next »

[azzenfrost]

I applaud the kid's knowledge of his rights. But it was a dumb move for these times. By these times, I mean the fatal shootings that have happened recently.

[hwangjini_1]

The black panthers couldn't agree more. 

It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. On the west lawn of the state capitol in Sacramento 30 young black men and women [arrived] carrying .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols. The 24 men and six women climbed the capitol steps, and one man, Bobby Seale, began to read from a prepared statement. “The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.”

Opposition to gun control as what drove the black militants to visit the California capitol with loaded weapons in hand. The Black Panther Party had been formed six months earlier, in Oakland, by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were legal landmarks, but they had yet to deliver equal opportunity. In Newton and Seale’s view, the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect and serve the public: the police.

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/08/the-black-panthers-and-the-gun-rights-movement/

[Rondo2287]

Commonly I have this disdain for all protestors. Or most, anyways. At least those who go about it as stupidly and as selfishly as the people making these half-hearted attempts at entrapping public servants by trolling citizens in order to get a reaction out of police they can put on YouTube.

Yes yes a million times yes.  Even though the kid is right he just looks like a jerk.

[Rondo2287]

Also, before I went to college, my dad (who is a lawyer),  prepared me with a similar speech for escaping a house party if cops were breaking it up yada yada yada.  He said, "Kevin this should work and get you out of the building without a problem, but don't go looking for trouble." 

All this kid was doing was looking for trouble.

[Bahku]

Commonly I have this disdain for all protestors. Or most, anyways. At least those who go about it as stupidly and as selfishly as the people making these half-hearted attempts at entrapping public servants by trolling citizens in order to get a reaction out of police they can put on YouTube.

Yes yes a million times yes.  Even though the kid is right he just looks like a jerk.

Yeah, absolutely (TPs) ... this kid clearly spent hours doing law research, etc., just for the sake of confronting a cop and testing the boundaries.

So what the heck did he prove, other than he's a confrontational jerk?

I mean, he gets snooty cuz the cop asks him for his ID, name, etc., and no, he doesn't have to provide it unless he's a suspect, but the cop can't ask?

Seems like a pretty normal, reasonable request to me ... but see, this kid was just waiting and baiting for it so he could sound like a know-it-all and put the cop in his place.

Kudos to the way the cop kept his cool ... the kid just made a you-know-what of himself, (and I carry almost all the time, though I am anti-hunting ... I've discovered that the NRA has no category for people like me).

[arctic 3.0]

RANT ALERT
I live in portland me.
weeks after newtown a gun rights" advocate" decided to parade around downtown with his AR15. he first claimed he was just running errands, then admitted he planed the stunt to demonstrate his " second amendment rights".
his little stunt resulted in dozens of panicked calls to the police.  who could do nothing (because of open carry)  but watch as the man walked through portland's crowded down town with a semi auto assult style WMD slung over his shoulder .
this physical demonstration of the threat of force put the citizens of portland in a full panic (and this is maine where everyone and the dog has a hunting rifle.). i would define his actions at that time to be pure and simple terrorizing.

the second amendment is no more sacred then the first, yet we all acquiesce to restrictions on free speech right. from profanity and liable to chain link Free Speech Zone cages.
profanity is restricted on public airwaves because of the amorphous ideas of "public good and community standards"  liable is not protected because it can do unjust harm to an innocent party" free speech zones restrict public demonstrations under bush/cheney's byzantine home land security act.( the irony of former bush supporters carrying the constitutionalist flag is so beyond the pale that i cant even laugh at it.)
we accept these restrictions to free speech and the first amendment, but we can't make reasonable restrictions to the second amendment?
All guns are not the same, some are far, far more deadly then others. the right to terrorize your neighbors by brandishing a deadly weapon is not constitutionally protected. and finally, just for your edification, the constitution was designed as a living document. if you insist on a rigid interpretation you'd better re-read it.

one last thing.
if you want to argue with me, forget it. I'm done arguing about this. If unrestricted gun rights are so [dang] important to you I'd sugest you join your fellow "advocates" in a bullet proof "second amendment rights zone". discuss it amongst your selves and hopefully start an internal argument, and don't forget to bring extra magazines.
 

[rickyfan3.0...]

This kid might be the biggest DB I have ever seen. God, what a little twerp.

Nothing like going out of your way to basically entrap a cop, who is looking out for public safety.

[Roy H.]

I agree with IP and Bahku, among others.  This kid is just being a punk, trolling law enforcement and attempting to alarm the public.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who are harassed by the police.  This kid was looking to provoke a confrontation.

The officer was definitely a moron, though. 

[KGs Knee]

Haha!  Artic3.0 done lost his mind.

[thirstyboots18]

RANT ALERT
I live in portland me.
weeks after newtown a gun rights" advocate" decided to parade around downtown with his AR15. he first claimed he was just running errands, then admitted he planed the stunt to demonstrate his " second amendment rights".
his little stunt resulted in dozens of panicked calls to the police.  who could do nothing (because of open carry)  but watch as the man walked through portland's crowded down town with a semi auto assult style WMD slung over his shoulder .
this physical demonstration of the threat of force put the citizens of portland in a full panic (and this is maine where everyone and the dog has a hunting rifle.). i would define his actions at that time to be pure and simple terrorizing.

the second amendment is no more sacred then the first, yet we all acquiesce to restrictions on free speech right. from profanity and liable to chain link Free Speech Zone cages.
profanity is restricted on public airwaves because of the amorphous ideas of "public good and community standards"  liable is not protected because it can do unjust harm to an innocent party" free speech zones restrict public demonstrations under bush/cheney's byzantine home land security act.( the irony of former bush supporters carrying the constitutionalist flag is so beyond the pale that i cant even laugh at it.)
we accept these restrictions to free speech and the first amendment, but we can't make reasonable restrictions to the second amendment?
All guns are not the same, some are far, far more deadly then others. the right to terrorize your neighbors by brandishing a deadly weapon is not constitutionally protected. and finally, just for your edification, the constitution was designed as a living document. if you insist on a rigid interpretation you'd better re-read it.

one last thing.
if you want to argue with me, forget it. I'm done arguing about this. If unrestricted gun rights are so [dang] important to you I'd sugest you join your fellow "advocates" in a bullet proof "second amendment rights zone". discuss it amongst your selves and hopefully start an internal argument, and don't forget to bring extra magazines.

Why is it that in every weapons discussion, some anti gun advocate eventually suggests the pro gun faction  wipe itself out in a gun fight (or something similar)?  SMH   Sounds like anger management problem to me...stay away from guns, knives, baseball bats, automobiles, etc....please. 

Lots of hunters, with guns, in my family.  There has to be a better solution.  And since I am not one to trust the government in all things I am stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. 

Bullying is my juggernaut more than guns.  I feel that bullies  killing a person's soul is  almost as harmful as a bullet killing the physical being.  But that is an other discussion...

[jdz101]

I don't see the point of walking around with a weapon out just to prove that you're "exercising your rights."

All you're doing is upsetting people that don't like these weapons and the camera recording element of it is purely goading police officers into a confrontation so it can be captured on film.

In essence these morons are doing exactly what they say they're not doing. They're creating a conflict.

[Fan from VT]

RANT ALERT
I live in portland me.
weeks after newtown a gun rights" advocate" decided to parade around downtown with his AR15. he first claimed he was just running errands, then admitted he planed the stunt to demonstrate his " second amendment rights".
his little stunt resulted in dozens of panicked calls to the police.  who could do nothing (because of open carry)  but watch as the man walked through portland's crowded down town with a semi auto assult style WMD slung over his shoulder .
this physical demonstration of the threat of force put the citizens of portland in a full panic (and this is maine where everyone and the dog has a hunting rifle.). i would define his actions at that time to be pure and simple terrorizing.

the second amendment is no more sacred then the first, yet we all acquiesce to restrictions on free speech right. from profanity and liable to chain link Free Speech Zone cages.
profanity is restricted on public airwaves because of the amorphous ideas of "public good and community standards"  liable is not protected because it can do unjust harm to an innocent party" free speech zones restrict public demonstrations under bush/cheney's byzantine home land security act.( the irony of former bush supporters carrying the constitutionalist flag is so beyond the pale that i cant even laugh at it.)
we accept these restrictions to free speech and the first amendment, but we can't make reasonable restrictions to the second amendment?
All guns are not the same, some are far, far more deadly then others. the right to terrorize your neighbors by brandishing a deadly weapon is not constitutionally protected. and finally, just for your edification, the constitution was designed as a living document. if you insist on a rigid interpretation you'd better re-read it.

one last thing.
if you want to argue with me, forget it. I'm done arguing about this. If unrestricted gun rights are so [dang] important to you I'd sugest you join your fellow "advocates" in a bullet proof "second amendment rights zone". discuss it amongst your selves and hopefully start an internal argument, and don't forget to bring extra magazines.

Why is it that in every weapons discussion, some anti gun advocate eventually suggests the pro gun faction  wipe itself out in a gun fight (or something similar)?  SMH   Sounds like anger management problem to me...stay away from guns, knives, baseball bats, automobiles, etc....please. 

Lots of hunters, with guns, in my family.  There has to be a better solution.  And since I am not one to trust the government in all things I am stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. 

Bullying is my juggernaut more than guns.  I feel that bullies  killing a person's soul is  almost as harmful as a bullet killing the physical being.  But that is an other discussion...

Open carry for the sake of open carry sounds a lot like bullying to me.

[Rondo2287]

RANT ALERT
I live in portland me.
weeks after newtown a gun rights" advocate" decided to parade around downtown with his AR15. he first claimed he was just running errands, then admitted he planed the stunt to demonstrate his " second amendment rights".
his little stunt resulted in dozens of panicked calls to the police.  who could do nothing (because of open carry)  but watch as the man walked through portland's crowded down town with a semi auto assult style WMD slung over his shoulder .
this physical demonstration of the threat of force put the citizens of portland in a full panic (and this is maine where everyone and the dog has a hunting rifle.). i would define his actions at that time to be pure and simple terrorizing.

the second amendment is no more sacred then the first, yet we all acquiesce to restrictions on free speech right. from profanity and liable to chain link Free Speech Zone cages.
profanity is restricted on public airwaves because of the amorphous ideas of "public good and community standards"  liable is not protected because it can do unjust harm to an innocent party" free speech zones restrict public demonstrations under bush/cheney's byzantine home land security act.( the irony of former bush supporters carrying the constitutionalist flag is so beyond the pale that i cant even laugh at it.)
we accept these restrictions to free speech and the first amendment, but we can't make reasonable restrictions to the second amendment?
All guns are not the same, some are far, far more deadly then others. the right to terrorize your neighbors by brandishing a deadly weapon is not constitutionally protected. and finally, just for your edification, the constitution was designed as a living document. if you insist on a rigid interpretation you'd better re-read it.

one last thing.
if you want to argue with me, forget it. I'm done arguing about this. If unrestricted gun rights are so [dang] important to you I'd sugest you join your fellow "advocates" in a bullet proof "second amendment rights zone". discuss it amongst your selves and hopefully start an internal argument, and don't forget to bring extra magazines.

Why is it that in every weapons discussion, some anti gun advocate eventually suggests the pro gun faction  wipe itself out in a gun fight (or something similar)?  SMH   Sounds like anger management problem to me...stay away from guns, knives, baseball bats, automobiles, etc....please. 

Lots of hunters, with guns, in my family.  There has to be a better solution.  And since I am not one to trust the government in all things I am stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. 

Bullying is my juggernaut more than guns.  I feel that bullies  killing a person's soul is  almost as harmful as a bullet killing the physical being.  But that is an other discussion...

Open carry for the sake of open carry sounds a lot like bullying to me.

Id agree, clearly just a means of trying to intimidate

[Brendan]

Not sure about Maine, but many states make it hard / impossible to get conceal carry permits, knowing that open carry will result in this kind of trouble w/ police, it's effectively gun control.

I don't like open carry for the sake of "testing rights", but I can understand why activist do, especially where concealed carry is a hard to get permit.

Disclaimer: no idea what the laws are in Portland, ME.

[fairweatherfan]

The thing is, I don't think this kid is really trying to intimidate anyone or anything like that.  I think he's so locked into the mindset of "MY RIGHTS", with a healthy dash of craving attention and wanting to show up a cop, that he probably isn't really considering that he's causing a lot of regular folks to freak the hell out.  Or he's so self-centered that he doesn't really care.

It's fine that he's within his rights to do this, but as a freeish society we tend to draw the bounds of what's legal outside the bounds of what's prudent or decent.  It's not like there's an epidemic of people being arrested for open carrying for legitimate purposes that aren't "Look at me! look at me! HOW DARE YOU LOOK AT ME!" 

That's what people are reacting against here.  Upsetting a lot of ordinary folks and wasting a couple cops' time for no reason other than the act itself.  Legal or not, it's selfish and foolish.