Chucktshoes

Robert, for the most part I like Rand. I have become uneasy with some of his positions as of late, but I am generally favorably inclined towards him. That being said, I don't think you should vote for him if you don't want to. I still maintain that no matter how unlikely your choice is to win, the only vote wasted is the vote cast not from conscience but fear. We should all be voting FOR someone, not AGAINST someone.

Just as a question of curiosity, how would the TN Firearms Firearms Act affect the enforcement of a the federal law by state agents such as MNPD? I know he is an FFL/SOT and that the suppressor was legally owned under those rules, but what if the officers had opened up the case and the suppressor had "Made in TN" stamped on it? Would the officers be correct for effecting an arrest for a federal statute that is in conflict with the state statutes that they are commissioned to enforce? While most agree that the TFFA is unenforceable against federal agents, would it not have an impact on state commissioned LEO?

I do agree on his intent, I think I already mentioned that. People were alarmed, they called police and then they intervened. Two different groups of folks with different ROE. Even though he intentionally dressed in a manner to elicit concern and draw a police intervention, if he did not break any laws, he has to be allowed to continue on his way. I would have been ok with him getting cuffed and stuffed for whatever the charge is for inciting a panic. Let the courts work out whether or not that one would stick, but I think the officers would have been covered for making that arrest. They didn't make that arrest, maybe they know something we don't on that front, but I think that would have been a reasonable course of action to everyone. I know I wouldn't have to find myself appearing to defend the assnugget.

The bad part is that he doesn't have to do battle with the entire city at once, he only has to keep probing until he finds the wrong officer on the wrong day and then, cha-ching! The taxpayers lose.

See, I might see the same thing and think he is a mall ninja doing exercise. What's his demeanor? Gonna take that into account as well. Too many variables to list, gonna trust my gut. Of course all of that is moot with regard to the police actions, they knew who they were dealing with.

And in states where the carrying of a loaded long arm is not a crime, places like Wyoming, or Virginia.

You'd be wrong in that. That's me. :D

Add me to that list as well.

This is an entirely reasonable and prudent measure. I would wholeheartedly support this action.

All very good points. I also agree that he doesn't deserve a dime for his fishing expedition. If it is determined that the officers violated his rights/ the law they absolutely should be held accountable for the reason that they made the decision to take the bait. The only thing that causes me to hesitate to fully condemn Voldemort is that the laws he is walking the edge of breaking are illegitimate. Those 27 words in the 2nd Amendment are the only thing separating the actions (not the intent, that is the same in both scenarios) of what Voldemort did and what you just described.

If an average joe had made that assumption and engaged him, we'd be having a different conversation. Instead, LE handled the matter. That will play out however it is going to play out. It still doesn't make an individually directed act of aggression the same thing as an unwise, probably generally alarming but perfectly legal activity.

1) The weapon wasn't loaded. If it had been he would have been charged with that as it is illegal in this state. 2) There is a distinct difference between an action that is generally alarming, yet legal (what Voldemort did) and a specific act of aggression against an individual. That has been my main point from the beginning. You are equating the two and they are not the same thing. That is why your argument was fatally flawed from the start. For the most part I agree with you in regards to our dear friend Voldy. I don't like his lawsuit fishing, his tactics or the possible end outcomes of his shenanigans. I was just trying to get you to bring a better game if you were going to call him or those that may support him out.

I didn't miss your point about Voldemort's actions, I addressed it and agreed with it. I have simply been debating with you about the poorly constructed and inapplicable nature of the argument you presented. As far as the idea that I am "confusing action with reaction" in viewing certain words as aggression, or even outright violence, I will let the words of the SCOTUS speak for me. The concept that words can be aggressive enough on their own to be considered an act of violence is the basis for anti-bullying, sexual harassment and other forms of civilly and criminally actionable damage. It is the primary basis on which 1st Amemndment limitations are built.

I hope he doesn't take the blatant flame bait either, I hold TMF in fairly high regard myself. Other than his willingness to accept battlefield tactics applied stateside (reference the drone debates) he seems like a cat I could have a beer with. No matter much someone is respected, they say something dumb or make a really crap argument. This was one of those cases. :D :lol:

A little over the top? Probably, but I think it illustrates my point pretty effectively that TMF's argument that saying that sort of thing isn't an aggressive act is complete bunk.

My point exactly.

It's pretty damn aggressive, wouldn't you say?

So you wouldn't view me walking up to you and telling you I banged your wife as an act of aggression? Cool. What's your wife's number?

I agree with everything in your second paragraph. The only thing I would add is that regardless of his intent, LE must be held accountable for their actions if those actions violate the law or his civil rights. One wrong does not excuse the other. As far as your first paragraph, you're not really that obtuse, right?

It is actually terribly flawed. So flawed in fact I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument, but if you type with more caps it might make it more applicable to... something. The flaw is that your example describes examples of specific acts of aggression towards an individual. Voldemort actions, stupid and ignorant as they may be, were not specifically aggressive towards anyone, just generally inflammatory and of a nature designed to elicit response from LE. ETA: I cannot believe you got me to defend that assnugget. I hope you are proud of yourself.

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or offended that so many liked my post wherein I referred to myself as a jerk. Of course, it would involve me giving a damn to feel either one. :lol:

I have a tan hat with the modernized Gonzales Flag (M4 with a star and "Come and take it" patch on the front. Funny story, that hat earned me a free lane rental at Rangemasters. I was eating lunch with my daughter at chikfila and a guy comes up and compliments my hat, then hands me his business card with a free rental written on the back. Tells me I should come by his work. Pretty cool.

It may have been a late addition, but it was a worthy one. Thank you for posting it.

Don't be shy, jump on in! I'll even start it for ya! Any use of SWAT/tactical/doorkicker/überHSLD/whatever by civilian law enforcement when there isn't the immediate danger of loss of innocent life is not only ill advised, it is an immoral and illegitimate act of war against the American public as a whole. :D

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Oh hell! That's too rich! I'll give them credit for a good one there. Oh wait, they're serious? Damn...