Yup.  So many (or too many) folks doing stuff because they could, without putting much thought into whether or not they should.  Similar with innovation.  Innovation for the sake of innovation can at times be counterproductive. . .

I wonder if rights weren't trampled on, would people still do stuff to see what they can get away with?

Yup.  So many (or too many) folks doing stuff because they could, without putting much thought into whether or not they should.  Similar with innovation.  Innovation for the sake of innovation can at times be counterproductive. . .

"You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" is just wrong.

The original quote from Justice Holmes was "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

Notice the word "crowded" is missing, and the word "falsely" precedes "shouting."  Those are 2 important words that qualify whether or not the act is considered protected speech or not.

If there's an actual fire, then your speech is lawful if announcing a fire.  If the theater is empty, or there is no panic caused (nobody got hurt), then even a false announcement of "FIRE!" will result in no criminal charges.

That entire "fire in a theater" example was actually part of a decision that was overturned.  Yet, people learn what they were taught.

I wonder if rights weren't trampled on, would people still do stuff to see what they can get away with?

You mean would people want or need to push limits if freedoms were reality?  For firearms, I think so.  Always be folks pushing things.

"You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" is just wrong.

The original quote from Justice Holmes was "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

Notice the word "crowded" is missing, and the word "falsely" precedes "shouting."  Those are 2 important words that qualify whether or not the act is considered protected speech or not.

If there's an actual fire, then your speech is lawful if announcing a fire.  If the theater is empty, or there is no panic caused (nobody got hurt), then even a false announcement of "FIRE!" will result in no criminal charges.

That entire "fire in a theater" example was actually part of a decision that was overturned.  Yet, people learn what they were taught.

I was referring to the "with a right there comes a responsibility" part.  I wasn't referring to the "person who yelled fire". . . but thank you for the educational experience. . .

You mean would people want or need to push limits if freedoms were reality?  For firearms, I think so.  Always be folks pushing things.
I was referring to the "with a right there comes a responsibility" part.  I wasn't referring to the "person who yelled fire". . . but thank you for the educational experience. . .

The problem with the concept of "with rights come responsibilities" is there is no mechanism to enforce it.  There is no "Bill of Responsibilities" in the Constitution.

Responsibilities are taught by responsible parents and other adults in a position to teach.  Unfortunately, too many adults grew up being taught that they are not responsible for themselves.  Government, oppressive racists, corporations, the greedy 1%, the Cops, their abusive parents, bullies, Conservatives, MAGA hat wearers and Trump are to blame for everything bad in their lives and to give them everything they need to live a fulfilling life.

I'd put it more in the words, "With rights come consequences."  One of those consequences is we must allow people to exercise their rights in ways we find distasteful or morally wrong.  As long as their actions don't violate the safety or rights of others (deliberately causing a panic and injuring people), then it's up to the individual how they exercise their rights.

In any free society, liberties can be abused.  Look at the US Press and how they hide behind the Constitution while spreading lies about Trump and his supporters. Fake News exists because society hasn't yet stopped rewarding those who create and spread it.  Hopefully one day we'll all band together and stop the divisive behavior of the press.

The problem with the concept of "with rights come responsibilities" is there is no mechanism to enforce it.  There is no "Bill of Responsibilities" in the Constitution.

Responsibilities are taught by responsible parents and other adults in a position to teach.  Unfortunately, too many adults grew up being taught that they are not responsible for themselves.  Government, oppressive racists, corporations, the greedy 1%, the Cops, their abusive parents, bullies, Conservatives, MAGA hat wearers and Trump are to blame for everything bad in their lives and to give them everything they need to live a fulfilling life.

I'd put it more in the words, "With rights come consequences."  One of those consequences is we must allow people to exercise their rights in ways we find distasteful or morally wrong.  As long as their actions don't violate the safety or rights of others (deliberately causing a panic and injuring people), then it's up to the individual how they exercise their rights.

In any free society, liberties can be abused.  Look at the US Press and how they hide behind the Constitution while spreading lies about Trump and his supporters. Fake News exists because society hasn't yet stopped rewarding those who create and spread it.  Hopefully one day we'll all band together and stop the divisive behavior of the press.

 

No you didn't. Not with any specificity or clarity.

Maybe someone else will be willing to tell us what you meant. What is "Heavies" position, exactly.

If this dude thinks he was helping the 2A cause, he's a fucking moron, and will set us back in this battle.   

Darwin award winner...

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it smart or right.  Common sense is absent in this day and age.  All parties need to apologize to each other and go their separate ways, and hope a lesson was learned.

If a pedestrian steps out into the street, not paying attention, in a crosswalk, and gets nailed by a car, he's the loser.  Was the pedestrian within his legal rights to have the "right of way" in the crosswalk?  Yep, BUT that still doesn't make it right, nor smart. 

It's fucken stupid,  and so was this dingbat,  fucken stupid.

Makes all gun owners look stupid.
I refuse to defend this idiot.

Seems pretty clear to me. 
And yet again, another thread of people arguing just for the sake of arguing.     

Seems pretty clear to me. 
And yet again, another thread of people arguing just for the sake of arguing.     

I disagree! 

I meant disagree as to which is better.  Ruger or S&W revolvers.   

Seems pretty clear to me. 
And yet again, another thread of people arguing just for the sake of arguing.     

Yeah, I can read what you wrote. That's exactly why I asked the questions I asked, that you refuse to answer. It's not clear, at all, what you are implying should be the laws re open and/or concealed carry, but most specifically (apparently) open carry. If, according to you, it's always "stupid" to open carry a firearm in a retail store, then shouldn't the law re open carry state that open carry is not allowed in retail stores? The questions seem pretty clear to me. And the reason for asking the questions, given what you wrote, seems pretty clear to. But if you want me to I can further explain and fully spell out each question.

Why do you avoid answering them?

Reminder: So what, exactly, was the "stupid" part?

Should no one anywhere ever (there will always be "gun violence" within the past few days) open carry a handgun in any retail store? Anywhere? A rifle? Either while wearing "tactical gear"? Maybe it would be easier for you to describe the circumstance and details about "not stupid" open carry: What, when, where, etc.

If the fireman hadn't intervened as he did but instead simply called the cops, I doubt seriously anyone on this thread would have heard about it -- just like we never hear about EVERY OTHER 2A "SURVEY" unless the person involved posts it to YouTube.

In that situation, Heavies would not have made the judgment that the guy acted stupidly, because he'd have never heard about it.

So, if someone decides to take a specific action, and people who don't like those types of actions never hear about them from the MSM, was the person still stupid?  Or, did he get the answer he was looking for -- direct information he needed to let his representatives know things need to change?

You mean like a black person sitting at a whites only lunch counter, or riding in the front of the bus, or attempting to enter a public school? You mean like asserting that we have a natural individual fundamental civil right to bear arms outside our home for the purpose of self-defense even though it "scares the hell out of" Ige, Lyin' Harry, Green, Rhoads, Lee, Baker, et al.? If concealed carry were legal, would you advise against it because you know that so many people, including the red shirt wearing Demanding Moms are "scared to hell" by people doing so? What about open carry? What kind, level, or amount of "fear" should determine what legal activities ought to be curbed?

"Push the envelope"?  "Technically legal"? "Scare the hell out of people"? Where do you come up with this crap?

There are a lot of people, who for whatever reasons and past experience are "scared" of cops... should the cops not go into those neighborhoods because they will "scare the hell out of people"?

You completely missed my point.  This has nothing to do with black people sitting at the lunch counter. You are trying to equate any and all fear with reasonable rationale fear.

There are just things you don't do.

How about to prove your point you walk into a bank with a ski mask then act dumbfounded when people start reacting.

If you ever meet Trump go ahead and yell Allah Akbar as you are about to shake his hand. Then you can correctly point out how legal it is when secret service are tackling you (if you are lucky)

I can come up with a dozen more if you like.

You completely missed my point.  This has nothing to do with black people sitting at the lunch counter. You are trying to equate any and all fear with reasonable rationale fear.

There are just things you don't do.

How about to prove your point you walk into a bank with a ski mask then act dumbfounded when people start reacting.

If you ever meet Trump go ahead and yell Allah Akbar as you are about to shake his hand. Then you can correctly point out how legal it is when secret service are tackling you (if you are lucky)

I can come up with a dozen more if you like.

Please point to the part of the Constitution that says wearing something to obscure your face in a bank is an inalienable right.

While you're at it, where is the part of the Constitution that says you have the right to yell Allah Akbar when shaking hands with the President without any context?

Are your dozen other examples also irrelevant examples of actions that are not Constitutionally-protected rights?

Please point to the part of the Constitution that says wearing something to obscure your face in a bank is an inalienable right.

While you're at it, where is the part of the Constitution that says you have the right to yell Allah Akbar when shaking hands with the President without any context?

Are your dozen other examples also irrelevant examples of actions that are not Constitutionally-protected rights?

You are focusing on legality, I am focusing on common sense and the things that allow society to function.

You are focusing on legality, I am focusing on common sense and the things that allow society to function.

No, you are creating straw argument using irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

I won't go roller skating in a watermelon patch, but that in no way equates to whether or not I should exercise a Constitutional right in any given situation.

No, you are creating straw argument using irrelevant examples that have nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

I won't go roller skating in a watermelon patch, but that in no way equates to whether or not I should exercise a Constitutional right in any given situation.

I never made a single argument about constitutional rights. In fact I clearly pointed out that all the scenarios I listed are technically legal.

I never made a single argument about constitutional rights. In fact I clearly pointed out that all the scenarios I listed are technically legal.

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?

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?

No, the people here that condemn the guy and/or his actions as "stupid", etc. won't acknowledge the pattern nor tell us specifically what is "not stupid" re open carry... for some reason. And that's what I want to know. I won't bother to speculate as to what they think about open carry, in whatever places and circumstances is "not stupid"... how would I know? It'd just be speculation. They could simply write a few sentences about when, where, etc. it is and ought to be legal and "commonsense" to carry openly, but they won't do that. Why? Seems simple. It's a constitutionally-protected right (even the Ninth Circuit has said so!). How hard could it be for those condemning this guy to just tell us what they think both the law and the "commonsense" "rules" should be about open carry? Is any action, even though completely legal, to be held to some standard of "commonsense" re the amount of fear it might instill in other people? Would it have been "not stupid" for him to do it the day BEFORE the shooting at Walmart? What about a year afterwards? Six months afterwards? Two weeks afterwards? Some store other than Walmart? Etc. I guess it's too hard for them to clarify what they mean.

What we've seen here (and elsewhere on other threads regarding this incident) is that many people are arguing along the lines of "Well, it wasn't "illegal", and he didn't actually engage in any threatening acts or verbalizations, but COMMONSENSE should dictate, and make obvious that he shouldn't have done it... because it's stupid...", etc.

I find this so ironic that people who claim to support Second Amendment-protected rights would turn to such a vague and ambiguous term as "commonsense" to argue their point, when that term is what is used by nearly all the opponents of Second Amendment-protected rights in calling for "commonsense gun safety regulations". That is, it's an appeal to something that is supposed to be so obvious and clear to anyone capable of normal perception and cognition, that it can't be disputed. Right? So anyone who disagrees with the "commonsense" notion that civilians ought not have any firearms ever in any public place (or have a suppressor or a semi-automatic long gun or be allowed to transfer a firearm without government approval, etc.,etc., etc.)... well, those people are crazy gun nuts, or some kind of demented deplorables. Yet here we have the very targets of those "commonsense" arguments arguing using the same, I'll call it false, argument. It should be "obvious", that if people vehemently and diametrically disagree about what is or isn't "commonsense", that there really is no such thing and any argument using anything resembling an appeal to any such or similar concept is false. Say what you actually mean, otherwise you might as well argue it's because "the gods have decreed it".

And, here, from another thread on another topic, is a post from something using the screen name "commonsense", which pretty much sums it up:

commonsense August 11, 2019 9:26 am 

Absolutely! The second amendment is not sensible in this day and age. I believe most people would agree not to completely outlaw every gun, just have much stricter laws and enforcement. Ban all assault and semi-automatic guns.

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.

What we've seen here (and elsewhere on other threads regarding this incident) is that many people are arguing along the lines of "Well, it wasn't "illegal", and he didn't actually engage in any threatening acts or verbalizations, but COMMONSENSE should dictate, and make obvious that he shouldn't have done it... because it's stupid...", etc.

I find this so ironic that people who claim to support Second Amendment-protected rights would turn to such a vague and ambiguous term as "commonsense" to argue their point, when that term is what is used by nearly all the opponents of Second Amendment-protected rights in calling for "commonsense gun safety regulations". That is, it's an appeal to something that is supposed to be so obvious and clear to anyone capable of normal perception and cognition, that it can't be disputed. Right? So anyone who disagrees with the "commonsense" notion that civilians ought not have any firearms ever in any public place (or have a suppressor or a semi-automatic long gun or be allowed to transfer a firearm without government approval, etc.,etc., etc.)... well, those people are crazy gun nuts, or some kind of demented deplorables. Yet here we have the very targets of those "commonsense" arguments arguing using the same, I'll call it false, argument. It should be "obvious", that if people vehemently and diametrically disagree about what is or isn't "commonsense", that there really is no such thing and any argument using anything resembling an appeal to any such or similar concept is false. Say what you actually mean, otherwise you might as well argue it's because "the gods have decreed it".

And, here, from another thread on another topic, is a post from something using the screen name "commonsense", which pretty much sums it up:

commonsense August 11, 2019 9:26 am 

Absolutely! The second amendment is not sensible in this day and age. I believe most people would agree not to completely outlaw every gun, just have much stricter laws and enforcement. Ban all assault and semi-automatic guns.

Common sense tells me, if no one (even EEF's red flag laws) can reduce the chances of evil from causing violence -- with or without a firearm -- then the only solution is for each individual to be prepared to meet force with like or greater force.

Prevention will not work.  We know that, even though some on here choose to believe there's some predictive solution just waiting for lawmakers (who can't accurately describe the rifles they want to ban) to codify it.  If that's a given, then the only common sense solution remains: train, practice and carry your own firearm.

Here is a numerical hypothetical:

-- last year, 100 mass shootings happened
-- Congress passes red flag laws the same year
-- this year only 50 mass shootings happened, a reduction attributed to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill
-- also this year, 250 people had their guns taken from them by force before any hearing occurred. 75 of those died in the police raids to take their guns, because they refused to give up their rights.  The 50 shootings that were supposedly prevented were assumed to be in that 250.  So, 200 people who were not going to be mass murderers had their guns taken as well.
-- since the mass shootings that were "prevented" never happened, we have only a trend to support the supposition that any mass shootings were prevented. Trends don't indicate causes -- only the direction
    -- up or down -- of the data.  It's possible there was some initiating event that caused the number to hit 100 last year, more than in recent years, and that 50 was the normal number.  Removing the causal event from this year's factors may have been the direct reason for cutting that number in half.  The red flag laws did nothing to stop any of them.

The entire prevention argument is an emotional red herring.  Human behavior is too complicated and subject to too many influencers for anyone to predict.  Taking the civil rights of people who "just don't look/act right" is a subjective standard that solves nothing.

Police in Maryland served a red flag warrant and the owner was killed by the PD last November.