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.

(Opposing Views)   Three men openly carrying their guns in a state that allows people to openly carry their guns get arrested for openly carrying their guns   (opposingviews.com) divider line 404
    More: Strange, Starbucks, disorderly conduct, semi-automatic rifle, rifles  
•       •       •

5429 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Sep 2013 at 8:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



404 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-03 07:01:32 PM  
I think it's mental being able to publicly carry any weapon. BUT, if it's legal, then hey. However, it seems it becomes illegal if even just one person, not even on the scene, complains? Well, there you have it. Those who are anti-gun just need to file a police complaint about every gun owner, and the police take away all the weapons. Now if only a group of people were to complain about gang-held guns, the country could be cleaned up in a week. Surprised no one has thought of that yet.
Go to work, people.
 
2013-09-03 07:11:02 PM  
They were arrested on PRIVATE property.

What happened to property rights? The owner of the property has a right to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service"...set a dress code..etc.

Sure it's legal. But smoking in your home is legal. try lighting up at the starbucks.

There's no freedom breached here. You can do what you want to on your land and your property. Not in a private property owner's property where you are asked to leave and get arrested.

What is it about teabaggers that confuse the constitution with ability to act like dicks on other people's property, website, theater etc?
 
2013-09-03 07:59:11 PM  
In Texas the sidewalk, including the sidewalk in front of a person's house, is considered public property.

I wonder if the disorderly conduct charge can apply to guns in a rifle rack in a truck.
 
2013-09-03 08:05:28 PM  
They were cited for disorderly conduct, they were not arrested for open carry. FFS.

They were not arrested at all.
 
2013-09-03 08:11:34 PM  
These guys are like freakin' Rosa Parks, man.  True patriots standing up righteously against the oppressive totalitarian gun-grabbers.

So, is this it?  Is it time for patriots to rise up?
 
2013-09-03 08:17:53 PM  
The law seems reasonable.  Texas's open carry regulation says that the weapons can't be held in a threatening manner, so if someone feels threatened and complains, the people carrying are violating the law.
 
2013-09-03 08:20:43 PM  
Obama!

This is infuriating!
 
2013-09-03 08:21:17 PM  

optikeye: They were arrested on PRIVATE property.

What happened to property rights? The owner of the property has a right to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service"...set a dress code..etc.

Sure it's legal. But smoking in your home is legal. try lighting up at the starbucks.

There's no freedom breached here. You can do what you want to on your land and your property. Not in a private property owner's property where you are asked to leave and get arrested.

What is it about teabaggers that confuse the constitution with ability to act like dicks on other people's property, website, theater etc?


They were told they couldn't open carry inside the building so they stayed outside.
 
2013-09-03 08:21:23 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: They were cited for disorderly conduct, they were not arrested for open carry. FFS.

They were not arrested at all.


Sorry facts aren't going to derail this gun thread.
 
2013-09-03 08:21:27 PM  
The lesson here: Doing something that's technically legal can be disorderly conduct if it's done with the intent to be a dick about it and/or on private property.
 
2013-09-03 08:23:57 PM  

colinspooky: I think it's mental being able to publicly carry any weapon. BUT, if it's legal, then hey. However, it seems it becomes illegal if even just one person, not even on the scene, complains? Well, there you have it. Those who are anti-gun just need to file a police complaint about every gun owner, and the police take away all the weapons. Now if only a group of people were to complain about gang-held guns, the country could be cleaned up in a week. Surprised no one has thought of that yet.
Go to work, people.


Nobody took away their weapons.
 
2013-09-03 08:25:04 PM  

optikeye: They were arrested on PRIVATE property.

What happened to property rights? The owner of the property has a right to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service"...set a dress code..etc.

Sure it's legal. But smoking in your home is legal. try lighting up at the starbucks.

There's no freedom breached here. You can do what you want to on your land and your property. Not in a private property owner's property where you are asked to leave and get arrested.

What is it about teabaggers that confuse the constitution with ability to act like dicks on other people's property, website, theater etc?


Starbuck's didn't file the complaint.  Starbucks asked them to sit outside, which they did.

What is it about gun control freaks that keeps them from reading articles?
 
2013-09-03 08:25:19 PM  

zimbach: The lesson here: Doing something that's technically legal can be disorderly conduct if it's done with the intent to be a dick about it and/or on private property.


While there is a lot of asshattery done in the name of gun rights this is a dumb law.
 
2013-09-03 08:25:48 PM  

zimbach: The lesson here: Doing something that's technically legal can be disorderly conduct if it's done with the intent to be a dick about it and/or on private property.


It seems to be the being a dick part they get confused about. If you say or do something stupid in public and somebody points out that it was stupid, your rights have not been violated.
 
2013-09-03 08:25:50 PM  
I still get a chuckle when people think they are free.
 
2013-09-03 08:26:46 PM  
I wonder if they told their kids that guns are not a toy before using them as political props.
 
2013-09-03 08:26:47 PM  
It's legal until a fellow citizen decides it is illegal? That's a pretty shiatty metric, Texas
 
2013-09-03 08:26:48 PM  
So drama queens go out to deliberately make a scene and have a hissy fit that they caused a scene.
 
2013-09-03 08:26:54 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: They were cited for disorderly conduct, they were not arrested for open carry. FFS.

They were not arrested at all.


Doesn't matter... they were harassed and interrogated for no reason.

Did you watch the video? They were cited after they refused to give the cop the serial numbers on their rifles. They said "why do you need to see the serial number?" the cops said "to see if they're stolen" they said "do you have reason to believe that these are stolen weapons?" Cop said "we don't have reason to believe they're not stolen... [turns to the other cop and says] okay, write these guys up"
 
2013-09-03 08:27:14 PM  

optikeye: They were arrested on PRIVATE property.

What happened to property rights? The owner of the property has a right to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service"...set a dress code..etc.

Sure it's legal. But smoking in your home is legal. try lighting up at the starbucks.

There's no freedom breached here. You can do what you want to on your land and your property. Not in a private property owner's property where you are asked to leave and get arrested.

What is it about teabaggers that confuse the constitution with ability to act like dicks on other people's property, website, theater etc?


They're idiots. I've blocked more people on FB for being gun nuts than for anything else because they show 1. a propensity to be unhinged when their arguments break down and 2. they have, or want to have guns. Don't need that mix in my life.

Also, on the article, having read it... good. You're right. No freedom breached. They didn't get arrested, fwiw. Someone who came to the scene felt it was not a good thing and said something. Good for them. They're doing the right thing. These guys at least had the maturity, according to the article, to accept the citation.
 
2013-09-03 08:27:27 PM  

full8me: I wonder if they told their kids that guns are not a toy before using them as political props.


I bet they even target shoot for fun.
Those hypocrites!
 
2013-09-03 08:27:37 PM  

minoridiot: In Texas the sidewalk, including the sidewalk in front of a person's house, is considered public property.


Public sidewalks are public property. They're maintained by the government for use by the public. These guys were sitting in front of Starbucks in an area maintained by Starbucks for the use of their patrons. Starbucks could have asked them to leave, but it looks like they didn't.

Three guys trying to get attention actually get attention and then complain about it. Some people are idiots.
 
2013-09-03 08:28:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: zimbach: The lesson here: Doing something that's technically legal can be disorderly conduct if it's done with the intent to be a dick about it and/or on private property.

While there is a lot of asshattery done in the name of gun rights this is a dumb law.


No it isn't. It means that people can't use carry laws to be bullies. Honestly, I'm surprised that TX had that kind of foresight, to be honest.
 
2013-09-03 08:29:29 PM  

skullkrusher: It's legal until a fellow citizen decides it is illegal? That's a pretty shiatty metric, Texas


Why do you like bullies?
 
2013-09-03 08:30:39 PM  

badhatharry: I still get a chuckle when people think they are free.


I still get a chuckle when idiots comment without reading the article, because boy do they look stupid.
 
2013-09-03 08:30:47 PM  
I don't even have to RTFA, the URL says it all. They went into a private establishment and got their stupid asses arrested because they think they get to carry a farking rifle into a Starbucks, right?
 
2013-09-03 08:32:37 PM  

Cyclometh: I don't even have to RTFA, the URL says it all. They went into a private establishment and got their stupid asses arrested because they think they get to carry a farking rifle into a Starbucks, right?


Wrong. The cop wanted to see the check the serial numbers on the guns to see if they were stolen, the men asked "do you have reason to believe they are stolen" the cop responded "we don't have reason to believe they are not stolen" and then they were cited for disorderly conduct.
 
2013-09-03 08:32:46 PM  

Cyclometh: I don't even have to RTFA, the URL says it all. They went into a private establishment and got their stupid asses arrested because they think they get to carry a farking rifle into a Starbucks, right?


Wrong
 
2013-09-03 08:32:47 PM  

shamanwest: Fart_Machine: zimbach: The lesson here: Doing something that's technically legal can be disorderly conduct if it's done with the intent to be a dick about it and/or on private property.

While there is a lot of asshattery done in the name of gun rights this is a dumb law.

No it isn't. It means that people can't use carry laws to be bullies. Honestly, I'm surprised that TX had that kind of foresight, to be honest.


I would prefer actual bullying be proven rather than just some person who feels uncomfortable that a gun is around.

If these guys were being swinging dicks then I'd say throw the book at them. But at least from the article they just kept their rifles slung the whole time. In an open-carry state.
 
2013-09-03 08:32:50 PM  
OK, went and RTFA. And even though they didn't go inside, they were trying to intimidate people, and got cited for it- properly.

Stupid assholes. You make it harder for ME to be a law-abiding gun owner with this crap. It's people like this that cause people to get behind bad laws.

Farking dumbasses. Jesus.
 
2013-09-03 08:33:10 PM  

CruiserTwelve: minoridiot: In Texas the sidewalk, including the sidewalk in front of a person's house, is considered public property.

Public sidewalks are public property. They're maintained by the government for use by the public. These guys were sitting in front of Starbucks in an area maintained by Starbucks for the use of their patrons. Starbucks could have asked them to leave, but it looks like they didn't.

Three guys trying to get attention actually get attention and then complain about it. Some people are idiots.


They weren't trying to just get attention in a vacuum. It wouldn't have been worth it if they hadn't also been able to complain about the attention. So mission accomplished, says them.
 
2013-09-03 08:33:31 PM  
the word "arrested" has a meaning, submitter
 
2013-09-03 08:34:32 PM  
They were obviously trolling. People who drink Starbucks coffee-themed milk and sugar drinks tend to be easily distressed.
 
2013-09-03 08:34:36 PM  
It's funny how the younger cop basically apologizes for the heavy-handedness of the older cop.
 
2013-09-03 08:35:37 PM  
What were they demonstrating, anyways?
 
2013-09-03 08:36:06 PM  

Aristocles: Obama!

This is infuriating!


Yeah, Texas is notorious for bending to the will of Obama.

Gun fetishists went to Starbucks looking for attention and got it.
 
2013-09-03 08:36:11 PM  

WippitGuud: What were they demonstrating, anyways?


Stupidity.
 
2013-09-03 08:36:58 PM  

WippitGuud: What were they demonstrating, anyways?


Anti-2A crowd was boycotting Starbucks because Starbucks is, apparently, pro-2A. These guys came out to show support for Starbucks.
 
2013-09-03 08:37:36 PM  

Cyclometh: WippitGuud: What were they demonstrating, anyways?

Stupidity.


Dingdingding!
 
2013-09-03 08:38:32 PM  

shamanwest: skullkrusher: It's legal until a fellow citizen decides it is illegal? That's a pretty shiatty metric, Texas

Why do you like bullies?


who's the bully?
 
2013-09-03 08:39:00 PM  

optikeye: They were arrested on PRIVATE property.

What happened to property rights? The owner of the property has a right to say "no shoes, no shirt, no service"...set a dress code..etc.

Sure it's legal. But smoking in your home is legal. try lighting up at the starbucks.

There's no freedom breached here. You can do what you want to on your land and your property. Not in a private property owner's property where you are asked to leave and get arrested.

What is it about teabaggers that confuse the constitution with ability to act like dicks on other people's property, website, theater etc?


Yea - since it Texas - Starbucks should also be allowed to not serve to the gheys.  Its all about property rights, eh?
 
2013-09-03 08:39:37 PM  

skullkrusher: shamanwest: skullkrusher: It's legal until a fellow citizen decides it is illegal? That's a pretty shiatty metric, Texas

Why do you like bullies?

who's the bully?


Ooo! Ooo! I know this answer....


Obama!
It's Obama, right?
Cause I've been told that he's a bully.
 
2013-09-03 08:39:48 PM  
thesignalinthenoise.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-03 08:40:28 PM  

gingerjet: Yea - since it Texas - Starbucks should also be allowed to not serve to the gheys.  Its all about property rights, eh?


So... No shirt, no shoes is discrimination?
 
2013-09-03 08:40:33 PM  
I'm fine with the cops responding and having a chat with them. The disorderly conduct just because somebody is uncomfortable is bullshiat though.
 
2013-09-03 08:42:08 PM  

shamanwest: They're idiots. I've blocked more people on FB for being gun nuts than for anything else because they show 1. a propensity to be unhinged when their arguments break down and 2. they have, or want to have guns. Don't need that mix in my life.


And exactly how many people have actually died for someone openly carrying a gun anyways?  I look forward to your thoughtful analysis backed up with real data.  But that's not going to happen.  You are just going to hide viewpoints that don't agree with your worldview.  Have fun with that.

/don't get people who freak out whenever they see a gun - how do you handle day to day life without breaking down?
 
2013-09-03 08:43:37 PM  

freak7: I'm fine with the cops responding and having a chat with them. The disorderly conduct just because somebody is uncomfortable is bullshiat though.


If somebody came to my establishment looking to "make a point" and be a dick about it, I'd take comfort knowing I have legal recourse.
 
2013-09-03 08:44:46 PM  

Aristocles: Cyclometh: I don't even have to RTFA, the URL says it all. They went into a private establishment and got their stupid asses arrested because they think they get to carry a farking rifle into a Starbucks, right?

Wrong. The cop wanted to see the check the serial numbers on the guns to see if they were stolen, the men asked "do you have reason to believe they are stolen" the cop responded "we don't have reason to believe they are not stolen" and then they were cited for disorderly conduct.


Lesson 1. Smart mouthing to cops almost never helps.
 
2013-09-03 08:44:59 PM  
To elaborate further on something I said earlier- this is why we can't have nice gun laws.

See, people think that whenever some asshole shoots up a school that we clamp down on gun rights and say "fark the Second Amendment". While there's some truth to that- when a bunch of kids die it tends to have an impact- the real truth is that it's assholes like the ones in this article that are the problem.

When someone DOES shoot up a school, you don't think to yourself "damn, that's a rare thing", even though it actually IS pretty damn rare. No, instead you think "OK, that's enough of THAT" because we're constantly exposed to low-level lunacy from these deviants who think it's a GOOD IDEA to just sit in front of a Starbucks with a rifle- to do what? Make a point?

If you do shiat like that, the only point you're getting across is that you're STUPID, and you are damaging the ability of those of us who aren't stupid to prevent actual intrusions onto Constitutional freedoms.

Responsible gun owners don't parade around in front of a public establishment carrying rifles. If they'd had pistols in holsters on their hips, and sent someone inside who wasn't carrying to bring their drinks out, nobody would care- it IS Texas. But no, you had to go in there with a goddamn long gun because you WANT people to notice that you're carrying a lethal weapon.

Bloody hell, people are stupid.
 
2013-09-03 08:45:16 PM  
If Chief McManus says he's comfortable with the charges, then I'm good with it.

//That's a Professional Law Enforcin' sumbiatch. Period.
 
Displayed 50 of 404 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report