Open Carry Texas: Armed Man With Baby In Kroger Proves ‘An Armed Society Is A Polite Society’ Because Derp
Target, Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s Grill & Bar, Jack in the Box and Starbucks have all implemented gun policies due to the extreme efforts of Open Carry groups bringing long guns into family-friendly establishments. Kroger is another target for Open Carry activists.
The groups appear to be running out of stores to inundate with their self-defeating activism. In July, Open Carry Texas wrote in response to Target’s new gun policy, “While this is not a ban on legally possessed firearms in its stores, we will continue to honor our months long policy of not taking long arms into Target stores or any other business.”
Last week, this man brought a loaded weapon into a Kroger store while holding a baby, because freedom.
“We need to remove the stigma of these guns,” the group wrote on Facebook.
Perhaps the baby in the image isn’t helping to further their cause. Nevertheless, they write, “These gun control extremists are emotional activists, trying to scare people about the sight of guns.”
If the father in the picture needed to defend himself with the gun strapped to his back, what would he do with the baby? Would he throw the baby across his back to protect it while shooting at the bad guy with a gun? Or just toss it in the air and then catch it after shooting the bad guy that isn’t there? I’m just asking questions here out of curiosity. Unless of course this startling image is merely for political reasons and his baby is being used like a tool just to piss of Moms Demand Action, because derp.
Dollars to donuts the gun humper in the picture is ‘pro-life,’ too.
Be a “polite society” and sign the Everytown petition here.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
267 responses to Open Carry Texas: Armed Man With Baby In Kroger Proves ‘An Armed Society Is A Polite Society’ Because Derp
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
tiredoftea August 27th, 2014 at 11:39
Just gotts to love the self identifying targets of future rifle theft.
tiredoftea August 27th, 2014 at 11:39
Just gotts to love the self identifying targets of future rifle theft.
Billy Jackson August 27th, 2014 at 11:47
I take it his kid is breast feeding?
R.J. Carter August 27th, 2014 at 12:15
I assumed she was tailgunner.
basedonfact August 27th, 2014 at 16:14
never underestimate baby farts
Billy Jackson August 27th, 2014 at 11:47
I take it his kid is breast feeding?
R.J. Carter August 27th, 2014 at 12:15
I assumed she was tailgunner.
basedonfact August 27th, 2014 at 16:14
never underestimate baby farts
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 12:07
“what would he do with the baby? Would he throw the baby across his back to protect it while shooting at the bad guy with a gun? Or just toss it in the air and then catch it after shooting the bad guy that isn’t there? I’m just asking questions here out of curiosity”
No, you’re asking the questions because you are a tool who thinks your rights outweigh the rights of others. You are being obsessively obtuse regarding the issues they are protesting for as well as extremely alarmist when it comes to the sight of firearms.
There is about 0.00003% of firearms per year used in violent crimes, yet you and other short sighted crybabies that want to punish the majority, for the crimes of the extreme minority.
If that percentage of people misused their 1st amendment rights, should we take those away from everyone as well? I’d imagine there are all sorts of guilty people being protected by the 4th and 5th amendments … better wipe those out too …
cal smith August 27th, 2014 at 12:09
Mike you beat me to it I was wondering the same thing what do you do with the baby if I slap the shit out of you.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:08
I’m a bit confused by this statement, are you wanting to slap the #$@! out of me?
cal smith August 27th, 2014 at 14:26
I stand corrected him instead of you sorry.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:36
You want to slap the #@$! out of a gun carrying a weapon? Hmm … in either case, I think you completely missed the point of my post.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 15:32
Your confused alright….
uzza August 27th, 2014 at 13:39
Or, like me, she thinks the rights of a helpless infant outweigh those of others.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:07
So the rights of the baby to NOT be protected outweigh the rights of the baby TO be protected? All because you don’t want to see a gun visible anywhere near you … right?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 12:07
“what would he do with the baby? Would he throw the baby across his back to protect it while shooting at the bad guy with a gun? Or just toss it in the air and then catch it after shooting the bad guy that isn’t there? I’m just asking questions here out of curiosity”
No, you’re asking the questions because you are a tool who thinks your rights outweigh the rights of others. You are being obsessively obtuse regarding the issues they are protesting for as well as extremely alarmist when it comes to the sight of firearms.
There is about 0.00003% of firearms per year used in violent crimes, yet you and other short sighted crybabies that want to punish the majority, for the crimes of the extreme minority.
If that percentage of people misused their 1st amendment rights, should we take those away from everyone as well? I’d imagine there are all sorts of guilty people being protected by the 4th and 5th amendments … better wipe those out too …
cal smith August 27th, 2014 at 12:09
Mike you beat me to it I was wondering the same thing what do you do with the baby if I slap the shit out of him.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:08
I’m a bit confused by this statement, are you wanting to slap the #$@! out of me?
cal smith August 27th, 2014 at 14:26
I stand corrected him instead of you sorry.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:36
You want to slap the #@$! out of a gun carrying a weapon? Hmm … in either case, I think you completely missed the point of my post.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 15:32
Your confused alright….
uzza August 27th, 2014 at 13:39
Or, like me, she thinks the rights of a helpless infant outweigh those of others.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:07
So the rights of the baby to NOT be protected outweigh the rights of the baby TO be protected? All because you don’t want to see a gun visible anywhere near you … right?
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 12:48
For me it’s not the “sight” of firearms it’s the person the gun is attached to. Remember the NRA’s mantra: Guns don’t kill people . . . etc., If I don’t see his “good guy” label how do I know he is one?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:06
A good guy with a gun, is the guy who has it stowed properly, a bad guy is the one who is handling it in a menacing fashion.
The gentleman in the picture has the gun stowed on his back, barrel pointed in a safe position (downward toward the ground).
If you really can’t tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy, with or without a gun, you really shouldn’t be out in public, you’ll have a nervous breakdown.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 14:19
Now, I don’t own a firearm but I understand they’re really easy to use and can easily discharge My question is this: what if the gun accidentally discharges, the bullet hits the ground, bounces back up, hitting the owner in the ass (or some other body part), he becomes startled causing him fall and subsequently injure the baby. Can he be charged with child endangerment?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:33
There are a number of things wrong with your perception about firearms, I would suggest finding a trusted friend or relative who owns a firearm to give you a lesson on proper handling and discharge of a weapon so you get a better idea of which you speak.
To address your points, yes firearms are “easy” to use .. they are by definition “point and shoot” (pardon the pun). But, they do not easily discharge unless they are being improperly handled. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only negligent use or handling of the weapon. A gun will not just “go off” sitting on a table with no one touching it. A properly stowed firearm will have the safety on and no round in the chamber (even if loaded) unless you are in a live fire situation (hunting or the like).
Anything short of a rubber round will not ricochet 180 degrees and return along the same path as what it was fired in, ever. Almost all commercially available to the public bullets (the part of the round that is projected out of the barrel of the weapon) are made of lead, which will flatten out when it hits something solid. There are armor piercing rounds that will penetrate without mushrooming, but they will penetrate the surface on the floor and stay there. Usually a ricochet will happen if the projectile hits at a sufficient angle as to not penetrate what it hits, for hardened surfaces (concrete and metal) they will bounce at a greater angle then softer surfaces.
So to answer your question, if there is a negligent discharge of the weapon, he can be charged for the discharge.
I hope this brings you closer to a true understanding of firearms, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have regarding them.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 15:49
Thank you for your insight, but I personally have no reason to own a firearm. I don’t like them because they’re way too easy to use, and you don’t need training like you would if you were applying for a driver’s license. I remember a reading an article where a man was shot by his dog. He was driving, with a loaded gun lying on the passenger seat and his dog, who was jumping from the back seat to the front seat. The dog jumped on the front seat, landed on the gun and it discarged, injuring the owner. He was lucky he wasn’t killed.
ideagal August 27th, 2014 at 16:07
and that is an example of negligence. It does happen…what was that? One in a million?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 16:09
I never suggested you own a firearm, just that you learn about them, about their strengths and weaknesses, about how to use and by definition misuse them from someone you trust, someone that you know is capable of handling a firearm properly.
What you are in effect saying is that you don’t want to learn about something you are trying to talk intelligently about. Sorry but I would think your fear of guns would want to make you learn as much as possible about them so you could argue your side in a logical well thought out manner instead of using “I heard” and “I remember hearing” type arguments.
If in fact your story did happen, it happened due to negligence on the part of the gun owner. A firearm will not discharge just because someone touches it or jumps on it or lands on it. There is a very specific set of things that has to happen for it to discharge. Unless illegally modified, all modern firearms available to the general public have a safety mechanism that prevents accidental discharge so first the safety would have to be placed in the off position. Then the dog would have to perfectly hit the trigger mechanism that is surrounded (again unless illegally modified) by a trigger guard, and pull/push the trigger back far enough for the gun to discharge.
It sounds to me like the firearm owner did made three major mistakes with his firearm.
1) He left it in an exposed position where it could be bumped, jumped, stepped on, etc by the dog instead of stowed properly in a holster or some other protective case.
2) He left a round in the chamber, and finally
3) He left the safety in the disabled position.
So again, it was not an “easy discharge” it was pure and simply negligence.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 20:38
It doesn’t take intelligence to logically discuss firearms. They are devices designed for KILLING. That’s it. They serve no other purpose whatsoever. I don’t need a loaded firearm in my house. I pay taxes so the police can protect me. One might argue they like use guns for target practice. Why does one need to practice discharging a deadly weapon? I can see no reason other than one day the owner may need it to detain or kill another person.
The dog was able to discharge the gun by merely stepping on it. That’s how easy it is to discharge a loaded firearm. If, for example, the man left his cell phone on the front seat, the dog would probably scratch it up or crack the screen, but he wouldn’t be able to turn it on and dial Domino’s Pizza.
What astounds me is it takes more time to disable a firearm than it does to enable one. And, it’s so easy to operate a child can shoot it – and probably kill somebody. It is more difficult to start a car and get it moving than it is to stop it. There’s a good reason for that.
And sure the owner was negligent – as are quite a few gun owners. One has only to listen to the news to discover how many negligent gun owners are out there, packing heat. Making firearms so easy to operate, a moron can do it, doesn’t help solve the accidental discharge problem. And people are lazy. They’re not going to take the time to unload the device, turn on the safety and stow it in a safe place. Besides, one will need to keep his firearm ready in case somebody cuts him off on the I-90.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:57
“t doesn’t take intelligence to logically discuss firearms.”
Yes, it does, otherwise you speak from a position of ignorance.
“I don’t need a loaded firearm in my house. I pay taxes so the police can protect me.”
That’s good that you feel that way, some of us are 15 min to 1 hour away from being “protected” by the police (something they are not, by the way, obligated to do). I’m not willing to wait 15 seconds for an officer to show up when my family is in danger much less 15 min to an hour.
“The dog was able to discharge the gun by merely stepping on it. ”
I would guess there is much more to the story then you read or remember from what you read. It is not easy to discharge a firearm, no matter what you think.
“What astounds me is it takes more time to disable a firearm than it does to enable one.”
No, it doesn’t it takes about 1 second to disable a firearm, about the same time that it takes to enable it to fire and fire it.
“And sure the owner was negligent – as are quite a few gun owners.”
Quite a few? How many is quite a few, and please, back it up with statistics and percentages.
“And people are lazy. They’re not going to take the time to unload the device, turn on the safety and stow it in a safe place. Besides, one will need to keep his firearm ready in case somebody cuts him off on the I-90.”
Actually people who argue firearms from a point of ignorance are lazy, and people who think that everyone carrying a firearm is going to use it when someone cuts them off on I-90 … well they are the kings of the lazy.
Bunya August 28th, 2014 at 10:23
“ignorant”? “lazy”? Are you projecting again?
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 16:17
*YAWN*
“There are a number of things wrong with your perception about firearms”
I’m just curious… Do you think the Police who recently shot that black man to death, carrying a BB gun in the store thought he didn’t have it “stowed” properly?
Just to let you know… I’m all for letting you people carry your guns in stores and restaurants… the more it happens the more they pass store policy of *NOT* allowing you to do that.
I’m hoping in the future , you will spare us your “basic” understanding of fire arms. Perhaps you can offer your expertise in “how to tell if someone means you harm, while carrying an assault rifle in a department store” to the local Police department… it could save a lot of lives…
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 17:29
Do you really need me to answer that question?
If it is properly stowed (holstered or strapped to your back as examples) they won’t shoot you for carrying a weapon. If it is pointed at them they will shoot you, it is very simple.
Whether someone that is carrying a firearm (assault rifle is a made up term to promote fear) means you harm is very simple. If it is strapped to their back, or holstered, or being carried in some other no threatening manner, they most likely mean you no harm. If on the other hand, they are carrying it in a ready position (not necessarily aimed at you, but ready to be fired, finger on the trigger) they probably mean you harm.
Anyone carrying a gun with their finger on the trigger is either an idiot, or means to fire the weapon. Either way, get out of their way because the potential is there for the gun to discharge.
The police have to assume a gun in the hand is a live weapon situation and they act accordingly, first warning that the gun be set down, normal protocol at this point is to pre-aim your weapon at the person with the gun (finger still not on the trigger) until they comply and the weapon is neutralized. If they do not comply, and up the ante, then they will fire to neutralize the threat, period.
They don’t need to know who is and isn’t a threat, they already have all of that training. The guy with what was later found to be a BB Gun, was pointing an unknown, potentially dangerous weapon at police, their only safe option was to shoot him, and they did. End of story.
As to stores/restaurants banning open carry … *shrug* it is their choice as the owner of the establishment to do so … they are free to pass any rule they want, as I am free to choose where I spend my money. The difference between you and I is I won’t go all over the internet with my complaints as I understand the rights and privileges of the citizenry and don’t try to force them to come to my way of thinking.
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 17:55
(Now pay attention to this part) It doesn’t take much time
and effort to go from slung over your shoulder to pointing it at
someone!!! In fact mere seconds!! Don’t you get that part??…..Are you
a complete fool?
Your argument is ridiculous! Whats worse is your faux intellect…
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:14
“It doesn’t take much time and effort to go from slung over your shoulder to pointing it at
someone!!! In fact mere seconds!!”
That is the point after all, if it took minutes then why carry?
“Don’t you get that part??…..Are you
a complete fool?”
I fully understand, obviously you want to think that all (estimated) between 76 and 120 million gun owners in the US are all out to shoot you, well I hate to burst your bubble, but even counting all gun deaths in the US last year (not just the homocides) approximately 0.00003% of all gun owners in the US were involved in a gun related death, which means you (personally) have a better chance of dying in a car accident.
Can YOU bring facts into the discussion or are you going to rely on emotion and rhetoric as you have so far.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 07:30
Never mind… your hopeless. Your being obtuse.
Who are YOU to tell me I think ALL gun owners are out to shoot me? Any *sane* person would have to wonder why someone would walk around a Department store so heavily armed.. it isn’t normal behavior (at least to MOST of us) MOST gun owners don’t engage in such asinine behavior. I’ve owned guns most of my life.. I own several right now, I have a permit to conceal, I’m a *former* member of the NRA…. I got tired of them asking me for donations, and listening to their bullshit fear mongering and telling me who to vote for, because “their going to take your guns!!! which causes the sales of guns to skyrocket… especially when Obama got elected. I subscribed to all the gun magazines etc. I also served in the Military and received some additional training there… so you can spare me your very *BASIC* understanding of guns AND your stupid pointless UN-impressive statistics.
If I’m out shopping with my family, and If by some VERY slim chance I should be *carrying concealed* and one of you IDIOTS
uzza August 27th, 2014 at 19:36
“…will not ricochet 180 degrees and return along the same path…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokV7HzJhG4
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:22
Interesting … I stand corrected.
You did notice though that it did not return along the same path but ricocheted off the ground just before the table. It sounded like they were shooting at a metal plate (there was a clang right before the whistle started) … not really a good idea at that range with a 50 cal. The whistle by the way was because the bullet was deformed, still very much a killing projectile though. That is an extremely rare occurance, probably 1 in a billion or higher.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 15:37
“That is an extremely rare occurance,[sic] probably 1 in a billion or higher”
Did you just think that up off the top of your head?
Suzanne McFly August 27th, 2014 at 16:52
If he gets shot in the ass, he will have a brain injury and that is never a good thing.
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 16:19
Have you always been a jerk, or are we breaking new ground here?
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 17:05
Mike vos: I think you missed my point I am not saying the “gentleman” as you refer to him, with the properly stowed gun is a bad guy I’m just saying there are those out there that just possibly don’t have good intentions. I really don’t expect to see someone carrying firearms while I’m shopping for groceries and I not frightened by the sight of firearms, sorry no “nervous breakdown”.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 17:38
Those people you speak of with bad intentions are approximately 0.0006% of the gun owning population of the USA.
I don’t expect to see a Ferrari while driving around town either, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to freak out when I see one.
My training involves assessing the situation at all times, I rarely go armed anywhere in life, but that is my choice, just like it is your choice to not go armed. The difference is, I know all of my outs and I am prepared to act as I see fit when i see a threat. Proper use of a weapon (any weapon) involves very structured repetitive training so your body and mind react in concert to do whatever needs to be done (including running away). Anyone who straps on a gun thinking they are superman is in for a very rude awakening if they (God forbid) ever have to use it.
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 17:55
Fair enough but I suppose I am thinking of the 0.0006% and I have seen a Ferrari from time to time without freaking out. I’ve owned guns in the past although not now and I’ve never felt the gun could make me leap tall buildings at a single bound etc. It’s just a tool for a specific job. Actually I’m more frightened by the NRA with all it’s clout, they can alter my life far more than a guy carrying a gun. Again just my personal feelings but don’t shoot just because I didn’t buy Budweiser.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:26
“Those people you speak of with bad intentions are approximately 0.0006% of the gun owning population of the USA.” unless it’s 0.0000% i’m not going to be comfortable with that at all. what were the chances of someone entering a movie theatre full to capacity and some jackass shooting up the place before it happened? i’m sure those people that were injured and murdered were of the same mindset.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:32
We could eradicate all guns and all knowledge of guns in the world and still people would die at other peoples hands, the tool isn’t the issue, the people are. People died for thousands of years prior to the invention of firearms.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 18:54
How do we know he isn’t suddenly going to just start blowing people away? He may look good as an act and then when he is in position to do the most harm he suddenly let’s his true motivation of killing come out. It really bugs me that the open carry activist don’t get it that they are making it easier for the bad people to get into position to do even greater harm. They are exacerbating the problem by making it easier for the bad people to inflict more damage. Are gun activist just to blinded by their desire to be macho men with there guns that they don’t see how they are making things worse?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:26
How do we know the car you are driving isn’t going to burst into a huge ball of flame killing everyone in the vehicles around you during rush hour. If you think everyone with a weapon is out to get you you might be a bit paranoid.
Bad people are going to inflict damage whether good people are open carrying or not, more often then not, the bad people are going to conceal until they break out into their rampage, more chance for surprise that way.
Your perception of making things worse is backed by emotion, not fact.
Talk facts, emotions mean nothing in an adult conversation.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 21:23
You absolutely missed the point. People walking around with guns all look the same until one starts shooting. More people walking around with guns, the easier it is for the bad guy to get into a strategic point of advantage. They can just walk right in the front door. Is that a fact you totally missed also.
Why would a bad guy conceal when he doesn’t have to. The gun activist are changing things so they don’t have to. They are making it easier for the criminals. You are making it easier for the criminals. When the criminal looks like you, he will always have surprise on his side. Tactical advantage has just been lost to the bad guys. Thank, but no thanks. Living in a shooting match where the bad guy has the tactical advantage sounds like hell.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:37
Open carry has been legal in most states since the inception of their statehood why is now any different then before.
“Why would a bad guy conceal when he doesn’t have to.”
Interesting question, one you really haven’t thought about much based on what you said in the rest of the paragraph. Someone conceals because they don’t want people to know they have a gun, you with me so far? If you see the gun, you know where the gun is, and anyone who isn’t frightened into inaction by the sight of a gun will be more prepared for a possible incident. If you don’t see the gun, the element of surprise is with the attacker, not the attacked. You speak of tactical advantage, but you have it backwards, if you show your weapons they can be more easily countered, why do you think in battle, ambushes are much more successful then open fighting?
Would you be more or less inclined to start an incident if you saw 4 other people in the same store with openly carried weapons? I know what I’d do in that situation, and it’s not open fire. Criminals may be stupid, but they are not (for the most part) un-intelligent.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 22:00
The more people you have carrying weapons the more desensitized they become and the less they pay attention. The surprise comes when suddenly they start using the weapon as a criminal would, to kill people. The guy we perceive as good, suddenly turns out to not be good and we let them walk right in with out giving them a thought because guns are everywhere in an open carry world. It just doesn’t work in a world with this many people.
Criminals can be suicidal though and that scares me the most.
If I saw 4 others with guns, I would either take them out first or wait for them to leave. Again the advantage goes to the criminal. Timing is on their side. They get the element of surprise and they didn’t have to hide anything.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 22:31
“The more people you have carrying weapons the more desensitized they become and the less they pay attention.”
The day I become desensitized and pay less attention to my surroundings is the day I expect to die, whether it be walking down the street, down a flight of stairs, driving a car, or protecting my family.
“Criminals can be suicidal though and that scares me the most.”
As well it should, anyone that is suicidal isn’t thinking straight, not that a criminal is thinking straight in the first place, but … well you get the idea.
“f I saw 4 others with guns, I would either take them out first or wait for them to leave.”
Not to be offensive, but you really don’t know what you are talking about regarding tactical situations do you. You might get one, maybe if you are lucky two if they are standing close together. Do you know why they give automatic/select fire weapons to military personnel who are arguably (well except for the Air Force) some of the best trained people in the country with fire arms? Because when someone is shooting back, you really don’t aim, you spray as many bullets in their general area as you can and hope you hit them. In Vietnam, for every enemy soldier killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired. (Dave Grossman, Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.)
Not only that … but if I see someone standing around with a gun, I take notice, and go about my business (keeping track of their location), if they are still loitering after a period of time, I don’t dismiss them, I pay more attention.
Personally I don’t like going into large crowds with my family because I have to ramp up my “radar” (for lack of a better term), because my reaction time to cover multiple people is higher then when I’m alone. I don’t carry, open or concealed because I don’t see the need to with my training. That may change as I get older (and slower) or it may not, it hasn’t so far and I’m 51 years old. I’m also not conceited enough to think that I should force my not carrying on anyone else because I know that not everyone has the training, skill, or necessary repetition of those techniques to protect themselves effectively or efficiently.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 07:59
*YAWN*
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 19:43
Jesus H Christ – it’s the f*cking grocery store. Lose the paranoia, seek help or take up yoga. You don’t need a long gun when purchasing produce with a baby.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 22:00
The more people you have carrying weapons the more desensitized they become and the less they pay attention. The surprise comes when suddenly they start using the weapon as a criminal would, to kill people. The guy we perceive as good, suddenly turns out to not be good and we let them walk right in with out giving them a thought because guns are everywhere in an open carry world. It just doesn’t work in a world with this many people.
Criminals can be suicidal though and that scares me the most.
If I saw 4 others with guns, I would either take them out first or wait for them to leave. Again the advantage goes to the criminal. Timing is on their side. They get the element of surprise and they didn’t have to hide anything.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:22
James Eagan Holmes properly stored his guns in his car before entering the theatre, then retreived them and handled them in a menacing fashion. oh, and used them. people have murdered their own children, how am i suppose to know or be comfortable just because this freak has a sleeping baby on his chest that its not some sick way of gaining some comfort level out of the unsuspecting. next thing you know he’s shooting up the place.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:28
Would not seeing a gun make you feel more comfortable when statistically 5/12 people concealed carry in the US? Would not seeing a gun make you feel more safe knowing that statistic?
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:42
none of them should be carrying a gun in the public period. concealed or not. and it would not make me anymore comfortable.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:50
Why? Because you don’t like it? Your comfort is no more or less important then those carrying … concealed or otherwise. The difference, they have a right to carry, you don’t have a right to not be comfortable.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 21:02
i do have a right to be uncomfortable. especially if i see the damn thing.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:23
Sorry … I was screwed up by my own double negative.
You have every right to be uncomfortable, you do not have a right to always be comfortable. Just like you have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to be listened to.
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 20:33
I’d just be expressing 1St A-rights by walking around with a chainsaw on idle. Certainly it’s not illegal, so who’s to stop me? I might run into some logs that need cutting. Or I just might lose it for no apparent reason. Would that disturb you?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:48
Not one bit.
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 21:40
Wow, the stuff you ammosexuals will say to defend the indefensible!
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:45
So I should be bothered by someone carrying a running chainsaw? Why? Oh yea, I forgot, this is a liberal website and you are all offended by gasoline engines ruining the environment, sorry, I forgot.
Roctuna August 28th, 2014 at 07:44
I’d be bothered because I can understand context. There’s a time and a place for a chainsaw as there is for a semi-auto w/a banana clip and Kroger is not it. I believe it relates to the conservative tendency to absolutism and viewing the world in black and white despite all evidence to the contrary.
Mike Vos August 28th, 2014 at 11:25
I believe it relates to the liberals lack of understanding that their rights only extend insofar as they do not hinder mine.
You want to walk around town with a running chainsaw, great, as long as you don’t try to saw my family in half … go for it.
There are however, noise statutes that prohibit loud noise during certain times of the day and you may run afoul of those.
Roctuna August 28th, 2014 at 18:46
I cannot believe you wrote that! Statutes and regulations on use of chainsaws, OK, guns, never. Wow, the fetish is strong in you.
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:41
Amen! AND the time is not when you have your infant child with you!!!! These gun nuts just do not have the mental development to understand this. All they want to do is show off their weapon! Probably because the one between the legs is so little and that is where their brains are lodged!
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 12:48
For me it’s not the “sight” of firearms it’s the person the gun is attached to. Remember the NRA’s mantra: Guns don’t kill people . . . etc., If I don’t see his “good guy” label how do I know he is one?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:06
A good guy with a gun, is the guy who has it stowed properly, a bad guy is the one who is handling it in a menacing fashion.
The gentleman in the picture has the gun stowed on his back, barrel pointed in a safe position (downward toward the ground).
If you really can’t tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy, with or without a gun, you really shouldn’t be out in public, you’ll have a nervous breakdown.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 14:19
Now, I don’t own a firearm but I understand they’re really easy to use and can easily discharge My question is this: what if the gun accidentally discharges, the bullet hits the ground, bounces back up, hitting the owner in the ass (or some other body part), he becomes startled causing him fall and subsequently injure the baby. Can he be charged with child endangerment?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 14:33
There are a number of things wrong with your perception about firearms, I would suggest finding a trusted friend or relative who owns a firearm to give you a lesson on proper handling and discharge of a weapon so you get a better idea of which you speak.
To address your points, yes firearms are “easy” to use .. they are by definition “point and shoot” (pardon the pun). But, they do not easily discharge unless they are being improperly handled. There is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only negligent use or handling of the weapon. A gun will not just “go off” sitting on a table with no one touching it. A properly stowed firearm will have the safety on and no round in the chamber (even if loaded) unless you are in a live fire situation (hunting or the like).
Anything short of a rubber round will not ricochet 180 degrees and return along the same path as what it was fired in, ever. Almost all commercially available to the public bullets (the part of the round that is projected out of the barrel of the weapon) are made of lead, which will flatten out when it hits something solid. There are armor piercing rounds that will penetrate without mushrooming, but they will penetrate the surface on the floor and stay there. Usually a ricochet will happen if the projectile hits at a sufficient angle as to not penetrate what it hits, for hardened surfaces (concrete and metal) they will bounce at a greater angle then softer surfaces.
So to answer your question, if there is a negligent discharge of the weapon, he can be charged for the discharge.
I hope this brings you closer to a true understanding of firearms, feel free to ask me any other questions you may have regarding them.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 15:49
Thank you for your insight, but I personally have no reason to own a firearm. I don’t like them because they’re way too easy to use, and you don’t need training like you would if you were applying for a driver’s license. I remember a reading an article where a man was shot by his dog. He was driving, with a loaded gun lying on the passenger seat and his dog, who was jumping from the back seat to the front seat. The dog jumped on the front seat, landed on the gun and it discarged, injuring the owner. He was lucky he wasn’t killed.
ideagal August 27th, 2014 at 16:07
and that is an example of negligence. It does happen…what was that? One in a million?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 16:09
I never suggested you own a firearm, just that you learn about them, about their strengths and weaknesses, about how to use and by definition misuse them from someone you trust, someone that you know is capable of handling a firearm properly.
What you are in effect saying is that you don’t want to learn about something you are trying to talk intelligently about. Sorry but I would think your fear of guns would want to make you learn as much as possible about them so you could argue your side in a logical well thought out manner instead of using “I heard” and “I remember hearing” type arguments.
If in fact your story did happen, it happened due to negligence on the part of the gun owner. A firearm will not discharge just because someone touches it or jumps on it or lands on it. There is a very specific set of things that has to happen for it to discharge. Unless illegally modified, all modern firearms available to the general public have a safety mechanism that prevents accidental discharge so first the safety would have to be placed in the off position. Then the dog would have to perfectly hit the trigger mechanism that is surrounded (again unless illegally modified) by a trigger guard, and pull/push the trigger back far enough for the gun to discharge.
It sounds to me like the firearm owner did made three major mistakes with his firearm.
1) He left it in an exposed position where it could be bumped, jumped, stepped on, etc by the dog instead of stowed properly in a holster or some other protective case.
2) He left a round in the chamber, and finally
3) He left the safety in the disabled position.
So again, it was not an “easy discharge” it was pure and simply negligence.
Bunya August 27th, 2014 at 20:38
It doesn’t take intelligence to logically discuss firearms. They are devices designed for KILLING. That’s it. They serve no other purpose whatsoever. I don’t need a loaded firearm in my house. I pay taxes so the police can protect me. One might argue they like use guns for target practice. Why does one need to practice discharging a deadly weapon? I can see no reason other than one day the owner may need it to detain or kill another person.
The dog was able to discharge the gun by merely stepping on it. That’s how easy it is to discharge a loaded firearm. If, for example, the man left his cell phone on the front seat, the dog would probably scratch it up or crack the screen, but he wouldn’t be able to turn it on and dial Domino’s Pizza.
What astounds me is it takes more time to disable a firearm than it does to enable one. And, it’s so easy to operate a child can shoot it – and probably kill somebody. It is more difficult to start a car and get it moving than it is to stop it. There’s a good reason for that.
And sure the owner was negligent – as are quite a few gun owners. One has only to listen to the news to discover how many negligent gun owners are out there, packing heat. Making firearms so easy to operate, a moron can do it, doesn’t help solve the accidental discharge problem. And people are lazy. They’re not going to take the time to unload the device, turn on the safety and stow it in a safe place. Besides, one will need to keep his firearm ready in case somebody cuts him off on the I-90.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:57
“t doesn’t take intelligence to logically discuss firearms.”
Yes, it does, otherwise you speak from a position of ignorance.
“I don’t need a loaded firearm in my house. I pay taxes so the police can protect me.”
That’s good that you feel that way, some of us are 15 min to 1 hour away from being “protected” by the police (something they are not, by the way, obligated to do). I’m not willing to wait 15 seconds for an officer to show up when my family is in danger much less 15 min to an hour.
“The dog was able to discharge the gun by merely stepping on it. ”
I would guess there is much more to the story then you read or remember from what you read. It is not easy to discharge a firearm, no matter what you think.
“What astounds me is it takes more time to disable a firearm than it does to enable one.”
No, it doesn’t it takes about 1 second to disable a firearm, about the same time that it takes to enable it to fire and fire it.
“And sure the owner was negligent – as are quite a few gun owners.”
Quite a few? How many is quite a few, and please, back it up with statistics and percentages.
“And people are lazy. They’re not going to take the time to unload the device, turn on the safety and stow it in a safe place. Besides, one will need to keep his firearm ready in case somebody cuts him off on the I-90.”
Actually people who argue firearms from a point of ignorance are lazy, and people who think that everyone carrying a firearm is going to use it when someone cuts them off on I-90 … well they are the kings of the lazy.
Bunya August 28th, 2014 at 10:23
“ignorant”? “lazy”? Are you projecting again?
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 16:17
*YAWN*
“There are a number of things wrong with your perception about firearms”
I’m just curious… Do you think the Police who recently shot that black man to death, carrying a BB gun in the store thought he didn’t have it “stowed” properly?
Just to let you know… I’m all for letting you people carry your guns in stores and restaurants… the more it happens the more they pass store policy of *NOT* allowing you to do that.
I’m hoping in the future , you will spare us your “basic” understanding of fire arms. Perhaps you can offer your expertise in “how to tell if someone means you harm, while carrying an assault rifle in a department store” to the local Police department… it could save a lot of lives…
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 17:29
Do you really need me to answer that question?
If it is properly stowed (holstered or strapped to your back as examples) they won’t shoot you for carrying a weapon. If it is pointed at them they will shoot you, it is very simple.
Whether someone that is carrying a firearm (assault rifle is a made up term to promote fear) means you harm is very simple. If it is strapped to their back, or holstered, or being carried in some other no threatening manner, they most likely mean you no harm. If on the other hand, they are carrying it in a ready position (not necessarily aimed at you, but ready to be fired, finger on the trigger) they probably mean you harm.
Anyone carrying a gun with their finger on the trigger is either an idiot, or means to fire the weapon. Either way, get out of their way because the potential is there for the gun to discharge.
The police have to assume a gun in the hand is a live weapon situation and they act accordingly, first warning that the gun be set down, normal protocol at this point is to pre-aim your weapon at the person with the gun (finger still not on the trigger) until they comply and the weapon is neutralized. If they do not comply, and up the ante, then they will fire to neutralize the threat, period.
They don’t need to know who is and isn’t a threat, they already have all of that training. The guy with what was later found to be a BB Gun, was pointing an unknown, potentially dangerous weapon at police, their only safe option was to shoot him, and they did. End of story.
As to stores/restaurants banning open carry … *shrug* it is their choice as the owner of the establishment to do so … they are free to pass any rule they want, as I am free to choose where I spend my money. The difference between you and I is I won’t go all over the internet with my complaints as I understand the rights and privileges of the citizenry and don’t try to force them to come to my way of thinking.
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 17:55
(Now pay attention to this part) It doesn’t take much time
and effort to go from slung over your shoulder to pointing it at
someone!!! In fact mere seconds!! Don’t you get that part??…..Are you
a complete fool?
Your argument is ridiculous! Whats worse is your faux intellect…
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:14
“It doesn’t take much time and effort to go from slung over your shoulder to pointing it at
someone!!! In fact mere seconds!!”
That is the point after all, if it took minutes then why carry?
“Don’t you get that part??…..Are you
a complete fool?”
I fully understand, obviously you want to think that all (estimated) between 76 and 120 million gun owners in the US are all out to shoot you, well I hate to burst your bubble, but even counting all gun deaths in the US last year (not just the homocides) approximately 0.00003% of all gun owners in the US were involved in a gun related death, which means you (personally) have a better chance of dying in a car accident.
Can YOU bring facts into the discussion or are you going to rely on emotion and rhetoric as you have so far.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 07:30
Never mind… you’re hopeless. You’re being obtuse.
Who are YOU to tell me I think ALL gun owners are out to shoot me? Any *sane* person would have to wonder why someone would walk around a Department store so heavily armed.. it isn’t normal behavior (at least to MOST of us) MOST gun owners don’t engage in such asinine behavior. I’ve owned guns most of my life.. I own several right now, I have a permit to conceal, I’m a *former* member of the NRA…. I got tired of them asking me for donations, and listening to their bullshit fear mongering and telling me who to vote for, because “their going to take your guns!!! which causes the sales of guns to skyrocket (which is what they want)… especially when Obama got elected. I subscribed to all the gun magazines etc. I also served in the Military and received some additional training there… so you can spare me your very *BASIC* understanding of guns AND your stupid pointless UN-impressive statistics.
If I’m out shopping with my family, and If by some VERY slim chance I should be *carrying concealed* and one or more of you *IDIOTS* should come walking around with your “assault” rifles… I would hope there wouldn’t be some MS-UNDERSTANDING (like what happened in Wal-Mart with the Police and the man with the BB gun…. cuz SHIT happens.
I’m a gun enthusiast…. not some gun humping ammo-sexual like yourself
uzza August 27th, 2014 at 19:36
“…will not ricochet 180 degrees and return along the same path…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QokV7HzJhG4
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:22
Interesting … I stand corrected.
You did notice though that it did not return along the same path but ricocheted off the ground just before the table. It sounded like they were shooting at a metal plate (there was a clang right before the whistle started) … not really a good idea at that range with a 50 cal. The whistle by the way was because the bullet was deformed, still very much a killing projectile though. That is an extremely rare occurance, probably 1 in a billion or higher.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 15:37
“That is an extremely rare occurance,[sic] probably 1 in a billion or higher”
Did you just think that up off the top of your head?
Suzanne McFly August 27th, 2014 at 16:52
If he gets shot in the ass, he will have a brain injury and that is never a good thing.
raincheck August 27th, 2014 at 16:19
Have you always been a jerk, or are we breaking new ground here?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 17:40
How is it that I’m being a jerk? Challenging your ideals? I have said nothing to you that can not be backed up by facts, and nothing about you personally.
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 17:05
Mike vos: I think you missed my point I am not saying the “gentleman” as you refer to him, with the properly stowed gun is a bad guy I’m just saying there are those out there that just possibly don’t have good intentions. I really don’t expect to see someone carrying firearms while I’m shopping for groceries and I not frightened by the sight of firearms, sorry no “nervous breakdown”.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 17:38
Those people you speak of with bad intentions are approximately 0.0006% of the gun owning population of the USA.
I don’t expect to see a Ferrari while driving around town either, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to freak out when I see one.
My training involves assessing the situation at all times, I rarely go armed anywhere in life, but that is my choice, just like it is your choice to not go armed. The difference is, I know all of my outs and I am prepared to act as I see fit when i see a threat. Proper use of a weapon (any weapon) involves very structured repetitive training so your body and mind react in concert to do whatever needs to be done (including running away). Anyone who straps on a gun thinking they are superman is in for a very rude awakening if they (God forbid) ever have to use it.
bhil August 27th, 2014 at 17:55
Fair enough but I suppose I am thinking of the 0.0006% and I have seen a Ferrari from time to time without freaking out. I’ve owned guns in the past although not now and I’ve never felt the gun could make me leap tall buildings at a single bound etc. It’s just a tool for a specific job. Actually I’m more frightened by the NRA with all it’s clout, they can alter my life far more than a guy carrying a gun. Again just my personal feelings but don’t shoot just because I didn’t buy Budweiser.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:26
“Those people you speak of with bad intentions are approximately 0.0006% of the gun owning population of the USA.” unless it’s 0.0000% i’m not going to be comfortable with that at all. what were the chances of someone entering a movie theatre full to capacity and some jackass shooting up the place before it happened? i’m sure those people that were injured and murdered were of the same mindset.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:32
We could eradicate all guns and all knowledge of guns in the world and still people would die at other peoples hands, the tool isn’t the issue, the people are. People died for thousands of years prior to the invention of firearms.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 18:54
How do we know he isn’t suddenly going to just start blowing people away? He may look good as an act and then when he is in position to do the most harm he suddenly let’s his true motivation of killing come out. It really bugs me that the open carry activist don’t get it that they are making it easier for the bad people to get into position to do even greater harm. They are exacerbating the problem by making it easier for the bad people to inflict more damage. Are gun activist just too blinded by their desire to be macho men with their guns that they don’t see how they are making things worse?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:26
How do we know the car you are driving isn’t going to burst into a huge ball of flame killing everyone in the vehicles around you during rush hour. If you think everyone with a weapon is out to get you you might be a bit paranoid.
Bad people are going to inflict damage whether good people are open carrying or not, more often then not, the bad people are going to conceal until they break out into their rampage, more chance for surprise that way.
Your perception of making things worse is backed by emotion, not fact.
Talk facts, emotions mean nothing in an adult conversation.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 21:23
You absolutely missed the point. People walking around with guns all look the same until one starts shooting. More people walking around with guns, the easier it is for the bad guy to get into a strategic point of advantage. They can just walk right in the front door. Is that a fact you totally missed also.
Why would a bad guy conceal when he doesn’t have to. The gun activist are changing things so they don’t have to. They are making it easier for the criminals. You are making it easier for the criminals. When the criminal looks like you, he will always have surprise on his side. Tactical advantage has just been lost to the bad guys. Thank, but no thanks. Living in a shooting match where the bad guy has the tactical advantage sounds like hell.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:37
Open carry has been legal in most states since the inception of their statehood why is now any different then before.
“Why would a bad guy conceal when he doesn’t have to.”
Interesting question, one you really haven’t thought about much based on what you said in the rest of the paragraph. Someone conceals because they don’t want people to know they have a gun, you with me so far? If you see the gun, you know where the gun is, and anyone who isn’t frightened into inaction by the sight of a gun will be more prepared for a possible incident. If you don’t see the gun, the element of surprise is with the attacker, not the attacked. You speak of tactical advantage, but you have it backwards, if you show your weapons they can be more easily countered, why do you think in battle, ambushes are much more successful then open fighting?
Would you be more or less inclined to start an incident if you saw 4 other people in the same store with openly carried weapons? I know what I’d do in that situation, and it’s not open fire. Criminals may be stupid, but they are not (for the most part) un-intelligent.
mea_mark August 27th, 2014 at 22:00
The more people you have carrying weapons the more desensitized they become and the less they pay attention. The surprise comes when suddenly they start using the weapon as a criminal would, to kill people. The guy we perceive as good, suddenly turns out to not be good and we let them walk right in with out giving them a thought because guns are everywhere in an open carry world. It just doesn’t work in a world with this many people.
Criminals can be suicidal though and that scares me the most.
If I saw 4 others with guns, I would either take them out first or wait for them to leave. Again the advantage goes to the criminal. Timing is on their side. They get the element of surprise and they didn’t have to hide anything.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 22:31
“The more people you have carrying weapons the more desensitized they become and the less they pay attention.”
The day I become desensitized and pay less attention to my surroundings is the day I expect to die, whether it be walking down the street, down a flight of stairs, driving a car, or protecting my family.
“Criminals can be suicidal though and that scares me the most.”
As well it should, anyone that is suicidal isn’t thinking straight, not that a criminal is thinking straight in the first place, but … well you get the idea.
“f I saw 4 others with guns, I would either take them out first or wait for them to leave.”
Not to be offensive, but you really don’t know what you are talking about regarding tactical situations do you. You might get one, maybe if you are lucky two if they are standing close together. Do you know why they give automatic/select fire weapons to military personnel who are arguably (well except for the Air Force) some of the best trained people in the country with fire arms? Because when someone is shooting back, you really don’t aim, you spray as many bullets in their general area as you can and hope you hit them. In Vietnam, for every enemy soldier killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired. (Dave Grossman, Martha Stout, The Sociopath Next Door. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.)
Not only that … but if I see someone standing around with a gun, I take notice, and go about my business (keeping track of their location), if they are still loitering after a period of time, I don’t dismiss them, I pay more attention.
Personally I don’t like going into large crowds with my family because I have to ramp up my “radar” (for lack of a better term), because my reaction time to cover multiple people is higher then when I’m alone. I don’t carry, open or concealed because I don’t see the need to with my training. That may change as I get older (and slower) or it may not, it hasn’t so far and I’m 51 years old. I’m also not conceited enough to think that I should force my not carrying on anyone else because I know that not everyone has the training, skill, or necessary repetition of those techniques to protect themselves effectively or efficiently.
raincheck August 28th, 2014 at 07:59
*YAWN*
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 19:43
Jesus H Christ – it’s the f*cking grocery store. Lose the paranoia, seek help or take up yoga. You don’t need a long gun when purchasing produce with a baby.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:22
James Eagan Holmes properly stored his guns in his car before entering the theatre, then retreived them and handled them in a menacing fashion. oh, and used them. people have murdered their own children, how am i suppose to know or be comfortable just because this freak has a sleeping baby on his chest that its not some sick way of gaining some comfort level out of the unsuspecting. next thing you know he’s shooting up the place.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:28
Would not seeing a gun make you feel more comfortable when statistically 5/12 people concealed carry in the US? Would not seeing a gun make you feel more safe knowing that statistic?
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:42
none of them should be carrying a gun in the public period. concealed or not. and it would not make me anymore comfortable.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:50
Why? Because you don’t like it? Your comfort is no more or less important then those carrying … concealed or otherwise. The difference, they have a right to carry, you don’t have a right to not be comfortable.
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 21:02
i do have a right to be uncomfortable. especially if i see the damn thing.
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:23
Sorry … I was screwed up by my own double negative.
You have every right to be uncomfortable, you do not have a right to always be comfortable. Just like you have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to be listened to.
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 20:33
I’d just be expressing 1St A-rights by walking around with a chainsaw on idle. Certainly it’s not illegal, so who’s to stop me? I might run into some logs that need cutting. Or I just might lose it for no apparent reason. Would that disturb you?
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 20:48
Not one bit.
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 21:40
Wow, the stuff you ammosexuals will say to defend the indefensible!
Mike Vos August 27th, 2014 at 21:45
So I should be bothered by someone carrying a running chainsaw? Why? Oh yea, I forgot, this is a liberal website and you are all offended by gasoline engines ruining the environment, sorry, I forgot.
Roctuna August 28th, 2014 at 07:44
I’d be bothered because I can understand context. There’s a time and a place for a chainsaw as there is for a semi-auto w/a banana clip and Kroger is not it. I believe it relates to the conservative tendency to absolutism and viewing the world in black and white despite all evidence to the contrary.
Mike Vos August 28th, 2014 at 11:25
I believe it relates to the liberals lack of understanding that their rights only extend insofar as they do not hinder mine.
You want to walk around town with a running chainsaw, great, as long as you don’t try to saw my family in half … go for it.
There are however, noise statutes that prohibit loud noise during certain times of the day and you may run afoul of those.
Roctuna August 28th, 2014 at 18:46
I cannot believe you wrote that! Statutes and regulations on use of chainsaws, OK, guns, never. Wow, the fetish is strong in you.
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:41
Amen! AND the time is not when you have your infant child with you!!!! These gun nuts just do not have the mental development to understand this. All they want to do is show off their weapon! Probably because the one between the legs is so little and that is where their brains are lodged!
basedonfact August 27th, 2014 at 16:10
If he was darker skinned SWAT, Tear gas and tanks would have been there before the shutter closed on the camera
basedonfact August 27th, 2014 at 16:10
If he was darker skinned SWAT, Tear gas and tanks would have been there before the shutter closed on the camera
ideagal August 27th, 2014 at 16:28
I can’t see myself doing this (open carry)…but it wouldn’t bother me if other folks did.
ideagal August 27th, 2014 at 16:28
I can’t see myself doing this (open carry)…but it wouldn’t bother me if other folks did.
Dennis August 27th, 2014 at 19:01
Here is well armed society, take a good look……..https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+images&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xmL-U4zRJ5GkyAT9l4KoCg&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1132&bih=500
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 20:35
They’re all especially polite to each other, aren’t they?
Dennis August 27th, 2014 at 19:01
Here is well armed society, take a good look……..https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+images&noj=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xmL-U4zRJ5GkyAT9l4KoCg&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1132&bih=500
Roctuna August 27th, 2014 at 20:35
They’re all especially polite to each other, aren’t they?
whatthe46 August 27th, 2014 at 20:14
let a black/hispanic/asian/muslim american pull this shit, and we’ve got SWAT!
Cesar August 28th, 2014 at 19:09
all of you anti gun pansy’s need to get a life. It isn’t against the law, and if you dont like it, grow your own veggies and slaughter your own cow.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Illegal, no. Stupid, yes – in the first degree. My parents, grandparents, myself and my adult children have managed to shop for groceries for the last 100 years without needing to carry a loaded weapon strapped to our backs.
This is nothing more than an attention whore looking for a situation to bully others around. He makes responsible gun owners look bad. You don’t need a rifle at Krogers, you need a grocery list and a plan to get through the store before the baby gets hungry. He should be thinking about his child and less about his…uh – gun.
Cesar August 28th, 2014 at 20:01
I didn’t even bother reading everything you said. That first line was YOUR opinion. End of story.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 21:24
You replied without reading the entire post? That seems like a smart thing to do – not have the whole story. You must have done great in school, a real mensa candidate.
Cesar August 28th, 2014 at 21:28
I apologize your feelings interfere with reality. Sorry sweetheart but you need to see a shrink.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 21:38
Sweetheart? Truly, you’re a jackass. Oh, and you’re done here.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:15
He flagged your comment. You must have hurt his fee fees.
mea_mark September 11th, 2014 at 20:29
Can you tell who is flagging now?
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:39
It was kinda obvious. Old post, she responded, comment flagged.
mea_mark September 11th, 2014 at 21:10
Darn, I was hoping they fixed the flagging problem.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 21:43
I wish.
Carla Akins September 11th, 2014 at 20:33
Bwahaha. Not me, it was angry/bad Carla.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:39
We know all about you, Angry Carla.
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Get over yourself you NRA whore! It may not be against the law but it is rude, unnecessary and dangerous! ALL normal people don’t like it! YOU can support Kroger. There are plenty of ethical businesses around that don’t allow morons who don’t have the mentality to figure out why we don’t approves of this!
Ricky August 28th, 2014 at 20:22
I’m curious to know. Whats so dangerous about this?
Cesar August 28th, 2014 at 20:41
I am not with the nra. So jokes on you and once again…your opinion is void when it comes to the constitution
Jason Yahner August 28th, 2014 at 23:37
I find your right to free speech rude, unnecessary and you’re stupidity dangerous. But it’s protected by law. We as a country did this sto insure our way of life… sometimes with word and when that didn’t work it was with guns.
Obamanation August 28th, 2014 at 19:09
all of you anti gun pansy’s need to get a life. It isn’t against the law, and if you dont like it, grow your own veggies and slaughter your own cow.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Illegal, no. Stupid, yes – in the first degree. My parents, grandparents, myself and my adult children have managed to shop for groceries for the last 100 years without needing to carry a loaded weapon strapped to our backs.
This is nothing more than an attention whore looking for a situation to bully others around. He makes responsible gun owners look bad. You don’t need a rifle at Krogers, you need a grocery list and a plan to get through the store before the baby gets hungry. He should be thinking about his child and less about his…uh – gun.
Obamanation August 28th, 2014 at 20:01
I didn’t even bother reading everything you said. That first line was YOUR opinion. End of story.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 21:24
You replied without reading the entire post? That seems like a smart thing to do – not have the whole story. You must have done great in school, a real mensa candidate.
Obamanation August 28th, 2014 at 21:28
I apologize your feelings interfere with reality. Sorry sweetheart but you need to see a shrink.
Carla Akins August 28th, 2014 at 21:38
Sweetheart? Truly, you’re a jackass. Oh, and you’re done here.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:15
He flagged your comment. You must have hurt his fee fees.
mea_mark September 11th, 2014 at 20:29
Can you tell who is flagging now?
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:39
It was kinda obvious. Old post, she responded, comment flagged.
mea_mark September 11th, 2014 at 21:10
Darn, I was hoping they fixed the flagging problem.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 21:43
I wish.
Carla Akins September 11th, 2014 at 20:33
Bwahaha. Not me, it was angry/bad Carla.
Anomaly 100 September 11th, 2014 at 20:39
We know all about you, Angry Carla.
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:39
Get over yourself you NRA whore! It may not be against the law but it is rude, unnecessary and dangerous! ALL normal people don’t like it! YOU can support Kroger. There are plenty of ethical businesses around that don’t allow morons who don’t have the mentality to figure out why we don’t approves of this!
Ricky August 28th, 2014 at 20:22
I’m curious to know. Whats so dangerous about this?
Obamanation August 28th, 2014 at 20:41
I am not with the nra. So jokes on you and once again…your opinion is void when it comes to the constitution
Jason Yahner August 28th, 2014 at 23:37
I find your right to free speech rude, unnecessary and you’re stupidity dangerous. But it’s protected by law. We as a country did this sto insure our way of life… sometimes with word and when that didn’t work it was with guns.
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:38
What a classy guy! Look at him! What a puke!
Maggie Schafer August 28th, 2014 at 19:38
What a classy guy! Look at him! What a puke!
Richard Carew August 28th, 2014 at 19:57
Curious why you’re pointing the finger at OCT? They have a policy NOT to go into businesses unless invited as I recall. The subject matter above resides in Kentucky, as he clearly states. So this is NOT an OCT member, it is a person showing his support of what OCT is trying to accomplish.
Just thought the truth should be out there, since it is lacking from your right up.