Posted on 09/10/2019 6:42:58 AM PDT by Enlightened1
This video takes a look at what happens when you open-carry with a pistol in a Walmart store. The location is Lexington, Kentucky and this man was permanently banned from all Walmart's in the USA.
Do not blame the police as they are doing there job by request of Wally World. Whether business or personal property, you can have a person permanently removed and banned from re-entering. Your thoughts about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pnhvWXbD1w
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
“Any arbitrary restriction is a violation of 2A..”
Bullishit. A simple request not to display, brandish, or point a weapon at others in a public place *unless* a self defense situation *requires* you to pull out your gun & *use* it, is NOT an ARBITRARY restriction, and in no way violates your 2A right to *carry* a weapon OR defend yourself & others.
Following your line of reasoning, you’d object even if Walmart required you to keep your weapon holstered——because you regard ANY request for SELF restraint as a violation of YOUR apparently unlimited right to hold your cocked & loaded gun in your hand & wave it around should YOU decide YOU want to assert YOUR 2A rights in such manner.
I’ve lived in areas among idiots with your exact mantra— Dont tell ME what I can’t do! Any expectation of SELF restraint might cause ME to violate my own RIGHTS!!!
These idiots nsist on celebrating New Year & 4th of July by indiscriminately firing into the air.
Innocent people have been killed.
Bottom line is, Walmart is not the government, it’s a business & has a right to enact policies aimed at maintaining a drama-free shopping experience for *all* its customers, whether or not their views align with yours.
If Walmarr doesn’t want its employees’ time wasted by drama queens like yourself who *feel* you *need* to protest a non-existent “violation” of your rights, the company has a right to kick you out, same as they’d have the right to kick out Antifa.
Walmart us for shopping, not for staging protests or provoking & getting in disputes with other shoppers, requiring their employees to intervene.
Get over yourself.
You seem confused between what constitutes open carry versus assault or disturbing the peace. I'm really glad you're not a cop, no cop could be that stupid, they'd be fired in short order. Please don't ever join the police force, even as a volunteer -- come to think of it, especially as a volunteer.
I’ve lived in areas among idiots with your exact mantra.... insist on celebrating New Year & 4th of July by indiscriminately firing into the air. Innocent people have been killed.....staging protests or provoking & getting in disputes with other shoppers, requiring their employees to intervene....
Speaking of grossly unfair generalities, now open-carry patriots are the moral equivalent of Kate Steinle's killer? Don't worry, the people you are afraid of offending, sanctuary city dwellers, are okay with it as long as you can prove you're an illegal alien with a felony record.
Bottom line is, Walmart is not the government, it’s a business & has a right to enact policies aimed at maintaining a drama-free shopping experience
"Drama-free" will eventually mean no weapons of any kind, because snowflakes might insist they can't enter a store that doesn't guarantee nobody is carrying a firearm (open or concealed). It's called a slippery slope, and you're sliding down it, because you are willing to allow others to infringe on, and therefore compromise, your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You seem unable to differentiate between the government and a retail store, between constitutional rights and store policy.
Most of all, you seem unable to distinguish whose side I’m on. Im nobody’s woke snowflake — from where I stand, that looks more like you, you’re as emotional as Trigglipuff— at no time have I expressed any support for anyone opposed to the 2nd Amendment, nor do I have any desire to erode it.
You seem intent on reciting lofty principles— and I applaud that in you & support those same principles— but my focus is on how to solidly *apply* those principles in real world, everyday situations.
Street smarts carry you farther than speechifying, friend.
Walmart’s *store policy* in fact *protects* your 2A right to carry *while* protecting you from harassment from the very hysterics you yourself despise, yet seem so determined to engage.
By the same token, neither would I screech that my 1st Amendment rights are violated by a prohibition on covering my face with a mask. I’m rational enough to understand that *store policy* has reasoning behind it: a guy who walks in wearing a mask (robber? Halloween fun? Antifa looking to beat people up?) WILL be looked at askance; the store WILL want to limit its liability.
“Drama free will eventually mean no weapons of any kind.”
In fact, your need for drama & insistence on escalating it will eventually result in no weapons— in much the same way mass shooters generate the drama, the hysteria that feeds the left’s agenda & enables their demands.
Open carry enables hysterics to question your motives, it encourages them to accuse you of being a potential mass shooter, & essentially amounts to feeding the trolls.
Concealed carry is just a practical avoidandance & preventative of all that drama.
Your insistence that “drama free” IOW calm— is somehow a bad thing, is just weird.
And btw, wrt practicality, the point has been made MANY times, when you open carry, the Mass Shooter guy is gonna see you—and shoot you— first.
But hey, you be you.
“Except he owns the property.”
Actually, I wrote ”preferable” and “more than welcome”. Neither what someone finds preferable nor what someone deems another is more than welcome to do is affected by that someone else’s property ownership.
“Ever heard of Rajneeshpuram?”
The citizens of Antelope seem to have found it preferable that the Rajneeshpuramees assimilate and felt that the Rajneeshpuramees were more than welcome to go elsewhere, which they eventually did. And the Rajneeshpuramees seem to have taken up residence, which the Bloomberg I was talking about did not, so it’s not exactly what I was talking about.
“In the US…”
Only in the US?
That implies that in at least some places outside the US what you wrote is not true which means that in those places property rights do not always trump other rights which is my basic position.
“…when you purchase property, you can control who is allowed on it…”
If my car is run off the road onto your property, you can order me off your property, but I don’t think you can keep my car by not allowing me or my agents on your property to recover it.
“…and you can create rules and prohibit people from violating those rules, enforced by requiring them to leave the property.”
You can make all the rules you want, but your property rights don’t trump anyone’s free speech right to say “no” to a sexual advance nor do they trump someone’s right to life if you invite them onto your property then try to murder them.
“They only REALLY violate their rights if you don’t allow them to leave the property.”
So, we agree that one’s property rights don’t trump the right to liberty of another to leave one’s property. (Actually property rights might trump in some cases.) That means we agree property rights don’t always trump.
I disagree that any of this is as simple as you seem to think it is.
“…when you purchase property, you can control who is allowed on it…”
If my car is run off the road onto your property, you can order me off your property, but I don’t think you can keep my car by not allowing me or my agents on your property to recover it.
Only in the US?
That implies that in at least some places outside the US what you wrote is not true which means that in those places property rights do not always trump other rights which is my basic position.
“…and you can create rules and prohibit people from violating those rules, enforced by requiring them to leave the property.”
You can make all the rules you want, but your property rights don’t trump anyone’s free speech right to say “no” to a sexual advance nor do they trump someone’s right to life if you invite them onto your property then try to murder them.
My whole premise regarding allowing them to leave covers your points and similar ones. e.g. if you try to rape a person, you are not allowing her to leave.
I disagree that any of this is as simple as you seem to think it is.
The only other exception I can think of would be if you violate their rights before they even have a chance to leave. e.g. cold cocking them and knocking them out.
But that’s really outside the scope of the principles being discussed. The key thing is that they can’t make you do anything on your property, and they can’t force you to allow them to stay. That’s it. This means you don’t have to bake the cake. You don’t have to let same sex couples stay in your hotel, Heck, you can even refuse to allow Asian people to shop in your store. Or white people or black people. The only exception would be if you have a monopoly on a particular product or service.
“Straw man.”
No. It’s a postulation. A postulation is a suggestion or assumption of the existence, fact, or truth of something as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
A straw man is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument. Sort of like your calling my postulation a straw man.
As for the rest of your post, we are pretty much in agreement.
“Yeah. All I am concerned with is the rules on the planet on which I live. I live on Planet US.”
The rules on planet US vary at least somewhat from state to state. Maybe you only live on planet Kentucky. Considering only the rules of the state or other organized society in which you live kind of hampers discussion of what those rules should be. Whether statutory, common law, or customary, what those rules should be should stem from more basic rights whether those basic rights be termed as unalienable, natural, fundamental, founding principles, or whatever.
“But that’s really outside the scope of the principles being discussed.”
Not as far as I was concerned.
“The only exception would be if you have a monopoly on a particular product or service.”
That would be another case where property rights do not always trump other rights, which again is my basic position.
You may disagree, but details aside it seems to me we are in “violent agreement”, so I’m going to let this go.
I do appreciate that you didn’t stoop to calling me names:)
Funny you mention that. Yes, I feel the name of the country I live in is “Kentucky”. It is surrounded by other countries that share a fairly common language and are somewhat linked in the same way France and Germany are linked. But it is really its own country.
I used to live in a country called Washington, in a city called Seattle. It was really a great place when I moved there in 1967. But it changed.
“You’re walking down a City street at night with your wife/girlfriend/so; around the corner comes two gang aged Utes, talking among themselves..”
Your argument that open carry is an effective deterrence is refuted by the fact that no one of any repute recommends open carrying an empty gun or open carrying an air-soft gun. My guess is that you yourself would always choose to conceal carry a loaded gun over open carrying an unloaded one because you know that the mere presence of a gun is not adequate.
Nice opinion... Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back it up?
I submit that every police officer and military member who go armed in the performance of their duty may accurately be described as being “of repute”, and they open carry.
The lack of data regarding airsoft carry or toothless carry only indicates that it is stupid and untried, not that it’s ineffective.
“I submit that every police officer and military member who go armed in the performance of their duty may accurately be described as being “of repute”, and they open carry.”
They open carry loaded guns. You suggested the mere presence of a gun is an effective deterrent. Without providing any data to back up your assertion. I ask you which would you choose? Open carry an unloaded gun or conceal carry a loaded gun and why?
I don’t take instruction from fools.
Those are not my choices, Constitutionally. I’ll open carry a loaded handgun, for the deterrent, and efficacy in a defensive situation.
What delusion ties you to this decoy-gun BS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.