This made me smile.

[osterr1999]

I am all for people being able to open carry, but these types of stunts are what finally got open carry banned in California. Open carrying a pistol is fine, some of us do that on occasion. The thing is, why would you open carry a rifle? I understand that he is trying to make a point and educate law enforcement, but there are other ways to do it. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should, but it's a free country and Warren can do whatever he wants as long as it's within the law.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Dear Chen,

LOL! The reason that so many support Warren at Opencarry.org is that they are of a like-minded ilk- ie: The ends DOES justify the means. I don't bust his balls there because they're very touchy about that sort of thing on that site. Those of us in the know, know who Warren is, and what his game is, and we're a little more free to express our opinions here than there. In fact, every forum I've been on where the video(s) have been posted, the overwhelming majority of people who chimed in agree that Warren is pretty much a tool.

At any rate, as I stated before, if Mr. Drouin wasn't on a mission to actively incite confrontations with the police, I really wouldn't have a problem with him. I'd personally rather get the police on our side by making them our friends rather than treating them as the enemy. It's way easier to have a dialog with a friend than an enemy.

And lastly, Mr. Drouin doesn't have a speech impediment, he's just stupid.

Dear Bar,

Your argument is projecting your weakness. You feel their like minded ilk aren't strong enough to handle a little criticism? How you can actually believe that is beyond me. No, in reality, you won't say anything because you sir are too weak to defend your point of view with actual moral grounds.

Again your point of view is very flawed and misinformed. It seems you have not watched 99% of Warrens videos yet you claim to know him.

You spend more time name calling and spouting off your opinion because you have no other options. The police have rarely been known to help push for 2A rights, and in doing so I will not call them my friends, especially those in Medford and Eugene. I don't befriend those that piss on the Constitution. They want my respect, my friendship, they can respect the Constitution first.

This is turning into a pretty boring discussion when all you do is present name calling repeatedly. As far as the speech impediment this is from MarkedGuardian's comments on youtube:

This guy can hardly put together a sentence. I realize he's trying to make a point by carrying the gun but he needs to work on his communication skills.
buttahbean2 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos 11
Reply

Like I stated in some of my videos and comments, I have a speech impediment, and the only way I can speak fluently is when I am perfectly calm. By the way, I have worked on it and this is the best of my abilities at this time.
Markedguardian in reply to buttahbean2 1 week ago

Open Carry Talk and Interaction with a nice Indvidiual - YouTube Enjoy I'm sure you will love how angry all the people he talks to are....oh wait...sorry the majority of people enjoy Warren...hope that doesn't frustrate you too much.

Here's another tidbit I think you would like to read...eh probably not...brought to you by a member of another forum who you would deem too pro-Constitutional..

Here is a link and a snippet of the leftist playbook....

Quotes and Excerpts from

Rules for Radicals

By Saul Alinsky - 1971

-snip-
7. Tactics
-snip-
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
-snip-
(bold added by me for emphasis)

and the full article can be read at the link below. Please take note that Hillary Clinton and Obama are prominently mentioned. I encourage everyone to follow that link and read about Saul Alinsky and learn how the leftists use his teachings in their arguing methods.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

 

[Ironbar]

That's awesome. You flip-flop from site to site so you can stay in the "in crowd". Don't stick to your guns (pun intended), just stay with whatever is the "right" way, per the website. Way to go Mitt, I mean, Ironbar.

How am I flip-flopping? I loathe Warren equally on either site. It's just that I am allowed to say so here.

As for open carry, I'm all for it.

So again, how am I flip-flopping?

 

[FireFighterChen]

I am all for people being able to open carry, but these types of stunts are what finally got open carry banned in California. Open carrying a pistol is fine, some of us do that on occasion. The thing is, why would you open carry a rifle? I understand that he is trying to make a point and educate law enforcement, but there are other ways to do it. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should, but it's a free country and Warren can do whatever he wants as long as it's within the law.

You know you have to stretch it a long ways to use California as a reason for anything involving guns. Why did you use the world "finally" got it banned? Because, like everyone else all ready knew, it was going down the tube anyways, didn't matter what happened, they were going to ban it sooner or later. Let me ask you this, was it the OC that had loaded OC banned in CA before a total ban was in place? No. If giving no opposition, do you think California would allow concealed carry at all? No. Do you think it was gun/open carry activists that got open carry banned in NYC and Chicago? No. California, like those other cities, is a sinking ship when it comes to ALL gun rights (10 round magazine capacity, AWB, suppressor ban, SBR SBS ban, and a slew of other infringments), nothing is going to stop them, and no open carrier is going to make it sink faster.

Also OC activists across the nation from WA and OR to MI have pushed and succeeded in helping our rights grow and our carriers from being harassed from officers and the few sheep that cry about it.

 

[Misterbill]

I'd like to know on what planet O/Cing a .22 clone of a MP5 amounts to anything other than deliberately seeking out a confrontation.

It doesn't do the cause of gun rights in general OR O/C rights any good to go out and deliberately scare the bejesus out of people who don't know anything about guns and make people who DO know something about the guns, nervous.

The stunt displayed on that video was sheer idiocy.

And by the way, took a cop's time away from patrol duty where he might have actually helped prevent a crime or caught a genuine bad guy. It's only mildly less obnoxious than pulling a fire alarm to see the people leave a building. and it's the same kind of pimple-headed motivation for both acts.

 

[FireFighterChen]

I can tell you in the country known as The United States of America there is a piece of paper they call the Constitution, in that constitution there is a list of amendments, the first 10 being deemed the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment of that list states the people of the USA have the right to keep and bear arms. So, on the planet EARTH in the USA wearing a .22 cal MP5 clone is exercising your rights, not seeking confrontation. Does that make sense? Or do you not give two ****'s about the Constitution? Do you wish to control someone else according to whats "appropriate, acceptable, and reasonable" to you?

I beg to differ, just watch his other videos where he gets to talk with citizens and police from all over in a respectful way, creating GOOD impressions. So you seem pretty sure that people are terrified of guns... Do you open carry? Cause I do, and no one, not a single person, zilch, zero, nobody has called the police or ran away in terror.

BTW the cop wasted his own time, when he saw a law abiding citizen exercising his rights he could have walked away right then, never made contact, or confronted anyone. Or do you think police should also waste time and resources on someone who has too many tattoos? Wearing an offensive shirt? Using a flashlight? Wearing a backpack? Who knows, they all could be criminal terrorists despite their perfectly legal behavior!

Have you not noticed all of these OC advocates are released at the end? No charges, no confiscations, nothing. What did they get out of "antagonizing" a law abiding citizen? Nothing. Why did they choose to waste their own time?

It's sad to see such evil placed on an inanimate object, especially from people who say they are "pro-gun". Guns are so evil and scary to so many people we must hide them or just carry the little ones...really?

 

[osterr1999]

California is a stretch, but all those lovely libs from CA keep moving to Oregon. What I was trying to point out is simply that when people see someone open carrying a gun that they think looks "scary" they will call the police. The police are then forced to look into it, whether they want to or not. This wastes their time and they complain to their supervisors who complain to the chief. The chiefs then tell everyone that they think that open carry should be banned as is wastes police resources. People listen to police chiefs whether you want to admit it or not, especially when it comes to law enforcement issues. Then some legislator thinks it's a good idea to introduce a bill that bans open carry. No one complains because very few people open carry so it passes. Sometimes it is good to fly under the radar and not draw attention to the fact that you are open carrying.

Basically, what's the point? Okay, so you can open carry a gun and waste police officer's time. Good for you. I guess that I have better things to do and feel like the police probably do too. That's just me though.

 

[FireFighterChen]

California is a stretch, but all those lovely libs from CA keep moving to Oregon. What I was trying to point out is simply that when people see someone open carrying a gun that they think looks "scary" they will call the police. The police are then forced to look into it, whether they want to or not. This wastes their time and they complain to their supervisors who complain to the chief. The chiefs then tell everyone that they think that open carry should be banned as is wastes police resources. People listen to police chiefs whether you want to admit it or not, especially when it comes to law enforcement issues. Then some legislator thinks it's a good idea to introduce a bill that bans open carry. No one complains because very few people open carry so it passes. Sometimes it is good to fly under the radar and not draw attention to the fact that you are open carrying.

Basically, what's the point? Okay, so you can open carry a gun and waste police officer's time. Good for you. I guess that I have better things to do and feel like the police probably do too. That's just me though.

I know they do, and damn it sucks doesn't it? I moved farther north and east to get away from them. I used to live in Eugene believe it or not, and I am very glad I got myself out of there because like Warren, I have had 0 good experiences with Eugene PD in my professional career there.

The problem doesn't exist because someone is exercising their rights, the problem persists because of lack of training on the dispatcher and police departments part. Where I moved, Tri Cities WA they arrested the wrong guy for openly carrying. He brought charges against the department, had the entire region reeducated about open carry. They no longer waste their time on law abiding activity. Yes we OC still get called on, but the police merely drive by to see what's happening and then they write it off as no crime being committed. Like I said, the issue is not the RIGHT to carry openly, handgun or long gun, but the training of investigating a completely legal activity.

I posted up several of his videos, and the majority are of great officers. I especially enjoy the Tangent officer who had a caller say, "I don't know if it's legal or not, but a guy is carrying a gun," to which he replied, "Yes it is legal, but I will go drive by and check it out." That officer knew his Rights, and educated the public. He then told Warren he was free to go at any time because he knew he broke no laws. Warren was wearing his AR at the time. So please, tell me how that officer could manage to not get his pants all twisted up but the Medford officer couldn't?

So, now I can open or conceal a firearm, and not have to worry at all. I can conceal carry, and maybe I get hot, and want to take off my jacket. I can without worrying about being harassed by police. All because someone before me did what Warren did. But by all means, they can keep wasting their own precious time, just make sure you put the blame where it belongs, and that is not on the person who is legally exercising his rights.

Silverton is a very nice town btw, I used to go through there all the time to play some paintball with my family. Stay safe.

 

[Ironbar]

You know Chen, you can spout all the rhetoric you want our rights, our Constitution, our laws, etc., but it still doesn't change the fact that Warren is actively seeing confrontation with the police which is what this whole conversation is about.

And besides, I've seen Internet trolls like you before. You come and go like seasonal change. Your particular style of trolling is to talk people to death. If it makes you feel better, then go right on talking because it still doesn't make you right. LOL!

 

[FireFighterChen]

You know Chen, you can spout all the rhetoric you want our rights, our Constitution, our laws, etc., but it still doesn't change the fact that Warren is actively seeing confrontation with the police which is what this whole conversation is about.

And besides, I've seen Internet trolls like you before. You come and go like seasonal change. Your particular style of trolling is to talk people to death. If it makes you feel better, then go right on talking because it still doesn't make you right. LOL!

I'm glad you think of our Rights, laws, and Constitution as mere rhetoric. Let me try and understand you, I bring up our Constitution, our law, and our Rights, and you bring up name calling and opinion, and I'm not right? LOL!

Troll...what a joke. Do you even know what a troll is? I've been a member here for a while, but didn't start posting till yesterday because I spend most of my time at USACarry and OCDO. But, yet again, you must feel emboldened with gang mentality. I see you still haven't come out at OCDO with your true personality.

 

[fd15k]

I can tell you in the country known as The United States of America there is a piece of paper they call the Constitution, in that constitution there is a list of amendments, the first 10 being deemed the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment of that list states the people of the USA have the right to keep and bear arms. So, on the planet EARTH in the USA wearing a .22 cal MP5 clone is exercising your rights, not seeking confrontation. Does that make sense? Or do you not give two ****'s about the Constitution? Do you wish to control someone else according to whats "appropriate, acceptable, and reasonable" to you?

Same goes for the 1st Amendment, right ? Going to a public place and calling some folks names would amount for "exercising one's rights" as opposed to seeking a confrontation

 

[FireFighterChen]

Same goes for the 1st Amendment, right ? Going to a public place and calling some folks names would amount for "exercising one's rights" as opposed to seeking a confrontation

Good point, interesting how that still is exercising someone's rights? His question was, "I'd like to know on what planet (insert Right) amounts to anything other than deliberately seeking out a confrontation." So while yes, and I have said he does it to get a confrontation, it is also amounts to something much more important, and that's exercising a Right. So yes, both the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment can be exercised and be confrontational. Remember, confrontation is not a bad thing, it shows both the good (Tanget, Rouge River) and the bad (Medford and Eugene).

So, should the cops be called on a Preacher preaching the Word in the town square? Should the police be called on a homeless man telling people he walks by they are the devil? Would you demand the officers to go there and demand the speaker to give up his 4th amendment rights so the officer can search wherever he pleases? What about road rage, that's covered by the 1st as well. Should police come and demand that the driver get out so he can search all the vehicles he wants because someone called another driver an idiot? The answer to all the previous questions should be a definite "No, an officer should not have the authority to demand unlawful search and seizure when no crime has been committed."

Why does exercising the 2nd require anything more than the previous scenarios response? What's stopping the road rage driver to drive through a crowd 10 minutes later?

You should try it sometime, call the police and tell them someone gave you the bird from another car, or that some Christians were assembling outside in public giving people flyers, and that is just unacceptable, inappropriate, and unreasonable in this day and age, see if they respond. I hope you take my message and think about it. Have you ever said, "From my cold dead hands," "Better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6"...and would you want police to come to your home and demand to search it because of your 1st amendment...

I believe someone just got released on the east coast for something very similar to this, posting on facebook...Outcry after military veteran detained for anti-government Facebook posts | Fox News

So it's ok that they detained this guy right? He was being confrontational on facebook...

 

[drew]

Same goes for the 1st Amendment, right ? Going to a public place and calling some folks names would amount for "exercising one's rights" as opposed to seeking a confrontation

Sounds like some bar conversations I've witnessed.

 

[Magister]

Whilst I agree with the right to open carry, one does wonder if stunts like this actually give wood to the like of the Brady Campaign etc. At this moment in time we have a situation which most of the general public are very gun wary due to the events throughout the country, and while agreeing that the right to open carry should not be impinged, a little sensitivity goes a long way. I find the majority of gun owners to be responsible and yet very aware of the threat that those in power have over our rights. When we have the likes of Bloomberg, et al nipping at our heels for the slightest incident, and the media bandwagon at full song, do we really need the attention?

 

[Darknight]

Whilst I agree with the right to open carry, one does wonder if stunts like this actually give wood to the like of the Brady Campaign etc. At this moment in time we have a situation which most of the general public are very gun wary due to the events throughout the country, and while agreeing that the right to open carry should not be impinged, a little sensitivity goes a long way. I find the majority of gun owners to be responsible and yet very aware of the threat that those in power have over our rights. When we have the likes of Bloomberg, et al nipping at our heels for the slightest incident, and the media bandwagon at full song, do we really need the attention?

Yes, we actually do need attention, just not the kind that jackass in the video is giving us.

 

[volcomdork182]

That is one professional cop.

Officer North.

 

[Magister]

Yes, we actually do need attention, just not the kind that jackass in the video is giving us.

That was the point, unfortunately the Jackasses of the world tend to bring the wrong attention to us, instead of showing the responsible gun owner. Yes good publicity is a great thing.... but alas in this case its not.

 

[FireFighterChen]

That was the point, unfortunately the Jackasses of the world tend to bring the wrong attention to us, instead of showing the responsible gun owner. Yes good publicity is a great thing.... but alas in this case its not.

I agree with dark night that right now is exactly the time we need attention. Sitting back quietly while the anti's attack our constitution is a horrible strategy.

So who is standing up for our rights? Warren is, are any of you? Warren is a pretty awesome guy, standing up for what's right in the face of everyone, I'm glad he is actively defending our rights, we need more people stepping up like Warren, usmcHOSS, and usmcBESS.

I gotta ask though, I keep hearing about the "the general public" being weary about firearms...why then was there dramatic increase in gun sales after the batman shooting? It doesn't sound like the general public has any issue with firearms.

 

[sprocket3]

Dear FireFighterChen,

With all due respect. (and so far it's very little), Warren Drouin is an idiot, not a crusader. If all he was doing was exercising his right to open carry, then I nor anyone else would have a problem with him. The problem is, Warren isn't satisfied with that. Warren actively TRIES to antagonize the Medford, OR police into making some sort of violation of his rights so he can then cry "FOUL!." He actively tries to antagonize them into a confrontation while all the time having his trusty camera phone rolling to hopefully catch the cops making some sort of slip-up that he can use to his benefit.

I'd like to think you see the problem with this, but from the tone and timbre of your previous posts on this thread, I can see you're just as lost as Warren.

It makes sense to me now that you'd vilify us for being uneducated while at the same time lionizing Warren who's the ACTUAL 18ish illiterate fool.

I agree. With folks shooting up people watching a movie in the dark why not stop this person to check him out.

 

[FireFighterChen]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin