General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMan who carried AR-15 on his back inside mall says charges not warranted
BEAUMONT -
A Beaumont store owner charged with disorderly conduct insists he never broke the law and was just exercising his second amendment rights.
On Dec. 28, Derek Poe stopped by GameStop in Parkdale Mall before going to the store he owns in the mall, Golden Triangle Tactical. While at GameStop, he was stopped by police officers and the AR-15 that was slung around his back was seized.
Poe says he was just exercising his right to open carry a long rifle
http://www.12newsnow.com/story/24352754/man-carrying-gun-on-his-back-in-mall-is-charged-with-a-crime
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But this just makes gun owners look bad and I am glad a majority of us agree that you are an idiot to do this showboating. Just because you can do does not make it right to do. These are the idiots that are just seeking attention.
firsttimer
(324 posts)
riversedge
(80,066 posts)....An Open Carry Freedom Walk is scheduled for Jan. 18 in the Gander Mountain parking lot. The event was planned before Poe was stopped in the mall with his firearm.
The walk will be from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
trueblue2007
(19,156 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)No, he was making up for a short dick. If the police told him to drop his drawers, there would have been the proof.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but where the fuck do you get bigot from?
sP
Packerowner740
(676 posts)I agree though that the gun carrier is a moron.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Packerowner740
(676 posts)Autocorrect changed it to pistol. Oh well.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)in a public place that wasn't a bigot/racist.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)i didn't see anything bigoted... and his FB page is pretty much about his store... unless I am looking at the wrong page.
as far as your labeling him a bigot/racist, unless you're seeing something i don't, you have nothing more than an assumption.
sP
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are into that stuff and think it's just fine, so maybe it's acceptable as is naming one's store as if we live in a war zone.
jmowreader
(53,006 posts)"For those of you that cling to your God and Guns swing by our store check out by some tactical gear and sign the petitions we have going for the Texas Nationalist movement to reassert Texas status and Chip Darby the host of the Final Chapters petition to get his name placed on the ballot for Governor of Texas. Its time to stand up for Texas and stand against D.C.!"
Besides, if I want tactical gear this is where I go...
http://www.uscav.com/Home.aspx
Shop where the pros shop, not where teabagger wannabes shop.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)how do you know? Do you ask them?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)I haven't defended anyone. These people are douchebags. That doesn't automatically make them racists and bigots. When you throw those accusations around like confetti, you diminish the meaning of the words.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)should tip you off, as should lack of diversity. Are you guys really that dense? The majority of folks arming up nowadays believe minorities ate gonna take away their rights, not unlike South Africa a few decades ago.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)words have meaning... rather, they're supposed to.
sP
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)indecent exposure. Walking around with your penis hanging out....
left on green only
(1,484 posts)
vt_native
(484 posts)who obviously has a tiny penis. 
valerief
(53,235 posts) 
lpbk2713
(43,255 posts)Big dumb ass.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)Where do these assholes come fom?
hack89
(39,181 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'd say he's a threat, maybe even a terrorist.
firsttimer
(324 posts)but he intentionally wanted to scare people inside that mall.
I don't know what the legal charge should be , but he should be charged with something.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)while armed and being an overall threatening douche! Isn't he trying to use fear to forward his political agenda? Isn't that the very definition of terrorism?
firsttimer
(324 posts)Every American should be.
If he could be charged under the Patriot act then who's next?
that's all I'm saying ... for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why would I worry about how the very definition is used to describe one? Frankly, I think the term is not being used enough...
Was Eric Rudolf a terrorist? They certainly DID NOT use the term to label him and they should have...Should not Dr Tiller's murderer been charged with it? Hell he is STILL doing it from prison...
or are you saying that the term should only be applied to those of the "swarthy" persuasion?
firsttimer
(324 posts)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)firsttimer
(324 posts)How about we label the occupy movement a terrorist organization
since some of them were arrested for tying to enact political change.
Because that's exactly what it was ..... Example shipping jobs over seas due to laws enacted by Congress in favor of corporations.
How about the pipe line activists that were arrested by protesting and blocking .
Wait what about anti war activists , some of them got arrested .
That's why you should be careful on who the government calls a terrorist under the Patriot Act.
No one knows what the next administration will look like or the next after that.
.........
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bombs and guns and things...
I don't remember Occupy being an armed revolution...
You have gone off so far in that direction....you left out the most obvious point of the entire discussion...
Eric Rudolph and Dr Tiller's Killer...actually killed people...when was Occupy accused of killing people?
firsttimer
(324 posts)Attorney General Ashcroft defends the provisions of the Patriot Act as vital to protecting against terrorist groups that "use America's freedom as a weapon against us." In his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6, Ashcroft refers to the seized al Qaeda training manual in which terrorists are taught to "exploit our judicial process for the success of their operations."
I really don't think you realize how much power this act gave the government over us.
read the act , it's scary
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wow.....that's how you interpret that?
and now you are making a comparison between Al Queda and Occupy Wallstreet?
SMDH over this one.....You don't think that's an awfully big leap you are making here? Its quite the chasm...
firsttimer
(324 posts)You seem to be under the assumption that what he said only refers to Al Queda
That was an example he used in his testimony . This act can be used in many different ways
if they wanted to ... legally I might add because of Bush and our congress who voted for it
without even understanding or reading what they voted for and made law.
The very word it self ....Patriot ACT wasn't a mistake by the past administration . It was carefully thought out
before they came up with that name.
Who's going to vote against that after 9/11
So no.....it's not a big leap depending on who sits in oval office , in Justice Dept , in the NSA and the FBI
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)walking around threateningly with his assualt weapon strapped to his back....and Occupy Wallstreet.
Once's a peaceful protest....that you cannot see the stark contrast before you put that thought down on the page in actual text without seeing the irony in it is just astonishing, really.
firsttimer
(324 posts)I shake my head at you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I said a guy walking around with an assault weapon strapped to his back in a crowded mall should be arrested for terrorist activity. He probably would get let off on that charge....but just being charged would be good punishment for doing this...
Now what the hell you are talking about I do not know....
Eric Rudolph and Dr Tiller's Killer should definitely have been tried as terrorists....that is what they did...How you can say otherwise is beyond me...
firsttimer
(324 posts)"should be arrested for terrorist activity"
How do think that's done ?
You want him labeled as a terrorist by our Government , that falls under the Patriot Act.
You are calling for the Patriot Act to be used for a misdemeanor charge.
That's how you feel you said.
If you read my posts I also said he should be charged for disturbing the peace
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)understandable? That's what he is doing....he wants to start a panic. Let him have his day in court over it. I didn't say send him to Guantanamo
You don't think Eric Rudolph or Dr Tiller were terrorists?
firsttimer
(324 posts)I'm just glad you don't get to make those decisions
Because your thought process is disturbing to me and I'm going to guess to many here.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)guns are not universally liked on D.U. you know that about us right? I recognize you haven't been here too long.
firsttimer
(324 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what if 20 or 30 guys start showing up at the mall doing the same thing? You don't think as a deterent for that that maybe this guy should be made an example of...just for being this damn stupid.
firsttimer
(324 posts)But right now that's what the charge is. You could make a case maybe threatening?
1000's of people are charged with that every day with out calling for the Patriot Act to be used.
When we as citizens start throwing this word around of labeling someone a terrorist
for a stupid stunt like this jesus what's next ... come on
He's a dumb ass but you know he isn't a terrorist .
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He wants to play Mad Maxx from Thunderdome....we have had far too many mass killing with these kinds of weapons...waving them in peoples faces the way his is doing is a dangerous game. He wants people to fear for their safety....and what he wants is to be the center of attention. Well I say...give him some of the "attention" he so desperately wants.
firsttimer
(324 posts)I'm not sure if you have read all my posts but I have not defended his actions anywhere.
I would like to see him lose his gun carry license in Texas.
Hell do it to any dumb ass that pulls a stunt like that any where in the country.
fine by me..
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't think a misdemeanor disturbing the peace is going to do that.
firsttimer
(324 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)firsttimer
(324 posts)That has nothing to do with labeling him a terrorist under the Patriot act .
People are convicted of felonies everyday.
Ta Da ! without calling for the Patriot Act
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that was all you my friend...
firsttimer
(324 posts)This is your post and your words below. Now if you don't understand what you posted
then it's different . Perhaps you don't understand what's involved when the U.S Justice Dept
chooses to label a person or persons or an organization as terrorism now.
It is done under the Patriot Act. Do you understand this now. By your own posts you call for the Patriot Act to be used
whether you printed the name out in your posts or not.
"Frankly, I think the term is not being used enough... "
"How is that not the epitome of terrorism? He wants to force a political position
while armed and being an overall threatening douche! Isn't he trying to use fear to forward his political agenda? Isn't that the very definition of terrorism"
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He's the very definition....what do you think the word terrorism means?
ter·ror·ism noun \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
Full Definition of TERRORISM
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Now what on earth makes YOU think Occupy Wallstreet and the Native Americans protesting the Keystone Pipeline...are using violence?
and the main question you refuse to answer...
Do you think Eric Rudolph and Dr Tiller's killer are terrorists or not...based on the very definition?
firsttimer
(324 posts)Are you the type when proven wrong in a forum always has to have the last post in the thread?
If that's you that's fine ..LOL , have a nice night
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)let me know when you've done that...
I suggest you try reading a dictionary now and then....very enlightening on this English language.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I don't think a misdemeanor disturbing the peace is going to do that.
hack89
(39,181 posts)
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Amendment rights. If I, in exercising MY rights caused you to have legitimate fear for your rights, then I would be a public nuisance. The guy may have the right to go anywhere he wants to with a lethal weapon displayed openly, but everyone else in that Mall has the right to "The pursuit of happiness". If the fucking jackass infringed on other peoples right to go to a Mall, shop and feel safe, then he became a public nuisance.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I suspect there will be no charges if in fact open carry is legal. How can it be a crime if you follow the letter of the law exactly?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)balcony. He was acting in a way that created fear in the minds of other people. I don't give a shit if it was only one people that was fearful, that person had a legitimate right to fear for his or her life not knowing anything else about the situation. My guess is that many people that saw the jackass were fearful, even gun owners. Seeing a person walking around in a Mall who isn't a Cop or Security Guard is not a normal event and rightly induces fear in people. Inducement of fear when a person had a choice not to induce fear is public nuisance.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)in that mall
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)With mass shooting situations commonplace, sensible people need to be cautious of inappropriate reckless behavior, including "open carry" of assault rifles (or whatever the gun experts want to call weapons that can kill multiple people without reloading).
hack89
(39,181 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)stuck in his belt....
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
Atman
(31,464 posts)But if I stood on a soap box in the mall and screamed at the top of my lungs about taking out people, or bringing down the gub'mit, how long would I last before I was arrested? Two minutes? This asshole is no different. The second amendment affords no right to terrorize people just because you can legally own a gun, just as the first amendment doesn't allow me to stand on a soap box and scream obscenities and threats in a public place.
delta17
(283 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 11:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Bet his store was filled with right wing "patriots" and bigots this weekend.
tanyev
(48,886 posts)wondering why hardly anybody shops at the Parkdale Mall anymore.
Turbineguy
(39,915 posts)That way he could open carry an explosives belt.
petronius
(26,695 posts)a rifle in that manner and place, then I'd agree that he should not be charged and that the police erred. Hopefully the outcome will be fair, and he'll be compensated for any costs incurred due to inappropriate charges.
However, I'd also agree that it's silly to pull stunts like this - nothing positive is gained by freaking out a bunch of mall-goers, no matter how much of a legal right one has to do so (unless he needs some publicity for his store, I guess). It's no burden to carry a rifle in a case, nor to drop it off at the shop before hitting the arcade or the Orange Julius stand.....
firsttimer
(324 posts)He should be charged with disturbing the peace because that was exactly his intention
by a stunt like this.
hack89
(39,181 posts)You have no idea what his actual motivation was unless you can read minds.
He was an idiot, not a criminal.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)His First Amendment rights to carry gun anywhere he wants doesn't trump the other people's right in that Mall to live in the "Pursuit of Happiness" by enjoying shopping, people watching and Mall food. So, do you claim that the jackass has a higher First Amendment right than other people in the Mall? Both rights are specifically called out in the First Amendment.
tblue37
(68,350 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)addressing. He has a right to carry a gun anywhere he wants to, but if his right to do that induced reasonable fear for their lives in other people in that Mall, then he was creating a public nuisance. I have a natural right to keep my bladder empty or not have it causing pain for me by being full. That right of having a comfortable bladder is also covered by my First Amendment right to "Pursue Happiness". But, if I knew there was a bathroom nearby, but I choose to empty by bladder on a street, or in a Mall, then I created a public nuisance by inappropriately exercising by First Amendment right to have a comfortable bladder. You can pan my example, but it illustrates the very same choice that the gun totter made - he chose to step on other people's First Amendment rights to go about freely without fear of injury or death, while exercising his right to tote a weapon around.
tblue37
(68,350 posts)that if they see someone open carrying like that, they will never shop in that mall or store again, and then they should follow through. Once businessess start losing sales, the love bonds between the Chamber of Congress right-wingers and the open carry right-wingers will be significantly weakened, sort of the way the Teabagger and establishment right-winger bonds were damaged by the shutdown and the debt hostage situation.
Scaring away paying customers just to make a point is bad for business.
jmowreader
(53,006 posts)and not the Constitution.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)You are violating my right to be happy...
I'm sure it's in an amendment somewhere that I am owed happiness....
4-6 weeks shipping and handling not included
jmowreader
(53,006 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)Then how can his conduct be illegal? Perhaps the issue is a poorly written law.
btw - I do not support open carry. I think it is needlessly provocative.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)Can you cite an actual statute? Are you saying that anyone that scares me is committing a crime?
petronius
(26,695 posts)
While the Second Amendment is the main protection for the right to keep and bear arms, it's reasonable that 1A may protect carrying a firearm in public as an act of 'speech.' However, neither happiness nor the pursuit thereof is referred to in 1A...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)violated. That argument is what he is using to get the charges thrown out. I stick with my argument, his First Amendment rights don't trump the rights of other people at that Mall to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". I claim that shopping, people watching and eating Mall food is "Pursuit of Happiness". A guy walking around with a powerful weapon with clips in, without anyone else knowing what was in the clips OR his intent is creating a public nuisance that caused other people in that Mall to fear for their First Amendment rights.
petronius
(26,695 posts)However, the 'pursuit of happiness' bit is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, which is why I reiterate my suggestion that you may want to re-read 1A (and the whole BoR, actually).
I am extremely uncomfortable with the flexible use of language and law throughout this thread ("terrorizing", "public nuisance", "disturbing the peace" . It's one thing to detest a particular action, it's quite another thing to call for the force of law to come down on that detested (but safe and legal) action...
firsttimer
(324 posts)What does common sense tell you on why he choose to pull a stunt like this?
Apparently he's not a stupid guy he owns fairly large shop in a mall .
I like to use common sense when looking at situations to determine why an other wise
normal person would pull a stunt like this.
A judge and a DA is also allowed to use common sense in a courtroom.
hack89
(39,181 posts)petronius
(26,695 posts)It's not rocket surgery to guess that people would be made uncomfortable - hence my opinion that it wasn't a good idea - but if he was carrying in a legal manner than charges are inappropriate, whether or not he was seeking attention.
In cases like this, I'm typically much more this concerned about the actions of the police (i.e., the state). Humans will always be doing something stupid somewhere, but I expect the police to refrain from arresting/charging people based on their opinions, or the freak-outs of witnesses, or the way they think things 'ought to be'...
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)petronius
(26,695 posts)threatening behavior or gestures, should not rise anywhere close to the threshold for charges (in my not-a-lawyer opinion), no matter how observers happen to react.
I imagine it's just anger and distaste talking, but it always surprises me how willing people are to bring down the law-hammer on things they don't like, or find scary...
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)He should be charged with disturbing the peace because that was exactly his intention
by a stunt like this.
If your goal is to "freak out and scare people" then slung over your shoulder is not a carry method you will use for a rifle.
firsttimer
(324 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Fear of the presence of firearms is not rational. The law does its best to deal with only rational fears, while not being 100% successful.
If his goal was to scare people, he would have been brandishing the weapon by having it in his hands. This is an actual crime.
Having the gun slung over his back (as pictured) is just a convenient method of carrying it while leaving your hands free. This convenience of carry comes at a cost of making it slow to deploy.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)or anyone over, as long as I had the turrets pointing at the sky. And no one else in the Mall should have any concerns, and if they did, I shouldn't be arrested. Sounds a bit upside down to me. The imposition of a reasonable fear of imminent harm in people is creating a public nuisance, that is a crime in all states.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)in most places.
Correct. Unfortunately for some people, the mere presence of a firearm does not meet the definition of "reasonable fear of imminent harm".
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The rational fear comes from the user attempting to use the weapon or threatening to use the weapon or handling the weapon in an unsafe manner. A rifle slung over the back does not meet any of those descriptions by any stretch of the imagination.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I can't say I'd feel differently if I saw a guy walking around with an assault rifle slung over his back. If he's that brazen then how could you be sure he's not gonna actually use the thing?
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)> If he's that brazen then how could you be sure he's not gonna actually use the thing?
Since it is slung over his back:
- He is making no attempt to hide it, therefore is not trying to deceive anyone.
- The method of carry is slow to deploy, so he is not looking for a quick surprise on anyone.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)displayed in public and being frightened or at least apprehensive. Even in Florida this man's behavior is not exactly typical.
hatrack
(64,531 posts)Plenty of time for mall customers to clock him with Panera sandwiches and umbrella handles.
Whatever.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)petronius
(26,695 posts)What he did was (apparently) not a crime. It was (apparently) safe, and in itself did no harm. Calls to jail people for safe, legal action - merely because it's icky - are bizarre at best (IMO)...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)What if someone who didn't like SOMETHING, ANYTHING you did, and said the same thing about it? Your answer would be... what?
haele
(15,207 posts)Anyone could have walked up behind him and got it off his back before he could have reacted. Idiot had no wingman, from what I could see. Carrying it "safely" in public like that means he needs to have someone trustworthy with him to insure he wasn't mugged.
Carrying it safely in public without someone in public means he should either unload the damn thing and keep the clip at his side, or put it in a case and carry it that way.
He was f'n reckless, playing Super-John-Wayne-Patriot.
Haele
Historic NY
(39,817 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)since he owns a business in the mall that handle firearms, it may be very normal to carry a weapon. He is being an idiot to prove a point. It should be carried just how he is doing it slung and not in a threatening manor. I would have the magazine emptied and a orange chamber plug installed.
firsttimer
(324 posts)He didn't say I do it all the time .
He could have just as easily carried it in a case to his shop.
Instead he choose to make a statement.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)However how is he carrying it in a threatening manner? It appears to be slung over his back in a non-threatening manner.
haele
(15,207 posts)If he was going to "open carry" transport at the mall where there are a lot of people (especially teenagers with attitudes) milling around that may or may not be sane, and he wasn't en route to go hunting or target shooting, or he wasn't designated as a member of mall security, he should have had his clip removed from the chamber (he could have a belt pouch for it), and an orange tip at the barrel.
It also seems he didn't secure it to his body very well. The way it looked to be attached, he should also have had a partner just behind him to ensure no group of pickpockets or kids would jostle him and get it away from him at the GameStop.
If you look at the picture, he was walking around like he was expecting anything - he had that sucker set up ready to sling back around front and start spraying away when the zombies or the brown folks in turbans come screaming at him from behind the escalator.
Haele
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)is not ready for use.
As I said, I am not a supporter of open carry and this guy is an idiot. Hyoerbole is not helpful either. For future reference, bullets go into the chamber, not clips (magazines).
Why should he have an orange tip on the barrel? I'm not sure, but if doing such a thing is not illegal, it should be. That would be disguising a real gun as a toy.
If he needed to transport the gun through the mall, he should have put the gun in a case.
haele
(15,207 posts)When transporting, we used to clear the chamber, put the clips (or magazines) in a belt pouch, put an orange tip on the weapon to show that it was clear and not to be fired, and then walk down the pier, or to the muster point, or back to the armory.
I don't think it's hyperbole to emphasize out how unsafe his actions were. Actually, I think more "responsible gun users" should start pushing back against the stupid and unsafe ones, not try and justify the actions of those as if they were the ones that the supposed anti-gunners are yelling about.
Frankly, I'm thinking of how I would react if one of my more foolish partners back in the day had tried to do the same stunt - and he'd get an earful of all sorts of "could have happened because you were stupid".
Armed and upside down is ready for use by someone walking up behind him. A teen or distraught person could walk up behind him and just undo one of the carabineers and pull it off him before he could react. If the gun transporter decided he was being rushed, flipping the AR-15 back into firing position would take at most a second and a half longer than if it were being carried to fire, and I wouldn't be surprised if he were the type to practice that move, along with spinning his pistols in a quick draw.
Again, the problem I have was that he didn't transport it safely - in a manner that it couldn't be fired, and that he stopped at GameStop instead of going straight to his store.
This wasn't going about business as usual, this was "making a statement". And being recklessly stupid and dangerous doing it.
I hope he got a warning, and if he decides to pull a stunt like this again without taking safety precautions he would never be able to open carry. He's not a responsible gun owner if he doesn't respect his weapon.
Haele
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)what this knucklehead did. All the people I know that own guns and also the ones on this board actually think it sets his argument back and he and the few others that do this just look stupid.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)but not all of it.
I son't tbink some kid could really do as you suggest with the ease that you imply.
Of course this guy was attempting to make a statement, that's why he's an idiot.
I was not aware the military used an orange tip in such a manner i think it should be illegal to do that in public.
Although it does not say so in the story, I would bet that the magazine was not loaded.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Stupid idea, that is for toy guns only and that would just confuse the two. II do not know if he had any ammunition in the magazine but I would have had it removed and had an orange or yellow chamber plug installed. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. Transport in a gun case is best.
frylock
(34,825 posts)to carry the gun to his shop. instead, he opted for the "hey everbody, look at me!" method. fuck these clowns.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and not how I would carry a rifle to transport it.
Historic NY
(39,817 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Historic NY
(39,817 posts)20. Carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.
google him and the mall there lots of chatter including facebook
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Because legally, that would be an issue here.
sarisataka
(22,361 posts)A- the Mall Code of Conduct is not law
B- as a shop owner he is not a visitor so it would not apply to him
now tenant conduct as likely listed on his lease could be an issue...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)to private property and thus are property owners rightful rules of entry.
Gun owner here. I guarantee idiots like this will someday cause me to lose my right to own a gun to hunt for my own food, or defend my own household, WHICH ARE THE ONLY TWO REASONS I WOULD EVER CONSIDER OWNING GUNS.
I fucking guarantee it.
sarisataka
(22,361 posts)property owner rights would be under state law. It may or may not allow the property owner to press charges.
In the case of wholly private property, I believe that right is absolute. In the case of private property open to the public it can be fuzzy.
MN law allows businesses to ban firearms, but landlords cannot do so. In this case the mall management would be the landlord so has no authority to do so. It is often noted the MOA no guns signs are invalid; Each business tenant can legally set their own rules.
That said, the mall may still ask any visitor to leave for any reason whatsoever.
I do not know if Texas law is similar
Legal or not, it was a dumb thing to do
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)a lethal weapon, with the clips in. Why would that jackass expect other people in the Mall to assume he was a "responsible" gun owner instead of some fucking psycho out to kill as many people as he could?
firsttimer
(324 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)and shot him before he could shoot others.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Calling him "chicken-shit", that sort of thing
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts) Packerowner740
(676 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Anyone could have come up from behind him, and taken that away from him. Or just grabbed it, and then start shooting. He should have been arrested for possibly inciting a panic.
lpbk2713
(43,255 posts)What if someone beat him up and took his bang-bang?
Would he have the balls to report it to the police?
The cops would laugh their asses off.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... "making a point."
If that idiot wants people to see his point, all he need to do is take off his hat.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I would have. If I see a nutcase walking around with an AR-15 in a mall, I'd call the cops.
"Second Amendment rights" be damned.
And I was right:
firsttimer
(324 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)private property and as such wouldn't that have an impact on his ability to exercize his "rights?" If I brought a gun to work, I'd be fired, second amendment or not.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Technically they are "private property open to the public". This means that management or their agents can ask people to leave for any or no reason. Failure to comply with the request to leave can result in you being arrested for trespassing. Most likely it is perfectly legal for him to have the gun there; but "illegal" and "unliked by management" are two very different things.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)His buddies would have stood their ground.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)into a discussion about guns and shooting. 
That is probably not what you meant though.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Then you can play tough guy.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Especially with DUers not familiar with the law.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I live here...
I watch the local news.
Based on what makes it to the mass media, there are certainly folks in Florida that are confused about that the law does and does not allow. Your posts in this thread suggest that you may be one of those people, but I am hoping that is not actually the case.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Probably a fly over state where guns don't cause as many problems as they do in urban areas.
I am one of those people... not confused, just not buying your line.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Larger than normal CCW population. I have one. I also have training.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Afraid of what?
I carry because my life is worth defending. While the odds of getting into a situation where I need to defend my life are very low, having the tools to effect that defense increase my odds of surviving. It is called being prepared, and it takes very little effort on any given day. However, laziness does account for many days without carrying.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I forgot.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)I understand the risks involved in life and know their odds and know how to mitigate them.
Wise people do not go to places with guns that they would not go to without guns. I have better things to do than to go looking for trouble. However, I am prepared to deal with it should trouble come to me. Life would be so much easier if trouble made appointments.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Sure you are not a little afraid? You sound like commando Spock...
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)
I am sure I am not afraid. If I was afraid to go some where, I would not go there armed or otherwise. I have never needed to point a gun at anyone, or even threaten to do so. I would prefer to keep it that way.
Being prepared is a good thing. I also have gore-tex raincoats and umbrellas, which I need much more often, thankfully.
Your "commando Spock" reference is lost on me. Sorry.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)The commando part meant you are way over prepared for what you will likely face going to get a gallon of milk.
Have you seen the statistics on heart disease? I bet someone like you who is concerned about death would be all over that.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)There seems to be good folks working to cut down the problems of heart disease. Sometimes it seems like they are making the same progress as the cops are with local crime. My doctor set me up with a list of to-do's to cut down my risks. Got self defense lists from other experts.
Being over prepared is always better than being under prepared. However, being under prepared is easier and is certainly cheaper in the short run.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)What was the point you were trying to make?
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)"Reasonable fear" as in meeting the "ability, opportunity, jeopardy" standard.
The defendant was certainly using bad tactics....
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Seems everyone in Florida is carrying.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Just not as rare as everyone would like.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)Carrying a rifle in a mall is not one of the exceptions.
If the guy would have been in a Florida mall, most likely he would have arrested and all would have ended peacefully. If he would have unslung his rifle and threatened others it is possible that a person who was legally carrying concealed might have tried to stop him. This may or may not have been wise largely depending on the distance between the two shooters and the skills of both. Hopefully the person with the legal weapon would have been careful to insure that no one else was endangered by his rounds if he fired.
There are over 1,000,000 Florida residents who have valid carry permits but it is difficult to estimate how many carry on a regular basis. I do know quite a few who do.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Problem is, when everyone is carrying people die...
spin
(17,493 posts)If a state requires those who it authorizes to carry firearms in public to have a good background check, proof of gun safety training and a requirement to show that they can safely handle a firearm and shoot it with reasonable accuracy at close range, you can largely eliminate tragedies caused by those who legally carry.
Of course the above doesn't eliminate those who have serious mental issues. In my opinion this is a major loophole.
All too often a person who has been legally adjudged as having serious mental issues that might endanger others fails to even make it it into the NICS background check system that is used to determine who can buy a firearm. A criminal background check might also miss this fact. This could and should be corrected and should not even require a lot of effort.
Submission of Mental Health Records to NICS and the HIPAA Privacy Rule
Summary
Questions about the scope and efficacy of the background checks required during certain firearm purchases have gained prominence following recent mass shootings. These background checks are intended to identify whether potential purchasers are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms due to one or more “prohibiting factors,” such as a prior felony conviction or a prior involuntary commitment for mental health reasons. Operationally, such background checks primarily use information contained within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and a particular focus of the debate in Congress has been whether federal privacy standards promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (i.e., the HIPAA privacy rule) or state privacy laws are an obstacle to the submission of mental health records to NICS.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, persons adjudicated to be mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental institution are prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, and receiving firearms and ammunition. Neither a diagnosis of a mental illness nor treatment for a mental illness is sufficient to qualify a person as “adjudicated as a mental defective.” Rather, an individual’s “adjudication as a mental defective” relies upon a determination or decision by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The definition of “committed to a mental institution” may apply only to inpatient settings. At least one federal court has held that the Supreme Court’s recent recognition of an individual right to possess a firearm suggests that some emergency hospitalization or commitment procedures, that may not have as many procedural safeguards as formal commitment, should not be included within the meaning of “involuntary commitment” for purposes of the GCA. In 2007, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA), which authorizes the Attorney General to make additional grants to states to improve electronic access to records as well as to incentivize states to turn over records of persons who would be prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that a variety of technological, coordination, and legal (i.e., privacy) challenges limit the states’ ability to report mental health records to NICS. The HIPAA privacy rule, which applies to most health care providers, regulates the use or disclosure of protected health information. On February 14, 2013, HHS announced that it will seek to amend the HIPAA privacy rule to remove any potential impediments to state reporting of mental health records to NICS. The privacy rule is most relevant as a potential obstacle where information used to generate mental health records on individuals prohibited from gun possession under the GCA is held by health care providers in states that do not expressly require disclosure of such records to NICS. Courts and health care providers that generate such prohibiting mental health records may also be subject to state health privacy laws that may be more restrictive than the HIPAA privacy rule....emphasis added
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43040.pdf
Florida has an excellent track record with those it allows to carry concealed. (Zimmerman may be an exception but in my opinion he is free today because the prosecution failed to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty in the Trayvon Martin shooting. That's a topic for a different discussion.)
Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987. According to the state's Concealed Weapon or Firearm License Summary Report, Florida has issued 2,581,087 concealed weapons permits since Oct. 1, 1987 and currently 1,215,708 are valid. Only 168 licenses have been revoked for a "Crime After Licensure" involving a firearm during this 26 year period of time. Not all these crimes involved a shooting. You can review the report at: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7499/118851/cw_monthly.pdf
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)You'd be happy there. Everyone carried a side arm and there were gun fights in the streets.
Maybe you should look on e-bay for a Delorean.
spin
(17,493 posts)What I advocated was that we should do our best to limit firearm ownership to only responsible, honest and sane people who present no threat to others.
The myths of the Wild West are overblown. I fear you watch too many Hollywood movies and suggest you study history instead.
Shootouts, bank robberies, highly-choreographed bar brawls—if we know anything about the frontier, it’s that it was one hell of a violent place.Or was it? Turns out the popular image of the Old West as a place where manly men solved their differences by shooting those differences in the face simply isn’t true. People were more likely to cooperate than fight—in a harsh and lawless world, it was better to side with your neighbor for mutual benefit than start shooting. Bank robberies, too, were virtually unheard of. One estimate places the number at about a dozen for the entire frontier period.Then you have the low-homicide rates. The highest annual body count Tombstone ever experienced? Five. From 1870 to 1885, Dodge City and Wichita had murder rates of 0.6 per year. However you cut it, daily cowboy life was nowhere near as violent as we think.
http://listverse.com/2013/02/18/9-crazy-truths-about-the-wild-west/
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)"The number of theoretical physicist that murdered using a gun is .6 per year"
Paste google link here...
spin
(17,493 posts)Hollywood made fortunes making movies about shootouts on Main Street at high noon. Such events were extremely rare.
I enjoy reading about history. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I had some really good history teachers in school. I am not quite as fond about watching movies based on history as all too often they are inaccurate and unrealistic.
I can't count the number of westerns that I tried watching where the hero or villain has a 50 round 6 six shot revolver and can do amazing feats like shooting several people at 50 yards or more while riding a horse at full gallop. When I was growing up, the good guys used to shoot their opponent's handgun right out of their hands rather than injure them. Try that in real life and see how well it works.
Many gun control advocates firmly believe in numerous misconceptions about firearms and often when I see such posts I try to disprove them. One thing that I have noticed that gun control advocates intensely dislike is facts and statistics. For 37 years before I retired I worked in a highly technical industry. Perhaps that is why I prefer to analyze a problem and try to find a real solution by examining the data.
Perhaps you were simply razzing me, which is fine, but how could I tell this?
As far as your comment about quantum physics I will merely mention a quote about quantum physics that I find interesting.
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." -- Max Planck, Physicist Nobel winner - Father of Quantum Physics
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Since Zimmerman got away with murder everyone seems to be invoking stand your ground defense. Colorado will have pot tourists and Florida will have stand your ground tourists...
spin
(17,493 posts)similar to the Zimmerman/Martin shooting. Surely ANY controversial shootings in Florida would have grabbed instant media attention.
(In passing, if you are really interested in the effects of the "stand your ground" law in Florida, The Tampa Bay Times published an excellent report covering all the cases they could find since the law was implemented in 1987. It contains a searchable data base that you can break down many different ways. For example I was quickly able to find at there have been a total of 10 cases in Florida where a person of Hispanic heritage shot and killed a black individual. Three were convicted and seven shootings were ruled as justified. You can also quickly call up the details of each case. The report can be found at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)
If Zimmerman did get away with murder (which is quite possible) it is due to the fact that our legal system worked as designed.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
I put the blame for the fact that Zimmerman walked free on the prosecution. Some agree with me.
Liberal Law Prof: Zimmerman Case 'Should Never Have Been Brought in the First Place'
July 15, 2013 - 3:55 AM
(CNSNews.com) - "You know, this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place, certainly not as a second degree murder prosecution," Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told CNN's "State of the Union With Candy Crowley" on Sunday.
***snip***
According to Dershowitz, "Everybody had to have a reasonable doubt about who struck the first blow, about who yelled 'Help me! Help me!', about who was on top and who was on bottom."
***snip***
Asked by CNN's Candy Crowley if he thinks there is enough evidence there for the Justice Department to move forward on a civil rights complaint, Dershowitz said, "I do not."
"I think this is a fairly traditional case of self-defense. It's a horrible tragedy. It reflects the racial divide in our society. There is no reason this young man should have been killed. Mr. Zimmerman may have been morally at fault for racially profiling and following him, but under the law of self defense, if he was on bottom and he was having his head banged against the pavement and was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, he had the right to respond the way he did. -
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/liberal-law-prof-zimmerman-case-should-never-have-been-brought-first-place#sthash.sIGXcg4R.dpuf
You are also incorrect when you suggest that the Zimmerman trail involved the "stand your ground" law.
The Zimmerman Acquittal Isn't about "Stand Your Ground"
SCOTT LEMIEUX JULY 14, 2013
***snip***
Although some media reports continue to assert that Florida's infamous "stand your ground" law was "central to Zimmerman’s defense" during the trial, the defendant's team didn't even invoke it; Zimmerman's defense involved just standard self-defense. Under Florida law, the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Martin did not foreclose a self-defense claim if Zimmeran "reasonably believe[d] that he...[wa]s in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he...has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant."...emphasis added
This was the basis for Zimmerman's defense, and under Florida law it was the state's burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. (Intuitively, this may seem like a quirk of Florida law, but the vast majority of states place the burden of proof on the state to disprove a claim of self-defense.)
http://prospect.org/article/zimmerman-acquittal-isnt-about-stand-your-ground
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Tell the CEO of Smith & Wesson I said hi..
Edited to add:
You probably don't get paid to carry the gun manufacturers swill, but I'm sure they are thankful for the lifestyle you provide them.
spin
(17,493 posts)for the replies I make to posters like you.
It would be nice to get paid for my posts but unfortunately doing so would require me to represent even more conservative views on gun control than I currently hold. It would also violate my own personal code of ethics.
In passing I do enjoy target shooting revolvers all of which were made by Smith and Wesson. I also legally carry a snub nosed S&W revolver.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)It was for you. I actually think about this stuff.
spin
(17,493 posts)The gun industry has been doing just fine without my help.
Virginia gun sales set record in 2013
01/04/2014 4:45 AM
Virginia gun sales increased by nearly 11 percent and reached an all-time high in 2013.
The Virginia State Police logged background checks for nearly 480,000 gun transactions last year, topping the old record of just over 432,000 set the year before, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported Friday. State police began doing the criminal background checks in late 1989. The 2013 results were released Thursday.
Police said gun sales were especially brisk early in the year. Transactions for the first four months were up 115.8 percent, 38.5 percent, 41 percent and 28.4 percent.
http://m.bdtonline.com/BDT/pm_103628/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1gg12ep5
Gun sales are up as support withers for tougher firearm restrictions
Published time: December 10, 2013 23:58
Gun sales, profits, and share prices among top firearm manufacturers have rebounded since the mass shooting of December 2012 in Newtown, CT, exceeding levels seen before the tragic incident that left 26 dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
A financial disclosure Monday by the Freedom Group - a collection of gun manufacturers also known as Remington Outdoor Co., which makes the Bushmaster assault rifle used in Newtown - reported that its sales in the past year have risen as much as 36 percent.
The company predicts 2013 sales will total at least US$1.25 billion; 2012 sales checked in at $931.9 million. Freedom Group also expects a 50 percent profit increase from 2012.
http://rt.com/usa/gun-sales-support-laws-029/
When I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s in northeast Ohio, the only people I knew who owned firearms were hunters, target shooters and collectors. I only remember encountering one person who had a pistol and he had brought back from Germany after WWII. He didn't even have any ammo for his weapon.
Statistics show that our violent crime rate and our firearm crime rate is approaching levels last seen in the late 1960s yet both the gun industry and gun control advocates try to convince people that we live in extremely violent times.
While the skyrocketing sale of firearms has not caused a dramatic increase in firearm crime, I can still see some value in our nation returning to the days when those who owned firearms had good reasons to do so.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)I didn't read one word of your reply. I am talking to you not an encyclopedia. If you want to convince me, try summarizing things you know.
hack89
(39,181 posts)At least you are honest in your closed mindedness.
As a gun owner I want to thank you for your help.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)XRubicon
(2,241 posts)You gun guys are like robots. Always a big wall of words with citations like you are writing a paper.
You bore me.
hack89
(39,181 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)XRubicon
(2,241 posts)Are we going to talk to each other?
hack89
(39,181 posts)Either that or your sense of humor is a little off tonight.
spin
(17,493 posts)and gun rights advocates use data and statistics.
XRubicon
(2,241 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)I don't feel like making you look like a fool tonight. I'm sure you'll be around. Until next time.
spin
(17,493 posts)reconsider some of my views.
There are extremely intelligent posters here on DU and a few are gun control advocates. Over the years I have had some entertaining back and forth debates with them and consequently I have moderated my views on gun rights slightly.
I welcome the opportunity to have further debates with you.
gulliver
(13,810 posts)But if I were one of the other mall tenants, I wouldn't be happy. Maybe they can drive the guy out.
jpak
(41,780 posts)yup
Response to firsttimer (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(110,219 posts)can be called to help enforce the ban.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #78)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Refusing to do so when asked can get you arrested for trespassing.
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)potential shooter who might slaughter patrons and might kill the crazy fool in defense of the public.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The mere presence of a firearm does not meet the bar for "reasonable fear".
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)It also "could" happen that I am elected the next President. "Is possible" and "is probable" are two different things.
Response to AlinPA (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
demosincebirth
(12,818 posts)should join the military and sign up for either the Special Forces or the Rangers, then see how bad they are, that is if they can make it past the first week of training.
NBachers
(19,284 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
NBachers
(19,284 posts)Where's that dot?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)It is one of DU's generic state avatars (wish I had some charming story, but sadly it is what it is)
NBachers
(19,284 posts)Who knows where it might lead? This is bigger than both of us.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Kaleva
(40,285 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts) (me)NBachers
(19,284 posts)I think we're on to something.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
(not that I am proud of it)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Your avatar's dot is Albany.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)You've probably set your cause back more than you'll ever know.
I'm sure shoppers were thrilled by you exercising your right to be dickhead.
Next time maybe a SWAT team will show you their stuff.
SCUBANOW
(92 posts)The charges will be dropped and his rifle will be returned to him. I was told this by the officer that arrested him. He did not violate any texas law. The officer is under investigation for this arrsst.
I'm sure the arresting officer told you he is under investigation.
SCUBANOW
(92 posts)firsttimer
(324 posts) madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)when he came back after serving his country.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)indecently expose themself in a public place??
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And I am not for open carry, before you try to tell my position on topics
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)idea what your topics are.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)"How do you know he isn't a Veteran?"
this one you failed to answer, sorry for the confusion
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)Openly carrying a weapon is the same as walking around with your penis hanging out.
Is that what you want to hear?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)wonder what kind of penis these ladies have?
http://www.examiner.com/article/women-partake-open-carry-gun-event-encinitas
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Ya see, here is where we tend to part ways. I'm absolutely for reasonable gun laws. For instance, I'm 100% behind background checks for EVERY transfer of registered weapons, no matter where they take place, or for what reason.
Now, I want you to slow down for a moment, and consider this next statement... carefully.
"Winking at my Wife in a bar is the same as making her eggs and bacon for breakfast".
It has EXACTLY the same validity as
Openly carrying a weapon is the same as walking around with your penis hanging out.
Come on... stop thinking with your emotions and start thinking with your brain.
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)guns with PENISES.
You might as well equate carrots to balloons. Cars to oysters. Blimps to magma. Interstate highways to doughnuts. Panties to helmets. Rocks to cotton. Video to fire.
I could go on with stupid shit like that allllll night.
It's YOU who don't get it.
Guns aren't like penises. If that were true, what would the women I see at the gun range be called? Gun Whores? Gun Prostitutes? Gun Slaves?
A man who likes gun equates his gun to his ______.
A WOMAN who likes guns equates her gun to her _____ (obviously, she hated guns UNTIL the man who dominates her MADE her pretend she liked guns).
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I'm here. I'm not hiding. I've been here for almost ten years. I don't have a SINGLE hidden post...
Tell me all you needed to see, and everything you were "told".
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Surely you understand.
madinmaryland
(65,690 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)We, the both of us, are hoping for the same things...
Logical
(22,457 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)bonzaga
(48 posts)Why do these nuts think it's normal to do this sort of thing?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)right/white wing "Patriot" type stuff.
http://goldtritac.com/the_liberty_project.html
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Golden-Triangle-Tactical/398639813577811
"For those of you that cling to your God and Guns swing by our store check out by some tactical gear and sign the petitions we have going for the Texas Nationalist movement to reassert Texas status and Chip Darby the host of the Final Chapters petition to get his name placed on the ballot for Governor of Texas. Its time to stand up for Texas and stand against D.C.!"
He's definitely the kind of guy the majority of gun fanciers support. Not all, but the majority.
on point
(2,506 posts)
Skittles
(170,256 posts)
Deep13
(39,157 posts)
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And how does he know that some other gun nut, with a concealed carry permit, won't decide to be a hero and take him out before he can start the shooting rampage? I mean, I thought that was the reason why these loons carry guns in the first place - to be the 'good guy' who takes out the 'bad guy'.
billh58
(6,655 posts)people to "trust" them because they are statistically more law abiding than non-gun humpers. Or so they say...
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)just a fact
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and do not want to go to jail. Pulling a firearm is a last resort to protect life and is illegal in a case like this as there is no threat. And yes CCW holders have a very much lower incidence of weapons charges due to the screening and required training. You should hide or leave the danger zone first and only if that is not possible then think about the possibility of using a carried weapon.
It all comes down to his mannerisms. It looks like he was just carrying and was not acting in any odd way and was not dressed in a manor that wold cause concern. Now if he had a vest with spare magazine pouches, other weapons or handguns strapped to him, that would cause me concern and I would leave the area.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)before you could blink. I don't give a shit about any "mannerisms". Any dickhead that wants to parade around with a gun will have to take his chances on how people will react.
Kingofalldems
(40,093 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Sorry if you disagree
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Gives me a good laugh, out of millions of CCW holders, all you can come up with is one idiot. We study the law because we are responsible firearms owners and that is part of the responsibility of owning a firearm and having a CCW permit. Other parts of that are classes covering laws and safe handling of firearms. A local, state and Federal background check and a check for a couple of hundred dollars. Another part most of us do is go to the range and actually fire our weapons. Usually more than is what is required by law enforcement. It is a skill like all skills and fades with time.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)instead of with a gun in your pants. Guess that doesn't float your boat.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But I like to have the option and be legal. 99% of the time my firearms are locked in my gun safe. About once a month I drive for an hour to go to the range to shoot some targets. It is an enjoyable hobby for me and as of now completely legal. I know that just gets you so riled up that I am able to do that without having your permission.
Whats with all of your insults to me and other posters, that is just not very nice. I have to admit you do make me laugh when I read some of your posts, thank you for that.
So what was that again?
Oh, by the way I am living just fine thank you
dionysus
(26,467 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Mission accomplished.
(Where is this, anyways? I grew up in a "Golden Triangle" but I know there's at least one other because our luggage would always end up there -- we were Golden Triangle Regional and they were Golden Triangle International)