In what world would you think trolling people to get a reaction after the mass shootings would be a good idea? Like the officer says in the article "In fact, he's lucky to be alive still to be...
In what world would you think trolling people to get a reaction after the mass shootings would be a good idea? Like the officer says in the article "In fact, he's lucky to be alive still to be honest."
Do you think his second amendment rights were violated? Missouri is an open carry state, I'm not sure where I stand on this.
if they somehow were, then the second amendment needs to be fucking nuked, lmao. nobody should be able to just walk into a store with a semi-auto or some shit and not be able to be stopped until...
Do you think his second amendment rights were violated? Missouri is an open carry state, I'm not sure where I stand on this.
if they somehow were, then the second amendment needs to be fucking nuked, lmao. nobody should be able to just walk into a store with a semi-auto or some shit and not be able to be stopped until he starts shooting; this isn't a warzone.
Seriously, he had body armor on and a round chambered in his handgun, fuck this guy. If someone wants to walk around with a holstered pistol, they're a gigantic wuss but fine. This guy clearly...
nobody should be able to just walk into a store with a semi-auto or some shit and not be able to be stopped until he starts shooting; this isn't a warzone.
Seriously, he had body armor on and a round chambered in his handgun, fuck this guy. If someone wants to walk around with a holstered pistol, they're a gigantic wuss but fine. This guy clearly intended to cause trouble and you know what they say about playing stupid games.
Were his rights infringed? Nope. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner...
Were his rights infringed?
Nope.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
What an absolute clown. I don't know how the amendment rights work, but in non open-carry States they aren't violated, so in any case only his legal right to open-carry would be violated, right?...
What an absolute clown. I don't know how the amendment rights work, but in non open-carry States they aren't violated, so in any case only his legal right to open-carry would be violated, right? And probably the fact that he was wearing body armor and military attires could justify that it was threatening?
Yeah that guy isn't being honest I bet. It's probably legal for people to dress up as mildly spooky figures and look over his fence at his daughter on her swingset. But who in their right mind...
Yeah that guy isn't being honest I bet. It's probably legal for people to dress up as mildly spooky figures and look over his fence at his daughter on her swingset. But who in their right mind would do that? I know they say common sense isn't that common but people are born with a good idea of what's what or you'd see a million stupid accidents a day.
You can bet your own head without fear on that, it's part of that trend of "triggering" people and showing how "under attack" they are by acting like lunatics and getting the consequences.
You can bet your own head without fear on that, it's part of that trend of "triggering" people and showing how "under attack" they are by acting like lunatics and getting the consequences.
It doesn't really ruin your point that there are limitations on rights, but that's not actually a good example to use (but you're far from the only one) - it's always just been an analogy, not the...
Well crap, I had no idea how flawed that "legal" analogy was, and that it actually holds no standing today. I am striking out my comment because while semantically it might hold sway, I would...
Well crap, I had no idea how flawed that "legal" analogy was, and that it actually holds no standing today. I am striking out my comment because while semantically it might hold sway, I would rather not make that point with such a flawed analogy.
It is crazy/terrifying to me, that something so rooted in the colloquial zeitgeist of our understanding of law hasn't been legally relevant since 1969!?! How does this cultural meme hold so much staying power today?
Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their...
He told his sister it was "a social experiment on how his Second Amendment right would be respected in a public area," police said,
Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their private premises for any reason.
The rifle he carried had a loaded magazine, but a round was not chambered; and the handgun was loaded with a round in the chamber, the probable cause document said.
That's not necessary for a social experiment. All he had to do was carry the weapons to find out if Walmart respected his supposed right to bear arms.
His sister and his wife were half right: this was a stupid idea. They forgot to mention that he's a stupid person carrying out this stupid idea.
"Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their...
"Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their private premises for any reason."
This is VERY true. But sadly, that's not what they did.
They freaked out. The employee who pulled the fire alarm is the one who caused the mass panic, not the dumbass who was open carrying.
Noone in their right mind is going to walk up to someone "equipped with body armor, a handgun and a rifle" and looking like this, and ask them politely to leave the premises. I have a friend who...
Noone in their right mind is going to walk up to someone "equipped with body armor, a handgun and a rifle" and looking like this, and ask them politely to leave the premises. I have a friend who is a security guard and, based on what he tells me about his job, even he would request backup before approaching someone like this. Would you approach this person if he walked into your workplace? Are you that foolhardy? Really?
In a climate where mass shootings happen almost literally every single day, and when two of those mass shootings have been in the news in the past week, people are going to be "better safe than sorry". And I think they're right to do so.
That's fucking nuts. I would most definitely call the cops if a heavily armed man was just walking down the street. A situation like that is 99.9% likely to go down very badly.
That's fucking nuts. I would most definitely call the cops if a heavily armed man was just walking down the street. A situation like that is 99.9% likely to go down very badly.
Plenty of videos of people exactly like our Missourian friend on YouTube. People walking down the street with large assault rifles for no reason who then are so surprised when people call the cops...
Plenty of videos of people exactly like our Missourian friend on YouTube. People walking down the street with large assault rifles for no reason who then are so surprised when people call the cops on them and they get questioned.
They all knew exactly what was going to happen, that's why they're all recording on their phones.
He wasn't carrying an assault rifle. And I guarantee you, 99.9999% of people the people you refer to aren't either. You really should learn the facts before you claim something. When you are doing...
He wasn't carrying an assault rifle. And I guarantee you, 99.9999% of people the people you refer to aren't either. You really should learn the facts before you claim something.
When you are doing something TOTALLY legal, do you expect the cops to be called on you? I don't think so.
Let me make sure I understand your point. That is, just because something is legal and having an item is legal, you should be arrested if you have it or do something LEGAL with it when others assume the worst and become frightened?
Is that correct?
Please reply Yes or No. Because this is exactly a YES or No question and situation. I want to understand so I can give you another example, and I think that example (not related to firearms or weapons at all) will surprise you.
Please try not to word your comments with such a condescending tone. You're making valid points and it's perfectly reasonable to be trying to correct misunderstandings about open-carry, but doing...
Exemplary
Please try not to word your comments with such a condescending tone. You're making valid points and it's perfectly reasonable to be trying to correct misunderstandings about open-carry, but doing it in such a condescending manner with all-caps words and repeatedly telling people things like "learn the FACTS" (while not actually providing them any of those facts) is pushing this more towards being an antagonistic argument instead of a discussion. Because of that, I've been tempted to lock this thread multiple times, but I'd really prefer not to.
Please treat the people you're talking with as peers, not enemies you're trying to defeat.
Sorry, old BBS days habit used to denote focus to words. I get called out for it at least once every couple months. I tell people to learn the facts because most people who have not yet done so,...
all-caps words
Sorry, old BBS days habit used to denote focus to words. I get called out for it at least once every couple months.
I tell people to learn the facts because most people who have not yet done so, ignore when others give them those facts. Many even to the point of trying to claim unbiased citations are false. So I point things out and leave it to them to decide if they want to take a chance to educate themselves.
Good point on my tone though. I've always been very blunt and many people confuse that with being condescension. It's a 49 year struggle so far...
Are you implying it wasn't an assault rifle because it was semi-auto only? If so, that is incredibly nit-picky. It's technically correct, but it doesn't help your overall point at all.,...
Are you implying it wasn't an assault rifle because it was semi-auto only?
If so, that is incredibly nit-picky. It's technically correct, but it doesn't help your overall point at all., considering the military doesn't usually use their select-fire rifles on full-auto - unless in brown alert situations.
The only mass shooting that I'm aware where full-auto vs semi-auto was even part of the discussion was Vegas. In all other cases full-auto capability wouldn't have made them notably worse.
Speaking as a self professed gun person it matters a lot. Many people don’t understand the difference and it is an important distinction from a regulation point of view. In many gun circles things...
Speaking as a self professed gun person it matters a lot. Many people don’t understand the difference and it is an important distinction from a regulation point of view.
In many gun circles things like clip vs magazine or assault rifle vs assault weapon pedantry is a shibboleth for general gun knowledge and by extension the validity of your opinion on the matter. I’m not saying this is the correct approach to debate but it is a reason that pedantry persists
I kind of disagree. If I wanted to make gun legislation, sure I'd have to know all the minutiae, but the general population who feel threatened by this guy and by mass shootings honestly don't...
I kind of disagree. If I wanted to make gun legislation, sure I'd have to know all the minutiae, but the general population who feel threatened by this guy and by mass shootings honestly don't have to care. They know that a "AR-style rifle" is capable of killing lots of people really quickly, and they're correct because "AR-style" implies to me semi-auto and 30 rnds per mag, as well the caliber to match. That is a recipe for destruction if used that way. Consequently, the population being scared of this guy right after two high-profile mass shootings - they're not wrong. The fact that they have a misconception about how (not that) such a rifle achieves the body counts they hear in the news (semi instead of full-auto) doesn't change that.
The whole "you only think it's scary because it's black and military-style; you don't care that the average hunter has just as deadly a weapon" is a complete non-sequitur. I don't care because the hunter doesn't threaten me. But I'm OK with him being tangentially affected by legislation to fix the current situation. The fact that the gun-control crowd talks about assault rifles when the only thing setting it apart from one is a feature that is seldom if ever used and not relevant to the discussion - it shouldn't matter.
I've never handled a firearm. I'm not a US citizen. I know my way about most of the technicalities.
I'm not implying. I'm stating a fact. A fact you appear to be aware of and understand. Yet for some reason you are acting like there's no difference. And you seem to be ignoring the other facts...
I'm not implying. I'm stating a fact.
A fact you appear to be aware of and understand. Yet for some reason you are acting like there's no difference. And you seem to be ignoring the other facts that must be met to meet the definition of an Assault Rifle.
And since you brought up Vegas, I was there. DURING the shooting. Standing in the same hotel, looking out my window that I had just walked up to, just seconds before he started shooting. I was on a lower floor, but on the other wing, such that I could see his window. And I could hear and feel ever single round that he fired.
As an avid firearm shooter, I know for a fact he was not using a bump stock. Nor was it a semi-auto. Nor was most of his shooting from a .223/5.56 rifle, AR-15 "style" or not. Those do not thump windows hard enough to visibly vibrate them or make it feel like someone is pounding (granted, not hard, but not lightly either) the chest of someone standing on the inside of that window. For 10 minutes, he was ripping through 30 round mags in less than 5 seconds each. Then 5 seconds apparently to drop and reload before shooting again. I could see the muzzle flashes blowing out the window. Plain as can be. Even the very next day, there was a LOT of bullshit on the news. Heck, I was there for almost a whole week for the NetAPP Insight conference and the news didn't even mention the following morning's shooting at the Luxor. But that was a guy who went broke gambling and when his wife got pissed, he shot her in the head in their room. Still, I got to see at least 20 SWAT members rush in from the street by the carry out a bunch of us were in line at trying to get something to eat because everything else was still closed.
Anywho, anyone who intentionally confuses the difference between an Assault Rifle and just a rifle, or between semi-auto and "full" AKA select-fire, is part of the anti-firearm rhetoric and loses all credibility in my and many others minds.
Lastly, it seems like you think select-fire means only single/full-auto. But it doesn't. There's also burst fire (typically 3-5 rounds) mode. But you are correct, it's rarely for full-auto to be used. In multi-round situations, they use burst fire.
Hmm, yes. He was lawfully carrying. He was not making any threats either by words or actions. Lets go back to a key point. This guy was not the only armed and open carrying patron to that Walmart...
Hmm, yes. He was lawfully carrying. He was not making any threats either by words or actions.
Lets go back to a key point. This guy was not the only armed and open carrying patron to that Walmart at that same time. The fireman (which no one knew he was a fireman till after the event) was also carrying. Yet NO ONE is upset about him doing the same thing.
Legally, no. And the fact this guy had ZERO intent to cause harm or panic, proves that point. If we were to use your perspective, then there would be hundreds (dozenS at least) reports a week.
Legally, no.
And the fact this guy had ZERO intent to cause harm or panic, proves that point.
If we were to use your perspective, then there would be hundreds (dozenS at least) reports a week.
Not where I live. LOTS of people walk around open carrying without people freaking out. Well, except for those looking to make a point of trying to make everyone else conform to what they want.
Not where I live. LOTS of people walk around open carrying without people freaking out.
Well, except for those looking to make a point of trying to make everyone else conform to what they want.
While wearing armored vests? If so, do you live in Somalia, perchance? I've lived in several states and havent seen anywhere people walk about dressed like soldiers outside of the wire, without...
While wearing armored vests?
If so, do you live in Somalia, perchance? I've lived in several states and havent seen anywhere people walk about dressed like soldiers outside of the wire, without causing alarm...
Nope. Ohio. And here, it's legal to wear body armor in public. It's considered self-defense. And having worked in downtown Columbus off and on over the years, I've seen many people doing so and NO...
Nope. Ohio.
And here, it's legal to wear body armor in public. It's considered self-defense. And having worked in downtown Columbus off and on over the years, I've seen many people doing so and NO ONE freaked out.
You've seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor, rifle at the ready, and pistol on their hip? I must go to a different Columbus every few months for business....
You've seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor, rifle at the ready, and pistol on their hip?
I must go to a different Columbus every few months for business. Because I've never seen that in Columbus, OH...
I like how to linked separate points into one question. Let me break them into valid questions. seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor? First off, he wasn't...
I like how to linked separate points into one question.
Let me break them into valid questions.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor? First off, he wasn't wearing full body armor. He was wearing a bulletproof vest. Not also arms, legs, head, etc. So to answer your question. YES. Actually YES to your question and to only wearing a vest.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around... with a rifle at the ready? YES. Mostly Law Enforcement though. For the record, this guy wasn't doing that. Understand the terminology before you use it. He was not holding it in any hand (which is "at the ready"). He had it hanging from a sling.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around... with a pistol on their hip. YES. LOTS OF TIMES. In fact, even on COTA buses. And guess what, no one freaked out. And also guess what. I worked for COTA for over 3.5 years and road a bus at least twice a day, 5/6 days a week. NO ONE CARED unless someone was threatening someone else. If you pay attention, there is a sign on EVERY coach that basically says "All legal weapons are allowed on the coach". I stopped trying to count how many people open carried on buses.
That is from the West side, to Downtown, to the East side and even the North side. Heck, even up at the Dublin and Easton park and rides. I actually approached someone open carrying up at crosswoods about to head to Red, White and Boom and reminded them "While it's legal to open carry on our bus, it's not legal to open carry in downtown during RWB. I suggest you lock it in your vehicle". And you know what? They thanked me for informing them and went and locked it in the vehicle's lock box.
Next few times you ride, politely look at people. You'll likely see someone with a knife on their belt, and maybe a holstered firearm.
ok, now combine all three together... Who else, in Columbus, OH, walks about with an assault weapon slung, body armored up, and a pistol on their hip; aside from law enforcement? I have never seen...
ok, now combine all three together...
Who else, in Columbus, OH, walks about with an assault weapon slung, body armored up, and a pistol on their hip; aside from law enforcement?
I have never seen that, in my many trips to Columbus, OH. Last time I saw that, as a common occurrence, apart from law enforcement or soldiers, was in Iraq.
"assault weapon"... LOL... Use a term made up by politicians, the media and anti-firearm nuts, that's functionally irrelevant. So, to answer your question that still has incorrect comparisons... I...
"assault weapon"... LOL... Use a term made up by politicians, the media and anti-firearm nuts, that's functionally irrelevant.
So, to answer your question that still has incorrect comparisons... I was in the Short North last month. In the Rolled ice cream shop and saw a guy walk by carrying an SKS on a sling on his back. It was 100f, so he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I couldn't see if he had a pistol on his hip though. No one was freaking out.
Interesting that no one is freaked out that some other guy who was also in Walmart, was also open carrying. That other guy is the fireman who after Andreychenko had peacefully left the store, drew...
Interesting that no one is freaked out that some other guy who was also in Walmart, was also open carrying.
That other guy is the fireman who after Andreychenko had peacefully left the store, drew his loaded firearm, pointed it at Andreychenko and held him at gunpoint WITH explicit threat of harm until the police arrived.
In fact, that firearm is being called a hero, for some reason.
Keep in mind, Andreychenko did not break any laws. Not Federal, not State, not Local. Was he a numbnuts by going their on purpose loaded out like that? Sure.
But charging him with terrorism doesn't even remotely apply.
He did cause terror. He might play innocent and say he "didn't intend for any negative reaction", but only the most naive or stupid person could possibly think people weren't going to react...
But charging him with terrorism doesn't even remotely apply.
He did cause terror.
He might play innocent and say he "didn't intend for any negative reaction", but only the most naive or stupid person could possibly think people weren't going to react negatively to a man carrying an assault rifle and wearing body armour. He wasn't just carrying a pistol, he wasn't even loaded for bear. He was a one-man militia!
But, somehow, he expects people to just carry on with their day while he strolls around looking like a stereotypical mass shooter.
I can't believe that even he is that stupid. If he is, he needs to be locked up for his own safety, let alone everyone else's.
Reckless endangerment, terroristic threats (which Missouri has a law against and seems to apply here, @stromm), criminal negligence... I'm sure there is a whole bunch of statutes, both State and...
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any...
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".
He made no threat of violence.
It wasn't terroristic by any legally accepted definition.
IANAL, (and neither are you I suspect), but AFAIK it really doesn't matter what the US Code of Federal Regulations defines "terrorism" as. That's entirely your opinion and debatable, IMO. If you...
IANAL, (and neither are you I suspect), but AFAIK it really doesn't matter what the US Code of Federal Regulations defines "terrorism" as.
It wasn't terroristic by any legally accepted definition.
That's entirely your opinion and debatable, IMO. If you read the actual law I linked, in Missouri "making a terrorist threat in the second degree" is defined as:
Making a terrorist threat, second degree — penalty.
A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation and knowingly:
(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
The offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree is a class E felony.
No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
Which it's entirely possible this man could be found guilty of.
1.A. Not met. (1). Not met. (2). Only met by the employee. Why? Because no crime was being committed. (3). Not met. This is due to the fact that simply carrying a firearm has never been legally...
1.A. Not met.
(1). Not met.
(2). Only met by the employee. Why? Because no crime was being committed.
(3). Not met. This is due to the fact that simply carrying a firearm has never been legally considered posing a threat. Sure, some people claim it is so, but it's not legally.
You are correct. And I expect it will surprise you that I don't go around open carrying a rifle, let alone wearing body armor (I don't own any, that shits expensive), unless I'm going from my home...
You are correct.
And I expect it will surprise you that I don't go around open carrying a rifle, let alone wearing body armor (I don't own any, that shits expensive), unless I'm going from my home to a range, friends or some sort of firearm related shop.
Now I'm sure you want to know why I don't. Well, because that's just me. I don't carry more than I feel like or need to, of anything.
But see, here's the thing and is my whole point. In the US, in most US states, Open Carry is a legal right. That's it. Period. Simple.
It's as much a right as being walking down a public street. It's as much a right for me to speak freely and openly as long as I'm not directly or indirectly threatening anyone or anything.
And here's a qualifying aspect of open carry. It's open carry and not a criminal action as long as one isn't brandishing the firearm. Simplified, that means pointing it at someone or saying/implying the holder is going to use the firearm to commit a crime. Sure, it's a bit more complex, but that's pretty much it.
The thing is, just carrying something does not even legally imply threat. It's what is done with that item or said while having that item that makes it a crime.
As to the N-word, that's something completely different. Why? Because legally and socially, there ARE people allowed to say that word to black people it not be considered racist (aka, not protected by the 1st).
That's the great thing about Rights. They apply to everyone in the US, even if others disagree. Once we start nitpicking which Rights don't apply to certain law abiding citizens, then it's only...
That's the great thing about Rights. They apply to everyone in the US, even if others disagree.
Once we start nitpicking which Rights don't apply to certain law abiding citizens, then it's only time for someone else to expect another Right doesn't apply to others.
It is very acceptable, at least from my exposure, for black's to use the N-word towards each other. And for them to use derogatory words about Whites and expect that it's OK. I've grown up in a mixed society, not all white. I hear more blacks use the N-word than I've ever heard non-blacks. And when called on it, almost always the person says something to the effect of "I'm black, I'm allowed". WTF...
People have a right to do things that might make other people uncomfortable. Imagine no one being allowed to do that. All those protestors wouldn't be allowed to protest. Anyone marching for...
People have a right to do things that might make other people uncomfortable.
Imagine no one being allowed to do that. All those protestors wouldn't be allowed to protest. Anyone marching for equality, wouldn't be allowed. etc. etc.
If he was black, he'd be dead. Even if he was only armed with skittles and iced tea.
In what world would you think trolling people to get a reaction after the mass shootings would be a good idea? Like the officer says in the article "In fact, he's lucky to be alive still to be honest."
Do you think his second amendment rights were violated? Missouri is an open carry state, I'm not sure where I stand on this.
*: I guess I should've clarified a bit more, I didn't really know much about the 2nd amendment
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/
if they somehow were, then the second amendment needs to be fucking nuked, lmao. nobody should be able to just walk into a store with a semi-auto or some shit and not be able to be stopped until he starts shooting; this isn't a warzone.
Seriously, he had body armor on and a round chambered in his handgun, fuck this guy. If someone wants to walk around with a holstered pistol, they're a gigantic wuss but fine. This guy clearly intended to cause trouble and you know what they say about playing stupid games.
Were his rights infringed?
Nope.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Had to google that.
Thanks for the clarification I also wasn't so sure about how the 2nd amendment works or open carry.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/
What an absolute clown. I don't know how the amendment rights work, but in non open-carry States they aren't violated, so in any case only his legal right to open-carry would be violated, right? And probably the fact that he was wearing body armor and military attires could justify that it was threatening?
Yeah that guy isn't being honest I bet. It's probably legal for people to dress up as mildly spooky figures and look over his fence at his daughter on her swingset. But who in their right mind would do that? I know they say common sense isn't that common but people are born with a good idea of what's what or you'd see a million stupid accidents a day.
You can bet your own head without fear on that, it's part of that trend of "triggering" people and showing how "under attack" they are by acting like lunatics and getting the consequences.
The first amendment does not allow one to yell "Fire" in a theatre, how is this any different?see below
It doesn't really ruin your point that there are limitations on rights, but that's not actually a good example to use (but you're far from the only one) - it's always just been an analogy, not the law, and the case was overturned 50 years ago.
Well crap, I had no idea how flawed that "legal" analogy was, and that it actually holds no standing today. I am striking out my comment because while semantically it might hold sway, I would rather not make that point with such a flawed analogy.
It is crazy/terrifying to me, that something so rooted in the colloquial zeitgeist of our understanding of law hasn't been legally relevant since 1969!?! How does this cultural meme hold so much staying power today?
Nope. A Walmart store is private property. The owners and managers of that store have the right to refuse entry to any person for any reason.
"it's just a prank, bro."
Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their private premises for any reason.
That's not necessary for a social experiment. All he had to do was carry the weapons to find out if Walmart respected his supposed right to bear arms.
His sister and his wife were half right: this was a stupid idea. They forgot to mention that he's a stupid person carrying out this stupid idea.
"Ah, but a Walmart store is not a public area. It's private property. While this numbnut might have the right to bear arms in general, any person or company can refuse any person entry to their private premises for any reason."
This is VERY true. But sadly, that's not what they did.
They freaked out. The employee who pulled the fire alarm is the one who caused the mass panic, not the dumbass who was open carrying.
Noone in their right mind is going to walk up to someone "equipped with body armor, a handgun and a rifle" and looking like this, and ask them politely to leave the premises. I have a friend who is a security guard and, based on what he tells me about his job, even he would request backup before approaching someone like this. Would you approach this person if he walked into your workplace? Are you that foolhardy? Really?
In a climate where mass shootings happen almost literally every single day, and when two of those mass shootings have been in the news in the past week, people are going to be "better safe than sorry". And I think they're right to do so.
Nope. Because he's not breaking any law. Nor was he acting in a threatening manner.
Just like I wouldn't say anything to him walking down the street.
That's fucking nuts. I would most definitely call the cops if a heavily armed man was just walking down the street. A situation like that is 99.9% likely to go down very badly.
A situation that isn't even .01% likely to go very badly...
Facts, you know.
Plenty of videos of people exactly like our Missourian friend on YouTube. People walking down the street with large assault rifles for no reason who then are so surprised when people call the cops on them and they get questioned.
They all knew exactly what was going to happen, that's why they're all recording on their phones.
He wasn't carrying an assault rifle. And I guarantee you, 99.9999% of people the people you refer to aren't either. You really should learn the facts before you claim something.
When you are doing something TOTALLY legal, do you expect the cops to be called on you? I don't think so.
Let me make sure I understand your point. That is, just because something is legal and having an item is legal, you should be arrested if you have it or do something LEGAL with it when others assume the worst and become frightened?
Is that correct?
Please reply Yes or No. Because this is exactly a YES or No question and situation. I want to understand so I can give you another example, and I think that example (not related to firearms or weapons at all) will surprise you.
Please try not to word your comments with such a condescending tone. You're making valid points and it's perfectly reasonable to be trying to correct misunderstandings about open-carry, but doing it in such a condescending manner with all-caps words and repeatedly telling people things like "learn the FACTS" (while not actually providing them any of those facts) is pushing this more towards being an antagonistic argument instead of a discussion. Because of that, I've been tempted to lock this thread multiple times, but I'd really prefer not to.
Please treat the people you're talking with as peers, not enemies you're trying to defeat.
Sorry, old BBS days habit used to denote focus to words. I get called out for it at least once every couple months.
I tell people to learn the facts because most people who have not yet done so, ignore when others give them those facts. Many even to the point of trying to claim unbiased citations are false. So I point things out and leave it to them to decide if they want to take a chance to educate themselves.
Good point on my tone though. I've always been very blunt and many people confuse that with being condescension. It's a 49 year struggle so far...
Are you implying it wasn't an assault rifle because it was semi-auto only?
If so, that is incredibly nit-picky. It's technically correct, but it doesn't help your overall point at all., considering the military doesn't usually use their select-fire rifles on full-auto - unless in brown alert situations.
The only mass shooting that I'm aware where full-auto vs semi-auto was even part of the discussion was Vegas. In all other cases full-auto capability wouldn't have made them notably worse.
Speaking as a self professed gun person it matters a lot. Many people don’t understand the difference and it is an important distinction from a regulation point of view.
In many gun circles things like clip vs magazine or assault rifle vs assault weapon pedantry is a shibboleth for general gun knowledge and by extension the validity of your opinion on the matter. I’m not saying this is the correct approach to debate but it is a reason that pedantry persists
I kind of disagree. If I wanted to make gun legislation, sure I'd have to know all the minutiae, but the general population who feel threatened by this guy and by mass shootings honestly don't have to care. They know that a "AR-style rifle" is capable of killing lots of people really quickly, and they're correct because "AR-style" implies to me semi-auto and 30 rnds per mag, as well the caliber to match. That is a recipe for destruction if used that way. Consequently, the population being scared of this guy right after two high-profile mass shootings - they're not wrong. The fact that they have a misconception about how (not that) such a rifle achieves the body counts they hear in the news (semi instead of full-auto) doesn't change that.
The whole "you only think it's scary because it's black and military-style; you don't care that the average hunter has just as deadly a weapon" is a complete non-sequitur. I don't care because the hunter doesn't threaten me. But I'm OK with him being tangentially affected by legislation to fix the current situation. The fact that the gun-control crowd talks about assault rifles when the only thing setting it apart from one is a feature that is seldom if ever used and not relevant to the discussion - it shouldn't matter.
I've never handled a firearm. I'm not a US citizen. I know my way about most of the technicalities.
I'm not implying. I'm stating a fact.
A fact you appear to be aware of and understand. Yet for some reason you are acting like there's no difference. And you seem to be ignoring the other facts that must be met to meet the definition of an Assault Rifle.
And since you brought up Vegas, I was there. DURING the shooting. Standing in the same hotel, looking out my window that I had just walked up to, just seconds before he started shooting. I was on a lower floor, but on the other wing, such that I could see his window. And I could hear and feel ever single round that he fired.
As an avid firearm shooter, I know for a fact he was not using a bump stock. Nor was it a semi-auto. Nor was most of his shooting from a .223/5.56 rifle, AR-15 "style" or not. Those do not thump windows hard enough to visibly vibrate them or make it feel like someone is pounding (granted, not hard, but not lightly either) the chest of someone standing on the inside of that window. For 10 minutes, he was ripping through 30 round mags in less than 5 seconds each. Then 5 seconds apparently to drop and reload before shooting again. I could see the muzzle flashes blowing out the window. Plain as can be. Even the very next day, there was a LOT of bullshit on the news. Heck, I was there for almost a whole week for the NetAPP Insight conference and the news didn't even mention the following morning's shooting at the Luxor. But that was a guy who went broke gambling and when his wife got pissed, he shot her in the head in their room. Still, I got to see at least 20 SWAT members rush in from the street by the carry out a bunch of us were in line at trying to get something to eat because everything else was still closed.
Anywho, anyone who intentionally confuses the difference between an Assault Rifle and just a rifle, or between semi-auto and "full" AKA select-fire, is part of the anti-firearm rhetoric and loses all credibility in my and many others minds.
Lastly, it seems like you think select-fire means only single/full-auto. But it doesn't. There's also burst fire (typically 3-5 rounds) mode. But you are correct, it's rarely for full-auto to be used. In multi-round situations, they use burst fire.
Hmm, yes. He was lawfully carrying. He was not making any threats either by words or actions.
Lets go back to a key point. This guy was not the only armed and open carrying patron to that Walmart at that same time. The fireman (which no one knew he was a fireman till after the event) was also carrying. Yet NO ONE is upset about him doing the same thing.
Hypocrisy...
Legally, no.
And the fact this guy had ZERO intent to cause harm or panic, proves that point.
If we were to use your perspective, then there would be hundreds (dozenS at least) reports a week.
That's what happens when armed gunmen enter populated places.
Yes, sorta. Not a sticker, but a prominently placed sign that meets certain specs depending on jurisdiction.
Not where I live. LOTS of people walk around open carrying without people freaking out.
Well, except for those looking to make a point of trying to make everyone else conform to what they want.
While wearing armored vests?
If so, do you live in Somalia, perchance? I've lived in several states and havent seen anywhere people walk about dressed like soldiers outside of the wire, without causing alarm...
Nope. Ohio.
And here, it's legal to wear body armor in public. It's considered self-defense. And having worked in downtown Columbus off and on over the years, I've seen many people doing so and NO ONE freaked out.
You've seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor, rifle at the ready, and pistol on their hip?
I must go to a different Columbus every few months for business. Because I've never seen that in Columbus, OH...
I like how to linked separate points into one question.
Let me break them into valid questions.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around in full body armor? First off, he wasn't wearing full body armor. He was wearing a bulletproof vest. Not also arms, legs, head, etc. So to answer your question. YES. Actually YES to your question and to only wearing a vest.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around... with a rifle at the ready? YES. Mostly Law Enforcement though. For the record, this guy wasn't doing that. Understand the terminology before you use it. He was not holding it in any hand (which is "at the ready"). He had it hanging from a sling.
seen lots of people in downtown Columbus walk around... with a pistol on their hip. YES. LOTS OF TIMES. In fact, even on COTA buses. And guess what, no one freaked out. And also guess what. I worked for COTA for over 3.5 years and road a bus at least twice a day, 5/6 days a week. NO ONE CARED unless someone was threatening someone else. If you pay attention, there is a sign on EVERY coach that basically says "All legal weapons are allowed on the coach". I stopped trying to count how many people open carried on buses.
That is from the West side, to Downtown, to the East side and even the North side. Heck, even up at the Dublin and Easton park and rides. I actually approached someone open carrying up at crosswoods about to head to Red, White and Boom and reminded them "While it's legal to open carry on our bus, it's not legal to open carry in downtown during RWB. I suggest you lock it in your vehicle". And you know what? They thanked me for informing them and went and locked it in the vehicle's lock box.
Next few times you ride, politely look at people. You'll likely see someone with a knife on their belt, and maybe a holstered firearm.
ok, now combine all three together...
Who else, in Columbus, OH, walks about with an assault weapon slung, body armored up, and a pistol on their hip; aside from law enforcement?
I have never seen that, in my many trips to Columbus, OH. Last time I saw that, as a common occurrence, apart from law enforcement or soldiers, was in Iraq.
"assault weapon"... LOL... Use a term made up by politicians, the media and anti-firearm nuts, that's functionally irrelevant.
So, to answer your question that still has incorrect comparisons... I was in the Short North last month. In the Rolled ice cream shop and saw a guy walk by carrying an SKS on a sling on his back. It was 100f, so he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I couldn't see if he had a pistol on his hip though. No one was freaking out.
Interesting that no one is freaked out that some other guy who was also in Walmart, was also open carrying.
That other guy is the fireman who after Andreychenko had peacefully left the store, drew his loaded firearm, pointed it at Andreychenko and held him at gunpoint WITH explicit threat of harm until the police arrived.
In fact, that firearm is being called a hero, for some reason.
Keep in mind, Andreychenko did not break any laws. Not Federal, not State, not Local. Was he a numbnuts by going their on purpose loaded out like that? Sure.
But charging him with terrorism doesn't even remotely apply.
He did cause terror.
He might play innocent and say he "didn't intend for any negative reaction", but only the most naive or stupid person could possibly think people weren't going to react negatively to a man carrying an assault rifle and wearing body armour. He wasn't just carrying a pistol, he wasn't even loaded for bear. He was a one-man militia!
But, somehow, he expects people to just carry on with their day while he strolls around looking like a stereotypical mass shooter.
I can't believe that even he is that stupid. If he is, he needs to be locked up for his own safety, let alone everyone else's.
It's called "inciting a riot".
Reckless endangerment, terroristic threats (which Missouri has a law against and seems to apply here, @stromm), criminal negligence... I'm sure there is a whole bunch of statutes, both State and Federal, they can probably throw at him.
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".
He made no threat of violence.
It wasn't terroristic by any legally accepted definition.
IANAL, (and neither are you I suspect), but AFAIK it really doesn't matter what the US Code of Federal Regulations defines "terrorism" as.
That's entirely your opinion and debatable, IMO. If you read the actual law I linked, in Missouri "making a terrorist threat in the second degree" is defined as:
Which it's entirely possible this man could be found guilty of.
1.A. Not met.
(1). Not met.
(2). Only met by the employee. Why? Because no crime was being committed.
(3). Not met. This is due to the fact that simply carrying a firearm has never been legally considered posing a threat. Sure, some people claim it is so, but it's not legally.
You are correct.
And I expect it will surprise you that I don't go around open carrying a rifle, let alone wearing body armor (I don't own any, that shits expensive), unless I'm going from my home to a range, friends or some sort of firearm related shop.
Now I'm sure you want to know why I don't. Well, because that's just me. I don't carry more than I feel like or need to, of anything.
But see, here's the thing and is my whole point. In the US, in most US states, Open Carry is a legal right. That's it. Period. Simple.
It's as much a right as being walking down a public street. It's as much a right for me to speak freely and openly as long as I'm not directly or indirectly threatening anyone or anything.
And here's a qualifying aspect of open carry. It's open carry and not a criminal action as long as one isn't brandishing the firearm. Simplified, that means pointing it at someone or saying/implying the holder is going to use the firearm to commit a crime. Sure, it's a bit more complex, but that's pretty much it.
The thing is, just carrying something does not even legally imply threat. It's what is done with that item or said while having that item that makes it a crime.
As to the N-word, that's something completely different. Why? Because legally and socially, there ARE people allowed to say that word to black people it not be considered racist (aka, not protected by the 1st).
That's the great thing about Rights. They apply to everyone in the US, even if others disagree.
Once we start nitpicking which Rights don't apply to certain law abiding citizens, then it's only time for someone else to expect another Right doesn't apply to others.
It is very acceptable, at least from my exposure, for black's to use the N-word towards each other. And for them to use derogatory words about Whites and expect that it's OK. I've grown up in a mixed society, not all white. I hear more blacks use the N-word than I've ever heard non-blacks. And when called on it, almost always the person says something to the effect of "I'm black, I'm allowed". WTF...
People have a right to do things that might make other people uncomfortable.
Imagine no one being allowed to do that. All those protestors wouldn't be allowed to protest. Anyone marching for equality, wouldn't be allowed. etc. etc.
Once one Right is restricted, why not others?
Except he wasn't attempting to do that.
Stating that is YOU implying his purpose.