too! If you're unwelcoming to the liberty-minded people who visit this web site, "you are no sort of libertarian at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman")"

--Sounds valid and convincing, doesn't it?

Quote from: B.D. Ross
You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.

Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.

...

Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?

...

This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.

The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move.  Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.

You really have no idea what a straw man argument is, do you?
Read the third-to-last line above. That's an example of one.
You inappropriately expanded what I wrote ("we should welcome liberty-minded people") to a "We should convince folks to move to NH just because it's underpopulated". That's a no-no.

And that pointing-a-gun-at-your-neighbors head-if-his-dog-barks thing?
You keep pulling that out of your hat.
But I don't think anyone has actually, ever said it.
Well, except when you first fabricated it.

Really?  Why?  That was pretty obviously of Buddhist origin.  One would imagine that anyone who goes as far out of his way to imply a high level of "education" as yourself would have studied enough philosophy to recognize such a blatantly-Buddhist statement as that one.  Curious...

Why? Because I did not know, and I wanted to. Is there anything "obviously" and "blatantly" Buddhist about it that you can point out? Could've just as well been some translated text from an Enlightenment author.

--AND before it slips my mind, where in the world was that pedestrian so that he wouldn't have been in public?

Save that I'm wrong from time-to-time, you're right, there's little common ground. Most of the content above is just bickering (though I'm really hoping you realize about the lack of support in your posts). This thread could continue in perpetuity. We're hardly addressing the substantive issues any more, so it's fast becoming a waste (though, amusing use) of time. Unless you can address any of the original issues I identified (identify the unrelated laws, attorneys, etc.), I'll try really hard to ignore whatever illogical non-response you can cobble together. Unless I see something particularly juicy and just can't resist. But that's not a goal you should aspire to!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: jrod on July 08, 2008, 04:33:30 pm
;D...I like this guy

You like cops who attack innocent people for no reason, and think those cops shouldn't be punished.  I don't think you should insult B.D. Ross by saying that you like him, too.

Joe

Eh, it's not really an insult.

And we might be able to change his opinion around. Show him the light. He is actually here after all. Bothered to sign up. Perhaps he really does have some sliver of interest and he's not just trying to make trouble. I don't agree with everything he's said. But combatively arguing with him and exaggerating what he's said isn't going to turn him around.

Keltec, what were you originally try to tell us again?

My original "complaint" is that I don't, foundationally, agree with the way the group gets their message out.  I think that there are better ways to "fight the system".  I really appreciate your comment, because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all    ;D

Quote
"because I do agree with this group in a LOT of things...just not the way the message is delivered that's all"

Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...


Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on July 08, 2008, 06:04:41 pm
Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on July 08, 2008, 06:58:40 pm
For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

THANK YOU!!!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 08, 2008, 07:44:21 pm
Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

I TRULY think that is GREAT!  I do not consider myself a "libertarian" or a democrat or republican for that matter...I fall somewhere in between all of those.  I like to think I lean a little more towards the libertarian side, but don't take the title.  I am glad to hear that you have reps at the house.  In MY opinion, that is the way to "fight".  The other way is messy...right or wrong...it's messy.

I have to say, your best speaker on your behalf...and I am not even sure he is apart of your group, but am assuming (yes maineshark and parachuter, I know I shouldn't assume) he is apart of the FSP, is Gardner Goldsmith.  That man speaks VERY intelligently of the constitution and seems to be of similar ilk.

Good to hear there are reasonable people in the group...BD and yourself and a few others that i have seen...

Good on ya!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: sj on July 08, 2008, 08:25:25 pm
For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

THANK YOU!!!

^This
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 09, 2008, 09:28:12 am
Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on July 09, 2008, 10:00:51 am
Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.

I'm in favor of both market-based and political-based activism.  I'm glad both are going on in NH.  "Something for everyone!"

The skeptic of market activism (if we're talking about the same term) will point out that the majority can still be effective in impeding market activism, simply by passing new laws that turn certain market activists into criminals.  The effectiveness of market activists is greatly diminished when they're behind bars, or when their property is seized.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 09, 2008, 10:44:20 am
Market activism can be 'messy', but is more likely a better path to freedom in that it doesn't need majority opinion to work.

I'm in favor of both market-based and political-based activism.  I'm glad both are going on in NH.  "Something for everyone!"

The skeptic of market activism (if we're talking about the same term) will point out that the majority can still be effective in impeding market activism, simply by passing new laws that turn certain market activists into criminals.  The effectiveness of market activists is greatly diminished when they're behind bars, or when their property is seized.

I think both market-based and political-based activism are great as well.  I just think the market-based ones need some discretion...and that is just MY opinion.  I don't think it should be illegal to do any of them.  I think a nice article in the Hippo press about open carry could be a good idea or even trying to get a spot on WMUR.  You know 107.7 will get you guys on.  I think just getting it to the front of people's minds that open carry is legal will take it "shock" factor away.  Hunters don't get shocked by it...we see them all the time. 
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 09, 2008, 10:49:27 am
I never said that you have never asked any questions.
And I never said that you said that I never asked any questions. (Whew. :p)
I asked questions. You said I didn't.
Reality hurts (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15377.msg187107#msg187107).

And, yet again, your pathetic little straw men don't hold water.

You claimed that I said, "public," which I did not.  You did not ask a question, there.  You made a statement that I said, "public."  I pointed that out, and you tried to build a straw man by replacing "public" (which I did not say) with "pedestrian" (which I did say).

Now, let's answer the complete question: what are a few pairs of unrelated laws used to attack people all the time?

Why?  Clearly, with all your massive legal expertise, you will have no trouble finding many such examples, right?

Only possible reason? For telling me to "go read" all the time, you might wanna try it. Go look at what I explicitly wrote. All of it.

If you look through a number of legal books, treatises, periodicals, etc. you will nearly always see a (much longer) disclaimer like that. It's a warning to people. To let them know the author isn't writing as their personal attorney, and that no attorney-client relationship is formed, and that advice shouldn't be relied on. Honestly, it's more an insurance reason than anything else. Sounds like a possible reason to me; and the the correct one.

Someone looking to avoid liability would state, "I'm not your attorney, and you should not consider this legal advice," without ever once mentioning anything about a license.

Try a little harder, next time...

Do you know what a straw man argument is?
You've used it quite a few times now.
But not once correctly.

Prove it.  Demonstrate how my claim is incorrect.

No, no, no. You misunderstand.
I don't just want "some attorneys to consult". Not just any 'ole attorneys.

Who are a few of the attorneys you previously said have read the particular statute?

I didn't refer to any attorneys, let alone specific ones.  I referred to a general class of competent legal professionals.

That you further research the law of libel. To claim you're aware of those laws, you would've had to look into it a bit more, since there was a gap in your understanding. Since you're now aware, you must've looked into it some more.

Actually, no.  I didn't say anything about "now."  I did no additional research.  My understanding of the laws of libel is, apparently, better than your own.

So if you're not being ambiguous on purpose, my memory just might be deficient!

If yours isn't deficient, could you please point out where these supposed contradictory statements are?
Again, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that wasn't clear.

I would suggest actually reading these posts.

What?! No. Just... no.
(hangs head in shame... I have failed to reach theeese keeeds.)
What I believe (about libertarianism) is not relevant to telling us whether you apply a differing standard by which you're treating other posters.
Even if, my personal beliefs would not alone tell anyone whether my posts are trolls or strawmen.
I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something equally crazy).
But I could still look at the ocean, and exclaim, "Oh. It looks wet."
And I'd be correct.
But neither of those facts tells us anything--not even remotely--about how you're treating other people when you communciate with them.

Given that your claims are blatantly false, I'm attempting to determine why they are false...

And, hey, look Ma', I can argue fallaciously too! If you're unwelcoming to the liberty-minded people who visit this web site, "you are no sort of libertarian at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman")"

--Sounds valid and convincing, doesn't it?

Not in the slightest.

You really have no idea what a straw man argument is, do you?
Read the third-to-last line above. That's an example of one.
You inappropriately expanded what I wrote ("we should welcome liberty-minded people") to a "We should convince folks to move to NH just because it's underpopulated". That's a no-no.

Expanding an argument is not necessarily a straw man.  Which you would know if you actually understood the concept.  A straw man involves replacing an argument with a different argument which one can disprove more easily.

Expanding an argument can sometimes make it into a straw man.  Expanding an argument to its logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) is not a straw man argument.

And that pointing-a-gun-at-your-neighbors head-if-his-dog-barks thing?
You keep pulling that out of your hat.
But I don't think anyone has actually, ever said it.
Well, except when you first fabricated it.

I would suggest familiarizing yourself with this thread, in which someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice...
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.0

--AND before it slips my mind, where in the world was that pedestrian so that he wouldn't have been in public?

A pedestrian is someone who travels by foot.  The obvious purpose of describing him as such is to say that he was most assuredly not on a roadway, where he would be in public.

Save that I'm wrong from time-to-time, you're right, there's little common ground. Most of the content above is just bickering (though I'm really hoping you realize about the lack of support in your posts). This thread could continue in perpetuity. We're hardly addressing the substantive issues any more, so it's fast becoming a waste (though, amusing use) of time. Unless you can address any of the original issues I identified (identify the unrelated laws, attorneys, etc.), I'll try really hard to ignore whatever illogical non-response you can cobble together. Unless I see something particularly juicy and just can't resist. But that's not a goal you should aspire to!

It's always quite amusing when individuals with delusions of grandeur try to rant like that.  I mean, it's not even worthy of literary praise, let alone containing any substance...

But your posts aren't even amusing.  They're just sad.  You'd have to at least make your silly claims complex enough to require more than a minute to respond do, in order to even hope to amuse me.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 09, 2008, 10:57:23 am
The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.

Of course, the majority of the early movers (who have had such great success), in my experience are the anarchist sorts...

I don't think it should be illegal to do any of them.

No, you just think that "the law" should be able to assault and coerce anyone they see doing it, with total immunity from the consequences.  How silly of us to confuse the two.  LMAO.

I think a nice article in the Hippo press about open carry could be a good idea or even trying to get a spot on WMUR.  You know 107.7 will get you guys on.  I think just getting it to the front of people's minds that open carry is legal will take it "shock" factor away.

Yes, because the best way to get people to not be shocked by something is to hide it so that they rarely see it.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  People are "not shocked" by things they view as ordinary.  So long as open carry is not ordinary, they will view it as "shocking."  The only way to eliminate the shock value is to just go about our business, leading "normal" lives, while we just happen to be openly carrying guns.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 09, 2008, 01:38:34 pm
The barking dog thing keeps reappearing on a few threads.
So I'd like to do a bit of factual "clean-up".
Might be confusing for anyone just joining us.

Quote from: MaineShark
"Someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice..."

I went back to the thread you linked to.

No one mentioned the police going around threatening neighbors with guns because of a barking dog.
The word gun doesn't appear anywhere until you wrote it. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185463#msg185463)
Fishercat was the first person to mention police. But it looks like he was only explaining what he heard from a CoP about a new ordinance. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185472#msg185472)
But you did say it. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185463#msg185463) And kept repeating it:

Here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185517#msg185517).
And here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185519#msg185519).
And here again (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185536#msg185536).

These words, combined together, are what's being into the posters' mouths.

Quote from: MaineShark
"Someone claimed that he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog.  You should be familiar with it, given that you defended his choice..."
No one ever claimed that "he wanted to hire thugs with guns to stop his neighbor from having a barking dog" in that thread.
Just didn't happen.

At best, the whole "dog barking-thugs with guns"-thing is a gross exaggeration of what was being talked about regarding noise. If you read the thread carefully and for comprehension, you'll find that the posters set out pretty clearly their own opinions about what is acceptable and what is not (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185540#msg185540).
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 09, 2008, 02:20:39 pm
Yes, you do. This is why the LP can't elect anything beyond school board, and this is why I'm skeptical of hauling my life to New Hampshire. If you run around acting self righteous and arrogant, then you win no allies in the public sphere. Whether you like the system or not, you can't do anything about it so long as it has the legitimacy of the majority.

For the one thousand, three hundred, seventy fourth time (but maybe only the 4th time in this thread)...the opinions expressed by Joe, Powerchuter, or any individual you might come across on these forums are just that: opinions of individuals on the forums.  AKA, opinions of a very tiny percentage of FSPers.  AKA, not necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone except the persons expressing their opinions; and certainly not the "opinion of the FSP" -- whatever that is.

Suppose you were thinking about going to a concert given by your favorite musician, and about 20,000 people were expected to attend.  If you found out that two kids from high school that you didn't get along with were going, would you sit home and fret about it, and miss the concert of your life?

Furthermore, while your skepticism of the FSP vis-a-vis political failures of the LP is understandable, it's wrong.  There is already an FSPer in the NH house of representatives, there are a bunch more running this fall, and I know of at least two FSPers who have been or currently are selectmen in their towns.  Then you have effective pro-liberty organizations that were founded by or are heavily supported by free staters, like the NH Liberty Alliance.  The FSP -- with only a couple hundred people having made the move to NH -- already has far more political success (especially per capita) than the LP ever has, or possibly ever will.  And yes, there are plenty of free staters who want nothing to do with the political process, but this does not impede the actions of those free staters who are trying to use the political process to gain freedom.

This.³



jrod:—

Perhaps you should come up and visit before forming any impressions of who all of us are. Or at least watch some of the videos of freestaters in real life and how we actually work, e.g., The Ridley Report (http://ridleyreport.com/), or the “Finding Life and Liberty in the Free State” (part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykYVIUk-mqs), part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdDtvclolrs)) videos. And here (http://www.nhliberty.org/forum/index.php?topic=897.0) is a great post on the NHLA forum from someone who was originally wary of freestaters (as a result of reading the forums) after he actually met some of us last Sunday.



Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Seriously, Rob, tone it down—how are comments like this and others conducive to educating people about voluntaryism? I remember you telling me that such an opportunity for education was the primary reason you supported the Ron Paul campaign, for example. How are belligerent comments like this helpful?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 09, 2008, 02:31:42 pm
No one mentioned the police going around threatening neighbors with guns because of a barking dog.
The word gun doesn't appear anywhere until you wrote it. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185463#msg185463)
Fishercat was the first person to mention police. But it looks like he was only explaining what he heard from a CoP about a new ordinance. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185472#msg185472)
But you did say it. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185463#msg185463) And kept repeating it:

Here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185517#msg185517).
And here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185519#msg185519).
And here again (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15358.msg185536#msg185536).

These words, combined together, are what's being into the posters' mouths.

Any threat of using the government to stop someone from doing something implies threatening people with guns. It doesn’t matter how light the initial penalty is. Just ask yourself: What happens if you refuse to pay a $1 fine? And then what happens if you refuse to go with them when they come to arrest you?

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on July 09, 2008, 04:09:24 pm
This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"


I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 09, 2008, 04:21:54 pm
This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"


I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 09, 2008, 07:22:00 pm
Quote from: Margomaps

This is a key point, and one that results in much consternation when you question those who refuse to believe it.  It's fascinating watching their thought process unfold.  All manner of justifications are invented to avoid the inescapable conclusion...

"Of course the offender shouldn't be killed for not paying his taxes.  That's what <jail/fines/etc.> is for."

But what if the person refuses to pay the fine, or show up for his court date?

"Well, I guess they'll be arrested."

But what if the person won't open the door when the police come?

"The police can kick in the door, but I doubt the person would resist to such an extent."

But what if they did?  And what if the person decided to use a weapon defend himself from the armed intruders?

"Ok, there might be a shootout or something.  But nobody would take it that far."

And if they did?

"Well they might get shot by the police.  But only because they escalated the situation in the first place.  This never happens!"

I've had this conversation with many people.  Almost all of them start off denying that you could be killed for not paying your taxes.  Then they agree that death is not an appropriate punishment for doing so.  By the end of it, they've admited that you could get killed, and it would be your own fault.  At the last moment, they quickly revert back to "This hypothetical is impossible!  It would never happen!" in order to prevent their head from imploding in a vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.

I had a meeting a couple towns over this morning.
After, I was walking back to my car, I saw a cop pull up to it.
He hopped out. Flipped open his ticketbook.
I asked him what he was doing.
He said a parking permit was required; and he'd have to fine me.
I said no parking permit was required.
He said, "You can fight it out in court with me."
I swear, that's exactly what he said. I'd never met this guy before.
I pointed at the lack of the "Permit Required" sign (there was a sign pole, but no sign).
And said, "No way I'm gonna pay this."
He paused for a second. And he put his ticketbook away.
Then I drove home and made a roast beef sandwich.
'Twas delicious.

Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.
(Until it becomes everyone's problem; like population immunity in reverse :P)
You might "make" a free society. But so many people will never be free from fear.
And you can't force them. Government ostensibly tries to do that. And fails miserably.
If you really want to "fight back" within the "system", there are many ways to do it. (Pfff, taxes...)
That's why a lot of people are here. And I think that's great.
But applying the "everything-by-the-barrel-of-a-gun" analogy is a slippery slope. It's a good analogy and makes a great quote. But it's not an accurate reflection of day-to-day happenings, especially in the civil case. Tax collection is really it's own nasty beast... but I could talk about that all day :-\
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 10, 2008, 08:26:53 am
"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 10, 2008, 08:47:10 am
"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

THIS!!!!!!!!!

OH JESUS!!!!!!!!!THIS!!!!!!!!!

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!!!!!!!!THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

NO...IT'S EVERYONE'S PROBLEM BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SUPPORT IT...AND THE MINORITY RESIST IT...BUT ALL ARE AFFECTED BY IT...

and...um...a gun is always there/threatened/used by the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries for the simplest and most common things...

in some areas an unpaid 57 cent library fine will get your driver's license suspended which will get you jackbooted...and if you resist then the ultimate threat escalation is gunfire...

"the fifty-seven cent gunfight"...

go figure...


and that's EXACTLY why jackboots should know EXACTLY why they are doing what they are doing and not get "carried away" with the "you must obey my authority" bullshit...

Why might someone resist arrest for fifty-seven cents...
Who knows...
Why should the jackboots murder them for 57 cents...
They shouldn't...

Go figure...




www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on July 10, 2008, 08:54:02 am
"Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works."

Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

Oh but, but, but, you ASKED for that gun to be pointed at your head!!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 10, 2008, 09:04:26 am
Fortunately, "we" don't need your agreement on our "ways"...since the only thing we are demanding from you and everyone else is for "everyone to leave everyone else alone"...

Seriously, Rob, tone it down—how are comments like this and others conducive to educating people about voluntaryism? I remember you telling me that such an opportunity for education was the primary reason you supported the Ron Paul campaign, for example. How are belligerent comments like this helpful?

J...
I don't see ANYTHING wrong with my statement/demand(that you quoted)...as it was one of my more "reasonable" requests/demands...(you should know that by now)...

And then you write...
Quote
Any threat of using the government to stop someone from doing something implies threatening people with guns. It doesn’t matter how light the initial penalty is. Just ask yourself: What happens if you refuse to pay a $1 fine? And then what happens if you refuse to go with them when they come to arrest you?

This is what any supporter of any law has to ask themselves: Do you believe __________ should be enforced by killing the offender?

and...
Quote
Or ask them why it’s a hypothetical: Why would a person not resist to that extent? Why would no one take it that far? Because they fear being killed. Because they know there’s a gun pointed at them. Hypothetical or not, the conclusion that there’s a death threat from the State is inescapable.

Both of which are accurate in describing the continued threats of murder made by those who erroneously believe that they have some sort of "magical mystical murder wand" that they wave around and use to keep us all "in-line" here in the slave-nation on the global-gulag prison-planet...

and...

my statement/demand still stands...
it doesn't matter whether or not you, or anyone else, subscribes to my philosophy...
but it does matter whether or not you, or anyone else, LEAVES EVERYONE ELSE COMPLETELY ALONE...

so...

please don't ever insult me again with such a request...
it's definitely not productive to challenge our comrades to duels...

further...

my efforts at "shock doctrine" allow others to accurately and factually point out that their methods and positions aren't as "shocking" as some...

go figure...

Enjoy!

Love Ya All!






www.campaignforliberty.com
www.fija.org

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Porcupine The Godful Heathen on July 10, 2008, 09:15:41 am
**sigh**
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 10, 2008, 11:08:18 am
Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Browns, millions of people locked in cages for non-violent offenses. Rarely huh? Have you ever had a cop physically point a gun at your head? I have and it's not just us, the entire world is being terrorized by the thugs we continue to finance. Rarely...(shakes head).

Those are some extreme outliers. We could talk about those for weeks. Imprisonment for non-violent (e.g. chemical possession) crime is a slightly different issue. Not all of those people necessarily had guns pointed at them. And you might be amazed how many people willingly submit themselves for punishment...

Yes. I've had a cop point a firearm at me.
What was he going to do--shoot me?!
Fat chance.

Depending on your state, a cop should not be pointing a firearm at your head just because he feels like it. There are rules they are supposed to follow. Most people do not hold the police to the rules. If you're assaulted by a police officer and you weren't physically endangering his safety, the cop's probably done a no-no. And, there's nearly a 100% probability you will survive this encounter. Real problem is, most people will never go to a public forum and charge the cop for his bad acts. And that's a legal- and a market-based solution.

Quote from: Powerchuter
Quote from:
If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

NO...IT'S EVERYONE'S PROBLEM BECAUSE THE MAJORITY SUPPORT IT...AND THE MINORITY RESIST IT...BUT ALL ARE AFFECTED BY IT...

Think I said something similar.

Quote from: Powerchuter
in some areas an unpaid 57 cent library fine will get your driver's license suspended which will get you jackbooted...and if you resist then the ultimate threat escalation is gunfire...

Hmm. Where's that happen?
In some places, a $0.57 is too small to bother collecting. Some municipalities will sell this "debt" to debt collection companies. Gives you a number of federal legal protections. Fairly, sure Chicago (or maybe it was one of the cities north) used to do this.

"Threat escalation" is half the problem. (1) Because many problems can be solved alternatively (e.g. try asking kindly to have the overdue charge removed; has never failed for me); (2) Because, in the grand scheme, you're vastly outnumbered. Unless your life is in imminent danger, it doesn't do you any good, long-term, to continually escalate the level of violence. Unless you have a large armed force, willing to die for an overdue book charge, you will lose. And that's a waste of energies and talent that could really be used for something far more productive.

If you don't want to finance the "thugs", one of the very best things you can do, is open a business, find a good good lawyer/cpa (or, of course, do the research yourself), and pay next to nothing in taxes.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: margomaps on July 10, 2008, 11:28:42 am
"Threat escalation" is half the problem. (1) Because many problems can be solved alternatively (e.g. try asking kindly to have the overdue charge removed; has never failed for me); (2) Because, in the grand scheme, you're vastly outnumbered. Unless your life is in imminent danger, it doesn't do you any good, long-term, to continually escalate the level of violence. Unless you have a large armed force, willing to die for an overdue book charge, you will lose. And that's a waste of energies and talent that could really be used for something far more productive.

I do agree with you that being threatened with physical harm is pretty rare; especially relative to the one- to two-million people in this country who will voluntarily submit to an arrest for drug violations alone.  You are also correct in that if you happen to be the subject of a potential arrest for a relatively petty offense, your priority can be to "live another day" by submitting rather than resisting.

However, this does not change the fact that if you do (for whatever reason) decide to resist what you believe to be unjust punishment/detention for some law you broke, that it is the government/police who are the ones who will escalate the situation up to and including deadly force in order to achieve compliance.  Just because people much more frequently comply out of fear does not change the ground rules.  I think you're talking about tactics for survival in a police state, and others are talking about the real consequences of resisting a police state.  Neither side is incorrect, but this is sort of proceeding like an Abbott and Costello routine.
Title: Who's on First?
Post by: rossby on July 10, 2008, 12:54:15 pm
However, this does not change the fact that if you do (for whatever reason) decide to resist what you believe to be unjust punishment/detention for some law you broke, that it is the government/police who are the ones who will escalate the situation up to and including deadly force in order to achieve compliance.  Just because people much more frequently comply out of fear does not change the ground rules.  I think you're talking about tactics for survival in a police state, and others are talking about the real consequences of resisting a police state.  Neither side is incorrect, but this is sort of proceeding like an Abbott and Costello routine.

I think I see what you're saying. And that is a fact. But facts are useless alone. What can we do with it? Yes, I'm talking about survival. But it's not mere survival. Knowing what the real consquences of a resisting a "police state" are, if you want to change anything, you must alter how you choose to respond rather than respond the way you would prefer to. We do have various systems--imperfect and unjust as they may be. But it is fairly rare that actual physical violence is escalated unilaterally. You cannot dismantle a "police state" if you get yourself dead by choosing poorly. S'all I'm saying.
Title: Re: Who's on First?
Post by: margomaps on July 10, 2008, 01:05:20 pm
I think I see what you're saying. And that is a fact. But facts are useless alone. What can we do with it? Yes, I'm talking about survival. But it's not mere survival. Knowing what the real consquences of a resisting a "police state" are, if you want to change anything, you must alter how you choose to respond rather than respond the way you would prefer to. We do have various systems--imperfect and unjust as they may be. But it is fairly rare that actual physical violence is escalated unilaterally. You cannot dismantle a "police state" if you get yourself dead by choosing poorly. S'all I'm saying.

Good.  Now that we have a babelfish to help us understand one another, I think we can safely say this:

1) I agree that 99% of the time it's probably better to suck it up and pay a modest penalty than to die over a delinquent tax (for example).
2) You agree that the system is totally @#%!'d up, in that the police might very well kill you if you resist punishment over something as trivial as taxes.
Title: Re: Who's on First?
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 10, 2008, 01:38:58 pm
I think I see what you're saying. And that is a fact. But facts are useless alone. What can we do with it? Yes, I'm talking about survival. But it's not mere survival. Knowing what the real consquences of a resisting a "police state" are, if you want to change anything, you must alter how you choose to respond rather than respond the way you would prefer to. We do have various systems--imperfect and unjust as they may be. But it is fairly rare that actual physical violence is escalated unilaterally. You cannot dismantle a "police state" if you get yourself dead by choosing poorly. S'all I'm saying.

Good.  Now that we have a babelfish to help us understand one another, I think we can safely say this:

1) I agree that 99% of the time it's probably better to suck it up and pay a modest penalty than to die over a delinquent tax (for example).
2) You agree that the system is totally @#%!'d up, in that the police might very well kill you if you resist punishment over something as trivial as taxes.

I agree with your agreement. Problem is, I'm up to about 87 out of your 99 percent.

Tick tock.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 11, 2008, 09:44:25 am
Then there is the question of whether "they" are even "authentic" jackboots...could just be MS13 dressed for success...(not that there is any real difference)

Then there is the question of whether the "tail-light out traffic stop" will actually turn out to be your being whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"...

Of course, I'm not saying either of these situations are commonplace, but they have occurred, hence they remain an ever increasing possibility and threat...

Perhaps there are thousands of these events...except that it's "against the law" for us to tell you about them...and if we do...we are subject to some foreign R and R...

Go figure...

Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 11, 2008, 12:06:09 pm
Then there is the question of whether "they" are even "authentic" jackboots...could just be MS13 dressed for success...(not that there is any real difference)

Then there is the question of whether the "tail-light out traffic stop" will actually turn out to be your being whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"...

Of course, I'm not saying either of these situations are commonplace, but they have occurred, hence they remain an ever increasing possibility and threat...

Perhaps there are thousands of these events...except that it's "against the law" for us to tell you about them...and if we do...we are subject to some foreign R and R...

Go figure...

Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



I ask this question legitimately...Do you really think that someone has been "whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"... JUST for a tail light out?  If you are just being sarcastic and I didn't see it, then ok....just curious
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 11, 2008, 06:40:29 pm
Then there is the question of whether "they" are even "authentic" jackboots...could just be MS13 dressed for success...(not that there is any real difference)

Then there is the question of whether the "tail-light out traffic stop" will actually turn out to be your being whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"...

Of course, I'm not saying either of these situations are commonplace, but they have occurred, hence they remain an ever increasing possibility and threat...

Perhaps there are thousands of these events...except that it's "against the law" for us to tell you about them...and if we do...we are subject to some foreign R and R...

Go figure...

Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



I ask this question legitimately...Do you really think that someone has been "whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"... JUST for a tail light out?  If you are just being sarcastic and I didn't see it, then ok....just curious

The point was that the "simple traffic stop for a supposed tail-light out" was ACTUALLY the jackboots and mercenaries having a relatively easy time kidnapping the victim simply because the victim thought he was just being pulled over for a "simple traffic violation"...

Further, since we are hearing from the gooberment that they believe(erroneously of course) that they have the "power" to declare virtually anyone a terrorist or terrorist supporter(how could you ever know since some things are "ok" to sell to "Americans" but not "ok" to sell to "foreigners") and to then kidnap, imprison indefinitely, torture, mutilate, injure, and even murder them...all at the whim of some supposed "state" or "government" with some supposed "authority" or "jurisdiction"...all erroneous and incorrect...and, as usual, the aggression/force/fraud is dealt out with the ever present threat of their supposed magical mystical murder wand of power...

Then...since we are hearing and observing these kidnappings...we should ALWAYS assume the worst case scenario when ANYONE in any sort of costume attempts to get anywhere near us...or to talk to us...or to stop us as we are walking, biking, jogging, running, driving, flying, sailing, etc.

And we should fight like our very lives depended on it...because that very well may be the case...

See, that's one of the big problems with running a successful police state...

Once you've decided the police are your enemy(which they are)...

Then each encounter with them becomes potentially deadly...

Because, of course, when it's just a couple of human beings with some clothes/costumes on...or even naked...and they pull guns on each other...

Somebody is going to have to either give in...shoot...or be shot...

There is no other way...

Naked people with guns...

Who would have guessed...

Repel, Destroy, And Eliminate...

Go figure...

Enjoy!





www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 11, 2008, 08:18:12 pm
Then there is the question of whether "they" are even "authentic" jackboots...could just be MS13 dressed for success...(not that there is any real difference)

Then there is the question of whether the "tail-light out traffic stop" will actually turn out to be your being whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"...

Of course, I'm not saying either of these situations are commonplace, but they have occurred, hence they remain an ever increasing possibility and threat...

Perhaps there are thousands of these events...except that it's "against the law" for us to tell you about them...and if we do...we are subject to some foreign R and R...

Go figure...

Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



I ask this question legitimately...Do you really think that someone has been "whisked away to Syria for some "R and R water-boarding"... JUST for a tail light out?  If you are just being sarcastic and I didn't see it, then ok....just curious

The point was that the "simple traffic stop for a supposed tail-light out" was ACTUALLY the jackboots and mercenaries having a relatively easy time kidnapping the victim simply because the victim thought he was just being pulled over for a "simple traffic violation"...

Further, since we are hearing from the gooberment that they believe(erroneously of course) that they have the "power" to declare virtually anyone a terrorist or terrorist supporter(how could you ever know since some things are "ok" to sell to "Americans" but not "ok" to sell to "foreigners") and to then kidnap, imprison indefinitely, torture, mutilate, injure, and even murder them...all at the whim of some supposed "state" or "government" with some supposed "authority" or "jurisdiction"...all erroneous and incorrect...and, as usual, the aggression/force/fraud is dealt out with the ever present threat of their supposed magical mystical murder wand of power...

Then...since we are hearing and observing these kidnappings...we should ALWAYS assume the worst case scenario when ANYONE in any sort of costume attempts to get anywhere near us...or to talk to us...or to stop us as we are walking, biking, jogging, running, driving, flying, sailing, etc.

And we should fight like our very lives depended on it...because that very well may be the case...

See, that's one of the big problems with running a successful police state...

Once you've decided the police are your enemy(which they are)...

Then each encounter with them becomes potentially deadly...

Because, of course, when it's just a couple of human beings with some clothes/costumes on...or even naked...and they pull guns on each other...

Somebody is going to have to either give in...shoot...or be shot...

There is no other way...

Naked people with guns...

Who would have guessed...

Repel, Destroy, And Eliminate...

Go figure...

Enjoy!





www.campaignforliberty.com



This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: J’raxis 270145 on July 11, 2008, 11:46:29 pm
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 12, 2008, 06:14:15 am
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…


Oh ok...that is a much different scenario.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 12, 2008, 09:53:16 am
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…

Thanks for squaring that away J!

Not only that...but consider this...
You're the "cop" and you "take someone into custody for the feds"...

How are you going to feel later on when you find out that they WERE transported to a foreign country and tortured for years...

So...
You may in fact think you're doing a "good thing" by being a "cop"...
Except that you're not if you don't protect your local people from being jackbooted by the fed goons/CIA/MI6/Mossad/etc...

Example: Ed and Elaine Brown...they trusted their neighbors, their community, those tasked with "protect and serve", etc...and what did they get...jackbooted...

Why do "we" need to put grandparents who just want to be left alone...in prison...and to steal and loot their property...
What are they going to "have" when they get out of prison...nothing...
Their home is gone, their possessions are gone, their savings is gone...
They've went from being self sufficient to being wards of the state...

The whole state should have come to their defense...
After all...you or your parents or your neighbors could be next...

Go figure...
Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 12, 2008, 10:01:03 am
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…


Oh ok...that is a much different scenario.

Are you actually asking us to believe you couldn't figure that out on your own?

Jeff Foxworthy has a question for you(http://www.fox.com/areyousmarter/)...

Go figure...
RAD
Enjoy!





www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 13, 2008, 06:56:51 pm
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…

Thanks for squaring that away J!

Not only that...but consider this...
You're the "cop" and you "take someone into custody for the feds"...

How are you going to feel later on when you find out that they WERE transported to a foreign country and tortured for years...

So...
You may in fact think you're doing a "good thing" by being a "cop"...
Except that you're not if you don't protect your local people from being jackbooted by the fed goons/CIA/MI6/Mossad/etc...

Example: Ed and Elaine Brown...they trusted their neighbors, their community, those tasked with "protect and serve", etc...and what did they get...jackbooted...

Why do "we" need to put grandparents who just want to be left alone...in prison...and to steal and loot their property...
What are they going to "have" when they get out of prison...nothing...
Their home is gone, their possessions are gone, their savings is gone...
They've went from being self sufficient to being wards of the state...

The whole state should have come to their defense...
After all...you or your parents or your neighbors could be next...

Go figure...
Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



What did YOU do preacher?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 14, 2008, 10:35:33 am
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…

Thanks for squaring that away J!

Not only that...but consider this...
You're the "cop" and you "take someone into custody for the feds"...

How are you going to feel later on when you find out that they WERE transported to a foreign country and tortured for years...

So...
You may in fact think you're doing a "good thing" by being a "cop"...
Except that you're not if you don't protect your local people from being jackbooted by the fed goons/CIA/MI6/Mossad/etc...

Example: Ed and Elaine Brown...they trusted their neighbors, their community, those tasked with "protect and serve", etc...and what did they get...jackbooted...

Why do "we" need to put grandparents who just want to be left alone...in prison...and to steal and loot their property...
What are they going to "have" when they get out of prison...nothing...
Their home is gone, their possessions are gone, their savings is gone...
They've went from being self sufficient to being wards of the state...

The whole state should have come to their defense...
After all...you or your parents or your neighbors could be next...

Go figure...
Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



What did YOU do preacher?

No preachers here...
Sorry, then I'd have to kill you...

However...
And, interestingly enough...

Perhaps it's not what has, or hasn't, been done...
Perhaps it's what we'll do in the present and future since the past cannot be undone...

Ed and Elaine Brown, along with many others like Randy Weaver, Yori Kahl, Irwin Schiff, Charlie Puckett, Leonard Peltier, Indianapolis Reverends Greg Dixon(Sr and Jr), Brian and Ruth Christine, etc., can have the clothes off my back, the food from my plate, and the place of my slumber...from here until eternity...




www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 14, 2008, 11:04:53 am
This is what happens when you smoke an entire bowl of fruit loops...

I would put a pay check on that NO ONE has ever been sent to Syria or even here in the states and was water-boarded for JUST a tail light out....You are tapped!

He’s saying that if they wanted to interrogate someone suspected of being a “terrorist,” they could use such a traffic stop as a pretext in order to grab the person. Or, perhaps such a (genuine) traffic stop would result in the cops seeing the feds want the person (when they do the routine license/registration check), so they arrest them and hand them over to the feds, and then such happens…

Thanks for squaring that away J!

Not only that...but consider this...
You're the "cop" and you "take someone into custody for the feds"...

How are you going to feel later on when you find out that they WERE transported to a foreign country and tortured for years...

So...
You may in fact think you're doing a "good thing" by being a "cop"...
Except that you're not if you don't protect your local people from being jackbooted by the fed goons/CIA/MI6/Mossad/etc...

Example: Ed and Elaine Brown...they trusted their neighbors, their community, those tasked with "protect and serve", etc...and what did they get...jackbooted...

Why do "we" need to put grandparents who just want to be left alone...in prison...and to steal and loot their property...
What are they going to "have" when they get out of prison...nothing...
Their home is gone, their possessions are gone, their savings is gone...
They've went from being self sufficient to being wards of the state...

The whole state should have come to their defense...
After all...you or your parents or your neighbors could be next...

Go figure...
Enjoy!




www.campaignforliberty.com



What did YOU do preacher?

No preachers here...
Sorry, then I'd have to kill you...

However...
And, interestingly enough...

Perhaps it's not what has, or hasn't, been done...
Perhaps it's what we'll do in the present and future since the past cannot be undone...

Ed and Elaine Brown, along with many others like Randy Weaver, Yori Kahl, Irwin Schiff, Charlie Puckett, Leonard Peltier, Indianapolis Reverends Greg Dixon(Sr and Jr), Brian and Ruth Christine, etc., can have the clothes off my back, the food from my plate, and the place of my slumber...from here until eternity...




www.campaignforliberty.com



We all know the past can not be changed, but how long do you sit in here using your quips and do nothing?  It's always "I WILL ONE DAY!"  "Watch out for tomorrow!"  Sounds like someone fearful of the unknown...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 14, 2008, 11:12:51 am
Not to mention the residents of NH at the time, ratified the 16th amendment.
Why would they protect someone from a constitutional amendment they helped institute?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: sj on July 14, 2008, 01:41:04 pm
they


 :-\
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 14, 2008, 07:19:31 pm
I felt it fair. As Rob suggested the whole State (meaning all the current residents) should come to the Brown's aid.
I find it enlightening that a self-professing anarchist should assume an obligation to others exists. ;)
 
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 15, 2008, 09:23:25 am
I felt it fair. As Rob suggested the whole State (meaning all the current residents) should come to the Brown's aid.
I find it enlightening that a self-professing anarchist should assume an obligation to others exists. ;)

Ratified or not...those "ratifiers" are dead, gone, and they never spoke for me...or signed for me...or represented me in any way, shape, or form...

The whole thing boils down to aggression/force/fraud against a peaceful and peace-loving people who just want to be left alone...

And...

The whole state "body", consisting of each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being, should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

I don't profess that there exists some "obligation" to "others" "specifically" but...and I repeat the above...

"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

Perhaps a review of the following is in order:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came


Enjoy!



www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 15, 2008, 11:14:00 am
"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

That is the basis of a social contract... the same thing you've been denying exists.
It was the basis for the American Revolution against the Crown... and the later founding documents of the Union.

I like to think if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: Denis Goddard on July 15, 2008, 11:52:32 am
if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
No... he'd be like what the British Monarchy has become.

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/490/ingsoc3dkru0.gif)
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 15, 2008, 01:54:16 pm
"Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self..."

That is the basis of a social contract... the same thing you've been denying exists.
It was the basis for the American Revolution against the Crown... and the later founding documents of the Union.

I like to think if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?

I think of it as a "personal contract" with myself...
I definitely believe discretion should be used...
Whereas a "social contract" would imply action void of any discretion...

For example, I'm ok with Tricky Dick discharging his shotgun into the Shrubbery...
And...furthermore...I'm ok with requiring McInsane and Osamabama to go "head to head" in a duel to determine who takes Shrub's spot hunting with Tricky Dick...

I'd say the American Revolution was folks just deciding "personally" that they owed themselves freedom...as in "Live Free Or Die" and "There are some things worse than death"...and I think the founding documents could also be a "collective statement/sentiment" for each Individual Sovereign Human Being "declaring individually...in a single...summing it up...document"...

Enjoy!

www.campaignforliberty.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 15, 2008, 01:54:54 pm
if Uncle Sam truly existed, would he wonder if in maturing he became like his parent (British Monarchy)?
No... he'd be like what the British Monarchy has become.

(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/490/ingsoc3dkru0.gif)

this...

Thanks Denis!

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 16, 2008, 08:23:09 am
The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 08:43:44 am
Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.

The credible threat of force, is force.

If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

So, if we logically extend that claim, then rape is acceptable behavior, right?

After all, it's the victim's problem that she went along with her attacker, because she feared the gun he pointed at her head.

But applying the "everything-by-the-barrel-of-a-gun" analogy is a slippery slope. It's a good analogy and makes a great quote. But it's not an accurate reflection of day-to-day happenings, especially in the civil case. Tax collection is really it's own nasty beast... but I could talk about that all day :-\

Um, actually, that's not even vaguely a slippery slope.  As with all your other silly claims, you really need to look these things up, first.

A "slippery slope" is saying, "if we allow them to do X, then pretty soon they will go a little further, and then a little further, etc."  It's also perfectly-legitimate, in the context of history.

Saying that calling the cops is the same as hiring thugs with guns to attack someone is a direct logical equivalent.  Every time the police show up, there is the threat of lethal force.  Any time you see those blue lights flashing, that is logically equivalent to them holding up a sign saying, "do what I say or I will kill you."

When they show up at your door and tell you to stop your dog from barking, they aren't asking politely.  They aren't saying, "do this or we won't be your friends."  They are saying, "do this because we have guns, and will harm you if you do not do what we say."

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 17, 2008, 09:29:16 am
The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 10:07:07 am
Point is, sometimes threats are just threats.
Rarely is there ever really a gun. Largely, this is how our system works.

The credible threat of force, is force.

Don't forget--property rights themselves are the credible threats of force. ;)

If someone caves because he always fears a gun is being pointed at him, that's his own problem.

So, if we logically extend that claim, then rape is acceptable behavior, right?

After all, it's the victim's problem that she went along with her attacker, because she feared the gun he pointed at her head.

That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Why are you now pointing a gun at a rape victim's head?

Um, actually, that's not even vaguely a slippery slope.  As with all your other silly claims, you really need to look these things up, first.

Saying that calling the cops is the same as hiring thugs with guns to attack someone is a direct logical equivalentEvery time the police show up, there is the threat of lethal forceAny time you see those blue lights flashing, that is logically equivalent to them holding up a sign saying, "do what I say or I will kill you." (emphasis added)

Thank you for demonstrating my point. It's the slippery slope of continually attributing malice where, in fact, there may be none. I was saying the posters are on a slippery slope. By continually deepening the malice they attribute to every cop, they risk seeing the world as they would prefer to see it; not as it is.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 10:23:15 am
Don't forget--property rights themselves are the credible threats of force. ;)

Um, no.  Rights are rights.  Saying that you will defend your rights is a threat of force.  Saying it in such a way that you are actually believed, is a credible threat of force.

That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Um, I did read what you wrote.  There is always a gun.  Or some other means of making a credible threat.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. It's the slippery slope of continually attributing malice where, in fact, there may be none. I was saying the posters are on a slippery slope. By continually deepening the malice they attribute to every cop, they risk seeing the world as they would prefer to see it; not as it is.

Which, again, proves that you do not know what a slippery slope argument is.

Anyway, all cops are malicious.  All of them.  It's not possible to go around, non-maliciously attacking people who've done no harm to you or any other person.  That is malicious behavior.  There are varying levels of maliciousness from cop to cop, but all of them are malicious.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 17, 2008, 12:10:55 pm
The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com


Requirement? Demand?
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Philosophically-Mature NAP?



Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 17, 2008, 12:37:41 pm
The monarchy was changed by the 'insurgency of the colonies.' Without that historic transvergence the monarchy would be different than today.

It can't be a personal contract if the State should...
Once it becomes what the group, without individual consent, should do... it loses that personal aspect.


I'm sorry...you've misunderstood...

The intend was a requirement and demand that each individual utilize his or her own personal commitment to the NAP to repel, destroy, and eliminate all the looters and their minions...

Regardless and independent of any such supposed "state"...

Enjoy!

www.nakednews.com


Requirement? Demand?
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Philosophically-Mature NAP?

no sir...

I REQUIRE AND DEMAND THAT YOU LEAVE ME COMPLETELY ALONE OR I WILL REPEL, DESTROY, AND ELIMINATE YOU...OR ANYONE YOU SEND ON YOUR BEHALF...DIRECTLY AND/OR INDIRECTLY..."STATE" OR NO STATE...

but then you already knew that...
you just find some perverse pleasure in being obstructive...

www.nakednews.com

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 17, 2008, 01:42:43 pm
No. You required and demanded that as a resident of NH, I come to the aid of another...

Again. How can you require and demand something in a voluntary nature?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 02:58:26 pm
That's silliness. Read what I wrote: "Sometimes threats are just threats. Rarely is there ever really a gun."

Um, I did read what you wrote.  There is always a gun.  Or some other means of making a credible threat.

You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

Anyway, all cops are maliciousAll of them.  It's not possible to go around, non-maliciously attacking people who've done no harm to you or any other person.  That is malicious behavior.  There are varying levels of maliciousness from cop to cop, but all of them are malicious. (emphasis added)

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister. Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop. Lot of them are stuck behind desks. They move paper. And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck. Some of them really, truly don't care. Furthermore, not everyone a cop may come across is someone who's done no harm to anyone. If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself. You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel. And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 03:23:24 pm
You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

The credible threat of force is the same as force.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

How many unarmed cops are you aware of?

The gun is right there, right then.  Oh, maybe they wait a few days, but we're not talking anything distant.  And if you try actually just ignoring them, you'll find that they don't even wait a few days to attack.

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister.

No, I won't.  Only the ones that actual involve initiation of force/fraud.  And absolutely none beyond that: no action which does not involve initiation of force or fraud is ever morally wrong.  Some may be aesthetically displeasing to me (such as folks failing at personal hygiene), but there is no circumstance under which I would ever consider a non-aggressive act to be wrong or "sinister."

Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

The likelihood would be 100%.  It's not possible to be a cop, and not go around attacking people.  Even one with a desk job is assisting the others, and is culpable for the actions he participates in.

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop.

I could care less what they claim for reasons.  I care what they do.  And what they do, is attack people.

And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck.

Really?  And where do you suppose that they get that paycheck?

If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself.

By engaging in armed robbery in order to obtain his "paycheck," every cop has engaged in "provocation."

You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel.

No.  Merely that there exist no cops who have not at some point attacked someone who was doing no harm.  They can bring in a thousand "bad guys," and it still doesn't excuse attacking even one "good guy."

And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.

Really?  So if I'm driving along and I see those blue lights, I can just ignore them?  And when the cop runs me off the road, I can treat him as having attempted to murder me, and shoot him in self-defense, and the "law" will back me up?

Pardon me while I go guffaw at that nonsense.

No, a cop can attack me, without me having harmed anyone, threaten my life, even use violence against me, and if I defend myself, I'll be treated as the "bad guy."

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 03:31:17 pm
Bah. You're just talking nonsense. Totally ignoring what I've said. Defining things the way you'd prefer them to be. Come out and play in the real world, Joe.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 03:34:05 pm
Bah. You're just talking nonsense. Totally ignoring what I've said. Defining things the way you'd prefer them to be. Come out and play in the real world, Joe.

I'm in the real world.  You're living in a little fantasy land that you've constructed so you can pretend that you're not part of a totalitarian system.

In the real world, having a bit of tin pinned to your shirt doesn't make threatening people who've not harmed you or anyone else into acceptable behavior.  In reality, little bits of metal don't have magical powers like that.

Magical powers only exist in fantasy worlds.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 03:44:03 pm
I'm in the real world.

Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 04:06:56 pm
I'm in the real world.
Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.

I'm living in the real world.  Believe me, when you live in reality, it's quite easy to see who is walking around with their eyes covered and their ears plugged.

Hey, I think they made a movie about that. :o ::)

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 17, 2008, 04:18:15 pm
No. You required and demanded that as a resident of NH, I come to the aid of another...

Again. How can you require and demand something in a voluntary nature?

The original post was...

Quote
The whole state should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

and I did alter the original quote to clarify my usage of the word "state"...
here is the updated version...
Quote
The whole state "body", consisting of each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being, should have come to the Brown's aid...
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

So you can plainly see that I did not state...originally..."require" and "demand"...
However, upon further requests for clarification and elaboration upon the subject matter at hand...

The whole point was...and is...and continues to be...
Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being "should"(see, there is the word I used in the original quote...SHOULD...as in...WE will remember that you stood idly by while we were victimized by the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries and we will hold to the premise that your silence and inactivity in repelling, destroying, and eliminating them...not for our sake...but for your own...)

Let's start that again...
Each and Every Individual Sovereign Human Being "should" act in his or her best interests and consider greatly the gravity and weight of the victimization of his or her neighbors...and just how long it will be before the perpetrators finish with your neighbor...and get around to you and yours...and, considering same said...should endeavor to repel, destroy, and eliminate all looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries at the earliest opportunity so as to effect the least victimization of ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME...

So...
I say again(and we may very well act independently but in concert by our choice of action)...
Let each and every Individual Sovereign Human Being act on his or her own, but not shy away from the shoulders of like-minded individuals, to march shoulder to shoulder, weapons at the ready...to drive the perpetrators to the abyss...and then to repel, destroy, eliminate, and cast their wretched existences into the chasm...

I am "requiring" and "demanding" that everyone leave me and mine completely alone...

I am not, however, demanding that anyone else come to my aid...

Although, in all likelihood...they very well should...

There's that word again...SHOULD...

As in...regards to my previous assertion...
Quote
Lest what one allows to be perpetrated against thine neighbor...shall then therefore be allowed to be perpetrated against thine own self...

Do you not "get that"...
Do you not "get" that...when the jackboots storm my house and you sit in yours uninterested in your neighbor's condition and plight...
Tomorrow we'll just sit out on the front porch while they drag you out the door while showing your family the proper usage of some extra heavy duty condoms and body bags...

www.nakednews.com

Title: The Miracle Worker
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 04:22:33 pm
I'm in the real world.
Continue enjoying your own carefully constructed fantasy world too.

I'm living in the real world. Believe me, when you live in reality, it's quite easy to see who is walking around with their eyes covered and their ears plugged.

Hey, I think they made a movie about that. :o ::)

Joe

You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?
Title: Re: The Miracle Worker
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 04:30:38 pm
You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?

No.  That's why logic and rational thought are nice.  I enjoy them greatly.  My conclusions about the world are based upon observation of what really is.  I don't conclude that the world is the way I imagine it to be, then ignore anything that conflicts with my preconceptions.

This is all very simple logic, here.  Yet you cannot seem to address it.  You hit that cognitive dissonance, and retreat to your own fantasy about how the cops are these magical elves, or something similarly nonsensical.

Cops use force to obtain compliance with their dictates, or the dictates of their masters.  That's reality.  Anyone supporting the use of initiated force (as in the case of demanding that barking dogs be outlawed) is nothing but a petty tyrant, hiring thugs to do his bidding.  That's reality.  If you imagine you can poke some hole in the logic, feel free to try.  But whining that it doesn't fit your fantastical worldview does not in any way detract from its legitimacy.

If your worldview and reality don't coincide, then you're the one who has the problem.

Joe
Title: Re: The Miracle Worker
Post by: rossby on July 17, 2008, 05:05:52 pm
You very frequently assert that. While simultaneously telling other people they live in fantasy worlds. Truly, does nothing about that strike you as peculiar?

No.  That's why logic and rational thought are nice.  I enjoy them greatly.  My conclusions about the world are based upon observation of what really is.  I don't conclude that the world is the way I imagine it to be, then ignore anything that conflicts with my preconceptions.

In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.
Title: Re: The Miracle Worker
Post by: MaineShark on July 17, 2008, 07:47:08 pm
In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.

Cognitive dissonance getting too much for you, eh?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 17, 2008, 09:23:05 pm
You're assuming there's always a gun. Because they're telling you there is one. I've said that's questionable, but people still fear it. And that's how the compliance system works.

The credible threat of force is the same as force.

I was talking about the system's method of compliance and how many people continually cave into the threat of punishment without there being anything credible to back it up. I'm not sure of the "logical extension" you're trying to make between that and a person raping another person by actually putting a gun to the victim's head. In one, compliance is achieved by threatening distant, future punishment. In the other, compliance is achieved by actually physically threatening the victim with immediate bodily harm. It's not really "logical [to] extend" what I've said by explicitly introducing a gun, when I've said the existence of the gun is what's actually in question. Unless you're trying to construct some self-validating argument. If you can further explain what you mean, I wouldn't mind hearing it.

How many unarmed cops are you aware of?

The gun is right there, right then.  Oh, maybe they wait a few days, but we're not talking anything distant.  And if you try actually just ignoring them, you'll find that they don't even wait a few days to attack.

Again, your demonstrating my point. The slippery slope is to continually denigrate and further falsely attribute certain motives to a specific class of people. And I mean the process by which posters' generalizations allow this to happen. Continue down the path, and you will see every action, regardless of its true intent, as sinister.

No, I won't.  Only the ones that actual involve initiation of force/fraud.  And absolutely none beyond that: no action which does not involve initiation of force or fraud is ever morally wrong.  Some may be aesthetically displeasing to me (such as folks failing at personal hygiene), but there is no circumstance under which I would ever consider a non-aggressive act to be wrong or "sinister."

Here, you seem to be suggesting that all cops go around attacking people. But upon what do you base this? If we were to enumerate every cop and question them, how likely is it that that would be true?

The likelihood would be 100%.  It's not possible to be a cop, and not go around attacking people.  Even one with a desk job is assisting the others, and is culpable for the actions he participates in.

How many cops do you know and interact with? I find, in reality, most cops aren't terribly malicious. Sure over time, the job often brings arrogance and a sense of entitlementment. And I've heard reasons for cops becoming cops for everything from "I want to protect people" to "Chicks dig uniforms" to "I get to carry a gun" to "I want to beat up gays and blacks". But it's not every cop.

I could care less what they claim for reasons.  I care what they do.  And what they do, is attack people.

And all cops do not "go around maliciously attacking people." Some of them despise the system. Some of them just want a paycheck.

Really?  And where do you suppose that they get that paycheck?

If someone attacks a cop without provocation, the cop can certainly defend himself.

By engaging in armed robbery in order to obtain his "paycheck," every cop has engaged in "provocation."

You've assumed every non-cop being attacked is innocent as an angel.

No.  Merely that there exist no cops who have not at some point attacked someone who was doing no harm.  They can bring in a thousand "bad guys," and it still doesn't excuse attacking even one "good guy."

And as I was said previously in the thread--which was the whole point--it's unlawful for a cop to "maliciously attack you" just because he feels like it. If you don't kill the cop while protecting your own life, there are still legal remedies for his unlawful behavior. (And that most people don't hold cops to the law.) Saying all cops are malicious is inaccurate, but makes it a whole lot easier to dislike them as a group of people.

Really?  So if I'm driving along and I see those blue lights, I can just ignore them?  And when the cop runs me off the road, I can treat him as having attempted to murder me, and shoot him in self-defense, and the "law" will back me up?

Pardon me while I go guffaw at that nonsense.

No, a cop can attack me, without me having harmed anyone, threaten my life, even use violence against me, and if I defend myself, I'll be treated as the "bad guy."

Joe

Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...
Title: Re: The Miracle Worker
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 18, 2008, 10:02:17 am
In the face of overwhelming evidence, the human capacity for self-delusion and self-denial knows no bounds. I'll now be excusing myself from this thread.

Cognitive dissonance getting too much for you, eh?

Joe

this

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 18, 2008, 08:02:23 pm
Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 19, 2008, 04:37:14 am
Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe
[/qu

Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 19, 2008, 08:57:42 am
Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe

Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?

First of all...FTFY(corrected quotation parameters)
Second...
Why are you so insulting to others who are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

We just want "EVERYONE TO LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE"(most notably used by Clint Eastwood but cherished by billions around the globe)...

and...

Whether anyone was beat up in school is irrelevant to the "big picture"...

Joe is one of the most thoughtful, kind, and reserved human beings I know...
Furthermore, I would not hesitate to voluntarily assist him in the defense of his friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

It should also be noted that...there are many more "Joes" out there(as well as "Clint Eastwoods")...

I am eternally honored to know some of them...

Hey...
You're either with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...
Or you're with us...

Can't have it both ways...

So...
We'd like to respectfully request that you continue your journey as a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

And...
Get back to us when you're a little further along in your studies and personal journey to enlightenment...

Thanks Killer...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 19, 2008, 10:58:18 am
Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe

Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?

First of all...FTFY(corrected quotation parameters)
Second...
Why are you so insulting to others who are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

We just want "EVERYONE TO LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE"(most notably used by Clint Eastwood but cherished by billions around the globe)...

and...

Whether anyone was beat up in school is irrelevant to the "big picture"...

Joe is one of the most thoughtful, kind, and reserved human beings I know...
Furthermore, I would not hesitate to voluntarily assist him in the defense of his friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

It should also be noted that...there are many more "Joes" out there(as well as "Clint Eastwoods")...

I am eternally honored to know some of them...

Hey...
You're either with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...
Or you're with us...

Can't have it both ways...

So...
We'd like to respectfully request that you continue your journey as a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

And...
Get back to us when you're a little further along in your studies and personal journey to enlightenment...

Thanks Killer...



First of all, it was a question not an insult...an insult comes in the form of a statement.  He could just say "yeah, I did get beat up in high school" or "no, kind gentleman, I do appreciate your wisdom and great looks, however I did not get beat up in high school."

I have been attacked with verbal insults from him, thought it would be fair game...that is, IF I chose to...

Oh, and you should really get outside and stop watching so many movies...you are going to start thinking they are real...if you don't already...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on July 19, 2008, 07:34:01 pm
Some Marine Patrol do NOT carry guns...

Even if that were true, it wouldn't make them unarmed.  See, they have that radio, and on the other end are more gun-toting jackboots, who are happy to show up with their guns.

Joe

Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?

First of all...FTFY(corrected quotation parameters)
Second...
Why are you so insulting to others who are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

We just want "EVERYONE TO LEAVE EVERYONE ELSE ALONE"(most notably used by Clint Eastwood but cherished by billions around the globe)...

and...

Whether anyone was beat up in school is irrelevant to the "big picture"...

Joe is one of the most thoughtful, kind, and reserved human beings I know...
Furthermore, I would not hesitate to voluntarily assist him in the defense of his friends, family, acquaintances, and associates...

It should also be noted that...there are many more "Joes" out there(as well as "Clint Eastwoods")...

I am eternally honored to know some of them...

Hey...
You're either with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...
Or you're with us...

Can't have it both ways...

So...
We'd like to respectfully request that you continue your journey as a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

And...
Get back to us when you're a little further along in your studies and personal journey to enlightenment...

Thanks Killer...



First of all, it was a question not an insult...an insult comes in the form of a statement.  He could just say "yeah, I did get beat up in high school" or "no, kind gentleman, I do appreciate your wisdom and great looks, however I did not get beat up in high school."

I have been attacked with verbal insults from him, thought it would be fair game...that is, IF I chose to...

Oh, and you should really get outside and stop watching so many movies...you are going to start thinking they are real...if you don't already...

So as I was talking up Ron Paul, The Revolution, The Campaign For Liberty, the Minnesota Rally, and his new book to some young people earlier today...
One of them had been in Darfur and the Sudan region for a couple of years awhile back and said seeing the oppression those people live under daily got him out of the matrix...

I guess it is kinda like a movie...or a box of chocolates...

Never know what the holes are going to say or do next...

Enjoy!


Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 21, 2008, 11:32:01 am
Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?

Um, no.  Bullies know better than to mess with anyone who will fight to win.

First of all, it was a question not an insult...an insult comes in the form of a statement.  He could just say "yeah, I did get beat up in high school" or "no, kind gentleman, I do appreciate your wisdom and great looks, however I did not get beat up in high school."

Um, if you had more intelligence than a boiled cabbage, you might realize that just because something is a question, does not mean it is not insulting.  Phrasing a question so that it includes an assumption (eg, being "so angry") is one of the most immature ways to try and insult someone and then claim innocence.

For example, have you stopped beating your wife?  It's just a question, right?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 22, 2008, 05:01:49 am
Did you get beat up in High School and that is why you are so angry?

Um, no.  Bullies know better than to mess with anyone who will fight to win.

First of all, it was a question not an insult...an insult comes in the form of a statement.  He could just say "yeah, I did get beat up in high school" or "no, kind gentleman, I do appreciate your wisdom and great looks, however I did not get beat up in high school."

Um, if you had more intelligence than a boiled cabbage, you might realize that just because something is a question, does not mean it is not insulting.  Phrasing a question so that it includes an assumption (eg, being "so angry") is one of the most immature ways to try and insult someone and then claim innocence.

For example, have you stopped beating your wife?  It's just a question, right?

Joe

that is just a question...I took no offense...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 22, 2008, 09:50:36 am
that is just a question...I took no offense...

Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 22, 2008, 04:38:54 pm
that is just a question...I took no offense...

Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?

Joe

Well...I guess you would have to preface that with another question..."Are you married?"
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on July 22, 2008, 04:47:23 pm
that is just a question...I took no offense...
Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?
Well...I guess you would have to preface that with another question..."Are you married?"

Nope, that's not an option.  You can only answer the question, as asked.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 22, 2008, 08:25:08 pm
that is just a question...I took no offense...
Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?
Well...I guess you would have to preface that with another question..."Are you married?"

Nope, that's not an option.  You can only answer the question, as asked.

Joe

Ok...one more question before I answer...Did she do the dishes and laundry the day the "beating" was in question?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 30, 2008, 05:43:21 am
that is just a question...I took no offense...
Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?
Well...I guess you would have to preface that with another question..."Are you married?"

Nope, that's not an option.  You can only answer the question, as asked.

Joe
hmmm
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on July 30, 2008, 10:24:25 am
that is just a question...I took no offense...
Why don't you answer it, then?  Have you stopped beating your wife?
Well...I guess you would have to preface that with another question..."Are you married?"

Nope, that's not an option.  You can only answer the question, as asked.

Joe

gave up!?  jeez...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on August 01, 2008, 09:58:50 am
gave up!?  jeez...

Oddly enough, I have a life.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on August 02, 2008, 06:09:46 am
gave up!?  jeez...

Oddly enough, I have a life.

And I'm still waiting for the answer to my question.

Joe

I just wanted some clarification to your question is all....If I were married I would NEVER stop beating my wife.  I am very competitive and whatever thing we would compete in, I would "beat" her.  Whether that be a game of pool or a card game, etc...I would do my best to BEAT HER!  You?  Or do you need some more clarification?
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on August 02, 2008, 09:55:24 am
I just wanted some clarification to your question is all....If I were married I would NEVER stop beating my wife.  I am very competitive and whatever thing we would compete in, I would "beat" her.  Whether that be a game of pool or a card game, etc...I would do my best to BEAT HER!  You?  Or do you need some more clarification?

I didn't put quotation marks around "beat."

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on August 02, 2008, 03:03:40 pm
I just wanted some clarification to your question is all....If I were married I would NEVER stop beating my wife.  I am very competitive and whatever thing we would compete in, I would "beat" her.  Whether that be a game of pool or a card game, etc...I would do my best to BEAT HER!  You?  Or do you need some more clarification?

I didn't put quotation marks around "beat."

Joe

I realize you didn't....I did to quote you...that is what those hash marks are...it indicates that someone else has said that word
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on August 02, 2008, 11:30:16 pm
I just wanted some clarification to your question is all....If I were married I would NEVER stop beating my wife.  I am very competitive and whatever thing we would compete in, I would "beat" her.  Whether that be a game of pool or a card game, etc...I would do my best to BEAT HER!  You?  Or do you need some more clarification?
I didn't put quotation marks around "beat."
I realize you didn't....I did to quote you...that is what those hash marks are...it indicates that someone else has said that word

I did not put quotation marks around "beat," and that is important because the lack indicates that I was using the word in a strict, not colloquial sense.  As in, "to strike repeatedly."  If I intended the word to be colloquial, I would have used quotation marks, which are also used to indicate colloquialisms, not just to attribute some exact phrase as the speech of another.

In any case, you've also failed to answer the question of whether the cops who attacked Ryan and his compatriots should be tossed in prison for their numerous crimes.

Joe
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: kelteckiller on August 03, 2008, 06:00:39 am
I just wanted some clarification to your question is all....If I were married I would NEVER stop beating my wife.  I am very competitive and whatever thing we would compete in, I would "beat" her.  Whether that be a game of pool or a card game, etc...I would do my best to BEAT HER!  You?  Or do you need some more clarification?
I didn't put quotation marks around "beat."
I realize you didn't....I did to quote you...that is what those hash marks are...it indicates that someone else has said that word

I did not put quotation marks around "beat," and that is important because the lack indicates that I was using the word in a strict, not colloquial sense.  As in, "to strike repeatedly."  If I intended the word to be colloquial, I would have used quotation marks, which are also used to indicate colloquialisms, not just to attribute some exact phrase as the speech of another.

In any case, you've also failed to answer the question of whether the cops who attacked Ryan and his compatriots should be tossed in prison for their numerous crimes.

Joe

I never said YOU used quotation marks...I DID to show you used beat/beating...that is how Quotation marks can be used...
Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: NHArticleTen on August 03, 2008, 08:05:06 am

you know...
when you're hunting rhino...you ignore the birds and flies...

Title: Re: open carry protests
Post by: MaineShark on August 03, 2008, 10:32:45 am
you know...
when you're hunting rhino...you ignore the birds and flies...

Nah, you just dump them in the barrel with the fish...

(for kelteckiller's benefit: that's a joke, relating to "shooting fish in a barrel," which is a colloquial phrase referring to defeating someone easily)

Joe