ok is this guy on here? orem man with open carry at mall.

We are trying to get the public used to citizens openly bearing 'side arms' not rifles. While We the People are the legitimate homeland security force, the sheep are not yet ready to see what is common in places like Israel. We still have a lot of desensitizing to do before rifle carry could be considered 'ok'.

That said, I have seen others openly carrying AR's while dressed in suit and tie... really makes the sheep go lol

how else is there to react ??? even from an open carry point of view a man with what looks to be a loaded assault rifle steps into the mall or even just down the street, you dont question his motives? we are not trying to desensitize the public to guns
we are trying to help people remember what their rights are and that guns are an option to protect your self. a man with an assault rifle in a crowded place should send up a red flag. people have no idea what his intentions were or if it was loaded they should be afraid. even if they are carrying they shouldn't trust some guy who randomly parks his car and throws an ar on his back and starts heading to the mall. if i remember right just a few years ago utah had a mall shooting. open carry should be done in a way that it doesnt cause alarm (hard to do but we will get there).
ive said enough for one thread and i promise im off my soap dish now

Is what he did legal absolutely

His timing was off and his location he picked was off.

Is a disorderly conduct charge appropriate for the actions he took No

I support his rights to bear arms but feel it could have been done differently and still have the desired effect.

I hope this charge is dropped and the owner educated.

Maybe we could extend a greeting to join the group ?

Kevin Jensen said:

I think he could have been a bit more mindful of the time and location of his actions, but that is the limit of criticism he'll receive from me.

...unless he's an "anti" that did this to set a precedent with a disorderly conduct charge, then he might deserve a kick in the nuts. I doubt this is the case.

Click to expand...

One thing I learned a few years ago in H. L. Richardson's class on "confrontational politics" is that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter who it was that voted against you, or why they voted against you, all that matters is the vote. If a so-called friend votes against a good bill or for a bad bill, it doesn't really matter why. His vote counts the same regardless of motivation. If one of your opponents votes with you--voting for a good bill or against a bad bill--for all the wrong reasons, who cares? His vote counts the same as if he voted for all the right reasons.

I'll take this one step further and say that when an opponent does something to harm your cause it is to be expected. But when an ally, a supposed friend, does something to hurt your cause it just that much worse. It is a bit like being stabbed in the back.

If this guy is an anti or otherwise deliberately trying to make it more difficult to pass some very good, pro-RKBA bills this year, he could not have picked a better way to go about harming our cause.

His conduct has exactly that same effect even if he is a friend. In fact, were he an anti, and we could somehow demonstrate that to the legislature, his conduct would be less damaging than if is really a pro-RKBA supporter.

What he did was legal (so long as he has not been previously asked to stay off the private property in question). I have to support the legality of it.

But I do not support his choice of how to go about doing it.

The black, military style, scary looking carbine was not slung across his back innocuously, but was carried across his chest in a full battle/combat ready sling.

The handgun was not properly hostered near as I can tell but was also hanging from some kind of sling.

He was not traveling from one place to another on foot, but was loitering about semi randomly.

He was not carrying the firearms in any fashion usable for self defense. Indeed, anyone or two guys with a mind to do so could have relieved him of those nice guns and placed them into circulation in the criminal market. Legalities aside, it is grossly irresponsible to make it easy for criminals to get their hands on your firearms. It is legal to leave a gun sitting on the dash of your car. It is stupid and irresponsible to do so. Similarly, I contend that while it is legal to walk around showcasing a couple of expensive guns, it stupid to do so with no means of keeping those guns from falling into criminal hands.

If he was attempting to make some political statement, he failed miserably. He had no signs, no fliers or leaflets or pamphlets. He wasn't even wearing a T-Shirt with any message on it.

His conduct easily cost us a couple of votes on each of several, very important, pro-RKBA bills that are being run this session.

And from what has been reported of his financial situation, I highly doubt he has an attorney which means his odds of winning anything in court are between slim and none. Which means he hands us all (and the UoU) a nice little precedence (not a legally binding precedence as it will be in city court most likely), but a precedence nonetheless that otherwise lawfully OCing a gun can be subject to a disorderly conduct charge.

We may well have to support his legal right to be jack hat and pin head. But let's be clear about the fact that he is, actually, a pin headed jack hat. When the old Jewish man sent a check to the ACLU to support their efforts to defend the first amendment rights of the neo-Nazis to march in Skoke he did not praise the conduct of the Nazis. His note was, "Let the ba__ards have their march. Let everyone see what they really stand for."

I might do likewise if there were any real risk of offensive, but peaceful demonstrators outside Temple Square being arrested merely for being offensive. (I won't defend the use of "fighting words", but I recognize the right of people to peacefully offend me.) "Let the A-wipes demonstrate. Let the world see how much hate they really have."

So the best I'm going to do for this guy is say something like, "The law allows it; only an offensive pin head would do this just to make a point."

And frankly, given the totality of the situation, combat sling in front, more or less loitering on private property where he was not welcome, etc, I might just be willing to see the legal line be drawn there.

If you want to OC a properly holstered gun, great. But I'm not going to bend over backward to defend any "right" to walk around with a gun in hand, finger on trigger. And this guy was carrying his carbine pretty much in hand, finger near trigger. I think it may well have crossed the line from merely "offensive" to actually threatening or at least "disorderly."

Anyway, before calling your legislators to ask their support for any pro-RKBA bills this year, I hope y'all think for a moment about how you are going to handle the very likely questions regarding this guy's conduct. Do you tell your legislator that you think what the guy did is perfectly ok and we should encourage others to do likewise? Or, do you tell him that you recognize how offensive and off putting the conduct was, but just like some first amendment issues, these are the cases that test our resolve to support the bill of rights?

OJ walked on two murders. I will defend the 4th and 5th amendments. I will NOT defend what OJ did. I will hold OJ up as one of the costs of living in a free society. The demonstrators around temple square or at military funerals or showing neo-nazi signs are some other costs of living in a free society. Maybe a pin head in Orem with a couple of unloaded guns is another such cost. Or, maybe not. Maybe his conduct does cross a legal line.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

The black, military style, scary looking carbine was not slung across his back innocuously, but was carried across his chest in a full battle/combat ready sling.

Charles

Click to expand...

The individual should have slung across his back with the rifle muzzle down. Pistols are to be secured in proper holsters. I also agree that he should have worn some kind of identification which states that he is merely exercising his rights—or he could have dressed up in professional attire.

Furthermore, desensitizing the public to firearms is exercising the right. Without this approach, people will continue to think that it is illegal have firearms.

Conversely, you play a game of risk when doing this since it can be considered disorderly—by causing panic.

yo101jimmy said:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14078120

I saw this and well feel personally this was the wrong way to show our rights and with what we are trying to get passed this year. BAD CALL! its been a while for me to be on here but I wanted to read about this and no one has posted it so here is the start to the post.

I have exercised my rights I know we all have but, its baby steps to get everyone back knowing thats its ok to open carry firearms in Utah.

I hope to hear from Jensen on this post.

Click to expand...

This is why you haven't seen it posted. If it's about long gunOC it's against the rules for OCDO


(14) LONG GUN CARRY IS OFF-TOPIC: This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. We do NOT promote the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the members of this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.

Utah_Patriot said:

Is what he did legal absolutely

His timing was off and his location he picked was off.

Is a disorderly conduct charge appropriate for the actions he took No

I support his rights to bear arms but feel it could have been done differently and still have the desired effect.

I hope this charge is dropped and the owner educated.

Maybe we could extend a greeting to join the group ?

Click to expand...

As a minimum, I'd like for the POLICE FORCE and PROSECUTOR to be educated as well!

AFPVet said:

The individual should have slung across his back with the rifle muzzle down. Pistols are to be secured in proper holsters. I also agree that he should have worn some kind of identification which states that he is merely exercising his rights—or he could have dressed up in professional attire.

Furthermore, desensitizing the public to firearms is exercising the right. Without this approach, people will continue to think that it is illegal have firearms.

Conversely, you play a game of risk when doing this since it can be considered disorderly—by causing panic.

Click to expand...

I didn't see in the 2nd amendment where the above is REQUIRED! Now, would I have made the same choice as this person made in this situation? Most likely not! BUT He was legal in his actions!

JoeSparky said:

I didn't see in the 2nd amendment where the above is REQUIRED! Now, would I have made the same choice as this person made in this situation? Most likely not! BUT He was legal in his actions!

Click to expand...

The 1st amendment does not protect "fighting words", libel, or slander.

The 4th amendment allows for certain exigent circumstances.

The 5th amendment allows for the collection of photos, fingerprints, and DNA to be used as evidence against a person.

I'm not going to be the one saying the 2md amendment (nor even Art 1 Sec 6 of the Utah Constitution) protects some right to carry a gun in a threatening or menacing manner. A properly holstered gun, even a long gun slung over a back or on a shoulder is not threatening or menacing to a reasonable man.

But a firearm carried in hand, finger on or near trigger? If that doesn't make you nervous to see on a city street you are in condition white.

A P90 in a combat sling across the chest with a handgun in another combat sling on the side? While more or less loitering around randomly in a high traffic public location? That is not just a choice most of us would refrain from making. The reason we would refrain from making such a choice is because in our heart of hearts we all know it crosses way too many lines.

It is simply indefensible and I'm not going to defend it. I don't think my rights require allowing people to walk around with carbines in combat holsters on city streets any more than I have permit public coitus in order to secure my rights to free expression.

If a jury says otherwise, fine. But if a jury convicts for disorderly conduct for this stunt, I'm not going to question that verdict either.

Charles

Kevin Jensen said:

I think he could have been a bit more mindful of the time and location of his actions, but that is the limit of criticism he'll receive from me.

...unless he's an "anti" that did this to set a precedent with a disorderly conduct charge, then he might deserve a kick in the nuts. I doubt this is the case.

Click to expand...

You never know he might have done this to try to once again put the fear that gun owners are nut jobs. I say that comment due to a talk I had a few weeks ago how its so funny, the average person now days has no clue. Ok the laws that are set up prevents alot of people that should not have guns from getting them. What alot of people dont get is that the harder the laws get put in the harder it really is for the people like well I am going to guess everyone on this site is. well harder it is for us to get guns because the people that shouldn't have them and want to hurt people will still get them. I know off topic sorry.

But this guy might be just what you said no ammo in these guns. May have been what he was said he was trying to do prove we are an open carry state. But he may have been proving that it is and we shouldn't be " his personal agenda I dont know" The main reason I posted was to see if Mr. Taylor was part of OCDO.

JoeSparky said:

As a minimum, I'd like for the POLICE FORCE and PROSECUTOR to be educated as well!

Click to expand...

Joe I agree on this Orem from my experience has been they dont jump all over open carry guys but I havent OC much in Orem. I know a few of the officers there they are higher up not beat cops. no name will be said. But I agree and the Prosecutors in general should not be out to just get a number on convection but to protect the truth. what he did I think no charges should be have been placed. but at least he only got an infraction charge.

utbagpiper said:

...What he did was legal (so long as he has not been previously asked to stay off the private property in question). I have to support the legality of it.

But I do not support his choice of how to go about doing it...
Charles

Click to expand...

That about covers it for me. Aside from actually shooting up the mall, it's difficult to imagine behavior that would be more calculated to turn citizens into anti-gun voters than what this idiot did. "Them gun-toters - they're crazy!" These are the sorts of behaviors that cause all of our rights to be endangered and I think that everyone who understands the sensible exercise of OC or any other right should be mighty pissed off at him. Don't we have enough of a struggle to retain our rights without this kind of thing?

Someone said that the police had already encountered this gentleman in the past and therefore "should have known" that his weapons were unloaded. And how would they know this? You're not really saying they should KNOW the weapons were unloaded...you're asking them to ASS-U-ME that the weapons were unloaded THIS TIME merely because they were unloaded before.

Umm...got brain? I guess all I'd have to do is carry unloaded until I've convinced the cops that they can ignore me, and THEN I'm free to shoot up the mall without any further interference from them. Do a couple of dry runs, lull the cops into the stupid presumption that my weapons would never be loaded, and I'm good to go, right?

As a former cop, I can assure you that the dumbest thing these cops could have done would have been to PRESUME that what they had discovered previously would ALWAYS be true.

Battlespeed said:

That about covers it for me. Aside from actually shooting up the mall, it's difficult to imagine behavior that would be more calculated to turn citizens into anti-gun voters than what this idiot did. "Them gun-toters - they're crazy!" These are the sorts of behaviors that cause all of our rights to be endangered and I think that everyone who understands the sensible exercise of OC or any other right should be mighty pissed off at him. Don't we have enough of a struggle to retain our rights without this kind of thing?

Someone said that the police had already encountered this gentleman in the past and therefore "should have known" that his weapons were unloaded. And how would they know this? You're not really saying they should KNOW the weapons were unloaded...you're asking them to ASS-U-ME that the weapons were unloaded THIS TIME merely because they were unloaded before.

Umm...got brain? I guess all I'd have to do is carry unloaded until I've convinced the cops that they can ignore me, and THEN I'm free to shoot up the mall without any further interference from them. Do a couple of dry runs, lull the cops into the stupid presumption that my weapons would never be loaded, and I'm good to go, right?

As a former cop, I can assure you that the dumbest thing these cops could have done would have been to PRESUME that what they had discovered previously would ALWAYS be true.

Click to expand...

ttt

Battlespeed said:

That about covers it for me. Aside from actually shooting up the mall, it's difficult to imagine behavior that would be more calculated to turn citizens into anti-gun voters than what this idiot did. "Them gun-toters - they're crazy!" These are the sorts of behaviors that cause all of our rights to be endangered and I think that everyone who understands the sensible exercise of OC or any other right should be mighty pissed off at him. Don't we have enough of a struggle to retain our rights without this kind of thing?

Someone said that the police had already encountered this gentleman in the past and therefore "should have known" that his weapons were unloaded. And how would they know this? You're not really saying they should KNOW the weapons were unloaded...you're asking them to ASS-U-ME that the weapons were unloaded THIS TIME merely because they were unloaded before.

Umm...got brain? I guess all I'd have to do is carry unloaded until I've convinced the cops that they can ignore me, and THEN I'm free to shoot up the mall without any further interference from them. Do a couple of dry runs, lull the cops into the stupid presumption that my weapons would never be loaded, and I'm good to go, right?

As a former cop, I can assure you that the dumbest thing these cops could have done would have been to PRESUME that what they had discovered previously would ALWAYS be true.

Click to expand...

Possession and carrying of a firearm without other actions is NOT a crime. Police have NO right to encounter or detain a person without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Police are REQUIRED by the United States Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold, and by law to presume innocence unless they can articulate what action indicates that a crime is afoot. The courts have repeatedly ruled that "fishing expedition" stops are unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights.

utbagpiper said:

The 1st amendment does not protect "fighting words", libel, or slander.

The 4th amendment allows for certain exigent circumstances.

The 5th amendment allows for the collection of photos, fingerprints, and DNA to be used as evidence against a person.
[snip]
Charles

Click to expand...

Wrong. The 1st Amendment does in fact recognize the right to free speech regardless of what is said, to include the dubious "fire in a theater" comment.

It is the damages that are pursued due to reasonable belief of damages caused by said commentary, or comments that are in support of character of crime, that are illegal and will be pursued.

Also, you clearly have the 4th and 5th Amendments backwards.

Photos, fingerprints, and DNA are indeed not exceptions to "unreasonable search and seizure", as any such evidence would be suppressed and never see the light of day were no warrants properly issued. Specifically, if said collection was done in the face lack of RAS or PC.

No RAS? No PC.
No PC? No Arrest.
No Arrest? No fingerprinting etc.

The process is there for a reason, and it is not above the 4th Amendment.


As to this topic, this gentleman was not in the wrong. While I understand there is some sort of "Public Outreach Plan" in place that not a single open carrier can define via some set organized list, the only way to desensitize the general public, is in fact, to show them that it is a completely safe, and reasonable practice.

I don't care if a firearms owner has an AK47, a 92FS, or an M4. They should be allowed to defend themselves, and carry, whatever they want, any time.

rpyne said:

Possession and carrying of a firearm without other actions is NOT a crime. Police have NO right to encounter or detain a person without Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. Police are REQUIRED by the United States Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold, and by law to presume innocence unless they can articulate what action indicates that a crime is afoot. The courts have repeatedly ruled that "fishing expedition" stops are unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights.

Click to expand...

Police MAY want or desire to "encounter or detain" for many behaviors but if they have NO RAS that a crime has happend, is happening or about to happen then I decline to acquiesce to the request---- "Means NO!" Great line by Capt. Barbosa in the 1st "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie by Disney.

slowfiveoh said:

As to this topic, this gentleman was not in the wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes he was. He most certainly did not help our cause by his conduct. That may not be legally wrong, but it is wrong.

Legally, he may well have been in the wrong as well. Carrying a golf club or baseball bat is legal. Swinging it around or raising it overhead in a threatening or disruptive manner is not legal in many circumstances.

Carrying a gun visibly is legal in Utah. Carrying a gun in hand, with finger on trigger or waving it around rising to the level that a reasonable man would find it threatening. That is illegal. Carrying long guns in combat slings across the chest, while loitering in a public area, with no obvious reason for such conduct may well be similar enough to finger on trigger as to get a conviction.

I might not prosecute for it were it my choice to make. But it isn't.

I predict the guy is convicted of some crime related to this event, likely the disorderly conduct with which he has been charged.

I predict that conviction is not overturned at any level of appeal.

We can all complain about how that may not be right. But at the end of the day, it will define what is or is not legal.

The guy crossed a lot of lines of good taste and very well may have crossed a legal line as well. I believe the final verdict will say he did cross a legal line and committed a crime.

I don't celebrate that potential. But neither do i celebrate jack hats who engage in deliberately provocative conduct just because they can.

Civil societies exist not because we carry guns, but because we choose to engage in civil conduct.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Yes he was. He most certainly did not help our cause by his conduct. That may not be legally wrong, but it is wrong.

Legally, he may well have been in the wrong as well. Carrying a golf club or baseball bat is legal. Swinging it around or raising it overhead in a threatening or disruptive manner is not legal in many circumstances.

Carrying a gun visibly is legal in Utah. Carrying a gun in hand, with finger on trigger or waving it around rising to the level that a reasonable man would find it threatening. That is illegal. Carrying long guns in combat slings across the chest, while loitering in a public area, with no obvious reason for such conduct may well be similar enough to finger on trigger as to get a conviction.

I might not prosecute for it were it my choice to make. But it isn't.

I predict the guy is convicted of some crime related to this event, likely the disorderly conduct with which he has been charged.

I predict that conviction is not overturned at any level of appeal.

We can all complain about how that may not be right. But at the end of the day, it will define what is or is not legal.

The guy crossed a lot of lines of good taste and very well may have crossed a legal line as well. I believe the final verdict will say he did cross a legal line and committed a crime.

I don't celebrate that potential. But neither do i celebrate jack hats who engage in deliberately provocative conduct just because they can.

Civil societies exist not because we carry guns, but because we choose to engage in civil conduct.

Charles

Click to expand...

Your term "deliberately provacative conduct", makes me laugh.

Please provide the following:

#1. A list of acceptable firearms to open carry. Please be sure it's comprehensive.

#2. Your solution to those wishing to open carry, who cannot afford a handgun, and do not wish to give up their rifle.

#3. A dress code so that we may "properly dress" for the "best appearance" to our detractors, or the rest of uninformed society.

#4. Please create a list of rounds you believe unacceptable to be carried, or used as a
defense round in a public setting.


...and on, and on. This list is literally endless.

After you do this, we will rename the 2nd Amendment, via repeal, to the "Charles Amendment". Then you can replace "...shall not be infringed", with "as long as you don't scare the public".

See how far that BS gets you.

There is a HUGE difference between wanton brandishing of a firearm, and the slung carry of a rifle. Attempting to tie the two together is complete BS on your part, and might I add, excessively emotive in nature.

I realize it is hard to fathom, but we really need all the law abiding open carriers we can get. This means the urban street dweller, the uptight rich snob, and the occasional redneck with two super redhawks, one on each hip.

Sticking with only those in khakis and polos, really misses the mark of the 2nd Amendment, and does not a damn thing to serve the end goal. The same can be said of firearm choice.

If you wish to carry a Puma, or a KelTec PLR, then fine. If you wish to carry a sub compact, then fine.

If you wish to carry a slung rifle, then fine.


No Charles, what we really need, is less emotive outcry and "OMG he is gonna get our right to carry banned!" on behalf of purported 2nd Amendment embracing firearms owners.

Stop making excuses for your right to carry.
Even better.
Stop making excuses for other peoples right to carry.

So long as this guy didn't place his finger anywhere near the trigger, I give a flying donkey turd if it was a Barret M82A1, or a Sig P228.

If you don't agree with his actions, that's your prerogative. Frankly though, you don't understand the concepts of the 4th or 5th Amendments, probably couldn't quote any Federalist, and actually had them backwards in your last post.

I am wondering if you understand "Freedom".

Another gentleman made a remark that made more sense. He said something along the lines of supporting what he did "absolutely", and expressed why he felt it was poor timing, or a poor method.

That makes a ton more sense than, "OMG HE IS HURTING OUR CAUSE OH LOOK AT ME AND MY EMOTIVE OUTCRY".

Just sayin. :lol:


PS. "Civil Societies" exist not because we "choose to be civil", but because we choose "structure" over chaos. That structure is the very framework that comprises the governing body of said society. In our society it is limited in scope of power by our Constitution. What we have today is an "entitled society", which is both lazy, and ignorant. Recent developments due to generational complacency. Our country was founded on individual liberty. The only catch? Ya gotta do for yourself.

Once government shifts power from "the people", to it's owner inner workings, on it's own behalf mind you, then it is not a "Civil Society" on behalf of the good will of people. It is a tyranny, defining what is "civil", for us.

All power should be inherent in the people. That is the way our government was formed, and that is the manner in which it shall be restored, as it has strayed significantly from that structure over the course of many generations.

That "Power", whether anyone wishes to rationalize it, or not, does in fact come from the tip of the sword, and the barrel of a gun.

So you see, "Charles", society does indeed become "civil" by the barrel of a gun.

Don't believe me?

Ask the "redcoats" why their "civilized society" was rejected, and more importantly, how it was rejected.

slowfiveoh said:

Your term "deliberately provacative conduct", makes me laugh.

Please provide the following:

#1. A list of acceptable firearms to open carry. Please be sure it's comprehensive.

#2. Your solution to those wishing to open carry, who cannot afford a handgun, and do not wish to give up their rifle.

#3. A dress code so that we may "properly dress" for the "best appearance" to our detractors, or the rest of uninformed society.

#4. Please create a list of rounds you believe unacceptable to be carried, or used as a
defense round in a public setting.


...and on, and on. This list is literally endless.

After you do this, we will rename the 2nd Amendment, via repeal, to the "Charles Amendment". Then you can replace "...shall not be infringed", with "as long as you don't scare the public".

See how far that BS gets you.

There is a HUGE difference between wanton brandishing of a firearm, and the slung carry of a rifle. Attempting to tie the two together is complete BS on your part, and might I add, excessively emotive in nature.

I realize it is hard to fathom, but we really need all the law abiding open carriers we can get. This means the urban street dweller, the uptight rich snob, and the occasional redneck with two super redhawks, one on each hip.

Sticking with only those in khakis and polos, really misses the mark of the 2nd Amendment, and does not a damn thing to serve the end goal. The same can be said of firearm choice.

If you wish to carry a Puma, or a KelTec PLR, then fine. If you wish to carry a sub compact, then fine.

If you wish to carry a slung rifle, then fine.


No Charles, what we really need, is less emotive outcry and "OMG he is gonna get our right to carry banned!" on behalf of purported 2nd Amendment embracing firearms owners.

Stop making excuses for your right to carry.
Even better.
Stop making excuses for other peoples right to carry.

So long as this guy didn't place his finger anywhere near the trigger, I give a flying donkey turd if it was a Barret M82A1, or a Sig P228.

If you don't agree with his actions, that's your prerogative. Frankly though, you don't understand the concepts of the 4th or 5th Amendments, probably couldn't quote any Federalist, and actually had them backwards in your last post.

I am wondering if you understand "Freedom".

Another gentleman made a remark that made more sense. He said something along the lines of supporting what he did "absolutely", and expressed why he felt it was poor timing, or a poor method.

That makes a ton more sense than, "OMG HE IS HURTING OUR CAUSE OH LOOK AT ME AND MY EMOTIVE OUTCRY".

Just sayin. :lol:


PS. "Civil Societies" exist not because we "choose to be civil", but because we choose "structure" over chaos. That structure is the very framework that comprises the governing body of said society. In our society it is limited in scope of power by our Constitution. What we have today is an "entitled society", which is both lazy, and ignorant. Recent developments due to generational complacency. Our country was founded on individual liberty. The only catch? Ya gotta do for yourself.

Once government shifts power from "the people", to it's owner inner workings, on it's own behalf mind you, then it is not a "Civil Society" on behalf of the good will of people. It is a tyranny, defining what is "civil", for us.

All power should be inherent in the people. That is the way our government was formed, and that is the manner in which it shall be restored, as it has strayed significantly from that structure over the course of many generations.

That "Power", whether anyone wishes to rationalize it, or not, does in fact come from the tip of the sword, and the barrel of a gun.

So you see, "Charles", society does indeed become "civil" by the barrel of a gun.

Don't believe me?

Ask the "redcoats" why their "civilized society" was rejected, and more importantly, how it was rejected.

Click to expand...

As much as it pains me I must agree with Charles regarding his opinion on this subject.
This is a touchy subject. In light of acitions by multiple others in the past it is my thought that detainment and verification that these guns were not a threat was in fact the correct action by the Police.

In light of several public area shootings this conduct of carrying a rifle in this manner at this location is not the right thing to do.


There is letter of law and spirit of law that needs to be considered. One cannot possibly write out every possible senario regarding what may or may not happen. Nor can a law be written that covers every one of these situations.

Before I get the ire of the group raised up just concider this....

Subject has at least two times engaged in similar conduct and weapons were found clear. Police drive by and note who the subject is, do not check because of the past contacts. But this time the guns were loaded and subject shoots up the place and kills on of your personal family members. Would you be one of the first screaming that the Police were slack in their duty to protect the public?

It is the conduct of a few criminals that has created the current situation. Do we wait until subject begins killing before someone checks on him?

Some would say yes, some would say no.

This is a complicated issue. An issue that does need to be resolved.

I do NOT want a police state. I do NOT want strict gun laws. I would like gun control laws removed.
I also dont have an issue with a person toting a rife at a mall in this manner being checked every single time.
The conduct is not right and is suspicious enough to warrant a check.

And really, subjects third encounter, I think he likes attention.
Just my thoughts.

flicker said:

I do NOT want a police state. I do NOT want strict gun laws. I would like gun control laws removed.
I also dont have an issue with a person toting a rife at a mall in this manner being checked every single time.
The conduct is not right and is suspicious enough to warrant a check.

Click to expand...

You SAY you don't want a police state, then in the next sentence support exactly the conduct of a police state. You can't have it both ways.