Local (Broken Arrow) 2A activist who arrested.

[jfssms]

Truth is we the US will let anyone in that with pick our food and clean your motel room. we want cheap. It's very simple. The I9 was supposed fix.

 

[Ethan N]

Some people are too stupid to understand the age-old idea that rights necessarily entail responsibilities. You have the right to free speech. It is also your responsibility not to abuse that right by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is in fact no fire. You have the right to keep and bear arms. It is also your responsibility not to abuse that right by parading around in public with your little AR-15 pistol for all your admiring fans on You Tube to see, all the while scaring mothers and little children in a park where they thought they might find fun and joy. Instead, they found an attention-loving idiot with a juvenile and misguided agenda doing his best to "educate" the general public and "audit" the police response, whatever that idiotic term is supposed to mean.

In our post-modern world, the "rights" of the people are trumpeted daily, including several rights not originally included in the U.S. Constitution. What has gotten lost in the modern debate over "rights" is the idea that rights necessarily entail responsibilities. The two must go hand-in-hand in a civil society.

I enthusiastically embrace the idea that rights entail responsibilities. But it is not a given that carrying an AR in a park is abusing the right to carry. You invoked Holmes’ example of falsely shouting “fire” in a theater, but do you know why that is not protected speech? If you did, you would realize that it does not parallel with carrying an AR platform weapon in public. Carrying an AR in public neither creates a clear and present danger of harm nor incites or produces any imminent lawless action.

And since many people here seem to have a problem understanding nuanced viewpoints, I’d like to reiterate something I’ve said in previous posts: I don’t condone carrying long guns in everyday situations, and I wouldn’t do it. But I unreservedly support their right to do it.

 

[Tanis143]

I enthusiastically embrace the idea that rights entail responsibilities. But it is not a given that carrying an AR in a park is abusing the right to carry. You invoked Holmes’ example of falsely shouting “fire” in a theater, but do you know why that is not protected speech? If you did, you would realize that it does not parallel with carrying an AR platform weapon in public. Carrying an AR in public neither creates a clear and present danger of harm nor incites or produces any imminent lawless action.

And since many people here seem to have a problem understanding nuanced viewpoints, I’d like to reiterate something I’ve said in previous posts: I don’t condone carrying long guns in everyday situations, and I wouldn’t do it. But I unreservedly support their right to do it.

You keep missing the damn point. Yelling "fire" in a crowded space is done for one thing, to cause panic. That is EXACTLY what this guy did. He knew that carrying that AR pistol would cause fear and panic and prompt people to call the cops. As I, and several others, have pointed out this is not just someone carrying a firearm and going about their day. This is someone who purposefully did something to cause a panic and police intervention. That is what we are against! Again, as I said earlier, if he had setup a table with a sign saying he is doing this to advocate the 2A and is willing to talk to people about the misconceptions around the AR, that would be different. But the method this idiot and the guy in OKC chose is not only counter productive its idiotic. That kind of behavior, purposefully installing fear, does not belong in society and should NOT be considered protective actions. Same thing with those Westboro Baptist wahoos. They should have had their rear ends beat to pulp for pulling what they did.

Anyone who hides behind a right to cause fear, panic, and anguish should be removed from society for they are nothing but domestic terrorists. People who fight for rights do not follow this behavior. That is the point we are trying to get across but several people here are just "NO! They are rights! They need to do this!". No, simply put.

 

[badrinker]

Pretty soon we will be arrested for using the 1st amendment.
But that’s ok, what was said scared a snowflake so it’s ok to arrest when your feelings are hurt or you are scared.
Next we will pull over and harass black people because it scares someone. They already do this in BA.

So the lady that lied and said he pointed the gun at her will be charged for lying to LE?

If anything will be lied about and covered up it will be BROKEN ARROW PD.
They’ve been doing it for 25 years. Goot keep that top 30 city status!

Did he break the law?
If not, BAPD is in the wrong.

I interact with the BAPD very frequently, and have to say my opinion differs sharply from yours. In fact, I would far rather deal with BAPD officers than any other department in the metropolitan area. I've met dozens of them over the years, captains, detectives and patrolmen, and while I'm sure there is at least 1 A-hole on the force, I've yet to meet him.

 

[bigchuck83]

I would like to see video of this incident. If the guy was being a d bag and trying to cause problems then it sucks to be him. Want to open carry an Ar15 in public go ahead. Just don’t be surprised when someone calls the cops, if you are polite and comply with the officers you may just be allowed to go on about your day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael Armstrong]

White guys Ar’s and school aged children are never a good mix

 

[Glock 40]

White guys Ar’s and school aged children are never a good mix

Why cause they make more white guys with ARs?

 

[Ethan N]

You keep missing the damn point. Yelling "fire" in a crowded space is done for one thing, to cause panic.

I’m not missing the point. I understand your position very well. However, causing panic is not why falsely yelling “fire” in a theater wouldn’t be protected speech. Go learn about the history of restrictions on 1A before trying to use it as an analogy. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find out, if you take the time to thoroughly understand what you read. The Supreme Court has not only supported the right of people to cause fear and panic with their speech, but even the right to advocate for breaking the law.

That is EXACTLY what this guy did. He knew that carrying that AR pistol would cause fear and panic and prompt people to call the cops.

I agree he knew what he did would cause fear. I don’t agree he could have known it would cause panic. It certainly didn’t cause panic when he did the same thing at other times in other places, so it’s reasonable to think his goal was not to cause panic, but, as he stated, to cause a police response.

Same thing with those Westboro Baptist wahoos. They should have had their rear ends beat to pulp for pulling what they did.

Anyone who hides behind a right to cause fear, panic, and anguish should be removed from society for they are nothing but domestic terrorists. People who fight for rights do not follow this behavior. That is the point we are trying to get across but several people here are just "NO! They are rights! They need to do this!". No, simply put.

I think the main thing you fail to consider is that rights have costs. One of those costs is that people will exercise their rights in ways that are wrong. The things that Westboro Baptist “Church” says are repugnant, disgusting, and indefensible. Every time I see their demonstrations I wish I could go stop them. But I wouldn’t even if I could. I support their right to say what they say, despite the fact that thinking about their views at this moment makes me feel like I need to throw up. Why do I support it? Because I understand rights. I understand the dangers inherent to restricting the exercise of a right because you disagree with how someone exercises that right. Your comments have demonstrated a profound ignorance of this area of political philosophy and of the judicial history of the Bill of Rights. I encourage you to learn more about this. You may just find that your views on this change somewhat.

 

[Tanis143]

I’m not missing the point. I understand your position very well. However, causing panic is not why falsely yelling “fire” in a theater wouldn’t be protected speech. Go learn about the history of restrictions on 1A before trying to use it as an analogy. I think you’ll be surprised by what you find out, if you take the time to thoroughly understand what you read. The Supreme Court has not only supported the right of people to cause fear and panic with their speech, but even the right to advocate for breaking the law.

And the SCOTUS has never gotten anything wrong right? How many rulings have they allowed to stand that trample on our 2A? If you use speech to incite fear, panic or to knowingly cause emotional distress, that is a terroristic behavior and SHOULD be illegal. And more to the point that type of behavior does not belong in society. The founders put the 1A to protect citizens free speech against a tyrannical government. Had they known how it would be interrupted later on I'm pretty sure they would have reworded it. It goes back to the saying "The freedom of me to swing my fist ends right before it hits your nose". In other words our rights exist until they are used to cause harm to another.

I agree he knew what he did would cause fear. I don’t agree he could have known it would cause panic. It certainly didn’t cause panic when he did the same thing at other times in other places, so it’s reasonable to think his goal was not to cause panic, but, as he stated, to cause a police response.

So you are ok with people prank calling 911, or swatting other people? This useless bundle of flesh took it upon himself to cause the police to come out with the simple goal of causing a scene. Why? To advocate the 2A? No. He did it for attention, pure and simple. Those that are advocates for the 2A do so in a manner that is constructive and does NOT induce fear into the public. The AR already has enough people against it, do you think causing people to see it and fear it is a good way to win over those who haven't formed an opinion yet?

I will say my comparing them to WBC was a stretch, I wasn't fully awake when I typed that. However, to draw this to a close, these people (and I use the term loosely) are nothing but attention seekers. They don't care about the 2A. To them its just a way to get the attention they think they deserve. If they were serious about getting the public used to seeing these AR pistols they would do so in a way that doesn't cause fear. Right now the 2A is in a PR battle. The left are telling the populace that these guns are scary and violent. Most of us are trying to fight that PR with facts but yahoos like this go out and provide the fodder for more lefties to push for bans. The SCOTUS has already ruled several times that certain restrictions on the 2A are allowed even with the constitution plainly states "shall not be infringed". They even allowed the first AW ban to go through. These yahoos are paving the road to another ban, they are even using top grade asphalt to make sure the road is nice and smooth.

 

[Glock 40]

Was searching for any updates on this. Found this video its over a week old not sure how I missed it.
https://okcfox.com/news/local/man-a...roken-arrow-park-shares-his-side-of-the-story