Posted on 01/29/2013 11:46:30 AM PST by 1912comeback
Charlottesville police say the man who showed up at a Kroger grocery store with a loaded gun wanted to make a point. On Sunday, an unidentified 22-year-old man carried a loaded AR-15 into the Kroger store on Emmet Street and Hydraulic Road, sparking not only a scare for customers and employees but also a 2nd Amendment debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc29.com ...
Thanks for this post. Quite relevant, I’d say.
Not to be a smart a$$, but... duh! I had this happen to me once. Made me nervous as all get out, but the guy did not display any intent. Weapon was slung and he was walking casually with a girlfriend.
Define brandishing. If it was slung on his back, that is NOT brandishing.
Yes they do!
yeah you are way off base
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpK84illOPA
right to bear arms included right to cross state lines with them, unlike today in some instances..
“Charlottesville police say the man who showed up at a Kroger grocery store with a loaded gun wanted to make a point”
Now if this guy told the officers that was his goal, then he was playing with fire. He should have asked the store first if it was ok to walk in with his rifle, unless there is some law in that state where it is perfectly legal to go into private establishments openly packing.
People at that store (private property) didn’t know him, and aren’t obliged to play along regardless of what right he wants to express. No different then if we walked in to make a political speech against the government.
Sounds like the guy was trolling.
You wanna “spark a debate”? Make people uneasy? Get the cops out there so you can “make a point”? Carry an AR-15.
You wanna accustom your fellow citizens to seeing firearms in public without panicking? Try a break-open bird-gun instead.
I read not long ago that some police - in areas where police aren’t generally liked or trusted - have swapped out their semi-auto, military-style rifles for lever-actions. Why? Because people view the two differently. To them, one says “military overlord” while the other says “decent lawman”.
So many posts lately reminisce about the days when we were kids walking down the street carrying our 22s. Well an AR-15 ain’t no 22. One reason it’s popular is because of its looks - and looks are what scare the sheeple.
This is very much a PR war for the minds - or feelings, perhaps - of the sheeple. We need to be shrewd, not provocative.
But meanwhile, we have openly gay, flamboyant displays of homosexual activity and we’re told to just “look away.” My response to that would be, “Then you go ahead and leave the area if you think I’m a danger to your or your family. If YOU had a firearm on your person, you would be more adept at assessing the situation before you reflexively call 9-11.”
When Virginia made open carry legal a few years back, there were stories of middle-aged men being hassled in diners for openly carrying pistols. There’s very little appreciable difference between that and this young man carrying his rifle. The biggest delta between the situations is the firearm, but at no point did anyone attempt to assess the mindset of the individual carrying the weapon.
We are a lawful people on the whole. There’s no reason any of us should suspect someone OPENLY CARRYING A FIREARM of any ill intent. They’ve pretty much telegraphed it if they do. Remember, in the “old days,” it was considered criminal to carry concealed. “Cloak and dagger” held the meaning that someone concealing a weapon was intent on doing someone harm. It’s only in recent times that concealment was considered acceptable, and it’s mostly due to political correctness run amok.
I carry concealed all the time, but I absolutely would not have an issue carrying open; and I would be carrying at least a rifle or shotgun AND a pistol. It’s not for “attention” or to be noticed. It’s my RIGHT to protect myself and my family.
Trigger happy? I don’t know what to say if you don’t think someone taking a rifle into a totally inappropriate location is not something to pay extreme attention to. Maybe you’ve forgotten the news they’ve been beating us over the head with for months now. Three punks with uncased rifles in locations they had no business taking them into? Ring any bells? Yeah, you stand there and let him shoulder the weapon. This kid’s stunt was reckless in the extreme.
So then would you let a shooter take the first several shots before acting? Where would you draw the line? For me, in that environment, it’s an attempt to shoulder the rifle. Who knows...maybe I’d just run, but I’d do something if that’s what I believed was happening. Taking a rifle into a grocery store in general is needless, and in the current climate it is a dangerously provocative act.
I’m completely pro-gun but I wouldn’t walk into Target or Walmart with a shotgun slung over my shoulder.
+++++++++++++
Then you’re part of the problem.........you would be poliiiiiiiiiiiiitically pro-gun. Putz.
Well, if you’re old enough to recollect expecting trouble from the redcoats, we can forgive you for getting a little off base from time to time.
At least you have an excuse...
;)
A "thinking" gun owner who shoots someone who is NOT threatening anyone with a gun is not in fact a "thinking" gun owner he is an idiot.
The article said he had the gun slung over his shoulder. He was legal. Case closed.
Apparently you have not a clue as to what the word "brandish" means especially when referring to a gun.
bran·dish
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
He had it slung over his shoulder according to the story and the police said he was legal.
He didn't "brandish" it.
And your reaction is why the gun grabbers can get so much traction with their "concern trollage" try not having such a knee jerk reaction and think it through.
He wasn't menacing or brandishing or any other thing. He was doing what the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to do, keep and bear arms!
Yep. Many folks in those times carried weapons with them constantly. Brigands, Indian attacks, and all around personal protection were always a concern. When you traveled on the road there were no phones or radios, help was days away. You were armed or you were at risk. Hell even traveling from the farm into town was an ordeal and not being armed was a risk for those few hours. So it was nothing to see people who had arms on them walking into businesses. See they didn't have car trunks to lock them in.
Good points all. I will consider them.
Do you think there was ever a time when one of the founders thought “I’ll just leave the gun behind”?
“I carry concealed all the time, but I absolutely would not have an issue carrying open; and I would be carrying at least a rifle or shotgun AND a pistol. It’s not for “attention” or to be noticed. It’s my RIGHT to protect myself and my family.”
So in other words your 2nd amendment rights trump private property rights?
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.