KBCraig
Regular Member
This is absolutely ridiculous logic and it makes no sense at all.
Comparing a civil rights discrimination issue to a gun law issue? Really?
"Gun law issue(s)" that discriminate aren't a civil rights matter? Really?
This is absolutely ridiculous logic and it makes no sense at all.
Comparing a civil rights discrimination issue to a gun law issue? Really?
This is absolutely ridiculous logic and it makes no sense at all.
Comparing a civil rights discrimination issue to a gun law issue? Really?
Would you people be for real? Discrimination of skin color versus the right to carry guns is not a logical argument.
Perhaps I should have used better terminology.
However, we are still talking about people who can't be bothered to know the laws. Carrying guns is serious business. You don't think it's necessary to know the details?
Someone knows it's legal to open carry yet they don't know where it is or is not legal? You're making excuses for that kind of lack of responsibility? Seriously?
I'm not sure how to respond to that. The guy with the firearm was illegally displaying a firearms in a posted alcohol establishment. It's pretty hard to try to second guess the situation without being there. However, the fact that someone - regardless whether that someone was law enforcement or not - challenged the guy and he chose to fight instead of leaving the place leads me to believe there was far more to this than the guy was simply armed and eating a burger.
The facts as we know them. The guy with the gun was violating the law. Then, armed, he chose to get into a fight. He committed a 4th degree felony and then added assault. He should have been arrested.
Thanks for posting the entire link Steve.
I was just going to post about it since it was in today's paper.
Looks like there were two morons. One pretending to be a DEA agent (?!?!?) and the other open carrying into a restaurant that serves beer and wine. Open carry has its places. If he was carrying concealed, none of this would have happened.
All you are doing is saying I am being ridiculous and asking me if I am serious.
Why don't you logically point out the flaw in my argument instead of just trying to kick up an emotional smokescreen?
I know they don't teach that sort of thing in school, and the talking heads never do that sort of thing, but I think you can do it
Tell me how this would have turned out any differently if the lunatic off his meds had seen the open carry in a fast food joint, auto parts store, or anywhere any gun owner IS ALLOWED to open carry.
Can you explain how this won't happen in the future to someone open-carrying, legally?
This event has NOTHING to do with "where" it happened. Alcohol was not involved in any way. Crucifying a gun owner because some lunatic goes schitzo in a place that just happens to sell beer and wine is ridiculous. If the lunatic happens to spot any one of us in an auto parts store next time, how would things turn out any differently?
The gun owner is not to blame because alcohol had NOTHING to do with this event. The fact that the place sells beer and wine had nothing to do with it. The lunatic is 100% to blame because he'd have lost it no matter where they were. Can you honestly say that this couldn't happen to YOU (or anyone legally open-carrying) in a fast food joint? I'll answer that for you. The answer is NO. You were just lucky in that the lunatic didn't happen to spot you that day.
The flaw in your argument is that you are trying to equate discrimination of a human beings' skin color with a person not being allowed to open carry a gun into a store selling alcohol. That is not discrimination in any way, shape or form.
They simply are not even on the same playing field.
Again, it is the person who chooses to open carry who has the responsibility to know the laws and operate within them. The people in question have not, and deserve to pay the penalty. Ignorance is no excuse.
Now, are you still serious about defending a person's ignorance of the laws, no matter what the law says?
How is banning open carry in a place that serves alcohol not discrimination? How exactly are they not on the same playing field?
Once again, I don't defend ignorance of the law, but I condemn a law that frequently trips up people who had no intention of harming anybody.
The proof's in the pudding; people frequently get arrested for this 'crime'. The law isn't well known and there is no notification at the entrance to most establishments.
Its like some police chief in a small town on a busy highway with a ridiculously low speed limit. Sure, you can condemn the driver for not seeing the 25 MPH sign that had a tree growing in front of it, but the speed trap is still unfair and unethical.
I'm a complete teetotaler; never drink alcohol.
Yet I go into place where I think they serve alcohol. Am I to be disarmed in some cities/states?
To further the point, I'm mildly disabled - walk with a cane. So, I can't 'run away' or even retreat very much. Why should I be rendered extremely vulnerable and disarmed unable to protect myself like an able-bodied person?
My question is would you obey this law or circumvent it? Should I obey it? Would you tell your aged grandmother to obey it? Obviously, a rhetorical question since no one wants to advocate breaking the law.
Badger, if you think about it, most laws are in place, not because most of us are apt to do the "wrong" thing, but because a few of us just can't seem to behave.
It's misguided. You can't legislate such behavior which is relies on an almost moral obligation to obey the law. Without metal detectors they are not going to catch guys who CC and go in and drink. Such people don't care about these laws. So not content to miss the mark by a mile, lawmakers inadvertently disarm and make vulnerable their grandmothers which is the ONLY effect of such laws. Seriously.
You missed the point. The gun owner is to blame for violating the law. The fact that they serve beer and wine is the entire point. The gun owner was breaking the law by open carrying in a restaurant that serves liquor. What point of that is not clear?? It is a different issue if he was assaulted in an auto parts store for open carrying. He would not have been arrested. Do you get that? Arrested with a criminal record now. The point is that you have to be responsible when carrying a gun. I did not defend the nut job pretending to be a DEA agent.
If you're going to go somewhere and want to open or concealed carry and are unsure of the status of the place, a PHONE CALL ahead of time will answer the question.
Whether alcohol was involved, it is not irrelevant if alcohol was in fact present in the establishment for serving purposes.
It is your personal burden as a gun owner to know for yourself what the situation is, not to rely on someone else to make you aware. It is called being smart and responsible.
The gun owner was still at fault for carrying openly into a place that served, regardless of the place's name.
You really don't understand what happened, do you?
The guy was headed to the gun range with his family and they decided ON THE WAY to drop in and have brunch.
They walk in, they see no alcohol, nobody is drinking alcohol, and everything is fine until some MORON attacks the gun owner.
Now, people like YOU are calling him irresponsible. That's ridiculous.