If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Westword)   Coloradoan decides to test the state's open-carry firearm law, apparently not realizing the law does not allow carrying in an establishment where liquor is served. Yes, it's a theatre   (blogs.westword.com) divider line 36
    More: Dumbass, James Mapes, firearms, establishments, Thornton Police Department  
•       •       •

9781 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2012 at 2:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-30 03:43:20 PM  
3 votes:

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Yes, completely true. That's why I own a handgun, to kill people. But only certain people, people who don't understand right from wrong. People who think might makes right and it's perfectly okay to murder me, rape me, kidnap my son, etc. If they act on those impulses, then yes, I want to kill them to stop them. Since those people don't walk around wearing black hats and twirling mustaches I need to carry all the time instead of just listening for the sinister music to start.

Of course you're also completely right and practice at the range is not fun at all. Getting better and better at a skill gives people no satisfaction. Those people doing archery or fencing are the same, just practice to kill people, the blood thirsty savages.
2012-07-30 03:17:51 PM  
3 votes:

jayhawk88: "It wasn't really a political statement," Mapes says. "I just went to see a movie. But it's a political statement that one madman out of four-and-a-half-million people shouldn't be dictating to the rest of us that we should stay in our houses."

But you were so concerned for your safety, you thought you needed to openly brandish a firearm to go watch Neighborhood Watch.


It's not "brandishing". It's holstered.
Brandish: Wave or flourish (something, esp. a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.

If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.
2012-07-30 02:51:05 PM  
3 votes:
Yes you were, no you weren't, and no it wasn't.

Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.

I personally apologize for all CCW-holders on behalf of this man, and suggest that he be beaten about the neck and shoulders until he learns the value of reading his fecking permit. I would also not be opposed to his permit being revoked for a term no shorter than forever.
2012-07-30 04:51:51 PM  
2 votes:

justtray: I guess I'll have to bow to your intellectual supriority. You showed me. All I have on my side is a mountain of facts and logic. Pretty easy to refute with hyperbole and citations of gun on gun violence in convenience stores right? Not like I have aggregate stats of countries that banned guns and subsequent gun crime going to zero. Just totally ignore that. Or better yet, misrepresent it, because the facts all all on one side.

Sucks when you're on the wrong side of facts, I'm sure. That's why me telling you how your small penis gun carrying fantasies will never come true hurt so much. It's ok, you'll get over it. Life goes on regardless if you're a small penis coward who needs a gun to feel safe.


Hey, I finally found this guys Fark handle:
i939.photobucket.com
2012-07-30 04:26:51 PM  
2 votes:

ModernLuddite: Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?


Well I have a clitoris, I guess that's a tiny penis.
2012-07-30 04:17:42 PM  
2 votes:

joonyer: Gyrfalcon: When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

Are you saying that someone legally carrying a firearm is infringing on someone else's rights? How?


I didn't say that, now did I? What I said was, your "rights" have become more important than being halfway decent to other people. But if you must: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces? Why is legally carrying a firearm so goddamn important that it trumps other people's RIGHTS not to have it around?

Why is it so horribly wrong to consider other people once in a while? Because "I got my rights! F*ck you!" seems to be everyone's answer these days.
2012-07-30 03:26:57 PM  
2 votes:

Grimm2785: PsyLord: Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?

IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.

And you actually believed that wasn't set up from the start? Funny how the gunman seemed to know exactly where the armed student was every time. Sometimes even before the student went for his gun. Not to mention the part of the gunman was played by a trained police officer. The student was played by someone who seems to have no firearm training or experience at all. And on top of that, the way they had the student dress made it very difficult for them to get to their concealed weapon. And we cant forget about the college students that were hired to clean out a garage and find a gun in a drawer. I dont care if you've never handled a gun before in your entire life, no one stupid enough to try to determine if a gun is loaded by looking down the barrel without having some sort of mental retardation.


I wonder how the classrooms fared, that had NO "armed" students in them. Nightline did run that scenario where the gunman was unopposed, right?
2012-07-30 03:14:23 PM  
2 votes:
Charges won't end up being filed.

Why, you ask?

This:

FTFA:

"a Thornton ordinance targets individuals who display a dangerous weapon (the list even includes air guns and slingshots) "in a manner calculated to alarm another person." And there's no question that Mapes's presence at the theater wearing a gun in plain sight did just that."

So, his arrest was essentially for brandishing. Only problem, higher courts have repeatedly ruled that wearing a firearm in a holster is not brandishing. Sorry little town, no conviction for you.
2012-07-30 03:13:55 PM  
2 votes:

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


I'm not saying you did this but one of the main arguments I heard against open carry laws after the Aurora shooting was that other people with firearms in that theater wouldn't have done anything but cause more casualties in a crossfire with the d-bag shooter. Can anyone point me to a case where an armed citizen shot innocent bystanders while trying to stop an armed crook? I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.
2012-07-30 02:51:27 PM  
2 votes:
Okay, this moron wore a shirt with a slogan about Liberals on it that he 'just happened to throw on because it was convenient.'

He wore is gun out in the open which he has allegedly done 'many times in the past'

He goes to the theater often and has since it opened but was unaware it sold alcohol. (I recently moved to a new city, the first theater I went to sells alcohol in 3 places, all with BIG signs that say BAR IS OPEN. I can't image any theater with a bar would be any different. The concessions are where the money is, and alcohol and soda and pop corn are the biggest money makers I am sure.)

He also claims he wasn't making a political statement, but that he was just trying to prove that he isn't going to be scared in to staying home after Aurora. This idiot does not, I think, understand what making a political statement is.

Conclusion, this guy is either a terrible liar, or so stupid it is amazing he can walk and chew gum. I am going to assume he is a terrible liar, NO ONE is that stupid and lives to adulthood. Not even some with his poitical mentality.

/Went to see Dark Knight Rises this weekend. I didn't feel the need to strap a weapon on my hip to get out of the house. I did look around the theater a little bit more than usually, but I also arrived a bit later than usual and was one of the last in the viewing room.
2012-07-30 02:48:27 PM  
2 votes:

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool the guy who gets shot first.


FTFY
2012-07-30 02:41:20 PM  
2 votes:

iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home


Glad I live in a place where I don't feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe. I call it the real world.
2012-07-30 02:36:16 PM  
2 votes:
Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.
2012-07-31 09:52:16 AM  
1 votes:

IamAwake: Brubold: I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.

very, very weak strawman. It's rare for someone to be carrying, and extremely exceptionally rare for someone to open fire on a group of people. There are so exceptionally few times when the two things overlap/coincide, that it is irrelevant as a counter to any argument suggesting deaths would be fewer were there armed bystanders nearby. Add to the lack of overlap that the places where mass shootings take place tend to be places where it isn't legal to carry in most areas. Schools, churches, post offices...

Speaking of armed bystanders...try doing a google search for "armed bystander" and a few things do turn up. A girl saved in Athens, GA a few weeks ago, as an example. Just what was it you were using to do your search, praytell?


I'm not the one that was making the argument that more lives would have been lost had some of the audience members been armed. I saw the argument in a bunch of places after the shooting. I imagine some lefty gun control advocate on KOS or HuffPo wrote it and everyone was just parroting the argument after that. It could have been Maddow for all I know.

In any case, not one of the people making the argument has been able to provide even one example of it happening. That pretty clearly shows it's a BS argument.
2012-07-30 04:58:05 PM  
1 votes:

JesseL: 2. If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?


Ok, I'll bite.
CSB.
I worked security in a tittie bar in NM, back in the 70s. Not your ordinary tittie bar, mind you, this one was outside of the city limits. In fact, it was quite outside of the limits of civilization. The girls that worked there were the ones that worked in town. But this is where they worked while they healed up. Whether it be cold sores, pregnancy, broken bones, or worse. They still needed money and still got up on stage and peeled for cash. Only here, there were no rules. They could do things they couldn't get away with on stage in the city. Nothing wrong with a little ping pong ball canyoneering when the shooter has a shiner and visible scabs around the muzzle, but who am I to judge? I'm here to make sure no one gets hurt or killed. I am not waiting for the first customer to come through the door. No I show up when the place is getting filled up. When there are already 2 other guards who have been screening the arrivals. They check them at the door for weapons. I am assured by my boss the other guards are not allowed to bring firearms to this gig. It's a rough crowd, mostly bikers, and wet backs, but all of them are genuine scum. My job is to make sure we intervene in any one breaking the rules. Simple rules. No one comes in with a weapon. No one leaves with a drink. When I arrive, I'm on a chopper. It's a repo, I got on the military base, and no previous owner will be in the crowd. I park it where I can see it. On a concrete pad with spotlights on it just outside of the pool tables and I walk in. I go up to the bar and tell the bar tender to open the safe while I pull a very large 44 magnum out of my shoulder holster, drop the bullets in my shirt pocket and hand the bartender my empty piece to lock up in the safe. I go check on the boys at the door, and this huge ugly dude stops me and says, "Hey man, why did you lock your gun up"? And I say, "I'm not here to kill anyone, man". (I'm only wearing a baton) And I join the guys at the only entrance/ exit. If the bar tender catches my eye from anywhere in the bar, he can look to where I need to be next and I'm there. Never stuck a man one time working that gig, and always got tipped out good. Only time I drew the baton was when a guy absolutely would not put down a bottle of beer and wanted to leave. We tried every rick in the book, we even appealed to his machismo. Hey, man, we know you can finish that and drop the empty in the can before you leave. And he's goading my man on by the door. Telling him he's real tough with the stick and shiat. I'm standing behind the bottle dude, and I tell him "go Ahead, man. But we only pull these sticks when confronted with a guy that is holding a deadly weapon, but then, then, man, we just whip ass until there's nothing but a puddle. So he won't pull that stick until you show a deadly weapon, now put the bottle in the bin. He turns around and yells "FARK YOU, MAN" then turn to the other guard. So I pulled that stick and broke his little bottle and said, "Well, you see, now, man. Now...you're holding a deadly weapon" at which point three other guys came on over and grabbed him and made him drop the bottle before he got really embarrassed by having two rent - a - cops pound on him. His friends, presumably. Anyway. That was then.
You don't need a gun around drunks, unless you like shooting drunks.
End CSB.
2012-07-30 04:46:06 PM  
1 votes:

ddelorm: justtray: ddelorm: HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.

Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.

Nothing said in this post is true, or even remotely accurate. You should feel bad for saying this because it's sheer hypocrisy. You support nothing with facts, yet make pants on head stupid assertions like "no resistance."

if you really think "resistance" would have changed the outcome, or that no one was thinking about preventing deaths, you're simply a ...


As I have noted previously, justtray is a liar. He also advocates a totalitarian fascist police state; he believes that only law enforcement should be permitted any means of defense against aggressors.
2012-07-30 04:34:20 PM  
1 votes:

Grimm2785: Gyrfalcon: You know, there are things you CAN do, and things you SHOULD do. There are things you are legally allowed to do in public, things you can say without fear of repercussion, places you can go anytime you want. However, there are times and places you as a human being should voluntarily censor or restrict your rights, because it's the polite or socially expedient thing to do.

I mean, you CAN tell a small child dressed like a freak, "Hey, kid, you look like a freak!" but in the name of kindness, you should say "My, don't you look nice today!" You CAN drive through Compton with your windows down screaming "N*ggers back to Africa!" but you shouldn't expect to survive if you do. And by the same token, you can certainly own firearms and even have a CCW, but don't you think there are places you shouldn't take your gun even so?

When did we as a nation become a bunch of individuals walking around saying "I got my rights, f*ck yours!" Oh, right, nevermind.

I exercise my second amendment rights when i carry a firearm for self defense. What right of yours am i stepping on exactly?


You are infringing upon his right to infringe upon your rights.
2012-07-30 04:23:37 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Don't the other 100 people in that theater have a RIGHT to enjoy the film without an awful reminder of a tragedy barely a week ago being shoved in their faces?


No.

Whatever traumatic experiences you may have in your past, whatever phobias may haunt you; you have no right to force other people in public places to avoid whatever lawful behaviors may trigger unpleasant emotions for you.
2012-07-30 04:19:38 PM  
1 votes:
Tell me, when you go to get your CCW do they actually require that you show them your tiny penis, or do they just assume you have one?
2012-07-30 04:16:29 PM  
1 votes:

oakleym82


That being said, although I don't subscribe to the "carry everywhere" mantra (and there is good reason to do so, like needing your gun, not having it, and not realizing until after you've opened your mouth),


This is part of the problem: do not rely on the firearm to get you out of a situation after you shoot your mouth off.

Keep your damned word-hole shut and don't escalate the situation.
2012-07-30 04:16:19 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Never, in the history of mas shootings, has an armed civilian or intended victim altered the outcome of a mass shooting.

Never. Never. Never.

Got it?
Good.


Well, if the person intending to commit mass murder is shot and killed by on of their first intended targets, then it would never be considered a "mass murder" would it?


See, I don't think any reasonable person expects a movie-like situation where an armed citizen miraculously saves everyone with one perfect shot.

They key argument is the ability to resist, delay, or prevent the continuation of the violence.

All of these mass murders in the last decade or so all have one thing in common: lack of resistance.

Columbine, no resistance.
Virgina Tech: no resistance.
Auroroa: no resistance.

These all lead to large body counts. Just fighting back could slow a killer down. I remember a case where a high school kid jumped a school shooter and wrestled the gun from his hand. He resisted, and who knows how many he saved.

But as others have already pointed out, Charles Whitman was effectively stopped by citizens returning fire.

There have been MANY, MANY cases of swift, armed resistance cutting violence short, several of which have already been cited. I don't have the time to hunt down the exact cases right now, but I remember a kid with attempting a mall shooting running into an off duty cop who shot him, the female church security guard shooting a crazy guy in a parking lot, and a teacher stopping a school shooting when he ran to his car for his personal weapon.

So, yeah. You are actually, empirically, wrong.
2012-07-30 03:40:44 PM  
1 votes:

IamAwake: joonyer: If your life is threatened by a holstered pistol, then my life is threatened by a parked car.

That is a stupid statement. Absolutely stupid. Handguns were made for killin' - they ain't no good for nothin' else. Cars, on the other hand, are made for transporting. If you're doing anything other than killing a human being with a handgun (anything proper, at least) you are merely practicing so as to be more effective at killing a human with a handgun. Almost all cars, on the other hand, completely fulfill their purpose for their entire serviceable lifetimes, without ever killing someone.


Killing someone may be a perfectly legitimate activity.
2012-07-30 03:34:03 PM  
1 votes:

Brubold: I've not been given even one example of it happening and I would that that odds are that it's happened at some point. Apparently it's been so infrequently that there's nothing much to find though.


very, very weak strawman. It's rare for someone to be carrying, and extremely exceptionally rare for someone to open fire on a group of people. There are so exceptionally few times when the two things overlap/coincide, that it is irrelevant as a counter to any argument suggesting deaths would be fewer were there armed bystanders nearby. Add to the lack of overlap that the places where mass shootings take place tend to be places where it isn't legal to carry in most areas. Schools, churches, post offices...

Speaking of armed bystanders...try doing a google search for "armed bystander" and a few things do turn up. A girl saved in Athens, GA a few weeks ago, as an example. Just what was it you were using to do your search, praytell?
2012-07-30 03:26:56 PM  
1 votes:

jayhawk88: JesseL: No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.

So why should we give conceal/carry owners the benefit of the doubt and assume they'll needlessly escalate a situation, leading to a death, or themselves shoot an innocent?


Because people have a fundamental right to self defense and legal CCW holders have already gone out of their way to prove that they're not criminally inclined.

Legal carriers of concealed weapons have a lower rate of felony convictions than nearly any other group you might care to name - including police officers.
2012-07-30 03:26:42 PM  
1 votes:

Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.


If they are killed before they get the chance to mass murder, then they aren't mass murderers now are they?
2012-07-30 03:26:38 PM  
1 votes:

Rostin: A picture of a handgun with the univerisal "NOT ALLOWED" red cross through doesn't cut it as written notifcation.


Because in Texas, right and wrong don't matter, just the law. If it's not explicitly illegal and posted as such, it's legal.

/Texas logics is the bestest logics.
2012-07-30 03:16:29 PM  
1 votes:

JesseL: Farkin_Crazy: JesseL: www.fark.com/comments/7226694/-71-year-old-geezer-fights-off-pair-of -1 9-year-old-thugs-robbing-internet-cafe-With-video-baddasserywait-inter net-cafes-still-exist?

I was thinking more of mass murders instead of thieves.

Do you have one of these?:

[images.wikia.com image 690x535]

No? Then how the hell can you ever know what would have happened in any situation if circumstances had been different? I'm not going to give armed robbers the benefit of the doubt and assume that nobody would have been hurt if they hadn't been stopped.


I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation you linked, but unless I miss the mark as badly as you appear to, he appears to have been asking about conflict in progress. Y'know, bullets flying, blood seeping, people screaming, that sort of thing. And there are situations where that's happened too, so feel free to link those. They don't outnumber, either per incident, or per life the number of guys who've shot their child, grandmother, or wife while cleaning or unloading a gun, but an argument could be made that they exist as a deterrent. Because if we've learned anything, it's that crazy people who set out to shoot up a place are good at thinking logically. Hopefully they aren't too good at it, though, or Mr. Open-Carry Savior of Real Americans first indication of the situation will be the series finale of the Sopra
2012-07-30 03:14:33 PM  
1 votes:

PsyLord: IIRC, Nightline did a little simulation shortly after the VTech shooting where they gave a few students in a classroom a paint pellet gun and told them that someone was going to come in and start blasting. Even with the warning, the students ended up either not getting a shot off before being shot themselves or shooting innocent students that got in their line of sight.


which is amazing, because random students tend to have weapon training, and paintguns tend to be remarkably accurate (especially the cheaper, trying-to-make-a-point kind that were likely used).
2012-07-30 02:56:41 PM  
1 votes:

wmoonfox: Any CCW-holder who doesn't understand that it is both illegal and beyond stupid to carry a firearm, concealed or openly, into a bar or other establishment that serves alcohol, needs to be shot. They make us all look bad, and we don't need that crap right now.


1. Whether it's illegal depends on the state.
2. If it's legal and you're not drinking, why would you say it's stupid?

opencarry.org
2012-07-30 02:55:49 PM  
1 votes:

Farkin_Crazy: From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.

Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?


Thats kind of a hard thing to prove. I can point you to several stories where someone defended himself legally with a firearm. For example, that 71 year old man who fired on those two guys who tried to rob an internet cafe in florida. They came in waving a gun and a baseball bat and took off running when the other guy pulled his gun. Maybe those two were just going to use their weapons to intimidate the staff and customers into giving them what they wanted. Maybe they were planning on using their weapons to kill the staff and customers. We just don't know. And since i don't know what your intentions are, im not taking any chances. If you threaten my life with a weapon and im able to defend myself with mine, im sure as hell going to.
2012-07-30 02:48:19 PM  
1 votes:
From his own letter to the editor:

Just one concealed-weapon holder in a classroom where a random criminal attempts to shoot the occupants could and would reduce the casualties, as they would either take out the offender or at least distract them while others managed to get distance from the shooter.


Can someone point me to an instance where somebody packin' saved dozens of people by taking the shooter out?
2012-07-30 02:44:56 PM  
1 votes:

iheartscotch: You have to know your local ordinances; some places you can legally waive your gun around in public. I don't know why you would; but you can. Open carry is a tricky one; mostly because some conceal carry ordinances apply to open carry. Some places, the type of holster is regulated; it's all based on local ordinance. And, it's complicated as all hell

/ I'm glad I live in a place where it is quite legal to open carry just about anywhere.

// sometimes, though, it's best to listen to johnny cash and leave your guns at home


This is why i love living in Pennsylvania. Only the state has the power to pass laws about carrying a firearm. So basically anytime you have a local ordinance saying you cant carry there, you can ignore it. However, the rights of property owners are not something you can ignore. I conceal carry everywhere i go. If a business has a restriction on that, i simply go elsewhere. And as much as i like Johnny Cash, im afraid he and i are going to have to disagree on that point. When criminals start scheduling their illegal activity with me in advance, then i would agree i can sometimes leave my firearm at home. Until then, i reserve the right to protect myself.
2012-07-30 02:44:46 PM  
1 votes:

LandOfChocolate: Why bother with open carry? Unless you're in law enforcement, you look like a complete tool.


Concealment can be a pain in the ass. Depending on what you wear it can necessitate a smaller gun or different style holster. I like a full-sized pistol (easier to shoot accurately) and an outside-the-waistband holster, so my concealment with that rig usually depends on an untucked shirt.

It's not a big deal though, because open carry is ridiculously common around here - the only people who give it a second glance are tourists.
2012-07-30 02:39:58 PM  
1 votes:
August 11th, I believe.. Colorado's biggest gun show.
Myself and 3 other friends are going.. gonna get me a nice handgun.
2012-07-30 02:34:55 PM  
1 votes:
tough going through life as a scared little flower. poor thing.
2012-07-30 12:15:39 PM  
1 votes:
I've actually met that guy, and he's a pretty typical "AMURKA FUK YAH... COLD DEAD FINGERS" kind of redneck.

It's vaguely surprising he didn't know you're not allowed to carry into a place with alcohol. That's one of the questions on the CCW written.

Not that it matters; he won't have that CCW any more.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report