St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[lrahm]

Finity, you can site all of the statistics you want but:

1. You don't walk into a NICU with an exposed weapon and not expect to have the police called on you.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

The cop was there to investigate "a man with a gun". He has the right to ask for an ID. Any court in the states would say that's enough probable cause. To stand there and not answer or refuse to produce a license and/or ID is enough to detain until such information is obtained. He was not on a "fishing trip".

LONNIE! Well how the hell have you been? I read your name as Ira, not L. Rahm, as in the Sgt who I had the Wonderful encounter with a couple weeks ago. Man, Mabrey was right. I think you guys should make HIM a detective, I never dreamed you guys would track me down to harass me on an internet forum...

So, what do you think about what all these people have said? Does it now sound more likely that in that very instant I was more correct than you? Oh and tell me, is Willy really the older guard? That would be a riot, a veritable St Marys reunion.

 

[LPMan59]

 

[Bill of Rights]

...BINGO!!! Thank you for saying that! You hit the nail on the head, and highlighted the thing I have problem with.

The problem here is you don't care about American rights as you claim. You care about about YOUR rights. It's fine if your rights violates other people rights. Thats just their tough luck. But God forbid someone elses rights violate yours. If you truly respect the Bill of Rights as you and your username suggest, you would respect everyones rights equally, not just your own.

You are free to live your life how you see fit, and have any option you want. But don't expect me to let the thuggish hypocrisy of the value system you have just admitted to not be called out.

Nice job quoting only the part of my post you thought proved your point. What I said was, "I respect their rights. I respect my own more, and as is so often stated, their rights to "swing their fist" ends at the tip of my nose. My gun on my hip does not infringe on their property rights. Their choice to disarm me if I'm there to see my newborn DOES infringe on my safety. I'll leave if I'm asked to, but I will certainly voice my opposition to their policy, because that also is MY right."

To reiterate, my gun on my hip does not infringe anyone's rights. A tin star security geek with more arrogance than intelligence demanding my gun because he thinks he has authority to do so is going to be disappointed because he IS infringing on rights.

You're not going to convince me of the correctness of your opinion by insulting either my morals, my ethics, my patriotism, or my choice of username. I've already said I respect their rights: To continue to do so, I have to consider myself first. Rights are an individual, not a collective thing. If I am asked to leave, simple matter, I'll leave. That's not infringing on anyone's rights. For a guy who's never carried other than when he was ordered or given permission from someone he called a "superior" to do so, you have no business "calling out" anyone and you certainly have no right to start calling thug and hypocrite. My values are in correct priority. I take care of myself and my family first. Kinda like when you're on a plane and they tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first before anyone else's... because you can't help them if you're already unconscious or dead.

I suppose if I did what they instructed, that would make me selfish, self-centered, hypocritical or deserving of some other insult from you.

I find your attitude contemptible.

Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Finity, you can site all of the statistics you want but:

1. You don't walk into a NICU with an exposed weapon and not expect to have the police called on you.

Unless, of course, you have a badge on. If you aren't wearing a piece of metal on your shirt, you can never be trusted, but if you are, you can? Is that your point?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Unless, of course, you have a badge on. If you aren't wearing a piece of metal on your shirt, you can never be trusted, but if you are, you can? Is that your point?

Bill, is this an INGO first? Ladies and gentlemen, we now how confirmed that both sides of the story are on the same thread inloving a LEO dispute.

 

[lrahm]

Not meaning to harass you, no intent. I havent commented on your posts. I was making reference to finiti's statement after reading bumpshadow's post.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, harass was a little strong, I would like your official side of the story though. I think we can have a civil discussion about this after the fact. Now the odds may not be stacked in your favor this time (3 on 1) but I think we should all use this as a learning experience to help improve public relations regarding guns, carrying, private property, rights, etc. etc.

 

[Benny]

LONNIE! Well how the hell have you been? I read your name as Ira, not L. Rahm, as in the Sgt who I had the Wonderful encounter with a couple weeks ago. Man, Mabrey was right. I think you guys should make HIM a detective, I never dreamed you guys would track me down to harass me on an internet forum...

So, what do you think about what all these people have said? Does it now sound more likely that in that very instant I was more correct than you? Oh and tell me, is Willy really the older guard? That would be a riot, a veritable St Marys reunion.

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any better.

Unless, of course, you have a badge on. If you aren't wearing a piece of metal on your shirt, you can never be trusted, but if you are, you can? Is that your point?

Ding ding ding!

Dangit Bill, if I didn't always have to spread the rep wealth around before hitting you again, you'd probably be full.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Dangit Bill, if I didn't always have to spread the rep wealth around before hitting you again, you'd probably be full.

Amen to that. +1,000,000 to Bill for the time he puts in here.

 

[Archbishop]

BumpShadow, you seem to be mixing up legal rights with your own personal feelings and value system.

If you wish to abide by requests which are in no way legally enforceable, go right ahead. But those who ignore such requests are not violating anyone's legal rights.

You beat me to it. This was my thought exactly. I've had people try to argue that my OC is violation of their right to not be offended. To which I replied, "Your hurt feelings or worries about my right carry in what ever manner I choose has nothing to do with "your rights" on Guns and gun ownership.

 

[Roadie]

..and then some:

 

[ATM]

OK, I think we have enough popcorn...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill, is this an INGO first? Ladies and gentlemen, we now how confirmed that both sides of the story are on the same thread inloving a LEO dispute.

Not the first, but it hasn't been confirmed to happen too often. The most recent I'm aware of was a case where an INGO member had to discharge his firearm in his own defense, into the ground, and the attorney who prosecuted him joined up after the case was done.

Of note, though, I think both sides of that comported themselves with good manners and dignity in discussions and the prosecutor, no longer doing that job, has been very helpful in many threads. I think we benefit by having representatives of different groups here for the different points of view they hold.

Thanks to all who've repped me, it is much appreciated!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Not the first, but it hasn't been confirmed to happen too often. The most recent I'm aware of was a case where an INGO member had to discharge his firearm in his own defense, into the ground, and the attorney who prosecuted him joined up after the case was done.

I did read some of that thread, but I missed that part of it, I will have to check that one out again.

Of note, though, I think both sides of that comported themselves with good manners and dignity in discussions and the prosecutor, no longer doing that job, has been very helpful in many threads. I think we benefit by having representatives of different groups here for the different points of view they hold.

Agreed, I would like for that to be the case here. I believe it would be very valuable to our community to here both sides and learn from my experience to help others as I have learned from their's.

 

[finity]

It's their right to cite it.

It's also my Right to "cite" that the sky is green, Sarah Brady is a staunch pro-gun supporter & that I'm a hard-line conservative.

But just because I say it doesn't make it so, no matter how many times I say it.

Bill is.

Where?

I must have missed that. Please quote where he said that it is not the hospital's Right to ban guns from their property.

Do you always make personal attacks when some one doesn't sing the same song as you?

What the heck is up with this new trend in saying that debating a topic is somehow a "personal attack"?

I didn't attack you. I simply used your words & logic to point out the flaws in your stated position.

Just having a gun doesn't mean anything if you don't know how to use it.

Agreed, but that's a far cry from the idea that "many would have been no better off, and might have made the situation worse, if they did have one. Since useing a gun requires a level of skill and bravery that many do not have."

That is an anti-gun elitist "only one" attitude that is not borne out by the facts.

The vast majority of gun-owners throughout history have had no formal training to attain that supposedly illusive "skill & bravery" but nonetheless have been successful in defending themselves with those guns.

Whats the very next thing EVERYONE here says after telling someone to get a gun? Train with it. Develop the "skill". While it may seem like a no-brainer to you and me, that doesn't mean its that way for everyone.

While it obviously is better to practice & even get formal training I won't go so far to say that without that formal training that they would "make the situation worse" for themselves.

Talking about gun accident rates in an irrelavant manner doesn't make them irrelavant. An idiot with a gun is just as dangerous to himself and others as a violent criminal.

Since you seem to think that lack of training is the leading cause of gun accidents then could you please direct me to a major study (not put out by a group with an overtly anti-gun agenda) that supports your contention that most accidents occur in the "untrained" group?

As far as I know there has been no study that points to the fact that people without "training" are more dangerous to others than those WITH "training".

Cops are trained but yet they kill & injure more innocent people every year than non-LEO's.

Indiana doesn't require any training to get a LTCH but there is nothing that shows we are more at risk from gun accidents than states that DO require training & in some instances we are SAFER than in training required states.

Accidents don't TYPICALLY occur because of lack of training. They occur because of stupid unthinking decisions. Those can be made by trained individuals just as easily as those with no training at all. Sometimes those people with training are the WORST offenders because they think that "I'm the only one in this room qualified to handle this weapon" BANG!!!...Ow... They get complacent.

I don't carry, yet. I have been the military as a weapons tech and have been trained with them.

Then before you do carry I would insist that you please report to the nearest "skill & bravery" assessment center so that someone other than YOU can decide whether you meet the required standards to be able to defend yourself or your family.

You see, that seems to be a problem. Those who demand others get training before being "allowed" to carry a gun for their defense are those who have decided that "everyone else is dangerous with a gun but I'm not".

Well...who say's? You? If you can't take my word that I'm not dangerous don't expect me to take your word that you aren't either.

Then that brings us to our next dilemma...

Who gets to decide what those standards of "skill & bravery" are? You may think that those "standards" are a "no-brainer to you and me" but I'll guarantee you that if someone like Sarah Brady was put in charge of setting those "standards" that NO ONE (well, except her & Josh Sugarman ) would be allowed to own, much less carry, a gun for self-defense.

But I'm not a thug about it either.

Neither was the OP.

I've only reacted to the thuggish idea of "Always carry, even if it violates someone elses rights". It's hypocritical and wrong.

Don't get me wrong here...

I have stated a similar thing in another thread about BWW's.

In a perfect world I would agree that to carry onto someone else's "PUBLIC" (i.e. not strictly private, i.e. open to the public for business) property knowing that they don't want you to is not in keeping with the strict letter of "shall not be infringed".

The problem is we don't live in a perfect world.

Does the company have the right to inspect my undergarments before they allow me onto their property?

Do they have the right to demand me disclose my bank account or SS information before they allow me onto their property?

In a perfect world, probably, but not in the real world.

I don't know of any reasonable person who would think that a company can violate your privacy as a condition of allowing you the benefit of buying a loaf of bread or even getting medical care. Why should they also be able to deny you the Right of self-defense as a condition of entry, either?

On the other hand, there is a limit though.

If your actions are a disruption to the smooth operation of the business then they can ask you to stop or make you leave. Just like in the BWW's thread.

Carrying concealed against the owners wishes is not a disruption. Neither is carrying a banana when there is a "no bananas" sign. Once the banana or gun is revealed it can be, though. At that point you have no recourse to complain about the actions by the owner in making you leave. You knew you were taking a chance & you lost. Just leave.

OTOOH, if the owner doesn't tell you or make it known in some way what the "rules" are then getting crappy with YOU is not "right" either. It goes both ways.

The problem here is you don't care about American rights as you claim. You care about about YOUR rights. It's fine if your rights violates other people rights. Thats just their tough luck. But God forbid someone elses rights violate yours. If you truly respect the Bill of Rights as you and your username suggest, you would respect everyones rights equally, not just your own.

Now we're back to the real world.

The property owner has the Right to control his property. Bill has the Right to self-defense & carry the tool that he feels is the most effective means toward that end.

Rights aren't absolute.

When two Rights conflict you have to compromise & balance those two conflicting Rights.

Carrying a concealed gun into a "no guns" business is a reasonable compromise, IMHO. Bill still gets to effectively defend himself if necessary & the business is not disrupted. To me, that's a win-win.

 

[finity]

Finity, you can site all of the statistics you want but:

1. You don't walk into a NICU with an exposed weapon and not expect to have the police called on you.

Not that I'm trying to be dense but I don't get where #1 above has anything to do with my post.

Or that I "sited" (sic) any statistcs at all.

LONNIE! Well how the hell have you been? I read your name as Ira, not L. Rahm, as in the Sgt who I had the Wonderful encounter with a couple weeks ago. Man, Mabrey was right. I think you guys should make HIM a detective, I never dreamed you guys would track me down to harass me on an internet forum...

So, what do you think about what all these people have said? Does it now sound more likely that in that very instant I was more correct than you? Oh and tell me, is Willy really the older guard? That would be a riot, a veritable St Marys reunion.

OMG, that's awesome!

I'm still chuckling over this strange turn of events...


So Sgt. Rahm,

What was the view from your side of the encounter?

 

[lrahm]

It's interesting. I own several weapons, my favorite is my M-1. Even if I have different opinions don't be a hater. I've had too many close encounters of the bad kind. I've been shot at several times and have shot once. I respect your ideas and maybe have different opinions. Harassing here, I am not.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Its sad that when you aren't controlling the situation you have nothing to say. We WANT to hear your opinions in a civil mannor.

 

[Rookie]

I have a few questions for lrahm

1. Was the OP doing something illegal or against policy?
2. Did you have the right to ask for his DL?
3. Was any part of the OP story exaggerated or untrue?