Watch: A Professor’s Amazing Idea On Dealing With Open Carry Activists
A philosophy professor offers an amazing response to open carry activists who enter family-friendly establishments with guns strapped to their backs. He notes,”As many have pointed out, there is no way for bystanders to know whether the people with guns are “good guys” or “bad guys.” It is rational to be afraid of someone with a weapon, especially if you know nothing about them.”
That’s been my argument for awhile when gun activists claim there’s nothing to fear from an “inanimate object” but we don’t know the person whose hand is on the trigger. We do see their blatant disrespect for others though.
Jack Russell Weinstein, professor of philosophy and director of the Institute for Philosophy in Public Life at the University of North Dakota, came up with a solution as to how we should respond when witnessing these gun toting groups entering a store.
Weinstein writes:
My proposal is as follows: we should all leave. Immediately. Leave the food on the table in the restaurant. Leave the groceries in the cart, in the aisle. Stop talking or engaging in the exchange. Just leave, unceremoniously, and fast.
But here is the key part: don’t pay. Stopping to pay in the presence of a person with a gun means risking your and your loved ones’ lives; money shouldn’t trump this. It doesn’t matter if you ate the meal. It doesn’t matter if you’ve just received food from the deli counter that can’t be resold. It doesn’t matter if you just got a haircut. Leave. If the business loses money, so be it. They can make the activists pay.
Following this procedure has several advantages. First, it protects people. Second, it forces the businesses to really choose where their loyalties are. If the second amendment is as important as people claim, then people should be willing to pay for it. God knows, free speech is tremendously expensive.
Watch:
A YouTube commenter writes, “The best way to react is to thank them for supporting your rights and the Constitution. Advocating theft at restaurants is not a moral argument.”
We can thank our founding fathers, not gun carrying gangs, thank you very much. As for the allegation of “theft,” the professor covered that topic in the video.
There’s nothing to thank these two young men for after their group entered a Chipotle restaurant in Texas.
While activists have certain “rights” — which they have abused — nowhere on our favorite restaurant’s menu does it read, “Cheeseburger with a side of gangsta, yo.”
H/T: Shamelessly stolen from Wonkette.
Image: Crooks and Liars.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
stan July 28th, 2014 at 10:36
Question for those who say that it should be assumed that the person entering a restaurant with a rifle slung over his shoulder is doing it legally and those who experience fear and leave are being judgmental and anti-Constitution.
Weren’t the people who have committed mass shootings carrying legally until they began shooting?
Please explain how one can tell the difference between someone entering a restaurant carrying a rifle just to eat can be distinguished from someone who is planning to shoot, if not immediately, after a little time passed
Oli McIntosh July 28th, 2014 at 11:58
So true. If i’m in any place and a yahoo comes in with a weapon. I’ve never meet a stable brave person who needs to carry an AR14 into a chipolte. I’m assuming for the best of myself and family, to remove myself from that situation, because Murica leads in mass public shootings.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 13:58
Humans can’t be “anti-Constitution,” only laws can.
stan July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Notice I stated “anti-Constitution” which means against the constitution as in opposing it, Like on gun be anti-gun ownership, as opposed, “anti-constitutional” that would mean in violation of the constitution.. A person can be anti-constitution, but a person cannot be anti-constitution.
joe July 28th, 2014 at 10:36
Question for those who say that it should be assumed that the person entering a restaurant with a rifle slung over his shoulder is doing it legally and those who experience fear and leave are being judgmental and anti-Constitution.
Weren’t the people who have committed mass shootings carrying legally until they began shooting?
Please explain how one can tell the difference between someone entering a restaurant carrying a rifle just to eat can be distinguished from someone who is planning to shoot, if not immediately, after a little time passed
Oli McIntosh July 28th, 2014 at 11:58
So true. If i’m in any place and a yahoo comes in with a weapon. I’ve never meet a stable brave person who needs to carry an AR14 into a chipolte. I’m assuming for the best of myself and family, to remove myself from that situation, because Murica leads in mass public shootings.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 13:58
Humans can’t be “anti-Constitution,” only laws can.
joe July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Notice I stated “anti-Constitution” which means against the constitution as in opposing it, Like on gun be anti-gun ownership, as opposed, “anti-constitutional” that would mean in violation of the constitution.. A person can be anti-constitution, but a person cannot be anti-constitution.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 10:43
So we should counter the legal, yet profoundly stupid act, of open carry in public with the illegal and profoundly stupid act of mass theft? Amazing philosophy professor.
truth_machine July 28th, 2014 at 11:36
What’s profoundly stupid here is your failure to read and watch.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 13:42
Calling for people to break the law as a form of protest against people who are not breaking any laws, only upsetting the political sensibilities of some of the patrons, is absurd. As absurd as carrying a loaded rifle into a Chipotle or a Target. I’m not advocating for that behavior on the part of the gun owners. I just feel that suggesting that patrons who disagree with that action react criminally is equally if not more foolish than the original behavior.
dantes342 July 28th, 2014 at 14:19
So what will you say to the person who leaves with his burrito without paying for it if one of these wonderful patriots turns out to be the next mass shooter, and takes out a dozen people who WOULDN’T leave their burritos? Would you call him out as a thief? Or as a person who valued his life for more than the 3.99 that would go to some corporation too cowardly to tell people with potentially dangerous firearms to stay away?
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:30
You are incorrectly conflating open carry advocates with mass shooters. Until there is an historical connection between the two, then each must be reacted to according to their known behavior.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:36
The connection is that both groups walk into public places armed with lethal weapons.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:07
The connection is that they look alike.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:49
The idea that a mass shooter isn’t an open carry advocate is ridiculous. If they weren’t an open carry advocate, they wouldn’t be openly carrying.
In fact, up until the moment that person starts shooting, the two groups are indistinguishable.
Brendan Bassett July 28th, 2014 at 14:35
you’re confusing disagreement with justified fear. I would not stay in the same space as these people. The establishment that wants me to stay and pay keeps them out.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:40
What justifies the fear? Doesn’t logic dictate that we predict future actions based on prior behavior? If we accept this, then fear is not a logical reaction. Also, why punish the establishment? If you feel you have a justified fear due to the behavior of the armed individuals, why not involve the police? It is their responsibility to protect us from threats, not the manager of some burrito joint.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:08
He is not suggesting it as a form of protest, he is suggesting it as an expression of genuine fear. Obviously if you don’t feel afraid, you won’t do it.
planetxan July 28th, 2014 at 13:21
Glad your not the DA. We would be prosecuting fire fighters for the illegal and profoundly stupid act of breaking and entering.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 13:38
planetxan I am going to given the benefit of the doubt and take your comments as disengenuous other than foolish,. There is no equating firefighters entering a burning building to fight a fire to telling people to willfully break the law by walking out of any establishment without paying. Firefighters cannot do their job without access to the building and there is a level of implied consent on the part of the homeowner to allow the firefighters in to their home. Much in the same way that there is an implied consent when a homeowner call for an ambulance or the police for assistance.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 13:57
There is a lawful defense against what you term “mass theft,” and that defense is known as “necessity.” The law may be broken, yet the lawbreaker will not be held liable, because the law was broken in order to prevent a greater crime (in this case, “theft of services” occurs in order to prevent the greater crime of
“assault.”)
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
Mo Reno, since no open carry activist has yet to commit an assualt (or any other crime of any kind as far as I know), then the defense you suggest is not viable as the crime of theft would be the only crime and would not have prevented any greater crime.
Please understand that I do not support these open carry advocates tactics in any way. But disagreeing with them does not mean that I should mindlessly agree with any scheme that is as ill conceived as the tactics the pro-carry activists are using.
I am suggesting that there has to be a better way to oppose these open carry demonstrations than creating a large number of criminals as a means of counter protest.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:23
“Assault” is defined by law as the “apprehension of imminent bodily harm or injury.”
So, if I’m eating in a restaurant, and an armed posse enters, then there is most certainly the apprehension of imminent injury. What are those guns for? Tending wounds, and providing health care? No. Those guns are there to shoot bullets and injure people.
The defense of necessity will suffice as a legal shield against walking out on a meal, because assault is a crime.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:32
Good luck trying to argue that one in front of a judge.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:37
Well, I’m the one with a law degree, so I’ll accept your well-wishes when I do so. Thank you.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:43
Are you practicing yet? Legal theory is all well and good, but judges are people and quite often get perturbed by cutesy arguments by inexperienced lawyers. I doubt your argument of assualt by the “apprehension of imminent injury” would carry much water with most seasoned judges. More likely you would wind up pleading down to some BS misdemeanor charge and your client would wind up with a guilty plea on their record.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:47
Your understanding of both “assault” and “necessity” are both incomplete and easily dismissed. I see no reason to accept your analysis of a “likely” outcome, since you aren’t really citing any legal doctrine or analysis whatsoever. You’ve merely stated that you don’t agree that the law defines “assault” as the “apprehension of imminent harm,” which makes you incorrect.
You certainly attempt to pigeonhole judges as “often perturbed by cutesy arguments,” this is, in fact, speculation on your part. Well, unless you’ve been a defendant on multiple occassions. Is that where your experience is coming from? Or “Law and Order” reruns?
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:35
If the weapon isn’t pointed at you, the threat of harm isn’t imminent. Otherwise you would be “assaulted” every time you got near a moving vehicle, because the driver COULD swerve and hit you.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:42
Spurious reasoning from someone that’s obvioiusly untrained in law or purposefully avoiding what the law itself says about “apprehension of imminent harm.” Feel free to study up and factor in the real definition, rather than your straw-man argument about what constitutes assault.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:47
It’s a little more complicated than that. Stop lying about having a law degree.
From Wikipedia, which you cited:
“Four elements were required at common law:
The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.”
Carrying a weapon does not meet all 4 criteria, and is thus not an assault. In more common language, from your wikipedia citation, :
“American common law has defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.”
Wearing a weapon does not meet the standards of assault. Stop lying about having a law degree.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:53
Skipping over the element of “apprehension” is the straw-man argument you are currently employing. I see it. Don’t worry, you aren’t fooling this guy.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:59
Okay, why do you guys keep saying straw man? It’s very clear you don’t know what a straw man is. A straw man fallacy is when you argue against a point or position your opponent hasn’t made. That’s not what’s happening here. Even if I ignored a portion of your argument (I didn’t) or I was simply wrong, that wouldn’t make it a straw man. Why is everyone here so miseducated about logical fallacies? Also, an ad hominem is when you attack the opponent INSTEAD Of making an argument. Attacking the opponent in addition to making an argument is not an ad hominem. Please take a rhetoric class.
Moreover, ALL THE CRITERIA have to be met for something to qualify as assault. All of them. If you actually had a law degree, or even if you’d just watched a few court cases, you’d know this. If even one of those criteria isn’t met, it’s not an assault. Please, if you’re going to lie about having a law degree (instead of saying you practice, or are licensed, like an actual lawyer would say), at least read up a little bit on the most basic tenants of western law.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:01
You forgot the ad hominem you’ve employed about my legal training.
Ignore that, too, just like you ignore the “apprehension” element of assault.
You’re having trouble breaking in your sockpuppet account on this board. Looks like almost everyone has called you out on your straw-man arguments.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:05
Actually I specifically addressed your accusation of an ad hominem. Unsurprisingly, you don’t actually know what ah ad hominem is. Here’s what I said:
“Also, an ad hominem is when you attack the opponent INSTEAD Of making an argument. Attacking the opponent in addition to making an argument is not an ad hominem. Please take a rhetoric class.”
The apprehension element of assault can exist, but without EVERY SINGLE OTHER ELEMENT of assault, it’s not assault. Also, stop saying straw man argument, you have no idea what it means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Riiiiiiight.
By calling me a liar about my education, you weren’t attacking me or my ability to understand the elements of “assault” and trying to discredit me.
Suuuuuure.
It doesn’t even matter that you are completely, irrevocably, 100% in error. What you are doing is very much ad hominem: you’ve attempted to discredit me by spuriously implying that I am a liar.
It wasn’t successful, since I know that you have zero clue about what you have asserted about my education.
I guess you’re not too bright if you think you can convince someone that went to law school that they didn’t go to law school.
How is that supposed to work anyway?
Let me see if I can break it down:
I earn a law degree. Pay for law school by working for a judge. Along comes Douggem, an obvious new sockpuppet, who doesn’t understand what “apprehension of imminent harm” means. I refer him to a layman’s source, since he probably doesn’t have a subscription to Westlaw. He ignores the first element of assault, apprehension, because it doesn’t suit his argument. Magic? Interesting. Now, armed with an undue confidence in magical thinking, he proceeds to call me a liar, without any evidence and despite my accurate appraisal of both “assault” and the defense of “necessity.” He doubles down on his calumny, not because he’s correct, but because he’s desparate to cover his failures of logic and understanding of the law. It does him no good, he’s clearly in error about what constitutes assault, but he’s got nothing left. He opts for calling someone a liar. Still, he can’t substantiate his false witness, so he dodges again, making it about the posters invoking his straw-men and ad hominem.
I think I’ve summarized this conversation accurately.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:38
You left out the part where I keep pointing out that there are many criteria to assault, and they are not met by the mere wearing of a weapon. Let’s assume the first criteria, apprehension, is met. That doesn’t make it assault, it still has to meet EVERY SINGLE other criteria. According to Wikipedia, these are:
“The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.”
So let’s assume apprehension is met. The others aren’t. That means it’s not assault.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:46
Silly boy. All of the other elements (not “criteria,”) are met:
(present ability=holding a weapon that can cause injury)
(Unlawful attempt= illegal to shoot people that pose no threat, diners in the above examples)
(violent injury= bullet holes)
(upon another = not the person carrying)
Assault is subjective from the point of view of the victim. It is an apprehension (fear, understanding, concern) on the part of the victim that someone has the present ability (carrying a deadly weapon) to carry out an unlawful attempt (illegal to shoot diners)
to commit a violent injury upon another (GSWs to non-carriers).
Every element (not criteria!) is met. All assault is is the understanding that you could be illegally harmed by a person with a weapon. Not sure why that’s so difficult to understand, unless your argument requires not understanding it. Stick with ad hominem attacks, they’re easier than showing us all how your reason has failed, sockpuppet.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:56
Sorry, are we talking about someone wearing a weapon, or someone brandishing a weapon? I was talking about wearing a weapon. Wearing a weapon does not present an imminent threat to anyone, it does not show INTENT of the armed person to do injury to anyone, etc.
You DO know assault requires intent, right? And apprehension is NOT fear, apprehension means awareness that an injury or offensive contact is imminent. A weapon being slung or holstered on a person does not present an imminent threat of injury or offensive contact. Even if it did, you’d have to show that it is the intent of the armed person to threaten or carry out that offensive contact.
It’s not assault.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:06
Wrong again. From Cornell Law/WestlawNext:
(try reading it all, instead of trying to avoid illustrating your lack of legal knowledge)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
Actually, I better just post the relevant parts in toto, since you have had trouble parsing elements.
From Cornell Law:
“ASSAULTDEFINITION
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result.”
The intent mentioned above can be shown by purposefully carrying a firearm into a place like a restaurant.
However, intent can sometimes be an element when assault is paired with its associate, “battery.”
Battery requires intent. I think that’s where you’re mistaken, among other instances.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:08
Heeeeeeeeey see that first fucking word, INTENTIONALLY? Here, let me quote it for you:
“1. Intentionally”
Wow. Just wow.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:11
Intentionally causing apprehension, yes. So, when open carriers bring along a loaded weapon into a restaurant as a protest, it’s unintentional? Now I know you’re obfuscating. This is a protest movement whose whole raison d’etre is to intentionally bring weapons to places and “raise awareness” about “rights.” So, yes, you’re right, they are intentionally causing apprehension. Element satisified.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:15
You’re equivocating. Intentionally wearing the weapon (from your second sentence) is NOT equal to intentionally causing apprehension. Not just apprehension, but REASONABLE apprehension of IMMINENT HARM or OFFENSIVE CONTACT.
So we have open carriers who:
Are not intentionally causing apprehension
Even if they were, it wouldn’t be apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact, as their weapons are slung and not being brandished
So, still, not fuckin assault. Wearing a weapon openly isn’t even RAS for police to detain you, much less an intentional assault on whoever is in the vicinity
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:18
Sorry, the intent is there in the very fact that these activists are protesting. The purpose of the protest is to intentionally carry weapons for the sake of “raising awareness.” That these groups pre-determine what businesses and customers to target and show up en masse is intent in every sense of the word.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:24
You’re equivocating again. Yeah, it’s intent. Just like me going to my car is intent to drive somewhere. But intent to raise awareness is not the immediate intent to cause apprehension in someone of an imminent threat of bodily harm, just like me going to my car isn’t intent to drive downtown and buy some drugs. Nothing about wearing a weapon implies a threat to anyone. Brandishing does. Heck, wearing a weapon isn’t even RAS for a cop to detain you, much less an imminent threat of harm to someone.
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:31
Going to your car is intent to drive somewhere?
In what jurisdiction?
Because I go to my car sometimes to get my briefcase out. I go to my car to make sure the sunroof is closed. I go to my car to change the oil and wax it. I go to my car to make sure I have time left on the parking meter. In none of those cases does “intent to drive somehwere” arise.
Are you sure that you want to go with that example?
It’s not very good, in fact, it’s downright silly.
I told you before, the intent attaches to the apprehension, not the threat.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:34
In what jurisdiction? Any! Go to your car while above the legal limit with a cop standing there: Congratulations! DUI! The cop will argue you were intoxicated with the intent of operating your vehicle when he detained you. His evidence will be that you were going to your car. The jury will agree.
And yes, the intent attaches to the apprehension. The apprehension of imminent harm. The OCer would have to intentionally be putting any victim in a state of apprehension of imminent harm.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:47
So, now you’ve moved onto intent as defined for DUI and not assault. Intent is defined in the crime itself. We don’t just go “intent!” and affix it to whatever crime you can think up. Stick to the topic and don’t go moving the goalposts by trying to switch intent as it applies to DUI instead of assault. That’s a sure sign your argument lacks merit.
Intent is shown in the above example of “assault” by bringing in firearms to restaurants as a protest. It is inseparable, the activists for open-carry intend to cause a response. If that response is an “apprehension of harm,” they are committing assault.
Also, none of this flopping back and forth about assault really addresses my point about the defense of “necessity.” If a reasonable person (unarmed diner enjoying a meal) flees a restaurant upon seeing armed gunmen, they likely can avail themselves of the defense of “necessity” since they can point to their own apprehension of an imminent injury: the very definition of “assault.” The court will then ask why they felt they were in danger, to which they can cite every mass shooting as their cause of apprehension, and that their flight from the restaurant and subsequent “dine and dash” was necessary in order to avoid an assault.
It’s pretty simple, really, and I will offer pro bono legal assistance to anyone in my jurisdiction attempting this defense in the above situation.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:11
Heyyyyy man did you read the first fuckin word in that defintion? INTENTIONALLY? Here, let me quote it for you:
“1. Intentionally”
See? Is that clear enough for you maybe? INTENTIONALLY putting someone in a REASONABLE apprehension of an IMMINENT harmful or offensive contact? INTENTIONALLY?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:13
I’m sure that you’d like to argue that causing apprehension is unintentional, when the open-carry movement is based on bringing weapons and flexing their rights. Intent is clearly present.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:17
Intent to carry weapons, absolutely. Intent to exercise a right peacefully, absolutely. Intent to threaten people with imminent harm? Not so much.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:19
The intent element attaches to the apprehension, not the threat of imminent harm. Yeah, you’re terrible at this.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:04
Activists, as such, may not have committed any assaults (yet), but mass shooters have certainly walked into restaurants/schools/clinics/churches looking exactly the same as activists. You won’t have the option to leave if you wait until they start shooting.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
They’ve walked in brandishing weapons, not wearing them. They haven’t walked around in their daily lives with slung rifles on their backs until they decided to commit their crimes.
Sunshine1011 July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
But there was no greater crime if the gun owners were doing it LEGALLY, you were the one breaking the crime by walking out on your bill.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:24
“Assault” is a greater crime than walking out on a meal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
The defense of “necessity” will shield those that flee from an armed posse from prosecution for walking out on a bill.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
Wearing a weapon isn’t assault, just FYI.
Ralph Baker July 28th, 2014 at 16:56
Then take said weapon to that specific place where the weapon will be used as conditional to the specific activity. Restaurants are for EATING, not for shooting.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:29
Actually restaurants are for shooting, if a crazed maniac starts shooting up the place, which HAS happened in Texas before. Many people died because state law at the time forbode lawful gun owners from having guns inside restaurants, so concealed carry permit holders had to leave their guns in their cars and couldn’t stop the carnage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting
Sandra Gregory July 28th, 2014 at 16:56
It’s intimidation.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:28
It’s not intimidation, I wear a weapon every day, albeit concealed. You may be intimidated by it, but rights don’t end where your feelings begin. Unless they brandish toward you or threaten you in some way, you’re not a victim of anything.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:40
Good thing I cited the definition of assault, just so you could come to an irrelevant conclusion, Doug!
Nice job!
Know what else isn’t assault? Riding a rollercoaster and knitting a sweater.
Now since you know what isn’t assault, maybe you’d like to find out what it IS.
Either way, I don’t care, your posts bear little information that I would consider accurate.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:45
“An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.”
From your own wikipedia link. Stop lying about having a law degree. Carrying a weapon is not threat of bodily harm. BRANDISHING the weapon WOULD be. If the simple act of wearing a weapon was assault, I’d sue cops all day and night for it.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:51
That’s you skipping over the “apprehension of imminent harm”
element of assault. Pretty notable that you skipped over the first sentence, which defines assault. Again. It’s part of the straw-man fallacies that you repeatedly employ on this board.
Further, police officers possess a limited immunity from prosecution for what amounts to a crime for non-LEOs when carried out within the scope of their employment. Sorry. Your legal reasoning is flawed and weak.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
I only hope your aim is better than your logic.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:06
Okay, why do you guys keep saying straw man? Straw man is a logical fallacy where you argue against a point your opponent hasn’t made. That’s not what’s going on here. Even if you guys are correct that what I’m saying is untrue, that doesn’t make it a straw man. Stop saying that.
Moreover, to meet the standard of assault, ALL of those criteria have to be met, NOT just one. Apprehension of imminent harm can be met, but without EVERY OTHER CRITERIA, it’s not assault.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
‘Strawman’ comes from the Wizard of Oz where the Strawman does not have a brain. If you cannot follow the reasoning here, then follow the Yellow Brickroad and come back to it later.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:07
Uh, no. That’s not where straw man comes from, and that’s not what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:45
The gun toting world does not do irony very well.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:03
Carrying a weapon can be a perceived threat of bodily harm. All that is required is that perception. In the instances cited her, that perception is well grounded and should be brought to Court to have this kind of carry stopped.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
It requires more than the perception, it requires a REASONABLE PERSON to interpret it as a threat. In fact, it has been found that the open carrying of a weapon doesn’t even rise to the level of reasonable suspicion for a cop to detain the carrier, much less an active, intentional threat of bodily harm to anyone.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:44
Thanks for that but not for the time I wasted trying to see the relevance.
That is what is known as a Red Herring fallacy.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 10:43
So we should counter the legal, yet profoundly stupid act, of open carry in public with the illegal and profoundly stupid act of mass theft? Amazing philosophy professor.
truth_machine July 28th, 2014 at 11:36
What’s profoundly stupid here is your failure to read and watch.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 13:42
Calling for people to break the law as a form of protest against people who are not breaking any laws, only upsetting the political sensibilities of some of the patrons, is absurd. As absurd as carrying a loaded rifle into a Chipotle or a Target. I’m not advocating for that behavior on the part of the gun owners. I just feel that suggesting that patrons who disagree with that action react criminally is equally if not more foolish than the original behavior.
dantes342 July 28th, 2014 at 14:19
So what will you say to the person who leaves with his burrito without paying for it if one of these wonderful patriots turns out to be the next mass shooter, and takes out a dozen people who WOULDN’T leave their burritos? Would you call him out as a thief? Or as a person who valued his life for more than the 3.99 that would go to some corporation too cowardly to tell people with potentially dangerous firearms to stay away?
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:30
You are incorrectly conflating open carry advocates with mass shooters. Until there is an historical connection between the two, then each must be reacted to according to their known behavior.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:36
The connection is that both groups walk into public places armed with lethal weapons and inflict harm on people that were minding their own business.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:07
The connection is that they look alike.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:49
The idea that a mass shooter isn’t an open carry advocate is ridiculous. If they weren’t an open carry advocate, they wouldn’t be openly carrying.
In fact, up until the moment that person starts shooting, the two groups are indistinguishable.
Brendan Bassett July 28th, 2014 at 14:35
you’re confusing disagreement with justified fear. I would not stay in the same space as these people. The establishment that wants me to stay and pay keeps them out.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:40
What justifies the fear? Doesn’t logic dictate that we predict future actions based on prior behavior? If we accept this, then fear is not a logical reaction. Also, why punish the establishment? If you feel you have a justified fear due to the behavior of the armed individuals, why not involve the police? It is their responsibility to protect us from threats, not the manager of some burrito joint.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:08
He is not suggesting it as a form of protest, he is suggesting it as an expression of genuine fear. Obviously if you don’t feel afraid, you won’t do it.
planetxan July 28th, 2014 at 13:21
Glad your not the DA. We would be prosecuting fire fighters for the illegal and profoundly stupid act of breaking and entering.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 13:38
planetxan I am going to given the benefit of the doubt and take your comments as disengenuous other than foolish,. There is no equating firefighters entering a burning building to fight a fire to telling people to willfully break the law by walking out of any establishment without paying. Firefighters cannot do their job without access to the building and there is a level of implied consent on the part of the homeowner to allow the firefighters in to their home. Much in the same way that there is an implied consent when a homeowner call for an ambulance or the police for assistance.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 13:57
There is a lawful defense against what you term “mass theft,” and that defense is known as “necessity.” The law may be broken, yet the lawbreaker will not be held liable, because the law was broken in order to prevent a greater crime (in this case, “theft of services” occurs in order to prevent the greater crime of
“assault.”)
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
Mo Reno, since no open carry activist has yet to commit an assualt (or any other crime of any kind as far as I know), then the defense you suggest is not viable as the crime of theft would be the only crime and would not have prevented any greater crime.
Please understand that I do not support these open carry advocates tactics in any way. But disagreeing with them does not mean that I should mindlessly agree with any scheme that is as ill conceived as the tactics the pro-carry activists are using.
I am suggesting that there has to be a better way to oppose these open carry demonstrations than creating a large number of criminals as a means of counter protest.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:23
“Assault” is defined by law as the “apprehension of imminent bodily harm or injury.”
So, if I’m eating in a restaurant, and an armed posse enters, then there is most certainly the apprehension of imminent injury. What are those guns for? Tending wounds, and providing health care? No. Those guns are there to shoot bullets and injure people.
The defense of necessity will suffice as a legal shield against walking out on a meal, because assault is a crime.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:32
Good luck trying to argue that one in front of a judge.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:37
Well, I’m the one with a law degree, which is where I briefed lawyers on the “necessity” defense, so I’ll accept your well-wishes when I do so. Thank you.
Derald Price July 28th, 2014 at 14:43
Are you practicing yet? Legal theory is all well and good, but judges are people and quite often get perturbed by cutesy arguments by inexperienced lawyers. I doubt your argument of assualt by the “apprehension of imminent injury” would carry much water with most seasoned judges. More likely you would wind up pleading down to some BS misdemeanor charge and your client would wind up with a guilty plea on their record.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:47
Your understanding of both “assault” and “necessity” are both incomplete and easily dismissed. I see no reason to accept your analysis of a “likely” outcome, since you aren’t really citing any legal doctrine or analysis whatsoever. You’ve merely stated that you don’t agree that the law defines “assault” as the “apprehension of imminent harm,” which makes you incorrect.
You certainly attempt to pigeonhole judges as “often perturbed by cutesy arguments,” this is, in fact, speculation on your part, likely a result of media consumption. Well, unless you’ve been a defendant on multiple occassions. Is that where your experience is coming from? Or “Law and Order” reruns?
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:35
If the weapon isn’t pointed at you, the threat of harm isn’t imminent. Otherwise you would be “assaulted” every time you got near a moving vehicle, because the driver COULD swerve and hit you.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:42
Spurious reasoning from someone that’s obvioiusly untrained in law or purposefully avoiding what the law itself says about “apprehension of imminent harm.” Feel free to study up and factor in the real definition, rather than your straw-man argument about what constitutes assault.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:47
It’s a little more complicated than that. Stop lying about having a law degree.
From Wikipedia, which you cited:
“Four elements were required at common law:
The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.”
Carrying a weapon does not meet all 4 criteria, and is thus not an assault. In more common language, from your wikipedia citation, :
“American common law has defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.”
Wearing a weapon does not meet the standards of assault. Stop lying about having a law degree.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:53
Skipping over the element of “apprehension” is the straw-man argument you are currently employing, well, that, and ad hominem attacks about my legal education, which are similarly incorrect.
I see it. Don’t worry, you aren’t fooling this guy. It’s cute to see you flail so hard. But, yours is still a relatively-fresh sockpuppet account. It’s a shame to waste such a tabula rasa on an issue you can’t argue convincingly.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:59
Okay, why do you guys keep saying straw man? It’s very clear you don’t know what a straw man is. A straw man fallacy is when you argue against a point or position your opponent hasn’t made. That’s not what’s happening here. Even if I ignored a portion of your argument (I didn’t) or I was simply wrong, that wouldn’t make it a straw man. Why is everyone here so miseducated about logical fallacies? Also, an ad hominem is when you attack the opponent INSTEAD Of making an argument. Attacking the opponent in addition to making an argument is not an ad hominem. Please take a rhetoric class.
Moreover, ALL THE CRITERIA have to be met for something to qualify as assault. All of them. If you actually had a law degree, or even if you’d just watched a few court cases, you’d know this. If even one of those criteria isn’t met, it’s not an assault. Please, if you’re going to lie about having a law degree (instead of saying you practice, or are licensed, like an actual lawyer would say), at least read up a little bit on the most basic tenants of western law.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:01
You forgot the ad hominem you’ve employed about my legal training.
Ignore that, too, just like you ignore the “apprehension” element of assault.
You’re having trouble breaking in your sockpuppet account on this board. Looks like almost everyone has called you out on your straw-man arguments.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:05
Actually I specifically addressed your accusation of an ad hominem. Unsurprisingly, you don’t actually know what ah ad hominem is. Here’s what I said:
“Also, an ad hominem is when you attack the opponent INSTEAD Of making an argument. Attacking the opponent in addition to making an argument is not an ad hominem. Please take a rhetoric class.”
The apprehension element of assault can exist, but without EVERY SINGLE OTHER ELEMENT of assault, it’s not assault. Also, stop saying straw man argument, you have no idea what it means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Riiiiiiight.
By calling me a liar about my education, you weren’t attacking me or my ability to understand the elements of “assault” and trying to discredit me.
Suuuuuure.
It doesn’t even matter that you are completely, irrevocably, 100% in error. What you are doing is very much ad hominem: you’ve attempted to discredit me by spuriously implying that I am a liar.
It wasn’t successful, since I know that you have zero clue about what you have asserted about my education.
I guess you’re not too bright if you think you can convince someone that went to law school that they didn’t go to law school.
How is that supposed to work anyway?
Let me see if I can break it down:
I earn a law degree. Pay for law school by working for a judge. Along comes Douggem, an obvious new sockpuppet, who doesn’t understand what “apprehension of imminent harm” means. I refer him to a layman’s source, since he probably doesn’t have a subscription to Westlaw. He ignores the first element of assault, apprehension, because it doesn’t suit his argument. Magic? Interesting. Now, armed with an undue confidence in magical thinking, he proceeds to call me a liar, without any evidence and despite my accurate appraisal of both “assault” and the defense of “necessity.” He doubles down on his calumny, not because he’s correct, but because he’s desparate to cover his failures of logic and understanding of the law. It does him no good, he’s clearly in error about what constitutes assault, but he’s got nothing left. He opts for calling someone a liar. Still, he can’t substantiate his false witness, so he dodges again, making it about the posters invoking his straw-men and ad hominem.
I think I’ve summarized this conversation accurately.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:38
You left out the part where I keep pointing out that there are many criteria to assault, and they are not met by the mere wearing of a weapon. Let’s assume the first criteria, apprehension, is met. That doesn’t make it assault, it still has to meet EVERY SINGLE other criteria. According to Wikipedia, these are:
“The apparent, present ability to carry out;
An unlawful attempt;
To commit a violent injury;
Upon another.”
So let’s assume apprehension is met. The others aren’t. That means it’s not assault.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:46
Silly boy. All of the other elements (not “criteria,”) are met:
(present ability=holding a weapon that can cause injury)
(Unlawful attempt= illegal to shoot people that pose no threat, diners in the above examples)
(violent injury= bullet holes)
(upon another = not the person carrying)
Assault is subjective from the point of view of the victim. It is an apprehension (fear, understanding, concern) on the part of the victim that someone has the present ability (carrying a deadly weapon) to carry out an unlawful attempt (illegal to shoot diners)
to commit a violent injury upon another (GSWs to non-carriers).
Every element (not criteria!) is met. All assault is is the understanding that you could be illegally harmed by a person with a weapon. Not sure why that’s so difficult to understand, unless your argument requires not understanding it. Stick with ad hominem attacks, they’re easier than showing us all how your reason has failed, sockpuppet.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:56
Sorry, are we talking about someone wearing a weapon, or someone brandishing a weapon? I was talking about wearing a weapon. Wearing a weapon does not present an imminent threat to anyone, it does not show INTENT of the armed person to do injury to anyone, etc.
You DO know assault requires intent, right? And apprehension is NOT fear, apprehension means awareness that an injury or offensive contact is imminent. A weapon being slung or holstered on a person does not present an imminent threat of injury or offensive contact. Even if it did, you’d have to show that it is the intent of the armed person to threaten or carry out that offensive contact.
It’s not assault.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:06
Wrong again. From Cornell Law/WestlawNext:
(try reading it all, instead of trying to avoid illustrating your lack of legal knowledge)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
Actually, I better just post the relevant parts in toto, since you have had trouble parsing elements.
From Cornell Law:
“ASSAULTDEFINITION
1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result.”
The intent mentioned above can be shown by purposefully carrying a firearm into a place like a restaurant.
However, intent can sometimes be an element when assault is paired with its associate, “battery.”
Battery requires intent. I think that’s where you’re mistaken, among other instances.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:08
Heeeeeeeeey see that first fucking word, INTENTIONALLY? Here, let me quote it for you:
“1. Intentionally”
Wow. Just wow.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:11
Intentionally causing apprehension, yes. So, when open carriers bring along a loaded weapon into a restaurant as a protest, it’s unintentional? Now I know you’re obfuscating. This is a protest movement whose whole raison d’etre is to intentionally bring weapons to places and “raise awareness” about “rights.” So, yes, you’re right, they are intentionally causing apprehension. Element satisified.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:15
You’re equivocating. Intentionally wearing the weapon (from your second sentence) is NOT equal to intentionally causing apprehension. Not just apprehension, but REASONABLE apprehension of IMMINENT HARM or OFFENSIVE CONTACT.
So we have open carriers who:
Are not intentionally causing apprehension
Even if they were, it wouldn’t be apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact, as their weapons are slung and not being brandished
So, still, not fuckin assault. Wearing a weapon openly isn’t even RAS for police to detain you, much less an intentional assault on whoever is in the vicinity
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:18
Sorry, the intent is there in the very fact that these activists are protesting. The purpose of the protest is to intentionally carry weapons for the sake of “raising awareness.” That these groups pre-determine what businesses and customers to target and show up en masse is intent in every sense of the word. You can’t simultaneously argue that you are part of a protest group that is agitating for change by bringing in weapons to where people aren’t used to seeing them and at the same time argue that any apprehension was unintentional.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:24
You’re equivocating again. Yeah, it’s intent. Just like me going to my car is intent to drive somewhere. But intent to raise awareness is not the immediate intent to cause apprehension in someone of an imminent threat of bodily harm, just like me going to my car isn’t intent to drive downtown and buy some drugs. Nothing about wearing a weapon implies a threat to anyone. Brandishing does. Heck, wearing a weapon isn’t even RAS for a cop to detain you, much less an imminent threat of harm to someone.
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-law-updates/784-fourth-circuit-finds-that-carrying-a-firearm-in-an-open-carry-state-does-not-create-reasonable-suspicion-and-provides-thorough-analysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:31
Going to your car is intent to drive somewhere?
In what jurisdiction?
Because I go to my car sometimes to get my briefcase out. I go to my car to make sure the sunroof is closed. I go to my car to change the oil and wax it. I go to my car to make sure I have time left on the parking meter. In none of those cases does “intent to drive somewhere” arise.
Are you sure that you want to go with that example?
It’s not very good, in fact, it’s downright silly.
I told you before, the intent attaches to the apprehension, not the threat.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:34
In what jurisdiction? Any! Go to your car while above the legal limit with a cop standing there: Congratulations! DUI! The cop will argue you were intoxicated with the intent of operating your vehicle when he detained you. His evidence will be that you were going to your car. The jury will agree.
And yes, the intent attaches to the apprehension. The apprehension of imminent harm. The OCer would have to intentionally be putting any victim in a state of apprehension of imminent harm.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:47
Ah, I see what you did there, changed the terms from “going to your car” to “going to your car while above the legal limit with a cop standing there.” Yet another fallacy. This time you’ve moved the goalposts.
So, now you’ve moved onto intent as defined for DUI and not assault. Intent is defined in the crime itself. We don’t just go “intent!” and affix it to whatever crime you can think up. Really, “intent to drive somewhere,” is that a crime? Stick to the topic and don’t go moving the goalposts by trying to switch intent as it applies to DUI instead of assault. That’s a sure sign your argument lacks merit.
Intent is shown in the above example of “assault” by bringing in firearms to restaurants as a protest. It is inseparable, the activists for open-carry intend to cause a response to their armed presence. If that response is an “apprehension of harm,” they are committing assault.
Also, none of this flopping back and forth about assault really addresses my point about the defense of “necessity.” If a reasonable person (unarmed diner enjoying a meal) flees a restaurant upon seeing armed gunmen, they likely can avail themselves of the defense of “necessity” since they can point to their own apprehension of an imminent injury: the very definition of “assault.” The court will then ask why they felt they were in danger, to which they can cite every mass shooting as their cause of apprehension, and that their flight from the restaurant and subsequent “dine and dash” was necessary in order to avoid an assault.
It’s pretty simple, really, and I will offer pro bono legal assistance to anyone in my jurisdiction attempting this defense in the above situation.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:11
Heyyyyy man did you read the first fuckin word in that defintion? INTENTIONALLY? Here, let me quote it for you:
“1. Intentionally”
See? Is that clear enough for you maybe? INTENTIONALLY putting someone in a REASONABLE apprehension of an IMMINENT harmful or offensive contact? INTENTIONALLY?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:13
I’m sure that you’d like to argue that causing apprehension is unintentional, when the open-carry movement is based on bringing weapons and flexing their rights. Intent is clearly present since the events are pre-planned and involve group action at pre-determined targets. They have intentionally caused apprehension, that is their MO: show up at a place bearing rifles around unarmed people minding their own business.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:17
Intent to carry weapons, absolutely. Intent to exercise a right peacefully, absolutely. Intent to threaten people with imminent harm? Not so much.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 19:19
The intent element attaches to the apprehension, not the threat of imminent harm. Yeah, you’re terrible at this.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:27
It’s the intent OF causing the apprehension. Do I need to quote your definition again?
“1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.”
The INTENT is putting the person in that apprehension. If they have INTENT for something else (raising awareness), then it’s not assault. You keep saying they have INTENT to open doors or INTENT to wear a shirt today, well that INTENT isn’t what constitutes assault. It has to be INTENT to put another person in a state of apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Jesus Christ, for someone that claims to have gotten through law school you have no idea how any of this works.
Oh fuck I have INTENT to let my dog outside, I guess I’m committing assault because I’m wearing my weapon and somebody walking down the street saw it and got into a state of apprehension!
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 20:28
Telling me that I have no idea how this works, while using a specious argument about letting out your dog while wearing a weapon on your own property is the funniest sort of failure I’ve ever gotten to laugh at. So you don’t understand that it’s legal to carry your weapon on your own property? Or do you just not understand that private property owners get to set their own policy on weapons possession on their own property?
Whew, that was a whole lot of stupid straw-man arguing you just did there.
I’ll leave you to assaulting diners.
sara July 28th, 2014 at 16:04
Activists, as such, may not have committed any assaults (yet), but mass shooters have certainly walked into restaurants/schools/clinics/churches looking exactly the same as activists. You won’t have the option to leave if you wait until they start shooting.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
They’ve walked in brandishing weapons, not wearing them. They haven’t walked around in their daily lives with slung rifles on their backs until they decided to commit their crimes.
Sunshine1011 July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
But there was no greater crime if the gun owners were doing it LEGALLY, you were the one breaking the crime by walking out on your bill.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:24
“Assault” is a greater crime than walking out on a meal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
The defense of “necessity” will shield those that flee from an armed posse from prosecution for walking out on a bill.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
Wearing a weapon isn’t assault, just FYI.
Ralph Baker July 28th, 2014 at 16:56
Then take said weapon to that specific place where the weapon will be used as conditional to the specific activity. Restaurants are for EATING, not for shooting.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:29
Actually restaurants are for shooting, if a crazed maniac starts shooting up the place, which HAS happened in Texas before. Many people died because state law at the time forbode lawful gun owners from having guns inside restaurants, so concealed carry permit holders had to leave their guns in their cars and couldn’t stop the carnage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting
Sandra Gregory July 28th, 2014 at 16:56
It’s intimidation.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:28
It’s not intimidation, I wear a weapon every day, albeit concealed. You may be intimidated by it, but rights don’t end where your feelings begin. Unless they brandish toward you or threaten you in some way, you’re not a victim of anything.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:40
Good thing I cited the definition of assault, just so you could come to an irrelevant conclusion, Doug!
Nice job!
Know what else isn’t assault? Riding a rollercoaster and knitting a sweater.
Now since you know what isn’t assault, maybe you’d like to find out what it IS.
Either way, I don’t care, your posts bear little information that I would consider accurate.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:45
“An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.”
From your own wikipedia link. Stop lying about having a law degree. Carrying a weapon is not threat of bodily harm. BRANDISHING the weapon WOULD be. If the simple act of wearing a weapon was assault, I’d sue cops all day and night for it.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:51
That’s you skipping over the “apprehension of imminent harm”
element of assault. Pretty notable that you skipped over the first sentence, which defines assault. Again. It’s part of the straw-man fallacies that you repeatedly employ on this board.
Further, police officers possess a limited immunity from prosecution for what amounts to a crime for non-LEOs when carried out within the scope of their employment. Sorry. Your legal reasoning is flawed and weak.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
I only hope your aim is better than your logic. But, hey, your new sockpuppet account with a whopping 20 posts might be convincing to someone of your mental stature. Just not a legally-trained American citizen.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:06
Okay, why do you guys keep saying straw man? Straw man is a logical fallacy where you argue against a point your opponent hasn’t made. That’s not what’s going on here. Even if you guys are correct that what I’m saying is untrue, that doesn’t make it a straw man. Stop saying that.
Moreover, to meet the standard of assault, ALL of those criteria have to be met, NOT just one. Apprehension of imminent harm can be met, but without EVERY OTHER CRITERIA, it’s not assault.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
‘Strawman’ comes from the Wizard of Oz where the Strawman does not have a brain. If you cannot follow the reasoning here, then follow the Yellow Brickroad and come back to it later.
Perhaps you prefer the Red Herring fallacy? The smell makes the charge of ‘strawman’ preferable.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:07
Uh, no. That’s not where straw man comes from, and that’s not what it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:45
The gun toting world does not do irony very well.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:03
Carrying a weapon can be a perceived threat of bodily harm. All that is required is that perception. In the instances cited her, that perception is well grounded and should be brought to Court to have this kind of carry stopped.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
It requires more than the perception, it requires a REASONABLE PERSON to interpret it as a threat. In fact, it has been found that the open carrying of a weapon doesn’t even rise to the level of reasonable suspicion for a cop to detain the carrier, much less an active, intentional threat of bodily harm to anyone.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/115084.p.pdf
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 19:44
Thanks for that but not for the time I wasted trying to see the relevance.
That is what is known as a Red Herring fallacy.
Sam Gillis July 28th, 2014 at 12:46
Hey has anyone seen a criminal carry a firearm in public? The answers NO. Do you know why? he doesn’t want you to see him coming. When you are out just think of how many are illegally carrying without your knowledge.I do agree some of these folks over do it by carrying multiple rifles and such. We live in a world now were we think to get our point across we half to go big or go home for some reason. You cant have an intelligent discussion about this subject because of the I’m right and your stupid attitudes on both sides.Its sad that a professor is telling everyone to go as far as to break the law instead encouraging people to get informed and educated on the subject.
Lloyd Martinez July 28th, 2014 at 12:51
You are pretty darn brave and generous with my life there pal. I for one would rather pay the consequences for ” breaking a law ” ( OMG, put me in the gulag for not paying while I think this guy is going to shoot up the place. )
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
If seeing someone wearing a weapon is enough to make you “think” he’s going to shoot up the place, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Lloyd Martinez July 29th, 2014 at 13:50
Someone i don;t know? Of course. It’s called survival mode. As for your use of ridicule I would suggest you adopt a less adolescent and vapid debate skill, say logic for example.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 13:02
If enough people start open carrying so will the criminals, they won’t have to hide it anymore. All they will have to do is shoot and your dead because you thought criminals wouldn’t open carry.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:33
Open Carry has been legal for a LONG time. Do you have an example of this happening? A criminal open carrying until he was ready to strike? Because they usually hide the weapon until they start their crime.
planetxan July 28th, 2014 at 13:17
You don’t have to be a criminal to shoot someone. But you do have to have a gun. An exposed gun in a public place is a threat to everyone in that place. If the threat is not removed, people should remove themselves from the threat. It is a sensible response. Life trumps law. As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for dine-n-dash leaving a burning building, or running outside during an earthquake. But people have been unintentionally killed by firearms.
Of course now criminals are fully aware that they can carry guns in public, making their job that much easier.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:32
No, criminals are going to continue to hide their weapons until they’re ready to strike, because they don’t want attention, nor do they want the police called before they’re ready to commit their crime.
Madison Blane July 28th, 2014 at 13:19
Yeah, it’s not like anyone ever just walked into a school carrying a weapon and starting shooting a bunch of innocent kids or anything! :/ SMH
dantes342 July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
I don’t have to stay ANYWHERE near some guy that I don’t know who’s carrying a gun. It’s idiotic to assume that they’re just a patriotic law abiding teddy bear and that I, or my children, or my wife, or anybody just has to accept it. Their rights end where mine begin — otherwise we don’t have a civil society, we have a jungle.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:31
Protip: You don’t have a ‘right’ to ‘feel’ safe.
Sandra Gregory July 28th, 2014 at 16:54
Do you belong to a “well organized Militia”? I don’t recall the second amendment saying people walking around with guns hanging over their shoulder, intimidating innocent American citizens is a well organized militia.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:30
Luckily for us, the 2nd amendment isn’t conditional upon a well organized militia. A well organized militia is the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the right is not conditional upon being in the militia. Someone with even the most basic reading comprehension skills can see this.
Harvey Elder Jr July 28th, 2014 at 18:26
You are the only one responsible for feeling intimidated. Unless he threatens you with more than his presence he has the right to be there
ceefer July 28th, 2014 at 16:05
Ummmm, I have been in a bank and in a convenience store where guys walked in with weapons in full view and announced a robbery, so yes, I’ve seen criminals carry firearms in public.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:31
No, you saw criminals brandish weapons in public. They didn’t just waltz around with slung weapons until they were ready to strike.
Sam Gillis July 29th, 2014 at 08:43
1. I was not in anyway encouraging someone to just start caring a gun they need to be trained and educated on how to do so safely and responsibly.
2. This civilized society was started with guns and is protected with guns by people you may or may not know who are around you and your family’s everyday but you trust them because they have received the proper training.Why cant I be allowed to do the the same without having to make it a career.
3. We are supposed to be the welled organized militia there was never supposed to be a government Army.
Sam Gillis July 28th, 2014 at 12:46
Hey has anyone seen a criminal carry a firearm in public? The answers NO. Do you know why? he doesn’t want you to see him coming. When you are out just think of how many are illegally carrying without your knowledge.I do agree some of these folks over do it by carrying multiple rifles and such. We live in a world now were we think to get our point across we half to go big or go home for some reason. You cant have an intelligent discussion about this subject because of the I’m right and your stupid attitudes on both sides.Its sad that a professor is telling everyone to go as far as to break the law instead encouraging people to get informed and educated on the subject.
Lloyd Martinez July 28th, 2014 at 12:51
You are pretty darn brave and generous with my life there pal. I for one would rather pay the consequences for ” breaking a law ” ( OMG, put me in the gulag for not paying while I think this guy is going to shoot up the place. )
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:34
If seeing someone wearing a weapon is enough to make you “think” he’s going to shoot up the place, you need to see a psychiatrist.
Lloyd Martinez July 29th, 2014 at 13:50
Someone i don;t know? Of course. It’s called survival mode. As for your use of ridicule I would suggest you adopt a less adolescent and vapid debate skill, say logic for example.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 13:02
If enough people start open carrying so will the criminals, they won’t have to hide it anymore. All they will have to do is shoot and your dead because you thought criminals wouldn’t open carry.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:33
Open Carry has been legal for a LONG time. Do you have an example of this happening? A criminal open carrying until he was ready to strike? Because they usually hide the weapon until they start their crime.
planetxan July 28th, 2014 at 13:17
You don’t have to be a criminal to shoot someone. But you do have to have a gun. An exposed gun in a public place is a threat to everyone in that place. If the threat is not removed, people should remove themselves from the threat. It is a sensible response. Life trumps law. As far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for dine-n-dash leaving a burning building, or running outside during an earthquake. But people have been unintentionally killed by firearms.
Of course now criminals are fully aware that they can carry guns in public, making their job that much easier.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:32
No, criminals are going to continue to hide their weapons until they’re ready to strike, because they don’t want attention, nor do they want the police called before they’re ready to commit their crime.
Madison Blane July 28th, 2014 at 13:19
Yeah, it’s not like anyone ever just walked into a school carrying a weapon and starting shooting a bunch of innocent kids or anything! :/ SMH
dantes342 July 28th, 2014 at 14:16
I don’t have to stay ANYWHERE near some guy that I don’t know who’s carrying a gun. It’s idiotic to assume that they’re just a patriotic law abiding teddy bear and that I, or my children, or my wife, or anybody just has to accept it. Their rights end where mine begin — otherwise we don’t have a civil society, we have a jungle.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:31
Protip: You don’t have a ‘right’ to ‘feel’ safe.
Sandra Gregory July 28th, 2014 at 16:54
Do you belong to a “well organized Militia”? I don’t recall the second amendment saying people walking around with guns hanging over their shoulder, intimidating innocent American citizens is a well organized militia.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:30
Luckily for us, the 2nd amendment isn’t conditional upon a well organized militia. A well organized militia is the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the right is not conditional upon being in the militia. Someone with even the most basic reading comprehension skills can see this.
Harvey Elder Jr July 28th, 2014 at 18:26
You are the only one responsible for feeling intimidated. Unless he threatens you with more than his presence he has the right to be there
ceefer July 28th, 2014 at 16:05
Ummmm, I have been in a bank and in a convenience store where guys walked in with weapons in full view and announced a robbery, so yes, I’ve seen criminals carry firearms in public.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:31
No, you saw criminals brandish weapons in public. They didn’t just waltz around with slung weapons until they were ready to strike.
Sam Gillis July 29th, 2014 at 08:43
1. I was not in anyway encouraging someone to just start caring a gun they need to be trained and educated on how to do so safely and responsibly.
2. This civilized society was started with guns and is protected with guns by people you may or may not know who are around you and your family’s everyday but you trust them because they have received the proper training.Why cant I be allowed to do the the same without having to make it a career.
3. We are supposed to be the welled organized militia there was never supposed to be a government Army.
Sunshine1011 July 28th, 2014 at 14:14
Except where I live if you walk out on a bill at a restaurant that is not only a jailable offense but a MANDATORY one night stay in prison. Good luck with that.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:28
How can you get a mandatory one-night stay in prison without being sentenced? You probably mean “jail.” But even that might only occur upon a lawful conviction.
John Blair July 28th, 2014 at 14:42
I’ll happily return and pay the bill after safety has been restored.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:30
Do you have any evidence to suggest that open carriers make an area unsafe? Or is it just your emotional hoplophobic response to seeing something scary?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:17
Asshole walked in with an assault rifle. Evidence enough for me.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:32
No they didn’t, assault rifles are select fire, no select fire weapon has been carried during one of these protests. But aside from your ignorance of firearm (it’s funny, gun grabbers are always completely stupid when it comes to guns. Imagine that), the mere presence of a scary looking black rifle doesn’t make an area unsafe.
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:36
Typical. Argue your strawmen, by all means. Don’t carry a weapon unless you intend to use it. If you have it, you intend to use it, you are a threat. Period.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:43
What strawman? You specifically said he made the place unsafe because he walked in with an assault rifle. You have no idea what an assault rifle is, but I inferred from that you meant a scary black “military looking” rifle. Was I wrong? Please, correct me.
Are cops a threat? They all carry weapons. According to you in the post you JUST made, it’s completely irrelevant that they carry that weapon for defensive purposes (just like me – I carry everyday for defensive purposes). Do you run out on your check whenever a cop walks in with his sidearm on his hip?
Or is it possible that someone can arm themselves with the intent to only use it in the event that their life is threatened, and so they aren’t the imaginary threat you’re so scared of? You know, sort of like body guards, cops, armed security guards?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:52
I said nothing about unsafe, I said a threat.
I know exactly what an assault rifle is. I know what many weapons are and how to use them expertly.
Cops are assigned peacekeepers that are trained, bonded, and accountable for their actions publicly.
How many times in this country, have you needed to fire your weapon in defense?
No.
Sure it’s possible, but not bloody likely.
It goes like this: I don’t know you. You have an AR-15 strapped to your back (no, no select fire :P That is meaningless in this context anyway). You are a threat.
It really is as simple as that.
It’s also damn insulting to every other human being around you, that you consider their home and community a threatening place enough to want to carry something that could even unintentionally KILL FUCKING PEOPLE.
How is this simple idea not getting through?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:53
It’s the classic straw-man dodge. I guess he’s found something he’s good at.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:03
WHY DOES NO ONE HERE KNOW WHAT THE STRAW MAN FALLACY IS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 18:26
Keep strutting and fretting your hour upon the stage, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying… nothing. :)
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:28
Jesus, getting mixed up in the comments here is just like trying to debate in the comments at The Blaze.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:36
Strangely enough, your comments history shows no activity on The Blaze. I guess I nailed it when I pointed out that this account is a sockpuppet.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:56
I asked what evidence there was that these people made the area unsafe. You replied with “Asshole walked in with an assault rifle”. Here’s a screenshot if you don’t believe me: http://i.imgur.com/Tvmyn65.png
Cops are not accountable for their actions, by the way. They have special protection: qualified immunity. That’s why when 2 cops unloaded at a guy in New York City a year or so ago and shot 10 innocent people they didn’t face charges.
And no, someone wearing a weapon doesn’t make them a threat, no matter how much your feels tell you it does.
BTW more people are killed every year by hammers than firearms. Does thatm ake me a threat if I’m wearing a toolbelt with a hammer?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 18:00
Keep beating your head against the wall brother… you’ll ‘win’ the argument some day… LOL
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:54
I call BULLSHIT !! Firearm Deaths in 2011 :12,664. Hammer Deaths (includes clubs & blunt objects,but not limited to hammers) : 496. Source : FBI. Quit reading Brietbart.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:01
You’re correct, I was misremembering the statistic. It’s blunt objects have kill more than rifles and shotguns, not all firearms. I don’t read Breitbart, BTW.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 18:55
Rubbers! 70% of homicides in the US are committed withfirearms. That is a statistic that is raised around the world in debates about gun crime.
And many times that number are injured or killed in accidents and suicides.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:02
Yeah you’re right, the statistic I was thinking of was more people are killed by blunt instruments than by rifles and shotguns, not all guns. My mistake.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:36
it sounds like you live in so much fear. that must suck.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:40
Quite the opposite, I know that even if I find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, I have a better chance of defending myself than if I wasn’t armed.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:48
i have never needed a gun in any situation of my 46 years and no harm has come to me or my loved ones. so the idea of needing a gun suggests that you have some fear that makes you feel safer by having a gun on you.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:59
Hey I’ve never needed my seatbelt either, but I still wear it. Same with smoke alarms in my house, and my automobile insurance. That doesn’t mean I live in fear of automobile collisions and house fires.
My weapon is a tool. It’s unlikely I’ll ever have to use it, but in the event that I do, I’ll have it. And I’d much rather carry it and never need it than need it one day and not have it.
So do you not wear a seatbelt? Do you not have smoke alarms and maybe a fire extinguisher in your home?
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 19:10
those items are of a benign nature which honestly can’t be said of a gun.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:12
Um, yes. Yes it can be said about a gun.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 19:14
interesting, however if you don’t see a difference then i think we’ve reached the end of the discussion. i hope that you never have to use your gun as protection.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:19
Um, no it can’t. It’s a machine designed for killing.
Wow, I’m collecting a big stack of strawman arguments. Cool!
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:18
Is your seatbelt designed to kill someone? Nope.
Nice strawman though. :D
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:17
Nice strawman argument. I can only admire your tenacity, since your logic is completely errant. :)
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:44
He’s been using a lot of straw-men in his arguments on this board. Just point them out when you see them. The rest of us that understand logic can see them, too.
Harvey Elder Jr July 28th, 2014 at 18:21
So all cops are a threat. Great logic you have
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:35
Yes, I assume all police are a threat.
Because too many are.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 18:53
No, but it is getting hard to tell the bad cop with an attitude from the good cop. Cops anymore seem to protect their fellow officers that break the law and are bad and not report them. If cops would police themselves better … maybe things would be different.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:16
Cops have a reason to carry a gun. It’s their job. Thanks for the strawman to match the ones I’ve been collecting on this thread. :D
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 01:21
Straw man for a straw man? Bobbies in Britain don’t carry guns…they are cops. Your logic is flawed. Police carry guns for the exact same reason that conceal and carry folks carry: protection. The half-wits carrying rifles around are just a back-lash to the half-wits who think guns should be illegal. Think of it as a pendulum…now it’s swinging away from your idiocy to the other side of the idiocy.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:15
You claim people are ignorant about firearms. You don’t have to be a firearms specialist to know they are designed to kill. Thanks for the strawman, though. It’s pretty. :D
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:14
Guns are tools of ill omen. So, yeah, I don’t want them brandished in public for no other reason than a fetish.
Studies and Observations July 28th, 2014 at 17:22
Sorry Sport..you dont have that Option… You WILL be arrested, you WILL be transported, and you WILL end up in Court, and depending on the state, and the amount of the Bill, you MIGHT Be looking at posting a substantial Bail…… Go Ahead and Play….. Most of us Cops are on the side of the Gun Folks not you Hoplphobes.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:11
Are most cops functionally illiiterate like you, too? That is a strange mixture of caps-lock, fucked-up punctuation and poor spelling. Did you take your oath in English, or Wingnut?
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
and that’s why people don’t like cops.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 20:04
Feel free to speak to his supervisor.
Here’s his Facebook page, for reference.
https://www.facebook.com/alan.kuhn2
Carla Akins July 28th, 2014 at 20:19
Sorry, I have edited the link to his FB page. If someone wishes to seek him out, they can find him the same way you did. If you wish to add a link to someone in the story, a moderator or site owner – that’s fine, but not another reader.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 22:01
OK.
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:20
two types of people become cops:
1. those who honestly feel a desire to improve society through service and by protecting the community from threats.
2. Those who want to make people do whatever they say because they get to carry a gun to work.
the second type wind up on youtube with viral videos and public out cries for prosecution and firing. They also get sued a lot.
If I spend a night in jail in order to guarantee my kids don’t wind up a victim to some ex-waiter who is pissed cause Chipotle made him pay for the uniform he ruined when he quit.
How the hell are we supposed to know the difference? do good guys with guns wear signs that can’t be duplicated by bad guys with guns? I think I can make a judge see my very real fear for the safety of my child’s life. My sorrow to leave without paying is minor compared to my need to see my family kept safe from harm I can predict and prevent. If you are in fact a cop as you say, you are the second type and you are far more concerned with your own political agenda than to actually protect the people in your community. Shame on you.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:12
You sir are a troll.
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:48
seriously cupcake, you made that up, and you know what we call people who make stuff up. The courts have much to much to do than to deal with your nonsense.
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 09:11
There are no such laws. You’re making this up.
Sunshine1011 July 28th, 2014 at 14:14
Except where I live if you walk out on a bill at a restaurant that is not only a jailable offense but a MANDATORY one night stay in prison. Good luck with that.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 14:28
How can you get a mandatory one-night stay in prison without being sentenced? You probably mean “jail.” But even that might only occur upon a lawful conviction.
John Blair July 28th, 2014 at 14:42
I’ll happily return and pay the bill after safety has been restored.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:30
Do you have any evidence to suggest that open carriers make an area unsafe? Or is it just your emotional hoplophobic response to seeing something scary?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:17
Asshole walked in with an assault rifle. Evidence enough for me.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:32
No they didn’t, assault rifles are select fire, no select fire weapon has been carried during one of these protests. But aside from your ignorance of firearm (it’s funny, gun grabbers are always completely stupid when it comes to guns. Imagine that), the mere presence of a scary looking black rifle doesn’t make an area unsafe.
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:36
Typical. Argue your strawmen, by all means. Don’t carry a weapon unless you intend to use it. If you have it, you intend to use it, you are a threat. Period.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:43
What strawman? You specifically said he made the place unsafe because he walked in with an assault rifle. You have no idea what an assault rifle is, but I inferred from that you meant a scary black “military looking” rifle. Was I wrong? Please, correct me.
Are cops a threat? They all carry weapons. According to you in the post you JUST made, it’s completely irrelevant that they carry that weapon for defensive purposes (just like me – I carry everyday for defensive purposes). Do you run out on your check whenever a cop walks in with his sidearm on his hip?
Or is it possible that someone can arm themselves with the intent to only use it in the event that their life is threatened, and so they aren’t the imaginary threat you’re so scared of? You know, sort of like body guards, cops, armed security guards?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 17:52
I said nothing about unsafe, I said a threat.
I know exactly what an assault rifle is. I know what many weapons are and how to use them expertly.
Cops are assigned peacekeepers that are trained, bonded, and accountable for their actions publicly.
How many times in this country, have you needed to fire your weapon in defense?
No.
Sure it’s possible, but not bloody likely.
It goes like this: I don’t know you. You have an AR-15 strapped to your back (no, no select fire :P That is meaningless in this context anyway). You are a threat.
It really is as simple as that.
It’s also damn insulting to every other human being around you, that you consider their home and community a threatening place enough to want to carry something that could even unintentionally KILL FUCKING PEOPLE.
How is this simple idea not getting through?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:53
It’s the classic straw-man dodge. I guess he’s found something he’s good at, well that, and ad hominem.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:03
WHY DOES NO ONE HERE KNOW WHAT THE STRAW MAN FALLACY IS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 18:26
Keep strutting and fretting your hour upon the stage, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying… nothing. :)
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:28
Jesus, getting mixed up in the comments here is just like trying to debate in the comments at The Blaze.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:36
Strangely enough, your comments history shows no activity on The Blaze. I guess I nailed it when I pointed out that this account is a sockpuppet.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 17:56
I asked what evidence there was that these people made the area unsafe. You replied with “Asshole walked in with an assault rifle”. Here’s a screenshot if you don’t believe me: http://i.imgur.com/Tvmyn65.png
Cops are not accountable for their actions, by the way. They have special protection: qualified immunity. That’s why when 2 cops unloaded at a guy in New York City a year or so ago and shot 10 innocent people they didn’t face charges.
And no, someone wearing a weapon doesn’t make them a threat, no matter how much your feels tell you it does.
BTW more people are killed every year by hammers than firearms. Does thatm ake me a threat if I’m wearing a toolbelt with a hammer?
James Murray July 28th, 2014 at 18:00
Keep beating your head against the wall brother… you’ll ‘win’ the argument some day… LOL
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:54
I call BULLSHIT !! Firearm Deaths in 2011 :12,664. Hammer Deaths (includes clubs & blunt objects,but not limited to hammers) : 496. Source : FBI. Quit reading Brietbart.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:01
You’re correct, I was misremembering the statistic. It’s blunt objects have kill more than rifles and shotguns, not all firearms. I don’t read Breitbart, BTW.
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 18:55
Rubbish! 70% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms. That is a statistic that is raised around the world in debates about gun crime.
And many times that number are injured or killed in accidents and suicides.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:02
Yeah you’re right, the statistic I was thinking of was more people are killed by blunt instruments than by rifles and shotguns, not all guns. My mistake.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:36
it sounds like you live in so much fear. that must suck.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:40
Quite the opposite, I know that even if I find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, I have a better chance of defending myself than if I wasn’t armed.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:48
i have never needed a gun in any situation of my 46 years and no harm has come to me or my loved ones. so the idea of needing a gun suggests that you have some fear that makes you feel safer by having a gun on you.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:59
Hey I’ve never needed my seatbelt either, but I still wear it. Same with smoke alarms in my house, and my automobile insurance. That doesn’t mean I live in fear of automobile collisions and house fires.
My weapon is a tool. It’s unlikely I’ll ever have to use it, but in the event that I do, I’ll have it. And I’d much rather carry it and never need it than need it one day and not have it.
So do you not wear a seatbelt? Do you not have smoke alarms and maybe a fire extinguisher in your home?
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 19:10
those items are of a benign nature which honestly can’t be said of a gun, or do you think of them as the same? one has a violent reaction which propels a bullet along with deadly force and the other makes a noise when detecting smoke.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:12
Um, yes. Yes it can be said about a gun.
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 19:14
interesting, however if you don’t see a difference then i think we’ve reached the end of the discussion. i hope that you never have to use your gun as protection.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:19
Um, no it can’t. It’s a machine designed for killing.
Wow, I’m collecting a big stack of strawman arguments. Cool!
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:18
Is your seatbelt designed to kill someone? Nope.
Nice strawman though. :D
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:17
Nice strawman argument. I can only admire your tenacity, since your logic is completely errant. :)
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 17:44
He’s been using a lot of straw-men in his arguments on this board. Just point them out when you see them. The rest of us that understand logic can see them, too.
Harvey Elder Jr July 28th, 2014 at 18:21
So all cops are a threat. Great logic you have
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:35
Yes, I assume all police are a threat.
Because too many are.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 18:53
No, but it is getting hard to tell the bad cop with an attitude from the good cop. Cops anymore seem to protect their fellow officers that break the law and are bad and not report them. If cops would police themselves better … maybe things would be different.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:16
Cops have a reason to carry a gun. It’s their job. Thanks for the strawman to match the ones I’ve been collecting on this thread. :D
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 01:21
Straw man for a straw man? Bobbies in Britain don’t carry guns…they are cops. Your logic is flawed. Police carry guns for the exact same reason that conceal and carry folks carry: protection. The half-wits carrying rifles around are just a back-lash to the half-wits who think guns should be illegal. Think of it as a pendulum…now it’s swinging away from your idiocy to the other side of the idiocy.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:15
You claim people are ignorant about firearms. You don’t have to be a firearms specialist to know they are designed to kill. Thanks for the strawman, though. It’s pretty. :D
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:14
Guns are tools of ill omen. So, yeah, I don’t want them brandished in public for no other reason than a fetish.
Studies and Observations July 28th, 2014 at 17:22
Sorry Sport..you dont have that Option… You WILL be arrested, you WILL be transported, and you WILL end up in Court, and depending on the state, and the amount of the Bill, you MIGHT Be looking at posting a substantial Bail…… Go Ahead and Play….. Most of us Cops are on the side of the Gun Folks not you Hoplphobes.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:11
Are most cops functionally illiiterate like you, too? That is a strange mixture of caps-lock, fucked-up punctuation and poor spelling. Did you take your oath in English, or Wingnut?
gompers July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
and that’s why people don’t like cops. instead of protect and serve it’s whatever your agenda is acted out through a badge and gun. your beliefs should never enter into how to execute the law.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 20:04
Feel free to speak to his supervisor.
Here’s his Facebook page, for reference.
Carla Akins July 28th, 2014 at 20:19
Sorry, I have edited the link to his FB page. If someone wishes to seek him out, they can find him the same way you did. If you wish to add a link to someone in the story, a moderator or site owner – that’s fine, but not another reader.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 22:01
OK.
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:20
two types of people become cops:
1. those who honestly feel a desire to improve society through service and by protecting the community from threats.
2. Those who want to make people do whatever they say because they get to carry a gun to work.
the second type wind up on youtube with viral videos and public out cries for prosecution and firing. They also get sued a lot.
If I spend a night in jail in order to guarantee my kids don’t wind up a victim to some ex-waiter who is pissed cause Chipotle made him pay for the uniform he ruined when he quit.
How the hell are we supposed to know the difference? do good guys with guns wear signs that can’t be duplicated by bad guys with guns? I think I can make a judge see my very real fear for the safety of my child’s life. My sorrow to leave without paying is minor compared to my need to see my family kept safe from harm I can predict and prevent. If you are in fact a cop as you say, you are the second type and you are far more concerned with your own political agenda than to actually protect the people in your community. Shame on you.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:12
You sir are a troll.
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:48
seriously cupcake, you made that up, and you know what we call people who make stuff up. The courts have much to much to do than to deal with your nonsense.
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 09:11
There are no such laws. You’re making this up.
Brendan Bassett July 28th, 2014 at 14:18
Why does it take a professor to tell Americans to stay the hell away from these people. The implicit contract I assume to have with any commercial establishment includes them at least trying to keep armed people away from me. If they don’t, I leave.
Brendan Bassett July 28th, 2014 at 14:18
Why does it take a professor to tell Americans to stay the hell away from these people. The implicit contract I assume to have with any commercial establishment includes them at least trying to keep armed people away from me. If they don’t, I leave.
tumbleweed July 28th, 2014 at 14:30
Best advice I’ve heard, other than and including the professor’s to drop everything and run……I would add to scream “omg, he’s got a gun, call 911”. Let the gun guy sort it out with the law. Doubtful too many business’ would want to deal with that more than once.
Studies and Observations July 28th, 2014 at 17:20
And I, as a Police Officer would very GLADLY arrest you for filing a false Police Report. If you want to Play THAT Game, no problem Sparky YOU are the one going to Jail. ou forget that the Majority of Cops are very Pro 2A
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:32
So you’re telling me that if I see a man walk into a gas station holding a gun in his hand, I shouldn’t call the police?
Sorry mister, but I think I’ll take my chances and let the police sort it out.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:34
It’s just easier for these lazy cops to arrest you for making a legitimate mistake than to chase after a gunman. Priorities!
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:52
For the record, I don’t involve police. I don’t believe in the concept. However, it’s stupid to expect that one wouldn’t actually call them in the scenario above, and it’s stupid to think they’d be convicted of a crime for doing so.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:41
They aren’t going to arrest you for reporting people walking into places brandishing weapons. Sorry to disappoint.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 22:03
I admit, I was being facetious. One isn’t likely to be arrested for reporting a gunman. I’m not really disppointed.
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:45
Just curious…….how is screaming ” Omg, he’s got a gun, call 911″ filing a false police report ? I believe that you arresting him for filing a false police report, when the report is not false, would lead to a false arrest suit. True …..or false ?
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 18:49
It would be good for a gun happy cop to arrest someond for that. It could then be brought to the attention of the nation and put an end to ‘cops’ with powers beyond their intelligence.
And, btw, you would get a very bad beating up on Court as well as in the Court of Public Opinion. No one can be barred from leaving a position of potential danger.
As for your second amendment, read and learn something about it and the political interpretations by American Courts. The same apparent freedom existed in almost every Western nation in the past. It was nullified as soon as they became modern states.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:10
What? I had no idea that the American Courts make political interpretations.
FAIL: Go back to 10th grade, take Civics again. Your ignorance of the American Courts is showing.
John Peate July 29th, 2014 at 10:19
You are perhaps not aware that the Second Amendment Right is nothing more than a rehash of Medieval Practise in England. There militias were required to meet quarterly and bring their weapons for training purposes. It became an occasion for drunken fests as the need became archaic. The practise of militias and with it the “Right” to arms faded into oblivion.
No such “Right” now exists and has been fashioned into a safe policy and social norm by law. Challenges have been dealt with by Courts in a lawful manner. As in other countries, too, immature citizens and criminals are no longer allowed to swagger and threaten the peace.
American courts would find the same if they were freed from economic and political influence.
gmart July 28th, 2014 at 19:55
How do you know it’s false? I see two neckbeards walk into Denny’s with AR-15s, how do I know what their intent is?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 20:03
Here’s this sick puppy’s Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/alan.kuhn2
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:11
so you intend to arrest a person for feeling as if they were in danger and calling the police for protection from said danger?
and you think you can make that stick?
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:42
without a doubt.
B Jones July 29th, 2014 at 01:56
False report? He has a gun. What’s false about that? Are you really a (sadly unprofessional) cop or a troll?
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:37
you’re no more of a cop than I am cupcake. He/they have guns, they’re waving them around, I’m concerned for my family. You don’t know much about cops, do you?
Studies and Observations August 25th, 2014 at 14:40
25 Years there Sweetpea..and retired for 2..and as far as the Photo, I didnt see anyone waving anything around. What I saw is that one is slung, the other is controlled with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Now do I Necessarily AGREE with how they are carrying?? Not really, but I also understand WHY they are doing so, even if i Don’t completely Agree with theit methods. See what YOU don’t understand about Police in General (Whether it be Police Officer, Sheriff’s officer/Deputy, Corrections, Federal, Ect.) is that the majority of them are Conservative, and Pro-gun, In fact the 2013 study by PoliceOne, which surveyed ONLY Sworn (and verified) Officers came in at a touch over 85% were firmly AGAINST Gun Control. ARE there Liberal/Antigun Cops?? Certainly there are, but they are not the Majority by any means. One thing I DID enjoy was charging dome Do-gooder type like you with Harassment when they tried to use us to infringe on someone else’s rights. Glass houses and all that.
Taymie August 30th, 2014 at 12:00
you can’t make it stick, because in order to make the charges actually result in a conviction would be to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person who filed the report did NOT in fact feel that they were in danger of a gun toting maniac. Good luck.
dmcrane July 28th, 2014 at 18:29
I agree, but I think I’d leave out the 911 part, let the management decide whether they want to do that. I agree though, this is the best advice I’ve seen to deal with this yet.
tumbleweed July 28th, 2014 at 14:30
Best advice I’ve heard, other than and including the professor’s to drop everything and run……I would add to scream “omg, he’s got a gun, call 911”. Let the gun guy sort it out with the law. Doubtful too many business’ would want to deal with that more than once.
Studies and Observations July 28th, 2014 at 17:20
And I, as a Police Officer would very GLADLY arrest you for filing a false Police Report. If you want to Play THAT Game, no problem Sparky YOU are the one going to Jail. ou forget that the Majority of Cops are very Pro 2A
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:32
So you’re telling me that if I see a man walk into a gas station holding a gun in his hand, I shouldn’t call the police?
Sorry mister, but I think I’ll take my chances and let the police sort it out.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 18:34
It’s just easier for these lazy cops to arrest you for making a legitimate mistake than to chase after a gunman. Priorities!
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:52
For the record, I don’t involve police. I don’t believe in the concept. However, it’s stupid to expect that one wouldn’t actually call them in the scenario above, and it’s stupid to think they’d be convicted of a crime for doing so.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:41
They aren’t going to arrest you for reporting people walking into places brandishing weapons. Sorry to disappoint.
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 22:03
I admit, I was being facetious. One isn’t likely to be arrested for reporting a gunman. I’m not really disppointed.
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:45
Just curious…….how is screaming ” Omg, he’s got a gun, call 911″ filing a false police report ? I believe that you arresting him for filing a false police report, when the report is not false, would lead to a false arrest suit. True …..or false ?
John Peate July 28th, 2014 at 18:49
It would be good for a gun happy cop to arrest someond for that. It could then be brought to the attention of the nation and put an end to ‘cops’ with powers beyond their intelligence.
And, btw, you would get a very bad beating up on Court as well as in the Court of Public Opinion. No one can be barred from leaving a position of potential danger.
As for your second amendment, read and learn something about it and the political interpretations by American Courts. The same apparent freedom existed in almost every Western nation in the past. It was nullified as soon as they became modern states.
Lib_IN_YOUR_FACE July 28th, 2014 at 21:10
What? I had no idea that the American Courts make political interpretations.
FAIL: Go back to 10th grade, take Civics again. Your ignorance of the American Courts is showing.
John Peate July 29th, 2014 at 10:19
You are perhaps not aware that the Second Amendment Right is nothing more than a rehash of Medieval Practise in England. There militias were required to meet quarterly and bring their weapons for training purposes. It became an occasion for drunken fests as the need became archaic. The practise of militias and with it the “Right” to arms faded into oblivion.
No such “Right” now exists and has been fashioned into a safe policy and social norm by law. Challenges have been dealt with by Courts in a lawful manner. As in other countries, too, immature citizens and criminals are no longer allowed to swagger and threaten the peace.
American courts would find the same if they were freed from economic and political influence.
gmart July 28th, 2014 at 19:55
How do you know it’s false? I see two neckbeards walk into Denny’s with AR-15s, how do I know what their intent is?
Mo Reno July 28th, 2014 at 20:03
Here’s this sick puppy’s Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/alan.kuhn2
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:11
so you intend to arrest a person for feeling as if they were in danger and calling the police for protection from said danger?
and you think you can make that stick?
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:42
without a doubt.
B Jones July 29th, 2014 at 01:56
False report? He has a gun. What’s false about that? Are you really a (sadly unprofessional) cop or a troll?
tumbleweed August 24th, 2014 at 23:37
you’re no more of a cop than I am cupcake. He/they have guns, they’re waving them around, I’m concerned for my family. You don’t know much about cops, do you?
Studies and Observations August 25th, 2014 at 14:40
25 Years there Sweetpea..and retired for 2..and as far as the Photo, I didnt see anyone waving anything around. What I saw is that one is slung, the other is controlled with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Now do I Necessarily AGREE with how they are carrying?? Not really, but I also understand WHY they are doing so, even if i Don’t completely Agree with theit methods. See what YOU don’t understand about Police in General (Whether it be Police Officer, Sheriff’s officer/Deputy, Corrections, Federal, Ect.) is that the majority of them are Conservative, and Pro-gun, In fact the 2013 study by PoliceOne, which surveyed ONLY Sworn (and verified) Officers came in at a touch over 85% were firmly AGAINST Gun Control. ARE there Liberal/Antigun Cops?? Certainly there are, but they are not the Majority by any means. One thing I DID enjoy was charging dome Do-gooder type like you with Harassment when they tried to use us to infringe on someone else’s rights. Glass houses and all that.
Taymie August 30th, 2014 at 12:00
you can’t make it stick, because in order to make the charges actually result in a conviction would be to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person who filed the report did NOT in fact feel that they were in danger of a gun toting maniac. Good luck.
dmcrane July 28th, 2014 at 18:29
I agree, but I think I’d leave out the 911 part, let the management decide whether they want to do that. I agree though, this is the best advice I’ve seen to deal with this yet.
FredC1968 July 28th, 2014 at 16:19
There needs to be protection for open carry. I practice discreet carry. However, occasionally the wind will blow open a concealing garment. In some jurisdictions this can be construed as brandishing.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 16:25
You need to go to prison. Or a shrink. Or both.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:29
He needs to go to prison for carrying a concealed weapon? Why?
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 19:45
He’s a threat to public safety. End of story.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:39
Concern troll is trollish.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 23:23
No. If you’re going to use cliched jargon, at least use it correctly. “Concern trolling” is when someone says “I’m concerned that these people might be a threat…” I say no such thing. They are a threat. Full stop. Our country would be better off without these freaks.
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 01:10
I do believe our country would be better off without “freaks” such as yourself. A legally armed citizen is no threat to you unless you choose to be a threat to them. Besides, many have trained extensively and know quite a few ways to kill you WITHOUT a gun. By your logic, they are a threat and the country is better off without them. Them being the thousands of soldiers who protect your dumb ass…
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 04:36
This person is either a troll, a fascist, or a genuine idiot. Goes from saying someone should go to prison for CCW, only to vouch for the arrests of demonstrators who aren’t violating the law. If Parque_Hundido is serious about 1.No Concealed Carry Allowed 2. No Open Carry Allowed and 3.The circumvention of our legal system… well you get the picture.
Parque_Hundido July 29th, 2014 at 06:21
I’m sure this type of logic goes over well in whatever compound you live in. Not in our society. We want people like you locked up.
Joe Kendall July 30th, 2014 at 12:07
The logic I was using was deductive reasoning. What society are you from where you presume guilt before innocence?
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 23:11
No. You’ve shown no ability to reason thus far. You’re a confessed threat to society. Present yourself at the nearest prison.
Joe Kendall July 31st, 2014 at 15:01
“What society are you from where you presume guilt before innocence?”
^This is not a yes or no question…
Parque_Hundido July 29th, 2014 at 06:19
You are the threat. Dumb people who somehow feel empowered when they brandish weapons in public are a threat to our society. I want people like you to just go away. I’m willing to pay for incarceration. I do not believe we should be forced to tolerate you in our society. The rule of law provides means for handling cases like yours.
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 18:17
Personally, I never draw my gun. I have worked as a prison guard, a bouncer, a body guard and private security. I don’t NEED it to deal with most threats. Honestly, I prefer concealed carry (it keeps me from being a target to the crazies). Sadly, these idiots have the right to carry openly just like you have the right to spew idiotic nonsense. I don’t support either one of you in your quest to see who can be the biggest dim-wit. A gun in a holster, or on one’s back does not constitute “brandishing”. Holding it at ready does. I would agree with you about threat levels rising if you were speaking of people carrying their guns in their hand, but not slung or holstered. And there ARE laws in place that address that very issue (and i thought ignorance was only a trait of conservatives! You have proven me wrong!). Now, having said all that, I respect your right to an opinion but I don’t respect your accusations and calls for imprisonment. This is a free country and if you wish to live in a non-free country I can recommend many. Stop trying to force your beliefs on others. It makes you no better than the radical Muslims. Now I’ll give you my opinion. I feel the same way about folks like you. Just go away.
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 23:12
You’re a complete fool AND a threat to society.
Ymmit Sebrof July 31st, 2014 at 07:05
Good argument! I guess your superior intellect and dazzling display of arrogance showed me!
Parque_Hundido July 31st, 2014 at 08:41
I would agree with your assessment, Timmy. You should work on your ability to articulate an argument. Just some constructive feedback.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 04:29
Let’s throw away that whole thing about due process of law, which finds people guilty only in instances where a law is actually violated, and lock up everyone who we think our country will be better without. How about the Japanese for starters! (oh wait that’s been done already)
FredC1968 July 28th, 2014 at 16:49
You are just brilliant! I find it amazing that you’re able to diagnose severe mental illness from reading four sentences. I also find your ability as an expert on crime nothing short of amazing.
With geniuses like you we can do away with our pesky legal system.
FredC1968 July 28th, 2014 at 16:19
There needs to be protection for open carry. I practice discreet carry. However, occasionally the wind will blow open a concealing garment. In some jurisdictions this can be construed as brandishing.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 16:25
You need to go to prison. Or a shrink. Or both.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:29
He needs to go to prison for carrying a concealed weapon? Why?
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 19:45
He’s a threat to public safety. End of story.
LetMyPplGo July 28th, 2014 at 20:39
Concern troll is trollish.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 23:23
No. If you’re going to use cliched jargon, at least use it correctly. “Concern trolling” is when someone says “I’m concerned that these people might be a threat…” I say no such thing. They are a threat. Full stop. Our country would be better off without these freaks.
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 01:10
I do believe our country would be better off without “freaks” such as yourself. A legally armed citizen is no threat to you unless you choose to be a threat to them. Besides, many have trained extensively and know quite a few ways to kill you WITHOUT a gun. By your logic, they are a threat and the country is better off without them. Them being the thousands of soldiers who protect your dumb ass…
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 04:36
This person is either a troll, a fascist, or a genuine idiot. Goes from saying someone should go to prison for CCW, only to vouch for the arrests of demonstrators who aren’t violating the law. If Parque_Hundido is serious about 1.No Concealed Carry Allowed 2. No Open Carry Allowed and 3.The circumvention of our legal system… well you get the picture.
Parque_Hundido July 29th, 2014 at 06:21
I’m sure this type of logic goes over well in whatever compound you live in. Not in our society. We want people like you locked up.
Joe Kendall July 30th, 2014 at 12:07
The logic I was using was deductive reasoning. What society are you from where you presume guilt before innocence?
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 23:11
No. You’ve shown no ability to reason thus far. You’re a confessed threat to society. Present yourself at the nearest prison.
Joe Kendall July 31st, 2014 at 15:01
“What society are you from where you presume guilt before innocence?”
^This is not a yes or no question…
Parque_Hundido July 29th, 2014 at 06:19
You are the threat. Dumb people who somehow feel empowered when they brandish weapons in public are a threat to our society. I want people like you to just go away. I’m willing to pay for incarceration. I do not believe we should be forced to tolerate you in our society. The rule of law provides means for handling cases like yours.
Ymmit Sebrof July 29th, 2014 at 18:17
Personally, I never draw my gun. I have worked as a prison guard, a bouncer, a body guard and private security. I don’t NEED it to deal with most threats. Honestly, I prefer concealed carry (it keeps me from being a target to the crazies). Sadly, these idiots have the right to carry openly just like you have the right to spew idiotic nonsense. I don’t support either one of you in your quest to see who can be the biggest dim-wit. A gun in a holster, or on one’s back does not constitute “brandishing”. Holding it at ready does. I would agree with you about threat levels rising if you were speaking of people carrying their guns in their hand, but not slung or holstered. And there ARE laws in place that address that very issue (and i thought ignorance was only a trait of conservatives! You have proven me wrong!). Now, having said all that, I respect your right to an opinion but I don’t respect your accusations and calls for imprisonment. This is a free country and if you wish to live in a non-free country I can recommend many. Stop trying to force your beliefs on others. It makes you no better than the radical Muslims. Now I’ll give you my opinion. I feel the same way about folks like you. Just go away.
Parque_Hundido July 30th, 2014 at 23:12
You’re a complete fool AND a threat to society.
Ymmit Sebrof July 31st, 2014 at 07:05
Good argument! I guess your superior intellect and dazzling display of arrogance showed me!
Parque_Hundido July 31st, 2014 at 08:41
I would agree with your assessment, Timmy. You should work on your ability to articulate an argument. You use a lot of words but don’t say much. Just some constructive feedback.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 04:29
Let’s throw away that whole thing about due process of law, which finds people guilty only in instances where a law is actually violated, and lock up everyone who we think our country will be better without. How about the Japanese for starters! (oh wait that’s been done already)
FredC1968 July 28th, 2014 at 16:49
You are just brilliant! I find it amazing that you’re able to diagnose severe mental illness from reading four sentences. I also find your ability as an expert on crime nothing short of amazing.
With geniuses like you we can do away with our pesky legal system.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 16:25
People who carry high powered weapons out in public ought to be jailed. Full stop. These are public enemies. They are a threat to all of us.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:29
Does this include cops?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:43
Especially cops. Cops first.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:45
Something we can agree on.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:51
Not unless you feel the same way about military, statist.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:59
What the hell made you decide I’m a statist?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
The odds.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:06
So you just lash out and call people statists because the majority of people are statists? Do you not see a problem with that line of reasoning?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:09
No, not really. I haven’t been wrong yet.
If you believe in the concept of political borders, a standing military, a constitution, elected office, or economic systems that require the former things in order to function, such as capitalism, you are a statist.
That includes just about everyone in the united states, including so called “anarcho-capitalists” and “libertarians”
PS: Referring to someone as a “statist” is not lashing out.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:12
Capitalism requires statism? And here I thought all it required was for people to be free to trade voluntarily.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:13
Nope. Capitalism cannot function without private property, and therefore it requires a state to enforce property rights.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:16
Private property doesn’t require a state, people can hire (or be) their own security to secure their property. However, anarcho communism requires the State to ENFORCE collective ownership of the means of production. Maybe you were thinking about that.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:18
Yeah, that doesn’t actually work, but it’s cute that you think it does.
What you’re proposing is in essence a neuo-feudal system where a series of lords control property and wealth. Replacing a monolithic state with several smaller states is still statism.
There’s no meaningful difference between private and public enforcement of a state.
Ancaps are hilarious. And so are glibertarians.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:19
What’s your philosophy, exactly? You sound like an anarcho communist, which requires the state as well.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:23
I’m an anarcha-feminist. I don’t believe in communism.
Voluntary socialism (which has been demonstrated several times throughout human history) and mutual aid institutions do not need a state in order to operate.
Most nomadic people from the Americas operated with similar systems, and other variants have also been demonstrably functional throughout the whole of human history.
You have no such model to base anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism on. The closest example is feudal europe, a system which was an abject failure for all but a select few who benefited and generally required a war economy at that.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:31
Who protects your voluntary socialist societies from marauders?
Also, most nomadic people from the Americas prior to European colonization were in perpetual states of war against one another, they killed each other over territory routinely. It’s not that they were voluntarily socialists, it’s that they were still in the stone age.
Also, feudal Europe was pretty much as far from capitalism as you can get. There were state regulated guilds and markets, lots of taxes, lots of control by the State.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:41
Bwahahahah
Your knowledge of history is about as refined as your knowledge of socio-political models and economics.
LOL.
I’m about over you. I have things to do that don’t involve you, statist.
Buh bye.
*still laughing at ‘anarcho-capitalists’*
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:25
As long as you’re a statist, simply stand with the courage of your convictions and own it.
Being pro-government isn’t so bad – at least you’ve got a lot of company.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:32
Lol sorry, I’m a true Anarchist. And any form of stateless anarchy is by definition capitalist, as the markets are free.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Anarcho capitalism is not anarchism.
And any system whose cost of not participating is the denial of basic needs like shelter, food and water is by definition coercive.
Murray Rothbard stole left wing rhetoric from Anarchists. He admitted it, and he did it as a tactic, to repaint authoritarian capitalism as populism.
Anarcho-capitalism is simply a way to dupe rubes, and is not even functional in theory, which is why it only exists on the Internet.
Lisa M. Alter July 28th, 2014 at 23:31
I’m confident that your statement, “I haven’t been wrong yet” is itself wrong. I am also confident that you will deny it and thus I have no intention of reading your reply.
danah gaz July 29th, 2014 at 01:25
How nice for you.
Just because I haven’t been wrong so far when I’ve called someone a statist, doesn’t mean I won’t be at some point.
It’s not hard to right about that though. One thing about encountering a fellow anarchist is we tend to let each other know. Another way of putting that is we can smell our own.
It makes no sense that you’d reply to me if you are going to tuck tail and run rather than handling my response.
The problem with being confident, is people that are overtly confident are almost always wrong at least as often as they are right.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 19:39
I wouldn’t dispute that cops are often problems, but they’ve taken an oath to uphold the law. The yahoos who show up at Denny’s with guns haven’t.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 01:45
Jailed? For what? They aren’t breaking any laws.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 16:25
People who carry high powered weapons out in public ought to be jailed. Full stop. These are public enemies. They are a threat to all of us.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:29
Does this include cops?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:43
Especially cops. Cops first.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:45
Something we can agree on.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:51
Not unless you feel the same way about military, statist.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 18:59
What the hell made you decide I’m a statist?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:05
The odds.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:06
So you just lash out and call people statists because the majority of people are statists? Do you not see a problem with that line of reasoning?
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:09
No, not really. I haven’t been wrong yet.
If you believe in the concept of political borders, a standing military, a constitution, elected office, or economic systems that require the former things in order to function, such as capitalism, you are a statist.
That includes just about everyone in the united states, including so called “anarcho-capitalists” and “libertarians”
PS: Referring to someone as a “statist” is not “lashing out.”
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:12
Capitalism requires statism? And here I thought all it required was for people to be free to trade voluntarily.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:13
Nope. Capitalism cannot function without private property, and therefore it requires a state to enforce property rights.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:16
Private property doesn’t require a state, people can hire (or be) their own security to secure their property. However, anarcho communism requires the State to ENFORCE collective ownership of the means of production. Maybe you were thinking about that.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:18
Yeah, that doesn’t actually work, but it’s cute that you think it does.
What you’re proposing is in essence a neuo-feudal system where a series of lords control property and wealth. Replacing a monolithic state with several smaller states is still statism.
There’s no meaningful difference between private and public enforcement of a state.
Ancaps are hilarious. And so are glibertarians.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:19
What’s your philosophy, exactly? You sound like an anarcho communist, which requires the state as well.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:23
I’m an anarcha-feminist. I don’t believe in communism.
Voluntary socialism (which has been demonstrated several times throughout human history) and mutual aid institutions do not need a state in order to operate.
Most nomadic people from the Americas operated with similar systems, and other variants have also been demonstrably functional throughout the whole of human history.
You have no such model to base anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism on. The closest example is feudal europe, a system which was an abject failure for all but a select few who benefited and generally required a war economy at that.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:31
Who protects your voluntary socialist societies from marauders?
Also, most nomadic people from the Americas prior to European colonization were in perpetual states of war against one another, they killed each other over territory routinely. It’s not that they were voluntarily socialists, it’s that they were still in the stone age.
Also, feudal Europe was pretty much as far from capitalism as you can get. There were state regulated guilds and markets, lots of taxes, lots of control by the State.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:41
Bwahahahah
Your knowledge of history is about as refined as your knowledge of socio-political models and economics.
LOL.
I’m about over you. I have things to do that don’t involve you, statist.
Buh bye.
*still laughing at ‘anarcho-capitalists’*
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:25
As long as you’re a statist, simply stand with the courage of your convictions and own it.
Being pro-government isn’t so bad – at least you’ve got a lot of company.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 19:32
Lol sorry, I’m a true Anarchist. And any form of stateless anarchy is by definition capitalist, as the markets are free.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Anarcho capitalism is not anarchism.
And any system whose cost of not participating is the denial of basic needs like shelter, food and water is by definition coercive.
Murray Rothbard stole left wing rhetoric from Anarchists. He admitted it, and he did it as a tactic, to repaint authoritarian capitalism as populism.
Anarcho-capitalism is simply a way to dupe rubes, and is not even functional in theory, which is why it only exists on the Internet.
Lisa M. Alter July 28th, 2014 at 23:31
I’m confident that your statement, “I haven’t been wrong yet” is itself wrong. I am also confident that you will deny it and thus I have no intention of reading your reply.
danah gaz July 29th, 2014 at 01:25
How nice for you.
Just because I haven’t been wrong so far when I’ve called someone a statist, doesn’t mean I won’t be at some point.
It’s not hard to right about that though. One thing about encountering a fellow anarchist is we tend to let each other know. Another way of putting that is we can smell our own.
It makes no sense that you’d reply to me if you are going to tuck tail and run rather than handling my response.
The problem with being confident, is people that are overtly confident are almost always wrong at least as often as they are right.
Parque_Hundido July 28th, 2014 at 19:39
I wouldn’t dispute that cops are often problems, but they’ve taken an oath to uphold the law. The yahoos who show up at Denny’s with guns haven’t.
Joe Kendall July 29th, 2014 at 01:45
Jailed? For what? They aren’t breaking any laws.
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:28
Does this include cops? Cops always open carry, and according to the Cato Institute’s annual report on police misconduct, cops are more likely to commit murder (not counting fatal excessive force) than the general population, meaning I have more reason to fear a cop than an open carrier. So when a cop enters Denny’s, should we all scurry away as well?
Douggem July 28th, 2014 at 16:28
Does this include cops? Cops always open carry, and according to the Cato Institute’s annual report on police misconduct, cops are more likely to commit murder (not counting fatal excessive force) than the general population, meaning I have more reason to fear a cop than an open carrier. So when a cop enters Denny’s, should we all scurry away as well?
PARAMEDIC70002 July 28th, 2014 at 16:41
I bet if the topic of this article is changed from GUNS to NEGROES (yeah I went there) there would be rioting in the streets.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Wait, people are openly carrying “negroes?”
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:39
I never leave home without my Gary Coleman in my ankle holster & Emmanuel Lewis in the glovebox.
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:03
I can’t decide if you are trying to say that a black person is more dangerous than a person carrying a gun, or are you trying to say that people leaving a restaurant, store, or venue because a black person walks in is somehow the same as walking out when a credible threat to safety is being made?
mea_mark July 29th, 2014 at 15:44
Off topic and stupid.
PARAMEDIC70002 July 28th, 2014 at 16:41
I bet if the topic of this article is changed from GUNS to NEGROES (yeah I went there) there would be rioting in the streets.
danah gaz July 28th, 2014 at 18:30
Wait, people are openly carrying “negroes?”
Jeff Mitcler July 28th, 2014 at 18:39
I never leave home without my Gary Coleman in my ankle holster & Emmanuel Lewis in the glovebox.
Taymie July 28th, 2014 at 20:03
I can’t decide if you are trying to say that a black person is more dangerous than a person carrying a gun, or are you trying to say that people leaving a restaurant, store, or venue because a black person walks in is somehow the same as walking out when a credible threat to safety is being made?
mea_mark July 29th, 2014 at 15:44
Off topic and stupid.