Open-carry puts shoppers on edge (Maine)

[jpak]

http://www.sunjournal.com/our-view/story/1074089

Shoppers at Best Buy in Auburn Sunday may have seen a young man in a black T-shirt, hat, sunglasses and camouflage pants.

But what really set him apart from other shoppers was the large handgun strapped to his hip.

As Mainers, of course, we realize citizens have the right to carry their firearms openly in public. But merchants have the right to decide whether the public can carry firearms in their places of business.

Most retail establishments seem to have made a calculated choice that it is better to allow customers to carry firearms than incur the protests of pro-gun activists.

<more>

the more stupid motherfuckers that pull stunts like this - the more backlash they will generate

yup

[ileus]

1. How large was it?

5" 45?

9mm compact?

40 sub-compact?

380 bug?

Sounds like people are overly paranoid...

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. What? The bulge in his camos?

I agree - This goofball was paraniod, all right.

[ileus]

9. bulge would imply his poker was concealed....he had his strap-on on...how rude it that?

[qb]

2. I'd avoid a store that allowed handguns.

What's more dangerous... One robber holding up a store
or one robber holding up a store with a bunch of amateur Dirty Harries trying to take him out?

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Your shopping options will be severely limited, then . Most stores don't ban them.

Even in "gun-safe" Massachusetts. Perhaps you ought to stay home and order what you want online, if the idea is so disturbing.

Me, I don't care if they do or don't. I don't carry a gun and I don't worry about those carrying legally.

[qb]

8. They do in Minnesota.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Then you'll only have to worry about those carrying illegally- or concealed n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. Seeing as how that hasn't happened yet...

...anywhere in the country in any of the states (most of them I might add) which allow CCW/OC in stores, I'd say your fear is pretty pointless.

Oh yeah - most retail establishments allow CCW/OC depending upon the state. They found out the hard way that it is a bad idea to piss off your law abiding customers with disposable income.

[Remmah2]

12. How do you know off duty cops are not present?

Many of them carry off duty in civilian clothing.

[qb]

25. Cops aren't amateurs. I don't have a problem with law enforcement (who incidentally tend to oppose

C&C or OC)

[ManiacJoe]

32. By "law enforcement" do you mean

the patrol officers or the normally-politically-appointed brass?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. Arguably...

..when it comes to shooting, most big-city cops especially, are amateurs, and most cops do not oppose CCW or OC. Most police CHIEFS may, but rank and file cops do not.

If you have actual evidence to the contrary, please by all means, present it.

[YllwFvr]

45. Odd you say that

How many officers have you asked about this? I OC myself, and none of the officers I know are opposed to it. A few instructors at police academy didn't like it but I don't think any opposed it. They knew ive done it, but never argued with me. I'm all for oc, and would have a good word for any ocer i met on patrol.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Most people who go through the required hoops to carry are often quite proficient

Wish I could say that about most cops. Unless they are also part of SWAT or other secondary unit, most of them have rudimentary training at best.

[rl6214]

102. OK, first of all cops are NOT expert marksmen, they miss more often

than they hit their targets and secondly most of them DO NOT oppose CC or OC. You've got your facts wrong.

[PavePusher]

184. Cite your evidence, please.... n/t

[PavePusher]

34. Surely you can cite to evidence of these "amateur" people being a problem, amIrite? n/t

[rl6214]

101. You are mistaking someone who open carries for cops...

They are not and don't think they are. They most likey would not go out of their way to save you, I know I wouldn't. I conceal carry to protect myself and my loved ones, that's it. You're on your own.

And I would NOT shop at a place that would not allow guns.

[qb]

3. Spastic finger double post

That or an itchy trigger finger.
:blush:

[SteveM]

5. Hey, bud, watch your language.

As you pointed out between blue-streak outbursts:

"As Mainers, of course, we realize citizens have the right to carry their firearms openly in public. But merchants have the right to decide whether the public can carry firearms in their places of business."

Yeah, citizens HAVE THE RIGHT, and the merchant respects that.

"Most retail establishments seem to have made a calculated choice that it is better to allow customers to carry firearms than incur the protests of pro-gun activists."

Live with it. Protests and boycotts are one way to express dissatisfaction.

"Backlash?" Let me fix this, sans dirty-talk: The more people who carry arms responsibly - the more accepting citizens will be of the practice.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

22. Ah, you and him can do whatever you want...

I see that you are a little dirty in the mouth. Do you always call people "conservanazis" when you disagree with them? BTW, "don't presume to tell DUers" where to play.

[Hoyt]

37. Let's hope the 96% who don't carry never allow it to become acceptable/common. It ought to be taboo.

And those that carry should think more about why they feel the need to carry into such establishments.

I don't carry my machete strapped to my leg into such stores, restaurants, etc. Why? Because people show concern.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. And yet, your "silent majority", like the one the teabaggers claim, remains silent. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Your reasoning rings hollow

Are you allowed to even own firearms?

[SteveM]

7. And conveniently left out by the OP...

"As we have pointed out in the past, either scenario is extremely unlikely in Maine. In fact, we have yet to see a case of a random mass killing by a gunman."

[Remmah2]

11. I always get a kick out of the creative writing that goes into some editorials.

The author did not express accurate opinions but rather projected a personal agenda.

[kestrel91316]

13. IF open carry were legal in my state, I would exercise my prerogative

by politely requesting that my clients leave their guns at home. It's bad enough that people upset by some perceived wrong on their veterinarian's part feel free to verbally abuse us - I wouldn't want any of those wackos to have a gun handy for waving in my face and threatening me.

And if they didn't like how I choose to keep myself safe, they could go ahead and spend their money elsewhere.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

23. You are of course free to do so...

...and if they do carry a firearm into your establishment against your stated wishes, by all means, have them arrested for trespassing.

Bear in mind though, the clients you turn away are also free to shop at your competitors, and to organize a boycott or protest of your establishment.

[kestrel91316]

49. I don't own a "shop". It's a veterinary hospital. And I suspect a boycott

or protest of me for refusing to allow guns inside would have the opposite effect!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. I said establishment...

...to refer to your business, and used the word "shop" as a verb.

Either way - you're more than welcome to bet your business on your desires to suppress a civil right.

[kestrel91316]

127. I'm a lot more concerned about my own right and the right of my clients to

do business in a SAFE, THREAT-FREE environment.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

150. I think we all are.

Concealed or openly carried firearms are neither unsafe nor a threat.

Oh - one more thing - you have no right to a safe or threat-free environment, in fact, it is irrational and childish to even think for a moment that such a concept actually exists. Not because it isn't constitutionally enumerated, but because it is impossible.

Life is unsafe and full of threats.

[iverglas]

161. how wrong would you like to be?

Oh - one more thing - you have no right to a safe or threat-free environment

How clever of you to ignore the fact that the environment in question is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

You bet your ass that the lawful occupant of that property has a right to whatever environment they bloody well want ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, including a safe and threat-free one.

What it means is that said lawful occupant may make and enforce any damned rule they like to enhance the safety of the environment. They are entitled to a safe and threat-free environment, and they are entitled to take the measures they consider appropriate to that end (subject to any overriding legal requirements governing private property/businesses, e.g. the municipality's ideas about building structure safety prevail) by virtue of the fact that the environment in question BELONGS TO THEM.

Dog almighty, what are you people constantly bleating about anyway?

All this person wants to do is prohibit the bringing of firearms into their environment.

Everybody else here wants to shoot people.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

164. He has every right to prevent access

I never said otherwise.

However, to believe that he has a right to a threat-free or safe environment is silly. You don't and you never can.

You, however, feel free to ignore what was actually said in favor of whatever you can misrepresent.

[iverglas]

168. I'm the one who knows and acknowledges exactly what was said

You failed, sadly.

It was:

I'm a lot more concerned about my own right and the right of my clients to do business in a SAFE, THREAT-FREE environment.

And your reply simply shows the utter lack of respect you have for individuals and their rights in respect of their businesses and property.

On a person's property, they make the rules, and they have the rights they decide they have, subject to overriding law. (Aren't you glad I said that in the first place? Otherwise it might have sounded like I was saying you had the right to kill people on your property. Nooo, that's you saying that, not me.)

Whether you like it or not.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

176. Would you be so kind...

...as to point out exactly which part of what I said shows a lack of respect for his rights or property?

Please - i need to see this....

I've looked over the whole sub-thread and I made it very clear that he is free to do as he wishes.

That is his absolute right - never have i questioned that.

I have made him aware that I believe he is being silly, but again it is his right.

Maybe you're using your magical long-distance telepathy to discern what you believe I really meant and then accusing me of that?

Disagreement is not disrespect. Telling someone he is making a poorly informed decision is not disrespect.

Obviously you do not know exactly what was said. After all - its right here on the screen for all to see, but yet you somehow have completely missed it and accused me of exactly the opposite of what I did.

Here are my comments in order for you to review again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=449863&mesg_id=449996

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=449863&mesg_id=450139

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=449863&mesg_id=450548

[kestrel91316]

194. She. Hers. HER property. HER business. HER right to set ground rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

196. Unaware of the sex of the poster.

Simply defaulted to standard rules of English.

Again - I agreed 100% that it is YOUR property, YOUR business, and YOUR right. Perhaps you could also identify the exact portion of my comments where i said your rights did not apply?

[kestrel91316]

193. She. I love the sexist assumption that a veterinarian who owns their own

practice must by definition be a male.

:rofl:

News flash: It's not 1950 anymore.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

197. News flash

Standard rules of English indicate when the sex is unknown, male is assumed. Now that it is known, I can change the pronoun I use.

Really not that big of a deal unless you're simply stupidly looking to make an issue out of nothing.

[iverglas]

206. standard rules of patriarchy

are what you have chosen to follow.

Your choice.

And you still have egg on your face about that father and his "son" at summer camp, when the news article referred only to two children, and your unbelievably lame attempt to say that you were following the patriarchal rule in that instance.

Yes, when the sex of a child is unknown, we refer to it as "son".

:rofl:

My standard rule of English, and what I get paid to do is write in English, is that when the sex of a person is unknown or no particular person is in issue, I do not make assumptions or act as if male means female, let alone argue that case. That there is the "simply stupidly looking to make an issue out of nothing".

Fortunately, where I'm at, pedantry has been overcome by respect, and legislation is drafted using "they" as the third person singular now. I have followed suit in my own prose.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

229. I recognize accuracy really is a problem for you...

...but I wasnt the one who referred to the kids at summer camp by their sex. That was another poster.

As far as the "standard rules of patriarchy", I'm really sorry you have such a chip on your shoulder that you see oppression at every turn, but that isnt my fault. Whatever legislation your locality has enacted does not change the standard rules of English grammar. "They" is not third person singular, and I'm not using it as such.

[iverglas]

232. well ...

... harrumph.

[iverglas]

205. wait

until you find yourself, a victim of a sexual offence and attempted murder (actually I hope you haven't been, of course), getting told you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to women and violence ... because your sex has been wrongly assumed.

:rofl: indeed - happens to me on a regular basis. ;)

Don't fall over when somebody takes you on, have a profession -- you gotta be a guy!

[oneshooter]

210. Since you show no gender on your profile, can we refer to"It"? n/t

[iverglas]

212. your English skills seem up to your manners

You can check for yourself, but to my knowledge, "undeclared" does not mean "no".

But don't let me stop you referring to a human being as "it" if that's your choice.

Judging from other posts of yours, that is in fact exactly how you regard other human beings.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

198. Where did i...

...indicate I had no respect for your property rights? In fact, my very first comment clearly stated you had the right on your property.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you?

[kestrel91316]

191. Well I consider guns in the hands of upset people to be unsafe.

YMMV.

Because it's rather common for people in a veterinary practice to be upset by their animal being sick, or the cost of care, or the vet's demeanor, or any number of legitimate or not-so-legitimate reasons, it's really basic common sense to ban guns from my practice should the question ever arise.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

200. You may consider it to be so all you wish...

...however there is no actual evidence that your fears are warranted. As such, your decision is based purely upon emotional blather rather than reality.

You're still free to make such a decision, just don't pretend it is rational or factual.

[iverglas]

207. and you know whose consideration actually matters?

Like, because she actually does know what she is talking about, it being her veterinary practice and her clients?

You know how it goes ... three guesses, and the first two don't count.

I do love this, though -- with my emphasis:

As such, your decision is based purely upon emotional blather rather than reality.
You're still free to make such a decision, just don't pretend it is rational or factual.

:rofl:

kestrel, you are such a girl!

[rl6214]

103. Surely you can cite where this has happened already...

"It's bad enough that people upset by some perceived wrong on their veterinarian's part feel free to verbally abuse us - I wouldn't want any of those wackos to have a gun handy for waving in my face and threatening me."

We'll wait...

[kestrel91316]

128. I will tell you that having wacko nutball clients is not unusual in my profession.

I do my best to discourage psycho behavior in my office, and tend to "divorce" clients who display it. Those are the sort of people I would not trust with a gun in my office. Anytime emotions can run high, easy access to a weapon is ill-advised.

Since when does it have to have already happened for it to be a valid concern for me?? Furthermore, veterinarians HAVE been murdered by disgruntled people. I don't, of course, track every murder in the nation, having better things to do with my time. But I do know that a 2 or 3 state/federal veterinary inspectors at a food processing facility in CA were murdered in cold blood several years ago by a guy who was outraged that his sausage factory had been shut down for sanitation reasons.

NO GUNS IN MY HOSPITAL. EVER.

So sue me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

151. If it has never happened...

...and still you're afraid of it, its not unlike being afraid of zombies or Eccentrica Gallumbits.

Being concerned of something which only occurs in your mind is, well....in my opinion, silly.

[iverglas]

170. if it was never said

... but you pretended it was anyway, it is very like you not telling the truth.

Very, very like.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. And once again....

...you refuse to read what was said, take something utterly out of context, distort it, misrepresent it, and accuse others of lying.

Getting pretty pathetic. You may want to buy a new pony. The one trick this one knows is played out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

182. Does that include LEOs, retired LEO, Feds etc?

[iverglas]

183. what is the deal here?

If a cop went to a veterinary office with a police dog, the cop might indeed be carrying a firearm. (Probably not, where I'm at, but whatever). And in that case, the cop would be acting as a member of a police service, on duty and subject to the oversight exercised by the police service on behalf of the public. A professional or business owner might still not want the firearm on the premises, but in any event, the situation is not analagous because the person is not analogous to any othe rmember of the public.

Why would a "retired LEO" be carrying a firearm, or be regarded as any different from anyone else under the sun if so?

Someone retired from a police service, someone who is a member of a police service but not on duty -- member of the public, no more, no less. Not engaged in any activity for which they are subject to any public oversight, not performing any duty in the course of which they might need or use a firearm.

This cop-fetish puzzles me enormously. Cops and retired cops should have special dispensation enabling them to tote guns around in other people's states of the US, for example -- why, exactly? A retired cop decides to take their dog to the dog doctor and should or would be exempted from a no-gun policy on the premises -- why, exactly? Just because they're special?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

186. Your unfamiliarity with US laws is showing again

LEOs carry off duty in the US. Depending on the agency it may even be required. Legally they are on duty 24/7. That includes while taking kitty to the veterinarian for its shots, buying groceries, and going to the kids weekend soccer games. The same authority is given retired LEOs. Been that way for quite some time.

The term LEO is a broad one. It includes police officers, sheriff deputies, highway patrol, agents, special agents, in some places prison guards, game wardens, rangers, and fire fighters.. Just about any sworn officer can qualify. A surprising number of Feds/retired Feds are in this group, even includes some employees from the Federal Dept of Education.

They do not carry with a standard CCW, but under the authority of their agency. The standard "no guns" signs normally applies to civilians/CCW holders, but not those with LEO/retired LEO credentials. Local handgun restrictions do not apply to this group either. In places like Los Angeles where a CCW is almost impossible to get, the only private investigators who are allowed to carry weapons are retired LEOs. It had nothing to do with being a PI, it is all about being a retired LEO.

Thus my question to the good doc.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

189. Could you be any less civil?

That you understood the law and structure for LEOs (CCW vs credential) could not have been drawn from your prior post. Most people in the US do not understand it either.

The NYPD unions fought long and hard to get 24 hour and retired carry permissions. IIRC, NYPD officers have a duty to intervene if they seen a crime being committed when not on a paid duty status. If they get hurt during such an event it is considered and on the job injury. Common with just about all LEOs in the US.

The term LEO is the accepted catch all for sworn law enforcement of all types and branches, it is scarcely "in-crowd nattering jargon". I also took the time to show just how broad that category is at different levels of government, which many in the US do not understand. Words have meanings, and that one was well defined and correctly used.

My question remains for the doc.

[kestrel91316]

201. If someone not obviously in uniform were ever to show up at my practice with

an obvious weapon of ANY kind on them, they would answer my questions about it before they would be allowed into an exam room with me. I would be the sole judge of whether or not I would feel safe in entering into any relationship with them. If they displayed any "attitude" or were unhappy with anything at all about me or my practice, they would simply be asked to leave.

Certain people may have the legal right to carry, but they don't have the legal right to frighten or intimidate or imply a threat.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. I agree with you

NOBODY has the legal right to intimidate or threaten you.

However, "frighten" is purely subjective and has nothing to do with rights, but rather your opinion. Hate to tell you but "frightening" you is not illegal, and if someone hasn't actually done anything, you have no legal claim against them just because you were frightened of something.

You of course have the right to refuse to do business with them.

[iverglas]

208. you need to give it up,

However, "frighten" is purely subjective and has nothing to do with rights, but rather your opinion. Hate to tell you but "frightening" you is not illegal, and if someone hasn't actually done anything, you have no legal claim against them just because you were frightened of something.

Just who in the hell do you think you are talking to? Does kestrel look like a moron to you? She doesn't to me.

This means

(a) you are not in a position to be lecturing her about anything
(b) you need not expect that your disingenuous twaddle here will impress her any more than it does me

She did not say that "frightening" her was illegal, so why would you "hate to tell" her it isn't?
She did not say that she had any legal claim against anyone for anything, so why would you attempt to condescend to her to tell her she doesn't?

She said she has a legal right (subject to any overriding legislation, I will again qualify) to exclude ANYONE she wants from her business premises for ANY reason she wants, and to have that decision enforced by whatever appropriate means she chooses if her decision is not respected -- she could forcibly remove the person, she could call police, she could take civil action to prevent future entry, etc.

She does not need ANY reason for doing this.


You of course have the right to refuse to do business with them.

And to EXCLUDE and REMOVE them from her premises.

Once again, how do we tell which side of the mouth some people are talking out of at any given time?

Some people announce they will enforce the rules about their premises by killing those who disobey, and get cheered in this forum.

Other people announce they will enforce the rules about their premises by asking someone to leave, and it's all guns ablaze and every icky trick in the book.

(fyi kestrel, I've had the same when I said it was a condition of the leases at my urban-core, next-door rental duplex that no firearms be brought on the premises. My property, my rules. Cats are okay and welcome, no dogs. Same-sex couples, immigrants, adherents to weird religions, purple polka dotted people -- all welcome. Unless they bring firearms with them. This just isn't tolerable to the I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU TRY TO TAKE MY STUFF crowd.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

204. Thats more than fair

As I explained above, most off duty LEOs are required carry and attitude should not come with the sidearm. FWIW, most concealed weapons are not easily spotted and it is pretty much a certainty LEO owners are carrying on your premises already.

[kestrel91316]

219. My beef isn't with LEO complying with their job requirements.

It is with non-LEO cowboys who fancy them defenders of the faith and constitution with the right to shoot down anyone they think is a threat of any kind, any time, anywhere.

It's my property. I don't want to be at risk of an ill-tempered jackass shooting me or my clients, or some fool who accidentally shoots somebody while reaching into his pocket (like seems to be in vogue lately). And can you just imagine the business liability risk to ME if I allowed guns in and somebody got hurt or killed? Because it WOULD be all my fault the way these things go.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

222. Little risk of that in your location

Since you are in Los Angeles, that really should not be much of an issue. Getting a CCW in LA county is damn near impossible. Also California does not reciprocate with other states, and LA County has at times hinted it would not recoginze permits from other counties in California. About the only people who would be carrying concealed would be LEOs in civilian clothes.

Still you could post signs. Interestingly enough I do see them in human medical facilities. Apparently there is some sort of rule associated with a Federal program. However, that rule specifically exempts all those with LEO credentials.

The liability issue is a fair one. If your facility is posted it provides some legal protection, though some jackass might sue since you did not have metal detectors. If you were the deep pocket, you would be named regardless. Oh the joys of the US tort system.

[PavePusher]

244. Mere exercise of a Civil Right does NOT imply an intent to "frighten or intimidate or imply a threat

No matter how much you may clutch your pearls.

[iverglas]

211. hard for me to say now, isn't it?

I think it has become time for some asking of the administrators. The anti-rights crowd hereabouts is getting up my nose.

You might find this forum, and this thread, interesting:

http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16059

Peace officers (such a much nicer term than "LEO", don't you think?) do NOT have authority to carry personal firearms off-duty in Canada (unless they go through the usual process, and then they won't get it); in some very special instances (which a moderator would not allow to be discussed there) it seems that police service authorities sometimes authorize members of police services to carry a service weapon while off duty.

None of those people seem to have been able to get it straight in their heads about that 24/7 on-duty thing. From what I can gather, police are considered to be on duty when off duty if they perform a police duty ... this means that they must meet standards applicable to police (e.g. no uncautioned questioning) and are covered by protections afforded to police, I would have to think. I very much do not believe that it means they have a duty to act in a police capacity when they are not on duty.

I simply fail to see how it could or why anyone, police or public, would want this. Police drink off duty, just for starters. If they were "on duty" 24/7, obviously they could not drink. Or leave town. Or whatever.

I also took the time to show just how broad that category is at different levels of government, which many in the US do not understand.

If you check the definition of "peace officer" in the Criminal Code of Canada, well, since I'm familiar with that and might be assumed to be, it's just not that difficult to extrapolate, even had I not already know what was covered in the US. I am not uninformed, please just take that as read.

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft
(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or
(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,
while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are
(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or
(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

The NYPD unions fought long and hard to get 24 hour and retired carry permissions.

I don't doubt they did. When would anyone not want special privileges?

IIRC, NYPD officers have a duty to intervene if they seen a crime being committed when not on a paid duty status. If they get hurt during such an event it is considered and on the job injury. Common with just about all LEOs in the US.

Well, maybe it was a trade-off, who knows. Bizarre thing for a union to be agreeing to.

It obviously can't apply where I am, where police personnel do not have authorization to carry firearms when not on duty, so compelling them to act as if they were on duty would be just a little bizarre. I interpret the definition to mean that a member of a police service has the powers of a peace officer 24/7, but not the duties that they would have if "on duty" unless they exercise one of their powers.



So my whole thing was this ... I have no clue why people want off-duty cops or park rangers or whatever else wandering around with firearms. Yes, it's legal, yes, they're not really off-duty, whatever. I still find it entirely bizarre.

But when one of them takes their cat to the vet, they can leave that firearm to home if the vet doesn't want it there, or find a different vet. Their feelings about the matter, or anyone else's, become wholly irrelevant once they go through that door.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

215. Kestrel in all likelihood has LEO clients who are already carrying concealed in her establishment

In many departments/agencies off duty carry is more than legal, its a requirement. Kestrel is free to exclude them, but that might be considered a bit extreme. Cop's kitties need their shots too. Most of those who carried concealed weapons are pretty good at keeping them concealed. See a fit adult wearing a medium to large fanny pack...women LEOs tend to have heavy purses as well.

LEO is the accepted nomenclature for armed officers. Not all peace officers are authorized weapons in the US.

I think it has become time for some asking of the administrators. The anti-rights crowd hereabouts is getting up my nose.

Clearly someone has been talking to the admins given the number of cancellations. The anti-rights crowd waxes and wanes in the Guns Forum. I expect some of the recent arrivals to melt away in the near term. The RKBA people tend to stick around.

[kestrel91316]

220. I certainly hope I am not grouped in this "anti-rights" crowd you are talking about.

I just want my right to have a safe workplace to be at least on par with some cowboy's right to pack a pistol.

And I wonder what insurance companies charge in the way of a premium when they bill businesses that specifically permit gun-toting customers on the premises......

And how many businesses that allowed non-LEO gun possession would get their business insurance cancelled if they had even a single instance where someone came to harm because of it.......

I'm not a gun grabber. Really. I just want to have rights, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

223. You're a business owner. Why don't you ask your insurance agent and tell us their answer?

Are you getting a discount for not allowing legal guns, and if so- how much?

I don't own a business, so I have no way of knowing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

225. Again, hypothetical given the near total absence of CCWs in LA County

Now a business owner in Arizona may have some information along those lines.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

224. Not in my opinion

Your private property rights alone give you authority and you should excersize it if you feel its important. As I posted earlier, it is very doubtful that you would even have a civilian CCW holder client in the LA area so it is not a serious scenario at this point. Posting such signs does risk a backlash, but given the low likelihood, not sure that matters either.

The risk to businesses who do not post firearms restrictions is interesting. As I recall in some states with liberal concealed weapons laws, there are hold harmless laws in place, Not sure how much litigation there has been done on it. Maybe a US lawyer with some experience in the area could chime in.

As someone who teaches firearms classes and has a range, I have the opposite problem. People are supposed to bring guns on to the property. However, I have insurance appropriate for that activity.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

230. You dont HAVE a right to a safe workplace

Never have, never will. You really need to lose that mentality.

You may want one, but it is not a right.

As far as insurance companies and businesses which allow firearms, AFAIK, it does not affect rates in any way. Actuaries are quite good at their job and there is no statistical benefit to forbidding armed customers.

[iverglas]

233. and you don't HAVE the right to make crap up

and pretend someone else said it. Not by the rules of civilized society, not by the rules of civil discourse.

When the workplace in question is OWNED by the person in question, that person has the right (subject to any overriding laws -- and I keep saying this because I just KNOW somebody is going to come up with "exclude people of colour") to have any kind of workplace they bloody well want.

And you don't get to PRETEND that the person in question has ever been talking about ANYTHING other than the workplace she OWNS.

Got it?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

235. Sigh...

...you don't get it.

The "right to safety" does not exist. Not because of my assertion, but because it CANNOT exist. You have no way to absolutely assure a safe environment - it cannot be done.

I really cannot be anymore clear. You can continue with your disruption and your attitude problem, but at the end of the day, the "right to safety" no more exists than the right to have 2+2=5. It can exist in your mind, but never in reality.

[iverglas]

237. cough ...

The "right to safety" does not exist.

Now you go find anybody who said anything about the right to safety, and maybe you can get them to play with you.

You'll come up empty-handed in this thread, I'm afraid.

But what the hell.

Not because of my assertion, but because it CANNOT exist. You have no way to absolutely assure a safe environment - it cannot be done.

How 'bout that right to life business?

Nobody's guaranteeing that anybody stay alive, to my knowledge ... and I think there would be a lot of claims on that guarantee if anybody did. 'Cause ... wait for it ... everybody dies.

I really cannot be anymore clear.

You're right there. You could not be any clearer about having a soapbox that you insist on mounting and a hobbyhorse you insist on riding, even when it is crystal clear that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the thread you are thumping them in.

[kestrel91316]

199. Cops don't come here with dogs because it's a cat hospital. But when

I worked with dogs years ago, sometimes officers with canines would come in and because they were ON DUTY of course wearing a gun would be their legal right and responsibility.

If they were off duty and coming for routine care there was no need for a gun, so then they didn't wear one that I ever saw.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

203. And we would know this exactly how?

Oh yeah - we wouldn't. Now that you've made us aware, we can address this specific issue. I am sure you are doubtless aware that stating you are a vet implies all manner of animals are treated, not simply cats.

The question still stands though: Why are you OK with a cop who has the legal responsibility (not right) to carry a firearm, but not OK with a private individual who has the legal, moral and civil right to do so?

[iverglas]

213. you grow sadder by the minute

I am sure you are doubtless aware that stating you are a vet implies all manner of animals are treated, not simply cats.

Yeah, the way someone stating they are a doctor "implies" that they perform heart transplants, and my stating that I was a lawyer "implies" that I practised international admiralty law.

:eyes:

No one criticized anyone for assuming "dog" -- in fact, I think I was the one who brought up a hypothetical dog, and a dog-related hypothetical, so I don't even know what you're getting all defensive about anyhow.


The question still stands though: Why are you OK with a cop who has the legal responsibility (not right) to carry a firearm, but not OK with a private individual who has the legal, moral and civil right to do so?

You know what's a really much better question?

Why do you consider it to be your concern what someone else permits or doesn't permit on their business premises?

If you come up with an answer, then you will want to note that loaded questions are not permissible in civil discourse.

I refer to your assertion that anyone has a "legal, moral and civil right" to tote a gun around in public.

The only proper and necessary answer to your "question" is mu -- "I reject the question".

And of course to that burble about cops -- cops have an obligation under their terms of employment to carry a firearm (that has nothing to do with "a responsibility"), and have a right to do so by virtue of their status.

If you come up with a genuine question to ask, I'll bet kestrel will be happy to answer. If she thinks it's any of your business.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

216. Its a fair question and adds to the discourse

Your claims of what is appropriate is amusing since you do not seem to abide by them yourself.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

236. Was the question directed to you?

No, it was not.

Kestrel is a big girl and quite capable of answering questions on her own.

I never said it is my concern - i was asking her to explain her reasoning. I am curious as to why she believes as she does. I realize this may be a foreign concept to you, but some people inquire of others purely out of curiosity and a desire to learn.

As far as your comments on civil discourse, we've all had just about enough of your hypocrisy in that matter. It certainly appears you wouldn't recognize civility if it sat on your face.

Obligation or responsibility - blah blah blah - distinction without a difference. Keep your sophistry to yourself. Its gotten old.

[iverglas]

238. pfft! good one!

I am curious as to why she believes as she does. I realize this may be a foreign concept to you, but some people inquire of others purely out of curiosity and a desire to learn.

Ah, yes indeedy. A person with no ulterior motives and no agenda to shove always asks "questions" like:

Why are you OK with a cop who has the legal responsibility (not right) to carry a firearm, but not OK with a private individual who has the legal, moral and civil right to do so?

:rofl:

Not everybody is as conversant with these little tricks as I am, and I do like to lend a hand where it might help.


Now, if you could please stop pretending that "civil discourse" and "civility" are the same thing, we'd be getting somewhere.

I am civil to anyone who deserves civility.

People who do not abide by the rules of CIVIL DISCOURSE do not deserve civility, of course.

Civil discourse calls for absolute honesty, candour, frankness, sincerity ... maybe if you looked them up?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

239. Are you seriously lecturing anyone on civility?

You seem to have appointed yourself the sole arbiter of the meaning of the term. It certainly appears that what the rest of us consider civil discourse is anything but in your mind, and yet apparently if we are to write as you do - even using your own words - we are still not practicing civil discourse.

To that end, I have given up on attempting to meet your ever-changing definition of the term, and decided to be polite to everyone and accept that you will get your knickers in a twist over anything anyone says. So be it. It isn't like you matter in the grand scheme of things.

As far as honesty, candor, frankness and sincerity, you're about the last person who should consider lecturing another on their use. Your every post is filled with deceit, guile, deception and insincerity. Let us also not forget sophistry, misdirection, disruption, incivility, and in many cases, veiled insults, direct insults and outright rudeness.

I would like to believe you are some bizarre computer program which was the bastard child of Eliza, an insult generator, a thesaurus and Google, but it isn't possible for a computer to display such inconsistency as you do. You are rude, condescending, inconsiderate, abrasive and any manner of things I cannot say without violating every rule on this forum. Couple this with an indescribable arrogance and oversensitivity to the slightest perceived or outright manufactured slight, and you have a recipe for a disruptive poster who will never realize they are the problem, or worse, revels in being so.

I am sorry for you that your life is so unfulfilled that the only solace you can find is to degrade everyone who disagrees with your narrow view of reality but that really is nobody's problem but your own. I have had it with your lies, your attitude, your misdirection and your condescension.

[iverglas]

240. NO, FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK, I AM NOT

Will that put an end to your annoying nonsense, or will you just keep it up?

[iverglas]

241. CIVIL DISCOURSE

This one comes from no authority, it just happens to express the idea. With my emphases.

http://tamingthewolf.com/2011/02/civility-and-deception/

First, I must set the stage by considering the vital role honesty and transparency play in civility. We have all encountered the person who is polite, well mannered, and apparently quite civil, yet deceptive. Most of us would rather deal with a crass, ill-mannered, and disagreeable opponent, who is nevertheless honest, than deal with a charming but dishonest opponent. We may dislike opposition but being deceived is worse.

Honesty and transparency (and the trust they build) are fundamental factors in civil discourse. In the absence of honesty and transparency civil discourse disintegrates. Surprisingly, these critical factors have been omitted from the proscriptions in “Civility and Conviction” (and in the Franciscan Action Network’s “Commitment to Civility in Discourse”). The oversight is unfortunate, as honesty needs to be recognized as the cornerstone of civility.

And if you think you can pretend there is anything either HONEST or CIVIL in your allegation that I am a liar, you need to go back to thinking school.

I don't give a flying fuck what you have "had it with". What you have not had it with is "my lies" and your assertion that any such thing exists is neither honest nor civil. Plainly and simply disgusting is what it is.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

242. I had not considered that it might actually be an Eliza variant posting

My interests/specialties are not in AI. However, you may well have a point. Several Eliza clones have turned up in other places.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

243. As I have stated previously, the vast majority of posters here are indeed honest and earnest in

their positions and posts. Even those with whom I take umbrage, the majority are indeed speaking their hearts and minds.

Then again many of us think that you are the one not interested in discourse preferring instead to word dancing and insult to honest conversation. The ongoing vituperation from you is not adding a thing to the dialog

[iverglas]

246. if I state that a majority of posters here

are purple with pink polka dots ... ?

I have little doubt that some people who post here are indeed "honest and earnest" when they slobber and drool at the news or notion of somebody getting killed.

That has nothing to do with the candour (lack of) and sincerity (lack of) displayed in their behaviour and words addressed to other posters.


Then again many of us think that you are the one not interested in discourse preferring instead to word dancing and insult to honest conversation.

Then again, you should really have gathered by now that I don't give a flying fuck what you or your friends say you think in this regard.

The ongoing vituperation from you is not adding a thing to the dialog

If there were a dialogUE to be added to, you might have just said something.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

249. There is considerable dialogue going on here, you choose not particpate meaningfully

Your choice, but your attitude, incivility, word picking, and insults impress no one.

[iverglas]

250. res ipsa loquitur

[ProgressiveProfessor]

254. Another non-contribution of no significance

:rofl:

[iverglas]

255. the glare from that mirror must be blinding, eh?

[kestrel91316]

217. Why are you so determined to deny me my property rights??

[ProgressiveProfessor]

221. Its really a hypotheical at this point

Since you are in Los Angeles, that really should not be much of an issue. Getting a CCW in LA county is damn near impossible. Also California does not reciprocate with other states, and LA County has at times hinted it would not recoginze permits from other counties in California. About the only people who would be carrying concealed would be LEOs in civilian clothes.

Still you could post signs. Interestingly enough I do see them in human medical facilities. Apparently there is some sort of rule associated with a Federal program. However, that rule specifically exempts all those with LEO credentials.

[kestrel91316]

226. I KNOW it's all hypothetical in this town. Which makes my attackers'

bizarre attitudes toward my view of my property rights even stranger. They just can't stop foaming at the mouth over the idea that in a hypothetical future I would request that the guns remain outside.

[PavePusher]

245. No-one is 'attacking' you.

"debate"=/="attack"

http://dictionary.reference.com/

If you think the terms are synonymous, you may be on the wrong web site.

[iverglas]

247. if you think that persistent misrepresentation of what someone has said

and allegations that someone thinks things they do not think is "debate" ... well, you do seem to be in the right forum, all right.

[PavePusher]

258. Blah, blah, blah....

Jello.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

231. I'm not.

I've been very clear that your rights are your rights and I wouldn't deny them to you.

Just because I disagree with your decisions, and I believe they are made based on emotional drivel rather than fact, does not in any way mean or imply that I do not respect or support your rights.

If for some reason I have given you that impression, I assure you, it was never intended.

[kestrel91316]

195. Well, on those occasions when LAPD has had reason to walk in my front door,

I don't presume to tell them to ditch the guns. They are required to wear them as part of THEIR JOB IN PUBLIC SAFETY. Retired, not so much, so they wouldn't be allowed to.

And I can't imagine any fed with a gun ever needing to enter my tiny little cat hospital, lol.

[gejohnston]

248. Some fed agencies may require agents to

carry off duty. If so, I could picture it.
off topic, you are the first vet I heard of specializing on a specific specie. Specializing in large farm animals, or domestic pets yeah.

Interesting irony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kestrel

[iverglas]

251. cat hospitals are fairly common where I am

I can name two in my city off the top of my head.

I think "city" may be the key word here. Some of us do actually live in them. ;)

[gejohnston]

257. Yes I do know of cities

lived in a few. Visited many. The ones I would actually live in happen to be in Japan and Germany. Even there, I would still prefer hicksville. Canada? Maybe London or one of the surrounding farming communities, but I may be more of a Whitehorse kind of guy.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

253. Most LEOs are required to carry off duty by their agencies

State, local, and Feds.

[iverglas]

256. well, here you go

If I were practising in a jurisdiction that required that, and one of those "LEO" people wanted an immigration lawyer, they'd have to find another one or get permission to leave their gun at home.

Had a couple of on-duty "feds" in my office once, questioning some people ... I'm very sure they weren't toting under their spiffy suits, although I must admit it didn't occur to me to ask. The couple of immigration types who sought my services about a couple of things ... the idea of toting a gun would have been laughable to them.

One was an enforcement officer. He once regaled me with the tale of how he'd confined someone he arrested during renovations at the immigration centre. The little secure holding rooms weren't finished yet. The doors weren't attached, making them kind of not secure. He told the guy there was an invisible force field across the doorway and he hadn't better touch it. He didn't.

[Kolesar]

15. I wonder what camo-boy was so afraid of in the Best Buy store?

It is a showroom full of TVs and refrigerators.

[Remmah2]

16. I'm afraid of what's onTV.

And the people that believe it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Ever get sucker punched by a ream of printer paper?

Best Buy is tough country, pardner.


:rofl:

[iverglas]

18. "a young man in a black T-shirt, hat, sunglasses and camouflage pants"

... "large handgun strapped to his hip".

Now he was not aiming to intimidate! Nooooo. He was just out for a shop in his Sunday best, and prepared in the event of black helicopters landing.

[ileus]

21. who did he intend to intimidate? A salesman? what did he gain? Nothing....

Maybe he was trying to get a discount on that 50" TV.

[iverglas]

27. it's called "the public"

Strange foreign concept to some, I know.

[ileus]

30. the public needs to stop being paranoid of legal firearm owners.

[Scout]

33. you can tell just by looking at someone that they are a "legal firearm owner" ....

wow, can i get me some of those specs?

[ileus]

36. If they OC you can pretty much bet your life on it.

Criminals have a nasty tendency to not want attention drawn to them.

[iverglas]

48. "Criminals have a nasty tendency to not want attention drawn to them. "

Crazy people, on the other hand ...

People who dress up in costumes and carry guns around ... hard to tell what that's about, isn't it?

[ileus]

108. Yeah I guess....if someone was dressed up in a costume...or whatever you say.

uh....yeah...that's it...you said it not me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. You assume he IS legal

until he acts otherwise. That is one of the aspects of a free society.

You also do not know if the guy walking down the street with a child is actually the kid's legal guardian - but to assume he is a child molester or a kidnapper is pretty stupid, dontchathink?

[iverglas]

hahahaha

You assume he IS legal
until he acts otherwise.

Yeah, just like you assume the gun IS unloaded, until it acts otherwise.

:rofl:


That is one of the aspects of a free society.

So many people think they're spouting deep thoughts about the law and stuff, and all they're doing is proving they don't know jack.

It is a presumption, not an assumption. Presumptions are rebuttable, of course. Except in Florida and its crony states.

The presumption of innocence applies to the state, not to individuals -- "you" don't "assume" anything.

The state must prove guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt, in many places) before someone may be punished.

That's what the presumption of innocence means, and all it means.

It doesn't mean that if the state does not prove its case, the person is innocent.
And it certainly doesn't mean that anyone must believe that the person is innocent.
O ..... J .....

The "free society" aspect of things has to do with the state not being able to search unreasonably and that sort of thing.

It truly is laughable that a situation has been created where people may legally tote guns around, but no enquiry may be made to determine that any person toting guns around is in fact doing so legally.

And no, let's not try out the stupid "analogies" some are so fond of flinging around. There really are people who are committing a crime simply by being in possession of a firearm, so that is our distinction when it comes to things like "being black behind the wheel". It is never a crime to be black behind the wheel. It is sometimes a crime to tote a gun around in public, even where it is legal for some people to do that.

That's the thing, we see, right? It isn't "legal to walk around with a firearm displayed on one's body". It is legal for SOME PEOPLE to walk around with a firearm displayed on their body.

And the public, through its police authorities, are left with no way of determining that question.

Anyhow, if you're not clear on that presumption of innocence business still, you may want to read what my cousin had to say about it some 75 years ago, as oft quoted by Rumpole since then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Reginald Woolmington was a 21-year-old farm labourer from Castleton, Dorset. On November 22, 1934, three months after his marriage to 17-year-old Violet Kathleen Woolmington, his wife left him and went to live with her mother. On December 10 Woolmington stole a double-barrelled shotgun and cartridges from his employer, sawed off the barrel, throwing it in a brook, and then bicycled over to his mother-in-law's house where he shot and killed Violet. He was arrested on January 23 the following year and charged with the wilful murder of his wife.

Woolmington claimed he did not intend to kill her. He wanted to win her back so he planned to scare her by threatening to kill himself if she did not come back. When questioning her about returning, he attempted to show her the gun that he was to use to kill himself. By accident, the gun went off shooting Violet in the heart.

The Trial judge ruled that the case was so strong against Woolmington that the onus was on him to show that the shooting was accidental. At trial the jury deliberated for an hour and 25 minutes. On February 14, 1935 Woolmington was convicted and sentenced to death.

... In articulating the ruling, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread" speech:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

The conviction was overturned and Woolmington acquitted. He was released three days before his scheduled execution date.

Always nice when an execution is thwarted, but jeez, that guy did it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

60. I never said I assume a gun is unloaded.

However, I do not assume someone engaged in a legal activity is acting in an illegal capacity.

Open carry is legal in many areas. You may not like it, but that's really just too bad for you.

The fact that it is a legal act means yes, you must assume the individual is not breaking the law - and if you call the police, they'll tell you the same thing.

You can toss out whatever unrelated bullshit you wish Iverglas. You may also feel free to attempt to repeatedly redirect the conversation to one of your personal pet causes. None of this changes the facts, and none of it makes you appear any more intelligent or rational - regardless of what you may believe.

[iverglas]

65. duh, eh?

I never said I assume a gun is unloaded.

God it's dull around here; can we turn on a lamp?

You said "you assume he (someone carrying a firearm) is legal".

This is EXACTLY the same as me saying:

You assume the gun is unloaded.

Assumptions are not facts. Duh.

Assuming a gun is unloaded, rather than checking it, is stupid and potentially dangerous.

Get it at all?

Assuming that someone is carrying a firearm in public legally is also stupid and potentially dangerous.


However, I do not assume someone engaged in a legal activity is acting in an illegal capacity.

How in the fucking fuck do you KNOW that someone carrying a firearm in public is engaged in a legal activity???????

You're assuming something you do NOT know. Your statement is an absurdity; it is a classic example of assuming your conclusion.

The QUESTION is: is a person carrying a firearm in public engaged in a legal activity?

You don't wish the question away by assuming the answer, for fuck's sake.

IF the person has a criminal record or has been committed for psychiatric care or judged to be mentally incompetent, or is under a certain age, and I think there may be other disqualifiers (drunk? not a legal resident of the country? engaging in drug trafficking while carrying a firearm?), then they are NOT engaged in a legal activity.

But there's no damned way of finding out.

You assume what you like, and see what it makes you look like. Hint: horses have them.

[Scout]

152. i'll ASSUME he is legal when you ASSUME someone breaking into your house

is only after property, not out to rape your wife.


'k?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. No problem.

I'm going to shoot him anyway, so it really doesn't matter.

[Kennah]

106. Perhaps you would prefer a Department of Pre-Crime

[iverglas]

111. perhaps you would prefer to speak civilly

Nah, I didn't think so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

185. Perhaps you would lead the way on your civility campaign

Nah, I didn't think so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. paranoid legal firearm owners need to stop being afraid of everything.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. Project much?

You assume people who carry do so out of paranoia...perhaps that is because it is the only reason you can conceive?

[TheCowsCameHome]

47. You username confirms it.

:rofl:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. I live in Houston...

does that make it a little easier for you to divine the origin of my name?

I can make the same kind of assertion about your user name confirming how long it will be until you allow facts to actually affect your decision making process...

[RSillsbee]

259. Actually I think the line was "We've HAD a problem"

I used to live in Pearland and I almost got gutted one night on Telephone road for sayong "Hello" to some nut case w/ a 7 inch bowie

[Hoyt]

38. The public needs to keep an eye on toters and express their displeasure.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. The public...

...needs to keep an eye on blacks in white restaurants and express their displeasure.

Same mentality - just as wrong.

[Hoyt]

52. Nope not same. Discriminating against people for who they are is wrong. Not wanting anyone toting

their latest killing apparatus acquisition (sometimes more than one) in public -- around kids, or people who are actually afraid of guns, or people who think folks should leave their friggin guns at home -- is good for society long-term.

I think the 96% who don't see the wisdom in carrying should express their displeasure with establishments who allow guns. I also think the 96% should encourage their representatives to prohibit guns in establishments unless the owner posts "that one can flaunt their guns in here."

We really need a backlash against people who carry guns like most people carry a wallet or purse.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. A civil right is a civil right...

Too bad for you that you do not like this particular one.

You're suggesting that because others may be afraid of a gun, that someone should not exercise their rights? Do you realize how incredibly silly a position that is to take?

If you, or anyone else, is afraid of an inanimate object, that is YOUR problem - not the problem of a person engaging in a legal activity with said object.

[Hoyt]

63. "Guns" not a civil right. I laugh when folks who can't leave home w/out gun or 2 call folks afraid.

Ha Ha Ha -- who is really afraid? 96% of population doesn't need a gun to walk down the street . . . . . . or compensate for whatever insecurity you may have.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. More bad fiction from you...the good news is that SCOTUS and most Americans disagree with you

[We_Have_A_Problem]

129. Owning weapons is a civil right

Whether you like it or not. Further, the only one compensating is you ...your continuous insults and attacks on the sexuality of those who carry show your real views....you feel emasculated in the presence of those who take responsibility for themselves and their own self defense and the only thing you can do is attempt to insult them to make yourself feel better.

[PavePusher]

155. Turn-about is fair play, isn't it....

Well played, indeed.

[Hoyt]

163. Thanks for the humorous post.

[rl6214]

104. "We really need a backlash against people who carry guns"

Wait, what do you mean? You mean we AREN'T having a backlash yet?

But 6pak keeps saying the backlash is coming and this is the backlash. You guys really need to get together and work out your gameplan.

[RSillsbee]

260. I live in Colorado Springs

I have only noticed two places (My bank and the Concentra Medical Center North) that are actually posted. I have never been asked to leave an establishment because I was armed nor have I ever been MWAG'd. ( Well, I've never been MWAG'd in Colorado. I got stopped one afternoon in Texas when i was carrying a rifle home after my truck broke down but when I explained the situation to the cop he just gave me a ride home.)

Based on that I'm going to assume most Coloradan's don't care

[TheCowsCameHome]

54. That didn't take long.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

46. the public doesn't need

either your rude characterizations or your unsolicited advice.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

50. Again, coming from you...

such comments are almost laughable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. The same public that used to be scared of blacks, gays, or racially mixed couples?

Pandering to "the public" is rarely the right thing to do.

[iverglas]

75. like I did say

I know this whole "public" thing is a strange foreign concept to some.

I don't expect you to grasp it right off. But do keep trying.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. Dodge the issue as you like...the irrational fears of the public are often wrong and get overcome

via the free exercise of rights

Blacks
Non whites
Gays
Gay couples
Mixed race couples

All were profoundly offensive to the "public" at one point. Do you defend pandering to such fears?

[iverglas]

80. snigger

Blacks
Non whites
Gays
Gay couples
Mixed race couples
Assholes prancing around with firearms on display

Which one does not belong?

It's a time-limited quiz. Hit the buzzer fast.

More reason than one why the assholes don't belong.

None of the others were or were doing anything that has any effect on the public.


All were profoundly offensive to the "public" at one point.

You see, you and yours just can't help yourselves.

Where did this "offensive" come from?

Why not say "profoundly purple" or "profoundly existential" or "profoundly Swahili"? If you're going to pull a word out of your bum, why not vary it from time to time?

Of course, perhaps all the things in your list were offensive to some members of the public at some time. Who cares? I'm sure some members of the public didn't like root beer at some time, too. Nothing to do with any subject at hand here.

I was asked a question: Who (sic) did he intend to intimidate?

I answered the question: The public.

I didn't make any assertion about the public at all. I answered a question about the asshole in the costume with the gun.

Try going back to the beginning and following through the very brief conversation with your finger, maybe.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Truly amusing how you dance around the weakness of your position... Pandering to the "public"

is rarely if ever right, unless it about firearms eh?

[iverglas]

83. intimidating the public

is just ugly. When it's done for political purposes, it's generally and correctly called terrorism.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. I remember when the presence of multiple black men intimidated the public

even peaceable and unarmed. Those demonstrations were indeed done for political reasons. The southern whites indeed called it terrorism, we called them freedom marches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iAIM02kv0g

[iverglas]

90. well hey, if their intent was to intimidate the public

then you would have a point.

You do understand how verbs and such work, right?

Go ahead now and pretend that bozo in his clown suit with his big old sidearm was not intending to intimidate the public.

You needn't bother. We'll take your protestations as read.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. I doubt the primary intent was intimidation for either of them

Both were political statements, neither was inherently terrorism

[iverglas]

95. I don't doubt for a moment that the clown's primary intent was to intimidate

Oh, all right. His primary intent was to show his allegiance to the agenda ... which is to intimidate the public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Your long distance mind reading skills must be exceptional

I lack such super powers, but as a firearms instructor in the US, I believe I know a many more open carry supporters/participants than you do.

Most of the open carry people I know do it, at least partially, to make a political statement. They think open carry is a legal and appropriate thing to do. Most realize that it does make some uncomfortable but think that if more did it regularly, that discomfort would subside. Also bear in mind, that in some places that is the only effective option to carry a firearm. For example in California, CCW permits are in theory available, but impossible to get in many localities.

I know of no one in the open carry crowd who is out to intimidate the public or otherwise terrorize the populace.

[iverglas]

110. "do it, at least partially, to make a political statement"

Yeah. Like I said.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

121. Your dislike of political statement seems odd...they are an effective way to get things to change

We called the civil rights marches in the south

[iverglas]

131. your rejection of civil discourse

is par for the course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. So you reject demonstrations of any kind that make the public uncomfortable or feel intimidated

We would still have Jim Crow laws in the US is the rest of liberals and progressives felt as you do. Good thing the rest of us are better than that.

Given your posting history and style for you to invoke civil discourse is laughable

[iverglas]

135. your contempt for civil discourse is already obvious

No need to keep displaying it. Really.

Oh, and if you don't know what the term means -- as you obviously don't -- try looking it up.

It precludes crap like

So you reject dmeonstrations of any kind that make the public uncomfortable or feel intimidated

as being, well, you know, less than candid.

Candour is about the most fundamental prerequisite for civil discourse.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. I have a strong appreciation for civil discourse and engage in it regularly

It is your bias that seems to determine what is civil and what is not, one I do not share. Making the public uncomfortable creates change, at least in US. It has been incredibly important in our civil rights movement.

[iverglas]

141. like I said, look it up

Deceit and demagoguery are not elements of civil discourse.

Not my rules, chum.

If I were talking about "making the public uncomfortable", I would have let you know, and you would have had every opportunity to argue your case.

Since I wasn't, well, do your own math.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

146. Verbatim is not a requriement for civil discourse

Word picking is not part of civil discourse which is what most of your posts are these days

You might also look up a few posts (#133) where I used both terms. To claim there is a significant difference in this context (open carrying of firearms) is disingenuous at best.

Your words are not the only ones that matter in the discussion. Civil discourse acknowledges latitude and even paraphrasing.

[iverglas]

148. honesty is

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. Most of us here are both honest and earnest in our posts

Claiming otherwise is not adding to civil discourse

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. whats that word?

Ah yes - hypocrite...

Deceit and demagoguery are not elements of civil discourse.

Not my rules, chum.

First off, do not call me "chum". I am neither your friend, nor raw fish guts to be thrown out as bait.

Second, you're correct, deceit and demagoguery are not elements of civil discourse. However, since those and sophistry seem to be your stock in trade, it is difficult to engage in civil discourse with you.

If I were talking about "making the public uncomfortable", I would have let you know, and you would have had every opportunity to argue your case.

Since I wasn't, well, do your own math.

Ah - but you were- and attempting to couch it in thinly veiled insults about the man's attire.

You're so transparent - and sadly you seem to believe you're such a wit. At least you're half right...

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oneka]

107. How is it

from the information in the OP's article, that you are able to determine, the primary intent, of this individual?

[iverglas]

112. the fan club must know the object of its intentions

The Goddess of Truth and Beauty, that is.

Most importantly, I'm actually not a fool.

The primary intent of someone who dresses up like he's engaged in interrogating the new leader of Al Qaeda (he wears his sunglasses at night ...) and straps a gun around his middle and parades around an electronics store in Maine ... no, nobody could possibly guess his intent.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

126. She does it though bias, prejudice, and projection

I do not know any open carry advocates who are doing it to terrorize or intimidate the public. I know considerably more of them than she does. Yet she has a moral certainty that is why people do it. As I said in the title, it is nothing more than her bias, prejudice, and projection

Yes it is partially a political statement, but that does not make it terrorism. The public in the past has been intimidated by all sorts of things, like black men, gays, mixed marriages...but grew out of it. This is just one more.

[iverglas]

132. disgusting

in so many ways, on so many days.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

140. Accurate

In so many ways

[We_Have_A_Problem]

142. facts usually are...

and it is accurate in so many ways and on so many days.

[Oneka]

177. If a man

open carries as a political statement does that act ,not deserve
the protections, of the 1st amendment?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. It kinda sounds like...

it could have been an off-duty cop or a security professional, as well as your insinuation that it was a paranoid individual.

[iverglas]

28. hahahahaha

it could have been an off-duty cop or a security professional

:rofl:

Yeah. Off-duty cops and "security professionals" gain much by parading around in public looking like fucking idiots trying to make themselves as conspicuous as possible.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. What you consider "making themselves conspicuous"...

...they may consider casual clothing.

Camo pants, a black t-shirt and sunglasses?

Lets see...it IS summertime, so sunglasses aren't outside the realm of expected attire. A black t-shirt? Gee, I only own about a dozen of them. Its a pretty basic item of clothing. Camo pants? Meh - not my choice, but camo tactical pants or cargo pants are quite useful - especially if you're planning to be at the range.

[iverglas]

56. "Camo pants, a black t-shirt and sunglasses?"

No ... Camo pants, a black t-shirt and sunglasses and a honking big gun dangling from his hip.

Guess the camo didn't work.

:rofl:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. I didn't see anything humorous in my post...

...however, yours do seem to be turning into a joke.

Humor-free mind you, but still a joke.

[iverglas]

69. I didn't see anything humorous in your post either

So we're agreed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. Sans sidearm, that kind of outfit is quite common in the desert

[rl6214]

105. Actually this sort of attire is very common

to the guys on the sheriffs rescue squad that I know in El Paso, TX. Including the "big gun"

[iverglas]

113. "the sheriffs rescue squad that I know in El Paso, TX"

I'm sure they are very, very cool.

And I'm sure they would have a reason for wearing their guns to a Best Buy, assuming they were not rescuing someone at the time.

[iverglas]

109. oddly enough, he was in Maine

I've spent a fair bit of time there. Have never noticed any deserts.

A lot of crushing rural poverty. Maybe if all the people living in tarpaper shacks down those rural roads all carry guns around when they go to town, they'll be happy.

Hell, if the woman I picked up hitchhiking there, with the turkey she'd been to town to buy to host her grandchildren at Thanksgiving, and drove home to her once-upon-a-time mobile home with no indoor plumbing, had had a gun, she could have shot at the yahoos in pickup trucks she told me had been playing chicken with her on the side of the road before I picked her up ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. So it was most likely woods vs desert camo

You still see it everywhere.

Anything topical to add?

[iverglas]

117. so entertaining

He took a break from strolling around the woods with his sidearm to check out the big-screen TVs at Best Buy.

I'm sure you believe it!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

119. Or perhaps...

...he was on his way home from being in the woods and stopped to do some shopping he needed to do anyway. Ultimately, what the hell does it matter? What he did was legal, he harmed no one and the only people even affected were those with an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

I'm so happy for you that you can live in a fantastical world where everyone is always dressed in what you consider the perfect attire for the occasion, criminals ask permission before committing a crime, and a simple "please do not do that" is sufficient to stop any violent act.

However, not all of us live in your rainbow and unicorn world, so we do as we can.

[iverglas]

137. your rejection of civil discourse

is also par for the course.

the only people even affected were those with an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

The thing speaks for itself, and the rest makes it clear should there have been any uncertainty.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

144. I havent rejected civil discourse...

...when you actually HAVE some, I'll be happy to respond.

As far as the rest, yes, it is quite clear. The problem I see is the people with an irrational fear of an inanimate object carried by someone acting in a normal manner.

If he had actually done something illegal or actively threatening, it would be a different story. Just because someone is afraid of J. Random Person merely standing there with a gun in a holster on his hip doesn't mean he created a problem.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. Camo/BDUs styled pants are quite common everywhere in the US

[iverglas]

136. so?

You may have noticed I haven't once referred to "camo/BDUs styled pants".

I have referred to his COSTUME.

But hey, your rejection of civil discourse is par for the course.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

145. His attire is common all over the US

And in post #56 you did refer to "camo pants". The BDU portion is a generalization and also covers cargo pants, also mentioned in the thread.

Your referring to it as a "COSTUME" is not exactly civil discourse. Your attempt to word pick rather than discuss is also not helping the discourse either.

[iverglas]

162. you are so incivil it is truly nauseating

And in post #56 you did refer to "camo pants".

And then of course we have what I REALLY said in post 56 (emphasis in original):

No ... Camo pants, a black t-shirt and sunglasses and a honking big gun dangling from his hip.

Sliced, diced and thrown on the manure heap where stinking stuff like yours belongs.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

166. Once again...

...accusing others of what you are doing..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

169. Then look further upthread

I used the term "sans sidearm". That you wandered from the context does not require the rest of us to follow you or adhere to your words

I am the one being civil...your posts surely do not qualify as civil discourse.

[iverglas]

173. if only anybody was talking about "sans sidearm"

If we take the gun out of bozo's costume, it's a different kettle of herring altogether, isn't it?

But hey, if you like fish, you go play with 'em. Chum.

:rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

175. So much for your civil discourse soapbox

which includes balance and equity. You change context in subthreads and get indignant when others do not follow. If someone does not adhere to your view of context you call them names.

:rofl: indeed

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Maybe this idiot mistook it for a lobster.

This dude is not all there.

[X_Digger]

26. You meant to say..

"Open-carry puts editorial writer on edge"

Unless you have some story about someone calling the cops?

[iverglas]

29. so didya read the comments?

If anybody has an account or wants to disclose personal information in order to get one (what does that paper think it is, Google??), you can reply to this one for me:

His statement
By (name), verified user — Tue, 08/16/2011 - 14:09
but of been just plain simple "FREE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN". Big Brother has some of us just plain paranoid!

From what I can make out of that, my reply is:

Yes, dear, some of you are just plain paranoid, and you're leading the pack.

Anyhow, the other comments mostly disapprove of the actions of the individual in question.

And from how he dressed(as the sun journal describes it: "black T-shirt, hat, sunglasses and camouflage pants") he sounds like he was looking for trouble.
That just rude. This guy sounds like a jerk

This guy has a sad life if this is how he derives his daily pleasure by dressing the part and scaring citizens.

And yeah, dressing up like a scary commando and displaying a gun really is grounds for denying someone entry to private property, just as eating an ice cream cone is. You got a right to do both, on anybody's property who agrees you can do it there.



typo fixed

[X_Digger]

31. Best Buy chooses not to do so..

It's perfectly within their right, as property owners.

Did anyone say they shouldn't have that right?

:shrug:

[Hoyt]

40. Let's hope for the day the 96% that don't tote say enough of this BS and start protesting too.

[X_Digger]

53. Like the Brady Starbucks protest? How'd that work out for ya?

[Hoyt]

55. Let's hope Starbucks - and their right wing stances on number of issues - eventually sees the light.

[iverglas]

62. I especially love this bit of Starbucks' public statement

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.

Unsafe -- if they ask people with guns to leave the restaurant?

Why would that be unsafe?!?!?

:rofl: times 30.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Why would you ask a coffee company about criminal law?

It would be like asking a criminologist about how to run an emergency department in a hospital...

[iverglas]

67. listen, maybe if you lay off the Starbucks product

you'll calm down enough to make sense.

What in the hell are you on about now?

There's probably no point in you answering, because you wouldn't actually be answering. You'd just be typing some other incoherent nonsense.

In my post, I pointed and laughed at Starbucks for saying that asking individuals carrying guns to leave the premises could mean "putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position."

What in the fucking fuck does that have to do with criminal law?

Why would I ask a coffee company about criminal law?

What colour is orange: true or false?

After you.

[truebrit71]

76. What colour is orange: true or false?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Love your responses in this thread....

[iverglas]

79. I'm glad it's held up over time ;)

It was certainly amusing to philosophy undergrads c1970. ;)

Sadly, not everyone shares our sense of humour ...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color_is_an_orange_true_or_false

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. And what "right wing stances" would those be? Selling fair trade coffee?

Benefits for same-sex partners?

[iverglas]

73. oh, you mean ALL their coffee is fair trade?

No? What does that make all the other stuff they sell?

How about anti-competitive / monopolistic practices and the consequences for independent/local businesses?

We loves enormous transnational corporations like that here at DU, doesn't we?

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. What happened to the person who made the claim? Is his googlemachine broken

Coffee is still a discretionary item, not a staple and I'm sure that the GTA, like the Boston area, has plenty of independent
coffee shops (J.P. Licks for the win!).

BTW, is not Tim's an "enormous transnational corporation"?

I'm still waiting to hear about those shootouts over the condiment stand we were promised.

And speaking of enormous corporations:
How's that duopoly on Internet backbones working for you up there?

[iverglas]

91. don't you wish you occasionally had a point?

BTW, is not Tim's an "enormous transnational corporation"?

Yes ... and ...?

I can't even guess what you thought your point here was.

Do I shop at Tim Horton's? Nope. Last time I did was probably, oh, five years ago, when we would have stopped at a service centre on the 401 to pee and picked up a sandwich, maybe. One tends to be a bit of a captive market on the long 401 hauls.

In case you're interested, I've never bought anything at a Starbucks in my life. Never set foot in one. Does that help at all?

I may live in an urban core, but I'm kinda off the grid when it comes to consumer crap, I'm afraid. Sorry I couldn't help you more with whatever it was you wanted here.


And speaking of enormous corporations:
How's that duopoly on Internet backbones working for you up there?

I give up. I really do. I can't even hazard a wild surmise about that one.

Was somebody here putting forth an argument that Canadian ISPs ... there, you see, I can't even imagine what imaginary argument you are stabbing away at here.


The thought processes that can be glimpsed in your prose do suggest to me that there's a glitch happening somewhere, I have to say.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

120. Don't you? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

190. Two days and no evidence of Starbucks' "right wing stances".

Just like those promised pictures that have never shown up.

Dude, you're all poster and no movie...

[iverglas]

58. is it happy hour already?

See, this is what you said:

You meant to say..
"Open-carry puts editorial writer on edge"
Unless you have some story about someone calling the cops?

To which I did this strange thing we'll call "replied" -- I said something about what you said. I pointed out that the comments on the story were running strongly to "on edge".


To which you have, well, we'll say "replied", although it doesn't really fit:

Best Buy chooses not to do so..
It's perfectly within their right, as property owners.
Did anyone say they shouldn't have that right?

I give up. Did anyone?

Me, I was talking about what you were talking about. If you want to talk about something else, just give me a hint when you want to change the subject, 'k?

[X_Digger]

86. Were the commenters at the store? I think you need to get back to your eye doctor..

Nowhere in that article was anyone quoted as being 'on edge'.

Does the fact that someone who chose to comment on a story might have felt have fuck-all to do with what the people in the store at the time felt?

And yeah, dressing up like a scary commando and displaying a gun really is grounds for denying someone entry to private property, just as eating an ice cream cone is. You got a right to do both, on anybody's property who agrees you can do it there.

Why bring that up, if nobody's claiming otherwise?

[GreenStormCloud]

72. Mutch hand wringing, pearl clutching, and worrying over nothing. Unrec. N/T

[iverglas]

252. mutch of a mutchness?

:rofl:

No, no, I shouldn't laugh. My propensity to type "must" when I mean "much" is something that Word spellcheck just refuses to fix for me ... but at least I spell it good.

[gravity556]

78. bwa hahahahah

"But, as Sunday's experience demonstrates, there's a problem with open carry: When that person walks through the door, how can customers tell if the person bearing the weapon is a potential rescuer or killer?"

Great googly moogly! What kind of socially inept individual is incapable of discerning, by body language alone, if someone looks to be hostile or not? There's a bit of a change in bearing between "Why the fuck would they put the twinkies in the healthy snack aisle?" and "I'm going to kill someone!"

Never mind that criminals, being criminals, are quite often barred from having guns due to felony convictions/DV convictions/probation. Since the world is filled with people who involuntarily micturate at the merest glimpse of a firearm, and then, damp and terrified, call the police. Now since a law abiding gun owner knows that he's in the right legally to carry, he views the police attention as an annoyance (or, if he's in Canton Ohio, the cops handcuff him, stick him in a squad car and joke about murdering him. With the partner of the cop promising to alibi his buddy), but not a major deal. Plus he knows that somewhere close by, there's a hipster with wet socks. That kind of attention is not what the prohibited possessor (you know, the CRIMINAL) wants to deal with. So they tend to conceal.

Most popularly in a fashion called Mexican carry, wherein the pistol is stuffed down the front of the pants, often sweeping their gun with the muzzle of their pistol, and occasionally resulting in a hilarious negligent discharge wound.

Sorry-I digress. Stories like this are one of the reasons I am glad to live in Arizona. Perfect climate, intelligently planned infrastructure and some of the most liberal gun laws in the nation. Nobody even notices open carry, and if they do, they tend to ask questions politely about what they would need to do to open carry. A good many are delighted to learn that there is no permit required for open carry, and since last year, no permit needed to carry concealed. I encourage them to take a CCW class, even if they don't want to get a permit, just to familiarize themselves with the laws. And I recommend "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide", it's a fantastic book translating the legalese of A.R.S into english. :)

And my 5'6", 120 pound stunner of a wife open carries when she drives out of town. She started after an incident where she was harassed by several guys while getting gas. She was afraid she was going to be assaulted. Fortunately, another car pulled into the lot. She has had a couple of other incidents with men making lewd comments, right up until she turned and they saw her Glock. Never had to draw it, never had to even put her hand on it-just the presence of the gun was enough to communicate "I am NOT a victim".

[iverglas]

85. snork snork snork

Never mind that criminals, being criminals, are quite often barred from having guns due to felony convictions/DV convictions/probation.

And that, children, is why criminals do not have guns.

Sleep tight now, and don't forget to say your prayers!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. That certainly is the WashDC/Chicago/Canadian view on things

Guns are nasty and so we try to ban them. Since they are banned you will not need one. Spiffy logic there eh?

[iverglas]

92. you evidently meant to reply to gravity556

Glad to be of service.

[gravity556]

124. re:you evidently meant to reply to gravity556

Yeah, I somehow doubt it. Though I can see how you might have been (rather easily) confused... ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. Happens a lot with that poster

Will obfuscate and word pick when she runs out of reason or rationale, rather than deal with the matter head on. Lots of post cancel last night as well.

[iverglas]

134. hurray for suppression of speech!

I do congratulate those who requested it.

Perhaps you've noticed how many I've had removed lately. I'd say a couple of dozen in the last two days.

Oh, and there's the little matter of a tombstone or two since I came back ... damn, I need to visit more often.


Happens a lot with that poster
Will obfuscate and word pick when she runs out of reason or rationale, rather than deal with the matter head on. Lots of post cancel last night as well.

Insult, the last resort of those with nothing worth saying.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

143. Self congradulations perhaps?

Which scalps are your claiming?

[iverglas]

160. you teach postsecondary, and you say "congradulations"

What's next, "would of"?

I think it would be seen as unseemly for me to claim credit for specific decisions of the administration, don't you? I did try to hold a memorial for one of your colleagues, but it was poorly attended ...

[gravity556]

94. Except the only folks that pay attention to the bans

are the people who don't break the laws anyhow. Leaving them to the tender and loving care of the segment of society that ignores the laws. But according to the pro-criminal safety folks, can rely on the police to protect us when they get around to it, being short staffed and underfunded. Plus I've heard that all you have to do is comply and give your assailant whatever he wants and he'll let you go on about your day. After all, the PCS crowd inform us that criminals are just misunderstood tragic heroes!

[iverglas]

96. and then the bad guys will have to go back to getting their guns

... um ... by clicking their heels together and saying "white rabbits" three times.


After all, the PCS crowd inform us that criminals are just misunderstood tragic heroes!

If I had any idea what a PCS crowd was I'd go find them and lecture them severely on their silliness.

But I guess I'll have to settle for saying how disgusting your demagoguery is.

[gravity556]

97. Aww, it's so cute that you've decided to follow me around.

Pity that it seems you only do so to be snide, snippy and rude. Oh, PCS would be an acronym for Pro-Criminal Safety. I didn't want to come across as negative by calling folks "anti-gunners".

And if the authorities can't keep drugs, knives and cell phones out of maximum security prisons, just how are they going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while maintaining some semblance if freedom? Random house searches? Roving wiretaps? Stop and frisk searches? Metal detectors every 50 yards?

Even in the UK where they've used 1984 as a blueprint for a complete surveillance net, murders, robberies and rapes still occur. Add in the riots of late and I would bet that a poll concerning reinstatement of gun rights would show strongly in favor. I know, you would never acknowledge it, even if the results were tattooed across your behind.

So if you don't mind, if you're gonna tag along and be obstreperous, please at least make an attempt at wit. I'd certainly appreciate it. :)

[Scout]

153. "I am NOT a victim"

She started after an incident where she was harassed by several guys while getting gas. She was afraid she was going to be assaulted. Fortunately, another car pulled into the lot. She has had a couple of other incidents with men making lewd comments, right up until she turned and they saw her Glock. Never had to draw it, never had to even put her hand on it-just the presence of the gun was enough to communicate "I am NOT a victim".

I have no common sense, more like it. Let's see, I'm a at a gas station, putting gas in my car ... some guys say mean stuff to me, so I can't go inside where there is an attendant, I can't get in my car and lock the door, I can't tell them to go do something useful. I'm gonna let them know that i can shoot them though!

I guess all women should just start open-carrying, and just shoot those nasty ole construction workers, et al, when they engage in verbal harassment. You know, sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will make me shoot you!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

156. Apparently...

...the acceptable solutions for you are:

1) Run to someone for help and hope that person can actually do something
2) Hide
3) Say something mean

Wow...

You got your ass kicked a lot in grade school didn't you?

Did you completely miss the part where OC in AZ is not only legal but common? Did you also just manufacture a part where the woman in question did something specifically to draw attention to the gun? No, she simply turned. That happens when one is pumping gas by the way.

[Scout]

180. Apparently, you all are one trick ponies with little to no imagination

no, i never got my ass kicked in grade school ... i did a few ass-kickings myself though, standing up to Tom Bousch when he slapped a branch of burdock's into Rosie's beautiful long hair while we were waiting for the bus--good thing for Tommy an adult happened along about that time (standing up for the weak i was); punching Don Nordman when he tried to shove me down to the ground so he could get on the bus first (standing up for myself i was). Guess what? Tom and Don left us alone after that, no gun needed, no running for help.

And i did not say "run to someone for help" ... i said "go inside where there might be an attendant" (you think they will follow you inside to continue verbal harassment?)... i did not say "hide" i said get inside the vehicle that is sitting right there and lock the door ... and those with some wit about them can usually shut up a verbal harasser, or return like for like anyway.

There could be more solutions than those i offered, if one has the least bit of imagination and resourcefulness. But when one has only a hammer, everything looks like a nail i guess. and i manufactured NOTHING about what she did or didn't do with her popgun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

157. Open carry is still uncommon enough to cause some to pause

Which is what seems to have happened here. That men feel secure in harassing women in public is still very disappointing

If you think that station attendants are going to come out from behind their safety glass, you must not live in a major city.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

158. I know they're not going to come out...

Hell, I'm happy if they speak English.

[iverglas]

167. and that would be because ...

Oops. Only advocates of effective firearms control may be called bigots with impunity around here.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

172. Criminal behavior

Why they do not is obvious - big cities have crime. Duh.

I realize on your rainbow and unicorn planet, crime is a myth, but in the real world it still happens.

[iverglas]

174. how odd

the entire content of that post seems to have changed ... but is no more relevant to anything than when it started life.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. Yes it did

That happens when someone edits a post immediately after posting it - realizing he clicked "post message" instead of "preview post"....

So what?

[iverglas]

165. one has to wonder

whether in their long lives our friends have ever observed verbal harrassment of a woman in public (I am absolutely certain that not one of them has ever offered unsolicited remarks or noises to a woman in public -- surely it's only other men who do that) ... anyway, whether one of our friends has ever so much as voiced disapproval to a man who does that.

You know ... worked on the root cause of the problem ...

I'm always reminded of a public meeting I attended years and years ago, about women's safety in the city I lived in. After a while, there was a script I could have read every time someone stood up:

If I see someone on the street ...
I'm afraid he might look at me. If he looks at me ...
I'm afraid he might follow me. If he follows me ...
I'm afraid he might assault me. If he assaults me ...
I'm afraid he might rape me. If he rapes me ...
I'm afraid he might kill me.

What a way to live one's life. The only way to avoid being killed, or at least to avoid being in constant fear of being killed by everyone one sees on the street, is to stay home.

Break the damned chain.

If someone offers unsolicited remarks or noises to a woman in public, whether you are the woman or someone else, tell them to shut the fuck up.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

171. I would tell you...

...how I handle it when I see unsolicited comments, but then you would likely attack me for being a liar, a member of the patriarchy or both.

[gravity556]

181. Actually, my wife has quite a bit of good sense.

Since the group of "gentlemen" were between her and the station and she was well outnumbered, a run for the store would be ill advised. Also, while your username is gender indeterminate, I am going to presume that you're male. And it was not so much the words that were said, but the tone used and the fact that they were advancing toward her as a group. Scary shit in the middle of the night. As for 911, we lived in a town on the outskirts of Phoenix where 3 Deputies covered about 150 square miles (we lived in Queen Creek, if anyone's familiar with central AZ).

And where do you draw the conclusion that I might find your idea of "I guess all women should just start open-carrying, and just shoot those nasty ole construction workers, et al, when they engage in verbal harassment. You know, sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will make me shoot you!" to be reasonable? My wife has no doubt in her mind that had she not been armed, the situation would have gotten even uglier.

She said she tried ignoring them, but she said that made it worse-leading to comments like "Fuck you, you stuck up white bitch" and several other, even more vile epithets.

And maybe, just maybe, you should skip insinuating that my wife is a vapid, bloodthirsty sociopath.

Your I have no common sense, more like it. Let's see, I'm a at a gas station, putting gas in my car ... some guys say mean stuff to me, so I can't go inside where there is an attendant, I can't get in my car and lock the door, I can't tell them to go do something useful. I'm gonna let them know that i can shoot them though! is chickenshit and uncalled for.

[rl6214]

100. The only backlash coming is more carry laws being passed

just ask Wisconsin.

[iverglas]

114. well, there's probably more backlash coming, actually

I guess you will see in the next election. The backlash against "liberal" values and policies has been building, and enjoying not inconsiderable success, for some time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. Firearms rights are not against liberal values

[iverglas]

118. guns got rights???

And here I thought they were inanimate objects ...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. Another dance to avoid the issue

[iverglas]

130. meaningless babble is not an issue

Come up with an issue to address -- and frame it candidly and straightforwardly ... and indicate a sincere desire to discuss it and give an expectation that you will apply goodwill in doing so -- and I'll address it.

Firearms rights are not against liberal values meets none of the above criteria.

It is meaningless babble, it is framed so as to conclude an assumption and denigrate anyone who disagrees with whatever it is supposed to mean, and I have had no indication of the rest.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

138. Let us look back over the sub thread

Jpak (as always) claims and anti gun rights backlash is coming. (Post #0)

rl6214 points out that actually more pro gun legislation is happening citing Wisconsin (Post #100)

You post that there is probably more backlash coming in the next election (Post #114)

I post saying that gun rights (for citizens) are a liberal value (Post #116)

You post that you did not realize that inanimate objects have rights. (Post #118) Ignoring the clear context.

I post that you dancing to avoid the issue (Post #123)

You post that my post (#116) meaningless babble and state that I should come up with an issue etc (Post #130)

I get bemused...


Your criteria of what kind of posts you wish to see is mostly hubris and is of no consequence. Your claims of not relevant responses are amusing given your own extreme pattern of doing just that. Your word sniping never had any value, but you persist. You criticize those for what you specialize in yourself.

The Burke quote still holds.

[ileus]

188. It's funny the writer of the story assumes everyone is paranoid of a Open Carry person.

[Remmah2]

209. If the mantra is repeated often enough it must be truth.

aka SSDD.

[iverglas]

214. wow, so few words

and so many of them, uh, bad. Take them out, and we have

It's funny the writer of the is of a person

Not much left from that

It's funny the writer of the story assumes everyone is paranoid of a Open Carry person.

It isn't a "story". It's an editorial.

You're the one who "assumes", and that's putting it very politely. Perhaps you are inventing that the editorial writer did not speak with anyone who was present. Perhaps you are baselessly alleging that the paper was not contacted by someone who was present. Perhaps you are imagining that the editorial writer made up the incident. All to put it very politely.

The editorial writer made no assertion about "everyone". Why do you claim they did?

Since the editorial writer plainly did not believe that anyone was "paranoid", your assertion that they "assumed" that "everyone" was "paranoid" ... well, here we start into a downward spiral from which there might be no escape. You have written yourself a web of, um, badness that can't even be untangled.

And this "a Open Carry person" (sic) (what is this, some kind of honourary title?) -- that's just smoke and mirrors. Don't be shy: if he can do it in public, you can say it in public. Say it loud and say it proud: an individual walking around in a retail store in very deliberate get-up with a big gun displayed on his body.

There we are. All fixed! as I gather is the game here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

218. Just a reminder

if he can do it in public, you can say it in public. Say it loud and say it proud: an individual walking around in a retail store in very deliberate get-up with a big gun displayed on his body.

As several of us have pointed out, the "very deliberate get-up" is very common in many places in the US. It is also not a "COSTUME" as you have previously posted

[iverglas]

227. just a reminder

that you sayin' it don't make it so.

For me to accept that the get-up in question

hat
sunglasses
black Tshirt
camouflage pants
big gun on display

(can't tell whether the writer meant "black" to apply to the hat and sunglasses)

was just a coincidental concoction, I would have to accept, without evidence, that

- the person had a condition that made it necessary or useful to wear sunglasses in a store
- the person's fashion choices were just a matter of unoriginal taste, or what was on sale
- the person had been engaged in some activity necessarily involving a handgun and didn't have time to leave it somewhere appropriate before going shopping

and y'know what?

I'm not an idiot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

234. Again, your own words separated the gun from the rest of it...

Say it loud and say it proud: an individual walking around in a retail store in very deliberate get-up with a big gun displayed on his body.

Given that the majority of your posts are word picking, I am sure you would insist on correctness

[gravity556]

228. I dunno...

if he can do it in public, you can say it in public. Say it loud and say it proud: an individual walking around in a retail store in very deliberate get-up with a big gun displayed on his body.

As several of us have pointed out, the "very deliberate get-up" is very common in many places in the US. It is also not a "COSTUME" as you have previously posted

Not really sure that jeans and a T-shirt are a "very deliberate get-up" or even a costume. And a Glock 19 isn't a "big gun" by any shakes. A Taurus Judge (most worthless piece of junk on the market today) or a USP .45 or if you really wanna go big, an S&W 500 revolver is fooking gigantic. As is the Desert Eagle. Giant, unweildly, heavy, overpriced crap. Fun at the range, and maybe the DE or 500 might be useful in grizzly bear country, but day to day carry? No thanks. Particularly when a G19 and 2 reloads (46 rounds total-almost a whole box of ammo!) weighs less than the S&W unloaded.