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.

(The Raw Story)   Teenager in Aurora, Colorado trots around town carrying a shotgun, says he's free to do what he wants and to hell with everyone still concerned about the theater shooting; he has the Second Amendment on his side   (rawstory.com) divider line 1162
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15057 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-03 10:18:52 PM  
What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.
 
2014-08-03 10:37:24 PM  
Nuts Ruining America.
 
2014-08-03 10:42:23 PM  
He was actually trotting?
 
2014-08-03 11:42:08 PM  
"For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.
 
2014-08-03 11:43:08 PM  
Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification


According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.


Mission Accomplished!

/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'

Nice work, asshat.
 
2014-08-03 11:51:31 PM  
When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.
 
2014-08-03 11:52:09 PM  
Have you seen the kid? Tipping intensifies.
 
2014-08-03 11:57:38 PM  
Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.
 
2014-08-04 12:01:31 AM  
He should convert one hand to a chainsaw to complete the ensemble.
 
2014-08-04 12:09:33 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.



i253.photobucket.com

 
2014-08-04 12:13:40 AM  

Cewley: Nuts Ruining America.


Nutty Raving Assholes.

Why are they always so white and pasty??
 
2014-08-04 12:29:16 AM  
I love the part of the video at about 1:00 where he's pointing the thing directly at his own face for like 10 seconds.

Fat, ugly, no-doubt-virgin white trash high schooler looking for a sense of empowerment through guns.  Hopefully he can work through enough of his bitterness and self-hate by being a public asshat that he won't end up shooting up his school.
 
2014-08-04 12:32:40 AM  

Lorelle: Cewley: Nuts Ruining America.

Nutty Raving Assholes.


Naive retarded asshats.
 
2014-08-04 12:38:45 AM  
Insert token masturbation reference here.
 
2014-08-04 12:38:47 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-04 12:48:10 AM  

Yaw String: Insert token masturbation reference here.


Nut-Rubbing Anuses
 
2014-08-04 12:58:08 AM  

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.


This.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.
 
2014-08-04 01:01:59 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.
 
2014-08-04 01:17:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.


You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary
 
2014-08-04 01:24:49 AM  

zamboni: feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.

This.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.


Nothing wrong with making fun of him though, it is our right. I strongly support gun rights, but attention whores out and about with the longer guns in populated, developed areas deserve a wordy jab.
 
2014-08-04 01:33:40 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


When used simply as a means to see if someone is old enough to exercise such a right I don't have an issue with it.  There's no age limit on freedom of speech, there is on voting and bearing arms in public.

For voting you have to be 18 to even become registered to vote, so there's no need to show ID there.  Someone of any age could pick up a gun and carry it around though, so, no, I have no issue with the police asking for proof of age when someone may or may not be legally carrying.
 
2014-08-04 02:00:00 AM  
Didn't you guys watch the damn Lego Movie?
 
2014-08-04 02:19:41 AM  
We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.
 
2014-08-04 02:20:31 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech


Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.
 
2014-08-04 02:44:34 AM  

dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.


See also:

www.law.louisville.edu

Morse v. Frederick
 
2014-08-04 02:46:27 AM  

Mentat: We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.


Yep. Maybe they are just compensating or something. Anyway, that kid in TFA doesn't appear old enough to have hit puberty yet.
 
2014-08-04 03:07:02 AM  
Sorry kid but the gun doesn't make you look cooler.
You still look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
 
2014-08-04 03:13:09 AM  
i2.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-04 04:22:06 AM  
You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag. He's doing it to get a rise out of people that are still upset about a mass shooting. Negative attention is better than no attention.
 
2014-08-04 04:35:24 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.
 
2014-08-04 06:02:14 AM  
ok, this reporter needs to learn how to pronounce the word "records" in this context.
 
2014-08-04 06:05:13 AM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...
 
2014-08-04 06:08:45 AM  

fusillade762: dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:

[www.law.louisville.edu image 364x273]

Morse v. Frederick


That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue.  If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.
 
2014-08-04 06:09:01 AM  

MisterTweak: Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification


According to Lohner, who says he's been stopped multiple times and never had to show ID, he's on a mission to make people more comfortable about guns.

Mission Accomplished!

/for values of "accomplished" which include 'creeping people out and reinforcing the idea that gun owners rank somewhere between "registered sex offender" and "kettle drum designer" as neighbors.'

Nice work, asshat.


People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.
And then they'll find how much more difficult it is to get a concealed carry permit. And they wouldn't carry in violation of the laws, if they did change, would they? Because they're law-abiding, responsible gun owners.

Again, I grew up around guns, I am not pants-wetting terrified of being shot at all times... but if I saw a guy walking down the street with a shotgun in his hand, I'm not about to feel more comfortable around him, guns in an of themselves, or my neighborhood for that matter. Not that I live in a state where that's legal - but you get the point.  Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to - or even should.

I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats".  It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.
 
2014-08-04 06:14:11 AM  
beta.img.cbsnews.com
 
2014-08-04 06:14:54 AM  

serial_crusher: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 625x431]
Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...


"If enough people were to lawfully open carry in those areas and do it in a safe and lawful manner then these people would end up feeling comfortable around it," he explained.

Why is it that the people who are the loudest proponents of how safe open carry is, are actually the people who do so in the least safe manner?
Seriously, I've never seen an article on open carry protesters where they weren't hanging a rifle off their shoulder while flagging a few aisle at Target, or walking around with their fingers on the trigger, or this case, holding the weapon in such a way that dropping it could blow the front of his face off.

www.liveforfilms.com
 
2014-08-04 06:18:12 AM  
Gun thread?

stream1.gifsoup.com
 
2014-08-04 06:21:14 AM  

serpent_sky: I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.


On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things
 
2014-08-04 06:22:08 AM  

Karac: That limit isn't a function of age, but of venue. If a sixty year old teacher wanted to write something in that paper, or held up a sign at a high school football game, then their speech also could be legally regulated.


The school newspaper isn't much different from the resident's bulletin at a nursing home or the local church weekly bulletin. I could write and submit whatever I wanted, but the organization isn't required to publish it if it is not something they see as in the best interest of their residents. I suspect the speech issue gets more tricky if something is not sponsored by the school (or an organization or business) though they could easily enough make rules about what could be distributed on their property.  I remember in high school my then-boyfriend and I passed around some punk zines we made, and were told we could make whatever we wanted on our own time, but couldn't be leaving them around the school or putting them on the bulletin boards.  *shrug*  It was like attempting to educate rocks, anyway, so it didn't really harm our enterprise to hand them out at shows and record stores.
 
2014-08-04 06:22:09 AM  
This kid is so goddamn lucky he's white.
 
2014-08-04 06:22:26 AM  
I now believe that these protests are started with:
"Betcha I can make tha news."
 
2014-08-04 06:24:10 AM  
It's legal (and warm enough to be comfortable) for me to walk around naked where I live. I don't be I assume that the rest of the people around me don't want to see me naked. Walking around with a gun makes you an asshole, regardless of whether or not you have a legal right to.
 
2014-08-04 06:24:11 AM  

serial_crusher: ok, this reporter needs to learn how to pronounce the word "records" in this context.


With a rack like that, she could pronounce it any way she wants.
 
2014-08-04 06:25:29 AM  
Kid needs to find a girlfriend.
 
2014-08-04 06:25:56 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
 
2014-08-04 06:27:01 AM  
As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?
 
2014-08-04 06:27:57 AM  
Constitutional clusterfark.
 
2014-08-04 06:27:57 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


I was with you until "3" (and 1 and 2 were the same thing). After that, you got pretty much everything wrong. As usual.
 
2014-08-04 06:28:58 AM  
if you need to be 18 to do something legaly then you should be prepared to show your ID to prove you are, especially if you look younger than that.

The clerk at the grocery store or liquor store won't just take your word for it that you're 18/21 you have to prove it.
 
2014-08-04 06:30:13 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.
 
2014-08-04 06:31:57 AM  

August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?


No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!
 
2014-08-04 06:32:03 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


His fantasy was to stir people up and cause a confrontation where he was technically in the right, and it played out *exactly* as he intended.
 
2014-08-04 06:32:19 AM  

dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.


That's not based on age; that's based on the fact that the school (not the kids) publishes the paper. Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns the press, not the hirelings who write for them. College newspapers are operated under the same principle. You weren't censored; you were edited.
 
2014-08-04 06:33:15 AM  
Is he old enough to buy cigerettes?

What exactly is the penalty for under age cigerette buying?
 
2014-08-04 06:33:15 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Nice troll.
 
2014-08-04 06:34:09 AM  

MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!


Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.
 
2014-08-04 06:34:18 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

www.memelets.com
 
2014-08-04 06:35:37 AM  
zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

cdn.gunaxin.com
 
2014-08-04 06:36:06 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


The third is a trip to the post office.
 
2014-08-04 06:36:20 AM  

Czechzican: You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag. He's doing it to get a rise out of people that are still upset about a mass shooting. Negative attention is better than no attention.


Looks like he doesn't exercise at all.

/Listen fattie, drop the gun, drop 40 pounds, and pick up a guitar if you want to get laid.
 
2014-08-04 06:37:09 AM  

serial_crusher: [dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 625x431]
Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...


That is one dumb kid. Someone get him some gun safety lessons stat before he blows his fool head off.
 
2014-08-04 06:37:11 AM  
i.ytimg.com
Gimme a case of shells and a case of them Little Debbie snack cakes,
 
2014-08-04 06:37:54 AM  
That kid would be a lot better served by a couple if hours in the gym every week than by trotting a shiatgun around. Not that he's overweight- he just has that "I never move an inch further than necessary to survive" look, aka cardiac face.
 
2014-08-04 06:38:02 AM  

August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?


SSSHHut uuup! You're not supposed to let the nutjobs know liberals have guns too. Weren't you at the meeting last week?
 
2014-08-04 06:39:17 AM  

serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...


If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.
 
2014-08-04 06:39:47 AM  

FightDirector: On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high). In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status. I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


Yes, it probably would be good to put some sort of reasonable limitations on open carry laws. There is entirely a different thing between your example of the responsible person who has their shirt ride up, or a hunter, and these guys who wander the streets with large guns - intentionally drawing attention to themselves and their guns - enough so to make the news where open carry laws are the norm.

It seems to me that they are doing something wrong when they end up getting media attention for doing something that is legal. Let's see... while it's entirely legal for a single, grown man to sit on a bench at the playground all day - he's going to attract unwanted attention because it will make people uncomfortable.  Depending on his intentions, he may also go to the media and talk about his rights to creep out parents by staring at their kids while doing nothing technically wrong.  I could legally cross the street back and forth all day on the green light, but I suspect the people in the houses by that corner would be a little freaked out by the person crossing the street, back and forth, all day long and again, unwanted attention.  It's kind of the best thing I can come up with that goes along with these open carry fanatics who walk around with rifles, making sure people see them, the media is called, so on and so forth.

Also, I think part of the reason these things get national attention is just how different the laws are in every state. Any one of those guys came trotting down the street around here, and there would be just short of, if not, a SWAT team on them in minutes.  But seeing guns is not normal around here and it would absolutely panic everyone. I'd think in a state where seeing guns is normal, yet these people end up upsetting/frightening people, there has to be some sort of clause in the law that yes, they can carry, but perhaps... setting up conditions and perimeters of some sort? A gun on someone's belt in a coffee shop is really different from someone walking into the same shop with a rifle in their hands, moving it around, I guess, flaunting it? Making sure everyone is more than aware they have a large gun on them as opposed to simply exercising their right to carry a gun?  (And even I am somewhat uncomfortable with my own words here because I'm not sure how you flaunt doing something you have a legal right to do, but.... maybe it's more that these people have the intent of stirring the pot and upsetting people so they'll get this sort of attention as opposed to the person who bought a gun for personal protection and just has it on them, in compliance with the law? Though again, you can't legislate intent.)

Damn... it's just an all around hairy issue. Like I said, I see these people, more than anything, ultimately leading to the repeal or restriction of open carry laws because they're just too much trouble to deal with under the current laws.  A lot of fanatics/extremists in this country forget that laws and regulations can be changed, and their own behavior can be used against them when/if that happens.
 
2014-08-04 06:40:06 AM  

FightDirector: serpent_sky: I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


Georgia law already does that. You can't wander around with a shotgun, unless you're hunting (and you can get a ticket for doing it without a hunting license). Thank goodness, because suburban Atlanta is Ground Zero for some of your more virulent wingnuts; they'd be stomping around Wal-Mart and Chipotle with ARs on their backs in a heartbeat if they could.
 
2014-08-04 06:41:05 AM  
DYAC thinks "shotgun" is "shiatgun." I have weirder conversations than I was aware of.
 
2014-08-04 06:42:05 AM  

whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.


Homeboy there in the pic might be a hair safer with a gun, as it's likely he knows someone who got the business end of one.

Pasty McWobblecheeks will likely never encounter a similar situation, unless he starts shiat himself.
 
2014-08-04 06:42:24 AM  

balisane: That kid would be a lot better served by a couple if hours in the gym every week than by trotting a shiatgun around. Not that he's overweight- he just has that "I never move an inch further than necessary to survive" look, aka cardiac face.


The fark he isn't overweight. That kid's at least 30 pounds overweight; borderline obese. Man, Americans really have no idea what normal is supposed to look like any more.
 
2014-08-04 06:43:29 AM  

Mentat: We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.


Drew has been corrupted by the wankery-industrial complex.

Delay: Maybe they are just compensating or something.


Careful, you're coming close to violating Malarkey's Law, or something.

charlesmartel11235: [beta.img.cbsnews.com image 640x480]


He really does have a Ted Cruz-level of punchable face.

ScaryBottles: kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.
[www.memelets.com image 769x595]


Something something you have been banned from r/pyongyang.
 
2014-08-04 06:44:05 AM  

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


Competent firearm instructors will tell you the 4 rules of gun safety, and then point out something very important:

Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.
 
2014-08-04 06:47:14 AM  

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


You unload it and you sure as fark don't point it at anything you don't want to put a hole through.

/and the moment a gun is out of sight, assume it walked itself across the room and re-loaded.
//Fark Gun Safety 101
 
2014-08-04 06:49:22 AM  
These open carry guys are doing more to support new gun restrictions than any politician ever could.

And they don't even realize it.
 
2014-08-04 06:51:11 AM  
Darwin in a can and he has a shotgun to open it with. What a cocksucker.
 
2014-08-04 06:51:41 AM  
Realistically, the kid is merely showing the stupidity of the law.  Although I'm happy I don't live there with the little nutjob, he technically has broken no laws.

Of course, getting "accidentally" shot by his own weapon is the justice we are all looking for here.  Not enough to kill him, of course, but maybe taking a foot or hand off.
 
2014-08-04 06:52:22 AM  

LazyMedia: Georgia law already does that


Indeed.  However, other places do not.

serpent_sky: Damn... it's just an all around hairy issue. Like I said, I see these people, more than anything, ultimately leading to the repeal or restriction of open carry laws because they're just too much trouble to deal with under the current laws.


Yup, it's largely a matter of intent.  "Intent to walk around with a firearm in a safe, controlled, and nonthreatening** manner" should be legal, while "intent to attention whore with a gun" should not.   However, it's next to impossible to actually enforce or write legislation based on intent.  One can DO it...but it tends to simply become a de facto prohibition on even the legal facet of the activity.

A similar example is the ban of torrent programs on college campuses (utorrent, etc).  There's absolutely free, legal, torrent downloads out there (Microsoft released Mechwarrior 4:Mercs and all the expansions as a torrent a few years ago, for example), but because there's no way to tell the intent behind having that program installed on your computer, the whole thing ends up getting banned.


**I'm aware there are some people who consider being able to see a gun whatsoever as "threatening".  I remember having somebody in my apartment who saw a completely disassembled pistol on a table in an unocccupied side room and wanted to know if it was "going to suddenly go off".  Those people are stupid, and should be ignored.
 
2014-08-04 06:55:02 AM  

ghare: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

SSSHHut uuup! You're not supposed to let the nutjobs know liberals have guns too. Weren't you at the meeting last week?


My bad.
 
2014-08-04 06:55:04 AM  

LazyMedia: balisane: That kid would be a lot better served by a couple if hours in the gym every week than by trotting a shiatgun around. Not that he's overweight- he just has that "I never move an inch further than necessary to survive" look, aka cardiac face.

The fark he isn't overweight. That kid's at least 30 pounds overweight; borderline obese. Man, Americans really have no idea what normal is supposed to look like any more.


I basically don't make assumptions about someone's body composition until they've swanned around me in something form-fitting. Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment of his "gonna have congestive heart failure in 20 years" pre-edema face.
 
2014-08-04 06:55:58 AM  
Behold a future spittle flecked arsehole. Bet his hero is Ted Nugent.
 
2014-08-04 06:55:59 AM  
Guntard heroes are the classiest...

Have we hit peak gunpocalypse yet?
 
2014-08-04 06:56:22 AM  
Needing to show ID when buying alcohol if you look under 21? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying cigarettes if you look under 18? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying R-rated movie tickets if you look under 17? A-OK.
Needing to show ID when voting if you...well, I don't know what? Patriotically combatting voter fraud.

Needing to show ID when carrying a shotgun if you look under 18? HITLER!
 
KIA
2014-08-04 06:57:16 AM  

serpent_sky: Yes, it probably would be good to put some sort of reasonable limitations on open carry laws.


Well, how about we don't call it "limitations" since that runs smack into that whole "infringed" argument.  Counter-proposal: eliminate prohibitions against concealed carry and let Americans exercise their right to carry quietly and without terrorizing a bunch of soccer moms.
 
2014-08-04 06:57:57 AM  

FightDirector: **I'm aware there are some people who consider being able to see a gun whatsoever as "threatening". I remember having somebody in my apartment who saw a completely disassembled pistol on a table in an unocccupied side room and wanted to know if it was "going to suddenly go off". Those people are stupid, and should be ignored.


Transformers is real to them, damnit?
 
2014-08-04 06:58:10 AM  
Could they have got the kid on "brandishing"? Not sure if that delightfully vague charge is an option in Colorado....
 
2014-08-04 06:59:37 AM  
When asked to provide ID proving his age, Lohner refused to do so, while videotaping the encounter (seen below) on his phone.

Oh he's one of those assholes.
 
2014-08-04 07:01:53 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Could they have got the kid on "brandishing"? Not sure if that delightfully vague charge is an option in Colorado....


The easiest way to do it would be a disorderly conduct charge. The gun is merely tangential to the fact that the defendant was trying to cause a public disturbance and incite civil unrest. While his carrying a gun was not in and of itself unlawful, his behavior in attempting cause a disturbance was. Same deal as you have a right to free speech, but if cops find you screaming in an apartment complex late at night, they're gonna haul your ass to jail.
 
2014-08-04 07:03:35 AM  

Yaw String: Insert token masturbation reference here.


I'm just waiting for the firearm-to-penis size correlation drinking game to begin.
 
2014-08-04 07:04:05 AM  

whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.


I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.
 
2014-08-04 07:04:26 AM  

August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?


Yeah, we can be here... it's just impossible for us to post anything and expect any traction from it. Being the most sensible of the gun-owning segment of the USA, our rational thought doesn't have any opportunity to take hold before the weirdos chime in. Just have a look at Weeners by Trailltrader and the Boobies made by Dramboxf a dozen or so after it.

Now, I'm pretty sure based on his profile that Trailltrader is a troll. I mean, he's weighing in on the discussion before there is any discussion taking place, and he doesn't even have the details correct. On the other hand, that's pretty much exactly how the NRA works: they don't understand the 2nd Amendment, and they love to argue and debate things that don't need to be argued and debated.

Dramboxf, on the other hand, apparently just invents narratives to prove unimportant points. Really... his dad hired a "first amendment attorney" to discuss why the student newspaper wouldn't publish his opinion poll about sex. *big farking roll-eyes.*  Riiiiight. His girlfriend in Canada was super-supportive of it too. ANyhow, that type of story is great because on the 0.00001% chance that it is actually true, it shows how he was raised to believe that normal expectations of people living in society were to be interpreted as affronts to god-given rights.
 
2014-08-04 07:06:14 AM  
Christ, what an asshole.
 
2014-08-04 07:06:33 AM  
Lorelle:  Why are they always so white and pasty??

Because some basements are not equipped with sun lamps and tanning beds.
 
2014-08-04 07:07:13 AM  

Lorelle: Yaw String: Insert token masturbation reference here.

Nut-Rubbing Anuses


Yes, you've made it clear what you're obsessed with, but what does that have to do with the article?
 
2014-08-04 07:10:32 AM  

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.


As the jerk looked under 18, the police did have a reasonable suspicion that he was breaking the law by carrying a firearm while underage.  Given that reasonable suspicion, the law allows them to ask for identification so they can determine if a law is being broken.

The law applies to everyone, even attention whoring dickless gun-nuts, and if you don't want to be asked to show your ID, don't walk around town waving a shotgun.  Also, don't try to buy booze, porn, cigarettes, or lottery tickets.
 
2014-08-04 07:11:14 AM  

serial_crusher: ok, this reporter needs to learn how to pronounce the word "records" in this context.


+1.

I had to listen to it twice just to make sure my ears were not deceiving me!
 
2014-08-04 07:11:36 AM  
He has the right to do this, yes, but if your primary motivation for doing something is "I have a right to do this," you're probably an asshole.
 
2014-08-04 07:11:51 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


And the third one was 'going to a movie theater'?

/ *Among* the reasons for leaving the house without a gun, we count...
 
2014-08-04 07:12:22 AM  
I'm sorry to bother you, but is that an optical sight on a shotgun? It's hard to tell on a handheld screen.
 
2014-08-04 07:13:13 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


It appears that he has a reflex sight mounted on the shotgun, so of course he is not going to hit anyone but his target!

/sarcasm
 
2014-08-04 07:13:25 AM  
These douchenozzles would do their cause much better service by inviting a friend who never held a gun to the range. Parading around visibly armed while claiming it's so he could defend himself and others from some vaporous "enemy" smacks of dumbass comic book heroics.

Was he walking around some dodgy neighborhood escorting fair maidens home from a kegger?
 
2014-08-04 07:13:29 AM  
I look forward to this kid's blog and will keep a close eye for links through American Thinker and Breitbart.
 
2014-08-04 07:13:56 AM  

FightDirector: Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.


So, educate me a little here:  Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign?  We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

Or is the constant cleaning and tinkering and fondling part of the attraction in the first place?
 
2014-08-04 07:15:48 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 327x283]


Just let it happen...
 
2014-08-04 07:16:33 AM  

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.


If you are under the age of 18 you are not allowed to open carry a firearm, and if the police believe that this person is under the age of 18 then they believe he is breaking the law, therefore they have the right to stop and ask for his ID.
 
2014-08-04 07:18:10 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Police officer:  "Your honor, the defendant looked like he was 16 years old."

Case closed.
 
2014-08-04 07:18:15 AM  
Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun. Yes, lots of people have guns in the US. It is what it is. Lots of them carry them too, you just don't know it. Shut up, put on your big boy pants, and stop wasting emergency services' time with this shiat. You are NOT helping prevent a crime.

Also the police are being jackasses here. They were looking for a reason to arrest the guy, though they knew they didn't have one. The "Oh he wouldn't give us his ID," it bogus as they know you needn't carry ID when you are walking around. They didn't like what he was doing so they were going to find some reason to arrest him.

Everyone involved needs to go, settle the fark down, and stop being an asshat.

I really am getting tired of the "open carry" asshats though. Just stop it retards. It doesn't make you look tough, it makes you look stupid.
 
2014-08-04 07:18:22 AM  
Am I supposed to be able to mind-read the intention of anyone open-carrying a weapon?

Someone walks into a restaurant with a shotgun or a rifle, am I to assume he poses no danger to me? If I freeze up and don't react while analyzing all what-ifs, I could be injured if I make the wrong choice and turns out it's actually a bad guy trying to rob the place.
 
2014-08-04 07:18:27 AM  
If you believe that:

* a black guy walking down the street minding his own business is fair game for stop and frisk because he "might" be packing heat, but
* a white guy openly toting a shotgun in public must be left alone,

then you might be a wingnut.
 
2014-08-04 07:18:28 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


Well carrying a more precise weapon, say, perhaps something with a matte black finish, pistol grip, and optics of some kind, tends to alarm people.
 
2014-08-04 07:20:05 AM  

fusillade762: dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:

[www.law.louisville.edu image 364x273]

Morse v. Frederick


See also Tinker v. DesMoines.   The Supreme Court ruled that free speech can be censored in public schools if said free speech interferes with maintaining school discipline.
 
2014-08-04 07:20:32 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: WHITE.


Which is the only reason that he wasn't either detained, or some other "honest citizen" didn't "stand their ground" against him.
 
2014-08-04 07:20:37 AM  

Rhaab: Christ, what an asshole.


Even lots of pro-gun folks think Open Carry assholes are assholes because they're bright enough to realize it's hurting their own cause. NOBODY is coming away with a more positive view of guns after interacting with that pasty sack of asshole-flavored walrus blubber.

As someone who is in favor of more firearms regulation, this shiat is great. If you're an asshole gun owner who's gonna turn the public towards gun regulation, by all means; parade up and down sites where shooting sprees occurred while holding a shotgun, loudly braying about how what you're doing is legal. Please; try your best to upset and terrify as many people as possible.
 
2014-08-04 07:21:40 AM  
I don't need you to defend me, fat boy.
 
2014-08-04 07:22:00 AM  

Czechzican: You know this kid isn't doing it to exercise his whatever ammendment right. He is just doing to to be a little snot-rag


I fail to see the difference.
 
2014-08-04 07:22:31 AM  

dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.


While I agree with your sentiment, the example is off.  The school will censor the article, even if the school student who wrote it is over 18.
 
2014-08-04 07:22:37 AM  
Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to protest. Completely legal, and it is a very important right, one the country was founded upon.

Why is this bad? If he were protesting some stupid liberal cause for no reason, actually committing crimes in the process, you guys would champion him. This is silly.
 
2014-08-04 07:23:02 AM  
Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


Investigating what? No crime was committed and he's within his rights, move along, pig.
 
2014-08-04 07:23:03 AM  

dookdookdook: So, educate me a little here:  Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign?  We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

Or is the constant cleaning and tinkering and fondling part of the attraction in the first place?


Just wondering if you've ever owned a car, or any other mechanical device for that matter. If you have, you should be aware that all mechanical devices need maintenance. Your car is no exception, and guns are no exception. The usual purpose of disassembling a gun is to clean it and to oil it. Any time you have metal against metal, oil is a good idea. You might note your car has an oil pan for just that reason, and it needs to be periodically changed, along with its filter.

If you are seriously interested about how guns work or why they are how they are, then there are plenty of resources you can look up. If you are just spouting off without thinking, then just be aware that doesn't make your position look like a reasoned one.
 
2014-08-04 07:23:12 AM  

70Ford: [i.ytimg.com image 480x360]
Gimme a case of shells and a case of them Little Debbie snack cakes,


Somehow these guys always look like that. Just needs a fedora to be extra douchy.
 
2014-08-04 07:23:50 AM  
By the way, used to ride my bike through town to go hunting when I was in 5th grade, with a shotgun or a .22 across the handlebars. Not a single eyebrow was raised. The horrors.....
 
2014-08-04 07:25:47 AM  

Gunther: Rhaab: Christ, what an asshole.

Even lots of pro-gun folks think Open Carry assholes are assholes because they're bright enough to realize it's hurting their own cause. NOBODY is coming away with a more positive view of guns after interacting with that pasty sack of asshole-flavored walrus blubber.


+1.  Yarp.  We do.  And what makes it worse is that so many of them are technically right.  But, just because you can exercise right does not always mean that you have to.  Besides, the whole carrying a slung rifle or shotgun over your back is farking stupid in regards to personal protection.  Sure, if you have ample time you can unsling it, but if not then it is pretty much useless strapped to your back.
 
2014-08-04 07:26:55 AM  

KIA: serpent_sky: Yes, it probably would be good to put some sort of reasonable limitations on open carry laws.

Well, how about we don't call it "limitations" since that runs smack into that whole "infringed" argument.  Counter-proposal: eliminate prohibitions against concealed carry and let Americans exercise their right to carry quietly and without terrorizing a bunch of soccer moms.


Concealed carry is, in and of itself, a limitation, if you want to be technical, but it is at least a logical one, since odds are, a law-abiding citizen who is carrying a concealed weapon is unlikely to use it, and we're unlikely to ever see it or know it is there.  I see nothing wrong with that, but I am of the mind that so long as someone isn't actually doing anything that affects me, I really don't care what they are doing.

I'm far, far, FAR from a soccer mom, but if someone walked into the grocery store with a rifle, I am getting the fark out of there as quickly as possible, and I am pretty sure we just found the bottom limit for me calling the police (who I also don't trust) once I am a safe distance away from it.  Again, I've lived in NY or CT my whole life. Nobody would walk into a store with a gun in their hands or on their back unless they were intending to (a) rob the place, (b) kill someone in there, or (c) they were a total lunatic trying to scare the hell out of people - which they would.

I'm not entirely sure why we, as a culture, should be desensitized to potentially dangerous weapons as to be comfortable with people walking everywhere openly showing them. This isn't Game of Thrones; we don't all need our weapons at hand at all times.  (I am actually a fan of swords and knives; can I just put a sword on my belt and wander these towns? Have a few knives clipped on the outside of my bag?)
 
2014-08-04 07:28:35 AM  

Thunderpipes: Seems like a perfectly reasonable way to protest. Completely legal, and it is a very important right, one the country was founded upon.


Right... because TERRORISMS! AND TEH ALIANS! and things...

The important question is, when it comes to heroically parading around town with loaded weapons, how much is too much?

Trick question... There is no too much!
 
2014-08-04 07:29:36 AM  
Insecure fatty masks insecurities with a gun and a phony cause. A tale as old as time.
 
2014-08-04 07:30:16 AM  
If you feel threatened by this semi-retarded little fatso and his shotgun, are you allowed to shoot him?
If no, why not?

/feeling a bit cranky today
 
2014-08-04 07:31:19 AM  
Apple cheeked Steve Lohner seems to be the embodiment of all that is wrong with American gun culture.
Bonus: refusal to obey /arguing with authority when asked a simple question in an area known to be affected by crime. I've been assured here on Fark that this a valid reason for cops to beat/shoot/taser/strangle/bodyslam random unarmed random folks.
 
2014-08-04 07:32:18 AM  

LazyMedia: MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!

Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.


Dicks about guns, or dicks about being liberal?
 
2014-08-04 07:32:23 AM  

CRtwenty: These open carry guys are doing more to support new gun restrictions than any politician ever could.

And they don't even realize it.


I'm going to don my tinfoil hat and cleave to the idea that these so-called "open carry nuts" taking long guns into public venues to exercise their 2nd amendment rights are really undercover operatives for gun-grabbing libs running false-flag operations to promote public support for the restriction of gun rights.

I mean, they can't *really* be what they say they are.  They can't *really* think that they are helping.
 
2014-08-04 07:32:41 AM  

Bslim: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


Investigating what? No crime was committed and he's within his rights, move along, pig.


Until they investigate, it's not clear that no crime was committed... I mean, how is the cop to know the kid is 18 if the kid refuses to identify himself?
 
pla
2014-08-04 07:32:42 AM  
serpent_sky : People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.

Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.


MagSeven : show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle

You can effectively hunt deer with a slug out to around 50 yards. No, not as accurate as a rifle, but then, you wouldn't use a rifle for self defense, either! And, I'll let you in on a little secret - That legendary "spread" of pellets doesn't become the size of an SUV within just a few feet - More like 12-18in at 25 yards.  For comparison, you'd consider it a great day to pull off a 12in cluster at 25 yards from a carry-style (short barreled) pistol.
 
2014-08-04 07:33:29 AM  

serpent_sky: Also, I think part of the reason these things get national attention is just how different the laws are in every state. Any one of those guys came trotting down the street around here, and there would be just short of, if not, a SWAT team on them in minutes.  But seeing guns is not normal around here and it would absolutely panic everyone.


I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety.  I could certainly see someone being in fear for their life and shooting baby Huey because, you know, he's walking around town pimping a farking shotgun a few days after a mass shooting.

www.quickmeme.com

/oh wait he's white nevermind
 
2014-08-04 07:34:44 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


The same should apply to Hispanic looking individuals in border states and minority voters too.  Or is that "different"?
 
2014-08-04 07:34:51 AM  
Too bad self-righteousness isn't a felony, that would get a lot of loons off the street.
 
2014-08-04 07:36:21 AM  

PreMortem: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


I'm quite sure that he, and all the other stalwarts who think they are defending the second amendment here, wouldn't be in the least pertrurbed if these fellows were exercising their rights out in front of their kid's school.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-04 07:37:20 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Realistically, the kid is merely showing the stupidity of the law.  Although I'm happy I don't live there with the little nutjob, he technically has broken no laws.

Of course, getting "accidentally" shot by his own weapon is the justice we are all looking for here.  Not enough to kill him, of course, but maybe taking a foot or hand off.


Why do you think it would be justice for him to lose a foot or a hand? What has he actually done to deserve that? Simply acting asinine is not a reason to wish violence like that on someone. Hopefully the judge can explain a few things to him.

Banning open carry isn't going to stop mass murders by crazy people.
 
2014-08-04 07:37:31 AM  

dstrick44: Apple cheeked Steve Lohner seems to be the embodiment of all that is wrong with American gun culture.
Bonus: refusal to obey /arguing with authority when asked a simple question in an area known to be affected by crime. I've been assured here on Fark that this a valid reason for cops to beat/shoot/taser/strangle/bodyslam random unarmed random folks.


Not random WHITE folks, you fool!
 
2014-08-04 07:38:02 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


You went to school?

/Kidding
 
2014-08-04 07:38:48 AM  

Gunther: Even lots of pro-gun folks think Open Carry assholes are assholes because they're bright enough to realize it's hurting their own cause. NOBODY is coming away with a more positive view of guns after interacting with that pasty sack of asshole-flavored walrus blubber.

As someone who is in favor of more firearms regulation, this shiat is great. If you're an asshole gun owner who's gonna turn the public towards gun regulation, by all means; parade up and down sites where shooting sprees occurred while holding a shotgun, loudly braying about how what you're doing is legal. Please; try your best to upset and terrify as many people as possible.


Exactly my point; these people are not making people comfortable with firearms; they're not say, setting up a public display that shows people how guns work, how to safely handle them, so on and so forth. A true activist would do something like that; they'd be interested in educating people about the right to bear arms, educating people as to the proper way to carry, store, clean, and handle a gun. Instead, these specific flavors of wingnuts wander the streets yelling "MAH RIGHTS!" while appearing menacing and frightening to the average person because they're not actually interested in defending their rights, nor are they interested in educating anyone about firearms. They want to look like badasses and scream about guns.

I also can't help but find an 18-year-old who is terribly concerned about his Constitutional right to bear arms a wee bit disingenuous. Try to remember being 18.... what did you care about more than really, dating, partying, going off on your own (college, whatever) and developing your identity?  I can't help but think this kid is a bit touched, and really wouldn't be surprised if he ended up shooting some people sooner than later - either by accident (MAH RIGHTS, again) or because he's just one of those special ones we end up with from time to time.  And if my impression of him is incorrect, well, he only has himself to blame for that, no?
 
2014-08-04 07:38:52 AM  

pla: We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again.


You're nostalgic for a time that never existed.
 
2014-08-04 07:39:06 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


I bet that shiat would go out the window as soon as a black, Arab , or Latino decided to do the exact thing.
 
2014-08-04 07:40:18 AM  

sycraft: Just wondering if you've ever owned a car, or any other mechanical device for that matter. If you have, you should be aware that all mechanical devices need maintenance. Your car is no exception, and guns are no exception. The usual purpose of disassembling a gun is to clean it and to oil it. Any time you have metal against metal, oil is a good idea. You might note your car has an oil pan for just that reason, and it needs to be periodically changed, along with its filter.


An oil change happens a few times a year, and carries next to zero risk of serious bodily injury if you have even the remotest idea what you're doing.  OTOH guns are infinitely less complicated mechanically and on a whole have much less raw death potential than a car, yet they still need to be constantly cleaned and adjusted, and will absolutely fark your shiat up if you commit one tiny brain fart.
 
2014-08-04 07:40:52 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: LazyMedia: MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!

Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.

Dicks about guns, or dicks about being liberal?


Both.

When I carry, people don't know I am carrying.  I am not scared of the government or guns, but I am wary around those who get "big man syndrome" like Mr. Fat Cheeks in this article.  I question their view of what guns are "for" and feel that they are the type that use guns to settle a dispute they are on the losing end of, and stuff like that.
 
2014-08-04 07:41:12 AM  

dookdookdook: FightDirector: Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.

So, educate me a little here:  Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign?  We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

Or is the constant cleaning and tinkering and fondling part of the attraction in the first place?


You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

Clearer?
 
2014-08-04 07:43:06 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Now replace "carrying a gun" with "voting while brown" and oh what a difference.
 
2014-08-04 07:43:20 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


If I have the long barrel and a decent choke on mine, it is pretty damn precise.
If I have the rifled barrel for shooting slugs it's pretty damn precise too

I wouldn't want to count on my precision if I had it set up for skeet shooting but at that point I'm firing 7.5 or 8 shot and the range isn't great anyway.

/Savage 320
//yes the other skeet guys give me a hard time
 
2014-08-04 07:44:40 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

I bet that shiat would go out the window as soon as a black, Arab , or Latino decided to do the exact thing.


It was ok in this situation to shoot and kill a 13 year old walking down the street with a pellet gun
 
2014-08-04 07:45:22 AM  

Avery614: /oh wait he's white nevermind


Ehhhh... that argument falls apart when you look at the photos of all the mass shooters in recent years. As a bonus, add in the average serial killer's profile, and it's almost always a white male. If you were going to place a bet on either, "white male" would always be the safest.
 
2014-08-04 07:46:51 AM  

Avery614: I thought in some states, it was completely legal to shoot someone you felt was threatening your life and safety


That's actually true in most states.  Many people consider that unacceptable.  It's also worth nothing that the alternative is "you can't shoot until they've started shooting at you".  That should also be unacceptable, for obvious reasons.

dookdookdook: So, educate me a little here: Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign? We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?


I'll take the question as legitimate, rather than responding to the (troll) tone.

Modern firearms are actually made to be fairly difficult to set off.  That is, they're next to impossible to set off if you do anything but pull the trigger.  Drop them, hammer them, put it on a chain and drag it behind a truck, hand it to the Mythbusters...whatever.  Unless you actually pull the trigger, the odds of a properly-maintained firearm manufactured in the last 30 years "just going off", is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.

The flip side to that is, when you need to pull the trigger, gun manufacturers and gun owners want there to be as little *stuff* interfering with that process as possible.  Each *thing* between your decision to pull the trigger and the time the gun goes "bang" is a potential failure step, and if you're in a position where you actually do need to pull the trigger, a failure is a life-threatening thing.

So, essentially, gun manufacturers assume that the person holding the weapon is rational and competent enough to not put their booger hook on the bang switch without good cause.  If you put it there, and pull, then the gun not go bang.  Almost every "accidental shooting" ever is the result of somebody ignoring that fact, be it soldier, cop, or private citizen.  The failure is the person, not the machine.

Now, the reason the trigger pull is part of the takedown process on a Glock (and several other guns) is a desire to reduce weight (carrying a gun all day gets surprisingly heavy) and to reduce the number of switches and so forth sticking out of the gun (each of which represents a failure point and a thing to catch on clothing or a holster).  Plenty of other guns have takedown latches - but they all made the choice during design to accept the possibility of those failures.  Glock assumed that the owner would be competent enough to triple-check the firearm before taking it apart from regular maintenance so as to avoid an accidental discharge (and in so doing saved the weight and failure chance).
 
2014-08-04 07:47:21 AM  

PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.


The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.
 
2014-08-04 07:50:48 AM  

Rattlehead: Kid needs to find a girlfriend.


In his mind, that's exactly what he's doing with this. And, for certain values of "girlfriend," the attention he's gotten for this may actually be enough for him to pull it off.

Let's all tip our fedoras in respect to a game well played.
 
2014-08-04 07:51:51 AM  
Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

I thought the police could hold you for 24 hours to determine your identity if you refused to present proper identification during an investigation. And all police stops are investigations.
 
2014-08-04 07:51:52 AM  
Kid looks like:
mlpchan.net

/m'lady
 
2014-08-04 07:53:05 AM  

kim jong-un: Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Actually in video games the slug shotgun is one of the most powerful weapon in the CoD series. One hit kills each time and you have crazy range.  If the shotgun isn't rifled then it is not as accurate as any other firearm.
 
2014-08-04 07:53:33 AM  
You know who else walked around Aurora with a gun?
 
2014-08-04 07:53:36 AM  
Desensitized != Comfortable
 
2014-08-04 07:54:02 AM  

serpent_sky: Ehhhh... that argument falls apart when you look at the photos of all the mass shooters in recent years. As a bonus, add in the average serial killer's profile, and it's almost always a white male. If you were going to place a bet on either, "white male" would always be the safest.


......I was trying to imply something like; It's not often that a white person is mistakenly shot for seeming to be threatening.  For those not white however.....
 
2014-08-04 07:54:06 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


Go on...
 
2014-08-04 07:54:07 AM  

FightDirector: Now, the reason the trigger pull is part of the takedown process on a Glock (and several other guns) is a desire to reduce weight (carrying a gun all day gets surprisingly heavy) and to reduce the number of switches and so forth sticking out of the gun (each of which represents a failure point and a thing to catch on clothing or a holster).  Plenty of other guns have takedown latches - but they all made the choice during design to accept the possibility of those failures.  Glock assumed that the owner would be competent enough to triple-check the firearm before taking it apart from regular maintenance so as to avoid an accidental discharge (and in so doing saved the weight and failure chance).


My wife's Savage Mk. 2 Rifle needs the safety off and trigger pulled to release the bolt.  I'm not a huge fan of this but it's pretty obvious the gun isn't going to fire with the bolt all the way back.  It also has the safety trigger that is harder to pull accidentally (if you pull it anything but straight back it won't fire) which is nice because it's got an adjustable pull weight and while I never felt the need to reduce it I know that there are lots of people who would just because they can.
 
2014-08-04 07:55:25 AM  

mekkab: jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.

You unload it and you sure as fark don't point it at anything you don't want to put a hole through.

/and the moment a gun is out of sight, assume it walked itself across the room and re-loaded.
//Fark Gun Safety 101


Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.
 
2014-08-04 07:56:16 AM  
Provocative demonstrations of behaviors invites even less mentally stable lurkers to snap. Don't ask for a beating or a shooting.
 
2014-08-04 07:58:55 AM  
Brown people show ID to vote: Perfectly reasonable, and prudent.
White teenaager show ID to tote firearm around populated areas: 1984! 2nd Amendment!! Hitler! Waaaaaaah!!
 
2014-08-04 07:59:08 AM  
In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?
 
2014-08-04 08:02:24 AM  

fusillade762: dramboxf: TuteTibiImperes: There's no age limit on freedom of speech

Oh God, yes there is.

SCOTUS has held at least once that a public high school newspaper can be censored by the administration. If they don't like an article that might be published, then it's not published. If that's not an age-qualified limit on the First Amendment, I'd like to know what is.

//my school's paper was censored by the administration, on an article I wrote about sexual activity amongst the students based on a blind poll. My family (Dad) secured a First Amendment attorney who schooled us on just how limited student's FA rights are.

See also:



Morse v. Frederick


That kid was paid $45000 by the school district according to your link so he should be just fine. Sounds like the school admitting fault to me. Hell there isn't even an NDA.
 
2014-08-04 08:02:55 AM  
Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?
 
2014-08-04 08:03:09 AM  

mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?


The list of potential unfortunate events that might result from this fool's clownish behavior is a very, very long one.
 
2014-08-04 08:04:00 AM  

keylock71: Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?


They failed somewhere about ten years back.
 
2014-08-04 08:04:15 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

Second amendment! Second amendment! Second amendemeeeeeeeeeeent!

I guess I'd be an angry, recalcitrant nutjob too if I were eighteen years old and looked like a two hundred pound toddler...
 
2014-08-04 08:04:30 AM  
We're missing the main point here, and it is by far the saddest.

At 18 years of age this guy's dick doesn't work. At least I'm assuming since he feels the need to carry around a substitute with him out in public. He needs a doctor or a girlfriend or both.
 
2014-08-04 08:04:36 AM  

sycraft: Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun.


Exactly. That's why all teachers should be trained and armed at all times. Then we won't have to worry about the crazies.
 
2014-08-04 08:04:53 AM  

keylock71: Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?


NRA meeting.
 
2014-08-04 08:05:01 AM  
Thanks, NRA. I hope the AW misfires on his balls.

/AW! My Balls!
//balls
 
2014-08-04 08:05:19 AM  
This kid is farking stupid on a half shell, and brazen defined. Either he's trolling, or a wonky ass mass shooter who happened to tell his plans beforehand, and has a Ted Nugent style ideology about the 2nd Amendment.
 
2014-08-04 08:05:30 AM  
Douchebag looks to be about 14.  The cops have several complaints, in a town that's had a mass shooting incident.  That's enough reasonable suspicion for a ped stop and an ID check.  It's the totality of the circumstances that matters.  Could you imagine the out-RAGE had the police done nothing to this dopey plumper and he decided to blast off a few rounds?  I think the argument could be made that the cops had a duty to stop and ID him.

The open carry thing is starting to get out of hand with the farktards carrying long guns into Taco Bell and Target.  I'm a proponent of open carry, but every right comes with responsibilities.  Acting rational in public, being a polite member of society, etc.  Fatty crosses that line when you look at the big picture.  I see a person walking down the street open carrying a holstered handgun?  No worries.  Someone who looks WAY underage walking about with a shotgun, again, given the totality of the circumstances in that particular community?  Just dumb.


It's losers like this that are eventually going to make it so I have to keep my shotgun cased until I make it to the stand or the blind.  Shiet, I don't even have a case long enough for my Mosin.  When I take that to the range, I pop the bolt out and walk in with the chamber facing front so the range master can see I'm no threat to anyone, intentional or unintentional.

It's called brains.  IMHO this kid has none.
 
2014-08-04 08:07:28 AM  
I can easily imagine a scene where this guy walks into a public venue there like a super market or, for sheer idiocy, the movie theater and gets shot by some startled concealed carry gun owner trying to prevent another massacre.
 
2014-08-04 08:07:31 AM  

dookdookdook: FightDirector: Sometimes, you have to break one of the rules of gun safety (usually the "consider it always loaded", but sometimes the "never put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot" - thank you Glock takedown procedure).  However, when you do so, you have to triple-check each of the other three safety rules.

To reference the "Glock" comment above - the procedure to field-strip a Glock pistol requires that you pull the trigger to release the slide&barrel assembly from the frame.  Therefore, you need to triple-check that the firearm is pointed in a safe direction, that you're aware of what is behind what it's pointed at, and that the firearm has been unloaded.  Triple-check each of those, and *then* it's safe to put your finger on that trigger.

So, educate me a little here:  Is there some innate reason why guns need to be such touchy, unstable things that will blow your hand off if you look at them wrong, or is it just that it would be freedom-destroying tyranny to try to encourage a little bit of a redesign?  We build cars that run perfectly fine for years without needing an untrained mechanic tinkering around with them constantly and accidentally blowing up the gas tank; why should guns need so much more attention?

Or is the constant cleaning and tinkering and fondling part of the attraction in the first place?


It is not that guns are naturally touchy or unstable, it has to do with how the user carries them.  If you have a hammerless revolver like I carry, it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.  The guns that accidentally "go off" are semi-automatics where the user has one in the chamber and the safeties are all off so it will be ready to use at a moments notice also.  That is why I prefer to carry a revolver and use my semi-automatic for a back-up to my revolver at home (or target shooting) where I would have time to disengage the safeties and load one in the chamber.  As a rule of thumb, I never store any semi-automatic with one in the chamber and safeties off.
 
2014-08-04 08:10:14 AM  

llort dam eht: We're missing the main point here, and it is by far the saddest.

At 18 years of age this guy's dick doesn't work. At least I'm assuming since he feels the need to carry around a substitute with him out in public. He needs a doctor or a girlfriend or both.


You know - it is possible for people to have very severe and profound mental and emotionsl difficulties that have little or nothing to do with sexuality.

snowshovel: sycraft: Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun.

Exactly. That's why all teachers should be trained and armed at all times. Then we won't have to worry about the crazies.


God knows there are no crazy teachers. I feel safer already.
 
2014-08-04 08:10:30 AM  

mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?


Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.
 
2014-08-04 08:11:24 AM  

Cdr.Murdock: I see a person walking down the street open carrying a holstered handgun? No worries.


...which I can only take to mean that your entire psychological experience takes place inside an hallucinated rerun of Gunsmoke.
 
2014-08-04 08:12:28 AM  
img.fark.net

www.slantmagazine.com
 
2014-08-04 08:13:20 AM  

zamboni: You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Or like being brown and living in Arizona, or being black and living in NYC. If you don't want to suffer from these draconian "white people problems", you can choose to leave the gun at home.

Some liberal group should start an outreach program where they facilitate black and latino youths with transportation and large firearms so they can LEGALLY wander the streets of nice white neighborhoods. Then you can watch the NRA lobby themselves into a knot.
 
2014-08-04 08:14:33 AM  

GDubDub: I mean, they can't *really* be what they say they are. They can't *really* think that they are helping.


You have to have someone on the low end of the bell curve to have a bell curve.

I'm not scared of guns.  I grew up in rural Rhode Island.  There were always clay pigeon fragments at the beach.  My sweetie has a concealed carry permit and a revolver (fark those new-fangled semis).

But these guys need to be slapped down hard.  They are doing everything wrong that I was taught about handling guns.  I saw the snapshot of the kid with the butt of his ass-blaster on the floor pointed up at his face and I was saying "oh please oh please let Uncle Chuck make a visit."

Someone is going to die doing this, and it's going to be his own damn fault.  It's the only way these idiots are going to wake the fark up to how douchey they are.  The sooner the better.
 
2014-08-04 08:14:41 AM  

zamboni: This.

And if you have no problem with the government stopping you from doing something that is completely legal...go ahead and stop him from doing something that's completely legal... just because it's something that you don't happen to support.


No. I do not support people acting like narcissistic aholes.

At some point some other Rambo-in-waiting is going to see this puke, and think he's a threat and start to open fire. What will happen is what usually happens. Neither of the gun toters will be injured but the bystanding family of 4 just out for an ice cream stroll will end up dead.
 
2014-08-04 08:16:58 AM  

jso2897: keylock71: Teenagers are arrogant little jackasses. That's nothing new...

What I'm wondering, is where are this kid's parents to give him a slap upside his head and tell him to put the gun away and stop being a stupid asshole?

They failed somewhere about ten years back.


No shiat... I can't imagine letting an 18 year old kid wonder around the neighborhood with a shot gun, especially if they were living under my roof. No farking way.

What are the parents thinking letting him do this? Yeah, he's legally an adult, but he's obviously a naive child without the mental maturity and commonsense needed to own a firearm.

If I had tried pulling this shiat when I was 18, I would have got the, "Oh, you're a man now, are you? Well, time to get a job and a place of your own to live and you can do what you want. We'll give you until Saturday to move out." speech. : )
 
2014-08-04 08:17:22 AM  
I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.
 
2014-08-04 08:17:58 AM  

I alone am best: mksmith: In a poetically just society: Some middle-aged guy with a CC permit and accompanied by his small children decides Junior here is a clear and present danger, draws down on him, and strips him of his shotgun -- to "protect himself and those around him." Would Junior call the cops and file a complaint?

Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.


Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid - indeed, that's a big reason why we would like to see him stop doing what he is doing - before he get's his dumb ass hurt.
Look: I have every legal and ethical right to go outside, pry a brick out of the garden walk, and bash my own head in with it.
Does that mean I should do it?
I thought Fark was a smart place. When did we start condoning stupidity just because it is "rightful"?
 
2014-08-04 08:18:17 AM  

austin_millbarge: the bystanding family of 4 just out for an ice cream stroll will end up dead


Not if they each had their own gun!
 
2014-08-04 08:18:41 AM  

heavymetal: it will not go off unless you pull the trigger but is always ready to go if an emergency need arises.


Just curious, has the need ever actually arisen?

Like, have you ever been walking down the aisle at walmart with your shootin' iron on your hip and suddenly a race riot broke out in Housewares or a gay rapist jumped at you from behind the paper towels and you found you suddenly needed to distribute a few Freedom Holes at a split second's notice?
 
2014-08-04 08:18:52 AM  
With a story like that I'm surprised I haven't seen CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc talking about how scary he is while Fox talks about puppies.

But since google is not pulling up anything except opinion sites about it, I'm a little leery about the accuracy of the story at the moment.
 
2014-08-04 08:19:20 AM  

MagSeven: kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.


img.fark.net
I introduce to you, the AA-12
 
2014-08-04 08:19:52 AM  

Jurodan: I can easily imagine a scene where this guy walks into a public venue there like a super market or, for sheer idiocy, the movie theater and gets shot by some startled concealed carry gun owner trying to prevent another massacre.


I have wondered about this scenario.  Is Colorado a "stand your ground" state?  I can imagine this kid getting shot and no one going to jail for i... ah I couldn't finish, if he got shot of course someone would go to jail.  He isn't blah, after all.
 
2014-08-04 08:19:53 AM  
I know it has been mentioned but I want to reiterate how lucky this cocksucker is to be white.

he'd have been shot dead and this would be a non story.
 
2014-08-04 08:20:51 AM  

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?

Sounds like a legislative concern if you don't like it.


The Disorderly charge here is Colorado's law for brandishing a weapon, and may even have him for Menacing with a firearm. That and it is illegal in Aurora to fire a firearm outside of a designated range or in the duties of a law enforcement officer. So well done kid, at the least you have a class 2 misdemeanor and threatening that you going to break even more laws in a fantasy that you will save the day is more likely to get a psych evaluation than a medal.
 
2014-08-04 08:21:02 AM  

jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid


Speak for yourself.  It would've been farking hilarious if he'd blown his own face off during a news interview about his being a massive cockbagproud second amendment advocacy.
 
2014-08-04 08:21:32 AM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-04 08:21:46 AM  
"Should..."

That's the concept these barrel-strokers struggle with.
 
2014-08-04 08:21:53 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.


It's been deemed valid by the same people making it.  Hardly a check and balance there.
 
2014-08-04 08:22:34 AM  

I alone am best: Apparently people in a poetically just society are knee jerk retards who elevate legal activities to justification for murder. I am glad that we live in a normal society where a kid engaged in a legal activity you don't like is grounds for you to daydream about stupid scenarios where said kid gets injured or dies.


People have justified death for less than brandishing a firearm in public, which is something most people would feel somewhat threatened by because it's not normal behavior.  Again, legal, sure. But normal? Not unless you're on hunting grounds or at the range.  Going to the mall or McDonald's with a rifle could very easily be seen as threatening to rob the place - and certainly would in many places.

Also: this kid wasn't part of a rally or a group or anything. Just a lone weirdo walking down the street with a long gun. You really, really can't see how people would find that disturbing or even a threat to their safety?

I'm not saying he did anything illegal, or that the way the law is written, he wasn't within his rights. But lots of legal activity is misinterpreted and can lead to injury or death. I'd say carrying a firearm randomly, for no real reason, in public like that is very easily misinterpreted in a way that could easily send someone else over the edge - either a random loon, OR someone who genuinely saw him as a threat and was also armed. An armed society is not necessarily a polite one, and fear will override manners almost every time.
 
2014-08-04 08:23:42 AM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


You're right. If anybody sees any illegal aliens open-carrying, they should grab them and deport them right away. We already have enough attention-whoring assholes in this country.
 
2014-08-04 08:23:44 AM  

dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.


It's an interesting question, I suppose.  I was taught to clean my guns after I fire them, so that's what I do.  I'm actually not sure how long you could go a) regularly shooting a gun, and b) not cleaning said gun.   It would depend on how touchy the weapon was...much like some cars are more reliable than others, on average.

Weapons like the AK-47 are supposed to be VERY reliable, even under horrible field conditions, w/o being cleaned, etc.
 
2014-08-04 08:24:55 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


You know what ~is~ a crime? Inciting a riot, interfering with a police investigation,  and disturbing the peace.

If the kid is going to play his little game, at least he can show some ID when asked. Why?

1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.


I'm all for carry laws. What I'm not for is being a dick, which this kid clearly is.


//Sorry officer,didn't mean to yell "Gun" in the theater. Just practicing my freedom of speech.
 
2014-08-04 08:26:40 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: [img.fark.net image 480x360]

[www.slantmagazine.com image 602x330]


I was thinking more fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net
 
2014-08-04 08:26:47 AM  

jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid - indeed, that's a big reason why we would like to see him stop doing what he is doing - before he get's his dumb ass hurt.


I don't really care if he hurts himself. He's an adult and he's free to do stupid shiat if he wants. He's also free to suffer the consequences.

I wouldn't say I want it to happen, but if he shoots his foot off that's his problem and I'm not going to feel any worse about that than when I'm laughing at some idiot on Youtube who cracks his nuts riding a bike off his roof.
 
2014-08-04 08:27:04 AM  
Lumpy's back.
www.gannett-cdn.com
 
2014-08-04 08:28:43 AM  

Lorelle: Why are they always so white and pasty??


Because black people learned early on that anyone with more than a mild tan gets shot by the police.

Kid's a douchbag but I applaud him for making open carry nuts continue to look like a danger to the community.
 
2014-08-04 08:28:53 AM  

dookdookdook: Cdr.Murdock: I see a person walking down the street open carrying a holstered handgun? No worries.

...which I can only take to mean that your entire psychological experience takes place inside an hallucinated rerun of Gunsmoke.


You'll need a bit tastier chunk of bunker for me to bite your troll hook.

Nice try, though.  I give it a 4.5/10....
 
2014-08-04 08:29:07 AM  

Delay: Mentat: We hit peak wank in this thread pretty quickly.

Yep. Maybe they are just compensating or something. Anyway, that kid in TFA doesn't appear old enough to have hit puberty yet.


Hence the gun.
 
2014-08-04 08:30:19 AM  
This asshat could not be happier.  In his little mind he leveled up from Internet Tough Guy to Cable News Tough Guy.
 
2014-08-04 08:30:22 AM  

PunGent: dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.

It's an interesting question, I suppose.  I was taught to clean my guns after I fire them, so that's what I do.  I'm actually not sure how long you could go a) regularly shooting a gun, and b) not cleaning said gun.   It would depend on how touchy the weapon was...much like some cars are more reliable than others, on average.

Weapons like the AK-47 are supposed to be VERY reliable, even under horrible field conditions, w/o being cleaned, etc.


it probably depends mostly on the ammo you feed said weapon.
here's a torture test some guys did:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/
 
2014-08-04 08:31:07 AM  
gotta love the dickless 'muricans with their guns.

I think it would be ironic and hilarious if because he had a shotgun, someone else feels threatened and blow his head off.  I know that personally, seeing a dumbass walking around with a firearm doesn't make anyone safe.

Maybe if he stopped eating and worked out and learn some defensive skills he wouldn't fell some afriad, but then again, it's the whole 'murican penis compensation thing, truly one of the most pathetic part of 'murica and those that are gun happy are too stupid to understand that.
 
2014-08-04 08:31:34 AM  

skozlaw: jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid - indeed, that's a big reason why we would like to see him stop doing what he is doing - before he get's his dumb ass hurt.

I don't really care if he hurts himself. He's an adult and he's free to do stupid shiat if he wants. He's also free to suffer the consequences.

I wouldn't say I want it to happen, but if he shoots his foot off that's his problem and I'm not going to feel any worse about that than when I'm laughing at some idiot on Youtube who cracks his nuts riding a bike off his roof.


Yes - but that is ethically very, very different from actively wishing harm upon him. Of course you can't take any emotional responsibility for his idiocy and it's consequences.
 
2014-08-04 08:33:02 AM  

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am. The police have no right to stop you unless they believe you are breaking the law. If it's not illegal to open carry then they should be able to do so unharassed. The law applies to every one, even people you don't like.



In this case it does not, however. Open carry in Colorado is limited to those 18 and over with a valid license. The boy in this question was 18 and looked it, so IMO the police were totally within their rights to ask him for his ID to prove he was 18. If he was driving a car the same thing would apply; he's performing a public act that requires government approval so he'd better have the proper documentation (in this case, his ID) on himself to prove it. Or do you think it's ok to drive around without your driver's license, because it's the same situation.
 
2014-08-04 08:33:03 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


Just in case this hasn't been said: A shotgun *is* a precise weapon.  Those movies showing 8 people being gunned down by spreading shot when only 15 feet away from a shotgun are just that: movies.  I shoot deer with shotguns.  At 100 yards, every single pellet hits the deer in the chest, within a 4-5" circle.

That said, I think the kid is asking for trouble.
 
2014-08-04 08:33:19 AM  

italie: 1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?


Frazzled or not: nobodycan tell another person's intentions, which is why people have pointed out this kid could easily be shot by someone else while showing off his rights - for whatever reason he is inclined to do so.

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.

More than anything, considering it's an open-carry state and he's not the only person in the state, or even that town, to open carry, it's apparent the reason he is inclined to defend his right to carry has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with intimidating and frightening people and the ensuing attention.  And that is problematic. What happens when the high isn't enough? When people don't react enough, or quickly enough? Or the cops asking for ID gets boring?

Let's be honest: rights or no rights, this kid is no more exhibiting normal behavior than I would be if I walked to the corner and spent the entire day walking back and forth across the crosswalk every time the light turned green, while standing still at the corner when it turned red. Legal, but extremely strange and probably disturbing to anyone who noticed me doing it in front of their house.
 
2014-08-04 08:33:25 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Well, I'm certainly no attorney, but they asked him to prove he was 18.  He looks like he's 15, at the most.  I'd say that's a reasonable request given that he looks too young to be doing what he's doing  WAY back in the day, I used to get carded at bars - once by the the police after I had been served (they did a spot check).  This kid is being a douche for the sake of being a douche and he knows it.  Hopefully, this will solve itself and he will trip while walking around with his constitutional right pointed at his own head.
 
2014-08-04 08:34:09 AM  
And here I thought apes with guns was the most worrying thing I've seen lately. That kid will never have consensual sex.
 
2014-08-04 08:34:20 AM  
Now take a good look at this punk. What we have here is a prime example of why you need to beat your kids.
 
2014-08-04 08:35:26 AM  
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole!"
 
2014-08-04 08:35:32 AM  
He looks like an 18 year old Eric Cartman. Something tells me he has never even kissed a girl.
 
2014-08-04 08:36:00 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

I bet that shiat would go out the window as soon as a black, Arab , or Latino decided to do the exact thing.


They would have the ACLU, Holder, Obama, Jesse, Al behind them instantly, as well as all the main stream media.
 
2014-08-04 08:37:28 AM  
Punchable face?
www.rawstory.com

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.
 
2014-08-04 08:38:53 AM  
Excellent ploy, get the town used to you walking around as "that open carry farkwit".

Makes it much easier when he goes full Holmes.

Looks and sounds like an absolute loser, fits all the profiles
 
2014-08-04 08:39:03 AM  

serpent_sky: italie: 1 - Colorado has had its fair share of shootings. If you are doing this in the name of safety, cooperate with those protecting yours. The average Joe can't tell the difference between you, and some random psycho carting a gun down the street. Why traumatize an already frazzled population?

Frazzled or not: nobodycan tell another person's intentions, which is why people have pointed out this kid could easily be shot by someone else while showing off his rights - for whatever reason he is inclined to do so.

2 - You have admitted to being stopped for this TWELVE TIMES. This is briefly keeping officers off the street, officers that one day could be delayed getting to another mass shooting. Officers that handled the last one with speed and professionalism.

More than anything, considering it's an open-carry state and he's not the only person in the state, or even that town, to open carry, it's apparent the reason he is inclined to defend his right to carry has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with intimidating and frightening people and the ensuing attention.  And that is problematic. What happens when the high isn't enough? When people don't react enough, or quickly enough? Or the cops asking for ID gets boring?

Let's be honest: rights or no rights, this kid is no more exhibiting normal behavior than I would be if I walked to the corner and spent the entire day walking back and forth across the crosswalk every time the light turned green, while standing still at the corner when it turned red. Legal, but extremely strange and probably disturbing to anyone who noticed me doing it in front of their house.


Are you supporting my comments or arguing against them? I'm having a hard time here...
 
2014-08-04 08:41:14 AM  
Perhaps the proximity of the shootings is the reason his teenaged brain told him to do this. I would think proximity to that type of event in a young persons life combined with access to firearms could easily lead to this type of thought process.

The police did not have any right to stop him and so the request for id is harrassment. They did not stop him to check for id at all and most of is know that. The check for identification was simply a form of harrassment. He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked. Did they inform him they were checking identification to determine his age in relation to possession of a firearm? Nope

They ginned up a charge when they realized he was within his rights and they had screwed up. He should sue the city
 
2014-08-04 08:41:35 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.


All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.
 
2014-08-04 08:42:29 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Realistically, the kid is merely showing the stupidity of the law.  Although I'm happy I don't live there with the little nutjob, he technically has broken no laws.

Of course, getting "accidentally" shot by his own weapon is the justice we are all looking for here.  Not enough to kill him, of course, but maybe taking a foot or hand off.


It would be *really* tragic if another Open Carry protester were to shoot his bulbous ass thinking he was a Bad Guy.

\not gonna happen
\\not near brown enough
 
2014-08-04 08:42:35 AM  
Legal.
 
2014-08-04 08:42:45 AM  

abhorrent1: When asked to provide ID proving his age, Lohner refused to do so, while videotaping the encounter (seen below) on his phone.

Oh he's one of those assholes.


A soon-to-be Sovereign Citizen?
 
2014-08-04 08:43:29 AM  

italie: Are you supporting my comments or arguing against them? I'm having a hard time here...


My point is the kid is an idiot, could easily get shot by someone else, and should not be doing what he's doing because clearly, he is frightening and intimidating people (hence, multiple calls to get the police out there when he's wandering with his gun), as opposed to merely expressing his right to bear arms and being harassed for doing so. I'm fairly certain we agree on all of this?
 
2014-08-04 08:44:44 AM  
Simply pass a law that states police have the right to inspect firearms at any point and for any reason if they are being carried openly

Problem solved
 
2014-08-04 08:49:13 AM  

pendy575: Simply pass a law that states police have the right to inspect firearms at any point and for any reason if they are being carried openly

Problem solved


4th amendment.
 
2014-08-04 08:49:54 AM  
Did all the trolls wake up at the same time or something? It's unique to see a cluster of poorly spelled, ill-informed opinions suddenly pop up in a green thread that had already hit the main page.

I should have figured this was too civil and sane for a gun thread.
 
2014-08-04 08:50:03 AM  
An agitated teenager with a gun.

This sure will end well.
 
2014-08-04 08:52:36 AM  
Somebody should just accidentally run this arrogant tactifat douchbag over with a prius.


/gun owner.
 
2014-08-04 08:52:38 AM  
Waving a lethal weapon around is SURE to make people feel COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE.

Yup.

Really really.

Yes, it is still legal to be a f*cking dick.
 
2014-08-04 08:53:00 AM  

Katolu: abhorrent1: When asked to provide ID proving his age, Lohner refused to do so, while videotaping the encounter (seen below) on his phone.

Oh he's one of those assholes.

A soon-to-be Sovereign Citizen?


I'm sure those words have come out of his mouth more than a few times already. He's probably one of those guys that also has a problem showing his receipt as he leaves a store and write letters to the consumerist about it.

I get it. You have rights. There's exercising your rights, and there's being a dick. This guy is just being a dick.
 
2014-08-04 08:53:09 AM  

serpent_sky: My point is the kid is an idiot, could easily get shot by someone else, and should not be doing what he's doing because clearly, he is frightening and intimidating people (hence, multiple calls to get the police out there when he's wandering with his gun), as opposed to merely expressing his right to bear arms and being harassed for doing so. I'm fairly certain we agree on all of this?


I noticed that one of the local restaraunts had posted a "no firearms" notice on their door as well as one of the local movie theaters which is, I think, a great response. If these idiots want to walk into a business I'm patronizing like a high plains drifter then I'll take my business elsewhere.
 
2014-08-04 08:53:51 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

I thought the police could hold you for 24 hours to determine your identity if you refused to present proper identification during an investigation. And all police stops are investigations.


They can, your prints will tell them who you are.
 
2014-08-04 08:56:52 AM  
Oh thank god some fat teenager in Aurora is attention whoring for his own safety, and those around him. That dude needs to touch some boobies and STFU.
 
2014-08-04 08:57:01 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


Pity you didn't live in a civilized place where you didn't have to live in fear of your life.
 
2014-08-04 08:57:46 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Or buying alcohol. It is against my rights to make me prove I am old enough!
 
2014-08-04 08:57:54 AM  

pla: serpent_sky : People like this are going to ensure that open carry laws are changed or severely curtailed, if they keep it up.

Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.



What in the right hell is wrong with you? This is not Mad Max. If you think guns should be carried around and whipped out like smartphones, you have a serious problem. People like *you* are the very reason I'm gonna grab my family and duck the hell out of the Waffle House on Sunday morning when you trip in with your shotgun for eggs and a short stack. Why? Because the above quote tells me you think the only solution to any argument is gunfire or the threat of gunfire.

And hunting season is restricted within every city limits, so you're not gonna bag a deer in Pennys.

I'm gonna get my family the hell away from unstable muthafarkers like yourself. I'm gonna vote against politicians who pander to such whackadoodle behavior. I'm gonna throw your ass out of my place of business if you behave like that, and I will tell the business owner that lets you in packing like that I'm leaving and never coming back *because* he lets people like you in.

Every last stick of which is perfectly legal for *me* to do.

\hope a troll, but too pessimistic to believe so
 
2014-08-04 08:58:07 AM  
Really? HIs last name is Lohner? So he's a Lohner with a gun?

(See, 'cause 'Lohner' sounds like 'loner'.)

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-04 08:58:16 AM  

scarbachi: Oh thank god some fat teenager in Aurora is attention whoring for his own safety, and those around him. That dude needs to touch some boobies and STFU.


If he wants to touch boobies, all he needs to do is take a shower.
 
2014-08-04 08:58:24 AM  
The 4th amendment states fairly clearly that it related to militia

So treat people like they should be training for militia with regards to gun ownership

Inspect their weapons. Make sure they are trained in their proper use
 
2014-08-04 08:58:28 AM  
You liberals sound exactly like the old school boys when the Civil Rights marches were going on, you know that, right?
 
2014-08-04 08:59:50 AM  

abhorrent1: Katolu: abhorrent1: When asked to provide ID proving his age, Lohner refused to do so, while videotaping the encounter (seen below) on his phone.

Oh he's one of those assholes.

A soon-to-be Sovereign Citizen?

I'm sure those words have come out of his mouth more than a few times already. He's probably one of those guys that also has a problem showing his receipt as he leaves a store and write letters to the consumerist about it.

I get it. You have rights. There's exercising your rights, and there's being a dick. This guy is just being a dick.


Sorry, but I cracked up at the consumerist jab. Thanks for making my Monday.
 
2014-08-04 08:59:59 AM  

pendy575: The 4th amendment states fairly clearly that it related to militia

So treat people like they should be training for militia with regards to gun ownership

Inspect their weapons. Make sure they are trained in their proper use


This a joke post?

Hope so.
 
2014-08-04 09:00:24 AM  

Englebert Slaptyback: Really? HIs last name is Lohner? So he's a Lohner with a gun?

(See, 'cause 'Lohner' sounds like 'loner'.)

[img.fark.net image 615x345]


So a cop stops him, and he refuses to give any information , so the cop radios in th HQ, says: "I have the strangest loner right now."
 
2014-08-04 09:00:25 AM  
Hilter loved gun control.
 
2014-08-04 09:01:54 AM  
What's his Fark handle?
 
MFK
2014-08-04 09:02:36 AM  
seems to me that a lot of these problems could be solved with "rude carry" or "brandishing" laws. You want to carry your gun in public like a responsible adult? Fine. Here are the definitions of acceptable open carry that won't make everyone else "uncomfortable" to the point where they're all calling 911 in a panic.

You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing. You want to bring your AR-15 to Cracker Barrel to protect your deep-fried dinner? Sorry - that's rude carry. Leave it in the rack like a normal person.

The fact of the matter is while these guys may be the "good guys" in their own heads, nobody else knows if they are a good guy or someone who's on his way to shoot up a mall. We shouldn't have to wait to find out the hard way.

Guns are not something we "need to be comfortable around". They are not toys and we need to stop pretending like they are. That's when accidents happen. Unfortunately, gun accidents can be serious and deadly and it simply amazes me that people are actually in denial about this.
 
2014-08-04 09:04:13 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


Irony defined.
 
2014-08-04 09:04:43 AM  

dookdookdook: I love the part of the video at about 1:00 where he's pointing the thing directly at his own face for like 10 seconds.

Fat, ugly, no-doubt-virgin white trash high schooler looking for a sense of empowerment through guns.  Hopefully he can work through enough of his bitterness and self-hate by being a public asshat that he won't end up shooting up his school.


Liberal hate burns white hot don't it?
 
2014-08-04 09:05:08 AM  

Tunney: What's his Fark handle?


Shh, farkers aren't supposed to own guns. That would mean we're more individualistic than people think.

So say I a guy who doesn't own a gun. By choice not by political jackassery
 
2014-08-04 09:05:15 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: serpent_sky: My point is the kid is an idiot, could easily get shot by someone else, and should not be doing what he's doing because clearly, he is frightening and intimidating people (hence, multiple calls to get the police out there when he's wandering with his gun), as opposed to merely expressing his right to bear arms and being harassed for doing so. I'm fairly certain we agree on all of this?

I noticed that one of the local restaraunts had posted a "no firearms" notice on their door as well as one of the local movie theaters which is, I think, a great response. If these idiots want to walk into a business I'm patronizing like a high plains drifter then I'll take my business elsewhere.


Some drifters had very impeccable reputations in the old west, and that just doesn't seem to apply to open-carry protesters.

I prefer to call them "Red Dawn LARPers."
 
2014-08-04 09:06:27 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I noticed that one of the local restaraunts had posted a "no firearms" notice on their door as well as one of the local movie theaters which is, I think, a great response. If these idiots want to walk into a business I'm patronizing like a high plains drifter then I'll take my business elsewhere.


Let's be honest here. Aside from the real nutjobs kike this kid, everyone realizes the intent of open carry laws were not "wander down a busy street with a rifle in your hand" or "sit at Taco Bell and eat a burrito with a couple of long guns strapped to your back."  They're doing things like that because they technically can - and there are many things we can all legally - and within our rights - do that are not without repercussions. Any one of us, go spend the day sitting in a public playground watching the kids and see how long until the cops come ask who you are and what you're doing, as it is deemed suspicious, even though you have a right to sit in a public park. And that's far less threatening than wandering around as if you're in the Wild West... but would not go without notice, nonetheless. 
Some things that are legal still become potential public safety issues, or actual public safety issues.
 
2014-08-04 09:06:37 AM  
Penis.
 
2014-08-04 09:06:56 AM  
See liberals. People do listen to Joe Biden.
 
2014-08-04 09:06:58 AM  

BlindRaise: Hilter loved gun control.


www.noz.de

He was also a big fan of cars.
 
2014-08-04 09:07:06 AM  
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you gun nuts don't want phallic references about you favorite toys, stop giving cause for them.
 
2014-08-04 09:10:03 AM  

serpent_sky: italie: Are you supporting my comments or arguing against them? I'm having a hard time here...

My point is the kid is an idiot, could easily get shot by someone else, and should not be doing what he's doing because clearly, he is frightening and intimidating people (hence, multiple calls to get the police out there when he's wandering with his gun), as opposed to merely expressing his right to bear arms and being harassed for doing so. I'm fairly certain we agree on all of this?



Yes, we do. Just seemed written in a disagreeing tone while agreeing.

//Calling it lack of coffee, moving on.
 
2014-08-04 09:10:15 AM  

MadCat221: I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you gun nuts don't want phallic references about you favorite toys, stop giving cause for them.


They run around with guns all the time because they think they might need to get defensive every time a long shadow appears.

They ought to run around with dildos instead, because they definitely need to get farked.
 
2014-08-04 09:10:18 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: LazyMedia: MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!

Many Southern liberals own guns or have friends who do. We're just not dicks about it.

Dicks about guns, or dicks about being liberal?


Both.
 
2014-08-04 09:10:43 AM  

PreMortem: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


Counterpoint. Chicago, NYC, Baltimore... you liberals talk a big game yet the cities you dominate say differently.
 
2014-08-04 09:10:44 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


A Constitution attorney?
 
2014-08-04 09:12:53 AM  

scarbachi: Oh thank god some fat teenager in Aurora is attention whoring for his own safety, and those around him. That dude needs to touch some boobies and STFU.


I assume you mean besides his own.
 
2014-08-04 09:13:01 AM  

Thunderpipes: rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.

All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.


This post has much poetential. CO has a stop and identify law that's perfectly constitutional, just as I linked. Carrying a weapon in public has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. I never said anything about disarming anyone.

There are a lot of people who've built themselves a mental maze to reinforce this exact kind of paranoia, tho...
 
2014-08-04 09:13:07 AM  

MFK: You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing.


In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.
 
2014-08-04 09:13:35 AM  

MagSeven: /show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.


To be fair to the kid, it looked like he was only going to blow his own face off the way he was holding the shotgun, ricochets notwithstanding.
 
2014-08-04 09:13:38 AM  

PreMortem: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


+1
 
2014-08-04 09:14:57 AM  

MadCat221: I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you gun nuts don't want phallic references about you favorite toys, stop giving cause for them.


Given that any cylindrical object can be viewed as phallic, how precisely do you propose that happens?  Guns (like swords, or artillery, or torpedoes, or lances [etc] ) are inherently phallic by nature of physics.  Sounds like you just want an excuse to talk about phalluses.
 
2014-08-04 09:15:57 AM  
I second open-carrying SWORDS
 
2014-08-04 09:16:26 AM  

Veloram: MagSeven: kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.

Huh?
/show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.

[img.fark.net image 240x105]
I introduce to you, the AA-12


It's still a smoothbore, and still not effective beyond 50 yards or so. Maybe 100 yards firing slugs. That said, shotguns are considerably more accurate than pistols at across-the-room distances, because of the longer sight radius.
 
2014-08-04 09:16:33 AM  

StopDaddy: And here I thought apes with guns was the most worrying thing I've seen lately. That kid will never have consensual sex.


Technically, prostitution is consensual.  I think.


Then again, any hooker worth a used condom behind a shady furniture store on RT 13 south of Wilmington, DE wouldn't take fatty's cash....
 
2014-08-04 09:16:40 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?
 
2014-08-04 09:18:18 AM  

Headso: In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.


That's great. And that applies to this situation how, exactly? Or did I miss the part of the story where this involved a teenager in a rural area during hunting season, acting in a way all the locals are accustomed to regarding his hunting rifle post- or pre-hunt?
 
2014-08-04 09:18:46 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.


But I heard  Trailltrader has a GED in law.  How could he possibly be wrong?
 
2014-08-04 09:19:13 AM  

Thunderpipes: This a joke post?


You are against weapon owners being properly trained?
 
2014-08-04 09:19:39 AM  

dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.


Powder residue is sticky, filthy, corrosive, and the exhaust gasses are used to operate the mechanism in many semiautomatic firearms (which means the stuff in question is getting all up in the fiddly bits.). Hence the need for frequent cleaning vs. cars. (Gas burns relatively cleanly, and cars are designed in such a way that they're largely self cleaning anyway, although that adds to complexity and expense.) Older cars still get carbon buildup in their nether regions, and there are procedures for that.

Firearms also do not have pumps actively circulating oil through them, hence the need for manual lubrication.

The blowing up body parts thing occurs when you try to take apart a loaded weapon. Performing maintenance on a running car is also discouraged.

Personally, as a paranoid, i do things like disconnecting the battery before doing engine work, unplugging the garbage disposal before sticking my hand down there (and looking nervously at the wire while doing so) and measuring wood three times (!) before cutting it, with my hands as far away from the saw blade as possible, and making sure that I'm holding the saw such that I am not in the potential flight path of a blade or blade fragments. (Yes, there's a guard, but let's pretend it's not there.)

Living in fear is a terrible curse.
 
2014-08-04 09:20:26 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law 2: has committed no crime 3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.


This can really be seen as trolling the electorate to tighten the laws although we are talking CO here and the voters have already shown that they will get their panties in a bunch when gun regs are on the table so it will be interesting to see where this tasteless display of impotency leads this kid.
 
2014-08-04 09:21:04 AM  

lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?


I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.
 
2014-08-04 09:21:45 AM  
When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.

total number of farks given by everyone else: 0
 
2014-08-04 09:22:24 AM  

BeerGraduate: I second open-carrying SWORDS



Playing around with swords is my job.  I sure as hell don't.  Swords (or any other melee weapons) give all the advantage to the strong, the large, and the young adults.  Women, older persons, short people, disabled folks...they'd become even more of a victim class than they already are.

Don't get me wrong - I'd actually like to see a Code Duello come back with melee weapons.  Let young, stupid, men fight each other in a legal, controlled setting in a manner that won't hurt bystanders.  But for general defensive use?  Speaking as a disabled vet who's getting up in years, it's in nobody's best interest to force melee implements to be the primary self-defense tool...save for large men between about 16-30.

Which gender/age demographic commits (by far) the most crime already?  Oh right....men between about 16-30.
 
2014-08-04 09:22:57 AM  
Dude looks like Francis from Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Pasty fat fark.
 
2014-08-04 09:24:06 AM  

serpent_sky: Headso: In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.

That's great. And that applies to this situation how, exactly? Or did I miss the part of the story where this involved a teenager in a rural area during hunting season, acting in a way all the locals are accustomed to regarding his hunting rifle post- or pre-hunt?


it doesn't apply to this situation but it applies to the suggestion that people should be charged with a crime when they are walking down the road with a gun, the post I was responding to. Gun laws should be the most local level. This situation appears to be a protest, nothing wrong with that either, protests aren't supposed to make everyone happy.
 
2014-08-04 09:24:45 AM  
" it is a custom more honor'd in the breach than the observance "

I am fine with someone carrying a weapon as long as they don't have mental issues. Unfortunately, I feel that the need to carry a weapon around in day to day life is a strong sign of mental illness (in most cases). I am into guns in the same way that I am into aircraft. I appreciate the design and utility, but I understand that they have limited usefulness outside of specific instances.

/owns two guns
 
2014-08-04 09:26:05 AM  

imfallen_angel: gotta love the dickless 'muricans with their guns.


Close enough. DRINK!!
 
2014-08-04 09:26:40 AM  

I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.


This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.
 
2014-08-04 09:26:43 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


What you seem to be missing is that the more people do this, the more likely it is that the constitution will be altered to make doing this illegal...

They don`t pass laws to stop people doing stuff that nobody is doing. Every law has some people who want to do the banned action. If more people want it banned than want to do it, guess what is likely to happen?

Enough random members of the public where he was already thought he should get arrested for his actions whether it was a crime or not. That percentage will increase over time.

I support this teen in his drive to ban guns in public places.
 
2014-08-04 09:27:38 AM  

LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.

total number of farks given by everyone else: 0


I doubt that
 
2014-08-04 09:27:59 AM  
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
media.giphy.com
 
2014-08-04 09:27:59 AM  

pendy575: Perhaps the proximity of the shootings is the reason his teenaged brain told him to do this. I would think proximity to that type of event in a young persons life combined with access to firearms could easily lead to this type of thought process.

The police did not have any right to stop him and so the request for id is harrassment. They did not stop him to check for id at all and most of is know that. The check for identification was simply a form of harrassment. He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked. Did they inform him they were checking identification to determine his age in relation to possession of a firearm? Nope

They ginned up a charge when they realized he was within his rights and they had screwed up. He should sue the city


You have entirely too much faith in police.  They "ginned up a charge" (I like that) when he decided to be a dick.  That's how police really work.  Be pleasant and don't harm anyone/anything and they won't arrest you.  Be a dick and they'll find an excuse.

As they tend to have several gun nuts on the force and they all go to ranges to practice, I'm sure the police were very aware that was legal.  They came up, asked why he was walking around with a gun (a perfectly reasonable security measure) and he proceeded to be a dick yelling about his rights instead of actually talking to the police.  Things are escalating with an armed man.  Time to show a little concern.

They ask for ID.  Hey, this guy is being combative maybe he's crazy/violent/illegally in possession of a firearm.  Actually, I'm not entirely sure that last one is possible in CO.  He continues to dick up their day, so they decide to dick his up.

That's how police work.  They are tired and annoyed and will go out of their way to ruin your day if you are a dick.  It doesn't matter what the situation is, they can always find an excuse to at least fine you.  They probably would have allowed him to continue if he'd cordially introduced himself when the police walked up.
 
2014-08-04 09:28:43 AM  
Thunderpipes (ITG Editor in Chief): You liberals sound exactly like the old school boys when the Civil Rights marches were going on, you know that, right?

That's a fascinating comparison, can you expand on that?
 
2014-08-04 09:28:46 AM  

Hawnkee: imfallen_angel: gotta love the dickless 'muricans with their guns.

Close enough. DRINK!!


I think we're up to four penis references and a Godwin - pretty impressive for a Monday morning.
 
2014-08-04 09:29:25 AM  

MyRandomName: PreMortem: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.

Counterpoint. Chicago, NYC, Baltimore... you liberals talk a big game yet the cities you dominate say differently.


Counter-counter point: as a diehard liberal, I have no problem with right to bear arms. That horse is already out of the barn. I have a problem with cops harassing people without cause. I also respect the rule of law even if I don't agree with it.
 
2014-08-04 09:30:12 AM  

jso2897: PreMortem: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.

It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.

I'm quite sure that he, and all the other stalwarts who think they are defending the second amendment here, wouldn't be in the least pertrurbed if these fellows were exercising their rights out in front of their kid's school.
[i18.photobucket.com image 464x304]


Pardon the ignorance, but they look like some sort of sports team wearing the team's colours. Why would I worry if they wanted to play baseball?
 
2014-08-04 09:30:17 AM  

FightDirector: serpent_sky: I also can't see how open carry laws (regarding walking down city streets just holding a shotgun or what-have-you) don't somewhat contradict laws against inciting a panic or the used to cover anything we don't like "makingterroristic threats". It could just be the raised in NY, living in CT me, but I'd be pretty panicked if I headed out to the stores later and a guy was walking down Post Road with a shotgun, and I imagine most people would.

On a tangental note, does a a right that people are too afraid to exercise actually mean anything?

If you have the right to open carry, but are put off of doing it because you're afraid of public outcry and/or the potential criminal penalties you mention, does that right really mean anything in a practical sense?

Among other things, open-carry laws help protect folks who are lawfully carrying concealed, but have their shirt ride up accidentally (bend over or reach for something high).  In many states, that accident - of which you may not be aware - can instantly move you from "concealed carry" to "open carry" status.  I would very, VERY much like to have a law banning open carry as per "intent to attention whore", while leaving people like hunters (who do, in fact "open carry" their weapons), but I'm pretty sure that it's an impossible law to write and an even more impossible law to enforce.

/this is why we cannot have nice things


One needs to look to history as to what started the limits on open carry in this country before they start making suggestions.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-04 09:30:22 AM  
Oh, you're applying for a job? Yeah, we saw you on the news and it turns out you like to be an asshole. I'm sorry sir we have a no asshole policy at work. You would cause way to many problems for us.
 
2014-08-04 09:31:00 AM  
See??? No one got shot.
I feel much more comfortable about guns now.
Thanks, kid!
 
MFK
2014-08-04 09:31:57 AM  

Headso: MFK: You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing.

In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.


Easiest thing in the WORLD. If you're hunting you are probably wearing some sort of hunter's camo plus the ALREADY required bright orange pieces that would easily identify the carrier as either hunting or on his way to go hunting. No one gets upset and no cops get called because everyone says "oh, that guy's hunting" and zero farks are given.
 
2014-08-04 09:32:02 AM  

lilbjorn: Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?


My money is on "village idiocy without a permit".
 
2014-08-04 09:32:14 AM  

I alone am best: I am glad everyone in this thread is OK with stopping people and asking for ID based on their appearance. Just to make sure they are not breaking the law.

This should help us to clear up our immigration problem a little faster.


Age is different than skin color.

I'm 34 and carded about 75% of the time I go into a liquor store and buy alcohol, or order alcohol at a restaurant.  Why?  Because I look like I'm in my early 20's, and most restaurants and liquor stores, to comply with the 21+ law in these United States, will card if someone looks younger than 30.  Because sometimes life is hard on some teenager and they end up looking like old farts long before their time.  Heroin is a hell of a drug, after all.

Same goes with cigarettes.  18+ (sometimes 19, at least to purchase), and I'm FINE with age-based carding.

This isn't like stop-and-frisk, and I've yet to hear of the police using excessive force in an age-based stop.  You show your ID like asked, they look at the date of birth and, if you're not breaking the law you go on your merry damned way.

I show my ID at the liquor store and I get my booze.

Same thing.  If the police stopped me outside of the liquor store and asked for my ID, I'd be FINE with it, so long as they didn't make me drop my rum.
 
2014-08-04 09:32:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


You must be so proud that your parents raised you in a such a highly civilized place.
 
2014-08-04 09:32:49 AM  
This kid is why alcohol purchases are limited to those 21 and over. It's scientific fact that a teenager's brains aren't fully developed yet, especially the frontal lobe - the part of the brain where we figure out "what happens next?" and "what if?". It's why teens do the dumb sh*t they would not even think of doing ten years later.

All you people out there who take the time to handle your guns safely - not just according to the law but with common f*cking sense - should want to beat this moron's ass to fine powder.
 
2014-08-04 09:33:53 AM  
I'm sure that's the type of situation the drafters of the Constitution foresaw AND approved of.  Yep.  And you'd be delusional to think otherwise.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:09 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.


img.fark.net

it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:36 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: [img.fark.net image 480x360]

[www.slantmagazine.com image 602x330]


Eponysterical
 
2014-08-04 09:35:38 AM  
Eh, at least the kid is walking around getting some exercise for a change.  I don't care about guns for the most part, but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

I don't really expect great reasoning from a teenager, but it sure seems to me, that these "protester" types are just inviting legislation that ruins it for the average hunter, who gets back from a hunt and carries their rifle into a donut shop rather than leaving it unattended in their pickup truck.
 
2014-08-04 09:35:41 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Yup, just like voting, actually.
 
2014-08-04 09:36:25 AM  

jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.


He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.
 
2014-08-04 09:37:20 AM  

Headso: it doesn't apply to this situation but it applies to the suggestion that people should be charged with a crime when they are walking down the road with a gun, the post I was responding to. Gun laws should be the most local level. This situation appears to be a protest, nothing wrong with that either, protests aren't supposed to make everyone happ

y.

Nobody said he should be charged with a crime, that I saw. Most people said he was within his legal rights, but nonetheless, stupid, rude, ignorant, and clearly upsetting other people enough that they felt the police should be notified and involved.  I doubt in your scenario, in the rural town where everyone is hunting, anyone is calling the police on the hunter walking down the street, and if they did, they'd be laughed at.  So I actually agree with you on the laws being a local thing - which they are.

The part where you confused me is "this appears to be a protest." Of what, exactly?  Open carry is already legal in that state, and the only reason he was stopped was people who saw him felt concerned/threatened (whatever... I can't say specifically what they were feeling) enough to call the police. So what was he protesting? People's fears of guns? If so, as I suggested above, why not educate people - set up a table, show them gun safety, explain how to handle, store, clean, and properly carry a gun. Show what a responsible gun owner looks like rather than simply wandering around, carrying a gun with you. That would be productive, proactive, and would help people understand guns in and of themselves are not something to be terrified of at all times. In his situation, 1) there wasn't anything to protest; 2) His behavior was abnormal/attention drawing enough that people called the police; 3) He nonetheless wasn't charged with any crimes.  So I'm sort of lost there, specifically regarding the point or so-called protest.  He may not like that the police were called, , but the police do have to respond to all calls they receive and ask pertinent questions.
 
2014-08-04 09:38:33 AM  

FlashHarry: it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.


iruntheinternet.com
 
2014-08-04 09:39:25 AM  

Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.


Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.
 
2014-08-04 09:40:52 AM  
206 comments as of the time I wrote this and it always ends up the same. The gun rights guys say the liberals are wrong who say the gun rights guys are wrong. You know what? This is not a gun rights issue. This is a crazy 18y/o's issue with him wanting attention. This is not about the right to do, it is about the what you have the sense NOT to do. I don't care if he does have the right to carry a shotgun. I don't care if he is not breaking a law. Does that mean that he should be allowed to make people in his community uncomfortable because he has the right to? Sure you can all say that people should not be nervous because he is not doing anything. Have you ever been on a roller coaster? You are locked in, strapped in the speeds are regulated, and there are people that inspect them regularly for safety and damage. You know what? They still scare the SHIAT out of me when I get on one. You can call it an irrational, but could it not be just as irrational for an individual to knowingly terrorize a community just because he can. The whole get use to me carrying a gun argument sounds like the same argument I use to use when I wanted a chick to take it in the poop chute. And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.
 
2014-08-04 09:41:15 AM  
Looks like the kid from 3 1/2 men.
 
2014-08-04 09:41:27 AM  
One more stupid point:  A shotgun is worth how much to a criminal?  Would such a criminal be inclined to relieve this teen of his weapon thus THUS putting another untraceable stolen weapon on the street.  Whether the teen is fatally ventilated during this transaction or merely damaged is consequential only to relatives, loved ones and the local heath care system.
 
2014-08-04 09:42:41 AM  
Has nobody else noted the resemblance

i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-04 09:44:21 AM  

I alone am best: including not showing ID


Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.
 
2014-08-04 09:45:40 AM  

jshine: serial_crusher: Um, I hope it wasn't loaded during the filming of this.

/ Gun is always loaded...

If a gun is *always* loaded, how do you clean or transport them? ...because generally you shouldn't do those things with a loaded gun.


You just go ahead and assume they're all unloaded, precious. Just make sure not to point it at another, more intelligent, person. M'kay? Thanks
 
2014-08-04 09:46:27 AM  

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.


Settle what? He isn't suing anybody. They may choose to dismiss his charges, and probably should, since it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try this tard or jail him. But there isn't anything they need to "settle".
 
2014-08-04 09:46:33 AM  

vingamm:  And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.


Given how many of them shoot I'm not all that certain they're around for my protection, or anyone else's even their own at times. Course my view of the best version of gun control is all guns in the area are in my control. It just doesn't scale well.
 
2014-08-04 09:47:20 AM  
I was raised around guns. I've owned guns. I have nothing against guns or responsible gun owners. I also think the only reason this kid is wandering around town with a shotgun is that he's an attention-whoring little shiatbag who bears watching. Normal people don't walk around town carrying shotguns. If he doesn't accidentally blow his own head off first because he obviously does not know how to properly handle a gun, he'll probably end up in jail.

It's not about being a liberal or a conservative. It's just about not being a farking idiot.
 
2014-08-04 09:48:52 AM  
Someone should paint the signers of the Constitution all holding weapons as they sign the Constitution.  Some rifles, some pistols stuck in their waists.  Maybe
Alexander Hamilton holding two pistols gangsta style.  That way, in fitty years, the 2nd Amendment people can point to the painting and say "See?  This is what they intended!"
 
2014-08-04 09:50:01 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


Shrug, the cop has to show that he reasonably suspects the kid committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
"Carrying a gun" ranks pretty close to "not being white" on the reasonable suspicion spectrum.
 
2014-08-04 09:50:03 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


For the lazy:

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.


I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.
 
2014-08-04 09:51:04 AM  

pla: Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.


But this is completely not true.  If this kid were heading to the firing range or out hunting, no one would bat an eye, and THAT is the intent of the open carry long gun laws.  And open carrying long guns is not a right, it is allowable under the law.  Either way, it is certainly not a privilege that one cannot exercise.

Walking around with a long gun for no reason makes one look more like the psychos who shoot up schools, movie theaters and post offices or rob stores.

I live in Texas,the land of ubiquitous gun ownership and rabid republicans (if what I read on Fark is true).  You pretty much get a CCL with your voter ID card.  Yet, inexplicably, I never see folks walking down 6th Street with a rifle, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that responsible gun owners aren't out to scare people with their guns unless there is a reason to do so.  You don't pull your gun out unless you are going to use it (either for protection, or to go to the range, or to go hunting).  Doing so otherwise is a good way to get yourself killed by some other responsible citizen who has a CCL (pretty much everyone in the south if what I read on Fark is true) who is standing their ground.
 
2014-08-04 09:51:56 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.


I don't know if it's that black and white. I'm no expert on this, but the ruling seems to indicate that the police have to be investigating a suspected crime to request ID. In that case, do they have to inform you of what crime that is? Otherwise they have carte blanche to request identification from whoever they want to, since they are always investigating SOME crime.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:32 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Has nobody else noted the resemblance

[i.chzbgr.com image 401x271]


You forgot the kid that used to try and duplicate Darth Maul's fighting style before people drove him to depression and a higher paying job than I have right now.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:53 AM  

FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.


Well, I suppose that comes down to there being an obviously missing magazine, and your ability to notice such detail.  Is the average grandmother going to notice that when she's shopping for her new copy of 50 Shades of Grey?
 
2014-08-04 09:52:57 AM  
Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

/This is not nazi germany, and you are under no obligation to show your "papers" without due cause. Meaning, the officer is investigating a crime, and suspects that you have committed it. I, and you, are under no law that says we have to produce ID upon demand for walking down the street. This "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and will not hold up in court. Your panic at seeing a armed individual doesn't vitiate my right to defend myself. That being said, the kid is a farking tool for carrying a loaded shotgun down the street. You are not helping. Wear a farking pancake holster, and stop being a farking douche bag. We all know you have a small penis, and are making up for it with your boom stick. Carry a handgun under your shirt if you can carry concealed.
 
2014-08-04 09:52:59 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.



It is not reasonable. They have no objective basis to assume he was under 18. They asked and he told them, then they wanted his ID to prove it.

 A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available,

None of which apply in this situation.
 
2014-08-04 09:53:47 AM  

serial_crusher: Shrug, the cop has to show that he reasonably suspects the kid committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
"Carrying a gun" ranks pretty close to "not being white" on the reasonable suspicion spectrum.


Fortunately, law enforcement can tell what his intentions are based on the color hat he's wearing. The kid was wearing a white hat, right?
 
2014-08-04 09:54:09 AM  
Gee a nerdy little fanboy trying to look tough.
 
2014-08-04 09:54:14 AM  

MFK: The fact of the matter is while these guys may be the "good guys" in their own heads, nobody else knows if they are a good guy or someone who's on his way to shoot up a mall. We shouldn't have to wait to find out the hard way.


This.  We should not be so comfortable (or just plain numb) seeing people carrying around their guns that we will miss the one person who really shouldn't have a gun in the first place, and by all rights should be locked away somewhere in a straight jacket.
 
2014-08-04 09:54:45 AM  

jso2897: I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.

Settle what? He isn't suing anybody. They may choose to dismiss his charges, and probably should, since it would be a waste of taxpayer money to try this tard or jail him. But there isn't anything they need to "settle".


As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.
 
2014-08-04 09:55:42 AM  

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.


To detain someone, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed - and reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause. As you note, they believed that Babyface there was underage, so they detained him. At that point, they can ask for ID, and if the person refuses to provide it, then in many states, they have committed a crime.
Your post would be correct, if the guy was a retiree. But here, where he's 18 and looks 15, then, no - it's the same as if he were walking down the street pushing a keg of beer on a cart and they stopped him to check ID.
 
2014-08-04 09:55:54 AM  

Ker_Thwap: FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.

Well, I suppose that comes down to there being an obviously missing magazine, and your ability to notice such detail.  Is the average grandmother going to notice that when she's shopping for her new copy of 50 Shades of Grey?


Given that nobody bothered them or called the cops, it seems that way.

/I'm of the opinion basic firearm safety should be a required course in schools, though.  Not "proficiency"; safety.  That would, naturally, include things like "being able to tell when an AK or AR's magazine is missing - it's not a tiny detail, after all.
 
2014-08-04 09:56:12 AM  
Monkeyhouse Zendo:
I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.

The law does not work that way.
 
2014-08-04 09:56:54 AM  

I alone am best: None of which apply in this situation.


I love this. Authoritarians will support "had bloodshot eyes" as probable cause for a search but carrying around firearms for no particular reason is kosher. I guess it really does matter whose ox is being gored.
 
2014-08-04 09:57:41 AM  

serpent_sky: The part where you confused me is "this appears to be a protest." Of what, exactly?  Open carry is already legal in that state, and the only reason he was stopped was people who saw him felt concerned/threatened (whatever... I can't say specifically what they were feeling) enough to call the police. So what was he protesting? People's fears of guns? If so, as I suggested above, why not educate people - set up a table, show them gun safety, explain how to handle, store, clean, and properly carry a gun. Show what a responsible gun owner looks like rather than simply wandering around, carrying a gun with you. That would be productive, proactive, and would help people understand guns in and of themselves are not something to be terrified of at all times. In his situation, 1) there wasn't anything to protest; 2) His behavior was abnormal/attention drawing enough that people called the police; 3) He nonetheless wasn't charged with any crimes.  So I'm sort of lost there, specifically regarding the point or so-called protest.  He may not like that the police were called, , but the police do have to respond to all calls they receive and ask pertinent questions.


He's protesting based on his perception of the world where the libs are going to take his guns away. Had he set up some table it wouldn't have made the news, your idea isn't provocative. He was charged with a crime, when the cop said "papers please" he said no and got charged with obstructing.
 
2014-08-04 09:57:42 AM  

vingamm: 206 comments as of the time I wrote this and it always ends up the same. The gun rights guys say the liberals are wrong who say the gun rights guys are wrong. You know what? This is not a gun rights issue. This is a crazy 18y/o's issue with him wanting attention. This is not about the right to do, it is about the what you have the sense NOT to do. I don't care if he does have the right to carry a shotgun. I don't care if he is not breaking a law. Does that mean that he should be allowed to make people in his community uncomfortable because he has the right to? Sure you can all say that people should not be nervous because he is not doing anything. Have you ever been on a roller coaster? You are locked in, strapped in the speeds are regulated, and there are people that inspect them regularly for safety and damage. You know what? They still scare the SHIAT out of me when I get on one. You can call it an irrational, but could it not be just as irrational for an individual to knowingly terrorize a community just because he can. The whole get use to me carrying a gun argument sounds like the same argument I use to use when I wanted a chick to take it in the poop chute. And I think I am use to people carrying guns for my protection....they are called POLICE OFFICERS. I don't need a punk kid walking around talking about he is protecting me.


(1) you are correct that this is not a guns right issue. It's a 4th amendment issue - can the cops harrass you because you're within the bounds of the law, yet doing someting that is legal? We already have procedures in place for those who are breaking the law, and they're meant to protect the a-holes as well. Remember that Miranda of Miranda rights fame was a rapist and an overall sleazebag.

(2) Your roller coaster is a good analogy for "knowingly terrorize". If you ride it every day, you will no longer be terrified. The open carry people, while misguided, are trying to overcome your terror through acclimation. Their overall intent is not to terrify, but to change culture.

(3) The idea of "anointed police officers protecting you" is the old busted. Some of the smarter ones are breaking ranks. Here you go:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/detroit-police-chief -s ays-armed-citizens-are-curbi/
 
2014-08-04 09:58:39 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Has nobody else noted the resemblance

[i.chzbgr.com image 401x271]


Yes. Grumble.
 
2014-08-04 09:58:47 AM  

I alone am best: rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.


It is not reasonable. They have no objective basis to assume he was under 18. They asked and he told them, then they wanted his ID to prove it.

 A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available,

None of which apply in this situation.




/Agreed. They asked,..he told them. Just because they wish him to prove it doesn't compel him to comply. He did it to make a point, and he did. He's an attention whoring dick.
 
2014-08-04 09:58:56 AM  

Theaetetus: I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: lilbjorn: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Drop what charges?  What do you imagine he is charged with?  Did you even read TFA?

I didnt read the article. What did they charge him with? My guess is obstruction because that is what they always charge people with right before they get sued and settle it out of court.

This kid has no lawyer and isn't suing anybody. He has nobody to sue, and nothing to sue them for.

He was cited for obstruction and he wasn't doing anything wrong including not showing ID. This is not new, it happens all the time and the state/city always loses, they settle out of court and the charges get thrown out. They assumed he was underage after stopping him for engaging in a lawful activity. They made a mistake.

To detain someone, the police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed - and reasonable suspicion is a lower bar than probable cause. As you note, they believed that Babyface there was underage, so they detained him. At that point, they can ask for ID, and if the person refuses to provide it, then in many states, they have committed a crime.
Your post would be correct, if the guy was a retiree. But here, where he's 18 and looks 15, then, no - it's the same as if he were walking down the street pushing a keg of beer on a cart and they stopped him to check ID.


He looks over 18 to me. Lets see if he sues and what the judge thinks then.
 
2014-08-04 09:59:18 AM  

Headso: In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee.


Hunters (at least those in my area) will give their neighbors a call and inform them that they will be hunting prey on multiple properties. This way no one is surprised when a few hunters move across their fields, yards, forest, etc...
And it isn't uncommon for neighbors to post notices telling hunters what time of the day to be on/off their property.
Eventually everyone knows who is walking the roads/properties to hunt.

So a random kid (or adult) walking the roads (or the connected properties) with a gun in hand is going to look out of place even among those used to seeing people carry rifles. (Heck I would wager that most hunters would see this kid as being out of place.) And even in the farming/hunting community, armed strangers are not well received.

//Cheers
 
2014-08-04 10:00:37 AM  
Gain inches to your penis with this one weird trick....

....walk around in public scaring people with a gun.
 
2014-08-04 10:00:50 AM  
Look at me! I'm an attention whore!

/second amendment doesn't keep you from being a raging asshole
 
2014-08-04 10:00:58 AM  

I alone am best: As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.


I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about something that had actually happened or was going to actually happen.
Of course, it's cool to fantasize any future that entertains you.
 
2014-08-04 10:01:15 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: rzrwiresunrise: I alone am best: including not showing ID

Here's the law on stop and identify in CO. But we all have our delusions. Far be it from me to take away yours.

For the lazy:

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

I'd say that carrying a weapon out in the open is probable cause that shiat may go down so an ID and maybe a pat down are absolutely within the law.


You'd be wrong (in states where open carry is legal).
The difference here is that the kid looked underage, and carrying a weapon while appearing to be a kid creates reasonable suspicion that can warrant checking an ID. It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.
 
2014-08-04 10:01:48 AM  
Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.
 
2014-08-04 10:02:02 AM  

www.rawstory.com


I do not avoid women.  But I... I do deny them my essence.

 
2014-08-04 10:02:35 AM  
I still haven't seen one black person try and record an open-carry encounter.  I bet it'd be a very different reaction than this cracker child.
 
2014-08-04 10:03:51 AM  
Teenager...


All I needed to know.


/some of them never grow out of that phase
 
2014-08-04 10:03:54 AM  

jso2897: I alone am best: As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.

I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about something that had actually happened or was going to actually happen.
Of course, it's cool to fantasize any future that entertains you.


Because everything happens in 20 seconds after you're arrested? He has a while to do it and he is going to have to in order to have the obstruction charge removed.
 
2014-08-04 10:04:30 AM  
I live in a stand-your-ground state (not Florida thank Zeus). It's also an open-carry state, so I'm somewhat accustomed to (and even fairly comfortable with) people walking around with holsters on their belts. But if I were a store owner and someone walked in carrying a shotgun (or "assault-type-weapon" of any kind) where there was no legitimate purpose for carrying such a weapon, I wouldn't wait to see what he plans on doing with the goddamned thing. I'd shoot the motherfarker.

/every business owner has the duty and the right to protect their customers from ANY threat.
 
2014-08-04 10:04:32 AM  

IlGreven: I still haven't seen one black person try and record an open-carry encounter.  I bet it'd be a very different reaction than this cracker child.


It happens - they call it "suicide by cop".
 
2014-08-04 10:05:16 AM  

I alone am best: He  She looks over 18 to me


Famous last words...

Seriously, that kid still has baby fat. They card people buying beer until they look 30 but we're supposed to believe that the kid that shaves once a week is old enough to publicly carry firearms.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns. What I have a problem with is the shiat stupid culture that has grown up around them here in the US.
 
2014-08-04 10:05:25 AM  
Yay Gun Thread!!


Found a quick easy way to refinish the furniture on an AK for all you combloc fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeQeP3a8aXc


You are welcome.
 
2014-08-04 10:06:01 AM  

FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: but if I see someone carrying around a rifle/shotgun around town and it's not hunting season, I'd call the police as well.

Eh, I've seen people walking around this area (Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati) with WASR-10s (essentially AKMs - think the AK-47) slung over their back.  No magazine in the mag well, and with the bolt locked back.  They were browsing in a Barnes&Noble.  They weren't bothering anybody, minded their own business, and nobody bothered them.

Well, I suppose that comes down to there being an obviously missing magazine, and your ability to notice such detail.  Is the average grandmother going to notice that when she's shopping for her new copy of 50 Shades of Grey?

Given that nobody bothered them or called the cops, it seems that way.

/I'm of the opinion basic firearm safety should be a required course in schools, though.  Not "proficiency"; safety.  That would, naturally, include things like "being able to tell when an AK or AR's magazine is missing - it's not a tiny detail, after all.


Required in school?  That seems a little fascist to me.  Are you also going to require knitting, so that people can tell the difference between a knit and a purl?  Require driver's education in school, so that city dwellers can learn the difference between a Ford and a Chevy?

I don't give a crap about guns, I live in the woods, I'll never need one for defense, I'm too lazy to hunt, and it seems an expensive hobby for the target range.  I'm not for or against them really.  I do think anyone trying to "make a point" by waving one around is being counterproductive to their own cause.
 
2014-08-04 10:06:10 AM  

ZeroPly: I don't know if it's that black and white. I'm no expert on this, but the ruling seems to indicate that the police have to be investigating a suspected crime to request ID. In that case, do they have to inform you of what crime that is? Otherwise they have carte blanche to request identification from whoever they want to, since they are always investigating SOME crime.


I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911, because if something happens, the public (rightfully) loses it that there was no response to a call/calls that could have prevented, or limited the harm of, a mass shooting or other major crime. That alone is reason enough for them to ask questions - they have to be able to show they followed up and used due diligence regarding a potential incident involving the public they are accountable to.

Again, this kid was questioned by the police after people called the police, specifically, regarding him and his actions. That alone is impetus enough in pretty much enough for the police to stop, identify, and question a person in any state, even states without a stop and ID law. They're investigating reports of a suspicious person.
 
2014-08-04 10:07:09 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Voter ID Laws, protest permits, free speech zones, and the assault on Glen Greenwald?  Haven't heard you pipe up on any of those issues.
 
2014-08-04 10:07:30 AM  
In the video, Lohner explains to an officer that he is the process of returning home after buying cigarettes. When asked why he's carrying a shotgun, Lohner replies, "For the defense of myself and those around me."


/I would have said, "first of all, I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you. I have committed no crime, and exercising my state and constitutional rights is not a crime the last i heard. Do you often harass citizens who are just walking down the street doing nothing and ask them for their papers? The public's ignorance of the laws and unfounded panic does not vitiate my rights. Why do YOU carry a gun?" Ah..for the defense of yourself and others...hmmm...
 
2014-08-04 10:08:10 AM  

Halli: 70Ford: [i.ytimg.com image 480x360]
Gimme a case of shells and a case of them Little Debbie snack cakes,

Somehow these guys always look like that. Just needs a fedora to be extra douchy.


This was why Larry Flynt was such a useful plaintiff in civil rights litigation; because he was so thoroughly personally dislikeable. Rights are important to defend exercises you like, rights are important to defend exercises you don't like.
 
2014-08-04 10:08:27 AM  

Hawnkee: Yaw String: Insert token masturbation reference here.

I'm just waiting for the firearm-to-penis size correlation drinking game to begin.


Inversely proportional?
 
2014-08-04 10:08:37 AM  

I alone am best: jso2897: I alone am best: As soon as he gets a lawyer for the obstruction charge they would be remiss not to sue the city.

I'm sorry - I thought you were talking about something that had actually happened or was going to actually happen.
Of course, it's cool to fantasize any future that entertains you.

Because everything happens in 20 seconds after you're arrested? He has a while to do it and he is going to have to in order to have the obstruction charge removed.


Look - eveidently, you have a lot invested in this - and if it makes you feel good to think this guy is going to sue somebody for something and win, then by all means, think it. But I wouldn't bet anything on it i couldn't afford to lose.
 
2014-08-04 10:08:50 AM  

The_Original_Roxtar: PunGent: dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.

It's an interesting question, I suppose.  I was taught to clean my guns after I fire them, so that's what I do.  I'm actually not sure how long you could go a) regularly shooting a gun, and b) not cleaning said gun.   It would depend on how touchy the weapon was...much like some cars are more reliable than others, on average.

Weapons like the AK-47 are supposed to be VERY reliable, even under horrible field conditions, w/o being cleaned, etc.

it probably depends mostly on the ammo you feed said weapon.
here's a torture test some guys did:
http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/


Interesting...thanks for the link.
 
2014-08-04 10:09:09 AM  
Well, he's correct.

Also, he's an attention whore, ignore him and he'll go away eventually.  Unless he actually does something dangerous or threatens somebody, then arrest him for assault, I guess.

This is about as worthy of panic as kids' fashion embracing saggy pants or any of the 31415927 other things that teenagers enjoy doing pretty much exactly because of media panics.
 
2014-08-04 10:09:30 AM  

cptrios: Needing to show ID when buying alcohol if you look under 21? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying cigarettes if you look under 18? Fine.
Needing to show ID when buying R-rated movie tickets if you look under 17? A-OK.
Needing to show ID when voting if you...well, I don't know what? Patriotically combatting voter fraud.

Needing to show ID when carrying a shotgun if you look under 18? HITLER!


One of these is not like the others.
 
2014-08-04 10:10:21 AM  

KRSESQ: I live in a stand-your-ground state (not Florida thank Zeus). It's also an open-carry state, so I'm somewhat accustomed to (and even fairly comfortable with) people walking around with holsters on their belts. But if I were a store owner and someone walked in carrying a shotgun (or "assault-type-weapon" of any kind) where there was no legitimate purpose for carrying such a weapon, I wouldn't wait to see what he plans on doing with the goddamned thing. I'd shoot the motherfarker.

/every business owner has the duty and the right to protect their customers from ANY threat.


/then im pretty sure you would go to jail for murder.  He needs no "legitimate reason " for carrying a weapon.  Just because you piss yourself because of "ooo...scary big gun" doesn't give you the right to execute him. But go ahead...let me know how that works out for you.
 
2014-08-04 10:11:14 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.


He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.
 
2014-08-04 10:11:34 AM  
The kid is trolling the entire town, showing how ridiculous gun laws are.
 
2014-08-04 10:13:57 AM  

Theaetetus: It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.


I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.

How do you tell the difference between someone walking into a bank with an AR-15 who intends to open a checking account vs a plan to rob the place? Are we back to colored hats?

I seriously hope that the hardest, scariest, pipe hitting nubians start walking around exercising their open carry rights.
 
2014-08-04 10:14:44 AM  
Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?
 
2014-08-04 10:14:58 AM  

ChrisDe: The kid is trolling the entire town, showing how ridiculous gun laws are.


How is he showing how ridiculous gun laws are, if he isn't breaking any gun laws?
 
2014-08-04 10:15:09 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


Unless the third reason has something to do with alcohol, you're not invited to any of my parties.
 
2014-08-04 10:15:39 AM  

Ker_Thwap: Required in school?


Yes.  You learn about the way the other amendments function, so why not the 2nd?  More specifically, I'm tired of idiots shooting themselves or other people because they find a gun and don't know how to do something simple like "check if it's loaded". 

Barring a massive sea change in public opinion (ie, getting rid of the 2nd) guns are here to stay.  Guns are a part of US society.  Guns can kill you or others if they're mishandled.  Since gun safety clearly isn't being taught at home, it's a public service and in the best interests of EVERYONE to ensure that US society is instructed on gun safety.  Best way to do that is through the schools.

Let me reiterate.  This is not about firearm proficiency.  This is not teaching you how to accurately and precisely hit a target, nor how to perform quick reloads, and so forth.  This is stuff like "this is a magazine, bullets go in it", "this is the muzzle, bullets come out of it so don't point the thing at other people", and "here's how to check if a revolver, a semi-auto, or a bolt-action weapon is loaded".  That level of stuff.

/I work with adult actors, teaching stage combat - which includes guns - on a theatrical stage or set
//I'm tired of 30-year olds putting the muzzle of a gun up to their eye to "see if it's loaded".
 
2014-08-04 10:16:23 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Are we back to colored hats?


Well, this *is* in the Wild West.....
 
2014-08-04 10:17:58 AM  

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


i180.photobucket.com

What do you mean "these threads"?

/Pretty much any Fark thread involves pants pissing and penises. Even the food threads
 
2014-08-04 10:18:15 AM  

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


You can never have too much penis - everybody loves penises - if not anybody else's, at least their own.
 
2014-08-04 10:19:01 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: /I would have said, "first of all, I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you. I have committed no crime, and exercising my state and constitutional rights is not a crime the last i heard. Do you often harass citizens who are just walking down the street doing nothing and ask them for their papers? The public's ignorance of the laws and unfounded panic does not vitiate my rights. Why do YOU carry a gun?


And again, if you were black, you'd've been shot right after "first of all"...
 
2014-08-04 10:19:14 AM  

FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: Required in school?

Yes.  You learn about the way the other amendments function, so why not the 2nd?  More specifically, I'm tired of idiots shooting themselves or other people because they find a gun and don't know how to do something simple like "check if it's loaded". 

Barring a massive sea change in public opinion (ie, getting rid of the 2nd) guns are here to stay.  Guns are a part of US society.  Guns can kill you or others if they're mishandled.  Since gun safety clearly isn't being taught at home, it's a public service and in the best interests of EVERYONE to ensure that US society is instructed on gun safety.  Best way to do that is through the schools.

Let me reiterate.  This is not about firearm proficiency.  This is not teaching you how to accurately and precisely hit a target, nor how to perform quick reloads, and so forth.  This is stuff like "this is a magazine, bullets go in it", "this is the muzzle, bullets come out of it so don't point the thing at other people", and "here's how to check if a revolver, a semi-auto, or a bolt-action weapon is loaded".  That level of stuff.

/I work with adult actors, teaching stage combat - which includes guns - on a theatrical stage or set
//I'm tired of 30-year olds putting the muzzle of a gun up to their eye to "see if it's loaded".


Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".
 
2014-08-04 10:19:41 AM  

fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.


if Hamas is using innocent bystanders as human shield I should not have a right to protect myself?
 
2014-08-04 10:20:37 AM  

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


Apparently people with tiny penises like to demonize their political opponents, by calling telling them they have tiny penises.

I think it's kind of cruel to the people living with tiny penises.  When will people stop the tiny penis shaming!?  When will this nation stand up against this kind of repression?
 
2014-08-04 10:20:41 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.


The restrictions on a cop demanding ID are only  slightly looser than the probable cause required for a citation or arrest.

This is a huge, major point in the history of US civil rights laws, so you should probably be aware of it.  It's on the list of central issues that sparked the reform movement in the '70s right next to segregation and shenanigans with poll taxes and grandfathering.
 
2014-08-04 10:20:48 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.


And, again, considering the police were called by people who were concerned about what the kid was doing, they were obligated to follow up on said calls regarding a suspicious person with a gun. The cops don't follow the kid around town, harassing him, they don't sit outside his house, and they didn't single him out because they had nothing better to do. They were following up on calls, which involves questions. Generally, if nothing is going on, the cops (as much as I dislike cops) have better things to do than stand around asking endless questions. But they have to follow up when they're called. If they don't, and something happens, things end far worse than some kid being asked who he is and why he's walking around with a gun.

This really, really comes down to the police's obligation to respond to, and follow up on calls.
 
2014-08-04 10:21:23 AM  

feckingmorons: Well it is legal isn't it?


Ah the 3-year-old's rationalization.  Lots of things are legal.
 
2014-08-04 10:21:34 AM  

BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".


If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?
 
2014-08-04 10:21:39 AM  
I just found out a guy I grew up with lost his life trying to be a good guy with a gun a few years ago. He managed to kill one of the perps but not before taking a lethal gut shot.

My brother, a veteran cop and fellow gun nut commented that being a good shot isn't the same as having tactical experience. He even said sometimes you're not in a position to fight back and a wallet isn't worth your life.

Too many people in this country will learn this lesson the hard way.

People like this tub of santorum
 
2014-08-04 10:21:46 AM  

stonelotus: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

if Hamas is using innocent bystanders as human shield I should not have a right to protect myself?


Okaaaaaay.
i18.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-04 10:21:58 AM  

Headso: He's protesting based on his perception of the world where the libs are going to take his guns away. Had he set up some table it wouldn't have made the news, your idea isn't provocative. He was charged with a crime, when the cop said "papers please" he said no and got charged with obstructing.


So... you're saying he was right?
 
2014-08-04 10:22:29 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: KRSESQ: I live in a stand-your-ground state (not Florida thank Zeus). It's also an open-carry state, so I'm somewhat accustomed to (and even fairly comfortable with) people walking around with holsters on their belts. But if I were a store owner and someone walked in carrying a shotgun (or "assault-type-weapon" of any kind) where there was no legitimate purpose for carrying such a weapon, I wouldn't wait to see what he plans on doing with the goddamned thing. I'd shoot the motherfarker.

/every business owner has the duty and the right to protect their customers from ANY threat.

/then im pretty sure you would go to jail for murder.  He needs no "legitimate reason " for carrying a weapon.  Just because you piss yourself because of "ooo...scary big gun" doesn't give you the right to execute him. But go ahead...let me know how that works out for you.


Ah, but that's the beautiful thing about stand-your-ground. As long as you're on your own property going about your lawful business, you're completely within your rights to open up on anyone you consider "threatening."

/that's what's so farked up about it.
 
2014-08-04 10:22:29 AM  

trappedspirit: Why do these threads always contain mention of pants pissing and penises?


Because people often attempt to compensate for poor self image, lack of personal power, or feelings of inadequacy by presenting an intimidating front to others. It's like a cat that puffs out its fur when it feels threatened; there are people in our society who feel consistently intimidated by others and so puff out their fur, metaphorically speaking. Whether it's pudgy white guys carrying firearms, dentists on Harleys, or old guys in flashy sports cars, we recognize it for what it is.
 
2014-08-04 10:23:19 AM  

FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?


We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.
 
2014-08-04 10:23:31 AM  
So how long before this pudgy twat goes in a virgin rage rampage?
 
2014-08-04 10:23:42 AM  

serpent_sky: I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911


Nope.
 
2014-08-04 10:24:28 AM  

Jurodan: I can easily imagine a scene where this guy walks into a public venue there like a super market or, for sheer idiocy, the movie theater and gets shot by some startled concealed carry gun owner trying to prevent another massacre.


Or...Dumbass McGinty is walking around with his gun strapped to his back where children are present, curious toddler walks up behind him, reaches up, and pulls the trigger (and you know that these open-carry nuts more than likely do not have the safety on their guns, so that they may "defend themselves and others" at a moment's notice).  Depending on which way the barrel's facing, instant tragedy for Dumbass or the toddler.  And yes, a toddler can get behind you and do things without you noticing.  I have a backpack that's decorated with my WDW pin collection, and a little one managed to pull one of them off when I was standing in line (I was holding the backpack by a strap by my side, so it was low to the ground).  I didn't even know it happened until his mom tapped me on the shoulder and handed it back to me.

I think that it's fine for people to own guns, as long as they do so responsibly.  Blatant open carry of long firearms (unless you're going hunting, taking your gun to and from the firing range, etc.) is irresponsible because A) people don't know your intent when you come into a public venue with a firearm, so they're afraid that you're there to shoot up the place and B) there are too many scenarios, like the ones described above, where something could go wrong.

Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
 
2014-08-04 10:25:36 AM  

BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.


I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.
 
2014-08-04 10:26:11 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: It's not enough to rise to the level of probable cause, though - he couldn't see the kid walking down the street and immediately arrest him.

I didn't say arrest him. I'm talking about just walking up to the kid, stopping him, asking him what he's up to, who he is, and for his ID.


And as I said, if the kid didn't look like a kid, then there wouldn't even be reasonable suspicion to stop him and ask for his ID. Or rather, you could stop him and ask whatever you want, but he's under no obligation to provide it or even keep talking to you.

How do you tell the difference between someone walking into a bank with an AR-15 who intends to open a checking account vs a plan to rob the place? Are we back to colored hats?

Perhaps the bank could have a sign saying something like "no weapons allowed", and then the guy walking in is at the least trespassing?
But we're not talking about walking into a bank - we're talking about walking down the sidewalk. And open carry on the sidewalk is legal in Colorado (provided that you're over 18).
 
2014-08-04 10:27:48 AM  

This text is now purple: serpent_sky: I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911

Nope.


This is why we can totally afford to eliminate police.  Altogether.  By the way.

This kid is still an attention whore, and not a civil rights crusader.  But that won't stop him from getting the Rosa Parks treatment.
 
2014-08-04 10:29:08 AM  
911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.
 
2014-08-04 10:29:36 AM  

FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.

I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.


We can start with a pilot program in Philly.
 
2014-08-04 10:29:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: When I was growing up, there were only three reason to leave the house without a gun, and two of those were church and school.


Times change, old man.
 
2014-08-04 10:30:03 AM  
His name is "Lohner"  !!!
 
2014-08-04 10:30:51 AM  

TacoBeelzebub: Blatant open carry of long firearms (unless you're going hunting, taking your gun to and from the firing range, etc.) is irresponsible because A) people don't know your intent when you come into a public venue with a firearm, so they're afraid that you're there to shoot up the place and B) there are too many scenarios, like the ones described above, where something could go wrong.


Both of these complaints apply to pistols too - people don't know your intent with a handgun strapped to your hip, and "something could go wrong" - so why is your post only limited to "long firearms"?
 
2014-08-04 10:31:25 AM  

FightDirector: Ker_Thwap: Required in school?

Yes.  You learn about the way the other amendments function, so why not the 2nd?  More specifically, I'm tired of idiots shooting themselves or other people because they find a gun and don't know how to do something simple like "check if it's loaded". 

Barring a massive sea change in public opinion (ie, getting rid of the 2nd) guns are here to stay.  Guns are a part of US society.  Guns can kill you or others if they're mishandled.  Since gun safety clearly isn't being taught at home, it's a public service and in the best interests of EVERYONE to ensure that US society is instructed on gun safety.  Best way to do that is through the schools.

Let me reiterate.  This is not about firearm proficiency.  This is not teaching you how to accurately and precisely hit a target, nor how to perform quick reloads, and so forth.  This is stuff like "this is a magazine, bullets go in it", "this is the muzzle, bullets come out of it so don't point the thing at other people", and "here's how to check if a revolver, a semi-auto, or a bolt-action weapon is loaded".  That level of stuff.

/I work with adult actors, teaching stage combat - which includes guns - on a theatrical stage or set
//I'm tired of 30-year olds putting the muzzle of a gun up to their eye to "see if it's loaded".


Yeah, entirely stupid, just like the other examples I listed.  I learned about the constitutional amendments in school.  If you think 2nd amendment teaching should include basic gun safety, that's really freaking strange.

I never had guns in my house growing up, I played cowboys and indians (don't judge me, it was the 60s)  with toy guns as a child, the current kids are playing first person shooters.  Everyone knows which end the bullet comes out of.

I don't need to learn the difference between an AK or an AR, just like I don't need to learn the difference between a Kia and a Cadillac.  If it's heading toward me on the sidewalk, I'm getting out of the damned way.

Excuse me sir, you seem to be carrying a rifle up to my front door while your daughter is selling girl scout cookies, would you mind terribly if I check to see if it's loaded?  Don't worry, I learned about handling a weapon in fourth grade!
 
2014-08-04 10:32:24 AM  

Headso: MFK: You want to walk down the street with your rifle at the ready - willing and able to confront danger wherever you perceive it? Sorry that's brandishing.

In rural areas during hunting season it's common for people to walk down the roads with rifles or shotguns or even stop into a store for coffee. People who have never stepped foot out of a suburb should know that gun laws appropriate for their part of a state might not be applicable in other areas.


Unless this kid was hunting for East Colfax skank Aurora doesn't qualify as "rural hunting grounds"
 
2014-08-04 10:32:28 AM  

FlashHarry: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.


it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.

it's also legal to walk around dressed up as hitler.

This is exactly the issue at hand:  a kid decides to be a douchebag in public, because the law allows him to do so and he wants to make that point.  Then people step up to defend him precisely because it was legal for him to be a douchebag.

Among the douchebag class, this is seen as proof that the douchebag was in the right for being a douchebag, and everyone else is wrong for not liking the douchebag, and wanting the douchebag to stop being a douchebag.   Because the douchebag was not breaking any law, which means his douchebag actions were heroic and correct.

But this is nearly the flimsiest possible excuse for being a douchebag.  Seriously, one of the weakest defenses you can make for atrocious behavior is to point out that it was not a crime.  The only weaker argument is to point out that he didn't break the laws of physics in the process of being a jerk.  Oh, well then what are we complaining about?  He's not doing anything wrong as would be strictly defined by a sociopath incapable of ethical reasoning.

But the issue here is not legality, it's appropriate behavior.  Walking around Aurora CO conspicuously displaying a loaded firearm is not much different from standing outside your mother's funeral with a sign saying YOUR MOM DESERVED IT.  Perfectly legal!  Constitutional rights!   I'm a freedom fighter against all you fascist oppressors!
 
2014-08-04 10:32:37 AM  

This text is now purple: serpent_sky: I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911

Nope.


Okay, but again, be honest: the police DO follow up and respond to emergency calls... but they managed to make it so they don't have to so they don't get sued into oblivion if some major emergency falls through the cracks or some lazy cops didn't bother.  But the fact is, people call 911, and 9999/10000 times, the cops are showing up and asking questions.
 
2014-08-04 10:32:56 AM  
Damn. Winning Jr Masterchef has been hell on that kid.
 
2014-08-04 10:33:31 AM  

BeesNuts: This text is now purple: serpent_sky: I'd say following up on calls to 911 is enough grounds to ask some questions such as "who are you?" and "what are you doing?" The police have to follow up on all calls to 911

Nope.

This is why we can totally afford to eliminate police.  Altogether.  By the way.

This kid is still an attention whore, and not a civil rights crusader.  But that won't stop him from getting the Rosa Parks treatment.


The kid is an asshole. But assholes have rights too.

\Imagine how quiet Fark would be if assholes didn't have the 1st Amendment
 
2014-08-04 10:34:11 AM  

BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.


/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.
 
2014-08-04 10:34:21 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.


You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?
 
2014-08-04 10:34:21 AM  

BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.

I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.

We can start with a pilot program in Philly.



Go for it.  Unless, of course, you think it's better to have kids accidentally killing people WHEN - not if - they find a gun.  Since the guns aren't going anywhere and all.


Also, I forgot to mention, as well during the last post, how artfully you dodged the question:

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

Care to take another swing?
 
2014-08-04 10:35:12 AM  

dookdookdook: PunGent: You don't HAVE to clean your gun after you use it, and you don't HAVE to change your oil every few thousand miles...but your gun and your car will each last longer if you do those things...or pay someone else to do them.

The point is a car engine will run for months with no maintenance without any particular increased risk of failure, yet something that basically does nothing but smack a small piece of metal with another small piece of metal not only needs constant TLC to stay safe and functional, but will blow off body parts if not done with maximum care and attention.


You're just gonna hyperbole this right into the ground despite the reasonable responses you're getting, aren't you?
 
2014-08-04 10:35:23 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Flat out wrong.

 If the state does something to him thats a violation of his civil rights. If a private individual restricts him from their business or obstructs his passing on the street, the most he could hope for is to be injured during such an attempt, which would make the other person liable for his injuries.
 
2014-08-04 10:35:46 AM  
How many wolf t-shirts does this kid own?
A) 2 to 3
B) 4 to 5
C) 6 or more
 
2014-08-04 10:36:28 AM  
Well, it looks like these people are going to force everyone to vote open-carry out of existence at the federal level.
 
2014-08-04 10:36:52 AM  

Theaetetus: But we're not talking about walking into a bank - we're talking about walking down the sidewalk. And open carry on the sidewalk is legal in Colorado (provided that you're over 18).


So en route to the bank with your crew is cool so long as you keep the clown mask in your back pocket. Good to know.
 
2014-08-04 10:37:11 AM  

MagSeven: August11: As a gun-owning liberal, should I even be in this thread?

No. You should be feeding your unicorn some New York City salsa!


i.ytimg.com

New York City?!
 
2014-08-04 10:37:28 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: Thunderpipes: rzrwiresunrise: Punchable face?
[www.rawstory.com image 615x345]

Yep.

Regarding stop and identify in CO

And I'm not surprised this kid's being a douche. It's something only some teenage males grow out of. The idea that one needs to carry guns around people to help them feel more comfortable around them is asinine. Take your ass to a place where guns are actually necessary: Somalia, South Sudan, Nigeria. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your clean streets, running water and 30-day return on purchases.

All of which are here because a bunch of upstarts decided that owning guns, and taking on an oppressive government was important.

It is so comical, because you libs are so terrified of the law abiding gun owners, which don't really do much wrong. Yet the hordes of Obama voting thugs out on the street are perfectly okay.... the ones actually doing the crime.

So you don't like the 2nd amendment. Seems you don't like the 1st, the 4th either. What is next to go? A right is exactly that, a right. Doesn't matter if using it makes other people offended. Speech does that. Should we outlaw that, depending on what party is in power? You want people disarmed, to the IRS, liberal feds, EPA, heck even the Office of Social Security will be so much more heavily armed, they can do what they want and citizens won't even be able to backtalk.

This post has much poetential. CO has a stop and identify law that's perfectly constitutional, just as I linked. Carrying a weapon in public has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. I never said anything about disarming anyone.

There are a lot of people who've built themselves a mental maze to reinforce this exact kind of paranoia, tho...


Think about what you post. The point is, you want the 2nd amendment gone... What is to stop other rights from going away? Already assaulting the 4th in relation to taking away the 2nd.
 
2014-08-04 10:37:57 AM  

BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.

You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?


/Drunk driving is against the law.  Walking down the street in this city / state with a firearm is not.  Your argument is moot.
 
2014-08-04 10:38:33 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: But we're not talking about walking into a bank - we're talking about walking down the sidewalk. And open carry on the sidewalk is legal in Colorado (provided that you're over 18).

So en route to the bank with your crew is cool so long as you keep the clown mask in your back pocket. Good to know.


Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?
 
2014-08-04 10:39:08 AM  
Hey there, Chubby, you're only 18, so right now, you still think your voice matters.  Mommy and daddy made you feel that way, that you were special, that you were important, that you had valid opinions on things.

But this is the real world.  You've gone from being 1/3 of a household to 1/500,000,000th of a population.  Your opinions and preferences have gone from High Priority to Completely Irrelevant.

Life will beat this truth into you.  You can fight it as long as you want, maybe clench those doughy fists into balls and cry about it, but you will lose.

You are nothing special.  You are not a crusader.  You are a dumb kid with a latent sense of parentally-granted importance and an idealist's rainbow goggles.

I can't wait to watch you fall.
 
2014-08-04 10:40:58 AM  

PreMortem: If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.
And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.
It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.


You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.
 
2014-08-04 10:43:41 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.

/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.


The legal barrier for police to request ID is almost non-existent.  And failure to do so can and will result in standard Contempt of Cop charges.  Is it fair?  No.  Is it constitutional?  No.  Does anyone care when it has nothing to do with gun totin white folks?  Also no.

You wanna be a freedom fighter?  Fine.  Don't biatch when the establishment does what you functionally BEGGED the establishment to do.  And when it comes down on your head, maybe have the presence of mind to realize it's not because of the specific thing you did, but because of the structure of the establishment you thought you could take on by waggling a shotgun around some skiddish people with PTSD.

The charge will stick, he will settle and pay a fine and we will all move on with our lives.  He will have accomplished nothing except gain support in the "always pro-gun" crowd, hatred in the "always anti-gun" crowd, and plain old revulsion from the rest of us.
 
2014-08-04 10:43:55 AM  

Theaetetus: Both of these complaints apply to pistols too - people don't know your intent with a handgun strapped to your hip, and "something could go wrong" - so why is your post only limited to "long firearms"?


Because people who want to draw attention to themselves and cause a ruckus tend to carry them because they are more obvious and obtrusive and completely out of place at the mall or a restaurant?  They've sort of become the calling card of the extreme "open carry" community who, not content with having the right to bear arms, need to scream at all times LOOK AT ME! I HAVE A LARGE GUN! THE LARGEST GUN I COULD FIND! AND I CAN CARRY IT HERE! AND HERE! AND STAND RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU WITH MY HAND ON THE TRIGGER OF THIS LOADED LARGE GUN BECAUSE I HAVE RIGHTS AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO AND DON'T DARE SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE... LIBERALS... JESUS... GOD... RIGHTS... SECONDFOURTHFIFHTSEVENHUNDREDTH AMENEDMENT!!!!

A gun in a hip holster, while the person goes about their business, isn't perceived the same way as a large, long rifle is, should someone walk into a store with one in their hand or slung over their shoulder.  Odds are, a guy walking down the street with a hip or ankle holster will not garner the attention of the same guy with a rifle or a shotgun. The latter is larger, more visible, and far more out of place in non-hunting, non-range scenarios. But of course, you and especially these "activists" know that.
 
2014-08-04 10:44:01 AM  
I would like people to be more comfortable with gay people. So, I'm going to carry around giant signs with pictures of gay porn on them. That should work!
 
2014-08-04 10:44:31 AM  

GodComplex: whitman00: zamboni:

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary

So, if the MS13 street gang came to your street and were open carrying, you are on record that the police have no right to ask them anything unless.  Good to know.

I am.


I'm tempted to think you're lying, but there's always the chance you are the genuine pants-on-head insane anarchist you posture as.  Or at least genuinely believe that you are.  Either way, we're not impressed with how "tough" you are.
 
2014-08-04 10:44:58 AM  

RedT: pla: Any "right" you can't actually act on - doesn't exist in the first place. We need more... Thousands more, Millions more, to start open carrying; not for protection but simply to make it normal again. You know what has changed between 1914 and 2014? in 1914, virtually everyone had seen and used a gun from an early age for both hunting and varmint-killing. In 2014, most people have only seen guns in movies, which adhere to Chekhov's rule: If you see a gun in the first act, it will get fired by the fourth act. Guns have gone from a tool to a prop for many (particularly urban, which I don't mean as a euphemism for "black") people; meanwhile, the other 50% of the country that lives outside the cities still uses them for hunting and varmint killing.

But this is completely not true.  If this kid were heading to the firing range or out hunting, no one would bat an eye, and THAT is the intent of the open carry long gun laws.  And open carrying long guns is not a right, it is allowable under the law.  Either way, it is certainly not a privilege that one cannot exercise.

Walking around with a long gun for no reason makes one look more like the psychos who shoot up schools, movie theaters and post offices or rob stores.

I live in Texas,the land of ubiquitous gun ownership and rabid republicans (if what I read on Fark is true).  You pretty much get a CCL with your voter ID card.  Yet, inexplicably, I never see folks walking down 6th Street with a rifle, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that responsible gun owners aren't out to scare people with their guns unless there is a reason to do so.  You don't pull your gun out unless you are going to use it (either for protection, or to go to the range, or to go hunting).  Doing so otherwise is a good way to get yourself killed by some other responsible citizen who has a CCL (pretty much everyone in the south if what I read on Fark is true) who is standing their ground.


And how many examples of said scenario can you cite? I can't think of a single one. Legal weapon owners, especially CCL are extremely responsible, and don't start blasting people for no reason. Kid is more likely to get popped by the cops.

And Fark still does not have a clue what stand your ground is.
 
2014-08-04 10:45:11 AM  
Open carry asshats are this generation's anti-flag-burning zealots.  They don't understand abstractions like liberty and citizenship but goddamn do they understand how to fetishize objects instead.

It's too bad that, unlike the flag-wavers, who just got steamed in the face and did no harm, these chubby losers are running interference for the next mass shooting to occur, currently on the clock.
 
2014-08-04 10:47:50 AM  

Mrs.Sharpier: LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.

total number of farks given by everyone else: 0

I doubt that


and you would be wrong. This was in the late 50s
 
2014-08-04 10:47:51 AM  

serpent_sky: A gun in a hip holster, while the person goes about their business, isn't perceived the same way as a large, long rifle is, should someone walk into a store with one in their hand or slung over their shoulder. Odds are, a guy walking down the street with a hip or ankle holster will not garner the attention of the same guy with a rifle or a shotgun. The latter is larger, more visible, and far more out of place in non-hunting, non-range scenarios. But of course, you and especially these "activists" know that.


Hey, now, I asked the question honestly. Unlike you, I do perceive a person with a gun in a hip holster going about their business the same as someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder: potentially dangerous nutbag, and a good time for me to leave.
 
2014-08-04 10:48:15 AM  

cryinoutloud: PreMortem: If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city. The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.
And if you had a lick of sense you would know most liberals are against stop and frisk, police checkpoints, voter ID laws, illegal searches and seizures, etc... . Conservatives have the market cornered on the desire for a police state.
It seems to me you have a lot more concern for his right to carry a shotgun than the cops demanding an ID. I wonder how you feel about stopping brown people and asking for their papers. Well, not really.

You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.


Most police unions are, and most cops do not want citizens to have guns. Sounds liberal to me. See MA for an example.

Just shows how scaredy pants liberals are, really. Oh NOES, someone has a rifle, we have to ban all weapons!!! Run!!!
 
2014-08-04 10:48:26 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Sorry about your tiny peener, dude.
 
2014-08-04 10:48:47 AM  

spawn73: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

Nice troll.


No, he isn't.
 
2014-08-04 10:50:22 AM  

airsupport: Hey there, Chubby, you're only 18, so right now, you still think your voice matters. Mommy and daddy made you feel that way, that you were special, that you were important, that you had valid opinions on things.

But this is the real world. You've gone from being 1/3 of a household to 1/500,000,000th of a population. Your opinions and preferences have gone from High Priority to Completely Irrelevant.

Life will beat this truth into you. You can fight it as long as you want, maybe clench those doughy fists into balls and cry about it, but you will lose.

You are nothing special. You are not a crusader. You are a dumb kid with a latent sense of parentally-granted importance and an idealist's rainbow goggles.

I can't wait to watch you fall.


...he shouted, futilely, into the internet.
 
2014-08-04 10:50:33 AM  
"he is doing it to make the public feel more "comfortable" around guns"

I feel comfortable around guns just not when they are in the hands of people with piss-poor judgement like this kid.
 
2014-08-04 10:50:51 AM  

zamboni: TuteTibiImperes: Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.

He wasn't cited for carrying the gun, he was cited for refusing to provide identification, which was a valid request as by his appearance it was not clear whether or not he was old enough to be legally carrying the weapon.

He has no grounds to stand on to sue.

You must show me your papers before you are allowed to use your Constitutional rights... just like voting, speaking, writing, congregating etc.

Scary


Your analogy is totally off. If you are drinking alcohol, prove your age. If you are buying cigarettes, prove your age. If you are driving, prove your age. I find it scary to see a kid walking around with a shotgun. If you looked out of your door and saw someone just walking with a gun, are your thoughts: "Well there goes someone exercising their constitutional rights" or do you ask" What the hell is going on?" If it happened in my little quiet neighborhood, I would go grab my gun and watch him like a hawk. If he stepped into my yard, there would be a bead on his forehead. An 18 yr old walking around with a loaded weapon works against my right to carry a weapon because it shows that even idiot can own a gun, no intelligence test.
 
2014-08-04 10:51:13 AM  

Theaetetus: Hey, now, I asked the question honestly. Unlike you, I do perceive a person with a gun in a hip holster going about their business the same as someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder: potentially dangerous nutbag, and a good time for me to leave.


Difficulty: plainclothes cop.  At least around Cincinnati, we've got a ton of them, and they all wear their badges on neck-holders under their shirts, which they can pull out of they need to.  Which means, in effect, that you've got guys walking around in khakis and polo shirts, with a hip holster with a Sig, Glock, or M&P in there who are exactly the people whom people profess to want to have guns available.

How do you tell them from the civilians by sight?
 
2014-08-04 10:51:24 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.

/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.


Suspicion is a legal right to request ID.  It happens all the time with drunk drivers.  Just because this kid is white doesn't confer upon him extrajudicial rights.  If the cops feel he is breaking the law (i.e. carrying while underage), they are free to take him in.
 
2014-08-04 10:51:29 AM  
Throw out The Constitution because I don't like guns.
 
2014-08-04 10:52:39 AM  
Let me guess, he's a fat retard.

Oh, I am right? Wow, didn't expect that.

Well, seems like most Americans are fat retards so it wasn't hard to guess really

/prove me wrong.
 
2014-08-04 10:53:25 AM  
I love in the video how ....

1. the cop tells him he HAS to produce ID, even though he really doesn't. (the cop asks, doesn't demand)
2. They tell him he has committed no crime, but the public is panicking so they have to get his ID. ( does that make my constitutional rights invalid? i think not) they are telling him he HAS to give up his right to privacy due to the public's panic, which is bullshiat.)
3. What he doesn't understand, is that the whole conversation is "voluntary". He can just tell them he's done talking to them, and walk away. He is not under arrest, there has been no crime, (as far as the cops can tell) and "need to see your ID to see if you are a felon" is a violation of his right to privacy and self incrimination. If he had broken a law, they would have just cuffed him, and took his ID. Therefore, this whole thing is bullshiat. The cops will lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself, give up your rights, and arrest you. yes, the kid was a dick for carrying a shotgun around town, but no law was broken. Don't ever, ever, say anything to cops. They are not your "friends" who are "trying to help you". They will lie, obfuscate, and say whatever they want to you, to get you in cuffs. Don't believe me? I was a cop, and if that is not enough, watch this.

Link
 
2014-08-04 10:54:20 AM  

Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?


Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.
 
2014-08-04 10:54:37 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: Farina added, "He may be within his rights and legal, within the law to carry this gun but if we're investigating it and he refuses to cooperate that may violate other municipal laws."


If he is within his rights and legal, then any municipal laws you have imagined or have on the books would violate his rights. Might want to look into that, or are you just covering your ass? Last time i heard, municipal "laws" don't trump state or federal laws. Nice try though.

He might be allowed to carry, he might or might not be allowed to carry *there*, and he should probably obey lawful requests of police.  Much as I don't like police and think this papers, please bullshiat has to stop in all realms of our lives, it's exceedingly stupid to not produce ID when a cop asks for it.

But then, I'm sure he just wants attention, and this is his way of getting it.  Wandering around as a young white man with a gun in a town that has some history with young white men with guns and trying to get a rise out of people isn't... helpful.  Maybe it helps him cope with something personal, but it sure doesn't help his argument.

/ i agree this kid is a douche bag, and an attention whore.  And your argument of "exceedingly stupid" not to produce ID when "requested" doesnt fly.  They either have the legal right to demand your ID, or they don't.  In this case, they had 0 right to "demand" ID, as no law had been broken, and the policeman should have known better.  The "obstruction" charge is bullshiat, and won't stand up.  That was a "save face" charge for the officer who got schooled.  That being said, yes, the kid did exactly what he wanted to.  Made people panic, call police, and then stood up for his rights, which he has the right to.  He's a dick, but he's well within his rights.

Suspicion of a crime is a legal right to request ID.  It happens all the time with drunk drivers.  Just because this kid is white doesn't confer upon him extrajudicial rights.  If the co ...


Fixed that for you.
 
2014-08-04 10:55:09 AM  

vudukungfu: Looks like the kid from 3 1/2 men.


I'm not sure if that's a typo or a fat joke.
 
2014-08-04 10:55:32 AM  

IlGreven: Bit'O'Gristle: /I would have said, "first of all, I'm under no obligation to explain myself to you. I have committed no crime, and exercising my state and constitutional rights is not a crime the last i heard. Do you often harass citizens who are just walking down the street doing nothing and ask them for their papers? The public's ignorance of the laws and unfounded panic does not vitiate my rights. Why do YOU carry a gun?

And again, if you were black, you'd've been shot right after "first of all"...


As was touched on upthread, it would be hilarious to see what the same people who support their "second-amendment rights" would think of groups of men named things like DeShawn and LeQuan walking the streets of their neighborhoods, all toting massive guns out in the open. Would they consider them patriots defending themselves against tyrannical government, too?
 
2014-08-04 10:56:20 AM  

kim jong-un: fusillade762: "For the defense of myself and those around me."

Sure, because a shotgun is such a precise weapon and could never hit a bystander by accident. And that's in the astronomically remote chance this idiot's fantasy played out.

Most shotguns are very precise. They fire different types of shells, and if its loaded with a slug its as accurate as any other firearm.

But you would know that if you had any experience with firearms other than what you learned in videogames.


And so would you. A blanket statement like yours is just as bad. "As accurate as any other firearm." Gauge, choke, barrel length, type of firearm you are going up against. My Bullpup can hit sh*t past 20 feet.
 
2014-08-04 10:57:03 AM  

FightDirector: Theaetetus: Hey, now, I asked the question honestly. Unlike you, I do perceive a person with a gun in a hip holster going about their business the same as someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder: potentially dangerous nutbag, and a good time for me to leave.

Difficulty: plainclothes cop.  At least around Cincinnati, we've got a ton of them, and they all wear their badges on neck-holders under their shirts, which they can pull out of they need to.  Which means, in effect, that you've got guys walking around in khakis and polo shirts, with a hip holster with a Sig, Glock, or M&P in there who are exactly the people whom people profess to want to have guns available.

How do you tell them from the civilians by sight?


Who says I do? Either way, it's a potentially dangerous nutbag and I'm outta there.

My point was just that it seems odd to say "carry a pistol on a hip, no problem; carry a rifle, problem." Either way, I see a gun, I'm going elsewhere.
 
2014-08-04 10:57:15 AM  

Fank: Let me guess, he's a fat retard.

Oh, I am right? Wow, didn't expect that.

Well, seems like most Americans are fat retards so it wasn't hard to guess really

/prove me wrong.


This is a conspiracy of fat retards.  Fat retards (and skinny little farks) plod around their suburbs open carrying.  Then other fat retards leap to the Internet to defend them "to the death" (or sugar crash).  Thus pleasing their overloards, the fat retards at the NRA.  Circle of hyperglycemic life.
 
2014-08-04 10:59:05 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?

Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.


31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-04 10:59:13 AM  

Veloram: MagSeven: /show me any shotgun as accurate as a rifle.
//I guess they're all pretty accurate if you're close enough.

[img.fark.net image 240x105]
I introduce to you, the AA-12


Our Weapons will be Boxy in the Future
 
2014-08-04 11:00:10 AM  
img.fark.net
www.wearysloth.com

Shame about Hitler.. Those moustaches are just the thing to divert attention from the acreage of jowel.
 
2014-08-04 11:00:49 AM  

sycraft: Lots of jackass awards to go around here. Kid is a grade A jackass for walking around with a big gun strapped to his back. Yes you CAN do it, but there is no reason to, and plenty of reasons not to. He was looking to start trouble, and he got trouble. I have zero sympathy for him.

However the people calling 911 are also jackasses. Seriously people need to stop wetting their pants every time someone without a uniform has a gun. Yes, lots of people have guns in the US. It is what it is. Lots of them carry them too, you just don't know it. Shut up, put on your big boy pants, and stop wasting emergency services' time with this shiat. You are NOT helping prevent a crime.

Also the police are being jackasses here. They were looking for a reason to arrest the guy, though they knew they didn't have one. The "Oh he wouldn't give us his ID," it bogus as they know you needn't carry ID when you are walking around. They didn't like what he was doing so they were going to find some reason to arrest him.

Everyone involved needs to go, settle the fark down, and stop being an asshat.

I really am getting tired of the "open carry" asshats though. Just stop it retards. It doesn't make you look tough, it makes you look stupid.


A pasty teenager toting a shotgun through town is most definitely something alarming to normal people, given how many mass shootings we've seen over the past few years. And the cops have no reason to believe he's of legal age with a face like that, so asking for ID is most definitely acceptable.
 
2014-08-04 11:00:54 AM  

FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: FightDirector: BeesNuts: Much better to have 13 year olds putting the muzzles of guns up to their eyes to "see if they're loaded".

If you teach them how the gun works instead of letting them come across a gun at home or a friend's house and having them muddle through it on their own, they're a lot less likely to do that.

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

We all see how apolitical and sensible sex ed has turned out in this country, after all.

I never said this wouldn't be political.  I said that it needs to happen so we a) have kids stop accidentally shooting themselves and others, and b) so we raise a generation of adults that doesn't go all #firearmtrigger every damn time they see a firearm in ANY setting.

We can start with a pilot program in Philly.


Go for it.  Unless, of course, you think it's better to have kids accidentally killing people WHEN - not if - they find a gun.  Since the guns aren't going anywhere and all.


Also, I forgot to mention, as well during the last post, how artfully you dodged the question:

If education is the way to fix issues with teen pregnancy rates, why is education not the way to fix issues with teen accidental shooting rates?

Care to take another swing?


"education" isn't "Education".  Unfortunately we don't seem to have access to the former here when it comes to political topics.

Kids aren't shooting each other accidentally.  It really doesn't happen much.  What DOES happen is that mentally unstable people with access to firearms have a trigger event.

Only some 8% of homicides from 2007-2010 in Philly involved juveniles.  The data don't reveal how many perpetrators of each age bracket there were, so I suppose it's possible that all 27 over that 4 year period were killed because of a lack of education, but I doubt it.  You're chasing a problem that doesn't exist.  Whether that's because it's what the NRA says would work, or because you somehow came up with this idea on your own, I've no idea.

Make sure we have the means to teach Science, Math, English, social science and sex ed, because they are all specifically important to the future academic and professional careers of ALL children.  Then we can talk about prioritizing pet-educational projects.
 
2014-08-04 11:02:37 AM  

DrBenway: spawn73: 
Nice troll.

No, he isn't.


If it looks like a duck...
 
2014-08-04 11:03:30 AM  

dookdookdook: jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid

Speak for yourself.  It would've been farking hilarious if he'd blown his own face off during a news interview about his being a massive cockbagproud second amendment advocacy.


Then there's something wrong with you.  The boy may be an idiot and an asshole, but he doesn't deserve to be maimed or killed.  At most maybe a stern lecture and a few hours of community service, IF he's breaking any laws.

Why wish painful injury or death on any member of the pro-gun crowd, anyway?  Hows does that make sense?  Isn't the whole point of being anti-gun that you want to PREVENT injury and death?
 
2014-08-04 11:03:45 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: BeesNuts: Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.

You know how you can call 911 to report drunk driving?

/Drunk driving is against the law.  Walking down the street in this city / state with a firearm is not.  Your argument is moot.


You have never called 911, been involved in a crime, or threatened with a firearm or weapon of any sort, have you?
 
2014-08-04 11:03:50 AM  
Because Aurora never actually happened. Much like that school in Newtown, just a pair of elaborate stories made up to give a push for legislation.
 
2014-08-04 11:04:03 AM  

Harry Freakstorm: Lohner then proceeds to argue with the officers, refusing to show them ID or hand over the shotgun insisting he hasn't committed a crime before being cited by the officer on a misdemeanor obstruction charge for refusing to show his identification

I thought the police could hold you for 24 hours to determine your identity if you refused to present proper identification during an investigation. And all police stops are investigations.


I'm pretty sure they can detain you to verify your identity, but if you provide them with your name, they can't charge you for failing to i.d.
 
2014-08-04 11:04:16 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 1. the cop tells him he HAS to produce ID, even though he really doesn't. (the cop asks, doesn't demand)


That kid looks barely old enough to grow facial hair.

cryinoutloud: You could have stopped right there where he thinks that cops are liberals.


The police in Aurora, Colorado are notoriously liberal which is why they're so edgy about people carrying firearms around town. If anything, the theater shooting a couple years ago has only made them more liberal than they already were. /s

Time for me to bow out of this thread and get some work done but here's a good response to all the open carry idiots:

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop -d efending-my-rights/
 
2014-08-04 11:05:01 AM  

nocturnal001: Gain inches to your penis with this one weird trick....

....walk around in public scaring people with a gun.


DRUNK!!
 
2014-08-04 11:05:03 AM  

xria: Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.


That would never have worked, because half of the "toys" would have shot each other while he was gone. Would have wrecked the story line.

LemSkroob: When my aunt was goring up in Brooklyn, she around age 13, would take a rifle and her little brother (age 6) on the New York City subway, to go to and from a shooting range fairly frequently.
total number of farks given by everyone else: 0


I bet it was in a case. Did you ever ask her that? Because most sensible people would put a gun in a case if they're taking it on public transportation somewhere.

How come these open carry nuts don't carry around their guns in a sleeve or case? It would make the same point, if their point is that they should be allowed to carry guns openly. And it would protect the guns too, from all those accidental things that sometimes happen to valuable possessions.

I guess it's because their point isn't really that they just want to be allowed to open carry--their point is more that they just like to be huge dicks and try to intimidate people.
 
2014-08-04 11:05:15 AM  

mike_d85: vudukungfu: Looks like the kid from 3 1/2 men.

I'm not sure if that's a typo or a fat joke.


They had another actor come on when Sheen's sinuses prolapsed.
 
2014-08-04 11:05:30 AM  
While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.
 
2014-08-04 11:06:34 AM  

Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?

Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 200x184]


The funny thing is that we're probably not too far apart on the actual issue and are talking past each other. And thanks for the laugh, I've always loved that little bit of Mr Rogers.
 
2014-08-04 11:07:36 AM  
Epic Fap Session:

People like this tub of santorum

They filled a vat with essence of Senator Rick Santorum?
 
2014-08-04 11:08:05 AM  

Trailltrader: What people are missing here is- this teenager is 1: obeying he law  2: has committed no crime  3: and if you persecute him you are in violation of his 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment.

If you liberals had a lick of sense you'd drop those charges before a Constitution Attorney shows up on his doorstep, files a HUGE (relatively speaking) lawsuit against the city.  The police will have to show just cause to believe he was committing a crime- and the video doesn't show that.


Done in one.  Pack it up and go home, folks.  From a legal POV.

However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.  I would think that this kids parents would point out that carrying a shotgun in Aurora is probably not the best idea in the world and that people will probably over-react to it.  He has the right to do it, but he should exercise some common sense and think about how other people might react to this and maybe exercise a modicum of restraint to avoid fanning the flames over the issue of carrying openly in a town that was the site of a mass murder.
 
2014-08-04 11:08:47 AM  
img.fark.net

assets.nydailynews.com

cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com

images.dailystar-uk.co.uk
 
2014-08-04 11:08:50 AM  

tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.


It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.
 
2014-08-04 11:08:55 AM  

Bit'O'Gristle: 911, what is your EMERGENCY?

(caller) OMG...there is some guy, walking down the street with a big scary shotgun!!  Get teh cops out here...aahhhhhh)

Ok, so what is this guy doing exactly?

Well, he's just walking down the street...but...but...BIG SCARY GUN!!

Um...ok.  Have you seen him point it at anyone? Or a car? Or anything? Has he robbed a store? Or held someone up?

Well, not that i have seen, he's just walking...but..but ...SCARY...

Uhmm....you do know that people are allowed to carry in this state right?  Unless he has broken a law, there is nothing we can do without violating his rights. So unless you have seen him do something that is against the law,  don't call the police. He has the right to carry, and we can't just stop him for no reason.  No law broken, no stop.  Would you like our officers to just pull you over for no reason? To fish for crimes on you? When you had done nothing wrong at all?  Call back when you have a real emergency.


((11 caller) Hey, it's me again. That guy, walking down the street in Aurora with a big scary shotgun for no apparent reason?  Yeah, he just shot up the movie theater.  Could you maybe send an officer with a mop.  Thanks, bye-bye.
 
2014-08-04 11:11:13 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Open carry asshats are this generation's anti-flag-burning zealots.  They don't understand abstractions like liberty and citizenship but goddamn do they understand how to fetishize objects instead.

It's too bad that, unlike the flag-wavers, who just got steamed in the face and did no harm, these chubby losers are running interference for the next mass shooting to occur, currently on the clock.


Actually, the open carry guys would be analogous to the flag burners. The anti-flag-burners were the ones who could not distinguish between the RIGHT to do something, and the popularity of doing something. The open carry crowd is forcing the issue on 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendment rights, like the flag burners did for the 1st. The anti-flag-burners are more closely aligned to those who say "it makes people uncomfortable, so it shouldn't be allowed or done".
 
2014-08-04 11:12:01 AM  

CallMeGomer: A blanket statement like yours is just as bad. "As accurate as any other firearm." Gauge, choke, barrel length, type of firearm you are going up against. My Bullpup can hit sh*t past 20 feet.


We could just say, "Firearms are designed for specific distances/uses and accuracy depends a great deal on the users ability".
 
2014-08-04 11:12:12 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?

Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 200x184]

The funny thing is that we're probably not too far apart on the actual issue and are talking past each other. And thanks for the laugh, I've always loved that little bit of Mr Rogers.


Most likely. Personally, I think that the 2nd amendment does guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the police shouldn't hassle people for doing something that is completely legal and constitutionally protected, any more than they should hassle someone for "lookin' suspicious"... but I also think that both these open carry idiots and anyone else who carries a gun around, concealed or otherwise, are dangerous nutbags who should be referred for psychological counseling.

And the best part of that Rogers clip is the "ha ha ha, fark you; no, I'm serious, fark you" second bird. :)
 
2014-08-04 11:12:16 AM  
Don't you just know that when this guy raises his hand, everybody else in class groans and rolls their eyes?
 
2014-08-04 11:13:07 AM  
I love how the Fascist righties always back the cops unless the headline has "gun" in it. Suddenly they become anti-authoritarians that are terribly concerned with our civil rights.
 
2014-08-04 11:14:02 AM  

monoski: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police if you have been legally detained or arrested.


It is legal to refuse to show your ID to the police if you have not been detained.

/mind you, the police are not the ones to argue to about that legality, since their grasp of the law is questionable, at best
 
2014-08-04 11:15:40 AM  

Bonzo_1116: These douchenozzles would do their cause much better service by inviting a friend who never held a gun to the range. Parading around visibly armed while claiming it's so he could defend himself and others from some vaporous "enemy" smacks of dumbass comic book heroics.

Was he walking around some dodgy neighborhood escorting fair maidens home from a kegger?


1) I really doubt this dude has many "friends" in real life. I'm sure he has many deep relationships on facebook.
2) Taking someone to a range and explaining how everything works is a little too much like work which I suspect he avoids like the plague.
3) It doesn't get him attention from his facebook friends who will praise his stupidity and pointless confrontation.
 
2014-08-04 11:15:46 AM  

Strolpol: And the cops have no reason to believe he's of legal age with a face like that, so asking for ID is most definitely acceptable.


Uh... legal age to what?  AFAICT from a bit of cursory Googling, there are neither federal nor Colorado state laws restricting the possession of a long gun to those over the age of 18.

http://smartgunlaws.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-or-possess-firearms- in -colorado/

http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-minimum-age-to-purchase-posse ss /
 
2014-08-04 11:15:50 AM  

xria: Now I am imagining "Toy Story" but where Andy has a collection of guns that play together whenever he is out of the room.


That, or "Ida Know"/ "Not Me"/ "Nobody" gremlins from Family Circus.
 
2014-08-04 11:16:45 AM  
Trolls are funny in these kind of threads:

"So what it's legal"
"Yeah, we know.. he's still a twat"
"But it's legal nngg!"
"Uuh, yeah.. Anyway, look at the stupid fat virgin haha"
"fhhhssssgggg 2nd Amendment!"
"Dude, we know .. Check it out, he's even called Loner! hahaha"
"PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!"

/and scene
 
2014-08-04 11:17:12 AM  

pendy575: . He was under no obligation to provide identification unless they told him exactly why he was being asked


LOL wut?


Try that next time a cop asks for your ID, just, really be specific and tell them you DEMAND to know why they want to see your identification; that should go over well. Here in Seattle, looking at a cop for too long is an arrestable offense, let alone taking a picture of one, so I won't be trying that anytime soon...
 
2014-08-04 11:17:42 AM  

monoski: It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.


...really, you think "Papers please" is the law of the land?  That would be adorable if it weren't so sad, but you are, in fact, objectively wrong.
 
2014-08-04 11:18:14 AM  

FightDirector: Theaetetus: Hey, now, I asked the question honestly. Unlike you, I do perceive a person with a gun in a hip holster going about their business the same as someone with a rifle slung over their shoulder: potentially dangerous nutbag, and a good time for me to leave.

Difficulty: plainclothes cop.  At least around Cincinnati, we've got a ton of them, and they all wear their badges on neck-holders under their shirts, which they can pull out of they need to.  Which means, in effect, that you've got guys walking around in khakis and polo shirts, with a hip holster with a Sig, Glock, or M&P in there who are exactly the people whom people profess to want to have guns available.

How do you tell them from the civilians by sight?


Theaetetus: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Theaetetus: Well, yes... People are allowed to walk to the bank, even with friends.

What exactly are you arguing for here? Everyone who even thinks about going to a bank should immediately be stopped by the police?

Are you okay? Are you not getting enough oxygen or do you have any numbness in your limbs or face? If you think you might be having a stroke, call 911 immediately to prevent additional brain death.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 200x184]


You can walk to the bank.  You can walk with a gun.  You can walk into a bank WITH a gun.  All that's kosher and should arouse no suspicion until the clown mask goes on and he fires a shell into the ceiling.

That's what he was implying you were saying.  You're being very obtuse today Thae.
 
2014-08-04 11:18:54 AM  
Seems to me that if the gun rights advocates really want to get people on their side, they'll stop pulling dumbass stunts like this. Seeing some moron marching down the street brandishing a shotgun is not going to convince anyone who is against guns to change their viewpoint. If anything, this idiot and idiots like him who do stupid crap like carry AK-47's into fast food joints are going to get MORE people to jump to the ban-guns side of the fence.
 
2014-08-04 11:20:56 AM  

ShadowkahnCRX: Seems to me that if the gun rights advocates really want to get people on their side, they'll stop pulling dumbass stunts like this. Seeing some moron marching down the street brandishing a shotgun is not going to convince anyone who is against guns to change their viewpoint. If anything, this idiot and idiots like him who do stupid crap like carry AK-47's into fast food joints are going to get MORE people to jump to the ban-guns side of the fence.


I don't know what you're talking about. It's obviously an isolated incident like all the other times things like this have happened.

Also, nobody's defending him, but 2nd amendment and legal and liberals and pants-shiatting so therefore reasons.
 
2014-08-04 11:21:27 AM  

tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.


I would like to see you all defending a local weird dude who likes to sit in the park and look at kids all day the same way you're defending this guy.  Mind you, local weird dude does nothing but sit there, on public land that his taxes even fund, but man does he freak out the parents and locals.

Half of the people defending this "rights crusader" would want this "creepy pervert" strung up by his nuts, even if he never so much as spoke a word to anyone and just sat there, as is his right to do. Because there's no "park rights" movement.
 
2014-08-04 11:22:05 AM  

ciberido: dookdookdook: jso2897: Calm down. No one really wants to see anything bad happen to this dumb kid

Speak for yourself.  It would've been farking hilarious if he'd blown his own face off during a news interview about his being a massive cockbagproud second amendment advocacy.

Then there's something wrong with you.  The boy may be an idiot and an asshole, but he doesn't deserve to be maimed or killed.  At most maybe a stern lecture and a few hours of community service, IF he's breaking any laws.

Why wish painful injury or death on any member of the pro-gun crowd, anyway?  Hows does that make sense?  Isn't the whole point of being anti-gun that you want to PREVENT injury and death?


For most of the Fark anti-gun brigade it's about stopping people from doing something they don't like or scares them.  Fear prevents them from thinking about the method critically.  So this guy getting charged with a crime he didn't commit or being grievously wounded or maimed is something to hope or cheer for.
 
2014-08-04 11:22:28 AM  

monoski: tiggis: While I would not openly carry a shotgun around town, the kid has a right to do it if he wants.
I do not even know why this is a story.

Headline should be:    Teenager follows law, police liberals unhappy about it.

It is not legal to refuse to show your ID to the police.


COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

C.R.S. 16-3-103 (2013)

(1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.

There has to be suspicion of criminal activity.