Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 2:58 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 "Gun" story on KSTP tonight 12-30-08 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Binky.357 & jdege
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:06 pm 
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:13 pm
Posts: 30
Location: Lino Lakes
ex gyrene wrote:
I am specifically against the rights of certain people to carry guns to the city hall in Greenfield MN.


Last time I checked, denying rights to certain people because you don't like them isn't allowed.....something about "due process" IIRC.....


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Don't Take it Too Seriously
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:29 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 199
Location: Twin Cities, MN
HEY MAN

I also sit out a lot of the threads and just leave well enough alone. But that dishonorable discharge shit yanked my chain too.

Sorry that happened. Try not to take it too seriously though. This is a pretty good forum. I don't know if or how long you've been lurking, but you'll find that for the most part the members here have the rest of the web beat for careful and useful commentary.

A lot of good, clean cut and levelheaded people in the gun activist community are on edge right now. Our jobs are under pressure, our families and our homes. And the legislative prospects on the horizon are no cookies either. Neck hairs are on end and some otherwise very cool people are kind of tweaking.

That's no excuse for some of the bullshit that followed your post. But it's something to keep in mind.

I'll thumbs-down a few of your points, but I like where you're coming from. Also, since you chimed in this thread has been on fire, and that's exactly what we want. That's what keeps members coming back, the traffic up, and really what keeps the activist community strong. So good on you.

Thanks for putting up with the ugly stuff. If you can continue to keep a leash on the FUs you've probably got brewing (I sure would be) for a little longer, and just play ball, the waters will calm down. They always do.

You're an insider, and your father's one of the players. So it's really irrelevant as to your feelings on Americans' gun rights overall.

You've demonstrated that you're clearly behind the 2A movement. You're definitely in the right place, and you're certainly welcome here.

_________________
"My name is Shosanna Dreyfus. This is the face of Jewish vengeance."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:04 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
ex gyrene:

The problems with your arguments are the same problems that the whole of US society is facing. You are advocating the idea of 'make something generally illegal so we can try to avoid this specific type of situation' instead of just holding the one individual personally responsible for his deviant actions. If the one councilmember actually threatened people then the issue isn't with carrying in the council chambers it is with a person issuing a threat. We have laws for that. Get that situation taken care of with the existing laws so that we don't have to add new laws and restrictions that will unduly restrict all the other 99.99% of law-abiding citizens exercising their rights.

This is very analogous to various states' proposed laws to restrict cell phone use in a car. We already have laws that make 'inattentive driving' illegal. Just use those laws to penalize people who cause a crash while talking on their cell phone. Don't take away the ability for the rest of the drivers to use a cell phone in a car in a responsible manner.

By the way, the assertion that "I'm all for second amendment rights except in this one specific case" is a snowball. Once you start adding 'one specific case' to another pretty soon you are getting crushed by the 4000# snowball rolling down the hill.

BB

P.S. On a personal note, extend my thanks to your father. Due to the Greenfield mess and publicity, my town (a nearby community) just decided that they would try to ban weapons from all city staff, contractors, volunteers, board members, and elected officials. It took all we had to limit the restrictions to just staff, which is still unacceptable, but slightly better than the original idea. On second thought, it wasn't thanks I wanted to extend... Did I mention the snowball thing??


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: You guys are insane
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:18 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 11
You are all 100% correct. It is ok for a council man to bluster tough and threaten a couple of old men.

I am 100% wrong and don't have a thoughtful or honorable cell in my feeble brain.

It is ok to infer that someone who served over 10 years in the USMC and got out as a field grade officer is dishonorable.

It is ok to call that same person treasonous.

maybe I need to carry............to protect myself from the likes of some of you.

CYA


You guys can just believe all of the tripe from the 22 toting council member.

I got better things to do.

_________________
prepared to die, but never will.......I shoot straight


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: You guys are insane
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:28 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
ex gyrene wrote:
You guys can just believe all of the tripe from the 22 toting council member.

I got better things to do.


I didn't say I had any sympathy for the gun-carrying council member or his actions. I'm just looking to stop the spread of ridiculous restrictions and the imbecilic arguments that push them.

BB


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Dude
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:44 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 11
[quote="BigBlue"]ex gyrene:

The problems with your arguments are the same problems that the whole of US society is facing. You are advocating the idea of 'make something generally illegal so we can try to avoid this specific type of situation'

Did you read what I said? I said many many times that I believe in the right to carry, but I SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN GREENFIELD SHOULD NOT CARRY BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF PEOPLE.

Can I make it ANY MORE PLAIN?

I wish I could say it in bold, caps and 24 pt font.

_________________
prepared to die, but never will.......I shoot straight


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:49 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:41 am
Posts: 4468
Perhaps you missed HIS point while trying so hard to make yours louder:

BigBlue wrote:
On a personal note, extend my thanks to your father. Due to the Greenfield mess and publicity, my town (a nearby community) just decided that they would try to ban weapons from all city staff, contractors, volunteers, board members, and elected officials. It took all we had to limit the restrictions to just staff, which is still unacceptable, but slightly better than the original idea. On second thought, it wasn't thanks I wanted to extend... Did I mention the snowball thing??


So, we have your intended goal ... Failure
but the unintended consequences cost a lot of other people ...


Always check the possible repercussions of your actions.

_________________
Certified Carry Permit Instructor (MNTactics.com and ShootingSafely.com)
Click here for current Carry Classes
"There is no safety for honest men, except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edwin Burke


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:50 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:39 pm
Posts: 533
Location: Mankato Area
Quote:
Thanks for putting up with the ugly stuff. If you can continue to keep a leash on the FUs you've probably got brewing (I sure would be) for a little longer, and just play ball, the waters will calm down. They always do.


I want to second the above.

I don't agree with everything that you have said but I would like to make it a point to thank you, for your service to your country, Sir.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dude
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:51 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
ex gyrene wrote:
BigBlue wrote:
ex gyrene:

The problems with your arguments are the same problems that the whole of US society is facing. You are advocating the idea of 'make something generally illegal so we can try to avoid this specific type of situation'

Did you read what I said? I said many many times that I believe in the right to carry, but I SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN GREENFIELD SHOULD NOT CARRY BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF PEOPLE.

Can I make it ANY MORE PLAIN?

I wish I could say it in bold, caps and 24 pt font.


No council should be disarmed. You are letting your personal feelings towards these people cloud your view of the big picture.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:53 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
ex gyrene wrote:
Did you read what I said? I said many many times that I believe in the right to carry, but I SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN GREENFIELD SHOULD NOT CARRY BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF PEOPLE.

Can I make it ANY MORE PLAIN?

I wish I could say it in bold, caps and 24 pt font.


EXACTLY MY POINT!!

You "only want to restrict a couple people" in maybe one situation. Snowflake #1, check. Here comes the snowball...

So you pass the restriction on the Greenfield council. Now you've affected the entire council membership and staff, not just the one or two troublemakers. Years from now those one or two people are gone... will the restrictions go away? No. Then maybe another community sees the restrictions and starts fretting that maybe they better do it too, because you know you wouldn't want to be the irresponsible folks who didn't safeguard their council meetings. But that would never happen, would it? Just those two bad eggs will be affected and everyone is happy.

Go after the problem with existing laws. Don't make new ones.

BB


Last edited by BigBlue on Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dude
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:00 pm 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
ex gyrene wrote:
BigBlue wrote:
ex gyrene:

The problems with your arguments are the same problems that the whole of US society is facing. You are advocating the idea of 'make something generally illegal so we can try to avoid this specific type of situation'

Did you read what I said? I said many many times that I believe in the right to carry, but I SPECIFICALLY BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN GREENFIELD SHOULD NOT CARRY BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF PEOPLE.

Can I make it ANY MORE PLAIN?

I wish I could say it in bold, caps and 24 pt font.


It seems plain to me.

Because of a couple of people acting badly, (but not badly enough to be arrested), you want either the City or the State of Minnesota to restrict the fundamental rights of everyone on the council, or perhaps in the whole room, or just maybe, the whole city building.

And, probably, other city councils besides just Greenfield should have the same to ban carry. Got it, I think.

Did I state your position correctly?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:02 pm 
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:55 am
Posts: 151
By the way, you can use
24pt BOLD CAPS
,
but it won't make the arguments any sounder.

See the 'size' code tag.

BB


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:06 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:20 pm
Posts: 12
I'm new here and usually just lurk but, man, ex gyrene has my blood boiling.

ex gyrene,
So, you've got a problem with one guy. A big problem. Next thing you know you're on the news fanning the flames for the anti-gunners... for what? To hurt someone you and your father hate. Screw the collateral damage for the rest of us. You are so blinded with hatred for one man that you'll help the enemy with their anti-gun cause in order to burn him. That's the way I see it. All your other BS is just rationalizing. Then you have the nerve to come here, of all places, and claim you're on our side and we should be on yours because this guy is such a putz. You're a tool... and I'm being nice.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hatred
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:30 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 11
I would not call it hatred, that is a little strong. Hatred requires a bit more passion.

I am kind of disengaged from Greenfield.

The perfect world would have been that the Henn Co Sheriff revoke the conceal carry permit for the offending member.

That didn't happen.

I am very aware of the snowball effect. If greenfield has caused neighboring cities to do a knee jerk reaction and curtail liberties, then that is wrong.

The dude should still not be able to pack at city hall. He is dangerous.

Fortunately, all of this publicity has probably vastly improved his previous inept gun handling skills and he is likely not a danger.

It is still concerning to me though that he blusters about intimidating an old man.

A mature person would say to the old man, Ted, you have nothing to fear from me. That is what I would do. Heck, someone thought I was being threatening last night and I immediately qualified what I said just to be clear.

No such clarity from this wanna be second amendment hero.

_________________
prepared to die, but never will.......I shoot straight


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: By the way
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:06 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 11
I have not in a single one of my posts even said that I owned a gun. I have said that I don't conceal carry, but if I have a gun or not is not relevant to the right.

If I had a conceal carry permit, only people that know me would know that I carry.............I would conceal it. I wouldn't drop it. Dropping a cell phone is often fatal for the phone. Most people have cell phones.

Dropping a concealed gun? It still makes me wonder.

For someone to think that I was being threatening, when I never even said that I owned a gun............is crazy. And I was talking about my father anyway..........I do not live with him.

You probably could hazard a guess about my ownership status, and you would probably be right.

With all of the registration of guns, I would rather not even talk about it. If I had a really cool 22LR pistol from before registration days, I would probably want to keep it a relative secret.

And if I had a bunch of guns, and if someday soon the powers that be demanded that I register them, I may become a truant.

I get the emails about what has happened in Australia with the crime rate. We do need guns.

Responsible gun advocates, however, should not feel that carrying "heat" somehow proves their masculinity. All it really proves is that the world we live in is kind of a sick place.........but that is why guns are necessary.

The insanity, profanity and ridiculous accusations of dishonorable discharges and treason that have appeared in this thread reinforce the stereotype of a gun toting, beer swilling, wife beating, monster truck watching redneck hicks that are still talking about their last high school football game.

I have been blessed to live in relative safety most of my life. If I someday feel like I have to carry to be safe, that will be a sad day.

Years ago, I was the "go to" guy for a bunch of drug dealers down near Franklin and Chicago. I defended a lot of them, and was threatened a few times. Being young, and being a Marine, I thought I was invulnerable. One night I was in north MPLS just after dark trying to collect a $5000 retainer from the older brother of my incarcerated client. He didn't have it, but he told me to come back in an hour. As I was walking out, I saw three fresh bullet holes in his car.

I got paid, represented him, mitigated his sentence somewhat and then quit representing that type of criminal. Stupidly probably, I did not fear them, but wisdom won out. I graduated to suburban DWI's and other stuff. It was to dangerous for me since I had two young children at the time. I thought about getting a permit then, but it was more appealing to me to just spend most of my life west of 494 in relative safety. I do miss the excitement of more juicy criminal representation as it was kind of fun. I still occasionally get those types of cases, but guns are not usually involved.

I can't understand why someone in the Greenfield City Council chambers needs a weapon. If they have one, it should stay concealed.

I bet that after this conflagration, that city hall is pretty safe now.

Perhaps in 09, I'll get a permit.

_________________
prepared to die, but never will.......I shoot straight


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 139 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group