Armed man says he won't stop intimidating council members until they re-write laws.

[Robb]

After being discouraged from open-carrying a gun into Stocking Elementary School on Tuesday, Sept. 24, Tom Lambert, of Kentwood, explains what it will take for him to stop showing up at Grand Rapids City Commission meetings.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI – Of the handful of public who attended City Commission’s quarterly Night Out meeting Tuesday, Sept. 24, at Stocking Elementary School, the one open-carrying a gun on his hip sat right in the front row. And Mayor George Heartwell was none too pleased about it.

After hearing a welcome from the school’s principal, Heartwell made a point to let her know that there was an armed civilian in the room. And his voice became agitated as he told her how state law that lets people like Tom Lambert bring a gun into a school leaves him flabbergasted.

“I can’t throw him out,” Heartwell said. “(It) is just beyond my conception, but unless he’ll leave voluntarily, I can’t put him out of your school.”

(snip)

“If you really don’t want me here, and really I don’t want to be here, the answer is quite simple. When you say there’s nothing you can do about it, that’s not true. Amend your (gun) ordinance you don’t use and I won’t be here anymore.”

Read More: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/09/i_cant_throw_him_out_grand_rap.html

What a genius.

[onehandle]

1. Anti-social agression and gun enthusiasm go hand in hand. nt

[gopiscrap]

31. absolutely

[roguevalley]

32. fuck this guy what a fool

[Bay Boy]

2. The guy is a piece of work, but...

...he is right, the ordinance is unenforceable. Why not vote to get rid of it and see if he keeps his word?

[denverbill]

6. Because that is essentially giving in to a terrorist.

If this guy gets his way because he shows up with a gun, how about the next guy that shows up with a gun, and the next, each demanding the council do whatever they demand.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. The guy is not a terrorist. He's trying to make people think.

[Robb]

10. The FBI disagrees.

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

He even admits to knowing the council members and mayor are being threatened -- by him.

[Robb]

12. I don't think it matters *what* he's trying to accomplish.

He's doing it by threatening members of the government. That sit well?

[LuvNewcastle]

14. See post 13

Sorry about that.

[Robb]

30. No worries!

As you can see, some people are quite serious about thinking this is reasonable behavior. It is sadly less astounding to me every day.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. I'm sorry, I misread the article. I thought things were the other way around.

[Dragonfli]

18. Please disregard my my reply, I posted before reading beyond the post I answered.

I apologize, I jumped a bit to quick, largely because as absurd as it sounds, I have heard quite often the argument that brandishing weapons was a means of thoughtful and peaceful representation of a point of view.

You thought it was reversed and so are not attempting such nonsense, I won't self delete it, but only because the statement I made is valid, and this mea culpa post should let everyone know that after reviewing your posts it is not in any way aimed at you.

[Dragonfli]

16. When you try to make people think by terrorizing them with weapons around children

You are a terrorist.

The "message" of someone that shows up to a discussion with a deadly weapon is quite clear I'm afraid. Next will he strap a bomb across his chest and expect us all to assume explosives that can kill are merely "props of thought" and he would never explode them?

Why do these terrorists always target schools and children before targeting politicians with the intimidation of lethal force in the form of weapons carried in an attempt to force compliance? Why do they need the threat of lethal weapons to "make their case" if they are so thoughtful and thought inspiring?

If I show up to a job interview with a glock and refuse to leave until I get a job, I think that if I do get that job it would be because the interviewer is naturally afraid of the unbalanced applicant showing up with a lethal weapon and what such an unbalanced person may do if denied his demands.

It is terrorism, Firearms are not thought props, they are deadly weapons designed to kill.
It is really quite obvious and should not have to be explained to anyone over the age of 5.

[LuvNewcastle]

17. Yes, what he's doing is terrorism.

I thought the law was just the opposite and he was bringing his gun to get them to ban guns. I had it all twisted around. I guess I need to eat something. I can't live on coffee and nicotine.

[Dragonfli]

19. I apologize, I just posted above that I replied before reading further, I should have taken

the time to review more of the conversation. We all misread things from time to time, your very human mistake is already forgotten and understood.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. It's all good. What that guy is doing is so dumb, I guess I can see why

I misunderstood the whole thing. Thanks for understanding.

[Bay Boy]

26. If it really was terrorism...

...don't you think he would be arrested by now?

[Drale]

3. Station police at every meetings and

if he makes even the slightest move, tackle him to the ground on the grounds that the officer thought he was going for his gun.

[GeorgeGist]

7. Reading is fundamental.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. That's good one.

Does their law have age restrictions? I mean, can one of the kids carry a gun to school? A lot of kids are 18 during their senior year, so they aren't children. I guess its okay for them to bring guns to school.

[bowens43]

5. Another example of why we need to ban the sle of ALL firearms and ammunition to civilians.

this miserable asshole should be in jail

[GeorgeGist]

8. Reading is fundamental.

[Dragonfli]

20. Yes and fundamentalists with weapons are dangerous. Even if the religion is blued steal worship. nt

[LanternWaste]

28. And snarkiness is optional...

And snarkiness is optional...

But I'm rather certain it will be rationalized if addressed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

15. Thanks!

Another post to link to when someone tries pulling that "no one wants to take your guns" shtick. Much appreciated...

[Downwinder]

21. Doonesbury was not far off with the hall monitor desk.

[Robb]

23. Funky Winkerbean, IIRC. nt

[Downwinder]

25. I stand corrected.

[aikoaiko]

24. I don't see any evidence of intimidation.

Where did you imagine it?

[Bay Boy]

27. Michigan has a state-wide premption law...

...which means local governments can't pass laws restricting guns any more tightly than the state can.
He is trying to get the city to repeal their unenforceable law.

[LanternWaste]

29. I imagine there a a few sub-literates who will rationalize this as something other than intimidation

I imagine there a a few sub-literates who will rationalize this as something other than intimidation, but then again, who allows the sub-literate any real consideration in the first place...?