BigGov

Are there any crazy people in the USA who would go on a suicide mission in order to kill a large amount of gay people? I personally don't know of one, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than say 10.

It's that possibility in the back of your head that you say will never happen.

Just like two kids arming themselves to the teeth and going into a high school.

Just like two armed men with AK's and body armor having the ability to fight 40 police officers after a bank heist and almost over power the officers.

Just like someone parking a car bomb in front of some building in Oklahoma.

Just like someone hi-jacking an airplane and crashing it into a building.

Just because you don't think it's ever going to happen doesn't mean it never will.

So, what is the problem of dis-arming a group of individuals who legally and safely carry guns for self-defense?

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

pan6467

I think I made myself quite clear on the cop issue. I would object IF he were there as a civilian and was in a city that does not recognize undercover officers as being "on duty" 24/7.

Analog, I explained my view a gun is a weapon and a symbol of violence to many, therefore it should not be necessary to take one to a rally promoting peace.

I just think it boils down to respecting the people who did the work and organized the rally.

If you want to make a statement with your guns, go ahead, I didn't say you couldn't. But civil and common sense should dictate if you attend a rally others worked hard on then you should abide to their wishes. Otherwise you are there ONLY to create problems and to leech off others hard work.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

BigGov

It's a rally promoting acceptance, not peace.

__________________
One day an Englishman, a Scotsman, and an Irishman walked into a pub together. They each bought a pint of Guinness. Just as they were about to enjoy their creamy beverage, three flies landed in each of their pints. The Englishman pushed his beer away in disgust. The Scotsman fished the fly out of his beer and continued drinking it, as if nothing had happened. The Irishman, too, picked the fly out of his drink but then held it out over the beer and yelled "SPIT IT OUT, SPIT IT OUT, YOU BASTARD!"

cthulu23

I thought that we needed an account of this story that actually took quotes from both sides, so follow this link for a more balanced account of the event.

Here's an excerpt from the Stonewall Columbus response to the critcism:

What wasn't mentioned in the earlier article was that the PPs were advised to leave the festival by police. If an organizers of this event had the right to deny weapons, then this is legally identical to any other public or private event where firearms are barred. SC may have acted a bit hysterically, but they didn't trample on anyone's rights. I also still believe that the PPs went in there ready for a confrontation, as they were forewarned not to bring any weapons.

pan6467

I just think it boils down to respecting the people who did the work and organized the rally.

If you want to make a statement with your guns, go ahead, I didn't say you couldn't. But civil and common sense should dictate if you attend a rally others worked hard on then you should abide to their wishes. Otherwise you are there ONLY to create problems and to leech off others hard work.

I do not condone what Stonewall's reaction was, that's why there are off-duty officers provided to prevent those things from happening. BUT I can very well appreciate what they went through and do believe the PP's got exactly what they wanted, which was press at the cost of Stonewall's expense.

By the way a parade IS NOT a public participation process. It requires streets being closed, off and on duty police officers on the scene, and an application process. ALL cost money.

Again I ask for the numerous time, (to which noone answers) is it right for PP's to show up to publicize THEIR AGENDA AT SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPENSE? How would you feel if someone did that to you?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Is promoting acceptance NOT a form of promoting peace. You cannot have acceptance without PEACE.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

seretogis

You're reaching, in a big way. This is not a complicated issue, and there is no reason to complicate it, other than to try to blame the victims.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

pan6467

Here's a link on how to get the booklet that talks about what hoops one must go through and what one must pay the city to hold a "special event" such as the one Stonewall organized.

link: http://www.columbusrecparks.com/arts...e_planning.asp

here is the link to City of Cols. "Block Parties" of which a parade is defined as.

link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

Here's the link defining "nuisances" according to Cols. Ordinances. As the organizers of the parade and the ones responsible they can have whom they want there.

Link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

So now I have proven that Stonewall went to great expense, monetarily and time wise AND were responsible for any and all damages or problems arising.

Therefore I submit, by them asking PP to not come and make a statement, PP lleeched off Stonewall and had Stonewall foot the bill for PP to make their statement. THAT IS WRONG.

To me that is theft.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

So I ask again..... If you held a rally or parade and asked a splinter group not to come because you felt YOUR event was not the place for that particular statement, and they showed up taking the focus off the issue the event was truly about, for their own profit?

You would not ask them to leave?

You would not be pissed?

You would allow this splinter group to take away all the focus that YOU had worked for and paid for?

You would not feel as though all YOUR hard work went for naught as this splinter group takes over the event YOU paid for, the event YOU are solely responsible for?

I highly doubt you would want that to happen to you, yet you believe it is ok for the PP's to do it to Stonewall.

It was Stonewall's buck and Stonewall's cause NOT PP's.

And yes I would feel the same way in any circumstance this would happen in.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

The victims were Stonewall because PP was asked not to promote their cause or bring guns and they refused (knowing it would create problems and havoc and public nuisance), thus stealing a service from the legitimate party, that did pay and take the time to organize and were liable, while PP walks away scot free having paid no money, having put in no time and effort, and getting exactly what they wanted.

This escapade hurt the whole gay community in Cols. because next year Stonewall will probably have to pay more liabilty insurance, more for police AND the citizens of Cols. can point to this year and have a case for total denial of permit.

In my opinion Stonewall was the victim, not PP.

Like I said this affected a few close friends and it is sad because it hurts the whole community, because some people chose to try to be above the law and make a statement where they shouldn't have.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

analog

First of all...

Second of all, my white skin is a symbol of violence AND oppression to "many people" - basically anyone who's ever been trampled on by whites due to their race. The small amount of my German heritage is a symbol of violence and oppression to "many people" - anyone fucked over by the Nazis. MY COCK is a symbol of violence and oppression to "many people" - hardcore feminists, anyone who's ever been raped or abused by a man, etc...

Whoever you may be- I will not cover my skin to protect your sensitivity, I will not deny my heritage to console your feelings, and I will not cut off my penis to make you happy.

Ok... so is your beef that they're taking guns to a rally where they're not wanted, or because they're glomming off the others' work? They're still gay. They're still here, they're still queer, and they still want us to get used to it (reference to a chant commonly used by them, not MY words, for those who don't know).

It is ridiculous for them to preach acceptance and tolerance from one side of their mouth while yelling at the Pink Pistols for just being of a different opinion out of the other side. They are getting all up in arms (wordplay intended) over nothing, end of story.

EDIT:

They were perfectly well within the law, you are very incorrect on that statement. Perhaps ignorance of the law is making this harder to understand for some people.

cthulu23

The PPs weren't "perfectly within the law," as the law backed SC's right to exclude firearms from the rally that they organized. The initial post that started this thread glossed that fact over, but it is the truth. That is why the city of Columbus sided with SC.

Edit: I thought that calling someone ignorant was considered bad etiquette on these forums. Should we lock the thread?

analog

I've not seen it shown that that is the law. So, show me where it specifically states there is a law against people who already have gun permits in that state to show at a public rally on public land, and we won't have a problem.

If there is a specific law that prevented them from doing so, and no one brought it up until just now, then I have argued with people who don't even know what the hell they're arguing about. Sometimes, though, that's par for the course.

Um. No, I (or any of the other staff) will not be locking the thread. One odd comment will not get a thread locked.

Second of all...

...is not calling anyone ignorant. I didn't say, "you're ignorant". I said "ignorance of the law...". Saying "ignorance of ______" simply means not knowing about it. I was also not speaking to anyone in particular, especially since i said, "for some people". "Some people" makes it plural, as in more than one, so it was not directed at anyone.

pan6467

So I am ignorant (coming from a mod I highly respected) for making legitimate arguments. You can argue my opinion but there is no need to get personal or call names. I have not done that to anyone here. I have done nothing but argue my side and provide facts substantiating (as linked to the City of Columbus City Codes) what I say, so as not to have people argue that I do not know what I am talking about.

Where is the proof from those calling me ignorant or avoiding the facts or twisting events and trying to say the PP's were within their rights (when I have shown through links they weren't).

Where are the answers to the questions I asked? As I have answered with facts every question and rebuttal directed at me?

You want to debate fine, you want to just say your side is right and fuck the facts, the city codes (laws) and anyone who disagrees with you, then just tell me that is what you want.

I was under the impression this was a forum of debate and of presenting facts to back up what one says, which is what I did. I guess I was wrong in my assumption, you all would rather call names, ignore facts and questions to have what you want. Fuck what the rules are or who paid for it or who was truly hurt by all this.



NOT 1 PERSON ANSWERED MY MAIN QUESTION? And yet I answered showed links to proof of everything I stated and am still told that PP's had every right to have guns, when the proof shows differently.

I am ignorant because I had friends there that feel the PP's stole their hard work.

I would just like one of these defenders of the PP to say if they had a parade or rally, and did ALL the work, paid ALL the bills, were LIABLE for everything that happened and asked a certain group not to come.

Yet that group came.

Turned the rally into something totally different and PAID for nothing, were liable for nothing and created problems, that YOU would not feel used and would not be pissed.

It is theft of services plain and simple. Stonewall paid for the area to be closed, paid for the extra police protection and trash cleanup and so on for only one purpose to promote education and acceptance of gay rights NOT promote or affiliate themselves with guns.

It is amazing how if this had happened to a gun enthusiast crowd and some splinter group came out and created problems the same people arguing for the PP's would be all pissy.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Look at the links I provided for the City of Columbus (a few posts back), they will show that the PP's WERE NOT within their rights.

I would like to know how I am ignorant of the law when I have provided links (obviously not used) to the CODES of the City of Cols. defending everything I said.

I am showing the laws and they support what I say. That is not being ignorant that is being factual.

It was the 3rd to last post, those are the links.

I didn't see anyone on your side showing where the PP"s had the law on their side. So does that mean YOU don't know what you are arguing about as you accused others of?

I supplied the links before anyonme asked, because I wanted everyone to see the PP's had no right to be there with guns.

If you would like I WILL post the whole booklet one gets when planning events like this in Cols. and it will illustrate even further the rights of those who are having the event. And it will show without doubt how the PP's infringed on the rights of Stonewall.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cthulu23

Apparently, the city of Columbus felt that the organizers of the rally were within their rights restricting admission as they did. They then sent the PPs packing (pun intended).

Quote:

If there is a specific law that prevented them from doing so, and no one brought it up until just now, then I have argued with people who don't even know what the hell they're arguing about. Sometimes, though, that's par for the course.

Is it better, worse or equivalent to argue for something that you know nothing about rather than against it? Regardless, the pasted article that began this thread neglected to bring up that SC was within their rights to restrict admission. The people that you are arguing with are the only ones that bothered to check the facts. Is this also "par for the course?"

I understand the subtleties of the phrasing. The intent is clear.

Peetster

Pan,

Let's take a step back and examine the facts you provided that you say support your claim that a law abiding citizen may not bring a weapon to a public event. Your first link stated That's it, basically. Hardly a reference.

I spent a considerable amount of time with your second link. I now know more about how the City of Columbus treats "block parties" than I ever wanted to. I saw nothing pertaining to handguns.

Your third link was equally vague. They use the term "nuisance" to refer to abandoned, dilapidated real estate. I'm not seeing the connection you hope to establish.

As far as I can tell, you've provided no supporting documentation. Please stop referencing your links, they add nothing. Feel free to quote specific paragraphs I might have missed, as I said, it was very long and involved and it's not unlikely I missed what you wanted me to see.

analog

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

I didn't say anyone - especially not anyone in particular - was ignorant.

btw- it IS a rule that if you're going to directly quote something, don't just link to it, but copy and paste into the post. Some people don't like blindly clicking links...

After sifting through links that didn't actually point to anything but the index, and finding all the info myself, I find nothing that says at all what you claim it does.

From your "block parties" section:

923.01 Definitions.
923.02 Parades.
Note the highlight, i'll come back to it.

923.99 Violations--Penalties.
Note that there is no penalty for firearms, and in no way in any of the sections i've posted (or didn't post because they were about block parties) does it even reference firearms.

Now, back to... No problem. We'll check out Chapter 2111.

Chapter 2111 PARADES, PROCESSIONS AND OTHER MOVING ASSEMBLAGES The caps is on the site.

Forgoing the others because they aren't worth reposting, but i'll link to them in a moment, i'll put up the

2111.05 Standards for issuance of permit.
Nope. No mention of firearms or anything even related to them.

You can check out these others if you feel the need, they are formality and also have no mention of anything firearm-related:

Application for permit
Traffic Control
Division of fire personnel - This has to do with staffing appropriate fire department response, should it be needed.
Notice of rejection of application for permit
Appeal procedure
Nonwaiverability
Penalty

I used your links, I went to where you sent me. There is nothing that even remotely mentions guns. I also searched the site using it's search function and found no correlation of "gun", "firearm", or even "weapon" and "parade" or "block party", which you also mentioned.

Maybe i'm missing something? If I am wrong, please remove my ignorance of this matter.

EDIT: NOTE- Just for the purpose of chronology, I started writing my post way before peetster responded in here, that is why mine is after his... it took THAT LONG to compile all of this.

analog

If anyone knows anything about me, it is that i do NOT flame, I do NOT call people names, and I do NOT insinuate that people are stupid, "ignorant", or any other variation of sub-intelligence. If you REALLY MUST believe that's what I did, then I sincerely apologize, and I will try to make myself more clear in the future when referring to specific subject matter, and not people themselves.

I am not perfect, I am ignorant of many things in this world. That does not make me ignorant in a general sense. I was referring to the collective ignorance of the law being displayed by those who were arguing against me. That is not subtlety, it's not even clever semantics, it's plain English.

Otherwise, please kindly observe the way i've always posted and take it to heart that whatever insult you think you read in there, is simply not there.

Best regards,

-analog.

pan6467

Analog, appology accepted, like I said I do have a lot of respect for you, we may not always agree but you are pretty level headed and can keep things from getting to heated.

It's just I truly don't understand why questions I ask get ignored while others continue to rant and pick apart everything I say (even if proof is provided) yet provide no proof themselves.

Plus, everyone refuses to answer how they would like it if someone did this to their event. It's like you are saying forget the fact that Stonewall PAID and was LIABLE for everything and had politely aske that PP respect their wishes, as the cause was to solely promote acceptance and education of homosexual lifestyle.

PP's totally ignored them, totally knew their showing would lead to a scene and instead of having the cause that Stonewall worked hard and paid a lot of money to promote, a whole different cause was highlighted and now, Stonewall is being called the badguy here for defending their rights.

Perhaps, I am too close to this. (I am not gay, my homophobic nature shows) I have very close friends affected by this and it truly has hurt community relations in Cols.

Like I said I am heated about this because I provide facts (Peetster your were right about the nuisance I posted the wrong link and appologize.)

Here is the Code and link I meant to post.

2317.12 Disturbing a lawful meeting.
(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:
(1) Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;
(2) Make any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disturbing a lawful meeting, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. (ORC 2917.12; Ord. 2535-94.)

#2 is the one that is the ticket.

Link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

I just don't understand how infringing on the rights of Stonewall is OK, yet taking away guns and trying to keep the focus on the issue paid Stonewall paid for is wrong and making victims out of people who chose to go for the purpose of disrupting and creating problems.

I understand the gun issue and if PP wants to hold a parade or event let them pay for their own event. I just don't see how their disrupting and intrusive behaviors are ok, when if it had happened to the PP's, you all would be charged about how people unwantingly disrupted the PP's legal event.

There are 2 sides and the PP side in this was wrong. That is not to say PP is wrong in their beliefs, they were wrong for violating the rights of others, and taking advantage of other people's expenses to promote themselves. It's that simple.

(Again I will research, but believe it is illegal in Ohio to have weapons at a public demonstration, block party, parade etc.) I will admit if I am wrong, and will post the law if I find it online or will post how to reference it if I can't post the law itself.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

analog

Well, does the person who organized the event really speak for "the sensibilities of the group" as a whole, without a vote or some other democratic show of approval? Is this person the Gay Dictator of Ohio? Technically, without the guns, they'd have been let in, so they WOULD BE part of "the group". The only reference that somehow indicates the "will of the people" is this, from the original article...

That was Kate Anderson, Executive Director, and some people. That could be 3 people, maybe 10 people. How many hundreds (or thousands, i don't know) of people marched in the parade? Does that "Stonewall Columbus contingent" really speak for ALL of them without first asking them?

Also, it says "sensibilities"... this is not a "gays who are anti-gun" parade, and these gun-lovin' people are trying to oppose them, it is a parade designed to educate people and promote acceptance and tolerance. How the hell can you say you teach those messages while telling part of the people you represent (gays, lesbians, etc.) to collectively and immediately fuck off?

pan6467

The links I provided were explained in the post.

The booklet that is not available online (so I linked how to get it) that explains all the fees and what hoops Stonewall had to go through.

The second I stated was to show the definition of a parade as a block party.

The third which I corrected is to show how, when having a public event (lawful meeting) the PP's could be charged with criminal trespess, as PP was asked not to come and make a statement and they did it violates "2317.12 Disturbing a lawful meeting.
(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:
(1) Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;
(2) Make any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disturbing a lawful meeting, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. (ORC 2917.12; Ord. 2535-94.)
#2.

By them being asked NOT to come and make a statement, that meant they made "any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group" when the did appear, which is illegal and an infringement upon the rights of Stonewall.

I did not say that any of those links had to do with guns specifically, again, Because of Kent State in 1970 I believe in Ohio there is a law preventing guns at a demonstration, parade or gathering unless registered. I am researching and as I posted I will admit if I am wrong or I will post the law I am thinking of that supports my claim. (Again thatlaw may have also been repealed and since I am basically neutral on guns I didn't pay attention. But even then I will post any finding.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

It does give Stonewall the right because they are liable and held responsible. If people did not agree with Stonewall they did not have to be there. Stonewall did not hold a gun to gay people's heads (no pun intended) to show up.

Again PP was well withing their rights to petition and pay for their OWN event and not violate another's rights.

If Stonewall find it offensive and has made it public then PP's were there to disrupt and take advantage of Stonewall's expenses.

Analog, again I ask how would YOU react if someone had done this to you and your event? You or any one of the supporters on your side have yet to answer that.

You keep shoving PP's rights down our throat but you totally ignore Stonewall's rights. Why is that? Does Stonewall have no rights unless they conform to what YOU believe?

Do you truly believe if it had been Gays for unicyclists rights instead of PP you'd be arguing how they had the right to violate Stonewall's rights?

I seriously doubt it. But because this has to do with guns and people are fanatical on both sides, and Stonewall did not want to take focus off their cause chose to politely ask PP not to come, it has become a big 2nd Amendment issue.

When it isn't about guns it is about one group (PP) violating and taking advantage of another group (Stonewall).

To use the example that Stonewall was excluding a portion of their "constituency", while fair, it could be argued that by having PP there (which is in many in the community's eyes a "militant group") is a slap in the face to those gays who don't want to be associated with them.

Stonewall took a stance, why can you not honor that stance?

Why must it be your way?

Why must you attack Stonewall's stance when PP could have their own event?

Again the question I posed (in previous posts) goes unanswered.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Peetster

Pan, I advise you to stop your reckless behavior. Stay on topic. You are all over the page and your insulting comments will not go unwarned. Consider this free guidance. The next time you hear from me it will be via PM and contain the term [Official Warning] in the title.

cthulu23

They didn't say "fuck off"....they said "please don't bring guns." For some reason, possibly as an attention getting stunt that appears to be working, the PPs brought guns anyway.

Lebell

Point of order and an FYI,

Saying someone is "ignorant" is the same as saying they "don't know", because that's what "ignorant" means.

In otherwords, it's not the same as "stupid".

So there are many things I am "ignorant" of.

Playing the piano, for example.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cthulu23

We all take indirect swipes occasionally, and I'm sure it was all done well within the regs of the forum. My comments were simply a way of reminding a mod that his passions were inflamed

The_Dunedan

Ok.
Let's be clear here.
It was the SC contingent ( about 30-40 people ) who were being threatening. Waving a club in someones face and threatening to ( Illegally! ) confiscate their property is not exactly "Peaceful." Attempting to confiscate private property, in such a case, could be classed as Extortion or, in the case of the club-waver, Armed Robbery. Let's be clear who's simply "Insensitive" and who's a CRIMINAL.
The PPs were escorted from the rally by Columbus Police FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. That is, in order to keep from being ASSAULTED. Most of the PPs were carrying their weapons unloaded, and would have had no way to defend themselves from this crowd of bigots.
Additionally, according to two seperate lawyers retained by Pink Pisols and the Citizens Committee, not to mention the Columbus Police, the PPs were within their rights. SC WAS NOT. It was a public even, on public land.

__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

bodymassage3

I may be misreading, but what I've gathered is Stonewall didn't want the PP to bring guns to the event. As the "creator" of said event, he has the right to either approve or deny guns being brought to it. He didn't ask them not to come, he asked them not to bring guns. You could argue that the PP just attending without guns could draw attention from the intended cause, but I'm not seeing where they were denied attendance. "Don't bring guns to this event." Seems like a reasonable request to me.

Businesses on private property have the right to deny guns on the premises. This event didn't happen on private property, per-se, but when Stonewall was the overseer of the event, organized it, payed for it, planned it - he was granted certain privelages, one of those being the right to have or not have guns permitted at the event. He chose to *not* have guns allowed. If one or two random people had firearms, alright...no big deal. Tell them they can't bring guns into it. Tell them to come back after they've put the guns away. But when an organization who advocates firearms shows up, ESPECIALLY when *they* were asked not to bring guns(surely Stonewall knew it would steal thunder from the true cause of the event), thats just blatantly trying to get people riled up for THEIR cause.

cthulu23

The article that I linked to stated that the Columbus City Prosecutors Office agreed that as the event organizers, SC had the right to refuse entry to anyone with firearms and that the police asked the PPs to leave (after consulting with city hall) because of their insistence on carrying their guns. If you have some news source that disputes this sequence of events, please reference it.

Locobot

Sounds to me that the parade organizers were more concerned with the pragmatics of introducing firearms into an event that already inspires high emotion and hate than denying the 2nd amendment rights of their brethren. I assume the parade was organized with the cooperation of the city and police therefore there is no valid reason the members needed to be armed. Of course the "Pink Pistols" should be represented in the parade and they have the right to show their affiliation with firearms, but, in this situation, it's better done with a banner than a rifle.

analog

What you can do is accept my apology, refuse it, or ignore it, but what you cannot reasonably do is use it to attack me with your own "subtlety". Really though, your words are about as subtle as a slap in the face.

There are very few things that will get me "inflamed", and I assure you that the stuff in this thread is not on that very short list.

My apologies to the others on the thread for leaving in the middle of debate, but I withdraw from this discussion.

Peetster

No, we don't.

No, it's not.

Please be respectful of your fellow boarders.

Peetster

This has become a non-discussion. The alleged regs don't exist. This, at best, has become an argument over symantics. PM me if you think otherwise.