Omaha NE Housing Authority makes public housing Gun Free

[plblark]

I really would like to see the horse you ride, cause partner you really need to get off it and walk around the Ghetto instead of swanking around Minnetonka.

Since we're to high horses and sticks in the posterior, may I note that by all apearances yours seems to be particularly barbed and splintery. Were I a Kinder man, I'd offer you a light so you could see them up close since you're obviously suffering from Rectal-Cranial inversion.

Now that we've flung the poo, on to the real meat of the discussion.

Round about my parts, we call walking around the Ghetto looking for trouble. If I know the place I'm going is likely to have problems, I'm going to avoid it if possible. Thanks for the advice. Oh, and Minnetonka is a bit rich for my blood

All you seem to want to do is go around and try and pick arguements with people. Like the personal attack you are launching on me.

Pick fights? Neither intend offense nor be easily offended. I have launched no personal attack on you. I have stated, clearly and unequivocally that I disagree with your position. I have even stated why. It often occurs that when your opponent feels his arguments are weak or yours hit too close to home he will cry ad hominem attack.

Did you read the original article AND the linked blog post before gracing us with your opinion? By enacting this rule, the city has placed a large neon sign over every public housing unit. This sign advertises that the victims that live here are unarmed. It violates the second amendment much like DC's firearm ban did and the Cook County, IL policies do.

Why should i be jealous of some one who lives in the Projects?? I actually go to WORK everyday and i have been working 14 days straight to buy my family stuff I Have no Need to be a drain on the Tax Payer or Economy as some people are.

How else do you explain the quote about some of them having a nicer car than you do? I could assume you mean that some people are abusing the system but your support on a ban for EVERY person living in Public Housing is a bit over the top given the misbehavior of a few. Truthfully, I was being snarky and the jealousy comment was probably over the top. It was the audcity of the argument that because there are some VERY nice cars parked near Public housing ALL residents must be wasting the public subsidy and completely undeserving of firearms.

Go over to the P.J'S walk around or actually talk to a cop instead of bashing one on a bulletin board and you will hear about the drug dealers that live there and the fine upstanding members of society you feel should have guns called Gang Members.

I think we've covered the "go play with fire" angle. As to the police, I respect the very tough job they do. I respect and am wary of the powers we've given them to do the job that our current society makes necessary. The stronger the Watch Dog, the stronger the leash. Or were you inferring you are a Police Officer and I'm bashing you personally? I'm fairly certain I'm bashing your posted opinions since that's all I have to go on.

My major issue with your BLANKET statements is just that... the all encompassing blanket nature of them. Clearly not EVERY person in Public Housing is a drug dealing gang banger. You see, I assume that the people Laws and rules affect are the law abiding citizens. I do NOT assume that EVERYONE living in the ghetto is a gang banger or social drain. I make my argument from the everyman position in that EVERY American should be protected by our laws.

Think about this: The non-drug dealing, non-violent, non-gang banging, poor families living in Public Housing. They must exist, right? These are the people for whom even a simple robbery involving a couple dollars and maybe some missed work equates to a large percentage of their income. THESE are the people I think are being painted as targets by this rule. It's a philosophical thing. Allow the innocent their right to self defense, allow them an effective equalizer, and go after the CRIMINAL Gang Banger Drug Dealers for the existing laws they're already breaking.

TAKE the Gang Bangers' guns. TAKE the Drug Dealers' guns. We have existing laws for that. This rule is just another encroachment on gun rights being enacted by picking an unpopular group to restrict.

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

All you seem to do is sit in your Ivory Tower on your Buddy's lap and pick fights.

Personal attacks, eh? when in doubt, start flinging poo. All I seem to do is try to point out the principle involved here and the hipocrisy involved in denying the innocent non-criminal inhabitants an ability you apparently take advantage of. That is, the right to bear arms.

This board is one that Protects everyones 1st amendment, by giving the freedom of speech and not READING P.M'S And that would Be P.M for private messge. I would suggest you may be happier back at the other place where you can pick on people and try and start problems. And there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Maybe you'd be happier somewhere people did not refute your ill-articulated positions.

You seem to have a misconception and a bit of blame shifting going on there.
1) the 1st Amendment is a Right guaranteed to the people protecting them from the government. It does not apply directly in a private forum. It restricts the government, not the people. Subsequently, laws have been passed which affect private individuals limiting the speech of other private individuals in the public space. It does NOT, however, require anyone to provide a venue for someone else's couch pissing contest. You can say what you want, fine by me. I don't have to let you do it in my living room nor does the host of any forum, here or elsewhere.

2) I did not have the ability nor do I have the knowledge to read "Private" messages. I would suggest that it's ultimate folly to use someone else's system where EVERYthing, by its nature, is stored in a database, and expect that it's not available to the owner of the keys. ESPECIALLY when you're pissing on his couch publicly as it were. I don't personally agree with making it public that PM's are readable or the reading of them. I think in an effort to appear more even handed Joel let several accounts remain active too long for his stated goal. I think he let it get personal and then got personal. In the interim he ended up looking like he was playing the martyr card and things just got uncivil.

There's a difference between being correct and being Right. I don't think the manner in which this was handled by ANYONE directly involved (self included) was Right. Joel was correct in that it was his prerogative to do so but Taking TCC down reeked of taking the ball and going home. That, combined with the PM's, alienated far more people than it was intended to. And that is sad. I appreciate the new forum and the level of support Rucker has provided. I appreciate the personalities here (even the Brits ). I sometimes disagree with the opinions people espouse but still maintain that we have an incredible group of people here.

I think you have painted me as Joel's Toady unfairly. I disagree with how Joel, Pinnacle, Pat, Whomever made the Kapo comment, Brit, and etc handled the recent issue. Hell, I'm not particularly proud of how I handled it, given the outcome. This much spite and vitriol over asking for accountability on the part of a police officer? The Fractioning of our community and its activism potential for THIS. That is a shame.

I disagree with you quite aside from the TCC stuff. The place I take umbrage with you is on civil liberties. In reading what you have posted, I see a advocation of the surveillance society that I am uncomfortable with. I see that questioning the motivations , powers, and actions of those we place in positions of responsibility is not allowed. The implications of this is simply shocking in a Civil Liberties sense. I WILL NOT live in a new England. I DO NOT want that here. And by allowing this little intrusion and that, this little nanny statism and that, we are slowly circling the same drain England has descended into. All hope is not lost, but it sure stinks.

In this specific post, I am bothered by your labeling of EVERY person living in Public housing as a public drain, gang banger Drug Dealer. You're certainly correct that all is not right with the world and some people who happen to live in PH are the scum of the earth. My position is that the gun ban has NO effect on the criminals and an INCREDIBLE weight on the law abiding.

Your argument is effectively the same as the Fudds vs RKBA. you're setting it up as the haves vs the have nots and denying them the ability to protect themselves and their families because they live in Public Housing.

By the same argument, anyone ever convicted of DWI should OBVIOUSLY never be allowed to drive again because drunk drivers kill people every day. They should definitely never be given carry permits. You know, blame every individual in the group for the actions of the few bad apples.

I don't think that's right. I disagree. I'd certainly be happier if we could put aside the high horses, ivory towers, rectal-cranial inversions, barbed sticks, and flung poo and get down to the really interesting business of serious reasoned disagreement.

[Aceq2jot]

I really would like to see the horse you ride, cause partner you really need to get off it and walk around the Ghetto instead of swanking around Minnetonka.

Since we're to high horses and sticks in the posterior, may I note that by all apearances yours seems to be particularly barbed and splintery. Were I a Kinder man, I'd offer you a light so you could see them up close since you're obviously suffering from Rectal-Cranial inversion.

Now that we've flung the poo, on to the real meat of the discussion.

Round about my parts, we call walking around the Ghetto looking for trouble. If I know the place I'm going is likely to have problems, I'm going to avoid it if possible. Thanks for the advice. Oh, and Minnetonka is a bit rich for my blood

All you seem to want to do is go around and try and pick arguements with people. Like the personal attack you are launching on me.

Pick fights? Neither intend offense nor be easily offended. I have launched no personal attack on you. I have stated, clearly and unequivocally that I disagree with your position. I have even stated why. It often occurs that when your opponent feels his arguments are weak or yours hit too close to home he will cry ad hominem attack.

Did you read the original article AND the linked blog post before gracing us with your opinion? By enacting this rule, the city has placed a large neon sign over every public housing unit. This sign advertises that the victims that live here are unarmed. It violates the second amendment much like DC's firearm ban did and the Cook County, IL policies do.

Why should i be jealous of some one who lives in the Projects?? I actually go to WORK everyday and i have been working 14 days straight to buy my family stuff I Have no Need to be a drain on the Tax Payer or Economy as some people are.

How else do you explain the quote about some of them having a nicer car than you do? I could assume you mean that some people are abusing the system but your support on a ban for EVERY person living in Public Housing is a bit over the top given the misbehavior of a few. Truthfully, I was being snarky and the jealousy comment was probably over the top. It was the audcity of the argument that because there are some VERY nice cars parked near Public housing ALL residents must be wasting the public subsidy and completely undeserving of firearms.

Go over to the P.J'S walk around or actually talk to a cop instead of bashing one on a bulletin board and you will hear about the drug dealers that live there and the fine upstanding members of society you feel should have guns called Gang Members.

I think we've covered the "go play with fire" angle. As to the police, I respect the very tough job they do. I respect and am wary of the powers we've given them to do the job that our current society makes necessary. The stronger the Watch Dog, the stronger the leash. Or were you inferring you are a Police Officer and I'm bashing you personally? I'm fairly certain I'm bashing your posted opinions since that's all I have to go on.

My major issue with your BLANKET statements is just that... the all encompassing blanket nature of them. Clearly not EVERY person in Public Housing is a drug dealing gang banger. You see, I assume that the people Laws and rules affect are the law abiding citizens. I do NOT assume that EVERYONE living in the ghetto is a gang banger or social drain. I make my argument from the everyman position in that EVERY American should be protected by our laws.

Think about this: The non-drug dealing, non-violent, non-gang banging, poor families living in Public Housing. They must exist, right? These are the people for whom even a simple robbery involving a couple dollars and maybe some missed work equates to a large percentage of their income. THESE are the people I think are being painted as targets by this rule. It's a philosophical thing. Allow the innocent their right to self defense, allow them an effective equalizer, and go after the CRIMINAL Gang Banger Drug Dealers for the existing laws they're already breaking.

TAKE the Gang Bangers' guns. TAKE the Drug Dealers' guns. We have existing laws for that. This rule is just another encroachment on gun rights being enacted by picking an unpopular group to restrict.

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left
to speak up for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

All you seem to do is sit in your Ivory Tower on your Buddy's lap and pick fights.

Personal attacks, eh? when in doubt, start flinging poo. All I seem to do is try to point out the principle involved here and the hipocrisy involved in denying the innocent non-criminal inhabitants an ability you apparently take advantage of. That is, the right to bear arms.

This board is one that Protects everyones 1st amendment, by giving the freedom of speech and not READING P.M'S And that would Be P.M for private messge. I would suggest you may be happier back at the other place where you can pick on people and try and start problems. And there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Maybe you'd be happier somewhere people did not refute your ill-articulated positions.

You seem to have a misconception and a bit of blame shifting going on there.
1) the 1st Amendment is a Right guaranteed to the people protecting them from the government. It does not apply directly in a private forum. It restricts the government, not the people. Subsequently, laws have been passed which affect private individuals limiting the speech of other private individuals in the public space. It does NOT, however, require anyone to provide a venue for someone else's couch pissing contest. You can say what you want, fine by me. I don't have to let you do it in my living room nor does the host of any forum, here or elsewhere.

2) I did not have the ability nor do I have the knowledge to read "Private" messages. I would suggest that it's ultimate folly to use someone else's system where EVERYthing, by its nature, is stored in a database, and expect that it's not available to the owner of the keys. ESPECIALLY when you're pissing on his couch publicly as it were. I don't personally agree with making it public that PM's are readable or the reading of them. I think in an effort to appear more even handed Joel let several accounts remain active too long for his stated goal. I think he let it get personal and then got personal. In the interim he ended up looking like he was playing the martyr card and things just got uncivil.

There's a difference between being correct and being Right. I don't think the manner in which this was handled by ANYONE directly involved (self included) was Right. Joel was correct in that it was his prerogative to do so but Taking TCC down reeked of taking the ball and going home. That, combined with the PM's, alienated far more people than it was intended to. And that is sad. I appreciate the new forum and the level of support Rucker has provided. I appreciate the personalities here (even the Brits ). I sometimes disagree with the opinions people espouse but still maintain that we have an incredible group of people here.

I think you have painted me as Joel's Toady unfairly. I disagree with how Joel, Pinnacle, Pat, Whomever made the Kapo comment, Brit, and etc handled the recent issue. Hell, I'm not particularly proud of how I handled it, given the outcome. This much spite and vitriol over asking for accountability on the part of a police officer? The Fractioning of our community and its activism potential for THIS. That is a shame.

I disagree with you quite aside from the TCC stuff. The place I take umbrage with you is on civil liberties. In reading what you have posted, I see a advocation of the surveillance society that I am uncomfortable with. I see that questioning the motivations , powers, and actions of those we place in positions of responsibility is not allowed. The implications of this is simply shocking in a Civil Liberties sense. I WILL NOT live in a new England. I DO NOT want that here. And by allowing this little intrusion and that, this little nanny statism and that, we are slowly circling the same drain England has descended into. All hope is not lost, but it sure stinks.

In this specific post, I am bothered by your labeling of EVERY person living in Public housing as a public drain, gang banger Drug Dealer. You're certainly correct that all is not right with the world and some people who happen to live in PH are the scum of the earth. My position is that the gun ban has NO effect on the criminals and an INCREDIBLE weight on the law abiding.

Your argument is effectively the same as the Fudds vs RKBA. you're setting it up as the haves vs the have nots and denying them the ability to protect themselves and their families because they live in Public Housing.

By the same argument, anyone ever convicted of DWI should OBVIOUSLY never be allowed to drive again because drunk drivers kill people every day. They should definitely never be given carry permits. You know, blame every individual in the group for the actions of the few bad apples.

I don't think that's right. I disagree. I'd certainly be happier if we could put aside the high horses, ivory towers, rectal-cranial inversions, barbed sticks, and flung poo and get down to the really interesting business of serious reasoned disagreement.

Wow it took you a long time to compose that cause my post was last edited at 12.45 Where i thought i would be civil and it took you 2 hours two post yours

[plblark]

It certainly took me a while to think through and reply to your inflamatory post. Of course, Heartbreak Ridge was in the DVD and I was also trying to get my head around ballistics. I commend your use of the edit feature. I find that editing before posting is so much more up front. OF course, the other way does tend to show what you REALLY think.

Worry not, I'm very happy here. You can say as you will and I won't (can't, but wouldn't anyway) read your PM's. As to Personal attacks, Me thinks thou dost protest too much. While I am troubled by your statements here and elsewhere on occasion I am reliably informed that you're enjoyable company. And you were very gracious in offering holster loan at one time which I certainly appreciate.

A couple trifling issues though...

I Have read the law and have yet to see where it says that a landlord cannot Write into the lease that guns are banned?

No where in the law does it state a landlord cannot bans Guns as part of the lease It is all about what is written into the lease. You by agreeing to sign the lease are waiving your rights, so there is no law broken as you waive your rights. Its all in the way you read the law i guess;)

Well, here we find ourselves...

By Minnesota law, every written or oral lease must include a promise by the tenant and the landlord not to allow certain illegal activities on the property. These include allowing prostitution or prostitution-related activity, the unlawful use or possession of a firearm, or the manufacture, purchase, possession, sale, distribution or presence of illegal drugs or stolen property anywhere on the premises, including the common areas. This law cannot be waived or modified by either the landlord or the tenant. It’s the law.

Note the key phrase : Unlawful
and

DO NOT SIGN A LEASE THAT CONTAINS ILLEGAL PROVISIONS.
The landlord may not be able to enforce illegal lease provisions. Therefore, if you have signed a lease containing an illegal provision you do not have to obey that illegal provision.

both from TENANTS' RIGHTS IN MINNESOTA, 11th edition which can be found at: http://www.lawhelp.org/documents/272871 ... on2005.pdf

There is perhaps some gray area in there though:

immediate entry is necessary to prevent injury to people or property because of
maintenance, security or law enforcement conditions
! immediate entry is necessary to determine a tenant’s safety or
! immediate entry is necessary in order to comply with local ordinances about
unlawful activity occurring within the premises.

except for that pesky disclaimer that the firearm use or posession must be unlawful and:

624.714 Subd. 17. (e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

Which SHOULD be familiar either from your carry class, reference at TCC or here, or from the Book. There's really some good stuff in there and it can be a bit nuanced.

i am sorry that i am not Anal Retentive and cant remember the class i took word for word, but i have better things to do than remember crap that does not pertain to me as i own a house.

Apology certainly accepted. It's understandable. Personally, I have in the past rented housing and recently thought of being a landlord. I also take my permit, the RKBA issue, and the laws involved pretty seriously so I pay attention and check my facts before making claims or decisions. I decided not to pick and choose which parts to pay attention to and remember because that critical piece of information may just be a deciding factor in my carry habits or, heaven forbid, a SD / court incident.

I must ask if you have actually walked around the P.J's or Knew people who lived there?? Or even spent a few days at a friends house who lived in the Ghetto. I am just curious if you have first hand Knowledge, cause i Do and i can tell ya them places are not pretty. I have lived over on Morgan and Lowry in the heart of north Minneapolis and let me tell ya it no place for a Cracker.

I think we've covered that I do not currently live in Public housing and don't seek out the experience. No use looking for trouble or going where trouble can be found if you can avoid it. If they're so scary, imagine having few other options, a family to protect, and then being subjected to this ruling.

You realize that the original intent of Cracker was to be as inflamatory to White people as Nigger is to Blacks, right? I assume the ghetto isn't a really safe place for ANYONE of any nationality, not even a soft suburban educated pale fella.

I hope that solves they legality issue. The more interesting aspect is the philosophical / moral / ethical / practical view.

[plblark]

On a side note, I meant it when I said:

I don't think that's right. I disagree. I'd certainly be happier if we could put aside the high horses, ivory towers, rectal-cranial inversions, barbed sticks, and flung poo and get down to the really interesting business of serious reasoned disagreement.

I can be a pompous ass sometimes but I assure it's unintentional and I try to avoid it when possible.

Aside: it's acceptable to reply as the next post without directly quoting that above you. Well, Unless you thought I was going to edit my post after your response. I try to avoid doing that or if necessary specifically note what was edited and why.

In all seriousness his all probably boils down to:
Violent Criminals, Drug Dealers, and Gang Bangers shouldn't have guns but we have existing laws to handle that.
Cheating welfare or public subsidy is indirectly cheating every tax payer and inherently wrong.
Abusing subsidy should not by itself, unless covered by existing law, be reason to prohibit lawful firearm possession
There are a good number of innocent law abiding poor people served by Subsidized housing who will be affected by the rule.
Criminals will ignore it anyway.

I would suspect we can agree or come close to it on those points.

[Srigs]

Don't you ever go to bed Plblark? Or did the wife findout about the latest purchase.

The wife finally figured out that I have a new gun... She just

Back on topic...

They should carry at this housing complex more than anywhere else in Omaha. Alive and looking for a new place to live is much better than the alternative.

[Ramoel]

I'm with Srigs, you kids should get some sleep, you'll feel better after you're well rested.

[DeanC]

if you have signed a lease containing an illegal provision you do not have to obey that illegal provision.

This is correct. Landlords try to do everything they can to maintain their upper hand. I was once party to a lease where we had the tenants sign off that they waived statutory eviction proceedings so we could kick them out without having to to go through all of the B.S. if they decided not to pay their rent for 3 months.

Most of the punks didn't know better and would just go away. (It wasn't legal, but they were all college boys who would just would move back home with mommy and daddy. It wasn't like we were throwing widows and orphans in the gutter.)

[plblark]

It wasn't like we were throwing widows and orphans in the gutter.

You saved that for the dog days of August when you got bored, right?

[DeanC]

A guy's gotta build up his self-esteem somehow, right?

[plblark]

Either that was the most self effacing reply ever or I've just been zinged. I don't know which impresses me more

[mostly-]

Either that was the most self effacing reply ever or I've just been zinged. I don't know which impresses me more

I believe it's been said before... You have more buttons then a remote control!



Mostly-

[BRIT_in_the_weeds]

[plblark]

Like a remote after my kids get a hold of it, the same buttons don't always elicit the same response. Which can be either interesting or frustrating depending upon vantage point.


Back OT:

So, opinions on the original post?

[hammAR]

Yea, I've got one.......

[plblark]

Thanks for sharing