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.

(KATU)   A "concealed weapons" permit doesn't mean you can hide it under the seat in a movie theater   (katu.com) divider line 24
    More: Dumbass, concealed weapons  
•       •       •

5338 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Dec 2012 at 5:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-12-21 09:04:40 AM
3 votes:
TFA: "In a time of crisis like somebody barging into a mall or a theater, you don't have time to do a two-handed cocking of the weapon," Quackenbush said. "It is my mindset everywhere I go."

This man represents everything that is wrong with America.

The very idea (which is unfortunately widespread) that we need to be packing a concealed weapon at all times, as we go about our day-to-day lives, represents a rejection of the very idea of civil society. It is a philosophy in which other people are viewed not as fellow citizens, but as potential enemies.

If we need to be going around armed at all times for self-defense, then we have failed as a society, as a country, and as a civilization. If that is true, then we are a failed state.
2012-12-21 09:09:12 AM
2 votes:

frankenSTEEN: Just in case this turns into a gun rights/2nd Amendment thread...

Can any Fark lawyers explain to me the differnece between 'individual rights' versus 'the people's rights'? I've heard people make arguments based on the interpretation that the 2nd is a 'people's right' and NOT and individual right (i.e. it does not protect an individual's right to bear arms). What I don't get is : how a right can apply to the 'people' but not apply to the individuals that make up the 'people'?

Yeah, that's a serious question and not a troll, so please give a legit answer and not some snarktastic counter-troll. I'd appreciate it.


The problem with the second amendment is that it is an extremely vague, one sentence statement. Try to read this without a "progun" or "antigun" hat on, and tell me it isn't confusing:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's one relatively short sentence with four commas. The question is whether the amendment's purpose is to protect collective rights - the "well regulated militia" that is necessary to the security of a free "State" -- or whether the purpose of the amendment was to protect each individual citizen's right to own a firearm. It's important to remember that the bill of rights contains provisions to protect the states against federal power, as well as provisions protecting individuals. And at the time, the country was a collection of thirteen sovereign nations, each of which had its own standing militia. So some of the amendments seem silly when viewed by modern society - for example, the third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in homes, which simply isn't a problem in modern society. Today, nobody really cares about the militia part. But plenty of people want to read the second amendment in a way that (arguably) ignores the first half of the sentence.

But at the end of the day, the problem with the second amendment is that it's extremely vague. If you were writing an amendment regarding gun ownership today, what would it look like? Would you say "The right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Well, in that case, what does "arms" mean? Does an individual have the right to own a tank? a nuclear weapon? Or is it just limited to firearms? If it is limited to firearms, do citizens have the right to own .50 caliber machine guns? artillery? The problem is that (1) the second amendment is very short, and very vague, and (2) it doesn't make much sense in the context of modern society.

I am of the view that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve the rights of the states to have well-regulated militias, to ease the concerns of anti-federalists who were worried that the federal government may get too powerful by disbanding the militias and raising a standing army. Why do I think that? Because it is one sentence that immediately announces its purpose - preserving the right of the people to operate "well-regulated militias." A militia is "regulated" by the state, which expresses the will of its citizens. So in that sense, the word "people" as used in the amendment has the same as "we the people" in the preamble of the constitution - it refers to the "people" in the collective sense. The right of the "people" in the second amendment is referring to the citizens of the states (through their state governments).

But like I said, this is all up for debate. And the reason the second amendment can be interpreted in so many different ways


Throughout our nation's history, the second amendment has never been interpreted by the supreme court as granting an individual right - that is, until the Heller opinion. Before Heller, the Courts have Up to that point, the courts have always understood it as reserving rights to the states to operate well-regulated militias. The Bill of Rights has to be read in context.
2012-12-21 12:32:46 AM
2 votes:
Is that a .380? Seriously? Guy deserves to have his permit pulled. Talk about being irresponsible.
2012-12-21 10:49:17 AM
1 votes:

Free Radical: Solaris: We could play the "what if" game all day on an infinite number of possibilites or scenarios you can imagine. No situation is ever the same, it is dynamic and constantly changing.

Legitimate question in the vein of "What If?"

What if you see a patron with a gun tucked into his pants? Do you assume he has a license to carry the weapon?
Do you assume he is responsible? Do you assume he is there to protect everyone or kill everyone? Do you call the authorities?


If the weapon is visible, then it is not "concealed" therefore that patron is violating law/permit regulations. Having a permit doesn't matter now, they are not abiding by it. I assume that every weapon is a potential threat. And I would notify police.
2012-12-21 10:31:57 AM
1 votes:

computerguyUT: Whew, that was close. Who knows what kind of mayhem that killer gun may have committed on its own.


He left a loaded gun, with the safety off, in a theater full of children showing a family-friendly movie all day.

If you don't see how that situation could have ended very badly, you are willfully obtuse.
2012-12-21 10:27:26 AM
1 votes:
Whew, that was close. Who knows what kind of mayhem that killer gun may have committed on its own.

The guy is a freaking idiot.
The overreaction in the story is Just as stupid.

Cops leave guns laying around in public about 5 times a year...what? Crickets? Oh that's right, their guns are specially trained. That or cops are such crappy shots that it's not really a threat anyway.
2012-12-21 10:24:14 AM
1 votes:
2012-12-21 10:21:54 AM
1 votes:

Solaris: A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.


That's all well and good if it's you and three of your friends who went to the movie and are sitting together so you know where each other are and who you need to be communicating with (or if you're outside, hear shooting, and decide to move in as a group).  But what if it's you and three other people who are sitting separately, ignorant of the fact that each is prepared to respond, when Johnny Nutjob throws his smokebombs and starts shooting into the crowd?
2012-12-21 10:19:19 AM
1 votes:

Solaris: you have pee hands: Solaris: Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)

Let's say there's 4 of you in the theater all trained in active shooter response.  It's dark.  How do you be sure you're shooting at the original shooter and not each other?

[www.episd.org image 275x184]

A four person response team looks something like this. This is not the only pattern to do this, but notice the officers are close and will move together. Communicate, communicate, communicate.


Funny way to watch a movie.
2012-12-21 09:52:27 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: Just to be clear, you know you're in a thread defending the decisions of a man that left a loaded, ready-to-fire weapon in a movie theater, correct?


Sorry, who is defending the decisions of a CCW-holder who left his gun in a theater? The guy in the story's an idiot; he didn't keep track of his gun, which even from his own perspective kind of defeats the purpose of carrying.
2012-12-21 09:49:39 AM
1 votes:

Solaris: GanjSmokr: stevarooni: Chummer45: This seems appropriate:

It would be, yes, if the Aurora theater murders had been done by someone wearing body armor at all.

And if there had been an actual "machine gun" used...

Other than those two little details, Wonka's right.

Wonka doesn't know that I'm am trained in active shooter response, so yes, yes I could have done something. And I would have used a firearm to do it (gasp)


Clearly you are representative of the majority of the nation, the majority of CCW permit holders, and the majority of the American population as a whole.

Just to be clear, you know you're in a thread defending the decisions of a man that left a loaded, ready-to-fire weapon in a movie theater, correct?

I feel so much safer, knowing your ever-vigilant ass is out there just waiting to protect the shiat out of someone.
2012-12-21 09:31:04 AM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: lewismarktwo: So this happens all the time right? I'm sure it was only reported on this time because of the current 'guns guns guns!' fever.

It does. Or at least, it happens a hell of a lot more often than gun being used for any legitimate self-defense purpose.


Fun fact: those are stats on the firing of guns. Might seem like a quibble, but stats are not generally kept on how many people are chased off just by brandishing a firearm rather than shooting someone.
2012-12-21 09:14:05 AM
1 votes:

born_yesterday: Solaris: An unchambered firearm is a glorified paper weight, useless.

If the purpose of the firearm is for my protection or protecting the life of another, I'm going to need that weapon to function properly immediately, not after I load the magazine and pull the slide back to make it ready (while in an obvious critical situation if I'm needing to use deadly force)

Think a little more about why an officer keeps that weapon ready.

Accidental discharge, is more accurately negligent discharge. The weapon does not fire by accident.

Doc Daneeka: This man represents everything that is wrong with America.

The very idea (which is unfortunately widespread) that we need to be packing a concealed weapon at all times, as we go about our day-to-day lives, represents a rejection of the very idea of civil society. It is a philosophy in which other people are viewed not as fellow citizens, but as potential enemies.

If we need to be going around armed at all times for self-defense, then we have failed as a society, as a country, and as a civilization. If that is true, then we are a failed state.


I hope all those happy thoughts help maintain civility when someone threatens your life.

It's not a rejection of the idea of a civil society, but a recognition that in this society there are people who may try to disrupt my very existence.

My firearm rejects their attempt to disrupt my civility
2012-12-21 09:13:32 AM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: TFA: "In a time of crisis like somebody barging into a mall or a theater, you don't have time to do a two-handed cocking of the weapon," Quackenbush said. "It is my mindset everywhere I go."

This man represents everything that is wrong with America.

The very idea (which is unfortunately widespread) that we need to be packing a concealed weapon at all times, as we go about our day-to-day lives, represents a rejection of the very idea of civil society. It is a philosophy in which other people are viewed not as fellow citizens, but as potential enemies.

If we need to be going around armed at all times for self-defense, then we have failed as a society, as a country, and as a civilization. If that is true, then we are a failed state.



Exactly. I think the problem is that too many people nowadays live and breathe our entertainment culture, and have convinced themselves in their own minds that real life resembles an action movie or video game. So they sit there and daydream about what sort of bold action they'd take if a shooter or group of terrorists walked in. They fantasize that they'd take down the terrorist and be the big hero, just like in the movies. It's absurd, and completely divorced from reality.
2012-12-21 09:07:01 AM
1 votes:

Solaris: An unchambered firearm is a glorified paper weight, useless.

If the purpose of the firearm is for my protection or protecting the life of another, I'm going to need that weapon to function properly immediately, not after I load the magazine and pull the slide back to make it ready (while in an obvious critical situation if I'm needing to use deadly force)

Think a little more about why an officer keeps that weapon ready.

Accidental discharge, is more accurately negligent discharge. The weapon does not fire by accident.


Doc Daneeka: This man represents everything that is wrong with America.

The very idea (which is unfortunately widespread) that we need to be packing a concealed weapon at all times, as we go about our day-to-day lives, represents a rejection of the very idea of civil society. It is a philosophy in which other people are viewed not as fellow citizens, but as potential enemies.

If we need to be going around armed at all times for self-defense, then we have failed as a society, as a country, and as a civilization. If that is true, then we are a failed state.

2012-12-21 08:51:05 AM
1 votes:

Aces and Eights: Whole Wheat: Mitch Mitchell: fusillade762: A 7th-grade student found the weapon on Wednesday with a round in the chamber and the safety off.

Glad they pulled his CC license.  The guy is an idiot.

True that.

Other than having his CCW where he shouldn't have, and the safety off, I don't see what was wrong about having a round in the chamber. That is standard practice. The hammer (which is internal on most CCW pieces) can only be cocked by pulling the trigger.

The fact that he "forgot" his gun in a theater is reason enough, though. I guess you're right....

It might be standard practice for law enforcement, but grandpa has no business keeping a round in the chamber. It only takes a split second to chamber a round if it's needed. Keeping a round in the chamber increases exponentially the possibility of an accidental discharge.

And without the safety on, this was an accident waiting to happen.


An unchambered firearm is a glorified paper weight, useless.

If the purpose of the firearm is for my protection or protecting the life of another, I'm going to need that weapon to function properly immediately, not after I load the magazine and pull the slide back to make it ready (while in an obvious critical situation if I'm needing to use deadly force)

Think a little more about why an officer keeps that weapon ready.

Accidental discharge, is more accurately negligent discharge. The weapon does not fire by accident.
2012-12-21 08:43:25 AM
1 votes:

RickN99: Ghastly: FTFA:"In a time of crisis like somebody barging into a mall or a theater, you don't have time to do a two-handed cocking of the weapon," Quackenbush said. "It is my mindset everywhere I go."

If you're that freaking paranoid you are exactly the kind of person who should not be carrying a firearm... nor leaving your house.

Good point. What kind of paranoid whacko thinks someone might come into a theater looking to shoot people. That hasn't happened since, uh, Sunday?


Paranoid enough to carry a chambered round with the safety off? Sorry but that's all kinds of farking stupid. He's lucky he hasn't shot himself or someone else already.
2012-12-21 08:31:29 AM
1 votes:
www.imaginaryyear.coml
is not amused
2012-12-21 07:32:09 AM
1 votes:
I don't care about the round chambered and safety off, the gun isn't going to just fire on it's own, it's the complete lack of positive control of the weapon at all times. How in the f*ck do you leave it in a theater and not realize it till the next day? Not only that but why the f*ck did he unholster it???

Throw this f*cking idiot in jail and let the inmates teach him positive control.
2012-12-21 06:49:09 AM
1 votes:
As an owner of many weapons myself, including firearms, and that has lived in questionable neighborhoods throughout California for years, I can honestly say I've never felt the need to actually carry a weapon deadlier than a pocket knife (deadly only to whole apples! RAWR!) with me anywhere. If someone does feel that need, they need to woman up or move.

I can't stand irresponsible gun owners anyway. They make all of us look bad, and that's a shame. We don't deserve the bad rep the dipshiats give us by simple association of owning guns.
2012-12-21 06:42:47 AM
1 votes:
FTFA:"In a time of crisis like somebody barging into a mall or a theater, you don't have time to do a two-handed cocking of the weapon," Quackenbush said. "It is my mindset everywhere I go."

If you're that freaking paranoid you are exactly the kind of person who should not be carrying a firearm... nor leaving your house.
2012-12-21 05:55:17 AM
1 votes:
Just in case this turns into a gun rights/2nd Amendment thread...

Can any Fark lawyers explain to me the differnece between 'individual rights' versus 'the people's rights'? I've heard people make arguments based on the interpretation that the 2nd is a 'people's right' and NOT and individual right (i.e. it does not protect an individual's right to bear arms). What I don't get is : how a right can apply to the 'people' but not apply to the individuals that make up the 'people'?

Yeah, that's a serious question and not a troll, so please give a legit answer and not some snarktastic counter-troll. I'd appreciate it.
2012-12-21 05:54:21 AM
1 votes:
Jesus that guy got lucky. Two kids finding a weapon with a round in the chamber and the safety off could have gone soooooo much worse. What a moron.
2012-12-21 02:49:20 AM
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Is he a teacher?


Armed elementary school teachers are the true wave of our future safety. With their lengthy amount of firearms training and invariably innate steely-nerved and stoic actions, our problems here will soon be over.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report