It's Your Call With Lynn Doyle Rescheduled - wed 12 NOV 9-10pm eastern time on Comcast's channel CN8

[Shorts]

imported post

Does anyone happen to have a transcript of the video?? Just curious. I may work on it if its not available. Bryan Miller used all the classic arguments, but the thing that stuck out in my mind this entire show was how the entire argument, the entire opposition is centered around this idea of what is "right and wrong". That is not where the argument needs to be. I think focusing and referring back to and using LEGALITY and statutes and penal codes is the best position. Opposition cannot argue against legality and we need to push them up against that wall. We need to put the burden on them to prove LAW wrong. While I think the 2A is word and legal enough, we need to start applying, citing, stating and combating arguments with verse, so to speak. People need to be educated and they don't really care about "the 2A" because it seems so far away. It is merely a concept to them. But what is more real are local laws. I think focusing on state's rights is the way to hit opposition closer to home and on a level that may actually impact them.

I think the judgment from Melanie's case and getting her permit says it perfectly. Now we would all certainly argue the attacks on judgement.

Am I completely off base here? Fill me in. I'm sure I'm missing some downfalls and unintended consequences of highlighting state laws.

 

[shefearsnothing]

imported post

Ok, as far as doing anything with that DVD....if there is anyone who doesn't live too far away I'd gladly take some help with that...or if someone has the patience to walk me through it via messenger or the phone or something. I have a DVD burner on my laptop but you know, I am not very "techie". :uhoh:

Shorts wrote:

Does anyone happen to have a transcript of the video?? Just curious. I may work on it if its not available. Bryan Miller used all the classic arguments, but the thing that stuck out in my mind this entire show was how the entire argument, the entire opposition is centered around this idea of what is "right and wrong". That is not where the argument needs to be. I think focusing and referring back to and using LEGALITY and statutes and penal codes is the best position. Opposition cannot argue against legality and we need to push them up against that wall. We need to put the burden on them to prove LAW wrong. While I think the 2A is word and legal enough, we need to start applying, citing, stating and combating arguments with verse, so to speak. People need to be educated and they don't really care about "the 2A" because it seems so far away. It is merely a concept to them. But what is more real are local laws. I think focusing on state's rights is the way to hit opposition closer to home and on a level that may actually impact them.

I think the judgment from Melanie's case and getting her permit says it perfectly. Now we would all certainly argue the attacks on judgement.

Am I completely off base here? Fill me in. I'm sure I'm missing some downfalls and unintended consequences of highlighting state laws.

Here is my take on your thoughts...I understand your mindset here. The way I look at it is this...we don't really NEED to argue "the law says this" too strongly because these idiots already KNOW the laws. That is exactly why people like Bryan Miller will lobby to get the laws changed and see our RIGHTS violated. Just because they don't acknowledge them does not make them ignorant to them. They have to know them so they know what they're up against when they go to legislators. Make sense?

I do agree with you as far as not making it about "right and wrong". That is what the judge focused on during his lecture at the end of my hearing and that was inappropriate to say the least. This is the way Bryan operates though. He has not got much else. The LAWS are in our favor and he KNOWS it.

What I FEEL we need to focus on and I TRIED to bring the focus back to this (but at times I just couldn't get them to STFU and hear me nor was I going to yell like the rest of them and paint myself as a lunatic)....the issue is NOT guns. It is NOT right and wrong. It is NOT laws. THE ISSUE IS CRIMINALS AND THEIR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. We need to crack down on THEM. WE NEED TO PUNISH THEM; NOT THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS THEY ARE LOOKING TO VICTIMIZE! Make sense?



ETA: Another thing about arguing the law angle too much....this is going to raise the antis awareness a LOT and send up red flags and make them want to CHANGE the laws to restrict our rights. Bryan is already at that point. We don't want to increase the population of his army. Again, hope that makes sense. These are JMO.

 

[Shorts]

imported post

Makes perfect sense



I can see how a state would start getting pushback from citizens to change some laws concerning firearms. And that could turn a state very restrictive.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Do you know how to 'rip' a dvd, or 'transcode' it? Any fashion would be good. I (well, lots of people probably can) can transcode to mpg4 or some such x264 codec for better web transportability (compressed and smaller) and then it could find it's way to youtube for more exposure. I'm willing to bet that would deserve a link/embed on the OCDO front page too.

One distinct advantage of youtube, is that you can add captions. You can make the points you didn't quite drive home in a little cartoon text bubble! You know, the "aw man, I wish I would have said _____." Or cover a point overlooked or ignored, as discussed above. The pen is mightier than the loud-mouthed idiot.

I think you can download the show from the archive at the orginal site. Well, at least most media sites let you do that; but you might have a problem You-tubing it, as it's a copyrighted program.

ETA: OK maybe it's not archived there. I didn't see it listed as of this posting.

 

[Mike]

imported post

Great work Meleanie!

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

Shorts wrote:

Does anyone happen to have a transcript of the video?? Just curious. I may work on it if its not available. Bryan Miller used all the classic arguments, but the thing that stuck out in my mind this entire show was how the entire argument, the entire opposition is centered around this idea of what is "right and wrong". That is not where the argument needs to be. I think focusing and referring back to and using LEGALITY and statutes and penal codes is the best position. Opposition cannot argue against legality and we need to push them up against that wall. We need to put the burden on them to prove LAW wrong. While I think the 2A is word and legal enough, we need to start applying, citing, stating and combating arguments with verse, so to speak. People need to be educated and they don't really care about "the 2A" because it seems so far away. It is merely a concept to them. But what is more real are local laws. I think focusing on state's rights is the way to hit opposition closer to home and on a level that may actually impact them.

I think the judgment from Melanie's case and getting her permit says it perfectly. Now we would all certainly argue the attacks on judgement.

Am I completely off base here? Fill me in. I'm sure I'm missing some downfalls and unintended consequences of highlighting state laws.

Actually, I think it is extremely important that we win the "right and wrong" argument, rather than deflect it. Like Melanie said, we don't need to focus on law, because we already won that. Focusing the debate on criminals is good, but if we can convince the fence sitters that there is nothing wrong with what we are doing, then they'll be lest apt to support those who try to stop us. However, when people see and hear a judge, a LEO, and a talk show host imply that OC legal, yet still wrong, then it puts OC in a potentially dangerous predicament. I think it would be good to come up with counter arguments to the "right v. wrong" debate (which is really nothing more than an empty emotional plea).

 

[Notso]

imported post

As far as the question:

“A tactical unit from the PD has to come. . . Who’s the bad guy?”

If I'm a parent and I'm faced with having to save my child's life,worrying about what will happen when the policeshow up is the least of my concern. If I'm accidentally shot by some untrained swat member but I've saved my child's life, well, that's just gonna suck for me. But better that than a dead child or other family member.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

I am not trying to disagree with your other points, but it seems to me that the true argument in many of these cases, whether we choose to ignore it ourselves or not isn't the fact that you had a gun at the soccer field, but that the others could see it.

I think this is the true battle we need to win. As they say "win their hearts and minds".

I agree that there are other issues at play, the true question is which ones and how do we deal with them?

So we don't make it about guns. . . We make it about criminals.

I play games on line and there are groups that help police for hackers in the game. There is a saying they use. "Clean players are ones that just haven't been caught cheating yet."

 

[ScottNH]

imported post

Notso wrote:

As far as the question:

“A tactical unit from the PD has to come. . . Who’s the bad guy?”

If I'm a parent and I'm faced with having to save my child's life,worrying about what will happen when the policeshow up is the least of my concern. If I'm accidentally shot by some untrained swat member but I've saved my child's life, well, that's just gonna suck for me. But better that than a dead child or other family member.

Yeah, I thought this was a specious argument on the part of the Police, as well. Which is it? Either soccer games are the safest places in the world, where there could never be a need for a firearm, or something bad enough to warrant a Police Tactical Unit response might happen, and you need to be fearful of the consequences of carrying. You can't have it both ways. If they're thinking about Tactical Unit response to a kids soccer game, then I'm thinking about carrying there.

 

[shefearsnothing]

imported post

ghostrider, you are correct re: right vs. wrong. We have a HUGE problem when a JUDGE is saying it's WRONG.....(I think we have a bigger problem when he's ALLOWED to do it in open court)

 

[dlofton]

imported post

Ixtow,

Although I can (in limited circumstances where I have actually seen what you are talking about) appreciate your disdain for peace officers that are not well versed in their abilities on the range, I think it is absolutely wrong to say that peace offices are not as capable with firearms are the typical citizen.

The problem with your statements is that you encompass the entire law enforcement community with what you see in your local neighborhood or area with the likes of the overweight beat cop with three ex-wives, 5 kids, two mortgages, and the inability to "hit a flying barn".

Most cops are very capable at the range. And, NO, most cops are not experts on the range, but some are. Maybe you should to go google and search "Phillip Hemphill" and see what I am talking about. I would bet that this cop would impress you on the range. I challenge you to drive to Jackson, MS and come to the yearly national police pistol shooting championships and see what I mean.

David

 

[ScottNH]

imported post

dlofton wrote:

Most cops are very capable at the range. And, NO, most cops are not experts on the range, but some are. Maybe you should to go google and search "Phillip Hemphill" and see what I am talking about. I would bet that this cop would impress you on the range. I challenge you to drive to Jackson, MS and come to the yearly national police pistol shooting championships and see what I mean.

David

I'll bet it's almost as good as the IDPA Nationals.

 

[shefearsnothing]

imported post

I should post some pictures of my husband's targets. LOL! BUT at the same time I'll tell you he has come home with some HORROR stories when having to qualify. They have had to kick guys off the range more then once for safety violations etc.

I went to S&W day with a friend at his range in Philly not too long ago and I could not believe (ok maybe I could) how many people were walking up to the table picking up guns and putting their fingers on the triggers and waving the things around like nobody's business. I nicely but firmly told one guy "please don't point that at me. I can see that it's not loaded but I was taught to always treat a gun like it's loaded and that means not to point it at someone unless you're going to shoot them." His female companion was PISSED and stormed off. I can't say that I cared....AT ALL. I don't know if I was more disappointed in the people acting like this or in the fact that I seemed to be the only one willing to say anything to anyone.... :uhoh: Of course, when I went in to try one of the guns the guy who was loading mags handed me the WRONG mag for the gun I had. I told him it wouldn't fit and he kept telling me it was the right one and even came over and tried to jam it in there himself about three times before he relented and realized it was in fact the wrong mag. :banghead:

Getting back on topic...I just keep thinking about different arguments. I know I would have NEVER been able to say all of this without getting interrupted but here are some thoughts I had while trying to block out the bickering between my 5 and 9 year old earlier this morning:

So here we have a few classes of people. We have myself, representing the law abiding citizens who own firearms and carry them to protect themselves from criminals who may try to victimize them. I am not breaking any laws and am not hurting anyone. I go about my daily life and aside from this incident at the soccer field (after having carried there NUMEROUS times unnoticed I might add) I have never been bothered about it nor have I bothered anyone else.

Next we have Mr. Police officer here....he is supposed to enforce the laws. He eludes; no comes right out and insists that LEOs are better trained and qualified to carry a firearm (while saying in the same breath that he has no problem with law abiding citizens carrying them). Now he is in the SAME class of people who accidentally shoot their own, accidentally shoot private citizens, accidentally shoot their spouses, accidentally shoot themselves, and oh yes, let's not forget the ones who leave their guns lay around in places like Chuckie Cheese...you know, where a kid can be a kid! If all of that is not bad enough...we can link this class of people to the next class of people we have which would be the criminals themselves BECAUSE police officers are sued regularly for violating the rights of private citizens. Illegal search and seizure, false imprisonment, excessive force, and false arrest come to mind to name a few. These things all come under the heading of BREAKING THE LAW. This has now put YOU officer in the same class as the rest of these criminals whereas I am still in the class of the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Are you comfortable with that? Tell you what, I'll let you think about that while I move on to our criminal here at the table....

Yes Bryan, that would be you. You are a criminal the minute you start lobbying for gun bans. You and your organization are personally responsible for the violation of the 2nd amendment right of every US citzen you affect every time you do it. It is criminal and you should be prosecuted not only for every person whose rights you're violating but also for every victim who falls prey to the criminals roaming the streets you have now made safer for those criminals. Then you have the audacity to sit here and pair up with law enforcement; the very class of people who are now having to work even harder because you've ensured those criminals that their victims will be UNARMED and they will now have NO reservations when attacking. You sir ARE a criminal. You sir ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for victims every day! I on the other hand am stepping up to the plate, am taking responsibility for my family's safety as a law abiding citizen by exercising my 2nd amendment right. I am in the class of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS and I'm VERY comfortable with that.

Officer, I'd like to file a complaint....did you take all that down or are you still working on your answers?

 

[stephpd]

imported post

I wish we could keep this on topic and stop all the cops are good, cops are bad unless we can keep it in the confines of this thread. That SFN was up against a NJ LEO who's only stand was that only SWAT teams are capable of handling a gun. Or that Bryan Miller's brother was an FBI agent that was killed while pretending that cop shops are inherently safe zones would be more appropriate.

I don't think any of us could have done better then she did given the circumstances. Being her first time debating while in front of a camera, and up against professional talking heads, I think she did very well. After reading her responses here I now know why she seemed to stumble for the first part. But she came back strong. Using logic and reason against the emotions of the anti gunners worked well. Both of the guys from Jersey seemed stunned. I think she even did better then the Ted Nugent want to be. She didn't get all emotional and she didn't back down. She kept to a simple game plan that crime happens everywhere and we need to be prepared for the worst. She didn't argue law with the foreigners because the law is on our side.

Arm chair quarterbacking is always easier then getting in the games and taking a few hits. But if more folks would get involved with the actual game we all stand to win. When people like SFN stand up to the 'pros' and make more sense they end up making the pros looking stupid, irrational and the 'weird ones'. I'm sure that if she does this type of thing again she will do even better because she will review her work and look for ways to improve. The same can't be said for the pros unless they can admit to themselves that they are wrong but are unwilling to change.

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

shefearsnothing wrote:

Steve said "there's no reason for that. it's her right" and Bryan cuts him off and starts YELLING "what right? she has no right! There is NO SUCH RIGHT!"

Dear Melanie:

A warm Hello from Chicagoland. This is my very first post ... isn't it kind of neat that you are being watched and discussed all over the country? Although you did not ask for or deservethis attention, there are many of us who are grateful that you have been willing to talk about this. This issue (carrying or bearing arms in general) needs a good spokesperson. And the fact that you are a female, and a loving, responsible mother, makes you all the more effective. Without any expectations, I hope that you will be willing to speak to this issue in the future, too.

You did a fantastic job ...you did GREAT! You know, it's pathetic (sad)that Miller had to call you "a jerk" for simply doing what is not only your right, but what you strongly believe is best for you and those around you. Demonstrably best ... your knowledge of the research/stats is impressive. But Miller simply showed his hand. The more I read his blog, well, he just comes across as a human beingwith really undesireable personal qualities. He's mean, and he's arrogant, a horrible combination. Also, you know that you have history, law, and the constitution on your side. Bryan can onlyretreat to arrogance, bigotry, and condescention. I wasactually offended when he pronounced that one female caller a liar. But ... you handled it well, and you didn't "fall into" his bigotry trap. Good job.

If there was one thing that amazedme, it wasthat this question kept surfacing: "Does Melanie Hain have the right to carry a firearm?" She either does or doesn't. The soccer game issue is simply a distraction. Clearly, you have that right, and any person honest with themselves knows that. Not only do you have the right to bear arms, but that right shall not be infringed. That means the right is undebatable ... even if whether carrying at a soccer game is a good idea or not. Regarding that, I trust you and your judgement. There is no reason that I should not. None.

Back up to Bryan's quote above. Even though he is seasoned, and sly, and even though this might have been your first "debate" of this kind, Bryan Miller is playing from a tripledisadvantage. First, he is flatly wrong to state that you have no right. Second,he isflatly wrong to state thatyour right "may be infringed." Finally, he is disadvantaged because he lies to himself. He knows what the 2A means, but he just wants it to mean something different. All he can do is to trick people into thinking the 2A is something that it clearly is not. But Brian is emboldened because in so many places in this nation (like Chicago), he and others like him have gotten away from denying us ourrights ... and have done so for years. Enough, I say. Enough. His reading of the Heller decision is flatly misleading, too. Here is arguably the most straightforward line from the whole decision ... and one for you to memorize:

From page 19 ("textual elements" meaning "the words in the second amendment"):
[font=CenturySchoolbook,Bold][font=CenturySchoolbook,Bold]
[/font][/font]"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation."
Brian won't mention that. Most people are on board with the "keep" part of our important guarantee. Now ... let's get them on board with the "bear" part of our guarantee! There is no question ... to bear arms means to carry them, just as you do.

Melanie, you have quickly become a strong and important voice for a serious civil liberty of national concern. And we need a voice like yours now, more than ever before. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. I hope you will continue to provide that steady, mature voice of reason to this issue. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your willingness to speak about this.

 

[shefearsnothing]

imported post

Thank you Carl. I appreciate all of the encouragement and kind words. I have to say...it is kind of...well flattering to have read some of the nicer things being said about me and to have had people reaching out to me in support from all over the country. I know I do not stand alone...with my guns. :celebrate



As far as future speaking/debates...I would take up offers...but I have not had any invites so....we'll see what happens. I don't know how much attention/exposure this show had so I guess we'll wait and see. I believe I would only get better and better though....

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

shefearsnothing wrote:

Thank you Carl. I appreciate all of the encouragement and kind words. I have to say...it is kind of...well flattering to have read some of the nicer things being said about me and to have had people reaching out to me in support from all over the country. I know I do not stand alone...with my guns. :celebrate

As far as future speaking/debates...I would take up offers...but I have not had any invites so....we'll see what happens. I don't know how much attention/exposure this show had so I guess we'll wait and see. I believe I would only get better and better though....

Well Melanie, the words are as sincere as the sentiments. I read in your posts above that you felt nervous before the show. That is natural and totally OK. And yes, you would get less nervous next time, and have an evenmore commandingpresence. Let me tell you something. I am a research scientist with three degrees (the terminal one is a PhD). That doesn't matter. But what does matter is that I have spoken in public many times, and seen others do so many times. We all get nervous ... get the "butterflies." That is because ofheightened self-awareness. But in a way that is a good thing, and it is not unlikethe hightened awareness that we achieve when we carry a defensive firearm in public (I carry where I can on two different state permits). I do so not only because it is my right, but because I am safer, my wife is safer,our girls are safer, and the people around us are safer. I do it also to make potential criminals around us LESS safe. The riskier crime is, the less of it there will be, and that in part is the wisdom of an armed populace. These aren't new ideas! Risk-aversion is a clear and fundamental principle of animal behavior ... including the human animal.

I am happy to know that you would be willing to be interviewed again, if the opportunity arises. Perhaps it will. You probably recognize that many "mainstream" media outlets will be hesitant to provide a platform fordebate of this issue. That is too bad. But I have a feeling that open carry will get more and more attention. Why? Because the 2A guarantees not only that we are able to keep firearms for any and all lawful purposes, but to bear them. At any rate,sometimes the media does run these truthful stories. Check this out ...

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=d26c29ff-f134-4202-bc40-947534a6de3c

 

[GarandFan]

imported post

Looks like that Cincinnati ABC station pulled the vid related to that story I posted above. Here is a link to download the 13 some odd MB file.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/1/3/1677365/When%20Seconds%20Count%20%20Stopping%20Active%20Killers%20-%20KYPost.com.WMV

 

[shefearsnothing]

imported post

Thanks. This is powerful stuff. I mean, I knew these things (ie gun free=easy target) but hearing it right from the mouths of LEOs and having their NAMES...now THAT is stuff I will be taking down....THANK YOU!