# Banned from Anthrocon for being an open carrier



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 13, 2010)

MY LIVEJOURNAL ENTRY WITH THIS CONTENT:*http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/50595.html

This has to do with my  actions outside of the con in normal life. Essentially I'm being  banned by the thought police. I've never carried a firearm in the  convention center, thus not broken the rules of Anthrocon.*


*Let me be VERY clear,*
*I WAS BANNED BECAUSE I'M AN OPEN CARRIER.  Kage even mentions the fact in his email stating it's not I chose to  arm myself, but because the way I carry.*

*
I WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANTHROCON RULES*

         Those pesky civil rights, everyone enjoys and loves them. Free speech  to unreasonable search and seizure, rights given to us by our  forefathers which many of us use daily. Sometimes people must defend  those rights when they are infringed upon by individuals or a government  entity.


        Many people know I open carry my pistol in a  secure holster where I may travel. However to some, who take fear in  weapons for what ever reason, feel like action must be taken against  those individuals who defend those rights in court. Those protected  rights, which others have fought and died, have great meaning in the  keystone state. Pennsylvania has a proud long standing history in which  the motto is, â€œVirtue, Liberty, and Independence.â€ The state holds a  record for the most NRA members compared to any other state and an  extremely high ratio of permit holders to residents.


        I had  two negative encounters in the past with law enforcement where I was in  the right to open carry my firearm. I defended myself each time where  one event I was detained while the following event I was charged. On  July 4th of 2008, I was harassed by an officer of the  Pittsburgh police department for merely walking around open carrying my  firearm while waiting for the fireworks to start. I contacted the City  of Pittsburgh's Office of Municipal Investigations after the encounter,  which as a result the Pittsburgh police departments had quite a  conversation about the legalities of open carry. Since then, I've not  had a negative encounter with any officer in the Pittsburgh police  department, they are good people with great officers. The following year  however was not uneventful, the Allegheny police department harassed,  violated my civil rights, and charged me with a summary offense for  carrying a firearm in the unrestricted zone on airport property. I  appealed to the courts and the district attorney, who said to â€œcharge  himâ€, conceded after reading my lawyer's brief. All charges were  dismissed in the case, I successfully appealed.


    In January  of 2010, I received a disturbing letter from Dr. Samuel â€œKageâ€ Conway,  the CEO of Athrocon, stating I my membership to Anthrocon has been  revoked. At first I was confused, I emailed him asking for the reasoning  behind the revocation of my membership. His email not only outlined an  obtuse view about the residents of Pennsylvania, but stated I wouldn't  be able to attend Anthrocon since I took a stand for civil rights. The  email contained doublespeak, containing his own beliefs against  firearms. Clearly he is using the position for his own political views.  Dr. Conway does not like firearms, to many who may have noticed. He is  using the position of CEO to further his political agenda against one of  the most basic civil rights, the carry of a firearm, outside of the  convention.


        Pennsylvania is a state where open carry, even  in an urban area, is acceptable where passersby don't concern  themselves. Humans are curious fantastic beings, Some will come up and  ask what type of firearm I carry out of pure fascination.  Some wonder  about the laws of the state and ask what type of gun they should buy.  Some may even ask to use my cellphone or ask for help, as I've noticed a  increase in requests when I carry. I love talking with people and don't  mind others coming up asking me questions or asking for help, I  encourage it.


*How you can help*
  - Send an email to ceo@anthrocon.org  asking to reinstate my membership.
- Comment by replying to this topic
I should note Kage mentions I tell  people Pittsburgh is not a safe city, it's not. Crime happens anywhere,  there is no such thing as Pleasantville. If anyone has found  Pleasantville in a large city, please let me know. I do travel outside  the city of Pittsburgh, so if you'd like to see the statistics for  outside of the Pittsburgh city limits, click on the PSP link. I'm  attaching links to crime reports below.

Spotcrime:http://spotcrime.com/pa/pittsburgh
Pennsylvania  State Police crime reports: http://ucr.psp.state.pa.us/ibi_apps/WFServlet?IBIF_ex=RUREP01&MAPAREA=02


Statistics  for 2009
See my livejournal for stats, http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/50595.html

*Letter received by certified   mail stating I can't attend Anthrocon
*




*Email  exchange asking reasoning behind the revocation. I replied with protest  against statements which were untrue. Kage's email is full of  doubletalk, commonly used by politicians who justify an action based on  their convictions.*


Anthrocon cannot afford to be associated with an individual who is
increasingly being perceived as a concern by the local police with
whom we are trying to maintain a friendly relationship.  While we
appreciate your dedication to the Constitution, you have shown a
pattern in the past of creating extreme and undue panic among
passersby.  We have tried to impress upon you that Pittsburgh has a
very different culture than the one to which you are accustomed, yet
you still do not seem to understand the level of distress that you
cause when you display a firearm in a downtown business district or in
a metropolitan airport.  The fact that the police were summoned on at
least two occasions to what was perceived as an imminent public danger
should be a clear signal to you that in exercising your rights, you
are at the same time disturbing the peace, causing significant trauma
to members of the public, and placing an unnecessary burden on law
enforcement.

It is clear to us from your internet postings that you disagree with
this and feel that because you have been given the right to carry a
firearm, any anxiety that you foster in doing so is somehow "their
problem" and that "they" should find a way to deal with it.  We have
every reason to believe that if you continue to attend Anthrocon there
will be further such incidents, and it is our concern that  one of
these incidents may eventually escalate to a level that none of us
would like to see.

We therefore have chosen not to honor your membership, which is our
right as a private organization which receives no Federal funding, and
must ask you not to attend the convention, nor to attempt to trespass
on any property under contract to Anthrocon, Inc.

Please let me stress that we have undertaken this action not because
you have exercised your right to bear arms, but rather because you
have done so in such a fashion as to create a significant amount of
distress to the public at large and to disrupt the goodwill of the
city of Pittsbugh toward Anthrocon and its attendees.

Samuel Conway, Ph.D.
Chairman & CEO
Anthrocon, Inc.

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Insane Kangaroo
<insane [dot] kangaroo [at] furryzone [dot] com> wrote:> Dear Dr. Conway,
>
> Would you please care to explain the circumstances surrounding my revocation
> of membership for Anthrocon 2010?
>
> I'm a bit confused since I only carry my firearm outside of the westin and
> convention center. If this is surrounding a rumor me carrying a firearm in
> fursuit, I can assure you it's a mere rumor.
>
> I've other business in Pittsburgh besides Anthrocon, as I did last year. I
> never stated the area where the convention center is a hot zone(criminal
> zone maps from the PGH PD Intel Dept), nor have I ever. While I've told a
> story of Roj getting mugged outside of the center, I've not used it as a
> main basis for when and where I carry my firearm.
>
> Sincerely,
> --
> Insane Kangaroo
> Phone# (412) I B FURRY
>
>​


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Feb 13, 2010)

At least you got a refund. Take that money and spend it on something actually worth going to.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 13, 2010)

Nobody is really getting the entire story here, despite the Tl;Dr.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke, Kage believes there is no reason to open carry nor carry a gun in any place. He claims Pittsburgh is a "safe" city.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 14, 2010)

It does sound like that even if you are right, or somehow win, then he has every right to permanently ban you from attending anyways. Gun, or not. License, or not. Constitution, or not. I'm not sure how much help anyone might be.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

I'm with Zeke here. Look, for all we know you could be really the one in the wrong here. The police and like could have been very nasty, and told Kage a bunch off fibs leading him to believe that it is necessary to ban you from the convention.

Or, you could be telling half-truths and a pack of fibs. You could have been snarky and aggressive when asked for proof of permit for the gun. You could have acted in a way that really concerned the police?

How do we know either way? We don't. So...that's just my two cents here. I'm not taking sides here. I will say at the end of the day in the con rule book, there is a line in there for those who read, where Uncle Kage has the right to kick anyone out for what ever reason. So...even if something is not explicitly stated in the rule-book, it can still get you kicked from the con.

Some people baww about "Well that's why I don't want to go to Kage con" but...I know that that he has protect the interests of the convention, and it's members, and that sometimes means coming down with a hard hammer.

If you were truly wrong here you should be looking into what was said to Kage by peeps to get him to think the action was necessary.



insane_kangaroo said:


> Zeke, Kage believes there is no reason to open carry nor carry a gun in any place. He claims Pittsburgh is a "safe" city.



He does? Where did he say that? I'm pretty certain at one time or another I've personally heard him say to exercise caution when you are out and about especially at night. I've never heard him say it was a safe city as you said.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

haha you fucking deserve it


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

well, this is reason enough for me to never go to this con.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Well, considering it's a bit late for advice, not to mention I'd be hard pressed to offer any that is of any use since I'm not a resident of PA, and am unfamiliar with state law, I'm just gonna go ahead and say that open carry is foolish nowadays (though obviously within your right) which is why I opted for concealed carry, in the sense that if no one knows you're packing, they have no reason to bitch.

Sorry you got banned man, but it seems this could have all been avoided.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Zeke, Kage believes there is no reason to open carry nor carry a gun in any place. He claims Pittsburgh is a "safe" city.



Where did he say that?
I remember telling people to be aware of your surroundings and be cautious during the night time hours. 

Everyone knows that no city is safe. I'd personally feel safe carrying a tazer or mace. I see no reason to flaunt around a gun. It attracts more trouble, and if you use it and seriously injure or kill an assailant, then you would get charged with "Use of excessive force", Manslaughter, or the possibility of a lawsuit.

Mind you, I live in an "open carry" state. I don't see too many people carrying around a gun that was possessed by a police officer, Military, or contract security. Most carry Tazers, legal knives, and Mace.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

You don't need to carry a gun in Pittsburgh.


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Where did he say that?
> ...
> 
> Everyone knows that no city is safe. I'd personally feel safe carrying a tazer or mace. I see no reason to flaunt around a gun. It attracts more trouble, and if you use it and seriously injure or kill an assailant, then you would get charged with "Use of excessive force", Manslaughter, or the possibility of a lawsuit.
> ...



you are just as likely to get charged with "excessive use of force" with a tazer or mace as you are in using a firearm.  hell, you can even get sued for fighting back with no weapons when a criminal attacks you.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> you are just as likely to get charged with "excessive use of force" with a tazer or mace as you are in using a firearm. hell, you can even get sued for fighting back with no weapons when a criminal attacks you.


 
Only if you whoop their ass though...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> well, this is reason enough for me to never go to this con.



Do you always side with the first side that tells you a story that has two sides?

Also, the letter said there were two incidents where the police were summoned. Wouldn't it be prudent to know the full details of the two incidents?

What happened that made it so that some one, twice, summoned the police? What happened that made the police go bawwing to Uncle Kage. It pays to ask such questions before you take either side.



Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> you are just as likely to get charged with "excessive use of force" with a tazer or mace as you are in using a firearm. hell, you can even get sued for fighting back with no weapons when a criminal attacks you.



I am not thinking "excessive force" is the right term here. I think the point she is getting at is that with something like Mace, or a Tazer you don't usually have lasting damage or really any physical damage at all. So it's going to be harder to prosecute a person who uses either methods on an assailant.

With a gun, you're going to an actual wound. It could irreversible damage or death.

If someone mugs you and you shoot them...that's grounds for a lawsuit more so than using mace on the same mugger. Either way law can be fickle. I personally would rather have mace or a tazer. Some tazers have good distance. Some are good for when you have no distance. Mace is always a good for marking and running. Call the police, let them track down the tracer left by the mace on the assailant.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Do you always side with the first side that tells you a story that has two sides?
> 
> Also, the letter said there were two incidents where the police were summoned. Wouldn't it be prudent to know the full details of the two incidents?



The police were never summoned except by other law enforcement, each time I walked past an officer, who clearly didn't know the law.

I'll be posting the hearing transcripts from my appeal in which the DA conceded online after I receive the documents.


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You don't need to carry a gun in Pittsburgh.



prove it


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Do you always side with the first side that tells you a story that has two sides?
> 
> Also, the letter said there were two incidents where the police were summoned. Wouldn't it be prudent to know the full details of the two incidents?
> 
> What happened that made it so that some one, twice, summoned the police? What happened that made the police go bawwing to Uncle Kage. It pays to ask such questions before you take either side.



no, not always.

also, being harassed by the police does not make a person guilty.  and it could have been as much as a person seeing the firearm and getting worried over nothing.


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> Only if you whoop their ass though...



depends on which state you are in.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> prove it



i went to pittsburgh
uh
ive gone to ac like 4 years in a row
no gun
also one of my friends is from pittsburgh
and he's a fag
also he doesn't have a gun
also he lived in pittsburgh for 18 years

no problems

is this proof or...?


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

You may have a right to carry,but you do not have an inherent right to join anthrocon.    It is a private party with membership restrictions.  As such, you are not invited.  Please respect other people's private organizations, their rights to hold and assemble in private organizations, and their rights to refuse membership at will.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> prove it



What are you asking me to prove?  I was there without a gun and I was fine.

That and I don't openly carry a gun around with me like I want to start shit.  Nothing would probably come of it in Pittsburgh but try doing that around 22nd street in Tampa.  You won't make it far.

Do you think you're going to get in a gun fight?

It's just not smart, and they are right to do what they did, especially since the police got involved on MULTIPLE occasions.

Also, nice triple post :roll:


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> What are you asking me to prove?  I was there without a gun and I was fine.
> 
> That and I don't openly carry a gun around with me like I want to start shit.  Nothing would probably come of it in Pittsburgh but try doing that around 22nd street in Tampa.  You won't make it far.
> 
> ...



You can't prove a gun isn't needed.

Open carry is banned in Florida, you open carry there and you'll get thrown in the brig.

Citizens of Pittsburgh are okay with open carry. The police got involved because of a confused officer, which is not my fault someone doesn't know the law when they hold powers of the state.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> no, not always.
> 
> also, being harassed by the police does not make a person guilty.  and it could have been as much as a person seeing the firearm and getting worried over nothing.



True, but you don't know that at this time which is all I am saying. He could have been simply harassed by police who don't know local law. Or he could have been harassing towards police asking to see the permit or asking why he holds a gun. At this time do we know? No. So why take sides?


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You can't prove a gun isn't needed.
> 
> Open carry is banned in Florida, you open carry there and you'll get thrown in the brig.
> 
> Citizens of Pittsburgh are okay with open carry. The police got involved because of a confused officer, which is not my fault someone doesn't know the law when they hold powers of the state.


 
Regardless, you're still just asking for shit if everyone knows you've got heat. You could pass 20 people on the street who are cool with it, all you need is that one asshole.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> True, but you don't know that at this time which is all I am saying. He could have been simply harassed by police who don't know local law. Or he could have been harassing towards police asking to see the permit. At this time do we know? No. So why take sides?



I've never harassed police as I'm very pro-police. I've many friends, family, and acquaintances which are in law enforcement. I'm not a tin foil hatter.

I should mention I'm more about civil rights, being so I don't carry ID on me unless I'm going to enter a vehicle(i.e. City bus, my own vehicle, etc). There is no permit required to open carry in the state of Pennsylvania.

You do NOT need to show or possess an  ID in PA. You must however state your name, city, and state of residence.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> Regardless, you're still just asking for shit if everyone knows you've got heat. You could pass 20 people on the street who are cool with it, all you need is that one asshole.



I've been to Pittsburgh during the year when Anthrocon was not around, and I've never had any issue with open carry. I open carry in Pittsburgh during all parts of the day when there is light.


----------



## Takun (Feb 14, 2010)

Oh my a convention making up rules.  This is new.  9_9


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> What are you asking me to prove?  I was there without a gun and I was fine.
> 
> That and I don't openly carry a gun around with me like I want to start shit.  Nothing would probably come of it in Pittsburgh but try doing that around 22nd street in Tampa.  You won't make it far.
> 
> ...



ok, i used the wrong phrase.  but regardless, people do not open carry because they feel like they want to "start shit."  and honestly i hope i never get into a situation where i need to use a firearm on someone, but the reality is that the situation can happen. (5Nov2009)

you might not be willing to have a tool that can save your life and deescalate a situation but do not force that opinion on others.  and these "multiple situations" sound more like police harassment rather then cops coming to the rescue.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I've never harassed police as I'm very pro-police. I've many friends, family, and acquaintances which are in law enforcement. I'm not a tin foil hatter.
> 
> I should mention I'm more about civil rights, being so I don't carry ID on me unless I'm going to enter a vehicle(i.e. City bus, my own vehicle, etc). There is no permit required to open carry in the state of Pennsylvania.
> 
> You do NOT need to show or possess an ID in PA. You must however state your name, city, and state of residence.


 
Wait so you don't carry ID unless you need to? That's a recipe for fucking disaster, especially if you've got a gun. Say some thug just up and decides to grease you for no other reason than he saw your peice. What then?



> I've been to Pittsburgh during the year when Anthrocon was not around, and I've never had any issue with open carry. I open carry in Pittsburgh during all parts of the day when there is light.


 
My point still stands. Even though you haven't had any trouble yet, who's to say you won't?


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> Wait so you don't carry ID unless you need to? That's a recipe for fucking disaster, especially if you've got a gun. Say some thug just up and decides to grease you for no other reason than he saw your peice. What then?



yeah, because an ID will keep you from being harmed...... wait, what?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> Wait so you don't carry ID unless you need to? That's a recipe for fucking disaster, especially if you've got a gun. Say some thug just up and decides to grease you for no other reason
> than he saw your peice. What then?



The Pittsburgh police know who I am, as I've sent internal affairs a complaint in regards to my first incident. An internal memo and meetings were held to discuss the legality of Open Carry, thus helping educate any new officers to the force.



Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> you might not be willing to have a tool that can save your life and  deescalate a situation but do not force that opinion on others.  and  these "multiple situations" sound more like police harassment rather  then cops coming to the rescue.



I'm in the process of launching a civil lawsuit against Allegheny County for their unlawful actions and to get restitution for the money I spent defending my right to carry.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 14, 2010)

There's no constitution for things that you voluntarily join.  If you join a forum, you don't have freedom of speech on it, you can be banned for whatever reason.  You can join a college that is against gay sex (like mine was), and if you fuck some guy they can kick you out.  You can join a furry con, and if they decide they don't want people with guns there then they can do that as well.  Stop acting like it's your right for everyone to put up with everything you do.  You can carry that gun around Pittsburgh all you want, but if they don't want you having it at AC then they have every right to keep you out.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> yeah, because an ID will keep you from being harmed...... wait, what?


 
No, 'tard. How the fuck are they gonna know who John Doe is?


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

Look, you have a right to carry.  

They have a right to refuse you a membership.  

Done.  Easy peasy.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I've never harassed police as I'm very pro-police. I've many friends, family, and acquaintances which are in law enforcement. I'm not a tin foil hatter.
> 
> I should mention I'm more about civil rights, being so I don't carry ID on me unless I'm going to enter a vehicle(i.e. City bus, my own vehicle, etc). There is no permit required to open carry in the state of Pennsylvania.
> 
> You do NOT need to show or possess an  ID in PA. You must however state your name, city, and state of residence.



I'll leave this here.


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> No, 'tard. How the fuck are they gonna know who John Doe is?



will it really matter?  when you are dead then you are dead.  why not allow your body to further the knowledge of medicine?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You can't prove a gun isn't needed.



Well no shit.

If I remember right you're from Alaska or something.

I know the streets, kid.



> Open carry is banned in Florida, you open carry there and you'll get thrown in the brig.


You get my point.



> Citizens of Pittsburgh are okay with open carry. The police got involved because of a confused officer, which is not my fault someone doesn't know the law when they hold powers of the state.


Why do you need to openly carry a firearm, let alone make an issue out of it?

That alone should warrant you not attending the con.

Also, I still think you're pretty creepy.  All I know is you like to stalk people and now you're bitching about not being able to OPENLY carry a firearm at a con.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Blitzkrieg_fox said:


> will it really matter? when you are dead then you are dead. why not allow your body to further the knowledge of medicine?


 
Maybe notifying next of kin doesn't mean anything then. But what the hell do I know?


----------



## Blitzkrieg_fox (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Well no shit.
> 
> ...  All I know is you like to stalk people and now you're bitching about not being able to OPENLY carry a firearm at a con.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Look, you have a right to carry.
> 
> They have a right to refuse you a membership.
> 
> Done.  Easy peasy.



Right, just like I have the right to protest across the street.



The Walkin Dude said:


> No, 'tard. How the fuck are they gonna know who John Doe is?



People know me in Pittsburgh, being said some officers do know me as well. Also, you're assuming I don't have training, which I do. I go to tactical training classes every year.



Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> http://www.opencarry.org/I'll leave this here.



Right, PA has laws about concealed carry among others. There are no laws about open carry except in state parks where you MUST conceal carry.

When there are no laws about X activity, it is lawful. Thus open carry is unlicensed while on foot. Enter _any_ vehicle and you require a license even if you're open carrying.

http://www.opencarry.org/


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> People know me in Pittsburgh, being said some officers do know me as well. Also, you're assuming I don't have training, which I do. I go to tactical training classes every year.


 
That comment wasn't directed at you, as you already stated you're known amongst law enforcement.

And, I wasn't assuming anything about your training. All I said was that is wasn't a good idea to open carry. That's why I stick to concealed.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 14, 2010)

Go ahead and protest across the street.  "Furries didn't let me bring a gun to their yiff fest, bawww!"  

To me it looks like you're only here to try and start some shit with Kage and AnthroCon, so I won't be surprised if this is closed shortly.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Also, I still think you're pretty creepy.  All I know is you like to stalk people and now you're bitching about not being able to OPENLY carry a firearm at a con.



Did you even read my journal or the original post? I've never carried a firearm at Anthrocon, even though there are many concealed handguns at the con. I refuse to be disrespectful by breaking the rules unless a higher entity of an organization says to ignore them(i.e. Corporate Walmart stating a specific walmart manager is wrong and to open carry regardless. If harassed to call corporate again and they'll "deal with it". )

I don't stalk anyone, wrong. I must remain law abiding.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> That comment wasn't directed at you, as you already stated you're known amongst law enforcement.
> 
> And, I wasn't assuming anything about your training. All I said was that is wasn't a good idea to open carry. That's why I stick to concealed.



Apologies, I misread.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Right, just like I have the right to protest across the street.



Possibly, you do, yes. 

But that doesn't mean that Kage banned you because of open carry.  Kage banned you because he doesn't want you at AC, period.   So don't go.  But do you really think this type of behavior will change his mind?


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

Furball, I've known you online for a few years now. You are a seething ball of holier than thou pretension.

My take on this is they were looking for a convenient excuse to tell you to piss off instead of flat out saying "Nobody can stand you, don't come around."

I like to think that I speak for all of PA when I echo that sentiment - Nobody can stand you, don't come around.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The Pittsburgh police know who I am, as I've sent internal affairs a complaint in regards to my first incident. An internal memo and meetings were held to discuss the legality of Open Carry, thus helping educate any new officers to the force.


Wait, are you really going to stand there and take the credit for all the work PAFOA has been doing over the years to get MPOETC training updated to cover open carry? I hadn't realized you were THAT deluded.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Apologies, I misread.


 
All good. 

Ultimately you just need to pick your battles. Civil rights infringement with regards to the fuzz...yeah sure, go nuts. Trying to get Kage to let you back into _his_ con because of said civil rights...sorry, but you're fighting uphill.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> Furball, I've known you online for a few years now. You are a seething ball of holier than thou pretension.
> 
> My take on this is they were looking for a convenient excuse to tell you to piss off instead of flat out saying "Nobody can stand you, don't come around."
> 
> I like to think that I speak for all of PA when I echo that sentiment - Nobody can stand you, don't come around.



Hello aran, I see you're stalking me here now. Have fun.

I should mention Aran is banned from the opencarry.org forum, where I've cross posted my journal. He evades the bans anyway to troll the forum.

Shows Aran is banned:
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/15016.html



GraemeLion said:


> Possibly, you do, yes.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that Kage banned you because of open carry.  Kage banned you because he doesn't want you at AC, period.   So don't go.  But do you really think this type of behavior will change his mind?



I've other business to attend in Pittsburgh. I'd rather attend the con than protest. I'll be hanging around friends outside of the con.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

If by stalking you mean "clicking a link you yourself posted to whine and try to drum up support on a totally unrelated forum"

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/38170.html


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> Wait, are you really going to stand there and take the credit for all the work PAFOA has been doing over the years to get MPOETC training updated to cover open carry? I hadn't realized you were THAT deluded.



The meetings had nothing to do with anything outside of Pittsburgh. This was an internal meeting between police departments. The meetings were specifically PGH PD related and I was told my incident on the 4th of July was the cause of said meetings by people with positions at the city.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I've other business to attend in Pittsburgh. I'd rather attend the con than protest. I'll be hanging around friends outside of the con.



Well, attending the convention is now out of the question.  It won't happen.  If you try it, you likely will be charged (rightfully) , with trespassing.  

So move on.   You're not going to accomplish anything positive by harassing Kage or asking others to harass Kage.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Right, PA has laws about concealed carry among others. There are no laws about open carry except in state parks where you MUST conceal carry.
> 
> When there are no laws about X activity, it is lawful. Thus open carry is unlicensed while on foot. Enter _any_ vehicle and you require a license even if you're open carrying.
> 
> http://www.opencarry.org/




Interpretation of the law can go either way is all I can say.

"or about one's person" can be interpreted as wearing it on a holster on your shoulder.
If you are in a vehicle or not with a gun, you are supposed to have a permit, but you do not have to have a license.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The meetings had nothing to do with anything outside of Pittsburgh. This was an internal meeting between police departments. The meetings were specifically PGH PD related and I was told my incident on the 4th of July was the cause of said meetings by people with positions at the city.



Names, dates, transcripts if you have them, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Interpretation of the law can go either way is all I can say.


There's plenty of case law interpreting it pretty solidly in the favor of freedom.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> Names, dates, transcripts if you have them, or it didn't happen.



Call Mr. Dean @ OMI.



GraemeLion said:


> Well, attending the convention is now out of the question.  It won't happen.  If you try it, you likely will be charged (rightfully) , with trespassing.
> 
> So move on.   You're not going to accomplish anything positive by harassing Kage or asking others to harass Kage.



I'm a law abiding citizen, why would you believe I'd commit criminal trespass?

A protest will make my voice, along with others, heard.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> Names, dates, transcripts if you have them, or it didn't happen.





Aran said:


> There's plenty of case law interpreting it pretty solidly in the favor of freedom.




You're all missing the point.

There are two issues here.

1) The open carry issue.  

2) Him being banned from AC.

It's possible that he can be right and still not be wanted.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Call Mr. Dean @ OMI.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People have to care.  You are right to protest the open carry thing.

You are wrong to protest a private club executing its rights to be selective at will. 

That's ALSO something working in the way of freedom.  People have the right to assemble and to exclude or include others at their discretion.

But either way, this is reaching.  Your problem will not be solved this way.


----------



## Leon (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> i went to pittsburgh
> uh
> ive gone to ac like 4 years in a row
> no gun
> ...


 
No, not really, as the OP stated crime can happen anywhere at anytime, some people like to be ready and decide to get a carry conceal permit. Given the information op has given the ceo of AC has a very biased opinion against firearms, but this might not be the full story, but with the information given im with op.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2010)

OP strikes me as one of those nutters that shows up at a Presidential event with a gun strapped to his leg and a sign bearing thinly veiled metaphors advocating violent rebellion, then says "AH'M JUS' EXERCISIN' MAH RIGHTS AS AN AMURRICAN!"


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Kage banned you because he doesn't want you at AC, period.   So don't go.  But do you really think this type of behavior will change his mind?


And this is why people call it "Kagecon". Because if Kage doesn't like you, it doesn't matter if you violated the rules of Anthrocon or not, he can and will ban you. He'll ban you for not even being at Anthrocon.

"Kagecon" earned its name years ago for this very reason.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> You're all missing the point.
> 
> There are two issues here.
> 
> ...


I'm not missing any issue. Did you read my first post?


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> I'm not missing any issue. Did you read my first post?



I read yours.  Oddly, the multiquote picked the wrong quotes. 

Either way, it still stands.  People are confusing the gun issue with the AC-ban.

These are two different things.   They need to be treated as two different things, despite the OP's attempts to pretend that he's being banned because he wants to carry a gun.


----------



## Qoph (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> And this is why people call it "Kagecon". Because if Kage doesn't like you, it doesn't matter if you violated the rules of Anthrocon or not, he can and will ban you. He'll ban you for not even being at Anthrocon.
> 
> "Kagecon" earned its name years ago for this very reason.



I find it funny how all these old accounts are crawling out of the woodwork to debate this...

Grab your popcorn guys, it looks like FAF is a battleground tonight.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Qoph said:


> I find it funny how all these old accounts are crawling out of the woodwork to debate this...
> 
> Grab your popcorn guys, it looks like FAF is a battleground tonight.



Oh Lawdy, a shitstorm!!


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Qoph said:


> I find it funny how all these old accounts are crawling out of the woodwork to debate this...
> 
> Grab your popcorn guys, it looks like FAF is a battleground tonight.


 
It's already poppin'.

Thankfully, I have mini-sammiches to tide me over.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

This is more of a Rant then a Convention subject.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> This is more of a Rant then a Convention subject.



No, it's about the convention being the thought police. While they can ban anyone they want for whatever reason, they're banning people because they don't like them.

*I did NOT break any con rules*, nor did I carry at the convention. I kept my firearms securely locked up.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> This is more of a Rant then a Convention subject.



iawtc



insane_kangaroo said:


> No, it's about the convention being the thought police. While they can ban anyone they want for whatever reason, they're banning people because they don't like them.
> 
> I did NOT break any con rules, nor did I carry at the convention. I kept my firearms securely locked up.



You're missing the fact that it's a private event and they can ask you to not come.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

What the? I thought this was locked?


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Wait a minute...who blew who to get this thread unlocked?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> Wait a minute...who blew who to get this thread unlocked?



I don't know but I like where it's going ^_^


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You're missing the fact that it's a private event and they can ask you to not come.



regardless, there are expectations. Banning people because "they don't like you", is unacceptable.
*
Banning people for being a patriot and enjoying their civil rights is HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE.*


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> No, it's about the convention being the thought police. While they can ban anyone they want for whatever reason, they're banning people because they don't like them.
> 
> *I did NOT break any con rules*, nor did I carry at the convention. I kept my firearms securely locked up.


 
What was the reason why you brought weapon in the first place?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What the? I thought this was locked?


 
Yeah, so did I. 


So anyway, you can't say anything negative about Kage. He's all knowing and all wise.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> regardless, there are expectations. Banning people because "they don't like you", is unacceptable.
> *
> Banning people for being a patriot and enjoying their civil rights is HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE.*



Oh, go blow smoke up someone else's ass.

I'm not impressed.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I don't know but I like where it's going ^_^


 
Laws yes...I can't wait for all of the delicious drama to unfold.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> What the? I thought this was locked?



I'm the one who locked it because I think I know where it's going.  I've been overruled, so please continue.

(If it winds up not going where I think it will, you all have my humblest apologies.)


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> regardless, there are expectations. Banning people because "they don't like you", is unacceptable.
> 
> *Banning people for being a patriot and enjoying their civil rights is HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE.*


 
Owning a gun makes you no more a patriot that owning an American flag.

*EDIT* Flaunting said gun...Even less so.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I don't know but I like where it's going ^_^



Okay....let's try this again:

"Oh Lawdy, better batten the hatches because there's a shitstorm brewin' over the horizon".


Seriously, if anyone's bawwing about the rules of "Kagecon", maybe they should look at the number count and how they have to stop other people ruining it for others.


And yes, once your purchase the badge and things, the Staff and the Organizer reserve the right to kick you if they perceive your behavior detrimental to the con. Before they accusing people of being "Thought Police", you are giving people half a story and asking people to "Baww! Kage is not being fair". 


It is the American way for gun advocates to put their ambitions above all others. 

QQ some more.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 14, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I'm the one who locked it because I think I know where it's going. I've been overruled, so please continue.
> 
> (If it winds up not going where I think it will, you all have my humblest apologies.)


 
By the big man himself.


----------



## Gray Coyote (Feb 14, 2010)

*Please pay attention to the email from Dr. Conway*

Ricky,

Reading the original posting it's pretty clear that that isn't the reason he was banned (carrying a gun at the convention, which he did not do).    You seem to (at least from reading the postings that you've posted) keep skimming the post and reading words into the post that are not there.

I'll put it in a nutshell here.  Kage (Dr. Samuel Conway) banned IK for political and public relations reasons.

I'll quote it directly so you can see it for yourself and not skim over it.

_Anthrocon cannot afford to be associated with an  individual who is increasingly being perceived as a concern by the local police with whom we are trying to maintain a friendly relationship.  While we appreciate your dedication to the Constitution, you have shown a pattern in the past of creating extreme and undue panic among passersby.  We have tried to impress upon you that Pittsburgh has a very different culture than the one to which you are accustomed, yet you still do not seem to understand the level of distress that you cause when you display a firearm in a downtown business district or in a metropolitan airport.  The fact that the police were summoned on at least two occasions to what was perceived as an imminent public danger should be a clear signal to you that in exercising your rights, you are at the same time disturbing the peace, causing significant trauma to members of the public, and placing an unnecessary burden on law enforcement.

It is clear to us from your internet postings that you disagree with this and feel that because you have been given the right to carry a firearm, any anxiety that you foster in doing so is somehow "their problem" and that "they" should find a way to deal with it.  We have every reason to believe that if you continue to attend Anthrocon there will be further such incidents, and it is our concern that  one of these incidents may eventually escalate to a level that none of us would like to see.

We therefore have chosen not to honor your membership, which is our right as a private organization which receives no Federal funding, and must ask you not to attend the convention, nor to attempt to trespass on any property under contract to Anthrocon, Inc.

Please let me stress that we have undertaken this action not because you have exercised your right to bear arms, but rather because you have done so in such a fashion as to create a significant amount of distress to the public at large and to disrupt the goodwill of the city of Pittsbugh toward Anthrocon and its attendees._

Do you see anything in there about him carrying at the convention?  That isn't the issue here, and no one is in any way talking about taking any sort of legal or otherwise forcing using the power of the government to reverse Dr. Conway's position here.

The problem here is that we have a convention chairman who decided that he owns the actions of furries throughout the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, whether or not they live there or are visiting there, and can punish someone by banning them from the largest furry convention in the world because of politically unpopular but legal actions.  

I have never in my years of convention going or involvement of convention politics have seen this form of controlling behavior by any convention.  Further Confusion and RainFurrest out west have only cared about stuff that occurs at con or could happen (furry threatens convention staff or convention members, furry steals artwork, older furry being arrested for chicken-hawking after an underage furry, etc).

Dr. Conway apparently thinks that furries in general are children needing to be controlled, thinks that every furry is a potential public relations problem, and so on.    This sort of feels like some people in corporate HR departments who think of every employee is a danger to their company, and generally makes the lives of employees a living hell to where they quit.

This appears to be an extension of an obsession to make furry mainstream and family friendly where anyone can take their children to and so on and so forth.   For someone with a phd (though in chemistry, mind you), he seems to have a case of cranial rectal inversion, thinking that furry will ever be considered mainstream.

In the more radical elements of the LGBT community, we call them "Black Suited Assimilationists", the ones who "act completely straight" and "are completely closeted" and try to be as private as possible, except while lobbying politicians in black suits they make that particular statements.  There's a reason why such "Black Suits" are considered anathema to the LGBT community, specifically because they make deals to stab the LGBT community in the back when their own personal fortune is threatened by someone not conforming to their stereotype.  They also never got actual acceptance, just platitudes from people who talk a good game but then talked badly about them as soon as they left the room.  The "mother may I" attitude engenders no respect from those in power.

Maybe you don't quite understand this, but as a  civil rights activist, the idea that a furry convention, the "freakiest"  of the fandom communities by any measure, would engage in this sort of  suppressive behavior of exercising a legal and constitutional civil  right outside of the convention (downtown Pittsburgh, the non-secure  area of Pittsburgh Airport), is utterly ludicrous on it's face. 

Dr. Conway is apparently attempting to enforce that desire for assimilation and acceptance down the throats of the Pittsburgh furry community, and any furry that happens to visit, by forcing those that even live there to refrain from engaging in a constitutionally protected legal activity, which the two times that IK has had trouble with the local authorities, the PD either acknowledged their error by issuing an advisory to their officers not to engage in suppressive conduct or was smacked down by an appeals court which declared him not guilty due to the operation of a state statute prohibiting the rule that he was arrested for.

This sort of controlling behavior is abnormal in terms of being in line with other furry convention policies, and I've attended conventions all over the United States.

You can say that "If he didn't open carry in Pittsburgh this wouldn't have happened to him".  It doesn't matter.  The precedent is set that if you do ANYTHING that's politically unpopular outside of the convention, regardless of whether or not it's protected by the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, you can be ejected from a convention  for that behavior. Though certainly Dr. Conway has the legal authority to eject someone from Anthrocon, he doesn't have the ethical or moral authority for sort of paternalism of believing he owns the actions of furries in the Pittsburgh region.

Until Dr. Conway resigns from both of his  positions in AC, and AC as a group reverses this decision and  categorically makes a statement that they will not attempt to suppress  the constitutional civil rights of it's attendees outside of the  convention, neither the convention, nor any local hotel who deals with  AC with their con rates, will get a dime from me.  I will not give a  dime to an organization which treats it's membership with this sort of  controlling paternalistic behavior of furries in Pittsburgh, whether or  not they live there or visit there. 

They may have the right to ban IK,  but an individual or group of individuals can organize an economic  boycott of Anthrocon until they relent.  The 1st amendment goes both ways.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> And yes, once your purchase the badge and things, the Staff and the Organizer reserve the right to kick you if they perceive your behavior detrimental to the con. Before they accusing people of being "Thought Police", you are giving people half a story and asking people to "Baww! Kage is not being fair".



I've not affiliated myself with the con while acting lawfully. There is no reason to ban people just because they may be seen as an activist.



The Walkin Dude said:


> Owning a gun makes you no more a patriot that owning an American flag.
> 
> *EDIT* Falunting said gun...Even less so.



I'm very much a patriot, if you've any doubts feel free to express them.



Lazydabear said:


> What was the reason why you brought weapon in the first place?



Every time I go to Pittsburgh I'll stay extra days to go exploring, like Geocaching. Crime can happen anywhere, I'm a person who tries to be well prepared in case an incident should arise.

I'll reiterate. It's unacceptable to ban people acting lawfully when even the Pittsburgh police are okay with me despite claims made by Kage.


----------



## PROSTSHOCKERERER (Feb 14, 2010)

Well, at least he wasn't banned for the terrible weapon that is youtube. lmao


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

you're joking, right? :roll:


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 14, 2010)

Look, Kage talked to me two years ago. Asked me not to bring weapons, and I agreed, and I abide by all rules he set forth. To be banned no over this, over something NOT even related to AC rules? I don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense. I obeyed and complied with everything Kage asked of me.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 14, 2010)

*Re: Please pay attention to the email from Dr. Conway*



Gray Coyote said:


> words



More backup.  LOL.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Hey mr. Gray Coyote? How about you keep your BS "this is Political" thing to yourself. I can't possibly see anything political here when it has not yet been stated by Kage that he is anti-gun.

It's only been stated by a person who claims he is that way.

This is a public relations issue at best....and we don't even have a full story. It's pretty crummy for someone to QQ about being banned and not even have the entire story up for view.

It's all really he said he said at this point.

As for controlling behavior, you try running a convention that now masses close to 3000 people. See how far it lasts if you don't shepard the goer's like children because enough of them show up that are selfish enough to not think about how their actions affect everyone else. I'm just saying people should not be so quick to condemn the man for how controlling he is. He has to be, because of the amount of dipshits that show up that don't know how to behave.


----------



## PROSTSHOCKERERER (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> you're joking, right? :roll:








serious business.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 14, 2010)

@Prost: I have to agree you've got one of the coolest names one could ever be given.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Look, Kage talked to me two years ago. Asked me not to bring weapons, and I agreed, and I abide by all rules he set forth. To be banned no over this, over something NOT even related to AC rules? I don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense. I obeyed and complied with everything Kage asked of me.



Look, it's because you're a creeper.

They just aren't that upfront with you because you'll cry about it.

I'd have to agree.  I'm sure there's more to this because I think you're a creeper as well.

First of all, you stalked a friend of mine online and got his parents' information and started calling them.  I think that's creepy behavior.  Now you're complaining about AC not letting you in because you were acting creepy there as well by waving your gun around at people.  I quote:



> _you have shown a pattern in the past of creating extreme and undue panic among passersby_



Good riddance.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

*Re: Please pay attention to the email from Dr. Conway*



Gray Coyote said:


> Wrote stuff...


 http://www.flayrah.com/c/anthrocon-bans-fur-over-open-carry

If you read the news story on Flayrah (which is a great, unbiased write up, btw) it hints that Anthrocon was less worried over Insane Kangaroo than it was the local media, which may make more sense. It's more of a ban to "save face" to the news than it is that he did anything wrong at all.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 14, 2010)

Gotta say still, you can keep trying to wave the American flag, but you're trying to over-ride his rights with your rights.

He has the lawful right to ban you from his Con. The reason, no matter how bullshit you find it to be, it does not matter. It is his right.

Also, drama like this has a high probability of banning you from other cons too!


----------



## Gray Coyote (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Hey mr. Gray Coyote? How about you keep your BS "this is Political" thing to yourself.



No.



> As for controlling behavior, you try running a convention that now masses close to 3000 people. See how far it lasts if you don't shepard the goer's like children because enough of them show up that are selfish enough to not think about how their actions affect everyone else. I'm just saying people should not be so quick to condemn the man for how controlling he is. He has to be, because of the amount of dipshits that show up that don't know how to behave.


Further Confusion had 2800 people, and doesn't engage in this sort of behavior.    That's also the other point: "dipshits that show up that don't know how to behave".   Showing up where?  At the convention itself?  Just visiting the city?  How about living in the city period?


----------



## PROSTSHOCKERERER (Feb 14, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> @Prost: I have to agree you've got one of the coolest names one could ever be given.



It's pretty manly, thanks brah

and I have TWO middle names 
B)


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Gray Coyote said:


> No.
> 
> Further Confusion had 2800 people, and doesn't engage in this sort of behavior.    That's also the other point: "dipshits that show up that don't know how to behave".   Showing up where?  At the convention itself?  Just visiting the city?  How about living in the city period?



Last I heard even FC is having to start looking into laying more ground rules. As your numbers rise up, so do the number of problems.

At the con itself. One of the recent issues that he had to contend with is these assholes who literally destroy the rooms. It's pathetic.

Or these people who show up, and when the selected media come in, they purposely act out badly in front of the camera.

Then you have druggies, last year there was an issue with date rape. The year before that the issue cropped up with people violating hotel rules and local law by smoking too close to the buildings.

Breaking the escalators, fiddling with the lights in the elevators, there have been issues of harassment, stalking, inappropriate attire, public adverts of sex parties that had to be taken down repeatedly. People showing off porn in the zoo. Everywhere you turn, the staff and the con chairman have to be on a look out. It doesn't take many to ruin it for everyone.

The staff and the con chair do a good job of keeping on top of issues so that people as a whole can enjoy the convention for years to come(as such unless you know the staff you won't hear about half the ridiculous shit asshats try to pull). He is aware that you can't make it all kid friendly but still...he tries to balance it out.

Edit: That said may I make the point again "WE DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE STORY".


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I'm very much a patriot, if you've any doubts feel free to express them.


 
Ah, the burdon of proof rests on my shoulders. How I relish the weight. [/sarcasm]


To be blunt, excersizing your right to (openly) bear arms in a public forum isn't nesseccarily patriotic. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's all a matter of good taste. If it causes problems (which, in your case, it seems to be doing) let it go. If you really feel the need to have a firearm on your person (and in Pittsburg, I don't blame you), there's no need to make a sideshow of it. You've already stated that you've had a considerable amount of yearly firearms training. Why not take one more step and just opt for a fucking concealed carry permit? It'd save you time and effort instead of fighting for you right to carry it openly. You'll still have your beloved pistol either way.

I'm not going to lecture you on patriotism. I made a condescending remark, and I deserve any flak I get for it. Seriously, your problem no longer seems to be with the Pittsburg PD (since they apparently know you were in the right), but with Kage himself. He's still within his right to ban you, and your still within your right to carry. Your best bet now is to just boycott, and see if your point gets across.


----------



## Gray Coyote (Feb 14, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Gotta say still, you can keep trying to wave the American flag, but you're trying to over-ride his rights with your rights.
> 
> He has the lawful right to ban you from his Con. The reason, no matter how bullshit you find it to be, does not matter.
> 
> Again, you cannot override hits rights, with your rights.



Since when did he say that he wanted to sue the convention to force them to overturn their decision?  

"Can't override his rights with your rights".  

He can use the first amendment (of course, with the consent of private forum owners like FA, like LiveJournal, and other private places such as this) to organize against Anthrocon's actions and call for a boycott of the convention.  

The 1st amendment freedom of speech and association goes both ways.  Dr. Conway can ban someone from the convention under freedom of association (subject to certain restrictions such as race, religion, among other classes, gun ownership NOT being one of them).  What Dr. Conway can't do is file a court injunction against critics of his decision to stop people from criticizing him and his convention.  That's why forums like this exist, that's why LiveJournal exists.  It's called the Soap Box.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

So, who the fuck are all of you people anyway?

Are you his boyfriends or something?


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> ... violating hotel rules and local law by smoking too close to the buildings.


Totally off subject, but you have to wonder how these buildings ever survived for a 100 years with people smoking too close to them. The anti smoking bills are all sorts of ridiculous. I understand a ban inside, but...


----------



## Qoph (Feb 14, 2010)

Here's what I'm seeing here right now:

Some guy takes some action against some other guy.  Other guy believes this action is unjust, and goes on a campaign to try and convince people that some guy is in the wrong.  Other guy makes long and ranting post on a cynical forum, and the response is less than warm and welcoming.  Other guy has some sycophants come in to try and push his case.  In the end, we've got the mess we have now.

I haven't heard both sides of the argument.  I didn't read all x,000 words of the OP.  I've seen this kind of thing many times before, where someone tries to convince others that they've been wronged, and thus turn others against that wrongdoer.  Hell, I'VE been that someone before, and I can honestly say that in the majority of the cases, the majority of those who hear your long story are going to go against you when you take this kind of action and make these kind of posts.  It doesn't take much to see you as a vindictive ball of hate trying to get back at AC, with how you wrote that OP and subsequent posts.  I'm sure that Kage could be in the wrong, but what I'm seeing here is just some guy angrily retaliating against him.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Gray Coyote said:


> Since when did he say that he wanted to sue the convention to force them to overturn their decision?
> 
> "Can't override his rights with your rights".
> 
> ...



Conway can ban ANYONE from the con for ANY REASON, but of course if more people read the con book, they would understand that.

From what I understand, the law had gotten involved, but like Ricky had said, there is more than meets the eye perhaps.

It is one-sided bias because the defendant is not even here to give his side. So it is just Heresay with a sock puppet show. 




Qoph said:


> Here's what I'm seeing here right now:
> 
> Some guy takes some action against some other guy.  Other guy believes this action is unjust, and goes on a campaign to try and convince people that some guy is in the wrong.  Other guy makes long and ranting post on a cynical forum, and the response is less than warm and welcoming.  Other guy has some sycophants come in to try and push his case.  In the end, we've got the mess we have now.
> 
> I haven't heard both sides of the argument.  I didn't read all x,000 words of the OP.  I've seen this kind of thing many times before, where someone tries to convince others that they've been wronged, and thus turn others against that wrongdoer.  Hell, I'VE been that someone before, and I can honestly say that in the majority of the cases, the majority of those who hear your long story are going to go against you when you take this kind of action and make these kind of posts.  It doesn't take much to see you as a vindictive ball of hate trying to get back at AC, with how you wrote that OP and subsequent posts.  I'm sure that Kage could be in the wrong, but what I'm seeing here is just some guy angrily retaliating against him.



Agreed.


----------



## TDK (Feb 14, 2010)

Open carry in Pittsburgh is rare, but legal. Most people are too busy either dodging potholes or talking about the Steelers to care.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Totally off subject, but you have to wonder how these buildings ever survived for a 100 years with people smoking too close to them. The anti smoking bills are all sorts of ridiculous. I understand a ban inside, but...



Er...the issue with the whole smoking too close to the building had more to do with the fact that all the smokers were clogging up the entrance itself, and so it was surrounded by a cloud of smoke and it was causing many people respiratory problems.

The hotel (found this during research) followed this thing called the Clean Air Initiative or something like that. Basically by making the hotel smoke-free, they actually gained more customers. I don't know how that worked.

In any case...I don't think smoking right next to the building causes a problem to the building itself. It's more of an issue to all the people using the entrance. That and all those people clustering around is kind of a fire code violation. That place should remain fairly clear for in and out traffic.

EDIT: Sort of off topic but I was one of those people who's sinus's were wrecked and brought up the issue on Anthrocon forums questioning if they were supposed to clog up the entrance and smoke there. I remember that so many smokers came right in and bitched everyone out about their right smoke. I do think the lesson there is good for here.

You might have the right to do something, but you should be responsible with it so you are not steamrolling other people unfairly to exercise your right. That goes for con chairmen and people who value the right to bear arms.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Er...the issue with the whole smoking too close to the building had more to do with the fact that all the smokers were clogging up the entrance itself, and so it was surrounded by a cloud of smoke and it was causing many people respiratory problems.


Yeah, that makes sense if they're blocking the doorways. =P


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Relevant to the topic. :V


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Hi there!

wandered in, referred from a friend, who found a link to this on OC, who passed to someone else, who passed it to me.

I dont know any of you guys, or any of the politics involved, that being said...

I -have- RTFA, so I have some idea of what's going on.

Part of the problem is the assumption that involvement with the police means wrongdoing. Not so.

Just because someone got scared, misconstrued what they saw, or just felt like being a jerk, they can call the police. The police will come have a look. The police are not lawyers, they've got a tough job, and sometimes they dont know the law as well as they could. Mistakes are made.

Now, Open Carry is a touchy subject. It has good points and bad. One thing to keep in the front of your mind when you OC, is that you are an ambassador from the gun owning world to the non-gun owning world. It's vital to not be a dick, because people will base their attitude about gun owners on your actions.


None of this makes this kangaroo guy a 'bad dude'. Granted, I dont know him from a hole in the ground, there could be other reasons why he -is- a bad dude. I dont know.

However, this Kage fellow....

Banning someone based on a lawful act they committed elsewhere that you dont agree with is pretty weak sauce. Kage has the power to ban any person for any reason from the con in question, no arguement.

And this kangaroo fella has the right to bitch about it.

Personally, if Kage wanted him gone because he's a 'bad dude', I think Kage should man up, and state without all the weasel wording.

"I think you're a creepy stalker nutjob, and I dont want you anywhere near my con, kthanxbai." The amount of beating around the bush leads me to suspect that perhaps this Kage fellow knows he's over-reaching just a touch.

short answer? they're both within thier rights to squall.

now who's got the popcorn?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> Hi there!
> 
> wandered in, referred from a friend, who found a link to this on OC, who passed to someone else, who passed it to me.
> 
> ...



I have candy.


But the thing is, it's only half a truth....KAge might be protecting the well being of the person's privacy for all we know. The story is like a song half sung. It is not finished until the fat lady sings the other half.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I have candy.
> 
> 
> But the thing is, it's only half a truth....KAge might be protecting the well being of the person's privacy for all we know. The story is like a song half sung. It is not finished until the fat lady sings the other half.




ayup. you might notice the heavy peppering of 'I think' and 'I suspect' and 'I believe'.

but the letter from Kage ( assuming it's legit, I dont think it would be a fake) is interesting in it's... dancing.

P.S. what -kind- of candy? involving honey, perhaps?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> ayup. you might notice the heavy peppering of 'I think' and 'I suspect' and 'I believe'.
> 
> but the letter from Kage ( assuming it's legit, I dont think it would be a fake) is interesting in it's... dancing.
> 
> P.S. what -kind- of candy? involving honey, perhaps?



Yep. :3 
The best kind.
Damn....all of this "He said she said he said" business makes me want to watch Chicago.


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 14, 2010)

To sum up what I think about all this:



Urso said:


> Banning someone based on a lawful act they committed elsewhere that you dont agree with is pretty weak sauce.





Urso said:


> And this kangaroo fella has the right to bitch about it.



Yeah, it's a private organization, and they do have the right to ban people for whatever the hell they want. It's kind of sad to be banned basically for that reason alone though, especially if it's a city you live in.

And it's only the story from one perspective, but really. If the guy's not taking the gun to the con, what is so scurry about that? I'd be more afraid of the uh.. not-so-open carriers. >_>


----------



## Gray Coyote (Feb 14, 2010)

The Walkin Dude said:


> To be blunt, excersizing your right to (openly) bear arms in a public forum isn't nesseccarily patriotic. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. It's all a matter of good taste. If it causes problems (which, in your case, it seems to be doing) let it go. If you really feel the need to have a firearm on your person (and in Pittsburg, I don't blame you), there's no need to make a sideshow of it. You've already stated that you've had a considerable amount of yearly firearms training. Why not take one more step and just opt for a fucking concealed carry permit? It'd save you time and effort instead of fighting for you right to carry it openly. You'll still have your beloved pistol either way.
> 
> I'm not going to lecture you on patriotism. I made a condescending remark, and I deserve any flak I get for it. Seriously, your problem no longer seems to be with the Pittsburg PD (since they apparently know you were in the right), but with Kage himself. He's still within his right to ban you, and your still within your right to carry. Your best bet now is to just boycott, and see if your point gets across.



Just as an aside, since you've made some cogent points in the post this post:

1) Pennsylvania requires no training to acquire a "License to Carry Firearms".  It's $25.  

2) I'm not a huge fan of super patriotism either.  He didn't seem to express it, at least to me, but this isn't a matter of patriotism.  It's a matter of a convention being stooges for a local police department who are about to get slapped with a federal lawsuit.

3) Reading between the lines, it sounds like the local police may have been talking with Dr. Conway and may have been pushing him to ban him from the con in order to break his will to take the departments into court and try to get damages from them for unlawfully arresting him.  There is certainly no legal tort that can be filed against Anthrocon Inc or Dr. Conway.  HOWEVER, by tacitly implying that there have been communications from the police departments in the Pittsburgh area (as implied by the first two sentence) that the OP is planning on taking to federal court under violations of civil rights under color of law (Type in "18USC1983" in Google without the quotes to see what this does), Dr. Conway and his entire Board of Directors may have to be called as a witness for the plaintiff (IK), and be deposed and possibly be put on the witness stand, both of which is under oath.  As a plaintiff in a 18USC1983 civil action currently underway, I have a better knowledge of the case law and situations involving police abuses than most.

4) I've been involved in various civil rights issues (police abuses, gay equality, 2nd amendment, 1st amendment) in some way shape or form for the last decade.  Anthrocon certainly is within their rights to ban people from their con (with very narrow exceptions as for reasons for banning, none of which are applicable here).  It's just that AC should not be surprised that there would be very strong objections to the con treating people in this manner.  If the convention he stated "Mr. Kangaroo, you're an asshole, you're banned, there wouldn't be a real issue here other than Conway's personal problem with IK.  However, the letter indicates the convention now thinks they can control the lawful behavior of furries in the Pittsburgh metro area outside of the convention, the convention center, and the convention hotels.  It may not be illegal, but it's unethical and unbecoming of a convention calling itself a furry con.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> To sum up what I think about all this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




See, thats what gets my attention. this kangaroo guy makes a lot of noise about respecting Kage's right to not have guns at his con, and not carrying -at- the con. Sounds pretty reasonable. So, unless there's another problem, why the scuffle?

I'm watching this with a certain amount of interest.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Grey Coyote has several points. the 'cops leaning on convention' had not occured to me.

sounds like roo-boy is facing an 'adverse correlation of hostile forces'. Sucks to be him. If he's on the side of angels, I hope it works out for him.


----------



## Gray Coyote (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> So it is just Heresay with a sock puppet show.



Not a sock puppet of IK.  Don't even live in the same state as he.  I registered an account here a while ago but I don't remember the password.  Oh well....

Btw, what Urso said.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> See, thats what gets my attention. this kangaroo guy makes a lot of noise about respecting Kage's right to not have guns at his con, and not carrying -at- the con. Sounds pretty reasonable. So, unless there's another problem, why the scuffle?
> 
> I'm watching this with a certain amount of interest.



I think Kage sees it as drama and he simply doesn't want the drama at his con.



> Please let me stress that we have undertaken this action not because you have exercised your right to bear arms, but rather because you have done so in such a fashion as to create a significant amount of distress to the public at large and to disrupt the goodwill of the city of Pittsbugh toward Anthrocon and its attendees.


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> I'm watching this with a certain amount of interest.



That's pretty much how I feel. I don't have any strong feelings over it. I went to AC '09 and had a blast, so I'm not off to bash the con. It's the only one I've ever been to. That's just a bummer if Insane Kangaroo's side of the story is pretty much the whole of it.


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> That's just a bummer if Insane Kangaroo's side of the story is pretty much the whole of it.



I asked Anthrocon for its side of the story - it's just good manners to offer a right of reply - but I didn't get much of a response.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

"Please let me stress that we have undertaken this action not because you have exercised your right to bear arms, but rather because you have done so in such a fashion as to create a significant amount of distress to the public at large and to disrupt the goodwill of the city of Pittsbugh toward Anthrocon and its attendees."

two passes with the PD over open carry does not a 'significant amount of distress' make. 

and I'm sorry, 'goodwill'? let's be real. Furrys register on the 'mundane' radar as slightly less problematic than flashers, hobos, or amway salesmen. ( hey, closet fur here, and closet -for a reason-. )

postscrip - kage might not want drama, but by dealing with this in the way he did, he -insured- drama. 'you're a dick, get lost' would have garnered roo-boy little, if no sympathy, and it would have blown away in the wind. Something does not smell right.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

To be completely fair to this Kage fellow, I'd be doubly sure to make IK unwelcome after this at any gathering I held if he had responded this way to a simple "You're not welcome."


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> To be completely fair to this Kage fellow, I'd be doubly sure to make IK unwelcome after this at any gathering I held if he had responded this way to a simple "You're not welcome."




And that's the rub. It's -not- a simple 'you're not welcome'. It's a form letter combined with a long email, with all kinds of 'well it's legal but we dont like it' whinging.

 If Kage was smart, he would have simply left it at 'you're not welcome, go away'. end of story. when pressed by roo-boy, the smart answer would have been to repeat the first answer, and if need be, re-state that Kage doesn't -need- a reason. This turns it into a furstorm. 

still, it's interesting to watch, specially since it's not my problem.

/munches popcorn.


----------



## Grimfang (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> I asked Anthrocon for its side of the story - it's just good manners to offer a right of reply - but I didn't get much of a response.



That's all I've seen so far. Much of the arguing and controversy would be cleared up if there was some kind of statement given, but then again, maybe it's just a matter of PR.



Aran said:


> To be completely fair to this Kage fellow, I'd be doubly sure to make IK unwelcome after this at any gathering I held if he had responded this way to a simple "You're not welcome."



How is it fair to expect someone to not be upset about being banned from a previously and peacefully attended event though? I think it's more fair to give the story and evidence provided some consideration. Honestly, wouldn't you be slightly pissed about getting banned for not adjusting your lifestyle to someone else's? And when you're within your legal rights in your own life choices? He's being banned for choices and behaviors completely irrelevant to the convention. He still lives in Pittsburgh (unless I'm misunderstanding), and still uses the right he has to carry a gun. How does that make AnthroCon safer?

Again, they have the right to ban, but I don't think IK is doing anything worth condemnation in stating his case, just as he did in court with other matters. He hasn't done anything worthy of public condemnation. To me, it looks like he's reacting very rationally and responsibly. It's an appeal.

Added note - I'm just kind of bored and arguing the other side because I think IK is taking a lot of heat for actually doing nothing wrong (as far as we know). It looks like he has nothing to hide. He has his full identity available, and legit looking stuff for his story.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

yeah, he seems to be on the up and up. read his LJ, bit of a whiner tho. still, we cant all be cool like me, the planet would freeze solid.


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

To clarify a couple of things - a statement _was_ issued to me (I quoted large sections of it); it just didn't directly address the eight questions I raised with them, other than whether it was a board action. Insane Kangaroo lives in Alaska, though it's my understanding that he plans to move to Pennsylvania.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> Honestly, wouldn't you be slightly pissed about getting banned for not adjusting your lifestyle to someone else's? And when you're within your legal rights in your own life choices?



If that's the only side to the story then yeah, I'd probably be pissed off too. Still, it doesn't mean Kage is wrong. The funny thing is I have also been kicked out of a con for doing nothing wrong legally. A lot of the time, if something goes wrong in a room they just kick everyone out who is in the room. At Califur they did this because apparently the room smelled like pot :roll:

...but there was a person in the room with a valid Marijuana ID because he is prescribed it for medication, which is completely legal.

Just saying.  Sometimes life isn't fair.

As people stated he can ask you not to come for any reason he wants.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> As people stated he can ask you not to come for any reason he wants.


We can do the same at FA as well, but just because you have the ability to do so doesn't mean you shouldn't have a damn good reason to take the action that you're taking.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

"you have the right to be an a**hole. you have the responsibility not to."


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> We can do the same at FA as well, but just because you have the ability to do so doesn't mean you shouldn't have a damn good reason to take the action that you're taking.



That's really up to you.

It's a good idea, because in the long run people are not going to want to stay on the site if they don't feel like they have any freedom.  However, you're only legal obligation is through the contract when the user signed up.

Like I said, I would be pissed off too if that is the only side to the story.

It was still his choice.

I also have my doubts that there isn't any more to this story.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

you know, there's one -key- question nobody has asked.

reverse the situation. how would you feel if you were barred from some mundane event/activity because you're a furry?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> you know, there's one -key- question nobody has asked.
> 
> reverse the situation. how would you feel if you were barred from some mundane event/activity because you're a furry?



Like the person running it had some common sense and a knowledge of internet subcultures.


----------



## Rhainor (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> "you have the right to be an a**hole. you have the responsibility not to."


Hear, hear!


----------



## Smelge (Feb 14, 2010)

I feel for the OP, and as such have sent an email approving of your ban.

Pretty much everyone in every  country on earth is capable of functioning without carrying a firearm, and walking around with one is pretty fucking retarded. And then to whine about liberties being removed just because you have something you can kill people with.

I've heard plenty about cons that refuse entry to anyone with a weapon, replica, fake or foam, so why should it not apply to real ones too?



Urso said:


> you know, there's one -key- question nobody has asked.
> 
> reverse the situation. how would you feel if you were barred from some mundane event/activity because you're a furry?



Because generally, you can't murder people by being a furry.

Unless with boredom or sheer terror.


----------



## Morroke (Feb 14, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> *you have shown a
> pattern in the past of creating extreme and undue panic among
> passersby.
> 
> ...



You got cops called on you. Twice.

You bring firearms into AIRPORTS.

You disturb the peace and traumatize the public.

And you want to say it's NOT YOUR FAULT? You completely deserved this.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> I feel for the OP, and as such have sent an email approving of your ban.
> 
> Pretty much everyone in every  country on earth is capable of functioning without carrying a firearm, and walking around with one is pretty fucking retarded. And then to whine about liberties being removed just because you have something you can kill people with.
> 
> I've heard plenty about cons that refuse entry to anyone with a weapon, replica, fake or foam, so why should it not apply to real ones too?



Even Anime cons would ban you if you were totting around a  real weapon in the convention area. There were a couple of occasions of that happening (A person from the gun show and a person who bought a couple of swords) at a local anime con.



Morroke said:


> You got cops called on you. Twice.
> 
> You bring firearms into AIRPORTS.
> 
> ...



Reading both sides of this, and also dipping into judicial federal law, it is one big fucking Chubaca defense. 
 Penn. Laws do let you openly carry, but looking into the citations and statues, they do require you to have a permit to carry it to keep the mouth of the police shut if they see it and stop you. 

I would think it is common sense to carry an ID just in case. When I was in Pittsburgh, I had my ID on me AT ALL TIMES. I only had one stop by a police officer at night and he had asked for my ID. For the purpose of Identification, you have to have your ID. When the officer (Who saw the gun) asked for an ID, the defendant was detained because he did not have any personal identification.  Just like the defendant's need to have a gun, it's better to have your ID on hand and not need it, than to need it and not have it. 



The Airport rule is based on an nationwide attempt to lessen the risk of Terrorist attacks. Once that gun was out of that suitcase in the airport, a law was broken. The airport was supposed to know he has it in his bag and it is also supposed to be unloaded, but you cannot carry it on one's person once you step out of Airport property.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm.


It is also up to the passenger to contact the airport where he is landing at for additional rules and regulations.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Morroke said:


> You got cops called on you. Twice.
> 
> You bring firearms into AIRPORTS.
> 
> ...




say it with me now.

He. Did. Not. Break. The. Law.

The argument that he disturbed the peace and/or traumatized the public is laughable on it's face.

Someone called the police because they were afraid, and ignorant ( in the sense that that they simply didn't know the law, not in the insult sense ). This does not mean you're 'disturbing the peace'. 

What you fail to grasp is that you are allowing your own personal fears and prejudices cloud your judgment. You hear the word 'gun', and start freaking out.

The gun is not even the point of concern. The point of concern is that the con organizer banned a person for a pattern of lawful activity that the organizer  did not like, and that this activity did not have a single thing to do with the con.

I realize you're not paying attention, so I'll sum up.

1. roo-boy (whatever his name is ) did not have a weapon at the convention. read it again. No Gun At The Con.

2. Convention organizer decided to ban roo-boy for carrying a gun -somewhere else-.

Under slightly different circumstances, this would easily be called 'bigotry' or 'racism'. 

Or, for a near and dear example, It would be like banning you from the park. You know, because all them furries is child molesters anyhow, and shouldn't be allowed near decent people. ( for those of you who are uncertain, this is an example of 'sarcasm', and 'hyperbole'. put down the pitchfork )


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Even Anime cons would ban you if you were totting around a  real weapon in the convention area. There were a couple of occasions of that happening (A person from the gun show and a person who bought a couple of swords) at a local anime con.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A couple of things.

1. the argument about bearing weapons at the convention doest apply. He didnt -have- a weapon at the con. concealed or otherwise.

2. "but you cannot carry it on one's person once you step out of Airport property." I"m going to take a stab and assume you mean 'but you cannot carry it on one's person -until- you step out of airport property."

Even so, the airports policy is not -law-. That's an important distinction to note.


----------



## Morroke (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> say it with me now.
> 
> He. Did. Not. Break. The. Law.
> 
> ...



So wait let me get this straight.

Kage, the director of the convention, shouldn't of banned Roo?

Okay, since I realize you're not paying attention let me sum it up for you.

Kage
can
ban
whoever
he
wants
for
any
reason

Got it? Stop whining.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> Even so, the airports policy is not -law-. That's an important distinction to note.



The Airport's policy does not follow law, but it is a bit selfish to want to strip them of what they are seeking to do, which is the safety of it's personnel and patrons. Even though he followed all of the rules, he could have done something else to cause him to get banned. 


Other than that, Chubaca Defense on this whole matter.


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

The airport's policy was, in fact, law. But it was overruled by the (I believe later-established) state law reserving the power to control firearms that prevented such local ordinances from having any legal effect.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> The airport's policy was, in fact, law. But it was overruled by the (I believe later-established) state law reserving the power to control firearms that prevented such local ordinances from having any legal effect.



correct, which would make it 'policy' and not 'law'.

so, in essence, we're (kinda) saying the same thing on that point.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> The Airport's policy does not follow law, but it is a bit selfish to want to strip them of what they are seeking to do, which is the safety of it's personnel and patrons. Even though he followed all of the rules, he could have done something else to cause him to get banned.
> 
> 
> Other than that, Chubaca Defense on this whole matter.




Which takes us into a whole nother realm. Personally, my POV is that Victim Disarmament Zones only disarm rational actors who are willing to obey the law. 

given that the law is supposed to remove -irrational- actors with weapons, it seems kind of pointless. The people who are going to go shoot up an airport/school/church/federal building/mall/whatever, do -not- care that they're breaking the law. Why should they? they're planning on going there to -murder people-. A little felony on the side is just a garnish on the whole dish. Most of them dont plan to survive their little suicide runs, so draconian penalties dont matter either.

So we have a series of laws and policies that do nothing to increase personal safety, and prevent rational actors from acting in thier own defence or the defense of others.

I'd be delighted to discuss this further with you privately, I dont want to pull the thread off-topic.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 14, 2010)

Also relevant to this thread.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Morroke said:


> So wait let me get this straight.
> 
> Kage, the director of the convention, shouldn't of banned Roo?
> 
> ...



and you're absolutely correct. Kage -can- do that. Which I said much earlier in the thread. Several times. Of course, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know that. You might notice, at no point did I say 'Kage cant -do- that, it's wrong/bad/stupid/immoral/whatever.' He's got every right. I think it was a bad decision, and I think there's a bit more going on than we know about.

I -strongly- disagree with acting against people because you dislike some legal activity they happen to be engaged in. For example. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church. Hate em. makes my blood boil just to think about em. But they have every right to do the... things they do. I would not advocate banning them from say, a baptist church confrence due to thier actions. they've not broken the laws. 

what I find particularly interesting is that you completely bypass all -other- points that I make in the previous post, and retreat to the 'shut up' defense."quit whining" I believe you said. 

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s  watch the whole thing, it's 5 min long. dont pay too much attention to the lib/conservative stance. )

To sum up.

my stance on this amusing lil tussle is ( and I"m paraphrasing myself here )

1. Kage has the -legal- right to ban this guy. 

2. roo-boy has the -legal- right to bitch about it.

3. Acting against someone because you dont like thier ( legal ) politics, or thier    (legal) behavior is weak sauce.

4. Kage would have been much smarter to simply can roo-boy, and never mention the gun issue at all. 

5. especially since it's a non-issue as far as the law is concerned.

6. Both sides 'have the right to be an a**hole, but the responsibility not to.'


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> Which takes us into a whole nother realm. Personally, my POV is that Victim Disarmament Zones only disarm rational actors who are willing to obey the law.
> 
> given that the law is supposed to remove -irrational- actors with weapons, it seems kind of pointless. The people who are going to go shoot up an airport/school/church/federal building/mall/whatever, do -not- care that they're breaking the law. Why should they? they're planning on going there to -murder people-. A little felony on the side is just a garnish on the whole dish. Most of them dont plan to survive their little suicide runs, so draconian penalties dont matter either.
> 
> ...



It is technically still on topic, but like I have stated earlier prior to your introduction to this thread, the law is fickle. Really, Penn laws conflict with each other. It is easy for people to come up with multiple interpretations when the laws are not so easy and straight forward. 


After 9/11, people have been on edge with Airports with what should be, what shouldn't, and what personal rights they may have to give up in the case of a Terrorist situation. Maybe the Airport could have been a little clear with carrying a gun inside the airport, but as far as we know, multiple things could have happened with his perspective than what meets the eye.


Other than that, the whole thing regarding Kage and the defendant could have been handled in a more private setting.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Well.
I think the point here is that he's not convincing anyone that wasn't already on his side.
In which case all he's doing is whining, and not really proving any kind of a point?

so nothing is going to happen here

I'm not anti-gun, I think its a little scary to be carrying a gun out in the open in broad daylight. But whatever.

I think its a little ridiculous that they would ask someone to not come to AC for carrying a weapon, assuming it caused no controversy (*but it did*).

But like someone else said it's nicknamed "Kage-con" for a reason.
Kage makes a point of completely dominating the image furries have to the media to ensure that:
A) We have no problems consistently booking a spot.
B) Businesses will offer us benefits for being there, and make a point not to be worried about their customers while we're there.
C) Furries overall don't get negative press.

And while it may be their problem that they don't understand the law, you're still not willing to go that extra mile to submit to a situation where we have to appear on best behavior in any way we can, if entrance to Kagedong is allowed.

that being said
there are a ton of other cons


----------



## Shukie (Feb 14, 2010)

The fact is you had a gun where you shouldnt have had one. Quit whining and find a new con.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> It is technically still on topic, but like I have stated earlier prior to your introduction to this thread, the law is fickle. Really, Penn laws conflict with each other. It is easy for people to come up with multiple interpretations when the laws are not so easy and straight forward.
> 
> 
> After 9/11, people have been on edge with Airports with what should be, what shouldn't, and what personal rights they may have to give up in the case of a Terrorist situation. Maybe the Airport could have been a little clear with carrying a gun inside the airport, but as far as we know, multiple things could have happened with his perspective than what meets the eye.
> ...




except that giving up those rights only provides the -illusion- of safety. It actually -increases- risk, because you've ensured that any person with a weapon in that area is there with the express intent of breaking the law. 

You know, because all the law abiding people didn't bring guns.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> except that giving up those rights only provides the -illusion- of safety. It actually -increases- risk, because you've ensured that any person with a weapon in that area is there with the express intent of breaking the law.



You can thank the Bush Administration for that.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Shukie said:


> The fact is you had a gun where you shouldnt have had one. Quit whining and find a new con.



Reading and comprehension fail. In the first instance, roo-boy was not charged. In the second instance, Roo-boy was found 'not guilty'.

If he's 'not guilty' that means he didnt break the law.

If he did not break the law, then there's no reason to get all excited.

personally, I"m more concerned with the 'kicking people's ass to the curb because they did something legal I dont agree with, so I'm going to use my authority to force my world view on other people.' aspect.

to me, the gun is secondary. important, but secondary.

and let's not loose sight of the beginnings.

roo-boy was banned because he carried a firearm -legally-, in a completely different place.

everyone keeps assuming he had a gun at the con, or was going to bring a gun to the con. That is not true.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s watch the whole thing, it's 5 min long. dont pay too much attention to the lib/conservative stance. )
> 
> To sum up.
> 
> ...


 

 Good point.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> 4. Kage would have been much smarter to simply can roo-boy, and never mention the gun issue at all.



It seems really rare for someone to not be allowed entrance to puppetfuck 3000
so if he sent a letter was just like
"hey, i dont like your face, i dont want to see you around"

insane would probably have asked why, and probably would've eventually come to the idea that conway was banning because of open carry controversies


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You can thank the Bush Administration for that.




-sigh-

sorry, no. I"m strictly referring to the domestic crazy. or are you trying to argue that things like the columbine shootings are somehow bush's fault ( hint, columbine occured in 1999. )

the problem with regulating who can be armed where, is that you only ensure that the people with bad intent are armed. which means we now have to arm people and pay them. to protect the law abiding people from getting butchered, mall of america style. 

now, let us assume for the sake of argument, that you're a rational sapient. ( you probably -are- a rational sapient, but bear with me...)

I hand you a gun. 'here, hold onto this, dont do anything stupid with it, and if someone starts hurting other people, use it to stop them.'

I can be relatively certain you're not going to start holding up liquor stores, shooting people who cut you off, or pistol-whipping your significant other.

so there's no real risk in your having one.

now, let's assume that you have this gun I gave you, you're in a public place, and someone starts doing Bad Things ( killing, raping, arson, armed robbery... voting democrat. ).

 the police will arrive in 2 minutes.

you're already there.

bad guy can do a -lot- of damage in two minutes.

wouldnt it be nice to have you out there, being rational and armed, -just in case- something like that happened? The police cannot be everywhere. Armed rational citizens are everywhere.

and the 'bad guys' know this. why do you think the most brutal shootings keep happening in 'gun free zones'?

because they know nobody will be able to shoot back, and they'll have at least 5 minutes to kill people. the virginia tech shootings, the police took several hours to respond. A bad guy can kill a lot of people in 2 hours.


----------



## Hermie (Feb 14, 2010)

That's complete bullshit. If the guy can't give a straight reason without dancing around shit, he's grasping at straws. You had every right to carry your gun.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> It seems really rare for someone to not be allowed entrance to puppetfuck 3000
> so if he sent a letter was just like
> "hey, i dont like your face, i dont want to see you around"
> 
> insane would probably have asked why, and probably would've eventually come to the idea that conway was banning because of open carry controversies



which is why I origionally said Kage would have been best served by sticking to the 'I can ban you for any, or no reason, Dont like your face, piss off.' and when pressed reply with 'I  dont -gotta- give you a reason, which part of 'piss off' did you not understand?'

I dont like Kage's stance, but that's my personal opinion. I also think that he would have been far better served by not bringing up the gun issue at all. Having read both communications from Kage, the amount of weasel-wording makes me wonder what the hell is going on behind the scenes.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

found elsewhere, but certainly interesting.

"I don't think it's about being "butthurt". Certainly, there is that aspect to it, you can't deny the sting? My personal take on the matter-considering I don't have a dog in the fight as I don't open carry-is that this is a matter of a private citizen improperly using their authority against another private citizen's attempts at defending their rights.

This is key, mind you?  IK isn't just trying to exercise his rights at this point?  It has now become a matter of _defending_ his Second Amendment rights.

Had Mr. Conway kept his mouth shut on the matter and simply made a boilerplate statement about how they have the right to refuse service for whatever reason-The sky is too blue today, I'm gonna ban someone-then this wouldn't be happening. 

No drama, no fun, no publicity, just a very confused kangaroo and a quietly relieved CEO.

But no, Mr. Conway had to wave his dick in IK's face. That's bad enough, but by stating the REASON for the ban, this could be interpreted as an attack on IK's Constitutional rights.

i.e., Mr. Conway may have just tripped over his own dick.

The law is quite clear on this matter?  Your business can be as discriminatory as you like, so long as you keep your mouth shut."


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> which is why I origionally said Kage would have been best served by sticking to the 'I can ban you for any, or no reason, Dont like your face, piss off.' and when pressed reply with 'I  dont -gotta- give you a reason, which part of 'piss off' did you not understand?'



You honestly think given this person's demeanor he would've just stopped at that. So far as I can tell, there are no implicit notifications in either of the communications from Kage mentioning an open carry _bias_ (even if maybe it does exist). It required a level of assumption that Open Carry, itself, was the problem, and not the fact that the police reports and insane's hesitance to see what the political impact was for furries. Even if I don't personally think its fair that the police reports were due to public ignorance, it is a reasonable response to avoid any future complications from a completely political and image-based perspective.



Urso said:


> I dont like Kage's stance, but that's my personal opinion. I also think that he would have been far better served by not bringing up the gun issue at all. Having read both communications from Kage, the amount of weasel-wording makes me wonder what the hell is going on behind the scenes.



He's trying to preserve our image as totally forgettable or bastions of holiness.
He doesn't really like any controversy being brought up.
That's why he personally escorts (and has said this even at his stand up acts) camera crews and press around.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> You honestly think given this person's demeanor he would've just stopped at that. So far as I can tell, there are no implicit notifications in either of the communications from Kage mentioning an open carry _bias_ (even if maybe it does exist). It required a level of assumption that Open Carry, itself, was the problem, and not the fact that the police reports and insane's hesitance to see what the political impact was for furries. Even if I don't personally think its fair that the police reports were due to public ignorance, it is a reasonable response to avoid any future complications from a completely political and image-based perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 "So far as I can tell, there are no implicit notifications in either of the communications from Kage mentioning an open carry _bias_ (even if maybe it does exist)."

ok, let's take this from the top.

----------------------------------------------------
The words of Mr. Conway begin here.

------------------------------------------------------
Anthrocon cannot afford to be associated with an individual who is
increasingly being perceived as a concern by the local police with
whom we are trying to maintain a friendly relationship. 
------------------------------------------------------

two incidents, both cases the police were in the wrong.
and 'in the wrong' in the 'case dismissed' kind of way.
Judges are reluctant to do that sort of thing, unless
police have truely stepped on their...appendages. 

so we can disregard that bit. (there's another, nastier
implication to those words, but I'm not going there. yet.)


------------------------------------------------------
 While we
appreciate your dedication to the Constitution, you have shown a
pattern in the past of creating extreme and undue panic among
passersby. 
------------------------------------------------------

'extreme and undue panic' I'm sorry, extreme and undue panic involves people fleeing in terror, screaming, soiling thier undergarments, dropping dead of fear induced heart attacks.

any of that happen? bueller? ok, so this section is rubbish as well

------------------------------------------------------
 We have tried to impress upon you that Pittsburgh has a
very different culture than the one to which you are accustomed, 
------------------------------------------------------

ok, this part? -totally- true.

------------------------------------------------------
yet
you still do not seem to understand the level of distress that you
cause when you display a firearm in a downtown business district or in
a metropolitan airport. 
------------------------------------------------------

He's not breaking the law. If you dont -like- his behavior, lobby to change the law. This is like people having PSH ( pants sh*tting histeria) over a gay pride parade. 

so again, this can be tossed out.

------------------------------------------------------
 The fact that the police were summoned on at
least two occasions to what was perceived as an imminent public danger
should be a clear signal to you that in exercising your rights, you
are at the same time disturbing the peace, causing significant trauma
to members of the public, and placing an unnecessary burden on law
enforcement.
------------------------------------------------------

Firstly 'what was percieved'. Except it wasnt. To the point of the police getting smacked down on court. Twice. With a 3rd court case for rights violations on the way.

Secondly - 'significant trauma'. Words have -meanings- people. significan trauma means someone required some sort of corrective attention, psychiatric help, a trip to the hospital, something. again, who got hurt? ( hint, starts in 'n' and ends in 'obody' ). so we can can this one as well.



----------------------------------------
It is clear to us from your internet postings that you disagree with
this and feel that because you have been given the right to carry a
firearm, any anxiety that you foster in doing so is somehow "their
problem" and that "they" should find a way to deal with it.  
---------------------------------------------------------

Ive actually -read- a fair chunk of roo-boys net postings ( hey, I was bored, and I'm a fast reader) I've not seen that. but I cant disprove it's existance either. 

but, here's the question. At what point does your percieved 'right' to not be scared trump my -actual- right to self defense? I don't think it does.


---------------------------------------------------------
We have
every reason to believe that if you continue to attend Anthrocon there
will be further such incidents, and it is our concern that  one of
these incidents may eventually escalate to a level that none of us
would like to see.
---------------------------------------------------------
the only thing I can infer from this is 'We think you're going to shoot up our con, so you cant come.' which is a load of crap. -huge- load of crap.



---------------------------------------------------------
We therefore have chosen not to honor your membership, which is our
right as a private organization which receives no Federal funding, and
must ask you not to attend the convention, nor to attempt to trespass
on any property under contract to Anthrocon, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------

ok, perfectly legit here. Kage would have been fine if he stuck with this.


---------------------------------------------------------
Please let me stress that we have undertaken this action not because
you have exercised your right to bear arms, but rather because you
have done so in such a fashion as to create a significant amount of
distress to the public at large and to disrupt the goodwill of the
city of Pittsbugh toward Anthrocon and its attendees.

Samuel Conway, Ph.D.
Chairman & CEO
------------------------------------------------------

'We are not banning you because you carry a gun, we're banning you because you carry a gun.'

sorry, large batch of fail.

this would have been better - 
"We have tried to impress upon you that Pittsburgh has a very different culture than the one to which you are accustomed,We therefore have chosen not to honor your membership, which is our right as a private organization which receives no Federal funding, and must ask you not to attend the convention, nor to attempt to trespass on any property under contract to Anthrocon, Inc. "

problem solved.

anyhow, I've a den to clean.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

In Utah he would of been allowed to carry his gun around in College as long as he has a State Utah State Permit that saids so.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Reading too much into it.
It makes perfect sense from a political perspective if you read it without imagining he has a bias.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> Reading too much into it.
> It makes perfect sense from a political perspective if you read it without imagining he has a bias.




...

you're joking, right?


----------



## Aurali (Feb 14, 2010)

If you push that you are gonna carry a weapon into a place, and it is against the rules, then they obviously won't want you there.

Duh.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> ...
> 
> you're joking, right?



No.


----------



## Freehaven (Feb 14, 2010)

Dick Move is Dickish.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> No.



woah.

then I guess we have some fundamentally different interpretations about what Kage said, and how the english language works.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> woah.
> 
> then I guess we have some fundamentally different interpretations about what Kage said, and how the english language works.



I guess so.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Aurali said:


> If you push that you are gonna carry a weapon into a place, and it is against the rules, then they obviously won't want you there.
> 
> Duh.



sigh.

one. more. time.

roo-boy at no time, stated, or implied that he has carried a weapon, open or concealed, of -any type- (knife, gun, stick, taser, gas, photon cannon) at AnthroCon. Nor has he stated that he intends to do so in the future.

Kage banned him because roo-boy committed an act that was perfectley legal ( a judge even said so, in court! )  that Kage does not agree with politically. This act was not committed in, on, under, or within the confines of Anthrocon in -any way-.

Imagine if you will, being banned by Kage for attending a gay pride rally in full fursuit, while in another -country-. Same effective situation.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> sigh.
> 
> one. more. time.
> 
> ...



If perhaps fursuits could cause alarm and cause people to call the police, then yes.
In which case, uh, do you get the point about Kage being conscious about the image of furries and avoiding controversy?
or no


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> If perhaps fursuits could cause alarm and cause people to call the police, then yes.


As noted in the Flayrah article, there is no indication that law enforcement officers were called by members of the public. In both cases, they were there, and chose to act themselves. At no point was Anthrocon or the fandom brought into the situation, to my knowledge, until Anthrocon itself used it to justify the ban.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> As noted in the Flayrah article, there is no indication that law enforcement officers were called by members of the public. In both cases, they were there, and chose to act themselves.



oh -reeeealy-.

*Evil Grin*

oh, this -does- change things.

vastly.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

*People are consistently missing the point.* 

*Kage banned him when he didn't violate a single rule of Anthrocon*. Not. One. Single. Rule. Kage banned him because he didn't like him, and thought he was a bad influence to the fandom. Roo was banned for carrying guns (per the law) in Pittsburgh. Not at AC. Not anywhere near AC. In a similiar vein, Prawst was banned for "uploading things to YouTube". Not exactly an Anthrocon policy now, is it? How many people have fursuit parade videos that violate AC's filming policies on Youtube.

*This:* Kage did, and is, banning people outside of Anthrocon for any reason he likes, people he feels are bad influences, people he feels like. You don't have to violate Anthrocon rules anymore to be banned.

This creates a whole new realm of "Furry Big Brother". Kage is watching, and if Kage doesn't like what he sees? BANNED. Is that really something the fandom wants to accept now? Is that the new vogue? Do we really need Kage playing Big Brother to decide who or who is not the "acceptable" furry in our community?

This makes two bans in two weeks with hollow reasons (Prawst and Insane Kangaroo). Both were banned without violating Anthrocon rules and while not even at Anthrocon. Who's next?

As Greenreaper pointed out on Flayrah, Kage is afraid of the media, and these bannings are more than likely the result of Kage taking action to ensure Anthrocon looks good all around and there are no media problems.

Yes, it's Kagecon, blah blah, Kage can ban whoever he wants to, but you have to draw a line at acceptability at some point, people. As I said, do you really want Kage playing Furry Big Brother? Always watching, always judging? 

Is that where the fandom is going now?


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> *People are consistently missing the point.*
> 
> *Kage banned him when he didn't violate a single rule of Anthrocon*. Not. One. Single. Rule. Kage banned him because he didn't like him, and thought he was a bad influence to the fandom. Roo was banned for carrying guns (per the law) in Pittsburgh. Not at AC. Not anywhere near AC. In a similiar vein, Prawst was banned for "uploading things to YouTube". Not exactly an Anthrocon policy now, is it? How many people have fursuit parade videos that violate AC's filming policies on Youtube.
> 
> ...



which is where I"m kinda going with this, while wandering along the way.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> which is where I"m kinda going with this, while wandering along the way.


If people are accepting of Kage's bans against people completley outside the realm of Anthrocon, without violating any of AC's rules, and accept it as "Hey, well, Kage you can ban you from Kagecon for any reason he wants to! Suck it!" then this fandom has gone to shit.

Is Kagemushi defining the fandom now? Did I miss the memo?

Firepyro,
Banned from Anthrocon for not bowing to Kage's almighty reasoning.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

I did not say I approved...

it might be legal for this kage fellow to do, doesnt make it right. And it raises the other question....

who's next? and for what reason?


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> I did not say I approved...
> 
> it might be legal for this kage fellow to do, doesnt make it right. And it raises the other question....
> 
> who's next? and for what reason?


No, no, I know you didn't approve. I'm talking about the rest of the lunkheads who are cheering Kage on in this thread.

But what's what I'm talking about. Is Kage keeping a list, marking off people's names, when you fuck up, do you have some hidden three strikes you're out rule? Say, how does one measure up Kage's hypocrisy anyway? Get in trouble for legally carrying a gun, you get banned? Go on the Tyra Banks show, cause drama for the entire fandom, get Guest of Honor at AC?

God knows there are enough film cameras at Anthrocon as it is.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

I can't believe I read the whole thing.


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

Ok... Read through everything on here and trying to wrap my cub-brain about it.  Digesting all the legal mumbo jumbo is hard for me, but this is what I get:

'Roo guy carries a gun *outside *the convention grounds.  He carries guns because he *legally *has the right to, plus has the proper permits.  Even though the police picked him up twice, he was found *not guilty.* Therefore, he didn't do anything unlawful, though it may have been unsettling for those who noticed.

Just because people don't like something, doesn't mean it's legal / illegal.  If they don't want to be involved with people carrying guns, they can separate themselves from those people promptly and make it none of their business.  If a person has been issued the proper permit, there's nothing an uncomfortable group of people can do other than ask: "Sir / Ma'am, could you not be here with that gun?"  Then you hope for the best for your comfort.

That is what I think Kage has done.  He does not like the fact 'Roo guy has come so close to the convention, even stayed in one of the hotels, with firearms.  A furry, carrying a _firearm_?  What kind of picture does that paint for the media?  Kage panicked and decided the best thing to do was say: "Sir, you're not welcome because you're known to carry guns *close *to our convention;" which Kage has a right to do since AnthroCon is a private affair.  Now Kage does not have to worry about one of _who-knows-how-many_ furries who carry firearms day to day.

I, *personally*, would not want people carrying firearms into my party, but at the same time, I cannot control what happens outside of my party.  In this case, I think Kage and the rest of the AnthroCon board could have *asked *'Roo not to bring the firearms at all.  If 'Roo said 'no,' then Kage and the rest should have just nodded and said, "Ok, but just *continue *to keep the gun *out *of the convention centre itself."

*TL;DR:* Even though Kage and the board of AnthroCon feel *uncomfortable* about a furry carrying firearms *close *to [but not inside] the convention halls, they overreacted by banning this 'Roo fellow for simply using his American rights.  Sad fact of it is, since it is a private affair, Kage and the board can do as they whim, and nobody can convince them otherwise.  Even worse is the fact 'Roo could have been one of several or even _dozens_ of furries attending AnthroCon who carry openly with permits.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

WishingStar said:


> *TL;DR:* Even though Kage and the board of AnthroCon feel *uncomfortable* about a furry carrying firearms *close *to [but not inside] the convention halls, they overreacted by banning this 'Roo fellow for simply using his American rights. Sad fact of it is, since it is a private affair, Kage and the board can do as they whim, and nobody can convince them otherwise. Even worse is the fact 'Roo could have been one of several or even _dozens_ of furries attending AnthroCon who carry openly with permits.


If you read what Roo wrote though, Kage talked to him two years ago and said "Hey, don't do that" and according to Roo he complied. This latest incident, the one that got him banned, had nothing to do with Anthrocon, nor was he there at the time.

Thus the giant WTF.


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> If you read what Roo wrote though, Kage talked to him two years ago and said "Hey, don't do that" and according to Roo he complied. This latest incident, the one that got him banned, had nothing to do with Anthrocon, nor was he there at the time.
> 
> Thus the giant WTF.



Oh, I did read about what happened and where, but...

I actually did see that [where he agreed to Kage's wishes], and thought that it could have played into _why _Kage banned him, but since everybody else was _ignoring _that, *including* 'Roo, I figured not to mention it.  Thank you for bringing it up where I did not.

*Edit: *

Oh... WAIT!  ... Ok, so he *hasn't* carried a gun to Pittsburgh since Kage asked him to stop?  If that's the case, then this is certainly a scalp-scratcher.  You see, I thought Kage told him 'no,' but 'Roo did anyway, thus causing a possible reason for ban.  If, however, that's not true, and he's agreed to Kage's wishes for following cons... Then wow...


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

WishingStar said:


> Oh... WAIT!  ... Ok, so he *hasn't* carried a gun to Pittsburgh since Kage asked him to stop?


It is my understanding that he has not carried within the official convention areas. This is different from "to Pittsburgh."


----------



## Ultraviolence (Feb 14, 2010)

A history lesson: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=20729


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> It is my understanding that he has not carried within the official convention areas. This is different from "to Pittsburgh."


I *know *'Roo hasn't carried guns within convention areas, at all.  What I'm trying to get is what he _agreed _to with Kage.  Did agree *not *to bring them _entirely_, or just not carry them at the _convention centre_?

I'll go back and look here in a second.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Ultraviolence said:


> A history lesson: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=20729


 So wait. One of AC's Board of Directors trolled FA and FA: United, a competiting con, and Kage approved of it? *How do you allow a Board of Director to troll a rival con? *Then just shrug it off as "His words do not reflect Anthrocon". He's on the fucking Board of Directors! Oh, right, well, that's our rivals, we can troll them with no repercussion, but god damn you if you fuck up outside of Anthrocon! 

Jesus. The hypocrisy behind Kage is monumental.

Get banned for having guns while not at Anthrocon or have anything to do with Anthrocon. Check. Troll a rival con and community and remain on Board of Director's, and have Kage's approval to do so. Check?

Wow.

Insane Kangaroo is fucked.


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> Get banned for having guns while not at Anthrocon or have anything to do with Anthrocon...


*reads, spots this*
Oh...
.... *double takes*
OH!

*facepalms*

Ok, this is where I got confused.  See, I _thought _he was armed *while* registered as a con-goer, *during *times OF AnthroCon, and not arming himself at the centre.  Instead, he was in Pittsburgh with *no *AnthroCon in sight, but gets banned because he was simply in Pittsburgh carrying a gun?

If that's the case, then Lord Almighty is that messed up, and Kage shouldn't have had any reason to ban him. >____<'


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

I think you may have misinterpreted what Firepyro said. He was not "at Anthrocon" (in the convention) when bearing his gun. However, he _was_ in the area in order to attend Anthrocon. It is unclear whether he had anything on to indicate his furry affiliation, such as a badge; it's more likely in the first case, since he was in the vicinity of the hotel.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

WishingStar said:


> *reads, spots this*
> Oh...
> .... *double takes*
> OH!
> ...




DING! we have a winner.

got it in one.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> I think you may have misinterpreted what Firepyro said. He was not "at Anthrocon" (in the convention) when bearing his gun. However, he _was_ in the area in order to attend Anthrocon. It is unclear whether he had anything on to indicate his furry affiliation, such as a badge; it's more likely in the first case, since he was in the vicinity of the hotel.


True, but by Kage's logic you could get a speeding ticket on the way to the convention, which would be an "imminent public danger" to others on the road. What if you got into a car accident speeding on the way to the con? Or in the city? Or outside the con center?

Anything can be a weapon. The reasonings are just hollow.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 14, 2010)

Kage you trippin dog


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

Ok, I'm getting two stories here.  Confused again.  Please help clear this up for me?

GreenReaper and Firepyro are trying to say 'Roo *was *in Pittsburgh to attend the con [for the umpteenth time, I know *not *in the centre itself], and was walking the streets with his gun _during _the time of the convention.

The way Urso responded to my previous post makes it sound like 'Roo *didn't* have guns on him _during _convention time, rather _outside _the convention calendar of events and Kage panicked anyway.

...

Or is it _*both*_?  'Roo so happened to be armed on the streets of Pittsburgh _*both *_during _*and *_not during AnthroCon's calendar of events, and Kage panicked because it could reflect on the fandom anyway about it...?

I still think it's horrible 'Roo's being banned, in case you're wondering.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

WishingStar said:


> Ok, I'm getting two stories here. Confused again. Please help clear this up for me?


As I under the facts: Roo was in Pittsburgh to attend AC, had the guns, got in trouble. However, he was NOT at the con, and not near the convention center at the time. So, he wasn't under Anthrocon's policies or rules in any way because he was in the public (unless Anthrocon's policies now cover the entire city of Pittsburgh and/or state of Pennsylvania).


----------



## Starblade (Feb 14, 2010)

Geez, how many of you pro-Kage folks have been making the idiotic and absurd equivocation between ethics and politics?

Kage has any LEGAL right to ban Insane Kangaroo, but that does NOT mean he is acting MORALLY.

If you cannot distinguish between the two I suggest you take a deep breath, get off the computer, and read some courses on elementary logic.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Starblade said:


> Geez, how many of you pro-Kage folks have been making the idiotic and absurd equivocation between ethics and politics?
> 
> Kage has any LEGAL right to ban Insane Kangaroo, but that does NOT mean he is acting MORALLY.
> 
> If you cannot distinguish between the two I suggest you take a deep breath, get off the computer, and read some courses on elementary logic.


http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=1558554&postcount=180

As Ultraviolence posted, Kage endorsed his staffers trolling Fur Affinity. It's clear "morals" are not exactly a part of the equasion.

edit----
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=408556&postcount=48

Kage even defends his staff trolling rival conventions, claiming a board of directors doesn't reflect Anthrocon? FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> As I under the facts: Roo was in Pittsburgh to attend AC, had the guns, got in trouble. However, he was NOT at the con, and not near the convention center at the time. So, he wasn't under Anthrocon's policies or rules in any way because he was in the public (unless Anthrocon's policies now cover the entire city of Pittsburgh and/or state of Pennsylvania).



Ok!  This is what I *initially *gathered and _tried _to cover in my original post.  I *agree *that Insane Kangaroo has *all *American right to carry a gun.  Kage _panicked _because 'Roo was *close *to the convention centre [once more, I *know* 'Roo was *not *in the centre itself].  Kage bans 'Roo without a reason other than _personal _discomfort and trying to keep up a 'good public image' of furries.  Evidently, through _Kage_'s logic, 'good' furries *shouldn't* exercise their right to carry a weapon.

This whole situation of 'Roo getting banned is *bollocks*.

That's what I've been trying to say.


----------



## Aran (Feb 14, 2010)

I still say the entire reason is "Insane Kangaroo is insane and not welcome but telling him that to his face will cause more problems than coming up with a scapegoat"


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Wow, people are STILL crying about this moron getting banned?

Look, you're ALL assuming this is the only side of the story.

I'm pretty sure there's more to this but I'm not 100% on the facts.  I have to check with someone.

Regardless, Kage simply doesn't want him there.  That is reason enough in my opinion.  

Stop crying about it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Aran said:


> I still say the entire reason is "Insane Kangaroo is insane and not welcome but telling him that to his face will cause more problems than coming up with a scapegoat"


Uhm... so whats you're assumption or basis that he's actually "insane"? Just the name? Because he sticks up for his rights? Or because he feels he was unjustly banned because this happened and he wasn't even on/near con territory?



Ricky said:


> Wow, people are STILL crying about this moron getting banned?
> 
> Look, you're ALL assuming this is the only side of the story.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there's more to this but I'm not 100% on the facts.  I have to check with someone.


Greenreaper, who's a part of AC, even asked the questions, and Anthrocon refused to answer. So I think it's safe to say that Anthrocon had a chance to refute the claims or tell their side, but opted not to, so the facts are pretty clear as they are.

I don't know what makes you feel that he's a "moron" simply because you disagree with him. If you don't like it, don't read the thread, but simply insulting somebody just because  you don't like them isn't warranted or called for.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 14, 2010)

You have my help, Ross
I've sent an email about it for you. Lawyer skills are recharging
^Some people like helping instead [not referring to you dragoneer :3]


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Uhm... so whats you're assumption or basis that he's actually "insane"? Just the name? Because he sticks up for his rights? Or because he feels he was unjustly banned because this happened and he wasn't even on/near con territory?





> I don't know what makes you feel that he's a "moron" simply because you disagree with him. If you don't like it, don't read the thread, but simply insulting somebody just because  you don't like them isn't warranted or called for.


You're right.  "Moron" maybe wasn't appropriate.  "Creepy stalker" is probably more fitting:

http://www.lolfurries.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=570

all in all, I agree with Kage whatever his reasons


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 14, 2010)

First off do you honestly trust every crap-thrower out there? Like that website for example
Second, in that link he was apparently trying to protect somebody?


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Greenreaper, who's a part of AC...


A rank-and-file staff member in ops, in case there's any confusion. I'm one of the people who hands out lost property and call 911 if a fursuiter starts puking up green bile.

I made it clear that my questions were not made in a staff capacity, but as an external reporter. To me, they are two very different positions.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

FurAffinity said:


> First off do you honestly trust every crap-thrower out there? Like that website for example
> Second, in that link he was apparently trying to protect somebody?



If you look again you'll notice I was the one who made that post.  He was stalking my friend.

I'm pretty sure he's made threats to people as well.

I think _this_ could be a part of why he was banned (making threats, that is)

Regardless, this is all hearsay and I frankly don't give a shit.  It is up to Kage.


All I know about this Insane Kangaroo fellow is:

a.) he was stalking my friend and contacting his family after finding out their info

and

b.) he is not wanted back at Anthrocon because he caused a public scene with a firearm

I do not think these are good qualities for a person to have.


And no, I don't think he was trying to help anyone.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

GreenReaper said:


> A rank-and-file staff member in ops, in case there's any confusion. I'm one of the people who hands out lost property and call 911 if a fursuiter starts puking up green bile.
> 
> I made it clear that my questions were not made in a staff capacity, but as an external reporter. To me, they are two very different positions.


*nods* Just meant that you assisted AC, not that you were in a "leadership" position or something. Was just trying to emphasize that they were given a chance to clear up any confusion, and not by stranger or somebody foreign to the matter, but who has a vested interest in their cause and clearing up any confusion... and they opted not to. Given that, I feel that Insane's side holds up true.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> b.) he is not wanted back at Anthrocon because he caused a public scene with a firearm
> 
> I do not think these are good qualities for a person to have.



fail.

in both instances -nobody called the police-.

The police ( wrongly, both times), WITHOUT BEING CALLED, jacked roo-boy up for minding his own buisiness, while open carrying.

nobody called it in.

nobody wet themselves, and demanded a policeman make the scary man go away.

The police saw him, and chose ( again -wrongly- ) to intervene.

So, to review.

"improperly trained police officers violate civil rights of furry multiple times.'

and yet, the -furry- is the one who cause the scene.

ok, got it.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> fail.
> 
> in both instances -nobody called the police-.
> 
> ...



You seem to be confuzed and think I give a shit if the cops were right or wrong, but I don't.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 14, 2010)

Urso said:


> roo-boy was banned because he carried a firearm -legally-, in a completely different place.



Sorry, but the constitutional right to bear arms is fucking retarded.

It was created when it was a good idea to be able to protect your family from wild animals, those pesky natives or the Brits. If they'd seen semi-automatic weapons coming, they'd have let all those people fend for themselves.

OH NOES HE NEEDS TO PROTECT HIMSELF

So fucking what?

The planet is stuffed full of dangerous cities, yet most people don't bother with guns, and carrying a gun just because he is allowed to is a stupid reason to pack heat.

If you carry a gun, you should intend to use it on people.

Is this just a case of having it because he can, like a kid who is suddenly old enough to buy his own sweets, so spends all his money on them then gets shot in the gut because the other kid carries a gun.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

On a related case, Prawst got banned because of the content he has on his media accounts over several websites.
The irony is that AC staff participated _with_ him in some of those.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 14, 2010)

Wow, this is still going on? Lovely.
And how some critical facts go right over your heads, continues to amuse me.

Edit: @Voidrunners: This is where having fucking common sense comes into it. Clearly lacking with a lot of people in general.. right along with the total lack of maturity among a lot of people in my experience. Isn't common sense supposed to be common?


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Kesteh said:


> On a related case, Prawst got banned because of the content he has on his media accounts over several websites.
> The irony is that AC staff participated _with_ him in some of those.


Yeah. Kage himself got involved, and joked around with them. He got banned three years after the fact for what he did. 

His official ban reason was for posting videos videos to YouTube. And his ban letter basically threatened they would take action against him if he trespassed on "any property under contract to Anthrocon". 

Apparently, that means the entire city of Pittsburgh and its surrounding boroughs.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

Goes to show that even if you comply to requests or AC plays alongside you in situations, you'll still get arbitrarily banned.
Your personal life is within their grasp for the judging. They leave no stone unturned.

However, I don't believe legal action can be claimed against AC due to there being no substantial loss. (Their ban/gossip costs you your job, something heavy like that)



Firepyro said:


> Apparently, that means the entire city of Pittsburgh and its surrounding boroughs.



They can damn well try to enforce that, but they can only have a partial say in the areas that have been donated to their convention. 
You can stand outside the hotel and they can't do shit.
You can be a guest at the hotel and they can't do shit---you just can't be in a openly marked convention area and be _identified_ as a banned patron.

However, they can only ask that you not be there. The most they can do is have security walk you out of the area. In some cases hotel security may escort you off the premises.
If they want to put someone in legal trouble for being present then they need to have some form of restraint issued by a court.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

yeah, I"m thinking I"m done here. the people who get it, -get it-. the rest of them... well, I"m sure there's a fast food franchise that's hiring.


----------



## Urso (Feb 14, 2010)

Kesteh - it's pretty much agreed that there's not a whole lot of standing for a lawsuit.

Kage certainly was within his rights.

but that does not mean that he -was- right.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Kesteh said:


> Goes to show that even if you comply to requests or AC plays alongside you in situations, you'll still get arbitrarily banned.
> Your personal life is within their grasp for the judging. They leave no stone unturned.
> 
> However, I don't believe legal action can be claimed against AC due to there being no substantial loss. (Their ban/gossip costs you your job, something heavy like that)


AC is a private establishment like FA - they don't want you, they can ban you for whatever reason (as we've seen here). And you have nothing you can say or do to combat or protest. Even the Boy Scouts banning of gays was permitted since they're a private group.

Doesn't make it right, but it is what it is.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

Okay, Dragoneer would you please explain to Ricky about Crusadercat and what issues you had with him?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Kesteh said:


> Goes to show that even if you comply to requests or AC plays alongside you in situations, you'll still get arbitrarily banned.
> Your personal life is within their grasp for the judging. They leave no stone unturned.
> 
> However, I don't believe legal action can be claimed against AC due to there being no substantial loss. (Their ban/gossip costs you your job, something heavy like that)



You're assuming (again, that word) that there wasn't anything else to influence the decision.

I'm pretty sure there was.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> Okay, Dragoneer would you please explain to Ricky about Crusadercat and what issues you had with him?


You mean in regards to the fact Crusader Cat boasted about boinking his pet cat (and provided proof on the site) and that he was threatening to go on a religious crusade on FA to bring Christ to the furries (e.g. spam crusade?).

But I don't see what cat boinking has to do with this thread.


----------



## Courier New (Feb 14, 2010)

To everyone saying â€œitâ€™s Kageâ€™s con, he can do whatever he wants:â€ 

This is true, and nobody is saying he doesnâ€™t have the _right_ to prohibit whoever he wants from coming to AC. 

However, that doesnâ€™t mean his decision is _best_. Itâ€™s debatable whether he helped the convention by doing this. Banning someone on a whim, when they have not broken any convention rules or proven themselves to be dangerous in some way is probably not helpful. 

Furthermore, complaining about it may not be useless. It warns people about bad business practices. Though unlikely, itâ€™s also possible that the convention organizers may change their minds, or that similar incidences may be prevented in the future with bad PR.

Repeating â€œhe can do what he wantsâ€ is just an attempt to shut down discussion.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

First off, that was a long time ago.  Things people did when they were in their young teens aren't even relevant in my opinion.  Legally, they are not.

The only thing I think *is* relevant is I'm pretty sure IK had made threats toward him.  That part *is* relevant.

Also, Crusader Cat is a nice kid, despite things he did when he was younger (and if you'd do some research you'd see that's actually a very common occuance among kids that age).

He's just having a hard time coming to grasp with some things because of his religion.  I understand this though.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Also, Crusader Cat is a nice kid, despite things he did when he was younger (and if you'd do some research you'd see that's actually a very common occuance among kids that age).
> 
> He's just having a hard time coming to grasp with some things because of his religion.  I understand this though.


These events happened within the past year on FA. I fail to see how that excuses him for "when he was younger". We could forgive Prawst for the things he did three, four years ago, because he was a typical kid. Lil' mischievous, but whatever. Prawst matured a lot, and I can (mostly) respect him now for it.

Crusader Cat? Within the past year. People mature, and they do change, but within a year? If it weren't for the fact Crusader Cat was STILL poking fingers at the site, threatening to sue over religious persecution barely a few months ago, I could consider that.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> We could forgive Prawst for the things he did three, four years ago, because he was a typical kid. Lil' mischievous, but whatever. Prawst matured a lot, and I can (mostly) respect him now for it.





Yep. Here's to proof of the theory of maturity. My FA:F account from almost 5 years ago still exists here. Compare the mentality and tone of it to me now.
Big serious difference. 
Less hormonial/hyper impulse, more reasonable thought.

Sadly I cannot recover the account so... it sits there. I'd delete it if I could---it's unnecessary.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> You mean in regards to the fact Crusader Cat boasted about boinking his pet cat (and provided proof on the site) and that he was threatening to go on a religious crusade on FA to bring Christ to the furries (e.g. spam crusade?).
> 
> But I don't see what cat boinking has to do with this thread.


 



I understand you handle the situtation the best you could which you had a reason to banned him because you excerise your right to do so.I am not trying to start anything I am bringing this up as an example how you handle that issue.Just like Kage he had to handle it in his own way by telling IK that he can't come to AC anymore because of the stunt he pulled.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> These events happened within the past year on FA. I fail to see how that excuses him for "when he was younger". We could forgive Prawst for the things he did three, four years ago, because he was a typical kid. Lil' mischievous, but whatever. Prawst matured a lot, and I can (mostly) respect him now for it.
> 
> Crusader Cat? Within the past year. People mature, and they do change, but within a year? If it weren't for the fact Crusader Cat was STILL poking fingers at the site, threatening to sue over religious persecution barely a few months ago, I could consider that.



I meant the cat thing.

Again though, this thread isn't about that.  I just think that threats might have been another factor in the decision here.  Again though, that's just hearsay unless I can get something solid.

Really though, I don't think Kage would always give 100% of the facts why someone was banned.  I don't think you always do either.  A lot of the time its simply to prevent drama.

I think that's fair.

Now I gotta finish up lifing weights but I'll check back later (I'm at the gym right now)


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> I understand you handle the situtation the best you could which you had a reason to banned him because you excerise your right to do so.I am not trying to start anything I am bringing this up as an example how you handle that issue.Just like Kage he had to handle it in his own way by telling IK that he can't come to AC anymore because of the stunt he pulled.


But Crusader Cat directly violated site rules, and he did them on the site. I don't see that as a valid comparison because in all the proof shown IK didn't violate AC rules at AC in any way. They just felt he was a threat to their con, and as stated by others, it seems the risk of media exposure to them was too great.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 14, 2010)

I see a lot of people saying "Kage may very well be within his rights to ban Insane Kangaroo from the con, but it doesn't mean he SHOULD" but next to no sentiments along the line of "Insane Kangaroo may very well be within his rights to carry a firearm in an airport, but it doesn't mean he SHOULD."

funny how that works


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Really though, I don't think Kage would always give 100% of the facts why someone was banned.  I don't think you always do either.  A lot of the time its simply to prevent drama.


I agree on that, but you /do/ give legitimate reasons of the ban to the person you ban. If they cause drama (and they probably will) then that's where you have to come in and play the role of PR Consultant to clean up the mess.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> But Crusader Cat directly violated site rules, and he did them on the site. I don't see that as a valid comparison because in all the proof shown IK didn't violate AC rules at AC in any way. They just felt he was a threat to their con, and as stated by others, it seems the risk of media exposure to them was too great.


 
Yeah, but if your in Kage's position would you banned IK from AC?


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> Yeah, but if your in Kage's position would you banned IK from AC?



That bottles down to individual morals. Which... 'Neer seems to have an open and realistic sense of them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> Yeah, but if your in Kage's position would you banned IK from the AC?


It's a good question. If this happened at FA: United, we'd issue a warning/reminder per the the con rules that this sort of behavior is not permitted at the convention hotel or con grounds. If he violated that rule at the con, then yes, we'd ban him.

There's a reason we have security personnel at FA: United. To prevent things like this happening at the con, and it's the role of security to prevent/watch out/stop things like this. If he's not violating anything AT the con I don't see where it would be our concern.

And as a guy who runs helps run/lead a con... that's exactly how we'd handle it.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 14, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> ..."Insane Kangaroo may very well be within his rights to carry a firearm in an airport, but it doesn't mean he SHOULD."
> 
> funny how that works


I implied that, not in so many words.


----------



## Ultraviolence (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Also, Crusader Cat is a nice kid, despite things he did when he was younger (and if you'd do some research you'd see that's actually a very common occuance among kids that age).
> 
> He's just having a hard time coming to grasp with some things because of his religion. I understand this though.


So you are defending CrusaderCat for wanting to have sex with his pet cat and claiming its a common occurance among his age group, got it.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 14, 2010)

Carenath said:


> I implied that, not in so many words.


So you did, but the direct juxtaposition is the effect I was going for.

If he wants to be all gung ho about open carry rights, go right ahead- but his actions had consequences w/r/t his attendance at a private furry convention.  If you're standing up for what you believe in. things like this may just happen.

Of further note: aren't there many furries/suiters that carry, whether open or concealed?  This is the first time in recent memory that there's ever been a fuss, so the issue isn't that he was banned "just because he believes in gun rights," it's because instead of waiting 5 minutes after getting his stuff at the baggage claim he couldn't wait till he was outside to holster up.

This sort of thing is all the dude ever talked about when I was in his vicinity, and he took great pride in stirring shit up.  Shit has been stirred, and he doesn't like the result.  Oops.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 14, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> This sort of thing is all the dude ever talked about when I was in his vicinity, and he took great pride in stirring shit up. Shit has been stirred, and he doesn't like the result. Oops.


And I'm sure he had a good reason for it, but executed it horribly. As such, you can only review the material at hand. Even if he fucked up at the airport (he did) what AC rule did he violate?

Maybe he deserved the ban. Maybe it was Kage being overprotective. Or both, but the ban letter he got doesn't quite add up to everything else.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> It's a good question. If this happened at FA: United, we'd issue a warning/reminder per the the con rules that this sort of behavior is not permitted at the convention hotel or con grounds. If he violated that rule at the con, then yes, we'd ban him.
> 
> There's a reason we have security personnel at FA: United. To prevent things like this happening at the con, and it's the role of security to prevent/watch out/stop things like this. If he's not violating anything AT the con I don't see where it would be our concern.
> 
> And as a guy who runs helps run/lead a con... that's exactly how we'd handle it.


 
You solved IK's problem he doesn't have to come to that Convention he can go to yours,as long as he follows the rules thats a good idea.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 14, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> And I'm sure he had a good reason for it, but executed it horribly. As such, you can only review the material at hand. Even if he fucked up at the airport (he did) what AC rule did he violate?
> 
> Maybe he deserved the ban. Maybe it was Kage being overprotective. Or both, but the ban letter he got doesn't quite add up to everything else.



Are you saying the only way or reason you can/should be banned from AC is for rules broken at AC?  I'd say the "rule" he broke was being an embarrassing nutjob whose only noticeable connection to Pittsburgh prior to his legal troubles was AC.  "Gun nut carries firearm in airport on way to local furry convention" wouldn't make for a very good headline (for the con.)

It's definitely going to be both, but you'd think Kage would have some good formal letter-writers on staff.  "You were banned due to youtube," "you were banned due to insisting on carrying a firearm due to perceived unsafe conditions," both of those don't really jibe with what happened or what makes sense.  If they're going through the trouble of certified mail, the dumbest shit they could do is to make it some snide allusion or snarky comment instead of a real reason, goddammit.


----------



## Starblade (Feb 14, 2010)

Voidrunners, if you don't like the 2nd Amendment I suggest you vote with your feet, because it's not going away in this country.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 14, 2010)

There's no point in trying to change one's views on morals/what happened/what didn't when there's no further unbiased information regarding it. {^ this discussion}
There's only your interpretation of it, and in this case, roo's morals and mentality. From there, the one that can outfox the rest in one way or another wins the decision. Those who aren't interested in carrying him one way or another should simply have no input whatsoever.

My implication was to, in an unofficial and casual agreement, have roo allowed access to the convention center and everything with it, given that he is unarmed at the time of Anthrocon itself. Should he be seen voiding the agreement, he will then be subject to official papers restricting him from entering the area.


tl;dr: One more chance with no weapon, babe. Void & your screwed.
I think Conway will like it


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 14, 2010)

Bravo, Kage. I'm going to buy you a drink at the next AC.

And lol @ Insane. What the fuck did you expect?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 14, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> But Crusader Cat directly violated site rules, and he did them on the site. I don't see that as a valid comparison because in all the proof shown IK didn't violate AC rules at AC in any way. They just felt he was a threat to their con, and as stated by others, it seems the risk of media exposure to them was too great.



Crusader Cat was banned for threatening a lawsuit after nothing was being done about the pictures that were posted to harass him.  I wasn't questioning his ban here, though.  I was attacking IK's character showing there are probably reasons not stated that Kage doesn't want him to attend.

The only reason I brought up Crusader Cat in the first place is because I know IK was stalking him and made threats to him as well (though none of the ones I saw were actually direct it is obvious what was implied).  Again, he also called his parents after finding out their info and he even CALLED THE DEAN OF HIS SCHOOL asking him not to let Crusader Cat attend MFF (wtf?).  The kid is a nutjob and I'm sure there's other stuff I'm missing here as well.



Ultraviolence said:


> So you are defending CrusaderCat for wanting to have sex with his pet cat and claiming its a common occurance among his age group, got it.



If you're really curious about my opinions here (which I'm sure you're not) my AIM is listed conveniently to the left.  This isn't relevant to the thread, at all.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 14, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Crusader Cat was banned for threatening a lawsuit after nothing was being done about the pictures that were posted to harass him.  I wasn't questioning his ban here, though.


That was the final straw after trying to peacefully work things out with Crusader Cat.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Uhm... so whats you're assumption or basis that he's actually "insane"? Just the name? Because he sticks up for his rights? Or because he feels he was unjustly banned because this happened and he wasn't even on/near con territory?


Are you arguing he has the right to enter a private event when he's not welcome? 

Look, I'm not  going to spend hours detailing every little bit of why he's a nutter; I'm lazy, and it's not worth the effort. 

I'm just going to point to the most recent.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/38170.html



> Posted: Mon Feb 15th, 2010  03:29 am    Quote Reply            I will be  protesting if the ban is not lifted by the time Anthrocon rolls around.
> 
> Current thoughts:
> Blue kangaroo fursuit
> ...



If you want to see more of his firearms related postings, go take a peek over at PAFOA.org's forums. His username there was (he's banned now) gunperson003. Banned for being a loose screw. He posted pictures of himself dressed essentially like an ATF agent and talked about how he goes out in public dressed like that, ATF hat and all.

It's not any particular thing that you can point to and say "This. This is why I don't like him or want him around." You have to take a total of everything, and in calculating the sum you realize just how bad it is.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 15, 2010)

I'd like to state Aran is banned from both forums he is talking about, and he keeps ban evading. I've never walked around outside while in any costume in relation to law enforcement.

I will be protesting as described in the post.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Are you arguing he has the right to enter a private event when he's not welcome?


Wow, really? I... wow, really.

Congratulations.





​ 
I never said he had the right at all. If he's banned he's banned. I can't change that. It's not my place. I merely disagreed with the terms of it, and... I never said that all. I mean... wow, really?


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Actually, I don't "keep ban evading", I just occasionally check back to read threads.

And consistently run into your crazy.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Wow, really? I... wow, really.
> 
> Congratulations.
> 
> ...




I simply asked a question.

I believe you've unlocked that achievement, not me.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 15, 2010)

You're the one going all crazy stating furries are all about buttsex on gun forums.

This topic is not for such ridicule, it's to talk about the actions of a specific organization.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> And consistently run into your crazy.


Either way: you're here. Keep it civil and polite. You've made it clear you dislike IK, and that's fine. Just stick to the fact. What IK did was stupid, but still within the confines of the law. Like farting in an elevator. Not against the law... but not a good idea.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 15, 2010)

Ban evading?  I know someone who bragged about that all the time on IRC, having trouble remembering his moniker...

But then again, I don't make my topmost LJ post a shitlist that includes real-life photos and names.  Talk about histrionic.


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 15, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I will be protesting as described in the post.



I will be looking forward with great anticipation, to seeing the reports of your arrest. I can't begin to imagine what you hope to achieve with your idiotic protest.


----------



## Carenath (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Actually, I don't "keep ban evading", I just occasionally check back to read threads.
> 
> And consistently run into your crazy.


And you can check that attitude at the door buddy.



insane_kangaroo said:


> You're the one going all crazy stating furries are all about buttsex on gun forums.
> 
> This topic is not for such ridicule, it's to talk about the actions of a specific organization.


You too.


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 15, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I will be protesting as described in the post.


...What? 

I'm all for the civil liberties of people, having right to free speech, a right to carry a weapon, and so forth... Now, however, you're going to dress up, armed, *on purpose* outside of AnthroCon as a protest against your ban.  If anything, it's going to make people's opinions about your predicament worse.

I understand you're frustrated over all of this, but do you think you could sit down, have a glass of milk and some cookies, calm down, and *reconsider *what you plan to do?  You're going to be in *costume*, face hidden, and armed with guns and bullets. I know you don't plan to attack or threaten anybody with your guns or otherwise, but the simple fact you'd be hawking outside the convention centre, and I can't stress this enough, *with weapons while in costume*... That's going to cause a lot of suspicion from the authorities and get you arrested.  

Perhaps you can continue to petition Dr. Conway and the rest of AnthrCon's board to be allowed back into the convention.  Talk it over with them in a civil manner, and drop this ridiculous idea of a protest.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

You do know, IK, that if you wear a full fursuit, you will be wearing a mask.  That may be in violation of the law.

Just make sure you can wear a mask while armed legally in the limits.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

And I will not be going anywhere NEAR AC if someone is armed, wearing a mask, and standing across the street.

Guess that made my summer plans easier   Gonna go visit the family again


----------



## WishingStar (Feb 15, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> You do know, IK, that if you wear a full fursuit, you will be wearing a mask.  That may be in violation of the law.


*This.*

Thank you, GraemeLion, for being more clear on my concerns in my previous post.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

And looking at the law, it looks like wearing a mask while not committing a felony is legal in Pittsburgh.

No fucking way am I going to that con.  None.  I've been robbed by someone wearing a mask who was carrying, I'm not about to put myself in the position of seeing someone with a mask and gun again.  I'm sure IK isn't a criminal or anything, but I don't need that stress or circus in my life. Oh well   Thank God fur cons aren't everything to me.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 15, 2010)

Dunno if this has been asked yet, but if he doesn't intend to carry at the con, yet he's bringing guns with him, where does he plan to leave his armaments, unless what he really means, is "Honest, they're not down my trouser leg".


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 15, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Dunno if this has been asked yet, but if he doesn't intend to carry at the con, yet he's bringing guns with him, where does he plan to leave his armaments, unless what he really means, is "Honest, they're not down my trouser leg".



I thought his intention was to carry openly no matter what.  Besides, concealing firearms without a permit is taken rather seriously over here, even if it's never drawn.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I will be protesting as described in the post.



You're an idiot.

PS... Why in the world is this a sticky?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 15, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Why in the world is this a sticky?



Because HE HAS A FUCKING GUN.

AUGH


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 15, 2010)

All I can say to this Insane Kangaroo, is that my gut says this won't end well for you. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 15, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> All I can say to this Insane Kangaroo, is that my gut says this won't end well for you. I hope I'm wrong.



My main worry about this whole protest thing, is that we may never hear about what happened.

I don't think I can live without knowing he got arrested or shot or raped as the perfect end to a story about idiocy.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> My main worry about this whole protest thing, is that we may never hear about what happened.
> 
> I don't think I can live without knowing he got arrested or shot or raped as the perfect end to a story about idiocy.



Man armed with two visible weapons in a strange costume with face covered across from a convention hotel filled with thousands of people? 

I'm actually ashamed to be pro-gun rights right now.  This guy's a fucking moron.  He's going to get shot.  

It's one thing to be pro-gun rights.   It's something completely different to invite confrontation while armed.  This is precisely the kind of person who should NOT have a firearm.

Oh well.  These types usually end up dead by the sword anyway.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Either way: you're here. Keep it civil and polite. You've made it clear you dislike IK, and that's fine. Just stick to the fact. What IK did was stupid, but still within the confines of the law. Like farting in an elevator. Not against the law... but not a good idea.



I'm not sure why you think I'm against him open carrying. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong and you aren't and we're on two completely different tracks here.

I open carry every day. Glock 17, never fails to be there, so long as I'm in a state that it's legal to do so. It has nothing to do with open carry, and everything to do with his attitude.

And how he responds to being told he's not welcome.



And as to the question someone asked of where he'd keep his gun while at the con if not carrying, most good hotels have in-room safes these days.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> Man armed with two visible weapons in a strange costume with face covered across from a convention hotel filled with thousands of people?
> 
> I'm actually ashamed to be pro-gun rights right now.  This guy's a fucking moron.  He's going to get shot.
> 
> ...



Guy does nothing illegal, you think he shouldn't own a gun, hate that he exercises his freedoms...

How are you pro-gun rights, again?


----------



## Jashwa (Feb 15, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You don't need to carry a gun in Pittsburgh.


This.

I live here. Unless you're out looking for bad areas to start trouble in, there's 0 reason for a gun.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> My main worry about this whole protest thing, is that we may never hear about what happened.
> 
> I don't think I can live without knowing he got arrested or shot or raped as the perfect end to a story about idiocy.



Oh don't worry, I'll be happy to be there with a video camera if he actually follows through. I'm right over the hill from where the con is, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> This.
> 
> I live here. Unless you're out looking for bad areas to start trouble in, there's 0 reason for a gun.



http://spotcrime.com/pa/pittsburgh

Show me on the map where the good areas are?


----------



## Ben (Feb 15, 2010)

Qoph said:


> There's no constitution for things that you voluntarily join.  If you join a forum, you don't have freedom of speech on it, you can be banned for whatever reason.  You can join a college that is against gay sex (like mine was), and if you fuck some guy they can kick you out.  You can join a furry con, and if they decide they don't want people with guns there then they can do that as well.  Stop acting like it's your right for everyone to put up with everything you do.  You can carry that gun around Pittsburgh all you want, but if they don't want you having it at AC then they have every right to keep you out.


I'm choosing not to read the rest of the thread before making this post, because really, it didn't need to go past what I just quoted above.

You're wrong. Deal with it.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I thought his intention was to carry openly no matter what.  Besides, concealing firearms without a permit is taken rather seriously over here, even if it's never drawn.



No, he said he won't carry to the con.

And I'm pretty sure he has a non-resident PA LTCF or an appropriately reciprocal permit. I don't remember offhand, but I'm pretty sure he's legal to a T.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Ben said:


> I'm choosing not to read the rest of the thread before making this post, because really, it didn't need to go past what I just quoted above.
> 
> You're wrong. Deal with it.



Additionally, that's all I've been saying. Just a hair more aggressively. I admit I slightly overreact when I reply to things on the internet sometimes.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 15, 2010)

What a shit storm this thread ended up being.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> And looking at the law, it looks like wearing a mask while not committing a felony is legal in Pittsburgh.
> 
> No fucking way am I going to that con.  None.  I've been robbed by someone wearing a mask who was carrying, I'm not about to put myself in the position of seeing someone with a mask and gun again.  I'm sure IK isn't a criminal or anything, but I don't need that stress or circus in my life. Oh well   Thank God fur cons aren't everything to me.



You might want to avoid going to the con either way. As IK and others stated, there are plenty of concealed weapons there.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 15, 2010)

Insane Kangaroo you don't have to go AC this year and protest against this.You can always go to FA: United (Its being held in New Jersey you know its a Carry gun State) or some other Furry convention.I am not going to AC this year because I need to save money for stuff I really do need.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> You might want to avoid going to the con either way. As IK and others stated, there are plenty of concealed weapons there.



HUR HUR HUR


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> HUR HUR HUR



Um.... what?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> You might want to avoid going to the con either way. As IK and others stated, there are plenty of concealed weapons there.



I'd like to point out that anywhere you go there is a potential to have concealed weapons. Tazers and Mace and small knives are all pretty standard for people to conceal on them for personal safety.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to point out that anywhere you go there is a potential to have concealed weapons. Tazers and Mace and small knives are all pretty standard for people to conceal on them for personal safety.



Oh, that's entirely true, and I wasn't discounting that, but he said specifically "people in masks with guns" which there will 100% be there. I figured going the whole "Never go outside, avoid public places" etc was just being silly given the context.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Guy does nothing illegal, you think he shouldn't own a gun, hate that he exercises his freedoms...
> 
> How are you pro-gun rights, again?



I've got no problem with someone owning a gun.

Hell, I think everywhere should be open carry, period.  This state , Tennessee, just nearly had open carry in BARS.

What I DO have a problem with is attitude towards this.  It's nearly obsessive.  He's going to stand across the street, in a costume, wearing a sidearm and carrying a sign and a shotgun.  In a downtown setting.

Do you REALLY think that's a proper response to this?  Do you really think that's an effective way to promote open carry?

Because I don't.  That's the kind of shit that gets splashed across the news as "See how demented gun owners are?!?"   That's the kind of message that gets cities and states to BAN guns, not the kind of message that educates them.

He's basically stating that he will have a show of force.  That show of force, because of how he is going to do it, could potentially provoke an incident.  That incident cannot end well for gun owners.

Mature and reasoned.  That's how this should be handled. 

No where did I say I hate guns.   There aren't two sides to this.  He can be a horrible representative of a gun owner AND still have a constitutional right.


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Oh, that's entirely true, and I wasn't discounting that, but he said specifically "people in masks with guns" which there will 100% be there. I figured going the whole "Never go outside, avoid public places" etc was just being silly given the context.



I don't mind people in masks with guns who are carrying.  Why?  Because their goal isn't to get arrested to prove a point.  

But again, I think everywhere should be open carry.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 15, 2010)

I don't feel like reading a bunch of posts, so tell me, what are we arguing about?


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

GraemeLion said:


> I've got no problem with someone owning a gun.
> 
> Hell, I think everywhere should be open carry, period.  This state , Tennessee, just nearly had open carry in BARS.
> 
> ...


Okay, I confess miscommunication. I thought you meant OC in general.

Previous statement retracted.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I don't feel like reading a bunch of posts, so tell me, what are we arguing about?



I don't remember.

I think it's "Which is cooler: Cats or dogs?"


----------



## GraemeLion (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Okay, I confess miscommunication. I thought you meant OC in general.
> 
> Previous statement retracted.



No problem.  I just feel that he's going to get himself in trouble this way.

Of course, he likely wants attention, so this all works out well for him.


----------



## Delta (Feb 15, 2010)

How is it this got so misconstrued?

From what I read in Kage's letter, he basically said: "You're making people uncomfortable by waving your gun in there faces. This combined with the posts you've made on the internet have helped me draw the conclusion *that I do not want you at my convention.*"

Its his party and he'll do what he wants to because its *HIS* party and he has the right. People seem to forget that attending a convention is not a right, but a privilege given by those that run it. If they aren't comfortable with you attending because they think you'll start a panic, you aren't going.

You can protest all you want, but it wont get you anywhere and you'll look like an idiot. What are you going to protest? That he trampled your rights with his own? Thats a little hypocritical seeing as that what you're trying to do with his.

TL;DR:

Kage's party. Kage's word. Good day, sir.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> I don't remember.
> 
> I think it's "Which is cooler: Cats or dogs?"


 
That's gay, as in homosexual gay. Yes, I'm using gay as a derogatory remark to homothexuals.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> That's gay, as in homosexual gay. Yes, I'm using gay as a derogatory remark to homothexuals.



I demand this cracker assassin be removed for mumble mumble....


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> http://spotcrime.com/pa/pittsburgh
> 
> Show me on the map where the good areas are?



Simple assault...  "Terroristic threats"?  lolwut

Possesion of Marijuana...

Arson?  OK, that is maybe an actual crime in my opinion.

You have to keep in mind it's still a city, so yeah no shit crimes do happen but Pittsburgh is a relatively safe city and you don't need a gun, especially if you don't go wandering around into areas where you shouldn't be in the first place.

But OP is from Alaska so he's not used to stuff like cities in the first place.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> I demand this cracker assassin be removed for mumble mumble....


 
D:

Edit: Did I kill the thread? That kicks ass. I didn't know I had that kind of power.


----------



## RoseHexwit (Feb 15, 2010)

Why is this sticky?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 15, 2010)

RoseHexwit said:


> Why is this sticky?



I'm guessing there were some sexual favors involved.

*NOTICE:  USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR THIS POST*


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 15, 2010)

Lazydabear said:


> You can always go to FA: United



$10 right now says IK won't be let in the door.


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 15, 2010)

Winter Tw Wolf said:


> $10 right now says IK won't be let in the door.


Just like IK _didn't bring guns to AnthroCon_ if he came to FA: United, unarmed, he'd be let in. He wasn't carrying guns at Anthrocon when this happened according to both him and some of my friends on AC staff. It was the airport issue in Pittsburgh that did it.

So long as he didn't violate FA: United policy it's not my problem. IK is welcome to FAU as long as he respects our rules. We're not going to preemptively ban him because he, say, had a gun at Newark Liberty. Doesn't happen at our con... not our problem.

(Short of him actually committing a felony or something, at least).


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Just like IK _didn't bring guns to AnthroCon_ if he came to FA: United, unarmed, he'd be let in. He wasn't carrying guns at Anthrocon when this happened according to both him and some of my friends on AC staff. It was the airport issue in Pittsburgh that did it.
> 
> So long as he didn't violate FA: United policy it's not my problem. IK is welcome to FAU as long as he respects our rules. We're not going to preemptively ban him because he, say, had a gun at Newark Liberty. Doesn't happen at our con... not our problem.
> 
> (Short of him actually committing a felony or something, at least).



I stand well corrected. :V


----------



## Dragoneer (Feb 15, 2010)

Winter Tw Wolf said:


> I stand well corrected. :V


And for the record, I do think what IK did was stupid (and have told him as much). Who takes a gun into an airport? That said, I think the ban wasn't warranted, either, based on all the evidence, that it didn't happen AT the con, but that's just my opinion.

I'm not really taking sides in it as much as I am waffling my thoughts.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 15, 2010)

As a constitutional purist you should understand that Anthrocon, as a private organization not accepting government funding, has the right to deny your membership and in this case I support them. Whether or not IK should be banned from attending is for AC to decide, I just want to establish that IK grounding his argument in a violation of his "civil rights" is absurd.

As a fellow constitutional purist I am in full agreement that IK's right to own and carry a firearm should not be infringed upon by the government. It doesn't matter if it was "dumb" to carry a weapon, the point is that if it's legal, it's legal, and he and nobody else should be harassed by the government for it. That much is plainly obvious.

But as a realist, I'm aware of the litany of statistics that demonstrate the dangers of loaded weapons to the person carrying them and those nearby. The AnthroCon organizers are obviously aware of these statistics as well. I'm sure some will contend that the opposite is true, but then it's no longer a matter of civil rights, but a matter of opinion, isn't it? 

As a fellow AC attendee, I would feel less safe with IK bringing a loaded weapon when attending the convention. Even if he does not bring the weapon to the convention floor itself, I and many other convention attendees will be spending a lot of our time outside the actual convention area. Since AC is a private organization, I can understand perfectly why they would not want a person known to conceal carry attending their convention, and they reserve the explicit constitutional protection to deny IK access to their organization.

IK is understandably perturbed at being denied access to something, but to ground his argument in the idea of "civil rights" is simply untrue. It is AC that is exercising its constitutional rights in this case, not IK, who is only arguing for the privilege of becoming a member of a private organization.


----------



## Aran (Feb 15, 2010)

Just remember there are over 500k people licensed to carry firearms in Pennsylvania. You're likely to be around a LOT of loaded firearms if you spend time here.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Just remember there are over 500k people licensed to carry firearms in Pennsylvania. You're likely to be around a LOT of loaded firearms if you spend time here.



Pennsylvania has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the country. Trust me, we Pennsylvanians are well aware of the existence of loaded firearms.

If anybody wants to have a fun time, go to http://news.google.com and type "child + gun + accidental".


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 15, 2010)

Aran said:


> Just remember there are over 500k people licensed to carry firearms in Pennsylvania. You're likely to be around a LOT of loaded firearms if you spend time here.



Yeah but most of those people don't seem to have problems getting arrested or causing incidents.  I'm fine with gunfurries attending AC or any con, the question I have is why they don't seem to have the same problems as Mr. Insane Kangaroo here.

How many gunfurs have been arrested for open carry?  Maybe they know how to use discretion or how to de-escalate a situation?  Maybe they realize that, just because they know that state laws on firearms trump local/city regulations (wasn't that what IK argued?) and can legally holster their handgun immediately after receiving their checked baggage, doesn't mean they SHOULD do so, because of the exact scene anyone with a half a brain should have expected.

He's got poor judgement and a need to be confrontational.  He hates authority nearly as much as he sucks up to it.  Here's to hoping in the course of his protest somebody doesn't get injured and that he isn't surprised if/when he gets arrested.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 15, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> And for the record, I do think what IK did was stupid (and have told him as much). *Who takes a gun into an airport?* That said, I think the ban wasn't warranted, either, based on all the evidence, that it didn't happen AT the con, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> I'm not really taking sides in it as much as I am waffling my thoughts.


 
U.S. marshals.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> Pennsylvania has some of the highest rates of gun violence in the country


Yeah, there's a whole city full of violent criminals, it's called Philadelphia.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> U.S. marshals.



Oh, I wasn't aware Insane Kangaroo was one.  If only he had stated so, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.  What a laugh!

Wait, he wasn't one, after all?  Shucks.



Aran said:


> Yeah, there's a whole city full of violent criminals, it's called Philadelphia.



itt: scared people in rural areas discussing their terror of cities (where many people live and work without incident) they've never actually spent time in  hahahahahahaha

I hope you don't ever leave your house, if you're that frightened.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 16, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Oh, I wasn't aware Insane Kangaroo was one. If only he had stated so, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. What a laugh!
> 
> Wait, he wasn't one, after all? Shucks.


 
Hmm... didn't think that would go over your head like that...


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Um... I live in the city of Pittsburgh.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Yeah, there's a whole city full of violent criminals, it's called Philadelphia.



Who get their firearms at gun shows and shops in the Kentucky part of Pennsylvania. At any rate, it's still part of Pennsylvania, so I don't see why that would be a contradiction to my point that there are lots of gun-related injuries in Pennsylvania.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> Who get their firearms at gun shows and shops in the Kentucky part of Pennsylvania.



Criminals can't buy their guns at gun stores, but nice try.

I'll bet the Brady Campaign told you that didn't they?


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

I was just at a gun store tonight to buy an AK47. The guy ahead of me in line wanted to buy a Mosin Nagant M1891/30, a very old military surplus rifle. Bolt action, five shot.

He was denied for a single aggravated assault charge in his younger, dumber days.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

And criminals can buy from people who buy from gun stores. But we're off on a tangent now because not all gun related injuries come from criminals, and we're not talking about a criminal here. I've said before I support entirely the constitutional right to buy, own, and bear weapons. But statistics bear out that it's a practice that greatly endangers everybody around those guns. For this reason I support AC, and any private organization, that would deny membership based on a person's known practice of carrying guns.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

When you follow the four rules, nobody is in danger.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Hmm... didn't think that would go over your head like that...



So what point were you trying to make?  I think we all know that most people who take guns into airports are doing it because it's a part of their job.



Aran said:


> Um... I live in the city of Pittsburgh.



Right.  And Pittsburgh is also full of criminals.  Every city is.  Every town is.  Bad people do bad things everywhere.  I'm not petrified of them, just as I don't spend my days in fear thinking about the next terrorist attack.

Pardon me for my crass 'rural' remark, then. :3


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

"When used properly" is always a hypothetical situation. Statistics are not hypothetical, they catalog reality. Statistics bear out that a person carrying a gun is a risk to the gun carrier and those nearby. This is well understood. For this reason, AC has reasonable cause for denying membership to a person who pronounces himself proudly as an "open carrier." It's a right expressly protected by the Constitution, and trumps any perceived right IK may have to carry a gun at a private event hosted by a private organization on private premises. This is just Constitutional fact.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 16, 2010)

I never hear Furries doing drive-by's or busting a cap in someone Fursuit, then again their is always a frist time.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 16, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> So what point were you trying to make? I think we all know that most people who take guns into airports are doing it because it's a part of their job.


 
He asked a rhetorical question and I made a facetious remark. It should have been obvious. Doesn't surprise me. Fanboys take stuff the wrong way all the time.


----------



## blackedsoul (Feb 16, 2010)

Its called. people getting fucking scared because of a wittle gunny


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

blackedsoul said:


> Its called. people getting fucking scared because of a wittle gunny



The people WITHOUT the need to have a Death Bringing Device on them at all times are the scared ones?? Teehee.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

I mean I don't carry a gun on me because I'm generally pretty comfortable. I almost never feel in danger of anything. Certainly never quite so that I would have felt more comfortable carrying a gun. But that's just me, I don't live my life in abject fear so deep I demand the ability to kill people.

Again, 100% constitutionally protected, but let's not pretend it's something other than what it is.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> He asked a rhetorical question and I made a facetious remark. It should have been obvious. Doesn't surprise me. Fanboys take stuff the wrong way all the time.



dumb


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 16, 2010)

This thread is pro-gun vs anti-gun. It should be moved to R&R.



Bobskunk said:


> dumb


 
Don't be hatin' 'cause you're a fanboy who can't pick up on shit.

Also, lolumad?


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm very pro-gun. When have I said anything other than that the Constitutional right to own guns should not be infringed?

If anything, I and some people in this thread have been anti-gun owners.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

So who likes puddin'? Mmm puddin.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

What I'm saying is gun owners are scum.


----------



## Azure (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> What I'm saying is gun owners are scum.


Gee, way to blanket statement. I own a gun. Does that make me a scumbag? Does exercising my Constitutional Rights make me less of an individual, or less of a human being? Open Carry is the dumbest way to carry a gun, IMO. Not only do you give away it's presence right away, giving potential criminals a chance to work around it, or potentially steal it, but it also aggravates normal people around you, and gives them the impression that you might be crazy or are a law enforcement officer. Concealed Carry has none of these drawbacks.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> What I'm saying is gun owners are scum.



*five paragraphs of outrage*


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Gee, way to blanket statement. I own a gun. Does that make me a scumbag? Does exercising my Constitutional Rights make me less of an individual, or less of a human being?



Yes.


----------



## Azure (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> Yes.


What an educated response. Way to demonstrate your education on constitutional law. I eagerly await further discourse from you on a subject that you are clearly only invested in emotionally.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

It's not a Constitutional argument. Gun owners are just scum, is all.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

The Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket soldiers' funerals is Constitutionally protected free speech but they're still scum. Trust me I'm as much of a Constitutional purist as there is. I don't think the government has the right to charge people for using guns in the commission of a crime, let alone prevent people from buying and carrying them. But none of that changes the fact that gun owners are bad people who willfully endanger the lives of everyone around them, as well as themselves.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than 90% of the guns in America.


----------



## Azure (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> The Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket soldiers' funerals is Constitutionally protected free speech but they're still scum. Trust me I'm as much of a Constitutional purist as there is. I don't think the government has the right to charge people for using guns in the commission of a crime, let alone prevent people from legally buying them. But none of that changes the fact that gun owners are bad people who willfully endanger the lives of everyone around them, as well as themselves.


There is no way you can make this argument in an intellectual manner. Please stop making yourself look like a fool. The amount of legal work involved in getting a concealed carry permit, much less an open carry permit, as well as the features of guns themselves make for a very safe, tidy package in which few people are injured. Tell me, how many people do you see shooting other people in public with a legally concealed carry weapon, without provocation, or on accident? If you can return any sort of result to this question, let me know.

EDIT- The government has every right to regulate firearms in a sensible fashion, and to discourage their use in crime with punishment. What manner of world do you inhabit? Your mind must be an extremely vacant place.

EDIT EDIT- And the Westboro Baptist Church probably concealed carries. I would to, if I had that many people to fear.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

In PA, no license is needed to open carry on foot outside of cities of the first class (Population over one million, the only one being Philadelphia) and it's one form to get a license to carry which covers you in vehicles, concealed, and during a state of emergency.

And the government has no right to regulate firearms.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean?


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> There is no way you can make this argument in an intellectual manner. Please stop making yourself look like a fool. The amount of legal work involved in getting a concealed carry permit, much less an open carry permit, as well as the features of guns themselves make for a very safe, tidy package in which few people are injured. Tell me, how many people do you see shooting other people in public with a legally concealed carry weapon, without provocation, or on accident? If you can return any sort of result to this question, let me know.



Google News search for child + shooting + accidental

Dig around in here for awhile, you'll find gun mishaps of all shapes and sizes. There are endless ways for a person to be shot and injured or killed with a gun!

I mean if you own a gun you are necessarily more likely to shoot someone accidentally than I, a person who does not own a gun. It doesn't take any kind of argumentative maneuvering to prove this. It's just acknowledgment of reality.

Again, I support your right to conceal carry fully, as I'm a Constitutional purist. I'm willing to bet I'm more radical than you on gun freedoms in pretty much every case. But I'll actually recognize that guns are dangerous. Some of us are smart enough to read the second amendment without thinking it's a homework assignment.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Accident != Violence.

And irresponsible people will find a way to cause harm through irresponsibility no matter what they have at hand.

The same as a criminal will find a way to harm you if that's their intent, whether they have a gun, a broken bottle, a stick, a rock, an old belt, a vehicle, a chainsaw, or just about anything else.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> In PA, no license is needed to open carry on foot outside of cities of the first class (Population over one million, the only one being Philadelphia) and it's one form to get a license to carry which covers you in vehicles, concealed, and during a state of emergency.
> 
> And the government has no right to regulate firearms.
> 
> What does "shall not be infringed" mean?



This isn't the argument we're having. I've already established that not only are guns Constitutionally protected, but that I'm probably more radical in my defense of the second amendment than any gun owner in this thread. 

The argument we're having is that guns are dangerous, which any statistical analysis will bear out, and so an organization like AC is justified in denying membership to known gun owners.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Accident != Violence.
> 
> And irresponsible people will find a way to cause harm through irresponsibility no matter what they have at hand.
> 
> The same as a criminal will find a way to harm you if that's their intent, whether they have a gun, a broken bottle, a stick, a rock, an old belt, a vehicle, a chainsaw, or just about anything else.



If a bullet strikes you it means literally nothing whether it was accidental or intentional. If a criminal is going to hurt you, he's better off using a gun than anything else.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> This isn't the argument we're having. I've already established that not only are guns Constitutionally protected, but that I'm probably more radical in my defense of the second amendment than any gun owner in this thread.
> 
> The argument we're having is that guns are dangerous, which any statistical analysis will bear out, and so an organization like AC is justified in denying membership to known gun owners.



Guns aren't dangerous. They're pieces of metal and plastic.

People are dangerous.

Defending the second amendment doesn't mean a damn thing when you attack people exercising the rights therein.


----------



## Azure (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> Google News search for child + shooting + accidental
> 
> Dig around in here for awhile, you'll find gun mishaps of all shapes and sizes. There are endless ways for a person to be shot and injured or killed with a gun!
> 
> ...


So now you are tempering your statement. Of course you can accidentally shoot someone. But here's a hint. All of those links you dredged up have nothing to do with concealed carry weapons. They are either illegal or about a child finding an improperly secured weapon in their home. None of them feature a person who has been licensed and is using his weapon improperly in public. Shit, the police shoot people accidentally, and they're sworn to protect the public. Hell, we could, by the merits of your argument, say that people who drive cars or motorocycles, or even bicycles are scumbags because hundreds of thousands of people die each year in "accidents". Go away.


----------



## RosenOtter (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> "When used properly" is always a hypothetical situation. Statistics are not hypothetical, they catalog reality. Statistics bear out that a person carrying a gun is a risk to the gun carrier and those nearby.
> 
> Er, source?  Can we have a source for this? You saying 'everyone knows this', doesn't make it true.    Even if you say it over and over.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Guns aren't dangerous. They're pieces of metal and plastic.
> 
> People are dangerous.
> 
> Defending the second amendment doesn't mean a damn thing when you attack people exercising the rights therein.



People are more dangerous with guns. I've never had a knife accidentally go off and kill a small child in the next room.

That last statement is just insane. It's like saying defending the first amendment means nothing if I ever disagree with somebody. The second amendment says nothing about producing a positive outcome, it only states that the right to own guns shall not be infringed. And I'm defending that as thoroughly as I'd defend any of the other rights outlined in the Constitution. But nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to delude myself or anyone else into thinking owning a gun is a safe, positive thing to do.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Guns don't accidentally go off. They go off intentionally or negligently.

And speaking of insanity, I feel like I'm screaming at a brick wall with a megaphone while gargling toothpaste. This is the least useful conversation I've had in a very long time.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> So now you are tempering your statement. Of course you can accidentally shoot someone. But here's a hint. All of those links you dredged up have nothing to do with concealed carry weapons. They are either illegal or about a child finding an improperly secured weapon in their home. None of them feature a person who has been licensed and is using his weapon improperly in public. Shit, the police shoot people accidentally, and they're sworn to protect the public. Hell, we could, by the merits of your argument, say that people who drive cars or motorocycles, or even bicycles are scumbags because hundreds of thousands of people die each year in "accidents". Go away.



People who drive cars and motorcycles are scumbags because they accidentally kill thousands of people each year.



RosenOtter said:


> TooncesFA said:
> 
> 
> > "When used properly" is always a hypothetical situation. Statistics are not hypothetical, they catalog reality. Statistics bear out that a person carrying a gun is a risk to the gun carrier and those nearby.
> ...


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Guns don't accidentally go off. They go off intentionally or negligently.



They go off, don't they? Again, to a person struck by a bullet, the circumstances of that bullet being fired mean nothing, other than that they propelled a small piece of metal at tremendous velocity into their tissue matter. Anything beyond that is trivia.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> People who drive cars and motorcycles are scumbags because they accidentally kill thousands of people each year.




Ohhhhh, I get it now. You're trolling.

Get hit by a car.


----------



## RosenOtter (Feb 16, 2010)

>You can start here, but really it's pretty self evident that owning a gun is >more dangerous than not owning a gun. I, not owning a gun, could not >possibly through any extension of any effort accidentally or purposefully >shoot somebody. A person who owns a gun could. It only serves that >owning a gun increases the possibility of gun injuries. 

Do you have statistics from a more neutral organization?  Do you quote anti-gay groups when you argue against gay marriage?  Do you quote the Ku Klux Klan on subjects of race relations?

And, gun ownership aside, couldn't you shoot someone with someone else's gun?  Couldn't you just bash a cop on the head and take his?  What if you ran over a cop with your car and his gun went off and shot someone?  What if someone was shooting at you, and you selfishly stepped out of the way, allowing someone else to be shot? You bastard! How could you do such a thing?


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Ohhhhh, I get it now. You're trolling.
> 
> Get hit by a car.



I may be Toonces, the Driving Cat, the Cat Who Could Drive a Car, but I take public transportation because, among other things, it is safer for all people involved. I do not drive except when absolutely necessary. People who drive more than is necessary increase the possibility of fatal accidents. If more people took public transportation, there would be fewer fatal accidents.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

RosenOtter said:


> >You can start here, but really it's pretty self evident that owning a gun is >more dangerous than not owning a gun. I, not owning a gun, could not >possibly through any extension of any effort accidentally or purposefully >shoot somebody. A person who owns a gun could. It only serves that >owning a gun increases the possibility of gun injuries.
> 
> Do you have statistics from a more neutral organization?  Do you quote anti-gay groups when you argue against gay marriage?  Do you quote the Ku Klux Klan on subjects of race relations?



I'm sorry that anti-gun groups just happen to have statistics bearing out that guns are dangerous but no, I'm not going to find statistics from "a more neutral organization." Comparing the Brady Campaign to anti-gay organizations and the KKK is disingenuous at best.


----------



## RosenOtter (Feb 16, 2010)

Well, Duh! Of course anti-gun groups have anti gun statistics.  Pro gun groups have pro-gun ownership statistics.  How do you feel about the US Department of Justice?  Neutral enough?  




TooncesFA said:


> I'm sorry that anti-gun groups just happen to have statistics bearing out that guns are dangerous but no, I'm not going to find statistics from "a more neutral organization." Comparing the Brady Campaign to anti-gay organizations and the KKK is disingenuous at best.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

RosenOtter said:


> Well, Duh! Of course anti-gun groups have anti gun statistics.  Pro gun groups have pro-gun ownership statistics.  How do you feel about the US Department of Justice?  Neutral enough?




According to the National Institute of Justice, guns are the weapon of choice in the majority of homicides. This includes accidental homicides.

There's this little gem from the University of Michigan, referencing the Centers for Disease Control:



> According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is *almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined*. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries



Emphasis mine because I really wanted that word "combined" to stick out.

edit- Continuing to quote from that University of Michigan page:



> When researchers studied the 30,000 accidental gun deaths of Americans of all ages that occurred between 1979-1997, they found that preschoolers aged 0-4 were 17 times more likely to die from a gun accident in the 4 states with the most guns versus the 4 states with the least guns. Likewise, school kids aged 5-14 were over 13 times more at risk of accidental firearm death in the states with high gun ownership rates. The findings indicate that gun availability is associated with accidental death by shooting.



This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying: a higher prevalence of guns leads to higher gun violence. This seems VERY OBVIOUS to me but I guess not to all. And yet some people think that AC should happily admit a person who will be bringing guns to their private event, which would objectively raise the possibility that an accidental shooting would occur. I mean, you cannot debate it otherwise. His being at AC would increase the possibility of an accidental shooting. His right to own and bear arms in private is absolute, obviously, but AC has the right to deny him membership, as well.


----------



## RosenOtter (Feb 16, 2010)

OK, so let's take the statistic regarding children commiting suicide with guns.  American children are 11 times more likely to commit suicide with guns.  How likely are they to commit suicide at all?  How do we stand in terms of children commiting suicide?  Are there countries with fewer guns then we have, that have more suicides amongst children?   Perhaps the availability of guns isn't driving the suicides.  Japan has far fewer guns per capita, and one heck of a suicide rate.

I'm headed to bed now.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

RosenOtter said:


> OK, so let's take the statistic regarding children commiting suicide with guns.  American children are 11 times more likely to commit suicide with guns.  How likely are they to commit suicide at all?  How do we stand in terms of children commiting suicide?  Are there countries with fewer guns then we have, that have more suicides amongst children?   Perhaps the availability of guns isn't driving the suicides.  Japan has far fewer guns per capita, and one heck of a suicide rate.
> 
> I'm headed to bed now.



I'm not doing your homework for you.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm all for carrying a firearm, as concealed carry, even, and especially, in Pittsburgh. I haven't spent a lot of time in Pittsburgh, but the time I did spend was reminder enough not to go again. We were woken up in the middle of the night on two different occasions by the sound of automatic weapons fire, most likely an AK.

Open Carry on the other hand is stupid bullshit. It achieves nothing other than a political statement and to unnerve the public. There is no safety-related reason to open carry, ever, unless you wear a police or security uniform. It alerts everyone to the fact that you have a firearm, and exposes it in such a way it's easy to be disarmed, which is dangerous.

That said, I think Kage is going too far with this recent trend of bannings for things completely unrelated to AC itself. This is starting to step into thought-police territory, where he's being more than a little too proactive about removing people who haven't done anything wrong or illegal, because he thinks there's a chance they might do something to taint his image. 

I don't know what planet Kage is living on, but here on Earth, furries already have so much negative media exposure that one guy no one's heard of doing something that no one's going to remember, isn't going to make a difference. Banning Prawst for pissing in an ocean of piss, and now some stupid republican gun nut for being a stupid republican gun nut. These people are harmless.

Now I don't know about any of you, but for me, being a furry with a realist's view of the fandom and a healthy amount of self-hate... I can laugh at myself and the fandom, because I'm not stuck up like that... but I get the feeling that it would be incredibly easy for me to get myself banned from AC if Kage found out about the inside jokes I tell with my other furry friends, or if he read the satire or controversy of my FA journal entries... it's probably just as well that I don't have any intention of going to AC.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Feb 16, 2010)

Can someone explain to me what's the problem here?

Anthrocon is a privately organized enterprise. 
They have no obligation to allow anyone entry. 

I'd see the problem if this was a public event, but it's not.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Can someone explain to me what's the problem here?
> 
> Anthrocon is a privately organized enterprise.
> They have no obligation to allow anyone entry.
> ...



There are two sides to the story, and we're only getting one side.

On one hand, we have a person who makes a point of wearing a firearm in public and concealing neither the firearm nor the point.

On the other hand, we have a convention which has decided to ban this person from attendance without there being a clear violation or expressed intent to violate the law or convention rules.

Both have the right to do what they did, but just because one *has* the right to do something doesn't mean it automatically *is* right to do that thing.  This goes for both sides of the conflict.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> This thread is pro-gun vs anti-gun. It should be moved to R&R.



I thought so at first, too, but the heart of the matter is the actions of a convention's staff, making it appropriate for the Conventioneering board.  (Indeed, when I first responded to complaints about this thread, I was convinced it already was in R&R.)


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

CaptainSaicin said:


> I'm all for *wearing a fursuit in the privacy of my own home*
> 
> *Wearing a fursuit outside of my home, to a convention or elsewhere* on the other hand is stupid bullshit. It achieves nothing other than a political statement and to unnerve the public. There is no *worthwhile* reason to *leave your home in a fursuit*, ever, unless you *are a mascot*. It alerts everyone to the fact that you have a *fetish*, and exposes it in such a way it's easy to be *discriminated against*, which is dangerous.



Huh, what an interesting parallel.


(And as to another of your comments, I know a lot of rational democrat gun owners, too.)

Edit: And what do you know, crazy democrats too:



			
				http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1232943&format=&page=1&listingType=Loc#articleFull said:
			
		

> A family source said Bishop, a mother of four children - the youngest a  third-grade boy - was a far-left political extremist who was â€œobsessedâ€  with President Obama to the point of being off-putting.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

A couple of points.

Origional sitation was ;

1. person is involved in 2 incidents where the police decided on their own initiative, to get involved. 


2. Kage elected to ban Roo, for his own personal reasons. -using Roo's legal situation as an excuse-.

This is important to note, because it pounds huge holes in  Kage's 'You're scaring people' argument. The only people who 'got scared' were policemen who really should have known better.  To say that Roo went about 'creating extreme and undue panic among passersby.' is disgenous -at best-.

Kage's email to Roo is a load of bullshit from one end to the other, and is chock full of flat out lies, masquerading as 'reasons'.

however, none of this really matters.

THe upshot of this entire discussion was 'you have the right to be an asshole, but the responsibility not to be'

Roo's got a right to carry, everywhere it's -legal- to do so.

People have the right to bitch about it.

Kage's got a right to ban him from AC

Roo has a right to bitch about it.

Roo, if you're following this, please, -please- leave the hardware at home when you protest. it wont end well. if you -must- bring a gun, bring something symbolic. Make a great big revolver out of styrofoam or something. but please, please -please-, do not bring weapons with  you. It will not end well. Yes, it's legal. Yes, you're within your rights. again, I beg you, dont bring a weapon to a protest, it -never- ends well.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

as far as gun control arguments go, both sides are firmly entrenched. gun control arguments never get resolved. 

I will say this. if you look at the CDC data, you'll notice that guns are not nearly as dangerous as say... swimming pools, or doctors. Doctors kill -lots- more people than guns.

Also, the 'guns kill more children than anything else...' sure it does... if you call a 25 year old gangbanger a child.

or 'you're 37 times more likely to be shot by someone  you know'. That's true... if your a drug dealer, and you're in the middle of a turf war with that fucker julio. see, you -knew- him. it counts, right?

The kellerman study, which is where the Brady center and most anti-gun places get thier data.

what nobody talks about is that Kellerman almost went to jail for fraud, and missapropriation of funds.

that's right, Kellerman -lied-. Half the results were pulled out of thin air, the other half were truely amazing distortions of statistics.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Man, fuck Julio.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> I will say this. if you look at the CDC data, you'll notice that guns are not nearly as dangerous as say... swimming pools, or doctors. Doctors kill -lots- more people than guns.



doctors are inanimate objects created to kill or maim things?


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

previous posters were saying/implying that what guns were designed for was irrelevant. That the fact that they existed, and they killed people were all that mattered.

if that's the tack they want to take... well, cars,booze,doctors,swimming pools,cigarettes,cheeseburgers...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Guns aren't dangerous.  People are dangerous.

People with guns are very dangerous.

IMO, it would be nice to get guns out of the equation altogether but that's not possible at this point.  People hunt and people also argue they need guns to protect themselves.  Making laws to get rid of all the guns would only give people the advantage who have them illegally.

I don't have a problem with someone owning a gun in order to protect himself.  I do believe there should be some pretty strict regulations on them but I understand people wanting this ability.

Still, it would be nice if people who own one would use common sense.

For example, if someone owns a gun there is no reason they need to bring it with them when traveling to a furry convention.

Just sayin'


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 16, 2010)

Hmm, if you wanna carry a gun, fine, but I don't get it: Why the hell would you want to show everyone that you are carrying? Seems a lot like asking for trouble to me...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Hmm, if you wanna carry a gun, fine, but I don't get it: Why the hell would you want to show everyone that you are carrying? Seems a lot like asking for trouble to me...



Because it makes him feel like a badass.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I do believe there should be some pretty strict regulations on them but I understand people wanting this ability.




There are


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> There are



Really, now?

And this whole time I thought there were no laws at all regarding guns.

I honestly thought this.  Now I can sleep at night.

Thanks :roll:


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Hmm, if you wanna carry a gun, fine, but I don't get it: Why the hell would you want to show everyone that you are carrying? Seems a lot like asking for trouble to me...



The firearm always stayed locked up in the hotel room until I was ready to leave the convention. There are many benefits to 'open carry', of which I should note making a statement isn't one of them. I won't go in to detail the reasoning behind 'open carry', however if you're interested you may think about looking at the OpenCarry.org forum located on: http://www.opencarry.org


----------



## Aden (Feb 16, 2010)

Hay look, another side to the story

As written by "Crusader Cat" (paragraph breaks added by myself for readability):

"Insane Kangaroo is the reason there is so much drama about me. He's the one who made porn of my fursona. His "art" is what the FA admins refused to remove which resulted in me having to resort to a lawsuit threat. So he's basically the reason I'm banned from FA. 

Not only that he distributes my private information even though I told him that people have threatened to kill me and I didn't want my family to get hurt. (This information is now on Encyclopedia Dramatica) He also openly admitted that he WANTS me get assaulted and beaten and my fursuit vandalised so he can watch. This person openly stated that I should be arrested for being a Christian (under the guise of animal abuse which I never done) and has even called the police on me. Because I'm not guilty of anything, he failed. He has gone so far to call the dean of my college and told her about me and the fadom (trying to get me expelled no doubt). He also failed. When I uploaded my "Fur Affinity Exposed" video he's the one who filed the first false copyright claim resulting in it's removal (it has just recently been restored). 

Recently, this person found out where my dad lives and told everyone (the trolls on lulz.net had this info for a while) and CALLED MY DAD at his place of busnuess and told him such slanderous things such as me supporting a "gay genocide"! The next day I found out that my dad is afraid that this person is going to slander my dad's place of bisnuess! Insane Kangaroo (His real name is David Ross) is literally opsessed with me. A while ago I found out that he is a zoophile (he has animal porn on his computer that he shows to children!) Which explains why he stalks me so much. When he started harassing my family, I wanted to call the cops and takes this guy to court, but my dad won't let me (my dad also won't let me upload videos on youtube anymore) and he confiscated my laptop. I'm using a computer on campus right now. 

I'm planning to go public telling everyone his multiple criminal offenses against me in a few months when I get my computer back. Here is a summary of what he has done to me: 1. Premeditated Second degree murder (I should also note that he was arrested in Pittsburg for trying to sneak a handgun into an airport) 2. Premeditated Second degree assault 3. Premeditated Second degree vandalism 4. Copyright violation 5. False copyright claim 6. Character defemation 7. Hate Speech 8. Slander 9. Blackmail 10. Infringing my First Ammendment right of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion 11. Bestality (He didn't do this to me, but he's still guilty) I may have forgotten a few things, this is just the stuff of the top of my head. If you can do anything, I'd be very grateful to you. I don't want him to start stalking you as well, so for your own protection, I think you should avoid him. He already harassing a friend of mine for similar reasons he's harassing me"


But yes OP, I'm sure Kage just singled you out because you have a gun :V

\My conclusion is that both OP and CC are insane


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> as far as gun control arguments go, both sides are firmly entrenched. gun control arguments never get resolved.
> 
> I will say this. if you look at the CDC data, you'll notice that guns are not nearly as dangerous as say... swimming pools, or doctors. Doctors kill -lots- more people than guns.



This is asinine.



> Also, the 'guns kill more children than anything else...' sure it does... if you call a 25 year old gangbanger a child.



Gangmembers aren't people?



> or 'you're 37 times more likely to be shot by someone  you know'. That's true... if your a drug dealer, and you're in the middle of a turf war with that fucker julio. see, you -knew- him. it counts, right?



Yes, you knew him so it counts.



> The kellerman study, which is where the Brady center and most anti-gun places get thier data.
> 
> what nobody talks about is that Kellerman almost went to jail for fraud, and missapropriation of funds.
> 
> that's right, Kellerman -lied-. Half the results were pulled out of thin air, the other half were truely amazing distortions of statistics.



Actually anti-gun people get their statistics from a variety of sources because nearly every single statistical analysis bears out the fact that guns, in any context, are dangerous to those who carry them and the people around them.

How about this study from the Centers for Disease Control:



> Overall, the data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. *The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined* (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) (Table_1).
> 
> Suicide accounted for the deaths of 599 children, including 431 (72%) in boys and 168 (28%) in girls. Of the suicides, 321 (54%) occurred among U.S. children. *The suicide rate for children in the United States was two times higher than that in the other 25 countries combined* (0.55 compared with 0.27) (Table_1). No suicides were reported among children aged less than 5 years.
> 
> A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. *The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined* (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). *The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04).* For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).



Look, I have and will defend the Constitutional right for people to buy, own, and bear arms as much as anybody else in this thread, and most likely more so. But to _actually deny that they're dangerous_ is an unsupportable, unrealistic, and outright dishonest position to take. It reeks of nothing less than base partisanship that some people in this discussion can't have the decency to anchor themselves in reality.



Ricky said:


> Guns aren't dangerous.  People are dangerous.
> 
> People with guns are very dangerous.



This doesn't mean anything. Why do people say this. Even if you accept it on its face its idiotic because more guns means more people with guns, but what does it even matter? It's a complete non-sequitur that conveys no information and makes no argument. It's a bumper sticker. Please don't bring bumper stickers to a reasonable discussion on this, or anything, ever.


----------



## yoshi000 (Feb 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> Hay look, another side to the story
> 
> As written by "Crusader Cat" (paragraph breaks added by myself for readability):
> 
> ...




why CC poking his nose into this?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> Hay look, another side to the story
> *drama*
> But yes OP, I'm sure Kage just singled you out because you have a gun :V



You know, I really wish that guy would DROP IT. I blocked him 3 months on my LJ after he was banned from FA. He won't leave me alone, he keeps escalating himself without any help from anyone.

He keeps stating to everyone people are making threats of bodily harm and death, which is not true. I've seen screenshots of what he claims to be 'death threats', of which people were stating, i.e. "I wish he'd throw himself in front of a bus."

Yes, I called his father, and he explained to me why Paden acts like he does. Everyone just needs to leave him alone(don't troll him) and he won't escalate.

If we ignore CC, he'll go away. Notice he hasn't been bothering people. Part of the reason is his father took away his notebook, so he has to use the library computer. He has to get his attention from somewhere else, as he'll get banned from the library most  likely if he tries to abuse the use policy. I should note he escalated at home during Christmas break, which is BEFORE I called his father, which is when his notebook and fursuit was taken away, which his father stated to me. I'm not blackmailing his father, I simply told him what's happened with drama freaks in the past and it could affect his business if he didn't control his son.

He hasn't been bothering people, at least me, for the most part even though he's not supposed to be having any online activity in reference to 'crusader cat'.

Let's drop the issue now, thanks.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> Hay look, another side to the story
> 
> As written by "Crusader Cat" (paragraph breaks added by myself for readability):
> 
> ...



oh my WORD



insane_kangaroo said:


> Yes, I called his father, and he explained to me why Paden acts like he does. Everyone just needs to leave him alone(don't troll him) and he won't escalate.



Oh my goodness that is not a sign of mental health. I'm really, really glad you won't be attending AC.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

"but, but, guns are -more dangerous- than everything else, so we must..."

that's the problem. They are not more dangerous than 'anything else'.  Argueing that they are somehow more of a risk than all the -other- stupid shit we do as a species, and that because they are -more dangerous-, we must pass laws that only the people who were not a risk in the first place are going to obey!

And this somehow passes for common sense.

side note. 

Guns and airports.

Roo 'trying to sneak a gun into an airport' as this CC idiot claims is a lie. Full stop, no maybies. Is -lie-.

When you travel with a firearm, and your means of travel is an airplane, there are certain rules and regulations you must abide by. 

Now, when you are LEAVING the airport, And you remove your sidearm from your locked container, and put it in your holster, This is how one normally, and safely travels with a firearm. ( and this is exactly the point where the police got involved, and They. Were. Wrong. Wrong to the point that not one judge, but -two- smacked them. With more smackings to come. )

This is not 'sneaking a gun into an airport'. This is 'obeying the law'. you know, the laws you insist we gun owners live by? The ones that the thugs, crazies, and truely Bad People do -not- obey?


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> "but, but, guns are -more dangerous- than everything else, so we must..."
> 
> that's the problem. They are not more dangerous than 'anything else'.  Argueing that they are somehow more of a risk than all the -other- stupid shit we do as a species, and that because they are -more dangerous-, we must pass laws that only the people who were not a risk in the first place are going to obey!
> 
> And this somehow passes for common sense.



I never said anything about passing laws, I never said anything about them being "more dangerous" than other things, the only claim I made was that an increased prevalence of guns leads to a higher likelihood of gun-related injuries and so a private organization like AC is justified in wanting to minimize the number of gun carrier in attendance. In addition to that, I couched my argument in the firm Constitutional interpretation that AC has the expressed right to deny membership to anybody for any reason, including the fact that the person openly admits to being an open carrier.

It's a clear, simple, direct argument I'm making and you have no excuse not to understand it.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> Oh my goodness that is not a sign of mental health. I'm really, really glad you won't be attending AC.



Whether you think calling his father was the wrong thing to do is irrelevant. I noticed a pattern of behavior which was escalating, I acted upon it.

Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.

You're welcomed to take a photo with me if you want.


----------



## Aden (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.



This is most certainly the most sane reaction to this situation


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> I never said anything about passing laws, I never said anything about them being "more dangerous" than other things, the only claim I made was that an increased prevalence of guns leads to a higher likelihood of gun-related injuries and so a private organization like AC is justified in wanting to minimize the number of gun carrier in attendance. In addition to that, I couched my argument in the firm Constitutional interpretation that AC has the expressed right to deny membership to anybody for any reason, including the fact that the person openly admits to being an open carrier.
> 
> It's a clear, simple, direct argument I'm making and you have no excuse not to understand it.



yes. your argument is 'guns are dangerous because people will misuse them. Therfore we must...'

my opinion is that while firearms may be dangerous, so are a lot of other -voluntary- things we do. Like for example...hang gliding. we should ban that. it's expensive in terms of rescue services used, and it's not something we -need- to be allowed to do. Or NASCAR... or motorcycles. and while we're at it, we should ban certain types of... and so on.

the problem is not with your arguement as written. the problem is with where your argument ends up.

The other huge problem with making laws all over the place, is that -only the law-abiding obey them-.

I never said AC had broken the law by banning Roo. I dont think it was a good idea, but it's perfectly legal.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Whether you think calling his father was the wrong thing to do is irrelevant. I noticed a pattern of behavior which was escalating, I acted upon it.
> 
> Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.
> 
> You're welcomed to take a photo with me if you want.



Sorry but it doesn't intrigue me unless your Constitutional rights are being abrogated. If you could cite a violation of your actual Constitutional protections I would immediately take interest in your cause, but as it stands you're just whining to be let into a private club. If you want to do something about it, file a petition in a local court citing discrimination. What you're going to do is going to be little more than look-at-me showmanship and belies your actual commitment to the cause you claim to support. 

Why don't you do something useful and find a protest in support of Anwar Al-Awlaki?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Aden said:


> This is most certainly the most sane reaction to this situation



Peaceful protesting. The sign will most likely be a motto to show the shock of being banned for using my rights.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> yes. your argument is 'guns are dangerous because people will misuse them. Therfore we must...'
> 
> my opinion is that while firearms may be dangerous, so are a lot of other -voluntary- things we do. Like for example...hang gliding. we should ban that. it's expensive in terms of rescue services used, and it's not something we -need- to be allowed to do. Or NASCAR... or motorcycles. and while we're at it, we should ban certain types of... and so on.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to respond to you if you're not going to be able to read my arguments and respond to them. The best you can do is reform my arguments into a pre-prescribed structure you already understand. I don't discuss intellectual issues with people who can only understand them in the very narrow corridors they've constructed for them.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Whether you think calling his father was the wrong thing to do is irrelevant. I noticed a pattern of behavior which was escalating, I acted upon it.



Don't forget to mention calling the dean of his school, as well.



> Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.
> 
> You're welcomed to take a photo with me if you want.



I'm real impressed :roll:

I hope you get arrested as a nuisance.

Then your whole trip will have been a waste and I'll laugh my ass off about it.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Peaceful protesting. The sign will most likely be a motto to show the shock of being banned for using my rights.



You are literally protesting an organization using its Constitutional rights.

Again, if you want to protest something useful, find a group of people in support of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a man about to be assassinated by his own government without any respect for his Constitutional rights to a trial.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> I'm real impressed :roll:
> 
> I hope you get arrested as a nuisance.
> 
> Then your whole trip will have been a waste and I'll laugh my ass off about it.



If he were to be arrested for simply protesting I'd actually have to sympathize with him. Just because he's acting like a child doesn't mean he doesn't have his rights. Please try to be consistent here.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 16, 2010)

Opinions: In the real world, yours don't matter.
/thread


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

If I'm not understanding your argument, perhaps you should try phrasing it differently?

Reading what you wrote, I responded based on what I honestly believed you truely meant. I could be wrong.

Now, if you actually want to have a rational discussion, talk to me, try phrasing it differently, perhaps an example. who knows, I might agree with you.

Steaming off all butthurt because I"m 'too stupid' to understand your truely enlightend vison fails on two levels.

1. It does not convince me to agree with you.

2. It makes you look bad.

now, how bout you cowboy up, and try again, only with some rationality. I promise I'll be polite.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

I may have to counterprotest with a sign of my own.

"FURRY IS MURDER"


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Whether you think calling his father was the wrong thing to do is irrelevant. I noticed a pattern of behavior which was escalating, I acted upon it.
> 
> Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.
> 
> You're welcomed to take a photo with me if you want.




dude, -please- for the love of god, or whatever  you hold dear, I'm begging you, as a fellow gunny, leave the real guns at home. -please-. Dont do it, it wont end well. get yourself a nice big carboard gun or something. real hardware makes normal people nervous, which will make them side -against- you, out of fear.

a big silly foam handgun makes people laugh, and side -with- you.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> If I'm not understanding your argument, perhaps you should try phrasing it differently?
> 
> Reading what you wrote, I responded based on what I honestly believed you truely meant. I could be wrong.
> 
> ...



I'm not interested in convincing you. I'm interested in having an adult conversation with another person. But to try once more:

1. Statistics bear out that an increase prevalence of guns lead to a higher rate of gun injuries.

2. The US Government has no authority to ban guns based on this information due to the second amendment guarantees.

3. AC, acting as a private organization, is Constitutionally entitled to bar IK from admittance if they feel that his status as an open carrier may increase the likelihood of a gun-related injury occurring at the Convention.

I, grounded in my Constitutional purism, would not want to write any kind of law against owning guns. I have not once in this thread advocated for any law against buying, owning, or bearing guns, and neither will I. But, as a Constitutional purist, neither would I suggest that AC doesn't have the right to determine its own membership along any standards it may choose.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> dude, -please- for the love of god, or whatever  you hold dear, I'm begging you, as a fellow gunny, leave the real guns at home. -please-. Dont do it, it wont end well. get yourself a nice big carboard gun or something. real hardware makes normal people nervous, which will make them side -against- you, out of fear.
> 
> a big silly foam handgun makes people laugh, and side -with- you.



I've people stating they'll stand by me if I do open carry protesting in fursuit. The shotgun AOW is just an added touch. Open carrying a real firearm will imply the seriousness, a foam gun will just make it think like's it's a huge joke.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> I'm not interested in convincing you. I'm interested in having an adult conversation with another person. But to try once more:
> 
> 1. Statistics bear out that an increase prevalence of guns lead to a higher rate of gun injuries.
> 
> ...



I agree with point 2, 

However:

Point 3 is incorrect. Ik did not, at any time, have a weapon on his person while on the grounds of Anthrocon. No Gun. repeat, Insane Kangaroo did not, at any time, have a firearm, or any other weapon, at Anthrocon.

given that anti-gun advocates ( and pro gun too, but not as much that I am aware of) juggle the figures to support thier views, I'm extremely suspicious of any study that claims to prove anything in regards to gun safety and/or injury. please not this is not me saying 'I dont believe you.' My past experience with gun rights debates leaves with with a huge amount of suspicion and distrust of 'studies'. As such, I cannot agree with you on point one.

Now, IK is still free to protest. He might not have a legal leg to stand on, but he's certainly free to bitch, 1st Amendment and all that.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I've people stating they'll stand by me if I do open carry protesting in fursuit. The shotgun AOW is just an added touch. Open carrying a real firearm will imply the seriousness, a foam gun will just make it think like's it's a huge joke.



Please do not do this. It's a Bad Idea. Really. Some of the fringe people from the Tea Parties did it, and while nobody got hurt, or arrested, they made the Tea Party people look like a pack of paranoid, gun toting fools.

having a real gun will only make you look bad. the entire point of your argument was that you were banned for having a gun somewhere -else-.

having a real gun across the street from AC makes people wonder if you want revenge.

carrying a 4 foot long, pink isulation foam revolver is mocking Kage, and it's -funny-. and it puts the association in peoples minds that you're safe, and Kage's paranoid/bad/whatever. Mockery travels fast. Everyone wants a good laugh.


this is psyops 101 here.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> I agree with point 2,
> 
> However:
> 
> ...



You're necessarily suspicious of _any evidence against your point of view_. And why would I bother discussing anything with you?


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 16, 2010)

Interesting that in nearly 400-odd (and some really odd  ) posts, no one has explored the financial ramifications of AC's Board of Directors and the CEO's actions.  Due to the nature of hosting large public access events, I'm guessing that Anthrocon is a private, incorporated, insurance carrying entity.  That likely contracts out its security on a least-cost/highest profit model.  So there are fiduciary and safety related due diligence issues for its BoD and obligations to provide "standards of care" for its attending members.  Other than "freedom of association" also means "freedom from association," its curious that no one has examined this angle.  To wit, the operational logistics of a large, yet niche convention in post-9/11 America.

Cynically and perhaps tellingly, there has also been no discussion around the "any publicity is good publicity" angle either.  The CEO and BoD must be aware of the potential for backlash from the furry community.  I can't help but get the sense that some of this is just a little bit..scripted.  Its certainly generating some "buzz" and any BoD worth its salt will have a plan to deal with and capitalize on that buzz.  And no, I'm not talking about sock-puppets on web forums, its the corporate communications angle that needs to be explored.

On a related note, I'd be interested in attending a range that has class-III rentals in the downtown Pittsburgh core.  Probably best handled with a new thread.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

TooncesFA said:


> You're necessarily suspicious of _any evidence against your point of view_. And why would I bother discussing anything with you?



Of -course- I'm suspicious of any evidence against my point of view. I've had 40 years of experience and observation to accumulate what I know ( or think I know). 

Anyone with even the tiniest ego is going to be suspicious of a point of view that would prove that everything they think they know is wrong.

Anyone who claims other wise is either truly unusual, or lying ( both to themselves and others. )

Now, I've not been a jerk to you, how bout you return the favor, hmm?


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> Interesting that in nearly 400-odd (and some really odd  ) posts, no one has explored the financial ramifications of AC's Board of Directors and the CEO's actions.  Due to the nature of hosting large public access events, I'm guessing that Anthrocon is a private, incorporated, insurance carrying entity.  That likely contracts out its security on a least-cost/highest profit model.  So there are fiduciary and safety related due diligence issues for its BoD and obligations to provide "standards of care" for its attending members.  Other than "freedom of association" also means "freedom from association," its curious that no one has examined this angle.  To wit, the operational logistics of a large, yet niche convention in post-9/11 America.
> 
> Cynically and perhaps tellingly, there has also been no discussion around the "any publicity is good publicity" angle either.  The CEO and BoD must be aware of the potential for backlash from the furry community.  I can't help but get the sense that some of this is just a little bit..scripted.  Its certainly generating some "buzz" and any BoD worth its salt will have a plan to deal with and capitalize on that buzz.  And no, I'm not talking about sock-puppets on web forums, its the corporate communications angle that needs to be explored.
> 
> On a related note, I'd be interested in attending a range that has class-III rentals in the downtown Pittsburgh core.  Probably best handled with a new thread.



the general consensus, as I understand it, has been 'Kage has every right to swing the ban hammer, for any, or no reason at all'

and I support that point of view. 

I also support the point of view that banning people for lacking 'idealogical purity' ( my words, not anyone elses, -mine-. ) is a Bad Thing. 

also , in case you missed it in the bustle.

1. nobody actually called the cops. the cops chose to act ( wrongly, proven to be wrongly, in a court of law, by a judge..-twice- ). key concept here. the police -chose- to act. Nobody -other- than the police freaked out.

2. Kage chose to ban someone for a political stance Kage did not agree with, based on actions that happened -outside- of Kage's area of authority.

This is much like me banning you from 'Urso's magic happy fun-land' because you voted for Obama ( or McCain. regardless ). I have the legal right to do so. You have every legal right to protest.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Feb 16, 2010)

Aran said:


> Huh, what an interesting parallel.
> 
> 
> (And as to another of your comments, I know a lot of rational democrat gun owners, too.)
> ...



0/10, troll harder.


----------



## CaptainSaicin (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Also, I'll be across the street protesting in full fursuit, open carrying(shotgun and glock 21), one holstered, other hung and slung, dressed in tactical + beret, bandolier for shotgun shells.



Yep, totally saw that one coming. I'm surprised Kage didn't.

Also, enjoy your third arrest in Pittsburgh and all subsequent unwanted media attention and drama.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> 2. Kage chose to ban someone for a political stance Kage did not agree with, based on actions that happened -outside- of Kage's area of authority.



_That's_ a leap...  >.>

If the reasons he stated are in fact the only reasons he came to the decision (I still have my doubts about this) I don't think you could possibly come to the conclusion he did it because of a political bias.

I think it's far more likely a PR thing, as he stated in his letter.


----------



## Aden (Feb 16, 2010)

CaptainSaicin said:


> Yep, totally saw that one coming. I'm surprised Kage didn't.



Maybe he's counting on another rainstorm


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

CaptainSaicin said:


> Yep, totally saw that one coming. I'm surprised Kage didn't.
> 
> Also, enjoy your third arrest in Pittsburgh and all subsequent unwanted media attention and drama.



I'll be there.
in b4 "Blue kangaroo, drop your weapons now"


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I'll be there.
> in b4 "Blue kangaroo, drop your weapons now"



You're assuming I haven't spoken with the police and the protest will be by surprise.

The police will be coming by to check my NFA paperwork, by my request.



Aden said:


> Maybe he's counting on another rainstorm



I've a rather nice extremely wide waterproof boonie which I always wear. I don't mind standing in the rain. My weapons can get wet, there is no problem there.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You're assuming I haven't spoken with the police and will the protest will be by surprise.
> 
> The police will be coming by to check my NFA paperwork, by my request.



Your Sarcasm detector is broken.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Your Sarcasm detector is broken.



ROO-fail sarcasm 

My apologies, I take the law very seriously and go through great detail in making sure I'm law abiding.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> _That's_ a leap...  >.>
> 
> If the reasons he stated are in fact the only reasons he came to the decision (I still have my doubts about this) I don't think you could possibly come to the conclusion he did it because of a political bias.
> 
> I think it's far more likely a PR thing, as he stated in his letter.



1. Open Carry is a political statement in places where it is not a requirement. 

2. Kage's -stated claim- is that IK's open carry is somehow a threat.

Therefore, if OC in Pittsburg is a political statement, and Kage has banned IK due to his -political statement-....

and Public Relations is -nothing- if not inherently political.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> 1. Open Carry is a political statement in places where it is not a requirement.



There are reasons I open carry, making a political statement isn't one of them.

For more information, please visit: http://www.opencarry.org and click on the forum category, "Why Open Carry."


----------



## cesarin (Feb 16, 2010)

Gray Coyote said:


> No.
> 
> Further Confusion had 2800 people, and doesn't engage in this sort of behavior.    That's also the other point: "dipshits that show up that don't know how to behave".   Showing up where?  At the convention itself?  Just visiting the city?  How about living in the city period?



and then why you two dont stick to FC if you love it that much?
I prefer to stay a bit more vanilla and dont go to the fuckfest that FC is.. too many wild things there going on for my tastes.



Dragoneer said:


> Totally off subject, but you have to wonder how these buildings ever survived for a 100 years with people smoking too close to them. The anti smoking bills are all sorts of ridiculous. I understand a ban inside, but...



well, remember that the westing as some.. special automatic rotating door, and it usually "sucks" the smoke in, thats why they ask people to smoke away from it.
and well I confirm it with my nose during AC2008


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> My apologies, I take the law very seriously and go through great detail in making sure I'm law abiding.




Is civil disobedience not in your vocabulary?

Personally I don't respect any protester who isn't breaking at least one law.

Edit- A -real- protest would be to walk onto the AC grounds and wait to be escorted off. _That_ is civil disobedience and something I could respect, my friend.


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

IK, I carry daily, and I"m aware of the pros/cons of OC.  My stance personally is 'I dont like mud on my pistol'. ( I spend a lot of my day on a motorcycle, and end my day with a lot of mud on me. )

but to be honest, there is a large social/political aspect of open carry. And that's ok. I"m cool with it. The Normalization argument is valid, and sound.

However... I hope you heard my previous pleadings. Please dont use real guns. trust me, a big mock foam gun would be much better. You want to make Kage look silly. Not make him look prudent.

think for a moment. Even the dude who's spent several hours writing a solid defense of your actions prior to this mess is saying 'please for the love of god, dont do that.'

Even the people 'on your side' are advising you this is a Bad Idea.

If you show up with real weapons, you only prove Kage was "right". This is a fight in the arena of public opinion. It has very little to do with reality.

if you cannot even convince the people who are on your side this is a good idea, what makes you think you are going to make a good impression on the other side, eh?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso,

I've some furries which will stand by my side if I open carry, many are okay with it. A protest with a person holding up a sign is normal. A fursuiter holding up a sign to a bunch of furries is normal. Protesting has a purpose of being noticed, just like the individual who carried an ar-15 at a rally. Even if it was stunt for a ron paul group, they were noticed.

I wouldn't carry if I knew something bad was going to happen, but it will not. The media will come, and I'll explain why I'm protesting.

While there are people who think open carry in fursuit may be a bad idea, it's not a bad idea to get noticed. I won't be validating Kage at all since I'll be acting lawfully.

I don't advocate open carry long guns in a large city, only pistols. Long guns or short barrel (rifles/shotguns) are generally okay for car mounted carry.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

IK, if you want to make a point, take the claims you have made in this thread (that you would not open carry at the convention, that you would attend the convention peacefully, etc.) and do that. Come to AC, don't bring your guns, and try to register. Either they will let you in, and you will have satisfied everything you claimed in your letters to Kage, or you will be escorted off the premises, which is a much more effective protest than standing around with a sign. "Protests" are bullshit and have never, ever accomplished anything. It's only principled, righteous civil disobedience, like Thoreau's stand against the war tax, or the lunch counter sit-ins, or the Vietnam draft dodges, that ever accomplish anything of merit.

You say "I wouldn't carry if I knew something bad was going to happen, but it will not." This is not a protest. This is drawing attention to yourself. A real protester breaks the laws and rules which are unfair.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 16, 2010)

Toonces,

Kage has made it clear not to trespass. I'm sure he would be happy for me to trespass so he could have me charged on 'criminal trespass' charges.

Peaceful protesting works, regardless of what one may think. Break the law and a person will spent a few nights in the brig.

I will not break the law, to which I must remain clear of any wrongdoing. People who break the law aren't granted federal papers for obtaining restricted weapons like my shotgun AOWs.


----------



## Toonces (Feb 16, 2010)

If you want a model for a REAL protest, look at Muhammad Ali. He was drafted to fight a war he didn't believe in, to kill people he saw as fellow Muslims. What did he do? He didn't hold a sign outside the recruiting center while abiding by the actual regulations imposed against him. He simply refused to be drafted. He was arrested, spent years in jail, but his protest worked. He didn't have to go into the Army, and he served as a point of inspiration for thousands of conscientious objectors.

THAT is a real protest. I don't disrespect you for drawing attention to yourself. Any effective protest does that. I disrespect you for protesting within the legally prescribed limits of your protest. That is cowardly. If you disagree with a rule or law, you break it. That's civil disobedience, and those are the people who change things in this country.

EDIT - Muhammad Ali you are not. You won't change anything.


----------



## Aran (Feb 16, 2010)

CaptainSaicin said:


> 0/10, troll harder.



I'm not the one trolling here.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 16, 2010)

If I were to go to Cafe Press and get a couple hundred T-shirts printed up that say "*I'M WITH STUPID*" would anyone want to join in the protest?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

Ricky said:


> If I were to go to Cafe Press and get a couple hundred T-shirts printed up that say "*I'M WITH STUPID*" would anyone want to join in the protest?



Protesting the protestors?
I'd take film documentary of it.

Make sure you bring an afro wig for the "Protestors".


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm not going to play nice anymore Roo.

Look, I respect why you are upset. You are the biggest idiot I've come across in a long time of watching gun right advocates. Think about this. Showing up protesting with a real gun, is going to work in Kage's favor and not yours.

I suppose though your anger has blinded the logical and rational side of you. With that I'm done paying attention to this entire thing. Have fun with what people you have on your side giving Kage more support for his actions.

EDIT: Please note I'm not saying this because I am against you(because I'm not for or against you). There is a more mature and level headed way of dealing with this. Showing up in suit with a real gun is not one of them.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm not going to play nice anymore Roo.
> 
> Look, I respect why you are upset. You are the biggest idiot I've come across in a long time of watching gun right advocates. Think about this. Showing up protesting with a real gun, is going to work in Kage's favor and not yours.



No, no, I think it's a great idea.  He's standing up for his rights, is he not?

He refuses to accept that what happened has resulted in consequences (being banned from AC) and is mad as hell and won't take it any more.  If it's his right to protest as he sees fit (within the confines of the law) then why are YOU saying he shouldn't?

If Insane Kangaroo has the ability to do something and get away with it, then he should clearly do just that.  If it pisses people off, that's just the icing on the cake, innit?


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> the general consensus, as I understand it, has been 'Kage has every right to swing the ban hammer, for any, or no reason at all'
> 
> and I support that point of view.



AC10 is a business and in business, nothing is ever done without a reason.  Ever.



> I also support the point of view that banning people for lacking 'idealogical purity' ( my words, not anyone elses, -mine-. ) is a Bad Thing.



A nifty platitude, but irrelevant.



> also , in case you missed it in the bustle.
> 
> 1. nobody actually called the cops. the cops chose to act ( wrongly, proven to be wrongly, in a court of law, by a judge..-twice- ). key concept here. the police -chose- to act. Nobody -other- than the police freaked out.



I didn't miss it, I think its irrelevant.  I think what is being missed is an understanding of operational realities in 2010.   You can bet that AC and every other major convention (of all types)  is vetting participants against a slough of lists, not least of which is probably the US no-fly list.  Rightly or wrongly, IK appears to be red-flagged on some sort of local list and the AC10 BoD is acting preemptively as a prudent, due diligence exercise.  I predict we'll see registered sex offenders and people with questionable practices (remember the cum-party advertisements last year?) disenfranchised next.



> 2. Kage chose to ban someone for a political stance Kage did not agree with, based on actions that happened -outside- of Kage's area of authority.



Kage's accountability is to the safety and enjoyment of the attending public, the facility owners and local/state regulatory bodies and maybe to turn a profit (thus ensuring future iterations of AC), possibly not in that order.  His politics are irrelevant.



> This is much like me banning you from 'Urso's magic happy fun-land' because you voted for Obama ( or McCain. regardless ).



No, this is more akin to "Subject X has a tendency to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie house.  Using previous behavior as an indicator of future potential, lets proactively prevent Subject X from attending our movie screening and disrupting the show."



> I have the legal right to do so. You have every legal right to protest.



Indeed.  But cynically, doesn't such a protest only draw media attention?  There is no such thing as bad press.  Disrupting the sleep cycle of a visiting baseball team (AC09) makes the local news.  An armed protest in the streets puts AC10 on the international news circuit.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 16, 2010)

I'm on your side roo but don't go protest with a gun stupid

Everyone gets screwed over sometime. Some more than others.. And it's your rational answers that make it all better :3

Now _please_ stop throwing your words at this thread people.
There are two points well across, and it's his own choice what he does.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

FurAffinity said:


> I'm on your side roo but don't go protest with a gun stupid
> 
> Everyone gets screwed over sometime. Some more than others.. And it's your rational answers that make it all better :3
> 
> ...



Why not?  He's read the laws and found that he is legally able to do so.  I say let him, since it's well within his rights- to suggest that it's a bad idea and that he shouldn't is an INFRINGEMENT.

And as we all know, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Nice try, commie.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Why not?  He's read the laws and found that he is legally able to do so.  I say let him, since it's well within his rights- to suggest that it's a bad idea and that he shouldn't is an INFRINGEMENT.
> 
> And as we all know, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Nice try, commie.



I see what you are doing thar!


----------



## Aurali (Feb 16, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Why not?  He's read the laws and found that he is legally able to do so.  I say let him, since it's well within his rights- to suggest that it's a bad idea and that he shouldn't is an INFRINGEMENT.
> 
> And as we all know, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  Nice try, commie.



there is protecting your rights, and there is looking like an idiot.. trust me, I know both quite well.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> I see what you are doing thar!



Protecting the Constitution?

<cryingeagle.jpg>


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Protecting the Constitution?
> 
> <cryingeagle.jpg>



Yes....sure...
Protesting is an American right, and to tell him not to makes all of you against his right to armed protest!


----------



## Urso (Feb 16, 2010)

Trimmed for length.



Irreverent said:


> AC10 is a business and in business, nothing is ever done without a reason.  Ever.
> 
> Kage's accountability is to the safety and enjoyment of the attending public, the facility owners and local/state regulatory bodies and maybe to turn a profit (thus ensuring future iterations of AC), possibly not in that order.  His politics are irrelevant.
> 
> ...



couple of things.

 while 'buisiness is buisiness' is the way things are -supposed- to work, history both national and personal is littered with examples of people advancing personal agendas over buisiness interests. we cannot disprove the possibility this is happening here. 

 Roo's interactions with law enforcement have all been under his mundane, non-furry guise. Nobody on the 'normal' side of the fence knew he was a furry. So saying 'oh noes, he's gonna make furries look bad' is bullshit, because at the time, and currently, nobody in PA in any position of authority ( or otherwise for that matter) had any clue he was one.

 Roo made ( and has made) a point of staying well within the law/rules. The fact that other people did not know the rules they were -paid to enforce-, has no bearing on his attendance at the con. He had a meeting with Kage, agreed to abide by Kage's rules( No guns on the grounds of my con ), and held up his end of the bargain. Kage  welched.

Kage, knew Roo's mundane ID. And -in his own words- dropped the banhammer for things Roo did in mundane guise. That were legal. That were away from the Con. 

Kage cannot complain that Roo makes furries look bad, -because nobody who is involved in the two cases in pittsburg know that he's a furry-.

granted, from the looks of things that's fixing to change soon.

I"m sorry, but I firmly believe that this is a case of someone abusing thier power to advance a personal political belief. I further believe, that the evidence, carefully examined, bears me out.

the problem is ( sorry, insane kangaroo) is that all the primary actors are acting in non-rational, highly negative ways.

man, this aint gonna end well.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> Trimmed for length.



That's like saying that I am abusing my power when a I kick out a  Patron at the library is printing off furry porn for "Artistic" value. 

Whatever Kage sees that may endanger his business venture and to harm the PR with the public, he can do as he sees fit.  

Politics aside, It may be unfair, but it is his word over yours.


EDIT: If you would want to exersize your second Amendment rights, move to Va. Our gun laws in the VA commonweath are straight-foward. Buying a gun is just like going into a fastfood joint.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 16, 2010)

There goes my nice neat ending :C
fuck it go shoot people


----------



## cesarin (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Peaceful protesting. The sign will most likely be a motto to show the shock of being banned for using my rights.



how the hell waving a gun while protesting is "peaceful" ? 
thats like a gang dude telling you to "fuck off" because he doesnt like you.. 

also this is confusing me..
so .. Kage told you to NOT bring guns, yet you got a gun IN YOUR ROOM, (that means you *DID* BRING GUNS)
and I suppose you were in one of the con venues, werent you?
that means even if you were "just leaving" or "just moving" trought the convention sections and venues....
you STILL had the GUNS WITH YOU.

 Am I right?


PS. Anthrocon gets a shitton of people from other places, me included and you can bet your sorry ass that people like ME (who has had a lot of experience or witnessed  batshit insane people in the furry community) will get scared or worried from a retard furry waving his gun like it was his second penis.


----------



## Kesteh (Feb 16, 2010)

This thread is now a shitty argument.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 16, 2010)

cesarin said:


> how the hell waving a gun while protesting is "peaceful" ?
> thats like a gang dude telling you to "fuck off" because he doesnt like you..
> 
> also this is confusing me..
> ...




If he had it in his room when he was at the convention center and one of the staff of the hotel found it, stole it, and sold it to a person who would later commit a crime with it, it would be on his ass.


When you think about it hypothetically. :V


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 16, 2010)

Urso said:


> while 'buisiness is buisiness' is the way things are -supposed- to work, history both national and personal is littered with examples of people advancing personal agendas over buisiness interests. we cannot disprove the possibility this is happening here.



Granted.  But by and large, personal agenda's tend to be trumped by the bottom line.  Or put another way, there isn't there enough prima facia evidence to support that it IS personal politics that is driving this.  Spite might be a motivator, taking prudent, calculated steps to ensure a return on investment tends to be a better one.

The RFC has a long, long history of treating anything that doesn't agree with their world view as a hidden agenda or backdoor gun control.   In my experience, Ocam's razor is more likely.



> Roo's interactions with law enforcement have all been under his mundane, non-furry guise. Nobody on the 'normal' side of the fence knew he was a furry. So saying 'oh noes, he's gonna make furries look bad' is bullshit, because at the time, and currently, nobody in PA in any position of authority ( or otherwise for that matter) had any clue he was one.



Irrelevant.  Roo could just as easily been an anti/pro gay, anti/pro war, anti/pro NMBLA anti/pro...whatever.  Its not the facts of his past actions, its the media result of those actions; and this is a subtle distinction.  IK clearly has precence at the municipal, state and maybe federal level of government.  That baggage is what is driving this.



> Kage  welched.



This is supposition on your part.  For all you know, external factors not in evidence forced a voit face.  We only have one side of the story.  Everything else is hearsay and speculation.



> from the looks of things that's fixing to change soon.



Which is one of the points I've been trying to make.  Cynically, putting aside operational realities for an instant, this may be nothing more than very carefully orchestrated attempt to garner pre-convention media attention.



> man, this aint gonna end well.



For IK, likely not.  Depends on IK's next steps.  But I think from a media relations perspective, its win/win for AC regardless of how it ends.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 16, 2010)

Protest might work well with a 40 oz., some rap music, and furries with guns thats going make it on the news this year on AC.


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 16, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> *
> Banning people for being a patriot and enjoying their civil rights is HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE.*



Jesus Christ, you're dilusional.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 16, 2010)

Winter Tw Wolf said:


> Jesus Christ, you're dilusional.





> By Insane_Kangaroo
> *Banning people for being a patriot and enjoying their civil rights is HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE.*


I'll have to say, no matter what you think of that statement, it has the makings of a nice sig quote. Had to come back just to post this.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 16, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'll have to say, no matter what you think of that statement, it has the makings of a nice sig quote. Had to come back just to post this.



I was actually tempted early on, but... :effort:


----------



## Winter Tw Wolf (Feb 16, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'll have to say, no matter what you think of that statement, it has the makings of a nice sig quote. Had to come back just to post this.



Thanks. :3


----------



## Nylak (Feb 16, 2010)

Props to Kage for the initiative.  I'd have done the same thing if I'd had the balls.

[/two cents]


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 16, 2010)

Nylak said:


> Props to Kage for the initiative.  I'd have done the same thing if I'd had the balls.
> 
> [/two cents]



Oh Nylak. You already have more balls than the rest of us. Makes you a real woman.
That's supposed to be a compliment.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 16, 2010)

Nylak said:


> Props to Kage for the initiative.  I'd have done the same thing if I'd had the balls.
> 
> [/two cents]



I wouldn't. Maybe stopped him at the entrance.


----------



## Nylak (Feb 17, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oh Nylak. You already have more balls than the rest of us. Makes you a real woman.
> That's supposed to be a compliment.


 
Haha, that makes me feel "special."  I got me some chick balls.  Kinky.



Aurali said:


> I wouldn't. Maybe stopped him at the entrance.


 
And told him he couldn't come in?  That...sounds like a really _bad_ idea.  I mean, after possibly traveling quite a long distance and/or paying for admission ahead of time, you don't think he'd create a huge scene at the entrance for being denied entry?  I definitely think it'd be way more considerate to inform him in private beforehand that he wasn't welcome.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 17, 2010)

Nylak said:


> And told him he couldn't come in? That...sounds like a really _bad_ idea. I mean, after possibly traveling quite a long distance and/or paying for admission ahead of time, you don't think he'd create a huge scene at the entrance for being denied entry? I definitely think it'd be way more considerate to inform him in private beforehand that he wasn't welcome.


Guy still shouldn't have been banned. Warned? Yeah, sure. Banned for being stupid? He didn't do anything bad at Anthrocon, didn't violate the rules there. Being banned for fucking up in the same city is pretty harsh.

There was no mass hysteria and panic.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 17, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> Guy still shouldn't have been banned. Warned? Yeah, sure. Banned for being stupid? He didn't do anything bad at Anthrocon, didn't violate the rules there. Being banned for fucking up in the same city is pretty harsh.
> 
> There was no mass hysteria and panic.



He's clearly a loose cannon.  I mean, Mozdoc was banned from a few cons, wasn't he?  He's done a lot of crazy shit but I'm not quite sure if he brought that crazy to the cons, aside from getting in some people's faces and breathing heavily.

Some of the gunfurs that were/are defending IK are worried that his protest are going to make them look like a bunch of loons, are they not?  I'm also wondering how long it'll be until IK tracks where Kage works and starts calling all the extensions to let them know the Dr. Samuel Conway they work with _is a furry_.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 17, 2010)

Nylak said:


> And told him he couldn't come in?  That...sounds like a really _bad_ idea.  I mean, after possibly traveling quite a long distance and/or paying for admission ahead of time, you don't think he'd create a huge scene at the entrance for being denied entry?  I definitely think it'd be way more considerate to inform him in private beforehand that he wasn't welcome.



Well if he was carrying a gun on him, then you'd have proper reason to ban him :/ or even search him if he said he was going to before hand.


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

But he's said many times, even in this thread, that he was NOT going to carry at the convention.


----------



## Lazydabear (Feb 17, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> He's clearly a loose cannon. I mean, Mozdoc was banned from a few cons, wasn't he? He's done a lot of crazy shit but I'm not quite sure if he brought that crazy to the cons, aside from getting in some people's faces and breathing heavily.
> 
> Some of the gunfurs that were/are defending IK are worried that his protest are going to make them look like a bunch of loons, are they not? I'm also wondering how long it'll be until IK tracks where Kage works and starts calling all the extensions to let them know the Dr. Samuel Conway they work with _is a furry_.


 
Everyone in Pitsburgh knows who Kage is I don't think they could care less who he is even though he mention is profession is in many of his DVD's he release every year.


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

Do you mean everyone everyone or furry everyone?

I've never heard of him.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 17, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Some of the gunfurs that were/are defending IK are worried that his protest are going to make them look like a bunch of loons



I like how you used the term "gunfur" in relation to people not being loons.

They are naturally all nice stable people who just happen to feel the need to carry projectile deathflingers. Of course they don't carry guns to use them. They're there in case they need to pistolwhip people. Shooting things? Perish the thought.

BRB: applying to local government to institute new personal rights in relation to ownership of miniguns.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 17, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> I like how you used the term "gunfur" in relation to people not being loons.
> 
> They are naturally all nice stable people who just happen to feel the need to carry projectile deathflingers. Of course they don't carry guns to use them. They're there in case they need to pistolwhip people. Shooting things? Perish the thought.
> 
> BRB: applying to local government to institute new personal rights in relation to ownership of miniguns.



I'm referring to them as their own little subset, as I'm sure you can imagine a venn diagram with a little circle on the left marked furries and a large circle on the right marked gun owners/enthusiasts/nuts, with the intersection being "furries who also own guns."

This is to say nothing of my own feeling about guns and gun owners, even though I thought I've made myself clear elsewhere in the thread: I'm saying that as a furry who loves guns perhaps a little much, Insane Kangaroo is going too far for the tastes of some other furries who love guns perhaps a little much.

If you think gunfurs are loons, then some of those loons think Insane Kangaroo is _especially_ loony.



Lazydabear said:


> Everyone in Pitsburgh knows who Kage is I don't think they could care less who he is even though he mention is profession is in many of his DVD's he release every year.



I think that's kind of my point: I'm sure even at his workplace there are people who are no doubt aware that he chairs a giant furry con 'on the side'. In my experience, Insane Kangaroo is the sort of person who would call "just to make sure," since he has a hard time not being involved in the business of others.


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 17, 2010)

whoops


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Feb 17, 2010)

Wait so why is this such a point of contention?

I don't see anything of value that was lost.


----------



## cesarin (Feb 17, 2010)

Aran said:


> But he's said many times, even in this thread, that he was NOT going to carry at the convention.



he mentioned leaving the gun in the hotel safe.
wich means he still HAD The GUN inside the hotel and for entering-leaving-elevators..etc.
thats part of the Convention zone as far I know.

and what if this guy was waving his gun like a retard or very visible while traveling in these sections?

(considering the drama he caused for this, I wouldnt be surprised if he did..)


----------



## Bobskunk (Feb 17, 2010)

cesarin said:


> he mentioned leaving the gun in the hotel safe.
> wich means he still HAD The GUN inside the hotel and for entering-leaving-elevators..etc.
> thats part of the Convention zone as far I know.
> 
> ...



He was explicitly not staying at the Westin due to the hotel's and the con's policy on weapons.  He was at one of the other hotels.


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

AHAhAHAHAAHahaahahaHAHAHahahahaahahahaAAhhahaha!

You made your bed, now lie in it!

on a side note...  maybe Kage did it because you like to dress up your shooting targets as the minorities you hate!  God forbid you show up with your arsenal and there happens to be a brown-skinned or Asian furry at the con, and that triggers your nazi-senses causing you to blow them away!

And don't give me that "I'm half Mexican" BS, you self-hating racist gun freak.  You give responsible gun owners and Americans a bad name.

BRAVO KAGE!  BRAVO!  For once, I actually agree with you.

Anyone that can justify toting firearms around in the airport doesn't need to be at a furry con.


----------



## cesarin (Feb 17, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> He was explicitly not staying at the Westin due to the hotel's and the con's policy on weapons.  He was at one of the other hotels.



aaah ic, thanks for making that part clear.
I wonder what hotel he was in.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> on a side note... maybe Kage did it because you like to dress up your shooting targets as the minorities you hate! God forbid you show up with your arsenal and there happens to be a brown-skinned or Asian furry at the con, and that triggers your nazi-senses causing you to blow them away!


Since when did he turn racist now?


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> Since when did he turn racist now?



Since every time I ever saw him open his filthy mouth in #furaffinity when the mods weren't looking.  Ask him about how he dresses his shooting targets like (in his words) "ragheads" and "inner-city minorities" and "rice patties[sic]".  
Ask him about how he feels about racial profiling.
Ask him about how he'd shoot a black guy without asking questions and then fumble around for other reasons (see: http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/44513.html )

I'm glad he's finally getting some kinda of punishment, 'cause he never got in trouble for his abusive statements online.


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

Guns.....
when ever you talk about them the NRA kills a kitten.


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> Ask him about how he'd shoot a black guy without asking questions and then fumble around for other reasons (see: http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/44513.html )


I don't think that journal is enough to warrant the idea he's a racist. More that he has a notion if you have a gun to stop a criminal use it. I doubt it matters what color they are.

And he's a white boy from Alaska. The typical "criminal" is portrayed as thugs in hoodies and the like. If he's going off of stereotypes of criminals there are really only so many. I dunno. I just don't see any definitive proof. That's not to say that he may not be a racist, but I think I'd need something more accurate?


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> I just don't see any definitive proof. That's not to say that he may not be a racist, but I think I'd need something more accurate?



9_9  Fine.  Here's a taste of the crap I've dealt with on IRC a million times:

[13:57] <insane_kangaroo> I don't understand why peope like video games
 08[13:57] <Kattywampus> I have no idea how you could change your name to that
 09[13:57] * slydragon|zZz is now known as slydragon
[13:57] <insane_kangaroo> you get shot by a buch of rice patties and naht-zis
[13:57] <Seon> insane people suck
[13:58] <Zombie_Genocide> Cuz, I dont get shot in the face =D
[13:58] <insane_kangaroo> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGrK5zH_6Do
[13:58] <Zombie_Genocide> BOOM!
 08[13:58] <Kattywampus> since every video game is a shooting game
[13:58] <insane_kangaroo> Insane Ripper Roo laugh ;D
[13:58] <Zombie_Genocide> HEAD
[13:58] <Zombie_Genocide> SHOT.
[13:59] <Zombie_Genocide> FPS is my primary specialty yes.
 08[13:59] <Kattywampus> Although you're right.  Why play FPS's when
you could go shoot things for real
[13:59] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: exactly
 08[13:59] <Kattywampus> Kids need to play outside more, anyway
 09[13:59] * Garr is now known as GarrCrow
[13:59] <insane_kangaroo> I've my posters I use for targets
[13:59] <insane_kangaroo> white, black, unkowns
 08[13:59] <Kattywampus> huh?
[13:59] <insane_kangaroo> I want to make a rag head target with a bomb strap
[14:00] <Zombie_Genocide> Katty, You know thats not true.
 08[14:00] <Kattywampus> How many racial slurs have you used in the
past 5 minutes?
[14:00] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: fine... LN 
 08[14:00] <Kattywampus> Zombie, I'm being sarcastic.  I enjoy FPS's.
[14:00] <insane_kangaroo> or TCN
[14:00] <Zombie_Genocide> I fail at sarcasm
 03[14:01] * Shadow_Panther (~panther@shadowpanther.static.corbina.ru)
has joined #furaffinity
[14:01] <Zombie_Genocide> D'=
[14:01] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: 3 racial words
[14:01] <insane_kangaroo> rice patties, naht-zis, and rag heads 
[14:01] <insane_kangaroo> *ragheads
 08[14:01] <Kattywampus> "ragheads" and "rice patties(sp)" were definitely slurs
 08[14:02] <Kattywampus> But it's okay, they won't get you 'cause you
got your 17 guns
[14:02] <insane_kangaroo> *nod* and training
 08[14:02] <Kattywampus> shootem when they come to the airport
 08[14:03] <Kattywampus> right, Mr. Deranged Macropod?
 08[14:03] <Kattywampus> America has failed us all.
[14:03] <Zombie_Genocide> Back, sorry.
[14:03] <Drirry> My father is a veteran, and a proud gun owner.. I
know he would be ashamed to call himself American next to someone like
you. Toting assault weapons around to try and prove something, like a
Columbine wannabe baby
[14:03] <Bacu> durhur
[14:03] <Drirry> Guns are to protect your family and yourself
[14:04] <Zombie_Genocide> Also, Recreation.
[14:04] <insane_kangaroo> heh
[14:04] <Drirry> Not shoot 'rag heads' like some movie hero fantasy
[14:04] <Zombie_Genocide> Range shooting.
[14:04] <insane_kangaroo> Drirry: actually, I've many vets walking up
shaking my hand and thanking me
[14:04] <insane_kangaroo> usually along the lines of, "using the
rights I fought so hard for in 'the war'"
 08[14:05] <Kattywampus> "Thank you for being awesome at racial
profiling when you carry your loaded cut-off shotguns into BWI"
[14:05] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I don't profile people by race
 08[14:05] <Kattywampus> "We salute you, Mr. Anthro American"
 11[14:06] * +Torinir (~torinir@fur-2A30C969.home3.cgocable.net) Quit
(Ping timeout )
[14:06] <Drirry> My father was in Desert Storm, my grandfather did two
tours in Vietnam. It's disgusting you spit on every soldier who's died
in war to protect those rights to flash weapons in peoples faces like
a fucking child
 08[14:06] <Kattywampus> oh right, you check to see if they're wearing
a rag on their head or one of those wide rice hats
[14:06] <insane_kangaroo> desert storm, heh
 08[14:06] <Kattywampus> HAT profiling, my bad
 03[14:06] * RiceCake (~RiceCake@fur-FD6691F9.regina.accesscomm.ca)
has left #furaffinity (Leaving )
[14:06] <insane_kangaroo> Drirry: nobody is flashing or brandishing firearms
 08[14:06] <Kattywampus> Not yet.
[14:06] <Drirry> Go play soldier somewhere else, not here.. noone
wants to know how badass you are
[14:06] <Bacu> durhurduurrrr
[14:06] <insane_kangaroo> Drirry: I carry a pistol in public, not a rifle
 08[14:07] <Kattywampus> You're wanting to get a youtube video of you
dressed as a blue kangaroo with guns
[14:07] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: expressive enthusiasm
[14:07] <insane_kangaroo> America, fuck yeah! 
 09[14:07] * Cerb|Away is now known as Cerbrus
[14:07] <Bacu> so it's bad to post YT vids of your interests :|
[14:07] <Drirry> You carry a whip-it a sawed off pistol grip shot gun
by your own words, that is an assault weapon.
 08[14:07] <Kattywampus> and bragging in detail about all your weapons
is the same as flashing
[14:07] <insane_kangaroo> or maybe I'll play on the piano God Bless the USA
 08[14:07] <Kattywampus> Bacu, posting videos of your interests is one thing
[14:08] <Zombie_Genocide> #gunfurries
[14:08] <insane_kangaroo> Drirry: uh, they are *with* me
[14:08] <Bacu> but posting videos of your interests that conflict with
my interests is another thing, right?
[14:08] <insane_kangaroo> I do not carry them loaded
[14:08] <GarrCrow> Mormon shotgun
[14:08] <insane_kangaroo> they're not practical unless they're loaded
with slugs while in a populated setting
 08[14:08] <Kattywampus> Bacu, I plan on purchasing a firearm myself
 08[14:08] <Kattywampus> and learning how to use it
[14:08] <Zombie_Genocide> Airsoft does me fine.
[14:09] <insane_kangaroo> even then, rounds may over penetrate if slugs are used
 08[14:09] <Kattywampus> and I have gun hobbiest friends
[14:09] <Zombie_Genocide> For range shooting, make one in my back yard.
 08[14:09] <Kattywampus> but this fool wants to rave about his sawed
off shotguns and brag about them everywhere
[14:09] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I take them with me for protection 
[14:09] <Bacu> protip: people do that with everything.
[14:09] <insane_kangaroo> shotguns are the best weapon for home defense
 08[14:09] <Kattywampus> and blow away posters dressed as "ragheads"
and "rice patties(sp)"
[14:10] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I only have posters which are practical
[14:10] <Zombie_Genocide> Can yall just agree to disagree?
[14:10] <insane_kangaroo> like my dressed up chav-looking poster
holding a glock forthay sideways
[14:10] <insane_kangaroo> written under, "chitty chitty bang ban nikkah"
 08[14:10] <Kattywampus> I agree that this person is a racist gun nut
that makes other Americans and gun-owners look bad.
[14:11] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I'm not racist
 03[14:11] * ArshesNei
(~arshesnei@adsl-99-18-62-118.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) has joined
#furaffinity
 03[14:11] * ChanServ sets mode: +v ArshesNei
[14:11] <Bacu> durhurdur
[14:11] <insane_kangaroo> I'm just being a realist. The poster is the
type of chicago gun thug street fiend
 08[14:11] <Kattywampus> Here we go
 08[14:11] <Kattywampus> You're being a real racist
[14:11] <Drirry> Sure, you just used racist comments about Blacks,
Asians and Muslims.. thats not racist
[14:11] <Drirry> JEEZ
[14:11] <insane_kangaroo> one must have the mental training, the
mental image to shoot a person no matter skin color
 08[14:11] <Kattywampus> Get outta your whitebread land with your shotguns
[14:11] <insane_kangaroo> really now
[14:11] <insane_kangaroo> how about spics
 11[14:12] * Seti (SmokoMon@fur-52BA1C70.adsl.inetia.pl) Quit (Quit:
Sleeeeeeeeeeep )
[14:12] <insane_kangaroo> since you know, I'm part mexican
[14:12] <insane_kangaroo> can I at least be self hating now?
[14:12] <GarrCrow> I'm part-Mexican! It's funny racism!
[14:12] <GarrCrow> >:|
[14:12] <Drirry> Sure, whatever pops your cork
[14:12] <Drirry> Doesn't make it okay to be a tool
 08[14:12] <Kattywampus> Alright, Uncle Ruckus.
[14:12] <insane_kangaroo> we just sort of you now, crawl in to every
cheap motel with our familes 
 08[14:12] <Kattywampus> You're still a racist gun nut with no
business being in public.
[14:12] <Bacu> Katty, u mad?
[14:12] <GarrCrow> Carlos Mencia is supposedly Mexican, that doesn't
make his material not racist. :V
 08[14:13] <Kattywampus> I'm gonna make fun of part of my ancestry in
order to sound not racist.
 08[14:13] <Kattywampus> Why is it that when I point out someone is
racist, people think I'm mad?
[14:13] <insane_kangaroo>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/insanekangaroo/3667416646/
[14:14] <insane_kangaroo> ^ me ;D
 08[14:14] <Kattywampus> I've seen your picture at least 100 times in here
 08[14:14] <Kattywampus> Good for you.
[14:14] <Bacu> it's not that you're pointing out racism
 03[14:14] * CrayWolf (~CrayWolf_@c-69-142-9-233.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
has left #furaffinity (Leaving )
[14:14] <Bacu> it's being mad
[14:14] <Bacu> GRR GRR INSULTS
[14:14] <Bacu> GRR GRR NO BUSINESS BEING IN PUBLIC
 08[14:14] <Kattywampus> How am I being insulting?
[14:14] <Bacu> GRRRRRRR
[14:14] <GarrCrow> Bacu u mad
 08[14:14] <Kattywampus> I think you're mad because I'm right
[14:14] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I really am self hating in
terms of my race, since people so poorly portray, at least in my
family
 11[14:14] * Stormy (~stormy@stormweyr.dk) Quit (Ping timeout )
[14:15] <Bacu> " racist gun nut that makes other Americans and
gun-owners look bad."
[14:15] <insane_kangaroo> for some reason, people love to prove
mexican husbands are wife/kid abusers
[14:15] <Bacu> hurdur
 08[14:15] <Kattywampus> Bacu, am I wrong?
[14:15] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: yes
 08[14:15] <Kattywampus> insane_kangaroo: People like YOU, maybe
 06[14:15] * insane_kangaroo isn't abusive at all
 08[14:15] <Kattywampus> I don't know anyone like that
 03[14:16] * Rakeash (~Rakeash@fur-485A67FB.wi.res.rr.com) has joined
#furaffinity
[14:16] <GarrCrow> I heard insane_kangaroo got detained at the airport
for trying to carry his piece to AC. Confirm/Deny
[14:16] <insane_kangaroo> GarrCrow: confirm
[14:16] <insane_kangaroo> I was also cited
[14:16] <insane_kangaroo> here is the court docket
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=201502842
 09[14:17] * Seon is now known as LeafSeon
[14:17] <GarrCrow> I'd participate but I am currently in quite a lot
of indigestive discomfort.
[14:17] <insane_kangaroo> 
 03[14:17] * Spiritraptor
(~SpiritRap@77-100-108-194.cable.ubr25.newt.blueyonder.co.uk) has
joined #furaffinity
[14:18] <insane_kangaroo> feel better
[14:18] <GarrCrow> Oog, soon as you say that...
[14:18] <GarrCrow> BRB, bathroom. X.x
 08[14:18] <Kattywampus> Let it all out, Garr, let it all out
[14:18] <insane_kangaroo> x(
[14:18] <insane_kangaroo> being sick --
 08[14:19] <Kattywampus> oh, that's right, you're sick, too.  My bad.
 11[14:19] * WerewoIf
(~WerewoIf@dsl-hkibrasgw2-fe2dde00-9.dhcp.inet.fi) Quit (Connection
reset by peer )
 03[14:22] * Summercat
(~arlenecoh@adsl-75-37-150-223.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) has joined
#furaffinity
 03[14:22] * ChanServ sets mode: +h Summercat
 06[14:22] * insane_kangaroo is healthy
 11[14:22] * +ArshesNei
(~arshesnei@adsl-99-18-62-118.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) Quit
(Connection reset by peer )
 09[14:22] * Summercat is now known as Summer|away
[14:22] <insane_kangaroo> I work at a mental health center as well
 06[14:24] * Bacu just got a mega-uber-dose of deja-vu
[14:24] <insane_kangaroo> Bacu: you were committed to a mental health facility?
[14:25] <Bacu> nay.
[14:25] <Bacu> though sometimes I really really wonder.
[14:26] <insane_kangaroo> 
[14:26] <insane_kangaroo> poor Kattywampus, all confused thinking I'm racist 
 08[14:26] <Kattywampus> You are.
 03[14:27] * Randal (~Sexy_Comi@ddsl-209-105-137-111.casstel.net) has
joined #furaffinity
[14:27] <insane_kangaroo> no, I'm not
 03[14:27] * Sh4d0w
(~hurrdurr@host86-148-187-211.range86-148.btcentralplus.com) has
joined #furaffinity
 08[14:27] <Kattywampus> I don't blame you though.  People can't help
it that they're ignorant.
[14:27] <+Mu> I doubt racists often notice that they're being racist
 03[14:27] * Stormy (~stormy@stormweyr.dk) has joined #furaffinity
[14:27] <+Mu> it's not like they've decided to be racists
 06[14:28] * insane_kangaroo would happily stand by someone who is
muslim, long as they have no intention of killing anyone or blowing
themselves up
 09[14:28] * Queneex is now known as Queneex`afk
 08[14:28] <Kattywampus> And that's not a racist comment?
[14:28] <insane_kangaroo> some of the people who are the head of
mosques are praising the Fort Hood incident, telling muslims they're
committing treason to their religion if they damn the incident.
[14:28] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: it's not actually
 08[14:29] <Kattywampus> It wasn't racist until after the word Muslim
[14:29] <insane_kangaroo> not when you have people who do/were head of
mosques(their version of a church) praising the incident and
recommending others take the same action
 09[14:29] * Damaratus is now known as Damaratus[AFK]
 08[14:29] <Kattywampus> You're a fool.
[14:29] <insane_kangaroo> what, you'd like me to cite?
 08[14:29] <Kattywampus> So muslims are more likely to blow people up, huh?
[14:29] <insane_kangaroo> The posting Monday on the Web site for Anwar
al Awlaki, who was a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11
hijackers worshipped, said American Muslims who condemned the Fort
Hood attack are hypocrites who have committed treason against their
religion.
[14:30] <Bacu> How is that even relevant. :|
 03[14:30] * Sawblade5 (~LY7@72.129.230.142) has joined #furaffinity
[14:30] <insane_kangaroo> Awlaki said the only way a Muslim can
justify serving in the U.S. military is if he intends to "follow in
the footsteps of men like Nidal."
[14:30] <Bacu> I mean, calling taht on racism.
[14:30] <Bacu> It's correlation.
[14:30] <insane_kangaroo> "Nidal Hassan (sic) is a hero," Awlaki said.
"He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction
of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his
own people."
 09[14:30] * Queneex`afk is now known as Queneex
[14:30] <insane_kangaroo> what is not clear in the quotes?
 09[14:31] * Queneex is now known as Queneex`afk
 08[14:31] <Kattywampus> Those quotes have nothing to do with you
making comments about muslims (or ragheads as you called them earlier)
blowing themselves up
 08[14:31] <Kattywampus> It's a rotten stereotype


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> I don't think that journal is enough to warrant the idea he's a racist. More that he has a notion if you have a gun to stop a criminal use it. I doubt it matters what color they are.
> 
> And he's a white boy from Alaska. The typical "criminal" is portrayed as thugs in hoodies and the like. If he's going off of stereotypes of criminals there are really only so many. I dunno. I just don't see any definitive proof. That's not to say that he may not be a racist, but I think I'd need something more accurate?



Well the point is that he's profiling people based on how they look.
Or at least thats my opinion........




Some people are over protective of their guns. Its sort of like a security blanket of sorts. its a mentality of some people.

Of course then again..... there are some people that over do it and order piles of gun magazines and make gun speeches of how it's
a right to have a gun.

Some people are just scared of guns though and thats ok too.

Oh thats to firepyro.

i was typing when that irc conversation was posted.

yeah some people are nuts.


----------



## nobuyuki (Feb 17, 2010)

almost every racist has their own personal justification for their racism.  Many of them rationalize it in such a way so as that they would never believe you if you called them a racist.  Racist presumptions which build fear and insecurity in this person seem to be just one of many excuses to the gun-toting bravado going on here, but I think he also has a very childish view of right and wrong which enables that behavior, as well.  

To that point, unless you could somehow convince him he was wrong about anything of consequence, he probably wouldn't believe he was a racist either, even when you call him out on examples for it.  Furthermore, I imagine that it's likely others who think like him and are motivated by the same sorts of fears accentuated with racial tension are likely to defend his racism and be apologist, perhaps even to the point of denying the inherent racism as well.

Oh yeah, while I'm in here making a drive-by posting, I might as well also state that imho, most people aren't qualified and _don't deserve_ to be able to carry a gun around.  The 2nd amendment is worded in such a way that makes no qualms about limiting the scope of gun ownership as long as it doesn't infringe on the people's rights to have a well-regulated militia.  Guys like this should be psych-evaluated right the fuck out of being able to carry anything more powerful than a pea shooter, and we shouldn't wait around for him to commit a felony first.  I have no problem with people owning guns, but I have a problem with people who don't know how to use guns (and more importantly, how _not_ to use them) owning one.

I'd like to see insane_kangaroo show up to AC to validate why he deserved being banned from the convention.


----------



## Aden (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> 9_9  Fine.  Here's a taste of the crap I've dealt with on IRC a million times:
> 
> [stuff]



hahaha oh wow


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> MY LIVEJOURNAL ENTRY WITH THIS CONTENT:*http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/50595.html
> 
> This has to do with my  actions outside of the con in normal life. Essentially I'm being  banned by the thought police. I've never carried a firearm in the  convention center, thus not broken the rules of Anthrocon.*



Hmmm... 


 06[13:27] * insane_kangaroo is happy ))
 11[13:27] * kingbob (~kingbob@c-71-201-180-110.hsd1.in.comcast.net)
Quit (Quit: kingbob )
[13:27] <Drirry> No, I was actually about it ask if anyone else was
amazed by Cheza's eyes o.o
[13:27] <insane_kangaroo> judge found me not guilty
[13:28] <Drirry> It's actually somewhat attractive
 08[13:28] <Kattywampus> But the question is.. are you actually guilty?
 06[13:28] * Bacu taps his head
 06[13:28] * Bassin dances to disco and funk
[13:28] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: nope
[13:28] <insane_kangaroo> it's lawful to carry a loaded firearm at the
pittsburgh international airport
 08[13:29] <Kattywampus> . . .
[13:29] <Drirry> So noone? ;p
[13:29] <Bacu> oh, she did have some funky eyes...
[13:29] <Bacu> was it...
 08[13:29] <Kattywampus> What the shit
[13:29] <Bacu> red on black?
[13:29] <Bacu> something weird like that..
 08[13:29] <Kattywampus> why are you carrying loaded firearms into an airport?
[13:29] <Drirry> They were gold on red actually
[13:29] <Bassin> It for shooting
 03[13:29] * FrancisBlack (~FrancisBl@fur-4611D63D.mc.videotron.ca)
has joined #furaffinity
[13:29] <Bacu> hm.
[13:30] <Bacu> that sounds slightly less weird
[13:30] <insane_kangaroo> they're having a meeting at the end of the
month to bring everyone up to date
[13:30] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: my own safety is my own responsibility
[13:31] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: police in the US have no
responsibility to protect you, says SCOTUS(the supreme court of the
united states)
 11[13:31] * Seti (SmokoMon@77-253-114-252.adsl.inetia.pl) Quit (Ping timeout )
 03[13:33] * not_spy (~clockwork@fur-701CA78B.dhcp.embarqhsd.net) has
joined #furaffinity
 08[13:33] <Kattywampus> at the airport..
[13:33] <insane_kangaroo> yes, at the airort
[13:33] <insane_kangaroo> *airport
 08[13:33] <Kattywampus> where no one carries guns
[13:33] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: you'd be surprised
 08[13:34] <Kattywampus> and if you say "gun" they beat you down
[13:34] <insane_kangaroo> anyway, I'm talking about the commons area
of the airport
[13:34] <insane_kangaroo> not te secure area
 08[13:34] <Kattywampus> What's the point of walking around the
airport with a loaded weapon, seriously?
 08[13:34] <Kattywampus> That's just asking for trouble.
[13:34] <insane_kangaroo> though, tbh, the ordinance the tried to
charge me with covered airport property, whcih many hotels are on
 08[13:34] <Kattywampus> Effing wait outside if you need your gun that bad
[13:34] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: protecting my other weapons?
 08[13:35] <Kattywampus> hahaha arsenal
[13:35] <insane_kangaroo> you do realize I've federally stamped shotguns, right?
[13:35] <insane_kangaroo> short barrel shotguns, with pistol grips(o stock)
 08[13:35] <Kattywampus> I don't care what kinda shotguns you have
[13:35] <insane_kangaroo> (no stock
 03[13:35] * Persona (~HuntersSp@54EAD90C.E06AEB64.4B068EF4.IP) has
joined #furaffinity
 03[13:35] * Bassin (~joaomigue@89.152.105.73) has left #furaffinity
[13:35] <insane_kangaroo> I do, it's important I protect them
 08[13:35] <Kattywampus> what I do care about is the need to carry
multiple weapons
 08[13:35] <Kattywampus> wtf
[13:35] <insane_kangaroo> no no, this is interstate transportation
[13:36] <insane_kangaroo> I was going to Anthrocon when this happened 
 08[13:36] <Kattywampus> Alright, smeagle.. keep protecting your precious
[13:36] <Bacu> durhur
[13:36] <+Mu> smeagol
 08[13:36] <Kattywampus> haha you were going to Anthrocon with
multiple shotguns?
[13:36] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I'm a responsible gun owner, I
don't allow criminals to have my guns
[13:36] <Drirry> Yes, we was dressed as Fur Punisher
[13:36] <insane_kangaroo> no matter how the situation
 08[13:36] <Kattywampus> YOu really are an insane kangaroo
 08[13:36] <Kattywampus> lock that shit up
 03[13:37] * Seti (SmokoMon@fur-52BA1C70.adsl.inetia.pl) has joined #furaffinity
 08[13:37] <Kattywampus> Don't talk anymore.  I'm about to get some
cinnamon toast crunch, and I don't wanna laugh that cinnamon out my
nose.  I'm sure it burns.
[13:38] <Bacu> BUT WHY DO KIDS LIKE CINNAMON TOAST CRUNCH?
[13:39] <insane_kangaroo> it is locked up, but I'm not going to have a
person glock me in the back of the head, take my guns, and run away
[13:39] <insane_kangaroo> I'm going to prevent a felony and take the person down


SEE ALSO:


[13:46] <insane_kangaroo> furry america fuck yeah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6jbSFRSws
[13:46] <insane_kangaroo> thank you WhiskeyFoxTrot
[13:46] <insane_kangaroo> Kilo Niner Roger Oscar Oscar thanks him
 11[13:46] * Shadow_Panther (~panther@shadowpanther.static.corbina.ru)
Quit (Ping timeout )
[13:46] <Zombie_Genocide> Because i'm listening to three days grace,
does that make me an Emo fag? D=?
[13:46] <Bacu> FFFFFFFFFFFFF
[13:46] <Bacu> SDKLFJSLFK
[13:47] <Bacu> THAT VIDEO
 06[13:47] * Bacu bangs his head on the table
[13:47] <insane_kangaroo> fuck yeah 
[13:47] <Bacu> GAH
 06[13:47] * Bacu screams to the heavens
[13:47] <Bacu> FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRIIIIIEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS
[13:47] <insane_kangaroo> wit rifles 
[13:47] <insane_kangaroo> *with
[13:48] <Bacu> D8<
[13:48] <insane_kangaroo> furries with guns  <#
[13:48] <insane_kangaroo> *<3
[13:48] <Zombie_Genocide> Lawl.
[13:48] <Zombie_Genocide> Just, Lawl.
[13:48] <Zombie_Genocide> Were a cooler social group now! =D
[13:48] <insane_kangaroo> Fuck Yeah!
[13:48] <not_spy> those guns look ridiculously difficult to load in a fursuit
[13:49] <not_spy> Not for the brown one, but the blue one that has like
[13:49] <not_spy> mitten hands
[13:49] <insane_kangaroo> =]
 06[13:49] * insane_kangaroo can't wait for is fursuit to be completed
[13:49] <insane_kangaroo> I just need to work on it
[13:50] <Zombie_Genocide> Now, It would suck if part of the suit got
jammed into the loaded gun.
[13:50] <Zombie_Genocide> the hairs, i mean.
[13:50] <insane_kangaroo> Then I can go outside and take a video of me
with federally stamped shotguns
 08[13:50] <Kattywampus> so no one will be able to recognize you while
you're totin' guns around in public
[13:50] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: oh yeah, they so won't know who
is in the blue kangaro fursuit
[13:50] <Bacu> they can't prove it though :V
 08[13:50] <Kattywampus> you're the only blue kangaroo, huh?
 08[13:50] <Kattywampus> 9_9


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

rofllol


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

please don't use just irc trerads for your justification.
i need somthing else besides that to justify your claims.


----------



## The Walkin Dude (Feb 17, 2010)

He sure loves bringing up the fact he's got sawed offs. That alone is reason enough for me completely ignore the lacking legitimacy of his complaint.


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

manekineko said:


> please don't use just irc trerads for your justification.
> i need somthing else besides that to justify your claims.



He said that crap himself.  WTF else do you possibly need?


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

I just have a distrust of irc conversations.

How about some forums?

Well now i agree with you anyway so im just being curious now.


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

manekineko said:


> I just have a distrust of irc conversations.
> 
> How about some forums?
> 
> Well now i agree with you anyway so im just being curious now.




This was in a public room.  On #furaffinity.  If you think I might have tampered with this, ask some mod or someone that might have a copy of the entire log.  
But I don't hang out on forums where this person might be.  Although now I know he's here.


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

Thanks for that. i don't think that you tampered with the conversation.

Yes he's lurking somewhere......


----------



## Seek Lynx (Feb 17, 2010)

I do not like this situation as I have seen it presented in several locations.  If IK did not carry in con space then I do not see how AC can ban him.  However, they did ban him.  For, as presented, something that he is allowed to do in the governments eyes.  However AC is permitted to do this.  They could ban me for my opinion on this.  

So in short they are within their rights but not right.  I would walk away from the con and spread the word of this to whoever you like.


----------



## SoreThumb (Feb 17, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> This.
> 
> I live here. Unless you're out looking for bad areas to start trouble in, there's 0 reason for a gun.



Oh, really?

After being kicked out of the backup hotel one night, one of the faux-furs in the room robbed, at gunpoint, another person who left the room with us.
That is to say, somebody masqueraded as fur to get into a room party and mug someone when they were all alone on the street.

We walked ahead and didn't think anything of it.

*Pittsburgh is safe?*

ALSO: as far as I know, I_K said he's not packing in the con space.  If he's walking around outside with a fursuit head on and is packing it's completely separate from being banned from the con.  I don't think I'd endorse it, but it's entirely separate.




Kattywampus said:


> He said that crap himself.  WTF else do you possibly need?



THESE ARE GUNS, KATTY.  These aren't an iPod, or the One Ring.
TOOLS OF MURDER.  If somebody steals his bags, they have VERY DANGEROUS WEAPONS on their hands with I_K's name on them.

If this guy sells them or murders somebody with them, I_K's going to have it on his conscience AND have to deal with it, legally... AND pay for another gun, too.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> This was in a public room.  On #furaffinity.  If you think I might have tampered with this, ask some mod or someone that might have a copy of the entire log.
> But I don't hang out on forums where this person might be.  Although now I know he's here.



Besides the fact you've no idea what our soldiers are doing overseas nor the suspicion they must maintain, you for some reason believe all my shooting targets must be white or I'm a racist.

If all my targets were white, how would it not be racist? I'm mixed where it's easy to tell in person. The photo used and what I show to people makes my skin appear whiter than normal since I was in the sun.

My targets are a wide range of people types, I'll modify them to what criminals I see on the news.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

This thread should have been put down like Old Yeller.


----------



## Kattywampus (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Besides the fact you've no idea what our soldiers are doing overseas nor the suspicion they must maintain, you for some reason believe all my shooting targets must be white or I'm a racist.



Are you overseas in the war?  No? Then STFU.

Besides your colorful descriptions of said targets, now everyone knows what your favorite ones are.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> [13:39]
> 08[13:36] <Kattywampus> haha you were going to Anthrocon with
> multiple shotguns?
> [13:36] <insane_kangaroo> Kattywampus: I'm a responsible gun owner, I
> ...



So, you carry a gun (A) to protect the guns (B&C), which you are taking with you, to prevent getting shot by some criminal with your own guns?

This would mean that, if you did not have gun B&C, there would be no need for you to have gun A.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Kattywampus said:


> Are you overseas in the war?  No? Then STFU.
> 
> Besides your colorful descriptions of said targets, now everyone knows what your favorite ones are.



I've talked to plenty who had to make certain choices. If you don't want to get the facts from people who fight over there, remain silent.

No, nobody knows my favorite ones since I've told nobody.

Here is my response to you calling me a Racist.
http://insane-kangaroo.livejournal.com/51022.html


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

Wow i accidentally started a lot here..
Well its a gun and some people dont like guns!

Now i know that its justifyed becuse i stumbled on the forum part.....


----------



## Aden (Feb 17, 2010)

loling at the IRC convos. IK, you're just like, say, the fatfurs or babyfurs on FA that build up their fetish to be the only thing that defines them, and it's really a sad sight.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> loling at the IRC convos. IK, you're just like, say, the fatfurs or babyfurs on FA that build up their fetish to be the only thing that defines them, and it's really a sad sight.



But you gotta love gun nuts. Their gun is like a pacificer. You take it away from them and they cry and scream like babies.


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

I just bought an AK47 tonight. It's pretty nice.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Aden said:


> loling at the IRC convos. IK, you're just like, say, the fatfurs or babyfurs on FA that build up their fetish to be the only thing that defines them, and it's really a sad sight.



o.0 I'm in to more activities than just firearms. Activities which have nothing to do with weapons, tactics, or self defense. While I may build up my online presence to just firearms, geocaching, and ocarinas, they're not my only activities.

If I take a look at your profile, will I build up a stereotype about yourself?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Aran said:


> I just bought an AK47 tonight. It's pretty nice.



Bushmaster or gtfo. *jesting*


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

Ocarinas are for fairies. :\/


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Bushmaster or gtfo. *jesting*



I have a hand-built AR15 I put together a few years ago.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Okay smarty, what instruments do you play?


----------



## Aden (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> If I take a look at your profile, will I build up a stereotype about yourself?



Go for it, bro


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Okay smarty, what instruments do you play?



Alto sax and piano, ma'am.

(Also whoosh. Zelda joke.)


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Alto Sax <3

I used to play the clarinet and alto sax. I upgraded to playing the flute, ocarina, and piano. I'm still learning the piano, but at least I'm able to play through some OSTs like D.Grayman


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

I smell a derail.

Inb4 "hairsex"


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

You mean derail like going off accusing me of being a racist?


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

If Furball is racist, he's going to have a hell of a time in Pittsburgh.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You mean derail like going off accusing me of being a racist?



Damn ******s need to go back to Russia. :V
Them ****** agendas are nothin' but foul work of the devil.


EDIT: I wouldn't say racist...but a  bit of a fruitcake. :V


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

-_- Tuba player.


----------



## Disasterfox (Feb 17, 2010)

wow I'm late fuck that^

Kangaroo you're an idiot just don't be stupid with your guns bro
WWII is long gone


----------



## Aran (Feb 17, 2010)

What does a war have to do with anything?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 17, 2010)

Aran,
I think it's one of those people who claim gun owners who tote their gun around are war mongers.


----------



## manekineko (Feb 17, 2010)

tension...


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 17, 2010)

manekineko said:


> tension...



The gun nuts must be preparing for the new world order. :V


----------



## cesarin (Feb 18, 2010)

Aden said:


> hahaha oh wow



holy shit, that almost sounds like Xzibit from MTV...

"so I got guns so they dont steal.. my guns!"


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

So let me get this straight, you own a firearm and carry it around everywhere you go (probably hoping to use it), you've had it out and waved it around several times and got caught, and you fight for your right to have a gun in plain sight on you at all times and take offense when people dislike it?

Shut the fuck up.

You'll never, ever use the gun; you don't need the gun; it's a intimidation device you use; I wouldn't even let you ride in my car not because you own a gun, but because you flaunt it.

I can guarantee your life revolves around the firearm with the way you're acting. To simply solve this convention issue you could not bring it, but you'd rather keep it on you in case you miss the chance to shoot somebody, or more than likely because people don't insult you when you have it attached to your leg at all times.


You're just bending old misinterpreted laws for your own benefit and the ability to intimidate people. I can probably also bet you couldn't hit anything on target past 50 meters with it no matter how hard you tried.

"Being a patriot" what a laughable load of crap. Seriously, that's genuinely laughable that you believe being born in a country and loving the country makes you better than somebody else, so much so you give yourself a special title. And civil rights? Like I said it's poorly worded, misinterpreted garbage you're spouting off so you can carry and people won't laugh at you.

tl;dr: QQ moar.


----------



## Kelo (Feb 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> So let me get this straight, you own a firearm and carry it around everywhere you go (probably hoping to use it), you've had it out and waved it around several times and got caught, and you fight for your right to have a gun in plain sight on you at all times and take offense when people dislike it?
> 
> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> ...



I love you soo much Newf can we have dragon babies now?

Also I love how this has more posts than the entire convention forum combined.


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> This thread should have been put down like Old Yeller.



Don't forget that it was.

It was reopened so that the story told by this thread could be examined fully and in every detail.  I think it's almost there.



Kelo said:


> Also I love how this has more posts than the entire convention forum combined.



Thou doth exaggerate a bit.  Not counting this thread, there are five threads in Conventioneering with more than 100 posts each, and another 720 threads besides.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 18, 2010)

Holy shit how was a thread this dumb allowed to get so big?

Oh well, I guess I have reading material for after everyone goes to bed now.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> you've had it out and waved it around several times and got caught


Unless I missed something, this never happened.

So maybe you should shut the fuck up?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Unless I missed something, this never happened.
> 
> So maybe you should shut the fuck up?



You missed the part where he loaded up in an airport BECAUSE IT'S HIS RIGHT, rather than outside somewhere?

That kinda constitutes waving it around. You can do things subtle like, or you can wave them around enough for the cops to notice.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Feb 18, 2010)

Again, I seriously want someone to answer this: Why are we arguing about this? Why is it a big deal? Nobody special got banned, nobody worth worrying about, just some nutter.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Gar-Yulong said:


> Again, I seriously want someone to answer this: Why are we arguing about this? Why is it a big deal? Nobody special got banned, nobody worth worrying about, just some nutter.



Because we <3 teh drama.

Also 500+ posts, in b4 lock.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Unless I missed something, this never happened.
> 
> So maybe you should shut the fuck up?


Really? You should learn to read more, he didn't specifically say it but you know:


Voidrunners said:


> You missed the part where he loaded up in an airport BECAUSE IT'S HIS RIGHT, rather than outside somewhere?
> 
> That kinda constitutes waving it around. You can do things subtle like, or you can wave them around enough for the cops to notice.


This is right.

It was just his word against an officers and because it went to court and no real evidence of him waving it around was present it was dismissed.

So yeah, you can shut the fuck up too Aran. Firearms are nothing even close to important in anybody's daily life and they shouldn't treat them as such. If you're too paranoid to remove the firearm from your leg for three or four days then perhaps you need mental assistance, but more than likely you just dislike the way people treat you when you don't have it out in the open or even more likely you can not miss the one and only chance that may pop up where you can shoot somebody and get away with it.


----------



## Aurali (Feb 18, 2010)

Gar-Yulong said:


> Again, I seriously want someone to answer this: Why are we arguing about this? Why is it a big deal? Nobody special got banned, nobody worth worrying about, just some nutter.



GUN RIGHTS RADDA RADDA RADDA

It's a hot button topic. So just be happy it hasn't gone down in flames yet.



Ricky said:


> Because we <3 teh drama.
> 
> Also 500+ posts, in b4 lock.



That rule is out of date.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Aurali said:


> That rule is out of date.



*GODDAMMIT! D:*


----------



## ArielMT (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Also 500+ posts, in b4 lock.



Forum Games board only.

Also, not directed at you, but for everyone else's benefit, this:  "In before lock" as a post's sole content is spam, and we're awarding infractions for it.


----------



## ShadowEon (Feb 18, 2010)

Ever think not everyone likes the sight of a gun on random people that may not even be trust able with the the gun?

It's a damn fur con, you don't need to take a gun, srsly. 

This red necky "Oh I have to take my gun everywhere because it is my right!" crap is annoying.

And no, OP I will not help you be reinstated. Learn to drop the gun.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> So let me get this straight, you own a firearm and carry it around everywhere you go (probably hoping to use it), you've had it out and waved it around several times and got caught, and you fight for your right to have a gun in plain sight on you at all times and take offense when people dislike it?
> 
> Shut the fuck up.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the part where he lies about the reason he had a gun on him when he chose to baww to the internet about the ban. Apparently he felt the need to holster it in the airport for a reason other than personal protection of himself. Funny how he left out the cache of shotguns he had brought along, that is the reason so he claims to even need to the original gun. A gun to protect other guns.

I know I said I'd leave but after the IRC chat thing it's like, no Roo. You deserved your ban. I agree with that other person. You made your bed. Now lie in with your glocks and your sawed off shotguns like the paranoid individual you are.

I understand bringing A gun. An entire Cache when you are going to AC (regardless of staying not at the Westin)....what the hell. There is no justification and most gun enthusiasts I talk to are going WTF over your actions.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

I think we are being too harsh on this guy. Are we certain these "weapons" are actually designed to fire projectiles to harm people? Isn't it just possible they've been modified to make self-medication more interesting?

I believe his sawn-off shotgun is actually a pump-action enema, and the pistol? It fires harmless painkillers.

See, we have misjudged him, he's not paranoid or mental at all, he just cares about his own personal health.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> I think we are being too harsh on this guy. Are we certain these "weapons" are actually designed to fire projectiles to harm people? Isn't it just possible they've been modified to make self-medication more interesting?
> 
> I believe his sawn-off shotgun is actually a pump-action enema, and the pistol? It fires harmless painkillers.
> 
> See, we have misjudged him, he's not paranoid or mental at all, he just cares about his own personal health.


I gotta admit at first I was like >:C
Then I was like :V
Now it's like C:


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

ShadowEon said:


> It's a damn fur con, you don't need to take a gun, srsly.



You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?

Do you wear a seat belt in a car or wear a motorcycle helmet. Some states don't require the use of a helmet, yet people wear them anyway. Are people crazy or just being prepared should the most random thing ever happen and actually crash?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

ShadowEon said:


> Ever think not everyone likes the sight of a gun on random people that may not even be trust able with the the gun?
> 
> It's a damn fur con, you don't need to take a gun, srsly.
> 
> ...



I've lived in cities throughout the East Coast, many of which are a lot worse than Pittsburgh in terms of crime.  Some of that time I was even living on the streets.  I never had a gun, just some common sense and I have never had a problem.

Yes, people have tried to mug me (the result of living in cities -- _it happens_) but I usually just tell them to fuck off and they go away.  Of course that's not the safest move for most people, but with some common sense you can avoid being mugged in the first place:

1.) Avoid alleys, side streets, etc. as much as you can.  Stay on well lit roads with lots of traffic.
2.) If you're going to be walking through poor neighborhoods (or otherwise can't stick to rule #1) don't dress like you have money and keep the PDA away along with other toys that yell "ROB ME".  People aren't going to target you if you don't look like you'd have cash.
3.) If someone does come up to you, just ignore them and keep walking fast to a main road.  Chances are they won't follow.
EDIT 4.) I'm gonna add the obvious -- choose to be in large groups of people when you can

In my experience, 99% of muggings happen because people don't follow these simple rules.  Actually, in some states if someone tells you to give them your wallet and you do it isn't even illegal.  You just gave it to them. (assuming there was no assault)

I honestly don't even bother carrying a knife with me. I know I'll never actually use it.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?



Was this business perchance hunting the dangerous and elusive negro?



> Do you wear a seat belt in a car or wear a motorcycle helmet. Some states don't require the use of a helmet, yet people wear them anyway. Are people crazy or just being prepared should the most random thing ever happen and actually crash?


Wow. Seriously wow.

I'm just wondering, did the doctor drop you when you were born, or have you always been clinically retarded?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?



So what kind of other business requires you to have a cache of shotguns in Pittsburgh? Are you trying to impress some mafia? Or show off to your friends how *cough not*bad ass you are?

Is your penis so small you need dangerous guns to compensate?

Are you going to some shooting range after or before the con?

Are you going to go with some group to do some hunting in the mountains? (wait a moment, that's overkill).


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?
> 
> Do you wear a seat belt in a car or wear a motorcycle helmet. Some states don't require the use of a helmet, yet people wear them anyway. Are people crazy or just being prepared should the most random thing ever happen and actually crash?


You don't need a gun. Ever. You've never had to use it, why would it suddenly start for one weekend. A helmet can't harm people, it can only protect. A firearm isn't the same thing so don't even attempt to compare them, with that level of thinking I wouldn't even allow you to own an air rifle.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Are you going to go with some group to do some hunting in the mountains? (wait a moment, that's overkill).



Thats not overkill.

I can respect anyone who hunts dual-wielding shotguns.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?



I lived in High Crime rate areas and I had common sense of places where to go and where not to go. It comes with the territory of living somewhere. Even if you don't live in a specific place, you can keep yourself safe by practicing common sense. I still live in a high crime rate area and I don't need a fucking gun or statistics to tell me how to be safe. You appear to lack street smarts. 

So, with your gun? When an Assailant comes to mug you of your money, are you planning to murder him?



> Do you wear a seat belt in a car or wear a motorcycle helmet. Some states don't require the use of a helmet, yet people wear them anyway. Are people crazy or just being prepared should the most random thing ever happen and actually crash?



You comparing armor to the sword. Stop that.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

I used to live in an area of a city that was considered pretty dangerous. The local thugs tried to have a go at me once.

The secret is to grab the smallest of their gang and use them as a club to hit the rest with. They leave you alone after that.

And no need for guns.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Thats not overkill.
> 
> I can respect anyone who hunts dual-wielding shotguns.



Yeah me too....if they are hunting Zombies or going face to face with a hoard of t-virus infested dogs. I'm sure I'd want a person duel wielding shot guns if I were dealing with the Las Plagas or Los Ganados taking over my neighborhood. I'd have a lot of respect for a person doing that kind of hunting and duel wielding shotguns.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Yeah me too....if they are hunting Zombies or going face to face with a hoard of t-virus infested dogs. I'm sure I'd want a person duel wielding shot guns if I were dealing with the Las Plagas or Los Ganados taking over my neighborhood. I'd have a lot of respect for a person doing that kind of hunting and duel wielding shotguns.



Pfft. For proper hunting, for the purpose of eating, I can condone weaponry. Hunting for fun is pure asshattery.

That said, here in France, we hunt animals with our cars. Sure, you may have to pick gravel out of your roast boar, but it's cheaper than the supermarket.


----------



## xcliber (Feb 18, 2010)

Damnit, WTF did I miss?!
I saw this thread pop up a few days ago, started reading the OP and was like TL;DR figuring it was just the usual BS or spam.

But I was bored at work today and took 2 hours reading over the first 5 pages of posts and was like, "O.O, FFFFFF how did I miss out on this one?!"

Did I miss anything important between pages 6 and 20?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Pfft. For proper hunting, for the purpose of eating, I can condone weaponry. Hunting for fun is pure asshattery.
> 
> That said, here in France, we hunt animals with our cars. Sure, you may have to pick gravel out of your roast boar, but it's cheaper than the supermarket.



So....duck hunting with a sawed off shot gun? How much of the bird is going to be left over for good eats? I'm curious.



xcliber said:


> Damnit, WTF did I miss?!
> I saw this thread pop up a few days ago, started reading the OP and was like TL;DR figuring it was just the usual BS or spam.
> 
> But I was bored at work today and took 2 hours reading over the first 5 pages of posts and was like, "O.O, FFFFFF how did I miss out on this one?!"
> ...



Oh, only the part where a certain individual sort of half told the story. He conveniently left out the parts dealing wit the whole he had a gun to protect a cache of shot guns that he was bringing along for "other business" before/after AC or in between.

Still no word yet what the "Other business was". Some think he might have been trying track down the elusive Muslimon. Others say he was looking for Blackfoot. Still yet there is some speculation he wanted to hunt him some mountain fauna.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

xcliber said:


> Damnit, WTF did I miss?!
> I saw this thread pop up a few days ago, started reading the OP and was like TL;DR figuring it was just the usual BS or spam.
> 
> But I was bored at work today and took 2 hours reading over the first 5 pages of posts and was like, "O.O, FFFFFF how did I miss out on this one?!"
> ...



I don't think there was ever anything important in this thread, at all.

Just a lot of drama and talk about gun rights.



Trpdwarf said:


> So....duck hunting with a sawed off shot gun? How much of the bird is going to be left over for good eats? I'm curious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll go with Occam's razor and say he's full of shit.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> So....duck hunting with a sawed off shot gun? How much of the bird is going to be left over for good eats? I'm curious.



Don't you know? Thats how we make Fois Gras and PÃ¢te.

Sarcasm. I use it vigorously and frequently.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Are you going to some shooting range after or before the con?
> 
> Are you going to go with some group to do some hunting in the mountains? (wait a moment, that's overkill).



Affirmative, though didn't happen.

Hunting with a 14" shotgun AOW? What? Okay you go ahead and try it, get back to me when you succeed. Hiking in the woods is a better application for a shotgun AOW in regards to general uses.



Voidrunners said:


> The secret is to grab the smallest of their gang and use them as a club to hit the rest with. They leave you alone after that.



Congratulations, you've just shown the forum how to turn from the victim in to the aggressor, in final the assailant. I wish this forum had a rule against being an armchair lawyer and gave infractions for recommending your sort of aggressor violence.



Trpdwarf said:


> So....duck hunting with a sawed off shot gun? How much of the bird is going to be left over for good eats? I'm curious.



If a person is duck hunting, they aren't going to hit anything with a 14" shotgun which has no choke. Spray n' Pray is not recommended for hunting.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Congratulations, you've just shown the forum how to turn from the victim in to the aggressor, in final the assailant. I wish this forum had a rule against being an armchair lawyer and gave infractions for recommending your sort of aggressor violence.



Nice job recognizing an obvious joke :roll:


----------



## Pako ng Pusa (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> insane_kangaroo said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize I had other business in Pittsburgh every time I've visited, right? Did you care to look at the article on flayrah and crime statistics?[/url]
> ...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Affirmative, though didn't happen.
> 
> Hunting with a 14" shotgun AOW? What? Okay you go ahead and try it, get back to me when you succeed. Hiking in the woods is a better application for a shotgun AOW in regards to general uses.
> 
> ...



Does sarcasm and rhetoric mean anything to you?

Nice way to dodge the more pertinent question. Hopping around the issue won't make it any less incriminating. Why don't you tell all those people on your live-journal who are frothing at the mouth for you, that you were also packing heat? That this really isn't an issue of you chose to open carry?

That you are liar and possibly another attention whore looking to trade PR for media attention just because mean Uncle Kage the Cockroach won't let you into his club house? Those who cry wolf never get help when they need it the most. Think on that.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Congratulations, you've just shown the forum how to turn from the victim in to the aggressor, in final the assailant. I wish this forum had a rule against being an armchair lawyer and gave infractions for recommending your sort of aggressor violence.



Slight difference between fending off a gang with an improvised weapon and drawing a pistol. First off, you hit someone with their friend they're not sure how to react. Second, you pull a gun, you raise the stakes. If they have weapons, they are coming out. Then someone is getting seriously hurt rather than just a few bruises and a wounded ego.

Ergo; you suck, you mentaljob.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

I still say Kage banned OP cause he's a racist stalker and the gun thing was a cop-out.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Braduz said:


> "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 18, 2010)

OP, making your fellow countrymen look like complete morons is not patriotic.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Ergo; you suck, you mentaljob.



I've a feeling there is no changing you mind otherwise, just as other people on this thread who have replied. How many weapons I was transporting shouldn't be an issue, nor business in Pittsburgh which isn't affiliated with 'furry'. How I spend my time in Pennsylvania is my business and my business alone. 

Maybe people are used to their friends giving their every action and GPS location over Twitter, I am not.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Feb 18, 2010)

Kage really banned him because he's a fucking nutjob, and none of his posts in here have proven otherwise.

Maybe he should be unbanned if he can write a five page persuasive essay on how he is perfectly sane and a merit to the furry community and it convinces Uncle Kage.

Then again maybe Vishnu could descend from the sky arm-in-arm with Jesus and sing old 50's showtunes.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Except you were running around the airport waving weaponry.

Seriously, if you feel the need for attention, take up streaking like normal people.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Also, was I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought it was going to be about an AIDS riddled skank being told to rack off so he didn't infect people?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Except you were running around the airport waving weaponry.
> 
> Seriously, if you feel the need for attention, take up streaking like normal people.




Would you care to explain how bringing a weapon to condition 1 and holstering is "waving around" when there is a very well practiced action?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 18, 2010)

Gar-Yulong said:


> Kage really banned him because he's a fucking nutjob, and none of his posts in here have proven otherwise.
> 
> Maybe he should be unbanned if he can write a five page persuasive essay on how he is perfectly sane and a merit to the furry community and it convinces Uncle Kage.
> 
> Then again maybe Vishnu could descend from the sky arm-in-arm with Jesus and sing old 50's showtunes.


Hi Gar!


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Well, the far more sensible 'walking out of the crowded building and doing the holstering somewhere private' is a better idea. If it's that practiced an action, why was there time for the cops to see you do it? Especially in a crowded airport.

Therefore, not very subtle.

Honestly, go outside before packing. There aren't gangs hiding outside Arrivals for you.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Actually, have you ever considered selling your guns and just buying some of those herbal remedies and penis pumps? Less chance of being arrested for having a 16" wang than a sawn-off.

And let's face it, that's the only reason you really have guns. That and the completely natural desire to slaughter blacks, yellows, Jews and Mimes.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Actually, have you ever considered selling your guns and just buying some of those herbal remedies and penis pumps? Less chance of being arrested for having a 16" wang than a sawn-off.
> 
> And let's face it, that's the only reason you really have guns. That and the completely natural desire to slaughter blacks, yellows, Jews and Mimes.


You can have a sawn-off wang if you want too!


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> You can have a sawn-off wang if you want too!



I already do.

Stupid doctors. That is not my appendix :C


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> I already do.
> 
> Stupid doctors. That is not my appendix :C


By "you" I meant "some/anyone". Still, LOL.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

This is where I make a pump-action joke.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Also, was I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought it was going to be about an AIDS riddled skank being told to rack off so he didn't infect people?



You're not the only one, not the only one by far.

Methinks there's not enough conclusive evidence being given to Kage about that one, though.



			
				Kit H. Ruppell said:
			
		

> Hi Gar!



Ello Kit! Enjoy your stay.

It's like the No-Spin Zone but with furries and guns.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Well, the far more sensible 'walking out of the crowded building and doing the holstering somewhere private' is a better idea. If it's that practiced an action, why was there time for the cops to see you do it? Especially in a crowded airport.
> 
> Therefore, not very subtle.
> 
> Honestly, go outside before packing. There aren't gangs hiding outside Arrivals for you.



There are too many people outside of the Pittsburgh airport. Bringing up or down the condition of a firearm should be performed in an area which is away from people.

I chose a location in the unsecure area for the lack of people, closed stores, walls, and zero traffic around myself. Bathrooms are often occupied with people, though also a okay place to load depending on the amount of people.

Honestly, there is much assumption with the airport incident. A federal agent, I'm not sure which agency, seen me take out my firearm load to condition 1. I was only 10 feet away from the door, about to leave, as I was stopped. If I was not stopped, there would've never been an incident, nor anyone would've known. There would've been no issues with court, the police wouldn't have wasted their time, and I wouldn't have needed to take the issue up with appellate court.

The county was enforcing an unlawful ordinance, of which they've been told at the monthly meeting about the court case.

I'd like to reiterate what I've stated to another individual, "There are many reasons to open carry, but being a political statement isn't one of mine."

Being said I'm not "in your face" like some open carriers may be. I don't go around screaming "IT'S MY SECOND AMENDMENT F*#KING RIGHT, GFY!"

I might be young, but I know this phrase applies, " You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> There are too many people outside of the Pittsburgh airport. Bringing up or down the condition of a firearm should be performed in an area which is away from people.
> 
> I chose a location in the unsecure area for the lack of people, closed stores, walls, and zero traffic around myself. Bathrooms are often occupied with people, though also a okay place to load depending on the amount of people.
> 
> ...



And like...  Why did you need to arm yourself before you left the airport, again?

Most people with common sense would see that could potentially cause a problem.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> There are too many people outside of the Pittsburgh airport. Bringing up or down the condition of a firearm should be performed in an area which is away from people.



Like INSIDE the airport, instead. It's not as if airports are places terrorists go to for one-way daytrips.



> I chose a location in the unsecure area for the lack of people, closed stores, walls, and zero traffic around myself. Bathrooms are often occupied with people, though also a okay place to load depending on the amount of people.


Of course, a guy getting a gun out of his luggage and holstering it in a private area of an airport isn't in the least bit suspicious. Remember; No Russian...



> A federal agent, I'm not sure which agency, seen me take out my firearm load to condition 1.


Of course! The perfect place to take out a gun in an airport is in front of a fed. Genius! 



> I was only 10 feet away from the door, about to leave, as I was stopped. If I was not stopped, there would've never been an incident, nor anyone would've known.


So the fed/security are meant to automatically know you have a licensed weapon, and aren't for example, not a nutjob with an illegal weapon?



> There would've been no issues with court, the police wouldn't have wasted their time, and I wouldn't have needed to take the issue up with appellate court.


Let's do this one more time, with feeling: Gun. In. Airport. Not. In. Luggage.



> The county was enforcing an unlawful ordinance, of which they've been told at the monthly meeting about the court case.


See above. but also, it's their job. They need to assess the case. more to the point, they need to figure out if you're breaking a law just  through sheer stupidity. Next you'll be saying it's absolutely not a political statement.



> There are many reasons to open carry, but being a political statement isn't one of mine.


Oh.



> Being said I'm not "in your face" like some open carriers may be. I don't go around screaming "IT'S MY SECOND AMENDMENT F*#KING RIGHT, GFY!"


Except screaming about your rights and liberties, protesting outside a convention in order to garner media attention. Except rabble-rousing with a biased viewpoint on forums, livejournals and wherever else you can spew your views and grievances. Also, that's not what your sig said up until 10 minutes ago.



> I might be young, but I know this phrase applies, " You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."


What the hell is that meant to mean? That has no relevance to anything in this thread.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> And like...  Why did you need to arm yourself before you left the airport, again?
> 
> Most people with common sense would see that could potentially cause a problem.



Why does it matter when I chose to arm myself long as I'm doing it safely? Society can get more paranoid about "terrorists" or it can accept the way people are in life. After the Seattle cop shooting, there were many harassing encounters(by various knee jerk people) in regards to open carry. Such behavior is not acceptable, just like it's unacceptable to be confrontational when open carrying screaming, "IT'S MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT, GFY."

I've a feeling you'd disagree if I armed myself anywhere. So, please do tell me where you consider arming myself is "okay."

I should reiterate the unlawful ordinance covers Airport Property, which also happens to cover more than the airport terminal.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I should reiterate the unlawful ordinance covers Airport Property, which also happens to cover more than the airport terminal.



Ok, serious question.

If they had no security check and you had the option to, would you arm yourself in the Departures lounge? How about on the aircraft?

So why do you think it's a good idea in the public areas?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Why does it matter when I chose to arm myself?



Because if you used good judgment none of this would have happened.

You are like one of those people that makes jokes about bombs in an airport and then wonders why they were pulled aside and interrogated and possibly even arrested when they were just exercising their right to freedom of speech.


----------



## Kelo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Also, was I the only one who saw the title of this thread and thought it was going to be about an AIDS riddled skank being told to rack off so he didn't infect people?



That's what I thought actually when I saw it haha.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Ok, serious question.
> 
> If they had no security check and you had the option to, would you arm yourself in the Departures lounge? How about on the aircraft?
> 
> So why do you think it's a good idea in the public areas?



If the setting is a rural airport, I go to the bathroom area which is generally right next to the departure/arrival lounge where lawful.

Before there were metal detectors at every "secure area", people carried firearms all the time, you didn't see wild west shootings or some "die hard" scene happening at the airport.

You realize there's always a firearm on the airplane, right? Pilots are required to have a firearm in the cockpit just like the air marshal is required to be armed. I'm not advocating firearms be allowed on planes, since obviously worse situations can happen, especially when there is no hospital located 30 thousand feet in the air. Though I suppose one could argue anything could be used as a weapon, a discussion for another time perhaps.

I didn't say the whole public area is okay, it's fairly dynamic. Certain areas of the airport are not busy during times when flights aren't coming through.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You are like one of those people that makes jokes about bombs in an airport and then wonders why they were pulled aside and interrogated and possibly even arrested when they were just exercising their right to freedom of speech.



Hell no I don't, I ask to be screened top to bottom. The TSA are not there to harass people, they're friendly officers just doing their job. I don't see why people have so many complaints. Don't joke about explosives. As you may see from my LJ, I also don't like mock shows depicting death, I don't think death even with severe melodrama is funny.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

How about not flashing a gun in an airport, at all?

That sounds like the safest bet to me.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I didn't say the whole public area is okay, it's fairly dynamic. Certain areas of the airport are not busy during times when flights aren't coming through.



But the point is, that you are in an area that is essentially a high-risk zone. Regardless of how terroristy the general attitude is, people are on edge, looking for people with turbans or weaponry. By doing anything with a gun in an airport is a bad decision, and if you do it in a quiet area it just makes it more suspicious, no matter how well trained you are.

Anyone with a gun that isn't a fed or security poses a security risk, so it's in their interest to cause a fuss. It'd go far worse if they turned a blind-eye and someone shot the place up.

have your personal protectors if you feel the need to have them, but use some common sense.

And I do know quite a bit about airports. I spend half my working life in GVA, which is pretty damn busy at most times. I know that if I saw someone fiddling with a gun, I'd either be alerting security or restraining them myself. So I think you got off lightly with just a hearing.

Personally, if I'd been the judge, I'd have at least fined you for wasting police time due to poor judgement.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

So you think your right to own a firearm also gives you the right to carry one, and have it in the open at all times? Get bent. Don't like how people treat you and your "rights"? Go away someplace else.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> But the point is, that you are in an area that is essentially a high-risk zone. Regardless of how terroristy the general attitude is, people are on edge, looking for people with turbans or weaponry. By doing anything with a gun in an airport is a bad decision, and if you do it in a quiet area it just makes it more suspicious, no matter how well trained you are.



We have laws and constitutions(federal and state) which delete powers to federal and state level when in contact with citizens. Those powers are very specific and are not unlimited.

If someone is wearing a questionable clothing at the airport, law enforcement can't just walk up to them, tell them to spread eagle, and search their person.

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion must be met before officers can act. Open carrying of a pistol where lawful is not RAS, ruled by the state of Pennsylvania. What about the federal government? Out of their jurisdiction when outside of the secure area.

The federal government can't make a law stating, "There are to be no firearms on sidewalks" just as the can't state to restrict firearms from airports. If the federal government chose to make the whole airport a secure area, they'd have to move the metal detectors to the front door.



Voidrunners said:


> Anyone with a gun that isn't a fed or security poses a security risk, so it's in their interest to cause a fuss. It'd go far worse if they turned a blind-eye and someone shot the place up.
> 
> have your personal protectors if you feel the need to have them, but use some common sense.



Air Marshals are dressed in normal clothing. If one printed or someone seen their weapon at an airport in the US, nobody would bat an eye.

There are no definitions for common sense. Somewhere along the line people started creating laws to regulate behavior, aka common sense. I'm against creation of laws when there are no issues at hand. If someone feels threatened, the person should tell someone. I could tell stories from both sides, as I've read about specific incidents in regards to open carry from various forums, some which have hit the papers.

One should take care when downgrading or upgrading a firearm, this is why I go to training each year.

When I go to the Allegheny Courthouse for various reasons, not specifically court related, I must go to the sheriff's office. Even though understandable the law allows flexibility due to the pre-existing building structure, one must walk in to the building and make a left turn to the Sheriff's office. The metal detectors seal off the building except the sheriff's office, which is where the gun lockers are available for use by citizens. I downgrade and upgrade my firearm right there in front of the lockers, which several sheriff deputies are located just through the doorway to he left of the lockers. Do you think they're, "OMG CITIZEN WITH GUN"? No. They accept there are citizens with firearms and don't bother anyone downgrading or upgrading a firearm in front of the lockers.




Voidrunners said:


> And I do know quite a bit about airports. I spend half my working life in GVA, which is pretty damn busy at most times. I know that if I saw someone fiddling with a gun, I'd either be alerting security or restraining them myself. So I think you got off lightly with just a hearing.



There is a big difference between alerting security and acting upon a perceived entity. While police may not have the powers to search anyone at anyone, nor detain them due to the requirements of RAS, they can watch. Though observation can also go to far to patterned harassment, i.e. driving around the block over and over waiting for you to do something. Everyone breaks the law unintentionally at one time or another without knowing they're breaking the law.



Voidrunners said:


> Personally, if I'd been the judge, I'd have at least fined you for wasting police time due to poor judgement.



Judges in the US are there to interpret law, not rule based on how they're feeling. We have established case law both on the federal and state level.


----------



## GreenReaper (Feb 18, 2010)

NewfDraggie said:


> So you think your right to own a firearm also gives you the right to carry one, and have it in the open at all times? Get bent. Don't like how people treat you and your "rights"? Go away someplace else.



He does, at least in public areas. Pennsylvania law only forbids it in certain state-designated areas. Non-secure areas of airport terminals and the city of Pittsburgh are not such areas. If you don't like that, I suggest applying to the state legislature. Personally, I don't disagree with a prohibition on the open carry of firearms in airports, but it is not currently the law.

In private areas the rules can be different; this was not in dispute. The issue being discussed is whether it is appropriate for conventions like Anthrocon to impose their own restrictions on legal activities _outside_ of con space as a condition of membership. If so, what should be the limits on that - must a crime have been committed? should furs be affected? - and were they breached in this case?

It's a big question and one which it's hard to make general rules for; that's why it's usually left to the discretion of the board. But it helps if their decisions are well-explained and based on solid facts, especially if they appear to "push the limits."


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> There are no definitions for common sense.



No, but for some reason most people are able to use it.

The rest tend to have problems because they do silly things like flash a gun in an airport.


----------



## tonythefish (Feb 18, 2010)

Why on earth would you want to bring a gun to a furry con? It's not like it's full of hoodlums, just nerds in animal costumes. Also someone calling themselves "Insane Kangaroo" seems like someone I would be horribly weary of, especially knowing that they were packing something. 

Carrying a gun around casually isn't normal. Get pepper spray if you are paranoid of being ganged up on or go to the gym and get some muscle.

Edit: Did not see the bit about the airport due to tl;dr. Nevermind, you are nuts.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> When I go to the Allegheny Courthouse for various reasons, not specifically court related, I must go to the sheriff's office. Even though understandable the law allows flexibility due to the pre-existing building structure, one must walk in to the building and make a left turn to the Sheriff's office. The metal detectors seal off the building except the sheriff's office, which is where the gun lockers are available for use by citizens. I downgrade and upgrade my firearm right there in front of the lockers, which several sheriff deputies are located just through the doorway to he left of the lockers. Do you think they're, "OMG CITIZEN WITH GUN"? No. They accept there are citizens with firearms and don't bother anyone downgrading or upgrading a firearm in front of the lockers.


location Location LOCATION!
You are up/downgrading your weapon IN FRONT of a frikkin weapons locker! the locker was put there for people like you to equip their weapon.

Now, Imagine this: you are in the arrivals hall of an airport, with you there are, say, 10 different people in the hall. One guy takes out a gun, and "upgrades" it. Would you not go like "Oh, f, he's got a gun" if you weren't carrying at the moment?
And if you were CC-ing a gun, would you take it out in response?

just use some damn common sense!
If you take out a GUN in a PUBLIC area, people are going to respond, especially on an airport, where most people are close to paranoid about terrorists.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> No, but for some reason most people are able to use it.
> 
> The rest tend to have problems because they do silly things like flash a gun in an airport.


ilu Ricky <3


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

tonythefish said:


> Why on earth would you want to bring a gun to a furry con? It's not like it's full of hoodlums, just nerds in animal costumes. Also someone calling themselves "Insane Kangaroo" seems like someone I would be horribly weary of, especially knowing that they were packing something.



I didn't bring a gun to a furry convention, I left it locked up in my  place of abode. I've never carried a gun to a convention. So, based on my NAME you're profiling me? What if I chose my name to be Abdul-Salaam?



tonythefish said:


> Carrying a gun around casually isn't normal. Get pepper spray if you are  paranoid of being ganged up on or go to the gym and get some muscle.



Carrying a gun around is normal in Pennsylvania, and especially Allegheny County. If you read the article you'll obtain more information on how many permits are issued, as in the most of the state for the area.

Pennsylvania has more NRA members than any other state.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I didn't bring a gun to a furry convention, I left it locked up in my  place of abode. I've never carried a gun to a convention. So, based on my NAME you're profiling me? What if I chose my name to be Abdul-Salaam?


Another example of your racism.
He's judging you for your NAME, not RACE
"Insane" versus "Most likely middle-eastern, and possibly muslim"
Now I know a lot of nice middle-eastern people, but no nice Insane people...


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> location Location LOCATION!
> You are up/downgrading your weapon IN FRONT of a frikkin weapons locker! the locker was put there for people like you to equip their weapon.
> 
> Now, Imagine this: you are in the arrivals hall of an airport, with you there are, say, 10 different people in the hall. One guy takes out a gun, and "upgrades" it. Would you not go like "Oh, f, he's got a gun" if you weren't carrying at the moment?
> ...



Now you're getting in to tin foil hatting. What if the ceiling collapsed, what if martians invaded, what if zombies rose from the grave.

The problem wasn't the people at the airport. You're forgetting there was no panic or concern. Specific individuals representing a local government took their authority outside of the law.



CerbrusNL said:


> Another example of your racism.
> He's judging you for your NAME, not RACE
> "Insane" versus "Most likely middle-eastern, and possibly muslim"
> Now I know a lot of nice middle-eastern people, but no nice Insane people...




I'm racist? Excuse me? The pot calling the kettle black.

I'm talking about name and not race. In either instance you don't know how the person looks simply by the name. You could have white skin and be given a Muslim name. Don't assume a person is of specific origin simply by the name. Do you even know what the name means which I specified?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Don't assume a person is of specific origin simply by the name.


Actually yeah you can do that...


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The problem wasn't the people at the airport. You're forgetting there was no panic or concern. Specific individuals representing a local government took their authority outside of the law.


I was asking you how you would respond is someone else took out a gun in an airport, whilst you don't have a gun with you, but I see no answer to that question, just like most other questions you've been asked.



insane_kangaroo said:


> I'm racist? Excuse me? The pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> I'm talking about name and not race. In either instance you don't know how the person looks simply by the name. You could have white skin and be given a Muslim name. Don't assume a person is of specific origin simply by the name. Do you even know what the name means which I specified?


Sorry, but you're the one that brings up a "Muslim-ish" (Is that politically correct ebnough) name, in a comparison of "Judging someone by their name"

Besides, there are a LOT of names that can hint at a person's origin, and one does not pick his last name. Salaam is a middle-eastern surname. Simple as that.
I bet there are a few people on here that could guess where I'd be from if i posted my first name on here, but since it's allready in my profile, that kinda beats the purpose.

You're putting a lot of words into this forum, but I've yet to see some intelligent, indisputable (perhaps even witty) arguments from your side.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> I was asking you how you would respond is someone else took out a gun in an airport, whilst you don't have a gun with you, but I see no answer to that question, just like most other questions you've been asked.
> 
> Sorry, but you're the one that brings up a "Muslim-ish" (Is that politically correct ebnough) name, in a comparison of "Judging someone by their name"



I'm only going to state observations, not guess or otherwise give gut feelings in reference to open carry.

In regards to what I'd do, the correct action would be to observe.

The name's origin is Arabic, which I should note the Arab people also have other denominations other than Muslim. You can deny it, but it's ignorant racism to think a person is Muslim based on an Arabic name.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> I was asking you how you would respond is someone else took out a gun in an airport, whilst you don't have a gun with you, but I see no answer to that question, just like most other questions you've been asked.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but you're the one that brings up a "Muslim-ish" (Is that politically correct ebnough) name, in a comparison of "Judging someone by their name"
> ...




With Arabic names, you'd never know. But if IK had an Arabic name, my assumption would be  that he was from Israel or from Morocco...depending if he had an accent or not.

But yes, people sometimes judge by names.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> The name's origin is Arabic, which I should note the Arab people also have other denominations other than Muslim. You can deny it, but it's ignorant racism to think a person is Muslim based on an Arabic name.



No, that's not racism.

Racism is the belief that people of some races are inferior to others, and the behaviour which is the result of this belief.

Mistaking a name is not implying a race is inferior.

A better example of racism would be dressing up your shooting targets like minorities


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I've open carried at the Pittsburgh International Airport at least a half dozen times in the last few years with no issues. Furball just got unlucky.

Got a lot of stinkeye from TSA agents, of course, but since I wasn't doing anything wrong they kept minding their own business.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I've open carried at the Pittsburgh International Airport at least a half dozen times in the last few years with no issues. Furball just got unlucky.
> 
> Got a lot of stinkeye from TSA agents, of course, but since I wasn't doing anything wrong they kept minding their own business.



...or you could not flash a gun in an airport and avoid any problems altogether :roll:


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I carry exactly the same way no matter where I go. There's no "flashing" to it.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I went to Toys R Us on my way home from picking up my new AK47 last night. Glock 17 in plain view on my hip as always, nobody said a word about it, as always.

Didn't find the Lego set I wanted.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I carry exactly the same way no matter where I go. There's no "flashing" to it.



How do you possibly do that if the laws change?

Or do you only go where the laws stay the same?

Regardless, yeah -- you *could* choose NOT to avoid problems.  That's really up to you.  If you don't try to avoid problems though they tend to happen.



Aran said:


> I went to Toys R Us on my way home from picking up my new AK47 last night. Glock 17 in plain view on my hip as always, nobody said a word about it, as always.
> 
> Didn't find the Lego set I wanted.



Just to clarify -- _who_ are you trying to impress?


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Laws don't generally change as you walk around throughout the day.

And I'm not trying to impress anyone. My point is very few people give a shit except ultra uptight people online, many of them in foreign countries.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Laws don't generally change as you walk around throughout the day.



Most people who use airports travel outside of their own state.

And in that case, yes -- the laws will change.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Oh, you mean as I travel elsewhere, not "Laws go all willy-nilly at random"

I've only been picking people up or dropping them off. I don't fly. If I need to go somewhere, which isn't very often, I drive there.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I've open carried at the Pittsburgh International Airport at least a half dozen times in the last few years with no issues. Furball just got unlucky.
> 
> Got a lot of stinkeye from TSA agents, of course, but since I wasn't doing anything wrong they kept minding their own business.


The point is that he was fiddling with his gun, as if he were up to something.
If he just would have walked in with a pistol holstered, I doubd there would've been a problem...


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> If he just would have walked in with a pistol holstered, I doubd there would've been a problem...



I would've still been cited as the county police were enforcing an unlawful ordinance.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

^ This is not a lie.


----------



## Sweet Pea the Malamute (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm confused. Why would anyone feel the need to carry a gun at an airport? Are people really so scared that they have to arm themselves at an airport, places that are already heavily secured? I have to admit I'm baffled as to what creates the desire to carry a gun at an airport...I mean, without the gun, do anxiety or panic attacks ensue?


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Sweet Pea the Malamute said:


> Why would anyone feel the need to carry a gun at an airport?
> 
> Are people really so scared that they have to arm themselves at an airport, places that are already heavily secured?
> 
> I mean, without the gun, do anxiety or panic attacks ensue?



Let me be very clear, SCOTUS has stated police have no responsibility to protect you, this includes state AND federal.

Carrying a weapon is being a responsible human being should the need arise, hopefully not, to protect yourself.

I hear people state, "You don't need a firearm, you'll never use it!"
To those people, I say this, "Guess what, most police never have to use a firearm either outside of training." While officers on patrol must place themselves in harms way, they often do not use firearms. When the need does occur, it's there.

People assume in conversation there is only one species in regards to an aggressor when in a city, which is not the case. Loose aggressive dogs are much more of a threat compared to humans. I've been attacked by 3 dogs where I live, and I decided to not carry a on the specific trip to the beach. There is a need to carry a firearm, it's all about convenience to save you from harm or possibly death.

When seconds count, police are just minutes away.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Loose aggressive dogs are much more of a threat compared to humans. I've been attacked by 3 dogs where I live, and I decided to not carry a on the specific trip to the beach. There is a need to carry a firearm, it's all about convenience to save you from harm or possibly death.


A gun to fend off dogs?
Dude... Even a taser's overkill on dogs >.<


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

CerbrusNL said:


> Dude... Even a taser's overkill on dogs >.<



Actually no, it's not. Besides the fact dogs have thicker skin, they've a higher tolerance. I've seen videos where a police officer was walking past a house on the other side of the road seeing if there was a loose dog. The rottweiler came running towards the first officer, and each time the dog lounged the officer made a kicking withdraw. I should note the first officer draws his gun while kicking, trying to kick the dog back so he doesn't have to shoot it. He kicked about 4-5 times before the second officer came in with a tazer, tagged the dog, and activated the tazer. The dog flinched for a second or two before shaking the tazer off and running away.

I can find the video if you want, I watched it on opencarry.org, pafoa, or officer.com.

The point of this story, when you have 3 dogs in a triangle formation all around you, stunning them isn't going to work. The officer is lucky the tazer even 
"worked", if the dog was severely aggressive it would've continued the attack after shaking off the probes.

When dealing with defense, I tend to stick with facts and real life experiences of others who've had to act.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

American patrotism:

Racism, Money and guns. :V


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Actually no, it's not. Besides the fact dogs have thicker skin, they've a higher tolerance. I've seen videos where a police officer was walking past a house on the other side of the road seeing if there was a loose dog. The rottweiler came running towards the first officer, and each time the dog lounged the officer made a kicking withdraw. I should note the first officer draws his gun while kicking, trying to kick the dog back so he doesn't have to shoot it. He kicked about 4-5 times before the second officer came in with a tazer, tagged the dog, and activated the tazer. The dog flinched for a second or two before shaking the tazer off and running away.
> 
> I can find the video if you want, I watched it on opencarry.org, pafoa, or officer.com.
> 
> ...



Meaning you like to go with doomsday/worst case scenarios, amirite?

Also drop the whole "For my own protection BS" Mr. I was carrying a Glock to protect a cache of shotguns on my way to AC.

Oh, I was charged by a pitt once. Does that mean I should walk around carrying a gun now even though it was an isolated incident?


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Sweet Pea the Malamute said:


> I'm confused. Why would anyone feel the need to carry a gun at an airport? Are people really so scared that they have to arm themselves at an airport, places that are already heavily secured? I have to admit I'm baffled as to what creates the desire to carry a gun at an airport...I mean, without the gun, do anxiety or panic attacks ensue?



It's not "carrying a gun at an airport."

If you carry, you always carry. Learned reflexes, muscle memory, and habit. If you regularly carry, and decide not to carry, at an airport for example, you're breaking routine. If something should happen, you're conditioned to have a certain response, and may be caught completely off guard due to a change in routine.

As for airports being "heavily secured," I could walk into PIT right now armed to the teeth and take out dozens, maybe hundreds of people, before anyone knew what was going on.

The fact of the matter is it's all security *theatre*, not actual security.


I don't have any sort of panic attack without my gun, but I'm so used to it being there that it feels completely out of place to not be there. It's a simple case of better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

And if I ever feel my life is in danger, I guarantee I will not hesitate to use it to defend myself.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> American patrotism:
> 
> Racism, Money and guns. :V



British patriotism: Racism, money, and knife crimes.
Australian patriotism: Racism, money, and bikey gangs.
Finnish patriotism: Racism, money, and sex with reindeer.

Human is as human does.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> Carrying a weapon is being a responsible human being should the need arise, hopefully not, to protect yourself.



Interesting how most of the rest of the world can go about their normal everyday lives completely irresponsibly by not packing heat...

No, you see the problem is not that you need a gun to be safe.

The laws of your country give you access to a powerful weapon that can be used. You see it as a god-given right to own such weapons and are willing to bullshit and make up reasons why you absolutely need these guns.

You're not fooling anyone.

"Oh, but I carry because it's responsible to protect myself when the police aren't around."

Yeah, great. So if you do have to shoot someone, guess what? Lengthy legal proceedings to see if you lawfully murdered someone.

"I need my gun to make sure people don't steal my shotguns"

Well that's a fair enough point. If you have shotguns, you need to protect them from criminals. It's not like you could get rid of them and no longer require a handgun.
Oh, wait.

"They apprehended me using unlawful ordinances"

Shut the fuck up and stop trying to justify your actions. You were messing with a gun in an airport, they took issue. That is their fucking job. If you need to masturbate your guns, go do it in a low risk area, like a responsible adult. So you seem to think that the police were in the wrong to stop and question someone holstering armaments in an airport? But it's Insane_Kangaroo, everyone knows he's not a terrorist, he doesn't wear a towel. Duh, stupid police. They should only recruit psychics from now on.

Whats the betting IK has guns to make him look badass. Do you wear a long trenchcoat too? Raybans? Are you the fucking One?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> British patriotism: Racism, money, and knife crimes.
> Australian patriotism: Racism, money, and bikey gangs.
> Finnish patriotism: Racism, money, and sex with reindeer.
> 
> Human is as human does.



Cool story.

EDIT: This shitfest aside, when reading up and doing some detective work, I will have to say that Nothing of value was lost when Kage banned the butthurt furry. 

If there is a protest, expect to show up on jewtoob.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I would rather go through the legal system than the funeral system.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Furball, why do you even want to be near these people? Cut your losses, they're not worth it.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Furball, why do you even want to be near these people? Cut your losses, they're not worth it.



Agreed, why hang out with us sane people questioning his mentality and reasoning? Why not run back to the ill-informed rabid fan-boys back on Live-Journal?

EDIT: OR better yet....cut this crap out, and actually do what should have been done in the beginning, and take steps to amend the bull-shit and talk it out with Uncle Kage? Apologize for the bull-shit rallying, and try to talk to him man to man or something?

EDIT EDIT: Again Roo think about it. Back to the whole "Protest" thing. It only works in Kage's favor. If you really want to be unbanned the best thing to do is talk to him, and try to make amends and show that you are the responsible level headed person you claim to be.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> It's not "carrying a gun at an airport."
> 
> If you carry, you always carry. Learned reflexes, muscle memory, and habit. If you regularly carry, and decide not to carry, at an airport for example, you're breaking routine. If something should happen, you're conditioned to have a certain response, and may be caught completely off guard due to a change in routine.



You mean that you might accidentally not shoot someone? Terrifying.



> As for airports being "heavily secured," I could walk into PIT right now armed to the teeth and take out dozens, maybe hundreds of people, before anyone knew what was going on.
> 
> The fact of the matter is it's all security *theatre*, not actual security.



Oh, well that makes it ok. Lets all dress up as terrorists and pretned to blow ourselves up. That'll go down well.



> I don't have any sort of panic attack without my gun, but I'm so used to it being there that it feels completely out of place to not be there.



Nope, thats not even slightly neurotic.



> It's a simple case of better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.



Have you ever tried a Swiss army knife? They come with all kinds of cool tools, and better yet doesn't penetrate multiple soft targets after hitting your intended victim.



> And if I ever feel my life is in danger, I guarantee I will not hesitate to use it to defend myself.



Oh shit, I'm trapped on traintracks and the Express is coming! Quick! Shoot it!


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Are you going to be at Anthrocon?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Are you going to be at Anthrocon?



No, but the repercussions of retards echo around the world.

So I'm here to pre-empt the stupidity.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Looks more like you're part of it.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Agreed, why hang out with us sane people questioning his mentality and reasoning? Why not run back to the ill-informed rabid fan-boys back on Live-Journal?
> 
> EDIT: OR better yet....cut this crap out, and actually do what should have been done in the beginning, and take steps to amend the bull-shit and talk it out with Uncle Kage? Apologize for the bull-shit rallying, and try to talk to him man to man or something?



For this whole situation to be avoided in the first place if tact was used in place of unstable paranoia, or irrational fear in this case. 

And if he wanted back into "Kage's Clubhouse", he would have kept this isolated. Other than that, this thread gives more of a reason to keep the fruitcake banned.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Oh, wait, wait, I got a better one!



Aran said:


> Are you going to be at Anthrocon?



No, will you be? Are you bringing your ego? It's only a small convention centre after all. They'll need room for the other people.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Oh, wait, wait, I got a better one!
> 
> 
> 
> No, will you be? Are you bringing your ego? It's only a small convention centre after all. They'll need room for the other people.



You are French, you can do better than that. :V


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Looks more like you're part of it.



You know how some people are lactose intolerant? I'm exactly like that with morons.

Luckily, with people like you and Insane_Kangaroo, the genepool is self-moderating, but someone still needs to be sarcastic or ironic at you.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Oh, wait, wait, I got a better one!
> 
> 
> 
> No, will you be? Are you bringing your ego? It's only a small convention centre after all. They'll need room for the other people.



Why would I be at Anthrocon? I'm not a furry.

I will, however, be just over the hill from it, since I live in the same city.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> You are French, you can do better than that. :V



:C

Nationality =/= Country you live in.

For one, I can actually speak English.


----------



## Vintage (Feb 18, 2010)

don't mind me

just writin' in my lifejonal

current mood:  sedated by the government conspiracy


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> :C
> 
> Nationality =/= Country you live in.
> 
> For one, I can actually speak English.



Well sorry.. :{

And French people can be insulting sometimes...in a polite way.
It was a compliment.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Why would I be at Anthrocon? I'm not a furry.
> 
> I will, however, be just over the hill from it, since I live in the same city.



So why are you here then?

You just felt like dropping in to prove that gun-nuts are completely stable people with a firm grasp on reality and a good sense of morals?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Well sorry.. :{
> 
> And French people can be insulting sometimes...in a polite way.
> It was a compliment.



Hah! Have you ever actually met a French person? French is a language designed to be shouted.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Did you read the thread?


----------



## Firepyro (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> If there is a protest, expect to show up on jewtoob.


Ahh, right, so this guy's a racist for dressing people up like stereotypical thugs, but hey, it's alright to call it "jewtoob"?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Hah! Have you ever actually met a French person? French is a language designed to be shouted.



Two actually while I was in New York. 
They are a bit insulting. :V


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Did you read the thread?



I did, but my brain tends to skip over idiotic statements and truth-bending.

Must have missed your posts then.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> Ahh, right, so this guy's a racist for dressing people up like stereotypical thugs, but hey, it's alright to call it "jewtoob"?



And?
Your point being?

Don't get your knickers in a twist because I used an ED term for Lulz. 
Oh no...I used an "Anti-sematic" slang term, don't lynch me. :{


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> Meaning you like to go with doomsday/worst case scenarios, amirite?
> 
> Also drop the whole "For my own protection BS" Mr. I was carrying a Glock to protect a cache of shotguns on my way to AC.
> 
> Oh, I was charged by a pitt once. Does that mean I should walk around carrying a gun now even though it was an isolated incident?



I give you a serious self defense example and you attempt to shoot it down, I don't think so. There is no doomsday scenario and you'll being defensive because I gave you a valid defense story. I rarely ever take my NFA weapons anywhere unless I'm out to practice.

I don't think you understand the hellfire which would come down if someone stole my NFA firearms.

I'll say this, if handguns or long guns were stolen, a police report would be in order. There wouldn't be any further to report. I'd hope my pistols wouldn't ever be stolen since they're my responsibility to keep out of criminal hands. Making the transportation safer by protecting those firearms with another firearm is a valid us of a firearm, stop being defensive when you know to be wrong.

If NFA items were stolen, the BATFE would come down on the county and myself. I don't like transporting certain items because they're items which I've been granted by the federal government.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Firepyro said:


> Ahh, right, so this guy's a racist for dressing people up like stereotypical thugs, but hey, it's alright to call it "jewtoob"?



wow... You know the only time I encounter such a word is when I've read pages from ED. I believe this says much about the person who's used the word.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I give you a serious self defense example and you attempt to shoot it down, I don't think so. There is no doomsday scenario and you'll being defensive because I gave you a valid defense story. I rarely ever take my NFA weapons anywhere unless I'm out to practice.
> 
> I don't think you understand the hellfire which would come down if someone stole my firearms.
> 
> ...





Okay...So you need Gun "A" to protect gun "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", and "H"?


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

So we're going to the range when you're down here right?

(The answer is yes.)


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> wow... You know the only time I encounter such a word is when I've read pages from ED. I believe this says much about the person who's used the word.



Yeah, I am a racist prick. Begin the ****** lynching. 

I also like to indulge in Mexican and Pollack jokes. :V

EDIT: I guess I am a troll too for borrowing a troll word. :V


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

b&


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> b&



OHHH, you said a 4chan word! :0


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Hoo boy...



insane_kangaroo said:


> I give you a serious self defense example and you attempt to shoot it down



HURR HURR HURR



> There is no doomsday scenario and you'll being defensive because I gave you a valid defense story. I rarely ever take my NFA weapons anywhere unless I'm out to practice.



On targets dressed like Muslims and other minorities. NOT RACIST.



> I don't think you understand the hellfire which would come down if someone stole my firearms.



Gee, what a quandary. I have guns that are a) dangerous b) easily stolen and c) can only be used in restricted places. There really is no option but to buy a gun for the guns. I mean it's not like you could keep them in a safe place like a safe. Or not have them at all if they're at risk of theft. Or, y'know, modern guns usually disassemble. You have multiple bags, stick bits in each one. If one bag gets stolen, they can't use the gun parts they have.



> I'll say this, if handguns or long guns were stolen, a police report would be in order.



"Excuse me officer, my guns were stolen. Yes, they were called Trigger and N**gerslayer"



> stop being defensive when you know to be wrong.



I-RONY!



> I've been granted by the federal government.



Thank you government! Good decision there, totally not going to bite you in the arse.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> OHHH, you said a 4chan word! :0



Itty bitty baby, shut your goddamn mouth. :\/


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Itty bitty baby, shut your goddamn mouth. :\/



Shut your whore mouth while I am speaking! V:


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Oi, get back on topic. This is just becoming a poo-flinging bout.

I want to be sarcastic some more, get on with your closed-minded waffling.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Shut your whore mouth while I am speaking! V:



Do you have stairs in your house?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Oi, get back on topic. This is just becoming a poo-flinging bout.
> 
> I want to be sarcastic some more, get on with your closed-minded waffling.



You can still be sacrastic. Just to a lesser degree.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Do you have stairs in your house?



No, do you?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> I give you a serious self defense example and you attempt to shoot it down, I don't think so. There is no doomsday scenario and you'll being defensive because I gave you a valid defense story. I rarely ever take my NFA weapons anywhere unless I'm out to practice.
> 
> I don't think you understand the hellfire which would come down if someone stole my firearms.
> 
> ...



Probably because dog attacks are not as common as the media likes to make them out to be? That and in my experience usually "People" provoke dog attacks. That said...I'm still looking to see if you'll stop hopping around like a demented rabbit with it's foot on fire, and answer the pertinent question.

I am perfectly aware that apparently things will not go well for you if your precious cache of guns goes stolen. Which begs the question to be answered "Why did you not leave them at home?". I'm not talking about your Glock/pistol what ever it is here. I can understand if you are used to being armed, it's sort of just natural and pro the course for comfort to have that gun at your side. It's not to unlike how I like to go out with my Mace on my being.

I can...tolerate that. No, what I am talking about is your precious cache of gun. The fact you feel in necessary to carry those around too is what makes me begin to question your mental processes. Being the "Responsible Gun Owner" you claim to be would you not already have some safe set up rigged at your own home to keep those puppies safe? If you don't trust them being there when you are away, well they are no more safe locked up and left in the hotel room that is not the Westin while you are at AC enjoying the furry stuff.

If you brought them along because of "Other business"...well you have still yet to give up a legitimate reason as to why you needed to bring that cache of weapons. Unless you can bring up actual legitimate "other business" I have nothing to go on to stop me from looking at you questioningly as per your sanity and intellect. Perhaps it partially bias here from past experiences. A paranoid gun owner is something I grew up fearing as a child. I've been in areas where you have very overzealous NRA members that are literally off their rocker and have no business having guns. These people really made gun rights advocates look bad. They are to gun rights and gun owners what PETA and ALF is to the Animal Rights movement if I may make that comparison.

If your behavior about your whole gun business is that of a paranoid gun owner with certain kinds of very wonky attitudes and beliefs(similar to what I have come across in the past)...I can understand a con owner kicking you as a potential problem in the future. That's my own POV though. Take it or leave it.

EDIT: Other than that I'm not particularly impressed with how you try to get people to take your side but you fail to give all the details. Really it is as I said before. If you really wanted to be unbanned you would have not gone to the internet crying wolf. You would have acted like a MAN and had a MAN to MAN discussion with Uncle Kage, and showed him you don't deserve what you got.

Some crazy idea of Protesting in suit with a gun....that does not suggest sanity or level headedness here.

EDIT EDIT: May as well point it out, what do you think the Media will do if they see you? Do you think they are going to put up the story in a way that hurts a huge well loved cash cow to that down town community? Hell no.

Do you think the peeps watching the thing will sympathize with you? No...it's more likely they are going to "golf-clap" Uncle Kage for getting rid of what appears to be a nutter on camera. Really there is very little to accomplish here Roo if that course of action is still something you intend to do.

EDIT EDIT: I'm just giving advice here now. I'd love to see this settled civilly between you and Kage...and I'd be the first to welcome you back to AC so you can enjoy being there.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I imagine he brought them for the fact that there are some AWESOME ranges around here and tons of people who would fall all over themselves to get a chance to try them out.

And the NRA is not pro-gun. They're pro-people-giving-money-to-the-NRA.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I imagine he brought them for the fact that there are some AWESOME ranges around here and tons of people who would fall all over themselves to get a chance to try them out.



I doubt it.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Which part?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I imagine he brought them for the fact that there are some AWESOME ranges around here and tons of people who would fall all over themselves to get a chance to try them out.



You should totally come to our ranges, the targets are a different shape to your ones, and we even have them at varying distances. Seriously radical thinking!

Are your ranges outfitted with targets of a more varied ethnic background? Why shoot at fake Chinese and Muslims? We have wiggers, old black lady walking her dog, her dog, Vietcong fighters AND women!


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Okay...So you need Gun "A" to protect gun "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", and "H"?



<sarcasm>
Interesting... no. I don't carry 8 weapons, I carry 16. Two on each limb, 4 on the waist, two chest, and two on the back.
</sarcasm>

Come on!... I only carry my main pistol which I open carry. If I'm transporting firearms, it's for a reason.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

You should totally come to our animal dressup fetish convention, we've got people in totally different fetish outfits that look like different animals. Seriously radical thinking!


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> <sarcasm>
> Interesting... no. I don't carry 8 weapons, I carry 16. Two on each limb, 4 on the waist, two chest, and two on the back.
> </sarcasm>
> 
> Come on!... I only carry my main pistol which I open carry. If I'm transporting firearms, it's for a reason.



For some good ol' ****** farmin', right?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> You should totally come to our animal dressup fetish convention, we've got people in totally different fetish outfits that look like different animals. Seriously radical thinking!



Totally! You might even get laid!


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Totally! You might even get laid!



I just threw up a little, thanks.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I just threw up a little, thanks.



Oh, I don't think we have that fetish yet. Maybe the babyfurs can accommodate you.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Totally! You might even get laid!



Don't forget the wild bareback parties! -wink wink-


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Oh, I don't think we have that fetish yet. Maybe the babyfurs can accommodate you.



Oh good, you guys DO acknowledge the pedophiles amongst your ranks. Even accept them, it would seem.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Insane Kangaroo.

Can you, or can you not disassemble your guns for transport, so that one case being stolen just leaves the thief with parts rather than a working rifle, therefore negating your need to be armed to protect them from theft.

Yes or no?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> Oh good, you guys DO acknowledge the pedophiles amongst your ranks. Even accept them, it would seem.



I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church does too....the whole acknowledge pedophiles in their ranks, and then proceed to "accept them" although it's more like save PR by sweeping it under the rug.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

It's certain parts that are regulated, they don't even have to be complete firearms.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church does too....the whole acknowledge pedophiles in their ranks, and then proceed to "accept them" although it's more like save PR by sweeping it under the rug.


What a coincidence, another group I'm happy to not call myself a part of.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> What a coincidence, another group I'm happy to not call myself a part of.



I'm sure that there is some group out there that you are part of that has it's own bad eggs.

EDIT: It's worth noting that the Anime Fandom has it's own share of dealing with Pedophiles.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Ok then, see, that was a simple and reasonable answer. Thank you.

Also, regarding the babyfur/paedo thing, thats not part of this discussion. If you want to mark your disapproval, like most other people, do it elsewhere.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Insane Kangaroo.
> 
> Can you, or can you not disassemble your guns for transport, so that one case being stolen just leaves the thief with parts rather than a working rifle, therefore negating your need to be armed to protect them from theft.
> 
> Yes or no?



I can disassemble my firearms and put them in to separate containers. The problem with the idea you're trying to convey is I put all my containers in to a giant field gear duffel bag backpack so I only have one bag to carry.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

There may be. But I would be the first to disassociate myself from the bad eggs, and the group as a whole, if necessary.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Trpdwarf said:


> I'm sure that there is some group out there that you are part of that has it's own bad eggs.



Every group in existence has bad eggs. The trick is to pop them in cold water. If they float, they are bad and need to be destroyed.

Like witches and some varieties of turd.


----------



## ShadowEon (Feb 18, 2010)

Op does not amuse me.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Every group in existence has bad eggs. The trick is to pop them in cold water. If they float, they are bad and need to be destroyed.
> 
> Like witches and some varieties of turd.



What do you have against Witches? You're intolerant! EDIT: That said I agree with you. We should keep things on topic. If peeps want to bring up some other questionable aspect of the fandom they should do so by creating their own thread. Otherwise we'd derail this thing quicker than you can say LOCK!


----------



## Sweet Pea the Malamute (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> It's not "carrying a gun at an airport."
> 
> If you carry, you always carry. Learned reflexes, muscle memory, and habit. If you regularly carry, and decide not to carry, at an airport for example, you're breaking routine. If something should happen, you're conditioned to have a certain response, and may be caught completely off guard due to a change in routine.
> 
> ...


 
Still, I can't see the need to take a gun to an airport. 
You're certainly not going to get on a plane with it, and how many people go to airports just to hang out, when they don't have a flight to catch? 
Maybe you're meeting somebody, but how often does this happen? 
Why is it so important to go to an airport with a gun? 
How often do people need to just walk around an airport for shits and giggles?
Why not learn other fighting skills to use in places you can't have a gun, such as martial arts? 
Why rely on the gun so heavily?

'Security theatre' or not, airports are not high crime zones. Your chances of being attacked by a friend, relative or at work are much, much higher. Aside from perhaps pickpockets, I see no evidence that airports inspire the type of crime that would merit a weapon. True, something could happen anywhere, but I seriously doubt an attacker is going to get very far at an airport in the post 9/11 era. 

...........................................................

Back to the dogs: Dogs? Attacking at an airport? Aside from perhaps a seeing eye dog, I can't say I've ever noted any dogs at an airport that are not in a carrier, or at least on a leash.

Why not take the Cesar Millan approach?


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> There may be. But I would be the first to disassociate myself from the bad eggs, and the group as a whole, if necessary.



Yet here you are, defending Insane Kangaroo.

Anyone else smell sulphur?


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> Yet here you are, defending Insane Kangaroo.
> 
> Anyone else smell sulphur?



Yep.


----------



## Smelge (Feb 18, 2010)

Sweet Pea the Malamute said:


> How often do people need to just walk around an airport for shits and giggles?
> Why not learn other fighting skills to use in places you can't have a gun, such as martial arts?



I do. I work for an airport transfer company, so I'm always around the airport. People watching is fun.

And as for martial arts, I'm an expert in them. I've watched every episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and the first few seasons of Power Rangers.



> Back to the dogs: Dogs? Attacking at an airport? Aside from perhaps a seeing eye dog



Those things are vicious. They're like velociraptors. Fast, intelligent and deadly.


----------



## Ozriel (Feb 18, 2010)

Voidrunners said:


> And as for martial arts, I'm an expert in them. I've watched every episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and the first few seasons of Power Rangers.



I know One weapons and hand to hand martial art and was "gratefully" taught how to properly slit throats by my Seal Stepdad. 

The only time I had to use hand-to-hand was when I had to break up a fight while on the clock. 




> Those things are vicious. They're like velociraptors. Fast, intelligent and deadly.



Those Ankle biter dogs are the worst. Evil in so many ways.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Sweet Pea the Malamute said:


> 'Security theatre' or not, airports are not high crime zones
> 
> Back to the dogs: Dogs? Attacking at an airport? Aside from perhaps a seeing eye dog



When I upgrade the firearm to condition 1, I'm prepared to leave the airport.

When I downgrade the firearm to condition 4, I'm read to check my firearms in to the TSA before entering the secure area. If by chance I've some wait time, I generally wait in the secure area unless there is a good reason.

In reference to how/why, I go from point A to point B until any other firearms are locked up safely.

I can freely enjoy myself if all I've is a sidearm on my side which I open carry.

The dog problem isn't so much stray dogs but people with human/dog aggressive dogs. You know, the typical bad owner which you see fined a fair deal.

Someone mentioned the media makes dog attacks seem more frequent, but there is little truth. Dog attacks happen in my city, maybe not all dog bites, but enough to where police cite them frequently.

Dog bites are serious and not something to be taken lightly. I know several people who've received dog bites, all of which were not the same afterward. While they were able to gain almost all motor control, they could not perform heavy lifting. This will not happen to me, I will not tolerate bad dogs attempting to ruin my life. Am I clear?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Wait...  Let me get this straight.

You are afraid of dogs attacking you in an airport?  Are you fucking serious?

Maybe it's an Alaska thing.


----------



## Aran (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm bored.


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> Wait...  Let me get this straight.
> 
> You are afraid of dogs attacking you in an airport?  Are you fucking serious?
> 
> Maybe it's an Alaska thing.



*smacks head in to keyboard*

Going from Point A to Point B. How can you not understand the in between those two points which I travel?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

Aran said:


> I'm bored.



So go play with your guns or something.

Make sure to get your whole head in front of the shotgun.



insane_kangaroo said:


> *smacks head in to keyboard*
> 
> Going from Point A to Point B. How can you not understand the in between those two points which I travel?



The airport.


----------



## yoshi000 (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> *smacks head in to keyboard*
> 
> Going from Point A to Point B. How can you not understand the in between those two points which I travel?




I have to ask this: how many dog attacks happen at the airport hat make you feel like you need an gun to make yourself feel safe?


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

yoshi000 said:


> I have to ask this: how many dog attacks happen at the airport hat make you feel like you need an gun to make yourself feel safe?



The answer is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

yoshi000 said:


> I have to ask this: how many dog attacks happen at the airport hat make you feel like you need an gun to make yourself feel safe?



I've never had a violent encounter at the airport, I'd be disappointed such an incident did occur. People do sometimes transport their dog through the airline. Being said some accidentally allow their dog off leash. I'm not going to trust other people's dogs, I know how irresponsible other people are with dogs.

I'll reiterate, I carry for the security of myself. I'm not an "It's my second amentment right GFY" individual, I never have been.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

You ever consider therapy?

It might make the attack dogs go away...


----------



## insane_kangaroo (Feb 18, 2010)

Ricky said:


> You ever consider therapy?
> 
> It might make the attack dogs go away...



If all you can do is attack people online, maybe you should consider the therapy.


----------



## Ricky (Feb 18, 2010)

insane_kangaroo said:


> If all you can do is attack people online, maybe you should consider the therapy.


 
  I'd be at the gym right now but I have a cold.

  Besides, you are assuming I'm simply attacking you and I don't have any genuine interest in your "mental stability" (geeze, that sounds familiar).

  All jokes aside, it _is_ pretty paranoid to feel you need to take a gun everywhere you go.  I understand a lot of this is probably you rationalizing the need to bring a gun with you when you went to AC.  Unless of course you are actually worried about getting attacked by a dog in the middle of a city, in which case I'd say you need your head examined.

 You didn't do anything illegal though or anything outside of your rights.

 If this was the only thing I was taking into consideration I'd probably back you up on it.  I have a hard time believing it was the only reason you were banned.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 18, 2010)

Alright, this is definitely degrading into a Gecko45 -like tribute thread, full of personal insults and slagging.  So on that thought, I'm going to call it a lock.


----------

