Posted on 06/10/2022 6:53:57 AM PDT by marktwain
Confused,
Yup.
Knuckle head walks into a
Store with an AR———
Stop Right There.
“You can see the rifle was not what would normally be called “openly carried”, but was sloppily concealed carried under the jacket.”
Headline has some acting like dude is a hero.
Two Guys walk
Into a Bar-——
.
Thanks,
I’ll be here all Week,
Try the Veal.
Not if you believe, like the writer, that the guns are responsible. Then everyone shot with a gun was shot “by the gun” and is therefore the gun’s victim.
“Not if you believe, like the writer, that the guns are responsible. Then everyone shot with a gun was shot “by the gun” and is therefore the gun’s victim.”
Your kneejerk response is not supported by the facts.
Um, I was pointing out why the article seems poorly written, not discussing the facts of the incident. Look at the post I was replying to.
What I said above is actually what a lot of these idiot journos believe. That a gun is actually responsible for a shooting, not the person operating the gun.
I can remember the same about the gun racks for rifles on the back window of the cab. Unfortunately today, even a bare car/truck is subject to a break-in by a Dindu Nuffin because they know they’ll be on the street in 3 hours tops.
That’s the most logical explanation
It does not matter why he took the gun into the store. Its an open carry state and as long as the store does not post a sign at the entrance barring open carry of weapons in the store then he is perfectly within his right to do so, without having to justify it.
“Um, I was pointing out why the article seems poorly written, not discussing the facts of the incident. Look at the post I was replying to.”
I have earlier responded to that post. He is mistaken.
“What I said above is actually what a lot of these idiot journos believe.”
You specifically referred to this writer. That accusation is unfounded.
“terribly written article…”
It seems that the ability to write in a way that makes sense to the reader has been going down hill for decades and is at the point where article written like this one are common. Public school is certainly most culpable but there is also a component of laziness that fall squarely on the writer.
“It does not matter why he took the gun into the store. Its an open carry state and as long as the store does not post a sign at the entrance barring open carry of weapons in the store then he is perfectly within his right to do so, without having to justify it.”
It was essentially completely hidden. Only about six inches of the barrel covered with a sock visible below the jacket.
So was his identity by his hoodie and mask. I am betting this gangster is a felon carrying illegally.
“May as well have been in a locked hardcase.”
Gangsters don’t carry in hardcases.
“but there is also a component of laziness that fall squarely on the writer.”
falls
The 20MM Lahti, Henry Bowman would be proud.
My posting a possible ‘reason’ WHY the gun sock, coat and ‘open carrying’ in the store is just that - a possible explanation.
Further, ‘open carrying’ a gun/rifle like that (i.e., attempt to conceal for whatever reason) could be construed (by some leftist LE/DA) as concealed-carry and many state open-carry laws don’t cover that unless there is a concealed carry license. I know there’s a difference wrt that in my state.
You can take the laws for what they are, stupid or not, but there they are...
It ain’t no good if you can’t yank it off the pintle and go Rambo..... :0)
Gangsters like this one are not concerned with how some leftist might interpret the law.
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.