beachmaster Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 http://www.infowars.com/video-veteran-arrested-at-gunpoint-for-legal-open-carry/ Here is a link to more information, as well as the original video. Is the dude a pric? Yes. Did he do anything wrong, no. If he doesn't win his lawsuit with this video, then we have no rights, and that is that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Armory Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 This took place in Vancouver ,WA. Over the river from Portland in the Socialist state of WA , WTF do you expect ! The cops set him up , he reload the mag... that was enough ! Showed intent to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 "What do you expect?" Is the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
392heminut Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Yeah, he was a bit of a smartass and he could have done some things differently that probably would have gone a long way towards resolving the situation but the cops stepped over the line. I still think he's got himself a good lawsuit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) Is there any wonder why people are losing respect for LE? Is there any wonder why target, starbucks, and more and more business don't want guys like this OCer in their business? This situation is filled with wrong on both sides. As far as normalizing goes, videos and OCers like this do for 2A rights what 3 Mile Island did for safe nuclear energy. Edited July 10, 2014 by StainTrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Two Robberies at Target Since Chain Asked Law-Abiding Citizens to Shop Unarmed - Breitbart - July 9, 2014http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/09/Two-Robberies-At-Target-Since-Chain-Asked-Law-Abiding-Citizens-To-Shop-UnarmedOn July 2 Breitbart News reported that interim Target CEO John Mulligan "respectfully" asked law-abiding citizens not to bring their guns in Target stores. Since then, Gainesville, Georgia, police have arrested three over a Target parking lot robbery and are looking for another man who punched a woman and stole her Mercedes at a Decatur, Georgia, Target as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Armory Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Hmmmmmm ! Targets ! Betcha they are talking about that announcement in the board room now ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 10, 2014 Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Haha wait, are you saying that there could be a direct correlation between gun free zones (and wanna be gun free zones) and criminal activity!? Why hasn't this been on the news!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2014 Just a personal experience... when you don't carry, gun-free zones are kinda like 'normal'. Basically, you're just at the mercy of any lunatic that shows up with a gun and you're accustomed to that uneasy feeling. When you carry, you automatically become someone who can make a difference. People who don't carry have decided to duck personal responsibility for responding to violence that occurs nearby. Likely, people who don't carry feel an unease at the notion of being responsible. After all, the unarmed -- or at least many of them -- have dodged the notion of responsibility by handing all the responsibility to the government. If these are credible notions, then the Open Carry movement needs to figure out how to communicate this to citizens, and especially, to people who want to be responsible citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microgunner Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Since I can't know if I might be involved in an auto accident I fasten my seatbelt. Likewise, since I can't know if I might be attacked I carry a firearm. These preparations are prudent in both situations and failure to do so in either circumstance is irresponsible. Edited July 11, 2014 by Microgunner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Just a personal experience... when you don't carry, gun-free zones are kinda like 'normal'. Basically, you're just at the mercy of any lunatic that shows up with a gun and you're accustomed to that uneasy feeling. Did you open carry before you got your concealed license? Didn't you just get your concealed license, very, very recently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rsquared Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) When you carry, you automatically become someone who can make a difference. People who don't carry have decided to duck personal responsibility for responding to violence that occurs nearby. Likely, people who don't carry feel an unease at the notion of being responsible. After all, the unarmed -- or at least many of them -- have dodged the notion of responsibility by handing all the responsibility to the government. Have you even given the thought to those of us that may be in states (communist have you) that don't have carry laws. If nothing else, being unarmed keeps me more aware of the situation around me. And having class 3 equipment, I'm not going to compromise my legal right to own that equipment, by doing something that breaks the local laws. PERIOD! Now.....if somebody shows up in my home......that's another story. THINK about that before you start talking about any of US dodging responsibility. It's called the FUCKIN law! Do I like it? Hell no. Will I follow it? Yes. Right up to the point when $hit let's loose. Edited July 11, 2014 by Rsquared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Rsquared, from my perspective, I dont believe he was talking about people such as yourself who are legally (and sadly) bound, but instead, about the person, regardless of the law, CHOOSES not to carry. He is talking about the person who dodges any responsibility like %95 of this nation. I don't believe he is speaking of the informed or initiated who live in a commie state, but the informed or initiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 When you carry, you automatically become someone who can make a difference. People who don't carry have decided to duck personal responsibility for responding to violence that occurs nearby. Likely, people who don't carry feel an unease at the notion of being responsible. After all, the unarmed -- or at least many of them -- have dodged the notion of responsibility by handing all the responsibility to the government. You really don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about... No clue. What you have posted is some of the dumbest $hit I think I've ever read. It isn't ANYONE'S responsibility to protect strangers, except for LEOs, if they're present. It's not MY responsibility to protect some a$shole getting the $hit kicked out of him at a red light. It's not MY responsibility to save strangers and random people when some fucking whacko goes off in a gun-free zone. It's not MY responsibility to save everyone in a crowded movie theater... People are responsible for THEMSELVES. THEY have to make that choice. Just because I carry doesn't mean everyone else's problems are mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rsquared Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Though I agree with your 95% angle. But I happen to think that you were probably being nice with that guesstimate. We all know that it's probably more along the lines of at least 98%.......at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 It isn't ANYONE'S responsibility to protect strangers, except for LEOs, if they're present. It's not MY responsibility to protect some a$shole getting the $hit kicked out of him at a red light. It's not MY responsibility to save strangers and random people when some fucking whacko goes off in a gun-free zone. It's not MY responsibility to save everyone in a crowded movie theater... People are responsible for THEMSELVES. THEY have to make that choice. Just because I carry doesn't mean everyone else's problems are mine. I'm glad you posted this. it's honestly how I feel. I don't carry to protect anybody but myself and my family. if some poop goes down and there is an exit close by, I'm going to take it. if I get cornered....someone is going to have a bad day. maybe a situation will arise where I feel the need to intervene, but at the end of the day my responsibility is to my wife and daughter. that's the oath I took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachmaster Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 It isn't ANYONE'S responsibility to protect strangers, except for LEOs, if they're present. 98, I agree with you, until the "except for Leo's" part. Now, we all WANT to think this is the case, ESPECIALLY those who done carry, and who live in fantasy land, but the supreme court ruled the Leo's have no responsibility to protect at all. Will many of them? Maybe. But when my life, or that of my wife, is on the line, do I want to trust an Leo who probably has a wife at home? Nope. Just another reason to carry. Personal responsibility. Leo's are there to draw the chalk outline, and hopefully find the bad guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 ...but the supreme court ruled the Leo's have no responsibility to protect at all. Many times this position has been upheld, time and time again. One federal court even boldly proclaimed "Citizens have no constitutional right to be protected by the state, from criminals or madmen." Bowers vs. DeVito F.2nd 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) "To Protect and Serve..." who? Well when We the People get uppity and the police get geared up in ninja turtle suits, who/what are they protecting? Government buildings, government property, government officials... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) It is very interesting that the consensus here is to walk away when a life might be saved. It's true that in both law and ethics, there is no duty to intervene on behalf of another person. Indeed, it is perfectly legal and ethical to watch a man drown even though you have a rope in your hands. This approach would seem to cut against at least part of what the Open Carry movement is about. If the man with the gun will only act to save himself, then the man with the gun is not a man who is making things safer in a more general sense. There would then be no general or public benefit to allowing people to carry. Indeed, this even calls into question the role nature of the civilian militia. They would not be expected to act on behalf of the public at large, but only for themselves. Under circumstances like that it of course makes perfect sense to leave it to government to protect us -- since we have no obligations to each other. Now it is true that the courts have decided that the police do not have a legal duty to keep us safe. There nonetheless is a widespread perception that the police will at least attempt to do what they are paid to do, which is public safety. And likely there is a personal sense of relief that goes with giving to government the responsibility for one's own safety, or public safety in general -- or at least, thinking that you have been relieved of that burden when in fact you have not. This also diminishes the meaning of what Wayne LaPierre says, about the need for a good man with a gun, when there is a bad man with a gun. It is nonetheless true that in a difficult situation, the man with a gun will have more choices, more options, than those who are unarmed. And if the man with a gun decides not to save a life when it is in his power to do otherwise, the man with a gun will have to live forever after knowing that he could have saved a life and did not. By carrying a weapon, you bear that burden of that sort of choice. If you can comfortably live with the knowledge that you did not save a life when you could have, you certainly have the law, and ethics, on your side. So there are consequences to believing one way or another about what social obligations might go with carrying a gun, and it is good to be aware of them. Edited July 11, 2014 by gnatshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 You just don't get it. And I don't think you ever will. As sad as that it, it doesn't surprise me coming from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 how about that guy in Vegas who got dead trying to stop the cop killers because he jumped into a situation half cocked? wonder how his family feels about his social obligations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) all this discussion is silly anyway. alot of woulda/coulda/shoulda goes right down the toilet when you are faced with real bullets. lots of self styled "sheepdogs" figure out it takes more than good intentions and a month old carry permit when SHTF Edited July 11, 2014 by blue109 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainTrain Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 all this discussion is silly anyway. alot of woulda/coulda/shoulda goes right down the toilet when you are faced with real bullets. lots of self styled "sheepdogs" figure out it takes more than good intentions and a month old carry permit when SHTF Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnatshooter Posted July 11, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 Interesting. I had thought that some might at least see a net social benefit to the unarmed by allowing the armed to carry, and who might even translate that into a duty at some point in the rationale. This actually explains quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microgunner Posted July 11, 2014 Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 In my eyes the benefit to the unarmed comes from concealed carry. Not knowing who is or is not armed benefits those who chose to run through life trusting their luck. As R2 has pointed out, this applies only to the states the permit carry. (I wouldn't live anywhere else). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.