No more open carry at Walmart

This is from the internet so it has to be true:

Walmart Discontinues Auto Part Sales To Prevent Car Accidents

BENTONVILLE, AR—In a bold move intended to curb the thousands of deaths from vehicles each and every day, Walmart has decided to stop selling auto parts, sources confirmed Tuesday.

According to shocking reports, people have purchased car parts at Walmart and then those cars have been involved in accidents, proving a direct correlation between selling auto parts and causing deaths.

"We can no longer be complicit in an industry that kills over 3,000 people a day," said a spokesperson for Walmart. "Every time we sell a muffler, steering wheel cover, or flame decal, we are potentially causing the death of a person, and we cannot support that any longer."

"It's clear that bad drivers and poor road conditions don't cause vehicular deaths---cars do."

Walmart executives said they are beating themselves with a stick to atone for the deaths they've already caused.

"Our consciences will only be clean when we've been mercilessly beaten once for each of the millions of deaths that have been caused by automobiles since Walmart began selling auto parts," said one executive before solemnly beginning to beat himself with a baseball bat.

https://babylonbee.com/news/walmart...ook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

That is brilliant satire! It takes the logic of the Anti-Gun elites to the next level.

It's a good article indeed. The guy was an idiot, and maybe could have carried a pistol instead of the AR. Cmon, the tactical gear and choice of firearm was a dumbass move. That's what I mean by stoooopid people. There should be test for younger citizens that plan to own and carry to determine weather or not they are responsible enough to use the right.
Yes , a clean cut individual with partner and kids shopping anywhere with a sidearm would never spark fear. You all know that a young punk ass looking person shows up like that and filming is only going to cause problems. I have to say I'm disgusted in his actions and feel his punishment should be clearly stated as a result of his absolute stupidity and lack of respect.

Rocko68 said:

It's a good article indeed. The guy was an idiot, and maybe could have carried a pistol instead of the AR. Cmon, the tactical gear and choice of firearm was a dumbass move. That's what I mean by stoooopid people. There should be test for younger citizens that plan to own and carry to determine weather or not they are responsible enough to use the right.
Yes , a clean cut individual with partner and kids shopping anywhere with a sidearm would never spark fear. You all know that a young punk ass looking person shows up like that and filming is only going to cause problems. I have to say I'm disgusted in his actions and feel his punishment should be clearly stated as a result of his absolute stupidity and lack of respect.

Click to expand...

Ok let’s follow that logic.
Sample Test
Q1: What party do you affiliate with?
Q2: If a gay person asked you to bake a cake is it ok to refuse?
Q3: Do you support the immigration policies and expect them to be enforced.
Q4: Is it ok to defend yourself against ANTIFA?


Now,

When a right requires you to meet certain standards before you can exercise it, it’s no longer a right it’s a privilege granted by your sovereign ruler.

Come on boys Just get you one of those shiny fake ass badges,Strap it on and your hog leg walk in the place like you own it.

I’m not saying the knucklehead sporting the vest, rifle, and cellphone camera wasn’t an idiot, but let’s unpack what exactly he did wrong.

He walked around in a bulletproof vest? Nope not a crime and is by definition a defensive behavior, and people do it all the time. They are usually police, political officials, or some with a target on their back. But he was walking around with a gun maybe he was hedging his bets that someone might mistakenly shoot him for exercising his right to bear arms.

He walked around videoing himself. That seems self absorbed but that’s a constitutionally protected right. Obviously if he’s asked to leave a private property for doing so he should. Let’s be honest the only threatening thing about a video camera is that it’s capturing things maybe you would rather not have the world see.

So is it the fact he walked a round with a rifle? That’s a constitutionally protected right, in a state that recognizes that and doesn’t prohibit Open Carry, at a store who formally followed the state and local laws regarding carry policies. So he wasn’t in a place he wasn’t supposed to be with a gun he shouldn’t have had.

So if we can’t agree these three actions were all perfectly legal then there is no point in moving forward, but since I phrased it all in a way that seems reasonable we probably all can.

Now combine all those actions into one behavior, and low and behold you have a thought crime (thin and a dangerously slippery slope if you ask me) of intending to create panic (I don’t remember exact charge). So how long till it becomes *intending to create panic,* for a clean cut civilian with a sidearm, or for a LEO to show up dressed in uniform? What if you are concealing and bend over to tie your shoe, but it’s hot and you are sweaty and you pants slid down just far enough with the weight of the pistol on your hip to play a game of peek-a-boo with some giant whiny douche?

There are snowflakes right now being ‘triggered’ by MAGA hats and shirts. It won’t be long till that’s a crime either.

Leather Tuscadero would be thrown to the ground, tased, and possibly shot and killed just for saying, *hello* in today’s world.

People this is not the time to let feelings become law. We have to stop this before we are corralled for proverbial slaughter.

https://www.theamericanmirror.com/woman-writes-letter-to-local-newspaper-to-convey-anxiety-over-seeing-trump-terrorist-in-2020-t-shirt-at-grocery-store/

Bangswitch, you prove a good point ("When a right requires you to meet certain standards before you can exercise it, it’s no longer a right it’s a privilege granted by your sovereign ruler"), it's easy to get fooled by the political rhetoric and banter. I spoke and thought NOT actually keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment is a right and not a privilege.
It's a crazy world with plenty of crazies out there.

Rocko68 said:

Bangswitch, you prove a good point ("When a right requires you to meet certain standards before you can exercise it, it’s no longer a right it’s a privilege granted by your sovereign ruler"), it's easy to get fooled by the political rhetoric and banter. I spoke and thought NOT actually keeping in mind that the 2nd amendment is a right and not a privilege.
It's a crazy world with plenty of crazies out there.

Click to expand...

Agreed unfortunately legislating ‘common sense’ is dangerous because it’s a sliding scale based on ‘consensus’ instead of core unchanging ‘rules’.

RaleighReloader said:

It's actually a pretty smart play on their part ... make the stupid suburban moms happy without actually having to "ban" anything.

Dropping handgun ammo is more concerning. Unfortunately, I have little faith in gun owners putting their money where their mouth is and shopping elsewhere ... people will squeal and bellyache about this and then go to WalMart and fill their cart up.

Click to expand...

Maybe; and maybe not!?!

The Wal-Mart chain and the largest stockholders of Wal-Mart have always been in bed with the democratic party. This goes very far back to when the Clintons (God I hate having to evoke these piles of **** (for anything)), were in charge of Arkansas.

If this is a political gesture to make people believe that Wal-Mart corp. is joining the fight against gun violence, and thus deciding to not be part of the so called; "gun culture" in America, it is thinly veiled by their past indiscretions involving very hurtful predatory practices and their deep ties to the Chinese economy. Quite frankly, this corporation couldn't give less of a f**k about "doing the right thing" since they have been laying waste to anyone in the US in their way for decades. However, if the democrats see what I see (a far left anti-gun loon), leading the pack of other loons, then the higher ups leaning on Wal-Mart to "help the cause" isn't so far fetched. Wal-Mart really doesn't have anything to fear from a PR standpoint.

On the other hand, perhaps they want to lessen their load of the burden of having to worry about firearms in general because of the regulations and the lack of intelligence they (and their customers), have to put up with at the store levels. I would assume that handling thousands of firearms in hundreds of stores around the country, not to mention ammunition, is a gargantuan undertaking. It has to be fraught with problems and pitfalls. They can't be making enough money on those items to offset the horse sh*t that comes with that.

And then, as for open carry; it is very clear that mentally disturbed people are committing these shootings of innocent people, so why would I assume that everyone with a gun on their belt is a off duty cop, or just a good guy? As society drifts further off to la-la land in these phones and social pariahs, I don't expect less mentally deficient people, I fully expect more. I only endorse open carry as a fundamental Right that has stood the test of time, and is still on the books. It is completely unnecessary except that we are forced to ask permission to enjoin any alternative method.

Always keep this in mind; Wal-Mart is doing NOTHING for the good of humanity out of the goodness of their hearts!

Warhammerhead87 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...d-amendment-rights-police-say/?outputType=amp

This guy is probably the reason why Walmart OC is now history.

The article is worth a read.

Click to expand...

That guy is an idiot and I fully support him spending some time thinking about his bad decision.

Bangswitch said:

I’m not saying the knucklehead sporting the vest, rifle, and cellphone camera wasn’t an idiot, but let’s unpack what exactly he did wrong.

He walked around in a bulletproof vest? Nope not a crime and is by definition a defensive behavior, and people do it all the time. They are usually police, political officials, or some with a target on their back. But he was walking around with a gun maybe he was hedging his bets that someone might mistakenly shoot him for exercising his right to bear arms.

He walked around videoing himself. That seems self absorbed but that’s a constitutionally protected right. Obviously if he’s asked to leave a private property for doing so he should. Let’s be honest the only threatening thing about a video camera is that it’s capturing things maybe you would rather not have the world see.

So is it the fact he walked a round with a rifle? That’s a constitutionally protected right, in a state that recognizes that and doesn’t prohibit Open Carry, at a store who formally followed the state and local laws regarding carry policies. So he wasn’t in a place he wasn’t supposed to be with a gun he shouldn’t have had.

So if we can’t agree these three actions were all perfectly legal then there is no point in moving forward, but since I phrased it all in a way that seems reasonable we probably all can.

Now combine all those actions into one behavior, and low and behold you have a thought crime (thin and a dangerously slippery slope if you ask me) of intending to create panic (I don’t remember exact charge). So how long till it becomes *intending to create panic,* for a clean cut civilian with a sidearm, or for a LEO to show up dressed in uniform? What if you are concealing and bend over to tie your shoe, but it’s hot and you are sweaty and you pants slid down just far enough with the weight of the pistol on your hip to play a game of peek-a-boo with some giant whiny douche?

Click to expand...

Context is key. This is just another example of someone who doesn't get enough attention elsewhere in life using firearms to get attention. Normally it's fat, out of shape, gamer-types who we see doing it. This guy clearly has a screw loose if he thought this was a good idea a week after a mass-shooting in a Wal Mart (or anytime).

Many crimes become crimes, or worse crimes, based on intent and context. Running over someone with your vehicle accidentally is often charged as manslaughter. Running over someone with your vehicle /intentionally/ is murder. Planning to run someone over with your vehicle and then doing it is an even harsher murder charge.

While the individual things that he did may be perfectly legal, his intent was to go in there and be noticed. People don't normally walk around in grocery stores recording themselves and others unless they are doing/wearing something that they think will cause a reaction from others.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building is legal - when there is a fire. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building - when there is no fire - is illegal and can be argued that one is intending to cause a panic (which can easily cause people to get severely inured).

Additionally, Walmart sucks. They are too large to get efficient shopping done in and honestly, their prices really aren't that much better than the local competition.

I get everything that is non-edible from Amazon that I can. It gets delivered to me usually the day of the order or the next day.

Produce/food items are bought at a local store and I try to buy fresh, local items if it makes sense.

Ammunition is bought online.

By doing this, I don't have to be around the "People of Walmart." I also don't have to deal with the entitled employees who do a terrible job but are constantly holding their hands out for more money.

AustinBR said:

That guy is an idiot and I fully support him spending some time thinking about his bad decision.



Context is key. This is just another example of someone who doesn't get enough attention elsewhere in life using firearms to get attention. Normally it's fat, out of shape, gamer-types who we see doing it. This guy clearly has a screw loose if he thought this was a good idea a week after a mass-shooting in a Wal Mart (or anytime).

Many crimes become crimes, or worse crimes, based on intent and context. Running over someone with your vehicle accidentally is often charged as manslaughter. Running over someone with your vehicle /intentionally/ is murder. Planning to run someone over with your vehicle and then doing it is an even harsher murder charge.

While the individual things that he did may be perfectly legal, his intent was to go in there and be noticed. People don't normally walk around in grocery stores recording themselves and others unless they are doing/wearing something that they think will cause a reaction from others.

Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building is legal - when there is a fire. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building - when there is no fire - is illegal and can be argued that one is intending to cause a panic (which can easily cause people to get severely inured).

Click to expand...

I agree what the guy did was idiotic and I would like to see him punished somehow by someone(s), but the problem still persist that what causes panic is shifting under our feet note the article I posted. Yelling fire in a crowded building is the same today as it was 200 years ago. The definition of fire hasn’t changed what fire can do hasn’t changed. Basing a crime off of the social norm that no one walks around in a plate carrier strapped with a rifle and tons of ammo is not the same. I understand your sentiment it’s not lost on me, but remember in our triggered society before long looking at someone cross will be a hate crime soon enough.

Bangswitch said:

I agree what the guy did was idiotic and I would like to see him punished somehow by someone(s), but the problem still persist that what causes panic is shifting under our feet note the article I posted. Yelling fire in a crowded building is the same today as it was 200 years ago. The definition of fire hasn’t changed what fire can do hasn’t changed. Basing a crime off of the social norm that no one walks around in a plate carrier strapped with a rifle and tons of ammo is not the same. I understand your sentiment it’s not lost on me, but remember in our triggered society before long looking at someone cross will be a hate crime soon enough.

Click to expand...

Society is a complex animal and trying to make black and white laws, rules, or precedents are tough. The idiot mentioned in the article wasn't charged with illegal carrying of a firearm, plate carrier, or ammunition (from my limited knowledge). He was charged with making a terrorist threat, which seems akin to laws that are broken whenever one intentionally causes a panic.

Again, it goes back to intent. His intent was to get attention. He got it. It didn't bode well for him. Had an officer or possibly an individual shot him, it could very well be justified on a reasonable belief that he was about to cause harm. People don't go to grocery stores in body armor and with a rifle. Even LEOs do not walk into a store with a rifle. It is not normal and it should NOT be normal. If you need a rifle to be safe at a store, you are shopping at the wrong store.

Body armor hidden under a shirt or jacket and just an OC pistol and this guy would not be in a news story that will likely make him unhireable even if the charges are dropped. He would have been unnoticed and would not have caused a panic. He intended to be noticed and is now the winner of the "stupid games" prize.

AustinBR said:

Society is a complex animal and trying to make black and white laws, rules, or precedents are tough. The idiot mentioned in the article wasn't charged with illegal carrying of a firearm, plate carrier, or ammunition (from my limited knowledge). He was charged with making a terrorist threat, which seems akin to laws that are broken whenever one intentionally causes a panic.

Again, it goes back to intent. His intent was to get attention. He got it. It didn't bode well for him. Had an officer or possibly an individual shot him, it could very well be justified on a reasonable belief that he was about to cause harm. People don't go to grocery stores in body armor and with a rifle. Even LEOs do not walk into a store with a rifle. It is not normal and it should NOT be normal. If you need a rifle to be safe at a store, you are shopping at the wrong store.

Body armor hidden under a shirt or jacket and just an OC pistol and this guy would not be in a news story that will likely make him unhireable even if the charges are dropped. He would have been unnoticed and would not have caused a panic. He intended to be noticed and is now the winner of the "stupid games" prize.

Click to expand...

I think you are reacting emotionally (you’re irritated this idiot is making the rest of us look bad). I say that because you claim intent is important, but he stated his intent was to see if people honored the second amendment (dumbass move), but that’s not intentionally eliciting a fear response. He wanted to be an Internet sensation if you ask me. Then you keep quoting social norms. And eventually give your opinion that a rifle is unnecessary for safety in a grocery store, but I bet there was at least one dude in El Paso that wished he had his. When we are discussing laws and a mans freedom emotion is the last thing we should be using.

Look I’m with you I would like to take a 4 foot section of garden hose to this guy, but just like we are saying the emotional response of banning ARs is foolish and dangerous so is our emotional response to this guy.

Bangswitch said:

I think you are reacting emotionally (you’re irritated this idiot is making the rest of us look bad). I say that because you claim intent is important, but he stated his intent was to see if people honored the second amendment (dumbass move), but that’s not intentionally eliciting a fear response. He wanted to be an Internet sensation if you ask me. Then you keep quoting social norms. And eventually give your opinion that a rifle is unnecessary for safety in a grocery store, but I bet there was at least one dude in El Paso that wished he had his. When we are discussing laws and a mans freedom emotion is the last thing we should be using.

Look I’m with you I would like to take a 4 foot section of garden hose to this guy, but just like we are saying the emotion response of banning ARs is foolish and dangerous so is our emotional response to this guy.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the guy was thinking, but I am inclined to believe that he wanted to get attention under the guise of testing the second amendment. He knew that it would be a bad idea. People told him it would be a bad idea. Any rational person would know that what he was planning to do would definitely garner a fear response from the general public. He knew that going into the situation and continued to proceed anyway, knowing that he would likely put many people in fear of their life. I don't think emotion plays into it at all when I state that he knowingly did what he did and broke the law.

Carrying weapons is about protecting one's self, family, and possibly the public if that's their thing. They shouldn't be used for attention. I see time and time again that people think of a firearm as a) a tool to get attention or b) a magical shield that will protect them if XYZ-tin-foil-fantasy comes to fruition. More often than not, those with real training and the ability to actually use a firearm if the need arises know that a concealed weapon is much, much better than one carried openly.

AustinBR said:

I don't know what the guy was thinking, but I am inclined to believe that he wanted to get attention under the guise of testing the second amendment. He knew that it would be a bad idea. People told him it would be a bad idea. Any rational person would know that what he was planning to do would definitely garner a fear response from the general public. He knew that going into the situation and continued to proceed anyway, knowing that he would likely put many people in fear of their life. I don't think emotion plays into it at all when I state that he knowingly did what he did and broke the law.

Carrying weapons is about protecting one's self, family, and possibly the public if that's their thing. They shouldn't be used for attention. I see time and time again that people think of a firearm as a) a tool to get attention or b) a magical shield that will protect them if XYZ-tin-foil-fantasy comes to fruition. More often than not, those with real training and the ability to actually use a firearm if the need arises know that a concealed weapon is much, much better than one carried openly.

Click to expand...

Heres my only problem with your argument. I think it’s in your intellectual blindspot.

‘Any rational person would know that what he was planning to do would definitely garner a fear response from the general public.’

Rational is a relative term. Rational decisions lead to tyranny.

Did you look at the article I linked about the Trump 2020 shirt or hat or whatever where the clerk and a customer had anxiety because a Trump supporter wore an article of clothing?

Is it now rational to expect a fear response with a MAGA hat of a Trump 2020 hat?

I don’t want dumb@$$ triggered whinners infringing on any of my freedoms. I partially consent by concealing, but that’s more a tactical, and practical decision than it is not melting a snowflake.

We have to be careful this is as dangerous possibly as hate speech laws.

Showing up to Walmart with a rifle and plate carrier probably isn't the best idea, regardless of legislation.