No more open carry at Walmart

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
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.

Replace rational with logical, intellectual, or smart. It doesn't really matter how we label it: Walking around with a rifle and armor isn't normal and is a "red flag." Had he done this at another time not directly following a mass-shooting at the same brand location, he likely would have been asked to leave and not come back, with no legal fines. What he did is very akin to yelling "Fire" in a theater or insinuating that there is a fire in a theater.

Regarding the hat thing: There is an incredibly massive difference between wearing a hat and sporting a rifle/armor/pistol directly following a mass shooting. I don't think it's fair to try to lump the two together in an argument.

jhal23 said:
Showing up to Walmart with a rifle and plate carrier probably isn't the best idea, regardless of legislation.

Exactly.

Rocko68 · Sep 4, 2019

You guys both have great and valid positions on this. One thing being overlooked here is that idoits lack of respect. That's respect for himself, his wife and sister which were stated saying to him that it was a stupid idea. Lack of respect for the other people we share the world with is what I imply. Why on this good green earth would you feel it necessary and respectful t so what he did when the recent events had already sparked fear in a lot of people.
I myself, with or without kids, even armed would have left the store upon seeing his dumbass. Entirely no need for what he did, and under the circumstances, he should have respectfully changed his mind.
Different scenario,,,kappernick would not stand for the anthem to prove a point. I'm sure we all believe that there are so many other ways to prove a point that will have a way less disrespect factor in doing so.
The kid was an idiot at a most tender moment in time, and place.

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Rocko68 said:
You guys both have great and valid positions on this. One thing being overlooked here is that idoits lack of respect. That's respect for himself, his wife and sister which were stated saying to him that it was a stupid idea. Lack of respect for the other people we share the world with is what I imply. Why on this good green earth would you feel it necessary and respectful t so what he did when the recent events had already sparked fear in a lot of people.
I myself, with or without kids, even armed would have left the store upon seeing his dumbass. Entirely no need for what he did, and under the circumstances, he should have respectfully changed his mind.
Different scenario,,,kappernick would not stand for the anthem to prove a point. I'm sure we all believe that there are so many other ways to prove a point that will have a way less disrespect factor in doing so.
The kid was an idiot at a most tender moment in time, and place.

I am all about proving points, in the right way. I don't support Kappernick, but a lot of people do, and that is their right. Not standing for the anthem may offend people, but it doesn't put them in imminent fear of their life.

Getting dressed like this and going to a public place (that was just the location of a mass-shooting) is guaranteed to put people in imminent fear of their lives.

I support people being able to own armor/ARs/pistols AND support them to be used responsibly. Overtly wearing body armor is not necessary when it can very easily be worn covertly (under a jacket, sweatshirt, or even a patterned t-shirt). My stance on carrying of a pistol openly is out there already. As for ARs, they have their place and that place is not being carried around in public places by the public.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

AustinBR said:
Replace rational with logical, intellectual, or smart. It doesn't really matter how we label it: Walking around with a rifle and armor isn't normal and is a "red flag." Had he done this at another time not directly following a mass-shooting at the same brand location, he likely would have been asked to leave and not come back, with no legal fines. What he did is very akin to yelling "Fire" in a theater or insinuating that there is a fire in a theater.

Regarding the hat thing: There is an incredibly massive difference between wearing a hat and sporting a rifle/armor/pistol directly following a mass shooting. I don't think it's fair to try to lump the two together in an argument.

Exactly.

I’m not a matter of lumping them together. It’s an example of how something so benign had evoked an emotional response akin to fear. Rational decisions will lead us to tyranny. It already has:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...iscipline-for-t-shirt-with-battlefield-cross/

Another

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...tart-gun-suspension-upheld-by-maryland-judge/

We can do this for days.

Again I’m not advocating this idiot did nothing wrong, but if his intent is important, he claims his intent was to see if he could exercise his right. The judgment he showed as beyond stupid, insensitive, self absorbed, etc. The examples you listed earlier regardless of intent all were crimes.

If nothing he did is a crime on its own, and intent is what makes it a crime and we charge home with a crime based on assumed intent and his response is his intent was not to incite fear, but to play internet 2A defender. How can you justify your position.

If I wore a MAGA hat to the Mexican restaurant (probably I’ll advised) to create fear and all it does is get some people to roll their eyes and spit in my food did I commit an act of terror? My intent was to stir up fearful emotions after all.

If we are honest we all agree this was a dumbass decision that we are considering a crime strictly on our social norms instead of laws.

DAVE_M · Sep 4, 2019

Speaking of open carry in Walmart...

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2343877872501462

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

jhal23 said:
Speaking of open carry in Walmart...

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2343877872501462

People were just saying how if you just OC’ed on the hip with a holster and we’re clean cut it wouldn’t have been a problem doesn’t seem that is the case. Looked like at least a level two holster. Idk maybe he was trying to get attention before. People the ground is shifting underneath our feet. The left will continually back us into a corner with rational and common sense laws.

DAVE_M · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
People were just saying how if you just OC’ed on the hip with a holster and we’re clean cut it wouldn’t have been a problem doesn’t seem that is the case. Looked like at least a level two holster. Idk maybe he was trying to get attention before. People the ground is shifting underneath our feet. The left will continually back us into a corner.

It's actually a nylon uncle mike's holster that was clipped to his pants.

He was sitting in a lawn chair at the gun counter live streaming himself complaining that there was no one watching the gun cabinet. He used the intercom a few times and began complaining to random people in the store. When someone noticed a guy recording himself and complaining with a gun on his hip, they called the police.

How you behave has more of an impact on people than how you dress. Being clean cut doesn't mean much if you're acting like an idiot.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

jhal23 said:
It's actually a nylon uncle mike's holster that was clipped to his pants.

He was sitting in a lawn chair at the gun counter live streaming himself complaining that there was no one watching the gun cabinet. He used the intercom a few times and began complaining to random people in the store. When someone noticed a guy recording himself and complaining with a gun on his hip, they called the police.

How you behave has more of an impact on people than how you dress. Being clean cut doesn't mean much if you're acting like an idiot.

Yeah ok. He was looking for attention and now he’s barred from Walmart for being an idiot.

Maybe an appropriate response to this kind of foolishness, is to make them pay for the personnel required for the response. My only concern is the 1 guy (ok maybe there are two) who open carries and just goes about his normal routine (no livestream no shenanigans) getting stuck with a bill because some whiner got triggered.

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
I’m not a matter of lumping them together. It’s an example of how something so benign had evoked an emotional response akin to fear. Rational decisions will lead us to tyranny. It already has:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...iscipline-for-t-shirt-with-battlefield-cross/

Another

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.wa...tart-gun-suspension-upheld-by-maryland-judge/

We can do this for days.

Again I’m not advocating this idiot did nothing wrong, but if his intent is important, he claims his intent was to see if he could exercise his right. The judgment he showed as beyond stupid, insensitive, self absorbed, etc. The examples you listed earlier regardless of intent all were crimes.

If nothing he did is a crime on its own, and intent is what makes it a crime and we charge home with a crime based on assumed intent and his response is his intent was not to incite fear, but to play internet 2A defender. How can you justify your position.

If I wore a MAGA hat to the Mexican restaurant (probably I’ll advised) to create fear and all it does is get some people to roll their eyes and spit in my food did I commit an act of terror? My intent was to stir up fearful emotions after all.

If we are honest we all agree this was a dumbass decision that we are considering a crime strictly on our social norms instead of laws.

1) Shirt with gun image article:
The school has a policy that expressly prohibits the shirt. Nothing wrong with that. My high school had much, much more restrictive rules than that and had any of us worn a similar shirt to school, we would likely have been suspended.

2) Kid with Poptart:
Pointing things at people and saying "bang," in public places isn't smart. People don't like that. Don't do that. The kid should have known better.

These two examples aren't related to fear, they are related to individuals doing things that are against the rules of where they are at.

Regarding what he claims his intent was, that is what he is saying after the fact. I think many will see through his claims and see that he wanted attention. Again, there is a massive difference between exercising a right and knowingly inciting a panic. Had he walked down the street, through a park, in a sporting store, or literally anywhere else that wasn't just the location of a mass-shooting, he probably wouldn't have been arrested. But he didn't do that. He chose a location that he knew would rile people.

In this case, regardless of his intent, he incited a panic and directly/indirectly caused injuries.

Wearing a hat isn't the same as what this guy did.

I don't think it's a crime because of norms. I am saying that he intentionally insighted a panic, which is against the law.

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
Yeah ok. He was looking for attention and now he’s barred from Walmart for being an idiot.

Maybe an appropriate response to this kind of foolishness, is to make them pay for the personnel required for the response. My only concern is the 1 guy (ok maybe there are two) who open carries and just goes about his normal routine (no livestream no shenanigans) getting stuck with a bill because some whiner got triggered.

That hasn't happened and likely won't, though. If you are well-kept and well-behaved, people will not notice you.

Looks and behavior are everything. If you don't look like you deserve attention, people won't give it to you. Everyone is so into their phones and other distractions that it is impressive to get noticed, even when doing something stupid. In both of these cases, the guys actively tried to get attention. They got it, and it didn't work out well for them. Again, stupid games = stupid prizes.

As I have said before, if you want to OC, go for it, but be in shape and have the knowledge on how to actively retain the weapon in case someone tries to take it. Most of the OCers I see look and carry themselves like they just finished playing Call of Duty and want to strap up for attention as they go buy more Cheetos and sugary drinks.

DAVE_M · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
Yeah ok. He was looking for attention and now he’s barred from Walmart for being an idiot.

Maybe an appropriate response to this kind of foolishness, is to make them pay for the personnel required for the response. My only concern is the 1 guy (ok maybe there are two) who open carries and just goes about his normal routine (no livestream no shenanigans) getting stuck with a bill because some whiner got triggered.

It's the right of a store to ask you to leave if they don't want you carrying.

If someone calls the police for someone carrying a firearm in the store and that person is confronted by an officer, it's on them to understand that an encounter is inevitable and they are obligated to comply with the LEO(s) that confront him/her.

The simple solution is not to open carry.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

AustinBR said:
1) Shirt with gun image article:
The school has a policy that expressly prohibits the shirt. Nothing wrong with that. My high school had much, much more restrictive rules than that and had any of us worn a similar shirt to school, we would likely have been suspended.

2) Kid with Poptart:
Pointing things at people and saying "bang," in public places isn't smart. People don't like that. Don't do that. The kid should have known better.

These two examples aren't related to fear, they are related to individuals doing things that are against the rules of where they are at.

Regarding what he claims his intent was, that is what he is saying after the fact. I think many will see through his claims and see that he wanted attention. Again, there is a massive difference between exercising a right and knowingly inciting a panic. Had he walked down the street, through a park, in a sporting store, or literally anywhere else that wasn't just the location of a mass-shooting, he probably wouldn't have been arrested. But he didn't do that. He chose a location that he knew would rile people.

In this case, regardless of his intent, he incited a panic and directly/indirectly caused injuries.

Wearing a hat isn't the same as what this guy did.

I don't think it's a crime because of norms. I am saying that he intentionally insighted a panic, which is against the law.

You don’t think it would have been a crime to walk down the street like that but going to Walmart like that is a crime because a Walmart several states away got shot up?

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

AustinBR said:
That hasn't happened and likely won't, though. If you are well-kept and well-behaved, people will not notice you.

Looks and behavior are everything. If you don't look like you deserve attention, people won't give it to you. Everyone is so into their phones and other distractions that it is impressive to get noticed, even when doing something stupid. In both of these cases, the guys actively tried to get attention. They got it, and it didn't work out well for them. Again, stupid games = stupid prizes.

As I have said before, if you want to OC, go for it, but be in shape and have the knowledge on how to actively retain the weapon in case someone tries to take it. Most of the OCers I see look and carry themselves like they just finished playing Call of Duty and want to strap up for attention as they go buy more Cheetos and sugary drinks.

Agreed on those who OC. They are usually attention seekers.

So the guy with the rifle and vest activity sought attention in addition to walking around equipped with a vest and guns and ammo?

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
You don’t think it would have been a crime to walk down the street like that but going to Walmart like that is a crime because a Walmart several states away got shot up?

Nope, I don't think that it would have caused a panic and yieled people getting indirectly injured. Someone would have probably called the cops, they would have shown up, asked what he was doing, told him he was an idiot, and let him on his way.

Going to the same location of a very recent mass-shooting that got a lot of public attention is very important added context.

Bangswitch said:
Agreed on those who OC. They are usually attention seekers.

So the guy with the rifle and vest activity sought attention in addition to walking around equipped with a vest and guns and ammo?

Walking around (and recording people's reactions) in a crowded store (that just so happens to be the same brand store a mass-shooting was at) with a rifle/vest = actively seeking attention.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

jhal23 said:
It's the right of a store to ask you to leave if they don't want you carrying.

If someone calls the police for someone carrying a firearm in the store and that person is confronted by an officer, it's on them to understand that an encounter is inevitable and they are obligated to comply with the LEO(s) that confront him/her.

The simple solution is not to open carry.

So we are to relinquish a right to feelings? Sure a store owner/manager/worker can ask you to leave it’s their private property.

I was trying to say is maybe we could curb the attention seekers activity by assessing them an non-criminal fine equal to the cost of the personnel. My fear would be the one non attention seeker would get wrapped up in it too.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

AustinBR said:
Nope, I don't think that it would have caused a panic and yieled people getting indirectly injured. Someone would have probably called the cops, they would have shown up, asked what he was doing, told him he was an idiot, and let him on his way.

Going to the same location of a very recent mass-shooting that got a lot of public attention is very important added context.

Walking around (and recording people's reactions) in a crowded store (that just so happens to be the same brand store a mass-shooting was at) with a rifle/vest = actively seeking attention.

But seeking that same attention anywhere else legally allowed is not a crime? How long do you think you have had to wait before Walmart was fair game? 1 Year, 2, 10, 50?

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
So we are to relinquish a right to feelings? Sure a store owner/manager/worker can ask you to leave it’s their private property.

I was trying to say is maybe we could curb the attention seekers activity by assessing them an non-criminal fine equal to the cost of the personnel. My fear would be the one non attention seeker would get wrapped up in it too.

It's not relinquishing a right as you have no right to carry while in/on private property if the owner or manager of the private property does not want it.

So, a fine for open carrying, basically. We already have that, it's called the cost of getting a concealed carry permit, lol!

340six · Sep 4, 2019

My wife has been Manager and assist. Manager in Retail for the,last 25 plus years.
She overlooks normal looking and acting persons.
Only when Someone calls,attention in some way or forum does her or anyone else become concerned.
That is for anything. They are,way to busy dealing with otherd things.

AustinBR · Sep 4, 2019

Bangswitch said:
But seeking that same attention anywhere else legally allowed is not a crime? How long do you think you have had to wait before Walmart was fair game? 1 Year, 2, 10, 50?

There is no black and white answer. The answer to both questions is reliant on public perception.

Walking around with an AR/Armor isn't a smart game to play.

Bangswitch · Sep 4, 2019

AustinBR said:
It's not relinquishing a right as you have no right to carry while in/on private property if the owner or manager of the private property does not want it.

So, a fine for open carrying, basically. We already have that, it's called the cost of getting a concealed carry permit, lol!

Sure you have a right until the property owner enforces their right to no allow it.

And the fine would be for attention seeking of the police. Although I’m not sure you can do that fairly because of those irrational weirdos like the security guard who drew on the cop because the cop was in full uniform.

No more open carry at Walmart

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Make your own luck

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

Well-Known Member

_________

Well-Known Member

_________

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

Make your own luck

_________

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Make your own luck

-Global Mod-

Make your own luck

Well-Known Member

Log in

Forum statistics