Monday, February 8, 2010
Around Town / Woods Radnor Lake Rambo Strikes Again! He's the Belle Meade Macho Man Now
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:43 AM
You truly are a moron and nothing but a troll. I'm an NRA member and you're the type that give us a bad name. What the frack did you expect carrying a handgun IN YOUR HAND down a public road was going to do??? I have no problem w/ people carrying guns but they need to use a thing called common sense.Here at Pith, we're cheering on Embody. He's right. The law does allow him to do what he's doing, His critics are right too. His stupid pranks are ticking off people. Maybe if he keeps this up, they will start demanding that the legislature repeal the handgun carry law.
Comments (29)
Showing 1-29 of 29
'Assault pistols' are illegal - as are all full automatic weapons. If he was carrying one, he'd have been arrested.
I'm guessing the gun wasn't an 'assault pistol' but instead just a pistol mislabeled by a biased member of the media.
Get your facts straight Woods.
*Update* checked the link to the old story. The weapon shown isn't a pistol at all. It appears to be an AK-47 carbine.
like
dislike
I find it funny that he chose to exercise his "right" in on the streets of Belle Meade instead of on a stroll down South Seventh Street.
Lots of runners/walkers and cyclist use the Blvd ,the guy is a nutcase.There is a rubber room for him at Vandy Hospital. That could scare somebody into Cardiac arrest then he could get sued! Arrested for it also if the person die from it.
What is noteworthy about this is the Belle Meade Police giving this guy a statement on the law of guns in Tennessee. Of course the guy is a nut. Why give a nut legal advice?
If I may respectfully disagree with TobintheGnome, it appears to me from the photograph in the December 23 issue of the City Paper that Mr. Embody was, indeed, carrying an "assault pistol" at Radnor Lake.
The weapon in question has no stock, has a pistol grip, and has a barrel which appears to be shorter than 16-inches in length. Legally, therefore, it is probably properly classed as a pistol - lucky for Mr. Embody, since the possession of a short-barreled rifle without a permit is good for a long vacation behind bars.
At the same time, the design appears to be based on one of the civilian semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 Avtomat Kalashnikov, and it appears to fire the same 7.62x39 mm cartridge as the original AK.
Given these circumstances, the characterization "assault pistol" is not unfair, and is certainly not factually inaccurate.
As I read Mr. Woods' post, nowhere does he imply that Mr. Embody was in violation of the law. But a man whose conduct is in perfect harmony with the law may still be a stranger to plain common sense.
Scaring the crap out of families in the park or joggers along Belle Meade Boulevard doesn't show good judgment, even if the man in question has a constitutional right to act like an asshole.
Unfortunately, there's no way to test applicants for a carry permit for good sense. I wish there was.
1: Mark, an "Assualt Rifle" is by definition a fully automatic rifle, reguardless of what you have been told by liberals a semi auto is never an Assualt Rifle.
2: The problem here is you have a man who has a great following of fans from other states. In PA, CA and apparently WA there are lots of issues with OC, you don't need a permit and there are groups advocating for it. They see Embody as a hero. Most TN gun owners see him as an idiot. I support Open Carry, I support Concealed Carry, but it must be done responsibly, Embody doesn't do it responsibly. Don't let him stand in as the typical TN Gun Owner.
PS: Thanks for the liberally biased spin, it reminds me of Home in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, I am so glad I moved here.
What kind of a coward openly carries a gun in Belle Meade?
Is Embody scared that Al Gore is going to make him put solar panels on his double-wide?
"1: Mark, an "Assualt Rifle" is by definition a fully automatic rifle, reguardless of what you have been told by liberals a semi auto is never an Assualt Rifle."
Indeed so.
Any weapon that does not have full auto fire capability is not an "assault" anything.
Also it is not true as soemeone else claimed above that it is illegal to own fully automatic weapons.
One can own them if they are willing to submit to an FBI background check and pay a federal license fee to purchase one.
You guns nuts need to brush up on your guns. What the guy carried at Radnor Lake was an AK47 assault pistol. You can buy one at this site for $389:
http://www.gunsamerica.com/989839638/Guns/Rifles/AK-47-Rifles/Full-Stock/AK47_Assault_Pistol_For_Sale_389_00.htm
Yes, it is true. GM is right. Assault weapons are fully automatic and I expect J Woods knows this. It brings to mind "tax reform" which, at the end of the day, means you will pay more taxes.
Anyway, here 's a link if you want to go to a nearby machine gun shoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob_Creek_Gun_Range
If wandering through the projects I would suggest full automatic. Unless you have a pit bull you can unleash while you run like hell in the other direction.
Leonard Embody, known online as kwikrnu, often looks for trouble. It is evident in his multiple online postings and the number of forums that have banned him.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear one day that he was involved in a shooting.
I really question this man's sanity.
What are you talking about? Leonard's just one of our 270,000 law-abiding citizen gunmen. He's one of the people we count on for protection in Tennessee.
"You guns nuts need to brush up on your guns. What the guy carried at Radnor Lake was an AK47 assault pistol. You can buy one at this site for $389:"
No YOU need to brush up on your terminology.
Any weapon that cannot fire in a full automatic mode is not an "assault" anything - no matter what you or anyone else calls it.
In fact, there is no such thing as an "assault pistol" anyway - even if it could fire full auto.
The ONLY weapons that are "assault" are the military rifles like the M-16 that are offically designated as assault rifles.
Full auto Uzis or Thompsons are submachine guns - not assault rifles.
Actually, Gilbert and milkman, if you want to continue to be hyper-picky, the term "assault rifle" applies to only one very specific full-automatic German military weapon invented in 1943 -- the MP44, renamed the STG44 (or "Sturmgewehr" - "assault rifle") by Adolph Hitler himself. It was the first application of an intermediate cartridge to a full-auto rifle issued widely to troops, primarily the Waffen SS.
Since 1944, as you are both very well aware, the term "assault rifle" has become a generic one, applied both in common usage and in statute to both full-auto military rifles, and semi-auto civilian copies. Legally, for example, under both federal law and state law and ATF regulations, my own original Colt AR-15 and 9mm Bushmaster Carbon 15 (each semi-automatic, and equipped with a pistol grip, 20-30 round detachable magazines, and a bayonet lug)are classed as assault rifles. I have never carried either of them in a public park or down Belle Meade Blvd.
Responsible gun owners are not going to win this debate with people like Mr. Embody as the poster boy for our side of the argument. Neither will we win by engaging in pointless squabbles about the definition of commonly-understood words.
There are valid points to be made in distinguishing between full-auto and semi-automatic firearms. Arguing over the meaning of the words "assault rifle" doesn't help to make those points.
I don't expect to ever win over Mr. Woods on this subject, but criticizing his original post as factually inaccurate is just silly.
Hitler invented the term "assault rifle" when he assigned that name to the weapon you referenced in your post.
But that is not the only weapon that term applies to. Those weapons were designed to be a compromise between (and a replacement for ) rifles and submachine guns, having some features of both.
Semi-auto weapons don't fit the bill. The so-called federal "assault weapons" legislation that was enacted under Clinton and lapsed under the Bush administration didn't apply to a single real assault rifle.
Mark, the term assualt rifle is only applied by people like the Brady Campaign to Civilian Weapons. Sorry but I don't listen to anything that bunch of liberal wingnuts has to say. Neither should you. You are correct that the Term was coined by Hitler. It has hover been used to descibe all military rifles that are select fire or fully automatic that fire a rifle round smaller then 7.62, i.e. M16/M4, AK 74/101, ect.
I think everyon can agree Embody is an idiot, and not representative of the typical Tennessee gun owner.
Babbling nutjob gun nuts in a retarded syntax war. Grow the F up, take your hands out of your pants and get a life.
I stand corrected to this extent: Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB), dealt with "assault weapons," not "assault rifles." "Assault weapon" was a term of art defined by the statute which created it. The bill outlawed the sale, but not the possession, of newly-manufactured assault weapons (including semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols with specified features) to civilians.
The bill contained a sunset provision when it was enacted on September 13, 1994. It expired on September 13, 2004, after Congress declined to renew it despite a 10-year extension proposed by Sen. Feinstein.
The AK-clone pistol Mr. Embody carried at Radnor Lake would have been classified as an assault weapon under the FAWB, had it still been in effect. The 1851 Colt Navy pistol he carried down Belle Meade Blvd. would not have been covered.
Although it is impossible for me to describe Jim and Sarah Brady as "liberal wingnuts," I cannot disagree with milkman's assessment of Mr. Embody.
Mark, thanks.
I understand your comment about the Brady's, I don't support them, and do not like their tactics.
I knew the "Assualt Weapons Ban" was sunsetted and so I just completely ignor it. Had I realized you were going by that I would have mentioned it before.
While I may disagree with milkman and Gilbert Martin, we seem to share a conviction that words MEAN something, and that the choice of words is important when one is discussing important issues. I think Mr. Woods would also agree with that.
One man's "end of life counseling" is another man's "death panels." One man's "estate tax" is another man's "death tax." One man's "choice" is another man's "abortion on demand." I think milkman and Gilbert are mistaken in this case, but there is certainly some justification for them to bristle when the term "assault rifle" is used as a pejorative to describe something they think they have a right to own.
I concede that such detailed discussions of "syntax" are less interesting to some than to others. But, Taterman, was our discussion really so obnoxious as to justify your remarks?
Well Mark, my position is that the term "assault" as applied to anything other than the specific weapons originally designed for the military to be a replacement for and/or alternative to both rifles and submachine guns (the original purpose for their creation) is purely a political propaganda tactic.
And I do not acknowledge the legitimacy of of it be it perpertrated by gun control groups or perpetrated by politicians who write it into legislation.
But Gil, Mark is the one who comes across as the reasonable one of you two in this little scrap. YOU come across as a pedantic wing nut. I'm just sayin'.
The bottom line is, Mark's reading of the statute notwithstanding: nobody other than Gil appointed Gil the arbiter of the English language. (You may go out and publish's Martin New World Order Dictionary if you prefer; you might even get some buyers, ie. the people who believe Leonard is a hero.) And since you're not the arbiter of the language, we can use "assault" as a generic term. Personally, I'd base it more on the intent of the nutcase wielding the gun than whether said gun can fire more than one bullet with a single squeeze of the trigger.
After all, the victim is just as dead.
"But Gil, Mark is the one who comes across as the reasonable one of you two in this little scrap. YOU come across as a pedantic wing nut. I'm just sayin'."
Says you.
Which means nothing.
Gilbert Martin: You've made your point very clearly and without resorting to name-calling. I don't have any problem with a person who does that, even if I disagree with them.
Dale Barbara: Thank you for describing me as "reasonable." Would you please e-mail my wife, my ex-wife, and all my ex-bosses and tell them you said so?
It is illegal to carry any handgun desired in the City of Belle Meade. The Belle Meade City ordinance only allows for the carry of the army or navy pistol and it must be carried openly in the hand. It may not be carried in a holster or pocket and one may not carry a semi-automatic Glock or Smith and Wesson revolver. Embody carried only what was legal in the only legal way he could.
I teach a handgun carry class. I preach concealment in everyone of them. I adamantly support the RIGHT to CARRY a FIREARM; however, discretion by the carrier is just as important as making the correct choice about what gun to carry. This guy is only making it harder for the rest of us to enojoy our fleeting freedoms and to be able to protect ourselves and families. I like automatic weapons too. They are a blast and they have their place. I believe in killing ants with a sledge hammer too, but keep your hammer out of sight and out of mind until the situation calls for it. Then be well versed in how to use it.
Belle Meade has an ordinance that requires anyone to openly carry, in their hand, the Army or Navy pistol if they wish to be armed. The two pistols are the only ones allowed by law.
11-602. Weapons and firearms generally. It shall be unlawful for any
person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver, or any other dangerous weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand. However, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to members of the United States Armed Forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations nor to any officer or policeman engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process, or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committed crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or policeman to assist in the discharge of his said duties. (Ord. 71-6, § 2.12. 1987 Code, § 10-212)
Embody filed suit over the Park incident. I can't wait to see how that one turns out for him.
Leonard Embody posted on this page under his usual "kwikrnu" online username and referred to himself in the 3rd person as "Embody". I wonder why he used that deception.
I dare him to walk down the streets of trailer parks and housing projects brandishing his weapons like he did at Radnor Lake and in Bellemeade.
Or is he afraid when others might have guns too? It is sad when all someone's courage is in a firearm.
