Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sick  
•       •       •

15203 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Aug 2014 at 6:11 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1161 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1161 comments


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report