Seattle Jew: Request for Armed http://seattlejew.blogspot.com/2009/09/request-for-armed-help.html
First, I want to express thanks for all of you who have a sincere concern for my and others' safety.
I contacted the Seattle Police.
Carrying a weapon, with a carry permit, in a public place is completely legal. This includes the sidewalks, etc outside of SAFECO. The officer did point out that doing so would be an act that impinged on others rights .. exactly the point I made, but that under our laws the police would not interfere
This means that the decision of bringing na gun to the Beck affaire is amatter of free speech. Doing so is like yelling out "Liar" when Obama speaks. The Beckistas, contrary to one post in my previois enetry by "anon," have done nothing to castigate any of these disruptive tactics.
I want to remind all of you that this is NOT an issue of left vs, right. Beck's efforts at undermining the first amendment and rational disourse in our government bring us to the same precipice that radicals of his ilok have pushed us t before. Sam Brown, the KKK, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Saul Alinsky, the Weathermen, .... all of these have used Beck-like
extremism to block rational discussion or any discussion they did not want.Beck's tactics are not all that different from the chaos created by the Nazis AND the communists that led to Hitler. Radicals are always willing to block free speech, a sentiment echoed by Barry Goldwater:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
With all due respect , Goldwater's POV is exactly the same as the rhetoric of the Jacobites, the extremists who led the French Revolution to chaos while the rationality of Jefferson and Adams gave us ... the US of A! Contrary to the propaganda against Mr. Jefferson, this patron saint of resistance to tyranny was horrified by the tactics of the French left. Are we headed to a one sided society where Beck and Hannity dominate discussion because there is no alternative that does not simply escalate the chaos they seek?
Back at guns, I am not sure yet what will happen on the 26th.. I really do not understand the concept that carrying guns would provoke the Beckies to to some sort of a shoot out. I am unaware of any such event in American history, though shoot-outs are common on TV. However, if all of your concerns are correct, then my concern is even higher.
In the United States, experts say, political violence is more likely to come from deranged loners than to come from any specific political group. For every Timothy McVeigh who is motivated by a murderous political ideology, there are far more delusional figures like Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, who tried to kill President Gerald Ford in 1975, and John Hinckley Jr., who tried to kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27566.html#ixzz0S81XJxT6
If you are willing, I would ask a favor. If I do NOT manage to get guns to the affair, then I would very much like other ideas of how to do things that do not simply add fuel to Beck's attempt to destroy free speech?
13 comments:
You have the right to be armed or not. The reason for being armed is not to provoke. If that is your intent then you have criminal intent.
You may only use a weapon for purely defensive purposes. You may not threaten or intimidate with a weapon, get into verbal confrontaions or physical confrontations.
Do not ask others to fight your battles for you. Others who cherish their rights to the 2A may not want to risk them for your political purposes.
If you are intereseted in becoming an armed carry person get the traing and courses and learn how to use a gun. Realize that the responsibility of being armed is higher than not being armed. You and only you then have the ability to take a life and only for the correct reasons.
The reasons you have spoken do not relect a mature understanding of the duties and responsibility of being arnmed for defensive carry.
You lack understanding about free speech. One persons free speech does not take away others drees peech. A platform doe noit take away your speech. Beck is speaking out but his free speech does not destroy free speech.
As a professor I would have expected better knowledge and reasoning about our rights.
Beck is not destroying free speech, he is using it to highlight facts that people may not know and asking questions. Has the people knowledge led to Van Jones resignation? Yes. That is because Van Jones views are not accepted by most Americans and the Obama administration understood once Van Jones was shown he sign a 9-11 truther petition that is was unacceptable to have a person who believes that the US government was complicit in 9-11 in the US government especially in the White House.
I expect you do not agree. Get out of the bubble and talk to people that do not have your own views.
On van Jones
If you are serious.
Have you READ the petition Van Jones signed? I have not ..nor can I find it on the web.
If you are serious, then post it here!
OK
As a service, I have oposted the petition. Now tre3ll me waht it is that you abhor?
Carrying a Gun
1. The second amendment says NOTHING about a limit for self defense. Personally, I would strongly support such a limitation but clearly that is not our current law.
2. So carrying a blank pistol as an act of free speech is intimidation because I can NOT shoot back if someone shoots at me????? How does this make sense.
3. I certainly agree that "carrying" in a setting like this is immature. Isn't that the point? If you feel so strongly about this then come down to the affair and I will provide you with a toy gun (clearly marked) so you can join me in the portest against Beckism.
This is a foolish endeavor. This foggy "debate" is apparently not even understood by you. This appears to be is an attempt at being provocative and to attract attention to yourself. You don't seem to have the strength of conviction to actually act on this stupid idea. Leave the activism to activists who can articulately state a POV and have the nuggets to actually do what they say.
Foolish and Foggy
What is foolish or figgy?
You think it is foolish to ridicule the Becks?
As for foggy, look up thr word "MIASMA." Beck -- lile his predeccors on the right snd leftbseeks to stifle debate by spraing a foggy miasma ovet any effort st civil debate.
As for your idea of leaving protest to professionals, SIEG HEIL and POWER TO THE PEOPLE vome to mind.
Ok first a couple facts: OPEN carry is legal in Washington State,even without Concealed Pistol License. However, it is a violation of the Revised Code of Washington to use the presence of a weapon (loaded or not) as a means of harassment or intimidation.
I support your right to go openly armed, but as a "reasonable" free thinking adult, you must be prepared to accept the consequences for your actions.
I know the law, I also know the policies of the SPD and would be a fool to not comply with them.
Beyond that, I am not a real supporter of the second amendment other than as part of the body of the bill of rights. I am certain the founders did not intend guns to be used to intimidate free speech.
AFter hearing your recent radio interview, I'm not sure you Do understand the law. If you did, you would not have claimed that you needed a permit to open carry and wouldn't probably have one in time for your protest. If you understood the law, you would understand that SPD
s "policies" do not trump the RCW. I find it interesting that you only appreciate the academic study of the second amendment and not the practical application of it. NICE professor, I'm sure Jefferson would be proud....
Your abstract and obvoiously academic appreciation for the Bill of Rights is what separates you from the Beck supporters who actually appreciate and want to preserve those rights. That and the fact that THEIR guns are probably loaded.....
And if you want to know what the founders intended, try reading some of their writings. it's pretty apparent to us unlearned masses.
I am not sure what you think I do not understand.
I am not interested in going to court because of a police policy. If you or any other gunnie wants to make a point by testing the police policy, then go ahead.
My goal is very simple .. I believe in untrammeled free speech. Use of mob tactics to stifle free speech is wrong .. whether done by the Beckistas or the Panthers. Bringing an open weapon to a public place stifles speech. I sn't that obvious.
As for Jefferson, if you have a problem with out third President, I suggest I am not the best person to speak for him.
No you're not, since you obviousely know very little about him ....
Post a Comment