Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 26   Go Down

Author Topic: open carry protests  (Read 106461 times)

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #30 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...
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Join The Ron Paul Write-In Revolution Today!
    • Adventures In Legal Land
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #32 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!

Ron Helwig

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 413
    • Shire Silver
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #33 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)
Logged
Are you a Next 1000 liberty activist?

Rebuild the precious metal economy with Shire Silver

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #34 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....
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #35 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...
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #36 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)

That is a COMPLETE apples and oranges scenario!
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #37 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
« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 10:53:30 am by MaineShark »
Logged
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.

We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #38 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)

That is a COMPLETE apples and oranges scenario!

Please explain why you feel this way.
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #39 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.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #40 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?

Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #41 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   :)
Logged

kelteckiller

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #42 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...
Logged

margomaps

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 708
  • I'm a llama!
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: open carry protests
« Reply #44 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.





Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 26   Go Up