OK, let me take a stab at this, as earlier I said it wasn’t illegal, it was just stupid.  Maybe stupid was the wrong word to use so I will change it to prudent.  Tensions were very high given the 3 shootings.  If he was prudent and wanted to protect himself, he could have just carried his handgun and he could have worn his vest but not sling that rifle over his shoulder and walk into the store like that.  He could have easily gotten himself shot.  Just like it would not be prudent, if you had a lot of money, to dress up, wear your $15k Rolex watch and 2k diamond ring and drive your $200k Bentley to go eat at at your favorite soul food restaurant located in the inner city.  It is your right, you are not doing anything illegal, but it isn't prudent and you are not using “common sense.”

Others have other opinions, may feel that they have the “right” because it is not illegal, but that kind of thinking can get you killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.

Thank you for taking the time to attempt to explain why you label the legal actions "stupid", and have changed your term to "(not) prudent".


1. "Tensions were very high given the 3 shootings." This event took place a week after the previous Walmart shooting. At what point after the original event would you say it would have been "prudent" for him to do what he did? How would anyone determine how long (a week, am month, a year) after what kind of event where (anywhere, same state, same store chain, etc.) it would then be prudent to engage in such legal activity?  I'm asking because it's clear from comments I've seen that some people (who claim to be gun rights advocates) firmly believe that no one should ever be allowed in public, or at least a public building, while openly carrying a long gun, maybe a handgun, and maybe even a "tactical vest" with either or both. To me, this puts them dangerously close to those who argue that no one should be allowed in public carrying concealed. Where's the line, and why draw it there? If that depends on "the feelings of people in the area", why? What percentage of the "alarmed" people have to be how alarmed to make such an act "imprudent" or illegal?

It is impossible to set a specific time frame because no one knows what might happen in the future.  You have to use your own judgement as to what YOU want do to based on current circumstances.   As to what percentage question, I don’t  know and neither do I care because it doesn’t change my opinion.

2. "He could have easily gotten himself shot." Do you think he wasn't aware of that possibility? If he was aware of that possibility, and that openly carrying a handgun and a rifle while wearing a "tactical vest" could increase the chances of that, but still wanted to "make his point", do you still think he was "wrong"/"imprudent"? I'm asking because some people seem to be arguing that independent of whatever may or may not have happened to this individual, what he did was "stupid" because of how it somehow reflects negatively on the gun rights advocate community as a whole. The gun rights opposition runs the gamut of beliefs from "no assault rifles in stores" to "no concealed carry for anyone anywhere" to "no guns". Their goal is not get to everyone to agree that such acts are "imprudent" or "stupid", but that they should be illegal and result in arrest, prosecution, and incarceration. If an act is imprudent or stupid, why should it be legal in the first place? I'm trying to get people to delineate that question. When, or if, under what conditions and circumstances, a person could follow the current law and go into a retail establishment openly carrying a rifle and a handgun and wearing a "tactical vest". Some gun rights acrtivists seem to be saying "never", and thus are really advocating for a change in the law and outlawing at least some specific acts in some specific or general locations. I have't seen any of them really clarify anything. They all seem to be saying "I support open carry, but..." Sound familiar?

I don’t know if he was aware of the danger he was putting himself in, but he should be aware of trigger happy cops that have shot people for a lot less. 

3. "...go eat at at your favorite soul food restaurant located in the inner city...". Aside from the implicit racism in that comment, what if that person did that (as I'm pretty sure certain gold and diamond-bedecked rappers have done) and nothing "bad" happens, what does that mean about your judgment that such an act was "not prudent" or "commonsense"? Because in the example we are talking about in Missouri, nothing "bad" happened to this guy, except for one manager pulling the fire alarm resulting in him exiting the store where he was confronted by someone pointing a gun at him, and then the police getting involved and the prosecutor claiming "terroristic threatening". Since he has said he "wanted to see if Walmart would respect his Second Amendment rights", he was obviously aware that "something" could have happened, but chose to make his political speech statement anyway.

I still say STUPID,

and his actions HURT the cause of the 2nd Amendment, and gives fuel to the gun grabbing factions in the public and government.

I say the fireman was more stupid.  CCW license, career in public safety, yet judges a man DOING NOTHING THREATENING as a criminal and holds him at gun point -- potentially initiating something more violent than would have happened otherwise.

The fireman HURT the cause of the 2A by showing how someone with poor judgement and a license to carry can be a bad combination.  He may have had a badge (firefighter), but he's not supposed to be playing Cop.

I'm on the fence this one. Maybe he watched too much news. And was thinking " if I draw second. I die". On the other hand the rifle guy lucky the fireman wasn't the type to think " I ain't a cop or enforcement. I don't have to say freeze. Stop. Get down. Put your hands up"  and just shot him. This could have ended being one big embarrassment cluster f*ck and laughing point for gun grabbers.

Sucks how prosecution looked for reasons.  I can see that happening here if OC is ever legal.  Someone will call HPD.  HPD will overreact and arrest person.  Prosecution will look for a reason.

http://cavemancircus.com/2019/08/13/open-carry-attention-seekers/

Scroll to bottom

I like the chromed out AK.   

And here I was wondering how Mr Revolver managed to keep his pants up.   

That's because you came up with irrelevant examples that make zero points in the argument.

Open carry == Constitutional right
Sitting at the "Whites Only" lunch counter == Constitutional right
Attending a "Whites Only" school == Constitutional right

You see a pattern now?

OK, let me take a stab at this, as earlier I said it wasn’t illegal, it was just stupid.  Maybe stupid was the wrong word to use so I will change it to prudent.  Tensions were very high given the 3 shootings.  If he was prudent and wanted to protect himself, he could have just carried his handgun and he could have worn his vest but not sling that rifle over his shoulder and walk into the store like that.  He could have easily gotten himself shot.  Just like it would not be prudent, if you had a lot of money, to dress up, wear your $15k Rolex watch and 2k diamond ring and drive your $200k Bentley to go eat at at your favorite soul food restaurant located in the inner city.  It is your right, you are not doing anything illegal, but it isn't prudent and you are not using “common sense.”

Others have other opinions, may feel that they have the “right” because it is not illegal, but that kind of thinking can get you killed or suffer grievous bodily harm.

I'm on the fence this one. Maybe he watched too much news. And was thinking " if I draw second. I die". On the other hand the rifle guy lucky the fireman wasn't the type to think " I ain't a cop or enforcement. I don't have to say freeze. Stop. Get down. Put your hands up"  and just shot him. This could have ended being one big embarrassment cluster f*ck and laughing point for gun grabbers.

stu·pid

/ˈst(y)o͞opəd/

adjective

adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest

1. having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.