Total posts: 3,383
-->
@Snoopy
Okay, there are actually two things I have down. One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different)The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion.
charges don't mean anything, charges are levied then dropped or the defendant is found not guilty. Just because charges were filed doesn't really mean much. False arrest is a real thing.
Do you think it's reasonable for police to stop a person legally open carrying? The Supreme court doesn't seem to think so. Again if what he was doing was legal then there was no reason for the fireman to do anything at all.
their laws I posted are pretty clear, you can open carry a long gun which he was doing, you seem to say he was doing something illegal or threatening yet you haven't said what that is. Since yet again the law seems to allow what he did that can't be the excuse. If you are advocating reacting to how someone looks, how they dress etc that is legal....well you may want to rethink that.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
wow that's a dangerous precedent, imagine organize antifa p.o.s.s organizing to do just that and get people killed, again he had nothing in his hands but a shopping cart, a civil suit will be easy.
Have you ever been around something like this? Its not necessarily even that he is threatening himself, but when someone is armed like that out of context, anyone would reasonably assume its for a proximate reason, that a foreseeable threat is in their vicinity.
the constitution isn't based on feelings in that way, again he seems to be within his rights so whatever you may "feel" is irrelevant, leave the area, stay home.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
in an angry or threatening manner
did he do that? can you describe what he did that fits angry or threatening manner? pushing a shopping cart doesn't seem to fit imo
The dude was in body armour with the gun strapped to his chest. If someone like that doesn't scream threat when he walks into a room, evolution has failed you.
he's not the only one who has ever put on a demonstration like this, it was common when the greatest gun salesman was in office for 8 years, plenty of videos you can watch.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
you can't pull a gun on someone who is not a threat, if he was within his constitutional rights to open carry then yes the firefighter was in the wrong and broke the law, he's not a cop but a wanna be.
Missouri became a constitutional carry state in January 2017. No permit is required to openly or conceal carry a firearm but the state still issues permits on a "Shall Issue" basis for reciprocity with other states. There is no requirement to register firearms or obtain a purchase permit and some specially trained school employees are allowed to carry firearms on school grounds. Permits are issued at the local level by county sheriffs to residents only who must be at least 19 years old.
Local governments are allowed to regulate open carry and the discharge of firearms (except in self defense); however, CCW permit holders are exempt from ordinances banning open carry.[5
Missouri allows open carry without a permit, so long as the firearm is not displayed in an angry or threatening manner.[20] Some localities prohibit open carry; however, concealed carry license holders are exempted from this restriction.[21]
Missouri does not prohibit the open carry of any specific weapon, nor do most of the restrictions in RSMo 571.030 apply to the open carry of a firearm or other weapon. It is not a crime under Missouri law to openly carry a weapon into any place where concealed carry is prohibited, except for a church, school bus, school, or onto the grounds of a school function. According to RSMo Section 571.030, there is no age limit to openly carry a handgun, long gun or any deadly weapon.[22]
Missouri does not prohibit the open carry of any specific weapon, nor do most of the restrictions in RSMo 571.030 apply to the open carry of a firearm or other weapon. It is not a crime under Missouri law to openly carry a weapon into any place where concealed carry is prohibited, except for a church, school bus, school, or onto the grounds of a school function. According to RSMo Section 571.030, there is no age limit to openly carry a handgun, long gun or any deadly weapon.[22]
so the question is what where the local restrictions if any about open carry?
this issue has really gone quiet it seems, probably because they fk'd up or are you reading something I am not?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
the alarm is only reasonable if it's not an open carry state or he was actually doing some illegal which isn't clear yet imo If and a big if he was with in his rights and legally doing what he was doing the fire alarm wasn't needed and the fireman should be charged and will probably be sued.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
@dustryder
he was "open carrying" what you have posted is about concealed carry so that doesn't really apply, that law just applies to concealed carry if you have a concealed carry licence.
Dylan I thought it's an open carry state as well, I'll have to research that.
as you can see the law is addressing taking a gun that is concealed and how, when etc it can be displayed, briefly and openly display is to address "printing" or otherwise exposing the firearm unintentionally like your shirt goes up unintended, unexpectedly.
what he was doing is open carrying there's no argument that he wasn't, now whether he was permitted or what restrictions if any are the issues, if it's an open carry state the fireman is getting sued and probably loosing his concealed carry permit and or being prosecuted.
Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, or a valid concealed carry permit, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense.[1]
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
10 years of an "assault weapons ban" which was studied, verdict (shrug) but hey let's try the same thing again because it just feels right I guess, if no positive effect from the first ban could be shown why would another work? actually the if anything the data shows it really had NO effect.
If someone is deemed by a court of law that a person is a danger to themselves or others then they can be prohibited from having firearms, that has always been the case. These "red flag laws" are unconstitutional and just a whole lot of b.s.
Not one person who's called for a new anything can articulate how and why their idea would work, take it on faith the religion of government, in government they trust.
Created:
-->
@Trent0405
I think people like their gilded cages
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
the retired firefighter who pulled a gun on him should be charged. while what the gun did going into wal-mart like he did was dumb it doesn't appear he actually broke any laws, moreover he didn't have any of the guns in his hand or acting in anyway that the retired gun could have felt immediately threatened, I mean the gun was pushing a shopping cart, shopping, the retired gun wanted to be a hero imo and should have to pay the consequences for breaking the laws as he did. if he had a concealed licence, not sure if he needed one, but if you are going to carry it's your responsibility to know wtf you are doing and what you can't do.
Created:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
the constitution then how will then enable people vs make them government dependent.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
from what I have read most if it is washed into the oceans via rivers that empty into the oceans, thus other countries put far more plastics into the oceans than the U.S.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
sounds like her parents should get some guns, and teach her how to shoot
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the ocean is full of plastic and someone thinks this is a good idea? lol, there's even plastic in sea salt.
Created:
Posted in:
that's so dumb they should get ar-15s because the recoil is far less than an ak-47, obviously someone knows almost nothing about guns and it shows.
gun safety should be taught in every school and at an early age, some schools are finally figuring that out. Many accidents could have prevented if they empowered people through education instead of trying to control. Sure parents should be doing it but the family structure is quickly fading, falling apart. Children need more options like the boy scouts to learn these valuable lessons they won't learn at home.
Created:
some say gun control/restrictions have racist roots, sounds very plausible imo would a red flag apply to someone I think looks like a thug/gang member? why not? looks like a criminal to me right? remember what "swatting" is? people are already being killed with these red flag laws in some of the states that have them. Prisons are one of the most secure and monitored places there could be and yet look at the weapons and contraband recovered from them. If a high profiled suspect can be stopped from committing suicide what makes anyone think they can stop criminals? Disarming or otherwise inhibiting law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves is tyrannical and serves no purpose other than to control the populous.
"Shall not be infringed" was put in for a reason. I find it ironic that those who call the government and police murderers, racist etc only want them to have guns.
If you believe the police are racist, imagine if you will they have no fear that any citizen could be armed because of confiscation or whatever, they are the only ones with guns, they could act with impunity. No one should ever pull a gun on a cop, but I have to believe it is in the back of their mind and so they act with a bit of caution, far more than if the public was totally unarmed. Mexico is a pretty good example of corrupt police, they have no fear.
Created:
Posted in:
wouldn't Pence become president? I mean they about lost their minds when he was announced as V.P. The gays would be hanged blah blah blah Many were more concerned about Pence being V.P. then Trump being president. Guess they want a Pence administration.
Created:
Posted in:
ALL of you 2nd amendment defenders.believe that or believe others believe that.
um nope that's not true at all, where have you heard that? voice in your head telling you that?
most are childish nonsense or out right lies so yeah I don't respond to most of your posts, they aren't worthy of a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
he didn't evade it, he explained it, you should have watched it all the way lol
yeah they had guns too and people weren't arrested for having them etc, gun ban laws were struck down, background checks are a modern thing, you could mail order guns and have them shipped directly to you, so all that time 100+ years no one ever successfully challenged it and you still need proof? what more do you need lol
i do beleive people have a God given right to self defense
you can't believe that with any honesty if you'd limit how and what a person can use for self defense.
you show me evidence of those outside the militia NOT having a right to a gun.
obviously they did and were not arrested for doing so, there was NO law prohibiting them from having a gun and the Constitution says they can so....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lemmings are happy to live in a gilded cage, it's funny when people say other countries citizens have rights like the U.S., funny to me, sad for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
bwuahahahahahaha someone who believes absolutely in the right to kill school children thinks I need to fix my ignorance. Here's a fix. Nobody, including governments, have the right to kill people, children or not. That's your ignorance defeated.
who believes there is an absolute right to kill school children? yeah that is very ignorant if you believe that or believe others believe that. Governments do order people to kill others, they don't need or care if they have a right to do so, they justify it. I know I've been harsh on you but now that I think of it, are you like in middle school because that would explain a lot and I would feel bad for being so harsh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Historian David Barton sets the record straight and answers some of the most frequently asked questions about the Second Amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
he knows more than all the scholars who have studied more documents and history that we readily know of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the cases and rulings aren't quotes nor the formal letters you summarily try to dismiss, it is you who stubbornly refuse to learn the truth lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you are incorrect, and you are distorting history
lol ok
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
since everyone is or was a child I guess your half assed claim is partially true, though you don't have the right to kill anyone that's reserved for the government and military which the government doesn't need the 2a to do, again please fix your ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Yeah the second amendment gives everyone the right to kill children and must be protected at ALL costs.
might be helpful if you could post something other than incredibly ignorant statements, are you capable of doing that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you read the letters and discussion about that issue from the original framers, court cases arising from that time period, you might understand why you are incorrect. The evidence is pretty plain as to what the intention and interpretation is. Supporting cases and documents prove it so.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
the tax system and loops holes have been a bane to the working class for a very long, long time but it benefits the rich in government so they remain and exist in the first place. There's plenty of facebook posts etc about the net worth of politicians, even Bernie Sanders. They want everyone to pay more, share more....except for themselves naturally, it's easy spending other people's money. This is a major reason I want government control at a minimum, they are only self serving in spite of all the pandering promises they never intend to keep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
i have a liberal bias but am moderate more than anything. i support limiting abortion, a public option in healthcare, more aggressive gun control, reduced government spending with higher taxes on the rich, among other things. if i was a dictator i'd amend the constitution to suit me but then put it back to the people after i die to lead themselves because i trust no one but me with the power of dictatorship.feel free to ask about any topic.
thanks captain obvious lol
more aggressive gun control? how do you propose any such thing w/o either violating or doing away with the constitution?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
hey at least we studied how shrimp walk, think of all the lives saved with that knowledge, so grateful for government programs like those, please by all means take more of the money I earn with my blessing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
for sure, they are experts at pandering hands down.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure what they tried to pass tbh and I'm not sure they were the sole party to those issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
what are they correct about?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I'm not sure what you are saying. All I'm saying is I see no connection or constitutional way to take someone's guns if they are placed on the no fly list, which is arbitrary in many ways.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I don't expect anything. You could however assume what he says is true and join the discussion as a devil's advocate kind of thing, it's up to you.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The point of no fly is to keep people from flying which is irrelevant to what they do on the ground. If what is said is considered a crime then that is one thing, if it protected free speech then there is no reason to violate someone's rights. I think it's pretty clear but negates what you want and the argument that you are trying to make. You are trying to find a way around or a loophole in the constitution as many try and fail to do. Unless you understand the constitution and bill of rights your desires aren't possible. So any meaningful discussion has to keep the constitution and bill of rights as a major focus.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
You can't take guns onto planes so being on the no fly list is irrelevant to the 2a
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I don't have time to look up the standards but someone being under investigation generally does not meet the requirements. If there isn't enough evidence to arrest then there isn't enough to take someone's constitutional right away, with certain rare exceptions.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Innocent until proven guilty is the general standard or if someone is an immediate threat though that would have to be strict ,rare and obvious since it can be subjective and in cases of protection orders people lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean, it's like the state has to enforce these laws just to keep people in fear of the government, not to actually protect the people from anything.That's kinda scary.
bingo, and it's scary no kinda about it. A safe and self sufficient populous needs very little government and it's function would mostly be foreign affairs.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
yes laws should apply to all, however they have discretion as to whether or not to file charges. As Colion said in the video, the man is already traumatized enough having experienced what he did and doing what he had to. Imo the decent thing to do would not to file charges for something so trivial which harmed no one. He does a good job explaining why such laws are b.s. in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
There are no prerequisites to buying an airplane.
but there could be is the point, if you have a freedom to travel it would only be under your own power/feet. I still haven't seen anything that would give you a right to fly. IF it was a right it couldn't be taken away w/o due process as per the constitution. The ban would be unconstitutional would it not?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
if you wanted to participate in a thread which a video is the prime subject, yes, why wouldn't you? It's such basic logic, so simple, I'm perplexed at the difficulty you have understanding these elementary concepts.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
you need a licence and follow a bunch of regulations which can/could be revoked if you were on a no fly list so I don't believe that to be true.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
the point is that you're making too much out of the right to a gun, and people who fly could get just as touchy but that's not how we act. if people want a formal way to verify everything in court, that's fine, but it's just a formality. the underlying standard should be the same in court as in the list outside of court,,... reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is enough to deprive them of a gun. not probable cause that they already committed a violent crime. courts use 'strict scrutiny' in depriving constutituional rights, so it's debateable in that framework.
you do know even Democrats in the government were put on the list by accident right?
the constitution disagrees with you as to when someone can be deprived of a right. 4a etc, you don't understand much about the constitution which is why your opinions are so fallacious. You should just make threads about voiding the constitution which is the only way you could get what your propose.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
hmm thought it was pretty obvious, but..... he used a gun in self defense as prescribed by the 2a etc and yet HE was arrested for not registering the gun, the very constitutional instrument he used legally to defend himself, it's ironic, fascist, Colion explained it pretty well, does that help or are you still confused?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
actually people have a constitutional right to travel. the way gun nuts get touchy about every gun they can like assualt rifles, there's no reason they couldn't get touchy about every mode of transportation too, like flying.
yeah? can you point me to where in the constitution it says you have a right to fly on a privately owned aircraft/airline? so if there is a right to travel as you claim and they deny that right without due process they are willfully and openly violating people's constitutional right to travel (your claim of a right to travel not mine) and if that is true you think people are being "touchy" by thinking the government will violate their actual 2nd right with confiscation and infringements. You aren't being very consistent, I urge you to re-evaluate your thought processes on these issues.
Created: