Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Asked to leave my gun in the car at walmart again

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    im typing it up right now... i posted it first to build suspense hahaha

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    walked into walmart... a few seconds later, a lady (the greeter) walks up to us, and asks why im carrying the gun, so i tell her that the regional manager, tim woods, allowed opencarriers to opencarry here (mom told her that its our right) and the lady looked scarred, and then dad hugged her, and they laughed etc. i walked around the store for about 15-20 mins... and then a lady walks up to me in the DVD section... (was carrying the ruger .357 in a western holster/belt) she asked if i was a LEO, and i said no, and she told me i needed to take my gun to the car, and i said no i dont, my friend called the regional manager of the Utah county walmarts, and he said it was ok for people to OC as long as its within state laws. she said she was the asst manager, and she had the co manager come over to talk. he said that he had 10 people tell him there was a person walking around with a gun, and that i was scaring off customers, so i told him that my friend called the regional manager of the UT county walmarts, and he said its okay, etc etc. and then he replied with... "ive never heard of him... the regional manager is (i forgot the name, renaldo or something)" and the asst manager hasnt ever heard of tim woods either! so i was pretty confused... so i called kevin, and he said it was tim woods also. the manager was talking to my dad about putting up signs that say "no firearms allowed" and stuff... and i replied with "probably half the people here are carrying" and the asst manager said "half?" and i said "lots of people conceal their weapons" (well im guessin about 1/3rd-1/4th of the people do conceal) anyway, it was a big mess. whats our next step? im not stepping one foot into walmart until we clear this up and make SURE that everyone in the UT (or UT county) walmarts KNOW that its legal for us to. (pissed lol)



    *** Tim Woods is the regional manager, from what kevin stated, but the manager and asst manager said it was someone different ***

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

  4. #4
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    My mistake. Tim Woods is the Regional Manager of Sams Club. Our Walmart regional manager is Jim Curtis.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Here is a contact things at the Walmart Coporate site

    http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMSto...te.do?catg=221



    I think we should e-mail and see what responses we get.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Well Sams Club and Walmart are under the same corperation. So you would think that the polices would be the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    cool, who wants to be the guineapig and email em' lol

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    whats our next step? im not stepping one foot into walmart until we clear this up and make SURE that everyone in the UT (or UT county) walmarts KNOW that its legal for us to. (pissed lol)
    Just to clarify, while it is legal to carry in a Walmart, it is also legal for them to deny you entry or services if you do so. The issue is not the legality of our conduct. It is making sure that Walmart employees know what their own policy is.

    I find I get a lot farther when talking with policy makers if I acknowledge THEIR legal rights right up front. Then we can simply focus on what the appropriate policy ought to be.

    I have a couple of suggestions you may want to consider.

    Try contacting the regional manager again, CALMLY explaining the confusion, making sure you understand his policy, and then asking if he would send some kind of memorandum to his individual stores.

    My second suggestion is to carefully examine your own comportment, dress, etc to see if you are unduly drawing attention to yourself or your firearm in these situations. OCing sends a message. I would hope that part of that message is that law abiding citizens who OC are well dressed, well groomed, polite, mature, soft-spoken, etc. I've never been asked to leave a business while carrying, be it CC, casually concealed, or open. This includes here in Utah as well as a couple of summers and a full semester in Tucson back in about '95 when I sitll looked pretty young.

    I also find, for example, that a black gun carried next to a white shirt draws a lot more attention than the same gun carried next to a black shirt even while being, technically, every bit as much non-concealed.

    My third suggestion is to consider legislation to prevent businesses open to the public from banning guns and seeing if you can find a legislator willing to sponsor it next year.

    My fourth suggestion is to please take a little more time with capitalization and the use of paragraphs as you post. It will make your posts a lot easier to read.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    and i said "lots of people conceal their weapons" (well im guessin about 1/3rd-1/4th of the people do conceal) anyway, it was a big mess. whats our next step?
    Utah has about 3 million residents. Figure 40% are under the age of 21 and can't get a permit and about 5% of our population being illegal aliens who can't get a permit, and that leaves about 1,650,000 persons eligible for a permit.

    Utah has just over 100,000 permits currently valid, with about half of those issued to non-Utah-residents. That means about 50,000 Utahns have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

    That is about 3% of our eligible population, which is about typical for shall issue States.

    From those I know who have a permit, at least half RARELY ever carry a gun at all. They obtained a permit to comply with gun free school zones or other silly laws while hunting, just for educational purposes, etc. Figure those who do carry on some regular basis, but who are coming from or going to work or some other "gun free" zone and I'd estimate that, ignoring police officers, only about 1 person in 100, maybe 1 in 200 is legally carrying a gun in most places.

    Of course, some number larger than that is probably carrying a gun illegally. That might be gang members and other habitual criminals as well as otherwise law abiding persons who are not inclined to ask for permission to exercise their rights.

    Still, I'd be shocked if in most random situations the number of non-police officers carrying a gun (legally or otherwise) was any higher than 5% or 1 in 20. I'd not a gambling man, but would darn near bet the farm it isn't higher than 1 in 10 anyplace other than a range, gun store, political meet, or gang hangout.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    about 5% of our population being illegal aliens who can't get a permit

    Isn't it sad how we've been invaded and nobody is doing anything about it?



    Secondly. I was using the "Half the people in the store" as an example, a figure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    about 5% of our population being illegal aliens who can't get a permit

    Isn't it sad how we've been invaded and nobody is doing anything about it?



    Secondly. I was using the "Half the people in the store" as an example, a figure.
    So you were trying to BS the manager like she was trying to BS you. Sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    about 5% of our population being illegal aliens who can't get a permit
    Isn't it sad how we've been invaded and nobody is doing anything about it?
    I think it's sad that a country founded on the notion of freedom for all, one of whose main symbols has inscribed on it:

    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    is so determined to keep out exactly the sort of people that made it the great nation it is.

    IMNSHO, the problem isn't that they're "aliens", the problem is that we call them "illegal". Many of our own ancestors were illegal as well -- when my great great great grandfather arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the area belonged to Mexico according to white men's law and should really have belonged to the Shoshone, Gosiutes, Paiutes, Utes and Navajo. Didn't bother him a bit, he was too busy making a life for his family, according to the dictates of his God and his conscience.

    Sorry, OT, I know. I won't respond further on this topic, but I just couldn't let it go entirely without comment.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    bI think it's sad that a country founded on the notion of freedom for all, one of whose main symbols has inscribed on it:

    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    is so determined to keep out exactly the sort of people that made it the great nation it is.

    IMNSHO, the problem isn't that they're "aliens", the problem is that we call them "illegal". Many of our own ancestors were illegal as well -- when my great great great grandfather arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, the area belonged to Mexico according to white men's law and should really have belonged to the Shoshone, Gosiutes, Paiutes, Utes and Navajo. Didn't bother him a bit, he was too busy making a life for his family, according to the dictates of his God and his conscience.

    Sorry, OT, I know. I won't respond further on this topic, but I just couldn't let it go entirely without comment.
    Grossly off topic, but since you've offered your opinion, I'll offer mine.

    1-Far too many of the illegal aliens in this nation are NOT the kind of people who made this nation great. Illegal aliens comprise 5 to 10% of our population at this point. Yet, they account for 30% to 50% or more of the violent gang activity in this nation. Some 80% of the members of the violent MS13 gang are illegal aliens. They are GROSSLY over-represented in DUIs, driving without insurance, hit and run, vandalism, and various drug related crimes.

    The statute of liberty is NOT binding law and it certainly does NOT say "send me your welfare queens, your drug dealers, your rapist and murders and drunk drivers, your gang members to prey upon our citizens and to suck up welfare dollars."

    Even libertarians will concede you can have EITHER open borders OR a welfare state, but not both for very long.

    2-There was NOTHING "illegal" about the mormon settlement in Utah in 1847. Mexico had no laws regarding the settlement of the area, it was well under US control by then during the Mexican-American war (a war Mexico started by refusing to recognize the independence of Texas), and the American Indian tribes lacked any notion of "owning" property.

    3-Over 50% of the population of Mexico would come here if they could. I expect well over 25% of the rest of the 2nd and 3rd world would join them. We would simply cease to be the nation we are if we allowe that kind of unlimited immigration, and particularly from nations with no history nor culture of respecting individual rights, recognizing equality, or condeming graft and corruption, not to mention speaking something other than english and mostly being illiterate even in their native tongues. It is not meet for a man (or a nation) to run faster (or do more) than he can. We simply CANNOT survive with unlimited immigration, controls ARE necessary. And I see NO REASON why our immigration policy (either de facto or de jure) should so grossly favor those who can walk here over those who would requie a boat or airplane to reach our nation.

    4-Far too many of these illegal aliens DO view themselves as re-conquering lost Mexican lands for Atzlan and La Raza (the race). If even 10,000 men in uniforms and bearing arms were to cross our border, NOBODY would be quoting the statute of liberty. We'd all be demanding the federal government live up to its long neglected constitutional mandate to protect the several States from invasion. But because 20 MILLION peole have not worn uniforms and many of them do not carry guns too many think this is NOT an invasion. It is. And the seizing of your property via government tax collectors, the destruction of your schools, the degradation of your neighborhoods is and will be just as real--though a bit slower in coming--as if tanks and guns and bombs were involved.

    5-The VAST majority of these illegal aliens and their anchor babies will end up voting (legally or otherwise) for politicians who are very much opposed to our RKBA. They are also opposed to local citizens actually controlling their own schools or the hardworking middle class actually keeping what they have rightfully earned.

    I'm all in favor of LEGAL immigration. But just as I do not open my home to everyone passing by, immigration needs to be on OUR terms, NOT on the terms of the least law abiding people on our southern border.

    Finally, I'm ALL in favor of freedom for all and will happily send a few copies of our Constitution to any nation who wants to emulate us. It isn't like it is getting much use here these days.

    But look around. The problems with Mexico and Latin America are NOT caused by lack of natural resources, or by foreign nations dictating and controlling. They are not caused by lack of good climate for growing food, or lack of harbors or rivers, or nobody wanting to vacation there. By every objective measure, Mexico should be a 1st world, thriving, prosperous nation. It isn't. And the only reason I can find is the people and/or culture that prevails there.

    To those who would come here and fully assimilate and adopt our culture and ways, I'd be welcoming in numbers small enough to be sure our culture is preserved. But I see no value nor virtue nor benefit to ANYONE for the north side of the Rio Grande to look anything at all like the south side of the Rio Grande.

    I don't care a whit about a man's skin color or ancestry. But I care very much what culture he choses to embrace and foster and I see nothing at all untoward in pointing out the superiority of the US culture compared to the Mexican culture and recognizing that unlimited immigration does not bode well for preserving the culture I prefer.

    What happened to the American Indians, maybe even what happened to Mexico, was not good. But I can't change the past and I am not about to sign up myself nor my posterity nor our culture and language to play the role of conquered and vanquished natives to unlimited immigration of hostile peoples and cultures.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    I said I wouldn't respond, so I'll limit myself to just adding: Every complaint you cite was made about every other wave of immigrants (except the illegality, but that was because our policies were different). Read a little about the history of the Irish immigrants, for example. The influx of near-destitute people has always created crime, and has always been the underlying force driving out economy. The present is no different. Immigrants have always created enclaves of their own culture (little Italy, Chinatown, little Saigon, etc.), and the first-generation immigrants have always failed to assimilate.

    The current immigrants, legal and illegal, are exactly the sort of people who've made our country what it is. Some of them are criminals, or become criminals, but the vast majority of them are hardworking people looking to get ahead.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    I said I wouldn't respond, so I'll limit myself to just adding: Every complaint you cite was made about every other wave of immigrants (except the illegality, but that was because our policies were different). Read a little about the history of the Irish immigrants, for example. The influx of near-destitute people has always created crime, and has always been the underlying force driving out economy. The present is no different. Immigrants have always created enclaves of their own culture (little Italy, Chinatown, little Saigon, etc.), and the first-generation immigrants have always failed to assimilate.

    The current immigrants, legal and illegal, are exactly the sort of people who've made our country what it is. Some of them are criminals, or become criminals, but the vast majority of them are hardworking people looking to get ahead.
    No, I've made complaints about illegality and criminal conduct well above and beyond immigration. I've also complained about loyalties to a foreign nation. I have also complained about welfare and other costs to citizens. Most of these were not issues in prior generations.

    Prior immigration occurred PRIOR to this nation having a MASSIVE welfare state. Those who came sank or swam on their own merit and efforts without sucking the taxpayers dry, shutting down emergency rooms with unpaid bills, or destroying property and lives due to a propensity to drive under the influence, without insurance, and to hit and run.

    The very fact that we do have laws limiting immigration means that those who come have a demonstrable propensity to ignore laws. If you are willing to ignore immigration laws, what other laws are you willing to ignore when they inconvenience you? As we all know, crimes are committed by criminals. Prior immigrants came legally. Certainly there were some criminals among them. Today, EVERY illegal alien starts life in this nation as a criminal. He continues his crime as he seeks stolen or falsified ID for work and other purposes. Many will commit no further crimes. But far too many go on to violate a host of other laws including traffic laws (insurance, DUI, keeping cars in proper repair, etc), drug laws, property and violent crime, etc.

    What we have in this nation is NOT a first generation of latin american immigrants. This has been going on for nearly 50 years. It has been 20 years (a full generation) since Reagan's amnesty.

    Also, due to physical distance and massive differences in communications, prior immigrants came to this nation fully intentioned on settling here permanently and without continued loyalties to the old country. Yes, they had trouble learning english and lived in homogeneous communities. But nobody was immigrating from Ireland or Italy with ANY notion that this land needed to be reclaimed for the old country. They encouraged their children to learn. Many adopted english versions of their given or family names in an effort to help their children assimilate, even if they themselves lacked all the skill necessary to do so. Nobody was demanding that government and private services alike be provided in the native tongue.

    The Atzlan movement and the goals of La Raza are VERY real. Ignore them at your peril.

    We have a couple of choices. Open the borders completely and make no attempt to screen those who enter our nation. Admit the good with the bad, the hardworking and the criminals alike, those who are healthy and those with contagious illness for which this nation has little or no herd immunity. OR, we can screen and limit immigration. Those who favor open borders should simply say so and be honest. Those who will concede that some limits are needed, need to stop acting as if calls for enforcement are somehow mean spirited or unamerican. And we might also want to consider whether our policy and laws should dramatically limit the immigration of europeans and asians and africans while admitting a nearly unlimited number from latin america.

    Whatever one's position on immigration policy I do have one very simple, over-riding principle when it comes to the law: Enforce it. It is needs to be changed, change it. But enforce it. A bad law, uniformly enforced will create demand for change. A bad law only sporadically enforced remains a big hammer in the hands of government.

    Just as I am expected to obey gun and tax and zoning and other laws, I darn well expect others to obey laws they find inconvenient including immigration, traffic, employment, and other laws.

    And again, with the possible exception of demonstrable voting patterns of illegal aliens voting AGAINST our RKBA, and the grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by illegal aliens, which crime is often used as justification to limit our RKBA, this is all off topic. I suppose I should be better about letting opinions such as yours go unchallenged in this forum. At the same time, you should have ignored black5mith's off handed comment about an invasion. My initial comment about illegal aliens was made ONLY to arrive at rough figures of how many Utahns are likely to be legally carrying a gun.

    Shall we get back to discussing RKBA and OC?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Hiltons, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    cool, who wants to be the guineapig and email em' lol


    Different state, but definitely on topic. I just emailed Wal-Mart Corporate to find out the policy. I suspect that they are going to tell me that the policy is determined by some underlings because they don't have the cahones to set a corporate policy. I'll let you know what I find out.



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Hiltons, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    73

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    My second suggestion is to carefully examine your own comportment, dress, etc to see if you are unduly drawing attention to yourself or your firearm in these situations. OCing sends a message. I would hope that part of that message is that law abiding citizens who OC are well dressed, well groomed, polite, mature, soft-spoken, etc. I've never been asked to leave a business while carrying, be it CC, casually concealed, or open. This includes here in Utah as well as a couple of summers and a full semester in Tucson back in about '95 when I sitll looked pretty young.



    Thanks for this. I agree with you completely. Just because it is legal and a right to carry, doesn't mean that you should rub people's faces in it. Sometimes OC'ers walk around like, "I have a gun and I dare someone to say something to me about it." It sometimes becomes obnoxious when people want to flaunt that they are carrying. I know several people like this. You see them open carrying and when they stop to talk to you, they will rest their hand on the pistol while they talk or tap it with their fingers.

    You know, it's your legal right to kiss your wife in public, but nobody (well, almost nobody) likes to see you standing beside the door to the walmart with your tongue down her throat either.

    Sometimes it's like people that open carry have a chip on their shoulder and are just daring someone to knock it off. What ultimately happens is that those are the kinds of people that non-OC'ers see and associate with the rest of us.

    Most OC'ers aren't like this, but unfortunately where non-OC'ers are concerned, perception is truth.

    Just my $.02

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lewes (At The Beach), Delaware, USA
    Posts
    34

    Post imported post

    rocknsnow wrote:
    Here is a contact things at the Walmart Coporate site

    http://walmartstores.com/GlobalWMSto...te.do?catg=221



    I think we should e-mail and see what responses we get.
    sent email and well let you know what happpens on my end!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Shall we get back to discussing RKBA and OC?
    I'm not the one who replied to two brief paragraphs with an 11-paragraph diatribe :-)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    i dont carry the western setup as a "look what i got" thing like you stated, i carry it because i live in the west, so i want to live like the west. UT, NV, NM, CO, WY, ID and AZ are pretty much the last real cowboy states, and we all know that my great grandchildren will be amazed that we lived like this. i love carrying the revolver, its a great statement, its comfortable, and its just my right.all i needed to say was its my right, but when you think about it, nothing says AMERICAN like a good ol' revolver
    (well maybe a colt 1911 lol)

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    Shall we get back to discussing RKBA and OC?
    I'm not the one who replied to two brief paragraphs with an 11-paragraph diatribe :-)
    And I'm not the one who has responded twice after promising not to respond at all.

    Quoting the statute of liberty makes for a nice sound bite. Kind of like the anti's trotting out victims of crime as evidence of the need to strip me of my rights.

    Rather than resond with emphatic assertions, I prefer some details and substance to back up my opinions.

    Allowing unlimited immgration from latin america is not good for us, it is not good for the immigrants, it is not good for the communities and nation they leave behind.

    Far too many who come here have tacitly admitted the failure of their own culture in coming here even as they refuse to adopt our culture but want to enjoy the fruits that culture has wrought.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    And I'm not the one who has responded twice after promising not to respond at all.
    Neither am I. I only responded once after saying I wouldn't respond. I figure I'm allowed one slip. Neither this post nor my previous post say anything about the issue.

    (Awaiting your next screed)

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    And I'm not the one who has responded twice after promising not to respond at all.
    Neither am I. I only responded once after saying I wouldn't respond. I figure I'm allowed one slip. Neither this post nor my previous post say anything about the issue.

    (Awaiting your next screed)
    Let's see, you launch into an off topic discussion and then resort to insults like "diatribe" and "screed" while complaining about the lenght of my posts, but never really offering any substantive rebuttal to any of the points I've raised.

    I think it well past time to get back to OC and RKBA where I suspect we have far more agreement than on the issue of criminal aliens.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    riegnman wrote:
    You see them open carrying and when they stop to talk to you, they will rest their hand on the pistol while they talk or tap it with their fingers.
    Really? I haven't seen this, but I suppose I haven't seen that many OCers.

    Depending on the circumstances, that sort of action could easily be construed as threatening. Even if it's just habitual and unconcious, it could land you in hot water. Not a good idea.

    Personally, I wear a mid-ride holster and position it slightly forward of my hip so that it's away from where my hand and arm normally fall. It's very accessible, but positioned where my hand rarely has any reason to be.

    Of course when I conceal I usually wear my SmartCarry. That really discourages public gun-fondling.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Let's see, you launch into an off topic discussion and then resort to insults like "diatribe" and "screed" while complaining about the lenght of my posts, but never really offering any substantive rebuttal to any of the points I've raised.
    Actually, I didn't launch an offtopic discussion, b1ack5mith did.

    I just responded to make clear that not everyone here felt the same -- I get tired of the assumption that because I'm pro-2A I'm certain to think highly of minutemen, or that I would agree we're "invaded". I could certainly engage in a point-by-point discussion, but this is not the place and there's really no point. I've had the discussion with many and when rationally boiled down to bare essentials the disagreement is philosophical -- a disputation of axioms, and fundamentally not resolvable.

    As for my choice of nouns, I'll grant you that "diatribe" was inflammatory, but "screed" is simply accurate. The characteristics that make a discourse a screed are length and passion, and no one would argue yours lack either!

    If you're interested in a more complete exposition of my opinions on the immigration question, they're reasonably well stated in the Libertarian Party's position statement. I don't agree with every point in that statement, but it's pretty close.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •