feed icon

Like Judge Dredd, He Is The Law

By Kleinheider Posted on July 16, 2009 at 10:59 am

Mack doesn’t much car about the chatter over guns in park or bars. He’s packing whether you, or the state, like it or not:

I have a Walther PPK. It is a nice gun. Small enough to tuck in my pocket, but fires a slug that should stop anyone not under the influence of PCP. If I am going somewhere I feel remotely threatened, I carry it. I don’t tell the Concierge at the hotel I’m staying in, nor do I feel compelled to slip my waitress a note informing her I’m packing heat. I don’t brandish it, I don’t talk about it, it is just there, like my cell phone or car keys.

You know what? If I feel the need to draw it and fire, I’ll take my chances with a jury. I seriously don’t foresee an scenario wherein I am busted for carrying it, except in a life threatening situation. I’ve never been frisked in a restaurant, or a park. When I used to commute regularly, I kept it in the car. I still do when I travel. I have been doing this for over 30 years without incident.

Please don’t tell me about obeying the law. That, IMO, is a black/white position. You either obey ALL State laws, or you have no credible argument. And nobody does.

permalink

Comments

51 Responses to “Like Judge Dredd, He Is The Law”

  1. JaStep writes
    July 16th, 2009 11:07 am

    Anyone under the influence of PCP? How 1984 of you, Bernie Goetz.

  2. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 11:22 am

    Well, the underbelly of the conservative rights movement - we only obey the laws we want to obey because we’re right and everyone else is wrong. Only thing separating dude here from a criminal is - well, nothing … neither have respect for the law, for society, for anything other than their own selfishness. One is upfront and says ‘i want what you have’ the other says ‘i’m gonna do whatever i want.’

  3. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 11:42 am

    One is upfront and says ‘i want what you have’ the other says ‘i’m gonna do whatever i want.’

    But one is no threat to you. Not justifying the behavior, just pointing there is more than one thing ’separating dude here from a criminal’.

  4. Kat Coble writes
    July 16th, 2009 11:42 am

    Mack is A) the farthest thing from a conservative you can get and B) an immigration rights activist.

  5. Mack writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:05 pm

    JaStep, probably dating myself a bit with that reference, but i couldn’t think of a drug currently popular that makes someone act superhuman.

    mickey, You can’t choose which laws you wish to ignore, and which ones to comply with. like I said, I’ll take my chances with the Law.

    Retired activist, kat, though the issue, much like Choice,and GLBT rights, remains near and dear to me.

  6. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:06 pm

    Uncle - no. A person carrying a loaded gun is always a threat, especially one who carries wherever he chooses. As for whether or not Mack is a conservative - doesn’t matter. His comment still underlines the conservative notion today. A VA delegate was just quoted as saying that they needed to win at the ballot box so they didn’t have to use the bullet box. Cheney and torture; Sanford and using state government money to meet his mistress - it’s all underlined by the same basic thought: we’ll do whatever it takes, regardless of legality, and take our chances later. If Mack isn’t a conservative, he still couldn’t have displayed the modern conservative underbelly any better.

  7. Donna Locke writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:12 pm

    No surprise: Laws don’t apply to him.

  8. Mack writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:14 pm

    Can’t believe I feel the need to point out that my Party of choice hasn’t yet purged all of its scoundrels. It isn’t that Conservatives are more prone to commit violations of law or trust, its just that they have allowed some real clowns to attach themselves to the “movement’, and don’t call them out when they cross the line.

    You don’t see the creative dept of PETA on TV speaking on behalf of Liberals everywhere.

    Also, Mikey, I assume that when you buy stuff online, and are not charges sales tax, that you remit the proper use tax to the State, as required by law? If not, what is the difference between you and me?

  9. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:17 pm

    ‘A person carrying a loaded gun is always a threat’

    Nope.

  10. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:26 pm

    “A person carrying a gun is always a threat.”

    Overgeneralize much, Mikey? If you really believe that, then you should never leave your home, because people carrying loaded guns are everywhere, law or no law.

    And Mack was pretty clear that he’s aware that he “goes rogue,” as it were.

  11. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:27 pm

    Sorry. “Loaded gun” he said. I mistyped.

  12. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 12:30 pm

    Yeah, those police, guys at the base up the street, and the dudes who hunt coyotes behind my house and my neigbor are all threats. I’m scared now. And this is great too:

    ‘His comment still underlines the conservative notion today.’

    Actually, doesn’t that more underline a libertarian/anarchist notion?

  13. Drinkin' the Franklin Kool Aid writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:04 pm

    Talk about following/not folllowing the law, anyone watch the last-known video of McNair …. on the officer’s dash cam?

  14. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:04 pm

    Say Uncle - a loaded weapon isn’t a typewriter - by its nature, its lethal. And that makes it a more dangerous object, doesn’t it? If carrying a loaded gun wasn’t a threat, then police and soldiers wouldn’t carry them. But the example of police or soldiers bears little, if any, resemblance to concept of violating concealed carry laws. And we know that people with carry permits don’t ever break the law, right? ;)

    Mack - I don’t buy stuff online, but I get your broad point. But there are degrees, and I know you know that. A misdemeanor is less severe than a felony, eh? The point being, however, is that no one is above the law. No one. All of us. And, yes, we probably all break them. But not all of us post to a blog that we will ignore the law, which in turn leads someone who’s considerably less capable than yourself to think its ok, because - hey, everyone breaks the law sometimes.

    To the broad point, no its unfortunately not libertarian/anarchist, Uncle, unless you are including such figures as Karl Rove (dangerous to tell Congress anything, even though its required by law), Dick Cheney (if the president does it, it isn’t illegal) and Catherine Crabill, the GOP nominee for Delegate in Virginia’s 99th District, who suggests going to the ‘bullet box’ if they don’t win at the ballot box.

  15. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:08 pm

    ‘And that makes it a more dangerous object, doesn’t it?’

    Only if it’s pointed at me, which is also when it becomes a threat. But you, excepting your fear of inanimate objects, asserted a person is always a threat.

  16. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:14 pm

    a person with a gun is always a threat to someone, Uncle. Sometimes even the ones they love most …

  17. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:15 pm

    Yes a firearm is lethal so is a typewriter, drop it on someones head out of a 2 story room. It is just as lethal as a firearm.

    Like Archie bunker Said.

    “Does it make you feel better if they are murdered by being pushed out a window.”

    A firearm is a tool, it has a purpose, self defence.

    It is the person that chooses to corrupt the purpose.

    A typewriter is a tool it has a purpose, but a person dropping it out of a window onto someone’s head, has chosen to corrupt it’s intended purpose.

  18. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:17 pm

    Roger…

    As the NRA safety training will teach you ALL FIREARMS are loaded. No matter how many times you check the chamber.

  19. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:18 pm

    Mikey More people are killed by cars.. Why are you not worried about loved ones driving?

  20. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:27 pm

    “a person with a gun is always a threat to someone, Uncle. Sometimes even the ones they love most …”

    This message brought to you by the Ad Council.

  21. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:27 pm

    TNVolunteer73 –

    Good point.

  22. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:28 pm

    ‘a person with a gun is always a threat to someone’

    You can say it all you want. it does not make it true.

  23. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:28 pm

    always, don’t you? you don’t worry that a loved one who’s traveling might get in an accident?? doesn’t mean you lock them up, but worry - always.

    as for typewriter v. gun - by its very nature, a gun is lethal. a typewriter, by its nature, is not. And while a writer may ‘kill’ - it’s rarely permenent. ;)

  24. Brawndo: It's Got Electrolytes! writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:30 pm

    Mikey: “a person with a gun is always a threat to someone”

    Baloney. I was sitting next to a good friend of mine who was carrying his firearm at dinner the other night. I didn’t feel any less or more safe because of it.

  25. Donna Locke writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:35 pm

    I wish some other issues drew as much interest as the gun posts always do.

  26. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:36 pm

    Geez, I would hope that I would not “always” be worried when a loved one drives a car, as that would basically mean 24 hours a day of worry. What’s the point of living otherwise? The only time we’re completely risk-free is when we’re six feet underground.

  27. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:36 pm

    Acctually Mickey if you study modern military doctrine, a firearm (Assult rifle in fact) is not ment to be lethal.

    The Assult rifle was created to wound people not kill.

    No a firearm by nature is not lethal, it can be used in a lethal way.

    I have not killed one tree by shooting paper targets and I have been doing that since 1968.

    More people have been killed in Ted Kennedy’s car than have been killed by all my firearms combined.

  28. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:37 pm

    Uncle, TNVol, Brawndo and Roger - so, then - if a person with a loaded gun isn’t a threat, then why carry them at all? Carrying for show; perhaps to balance the wallet with something else heavy? C’mon - don’t b.s. anybody. If it wasn’t a threat, if there wasn’t an implied concept of using a weapon to threaten (in your case, I’m sure, only a bad guy harrassing your loved one/employee/pet gecko) then *you wouldn’t carry it.* I didn’t say a loaded weapon was a threat to *everyone,* but to *someone* it must be, otherwise there’s no need for it.

  29. Mack writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:38 pm

    Mikey, yes, i agree there are degrees. Like I said, this bill, to me at least, is about political posturing and is, next to abortion, the biggest wedge issue around, at least in the South. I understand that these are scary times. If I was a clerk in a convenience store, I’d stay strapped my whole shift. I don’t care if the guy sitting next to me is carrying, just don’t talk to me about it. Go in, eat your meal, pay your check, carry your ass home safely, and I’ll see ya in Church on Sunday. If a crazed gunman wanders in and opens fire, chances are I’ll be looking for an exit, not a gunfight.

    I bet we are somewhat aligned politically, and i share your ideals about the law, i really do. There are other laws I feel supersede statutory law. I don’t think I’d ever commit a mala en se crime. My fondness for 4:20 in the afternoon is well known, after all. :)

    Just to be clear, I don’t carry a firearm everywhere. I don’t take one into bars, because I only go to bars to drink. I don’t carry into restaurants, since I feel secure there. My point was that the debate itself is silly, and a time vampire. We have a great many well-armed, unemployed citizens in Tn, and I’d prefer that our elected officials spent their time and energy looking for ways to get people to work, or there won’t be anybody around that can afford to go to restaurants in the first damn place.

    I appreciate your polite responses. I can’t always follow suit, but I aim to try…

  30. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:38 pm

    The gun issue is popular because it’s pretty basic–everyone basically understands–or they think they understand–what guns do, it doesn’t involve boring financial discussions, and it’s not necessarily a down-the-line D/R partisan issue, at least not always. At bottom, it’s a cultural one.

  31. SayUncle writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:41 pm

    ‘if a person with a loaded gun isn’t a threat, then why carry them at all? ‘

    Pay attention. We covered that already. Because it’s tool you may need in certain situations.

  32. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:42 pm

    Roger - my oldest will be driving soon. I will never stop worrying when she’s behind the wheel. I won’t keep her home (of course) and I’m not overprotective in the slightest, but - if I know she’s on the road - yes, I will worry. My wife isn’t a great driver - you bet I worry when I know she’s on the road. We don’t let my mom drive much anymore, ’cause its really too much for her now - she cause two fender-benders only a few months apart. Worried for her safety - you bet.

  33. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:42 pm

    If I point a gun at you, it’s a threat to you. If I just carry a gun on my person, it’s just protection for me in case a threat to me arises. My simply carrying a gun in your vicinity is not anymore a threat to you than my driving a car past you while you stroll along the sidewalk.

  34. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:43 pm

    OK Uncle - I’m with you. And what makes that tool effective? C’mon, say it with me - because it’s a threat to someone when aimed their way … right?

  35. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:45 pm

    OK, now we’ve added “when aimed their way.” That’s a pretty significant difference, no? Progress, at least.

  36. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:49 pm

    Roger, c’mon … of course you are. I might not be aware of it, like I might not be aware of the sleeping driver in the car. But its still a threat. If a piano is hanging by a mere thread 100 feet over your head, and you don’t know its there, and you stand under it. Is it a threat to you? We’re threatened every day - doesn’t mean we’re paralyzed in fear, but there’s implied and unknown threats every second. We live with them constantly. Be honest with yourself. Hey, concealed carry is fine with me, but be honest about it, fer heaven’s sake.

  37. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:52 pm

    dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:37 pm
    Uncle, TNVol, Brawndo and Roger - so, then - if a person with a loaded gun isn’t a threat, then why carry them at all? Carrying for show; perhaps to balance the wallet with something else heavy? C’mon - don’t b.s. anybody. If it wasn’t a threat, if there wasn’t an implied concept of using a weapon to threaten (in your case, I’m sure, only a bad guy harrassing your loved one/employee/pet gecko) then *you wouldn’t carry it.* I didn’t say a loaded weapon was a threat to *everyone,* but to *someone* it must be, otherwise there’s no need for it.

    If I wanted to be threatening I would not have gotten my CCW. It is legal to carry a firearm in open sight (which is treatening to many). I got a CCW so I can carry it where you dont see it, thus to not be a threat to anyone.

    You may have been setting or next to me or someone else in public, while was carrying a weapon. I bet you did not feel the least bit threatened. Why because they were carrying it in their purse, pocket, under their clothing holstered.

  38. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:52 pm

    No it isn’t a significant difference, Roger - the loaded weapon is the threat, pointing it triggers the fear. Think of it like this - we fear the threat of a nuclear weaponized Iran. They don’t even have them (we think), but their *desire* for them is a threat. Right?

  39. Mack writes
    July 16th, 2009 1:59 pm

    Anyway, I’m out…I think this thread is only proving my point…nothing new is being offered.

    I might add, I’d like Uncle to at least acknowledge I didn’t make a single “compensation” remark. :)

  40. common sense writes
    July 16th, 2009 2:07 pm

    Shorter Mack: “I carry a gun to compensate for something I’m lacking.”

  41. DADvocate writes
    July 16th, 2009 2:36 pm

    the underbelly of the conservative rights movement - we only obey the laws we want to obey

    It’s call civil disobedience and is a concept promoted by Thoreau and liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Of course, today’s fascist liberals don’t like the idea at all.

    a loaded weapon isn’t a typewriter - by its nature, its lethal.

    The pen is mightier than the sword, so why not the typewriter than the pistol?

  42. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 2:40 pm

    Hey Mack - didn’t see your post earlier - saw it now. Yes, I suspect we agree more than disagree. I’ll actually *consider* conceding your point on the convenience store late shift, too … LOL. ;)

  43. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 2:44 pm

    DAD - no, civil disobedience is disobeying a law because its bad law and needs to be changed. And just claiming ‘civil disobedience’ doesn’t make the cause legit - for every Rosa Parks there’s a G. Gordon Libby lurking in the weeds. And surely you don’t think the soldier refusing to fight in Afghanistan is utilizing ‘civil disobedience’ in a positive way …

  44. Roger Abramson writes
    July 16th, 2009 3:06 pm

    Speaking of the Ad Council:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/cool-a-1.html

  45. DADvocate writes
    July 16th, 2009 3:31 pm

    I don’t remember any civil disobedience from Liddy. Just criminal activity clearly not protected by the Constitution. The guns issue is a constitutional issue on which many politicians are contrary to the Constitition.

    Refusing to fight in Vietnam was considered a positive use of civil disobedience, why not refusing to fight in Afghanistan?

  46. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 3:45 pm

    Was considered positive when? There were people who refused, went to jail - or to Canada - were reviled, called names and some people still hate Carter based on his granting a pardon to the draft resisters. Don’t know it was ever considered ‘positive,’ even though those soldiers had a point. Do you consider Afghan an illegal war because Obama wasn’t born a US citizen - cause that’s his reason.

    The Nixon adm. felt they had the right to spy on Dems, pyschiatrists, etc. - even tho the law was agin ‘em — greater good of the country. And Liddy refused to open his mouth at all - seems that would/could fit the ‘civil disobedience’ model, no?

  47. jim voorhies writes
    July 16th, 2009 3:59 pm

    “It is legal to carry a firearm in open sight”

    open carry is legal? Didn’t know that.

  48. DADvocate writes
    July 16th, 2009 7:02 pm

    Refusing to fight in Vietnam was considered positive by many, especially liberals of the time. (I was there and participated in my fair share of anti-war protests including one which resulted in my father’s arrest.) That’s how Carter was able to pardon those who fled to Canada. Opinions have changed greatly regarding Carter because of his ineptitude.

    Technically Afghan is not a “war” as one has never been declared by us. I don’t consider it illegal and my opinions have nothing to do with Obama’s citizenship. (I consider him a citizen.) I’m not a heavy duty anti-war guy but I do question the wisdom of keeping our armed forces spread out over the world. As a matter of practicality, we can’t be the world police. But, I do despise how the Democrats were for it before they were against it. It shows dishonesty and lack of moral courage.

    Plus, what is the exit strategy from Afghan? Afghans live in a culture that has fought for centuries. Can we really expect to establish a peaceful democracy there in a few short years?

  49. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 7:11 pm

    Afghan was the one of the two wars I didn’t argue against, because it had a purpose - rid the world of Osama. We dropped the ball, and let the Taliban come back - I think the *exit* will come when the Taliban is defeated and Osama’s caught - meaning, who friggin’ knows when But I think in the main Dems were, to the extent anyone can be, pro-Afghan, anti-Iraq …

    As for Vietnam, I was on your side - but I recognize a lot of people, especially in these parts, still hate those who were anti-war. Hence my question - Hollywood and liberals aside, I don’t think in the main Americans considered anti-war movement *positive,* and I think it was largely (sadly) ineffective, compared to -say - the civil rights movement. It was loud, it was fun - but at the end of the day the anti-war movement, it could be argued, inadvertently helped Nixon win and after Kent State, events more than any movement led to the end of the war. I add, arguably, because - who really knows? It’s how it seemed to me at the time, tho …

  50. DADvocate writes
    July 16th, 2009 8:56 pm

    Mikey - nice to have a civil discussion. I’m relating events, thoughts from the crowd I ran with at the time. I know some felt differently but by the mid-70s they seemed to be in the minority. As for Nixon, my neighbor across the street from my parents donated $25 for Nixon’s re-election. He later told me that was the biggest screwing he’d gotten in his life.

  51. dontcallmemikey writes
    July 16th, 2009 10:03 pm

    i asked a person who went to Canada what the major difference he saw between VNam and Iraq, in the buildup - he was as anti-Iraq as he was anti-’Nam. He said the major difference - and failing - of the anti-war groups over Iraq was that everyone was afraid to make it like ‘Nam, where everyone twisted it into hating the soldiers. He said, tho’ no one hated the soldiers in the ’60s, it came across that way - yippies and all that b.s. - and the modern day ‘movement’ pulled its punches … pulled punches made it less effective. I think he was right, for the passion was there but somehow the effort always fell short … and the pro-war side was always quick to pull out the ’support the troops’ card at any sign of protest … It is *still* hard to imagine Kent State, isn’t it?

Leave a Reply




Partly Cloudy

Recent Comments

The Collective

The Latest from NashvillePost.com

Archives