Man went into Kroger with AK 47

[KMX]

Guys, guys......it's just me. Getting some organics and stuff for the house. Carry on!

http://texansforkorywatkins.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texans-For-Kory-Watkins/1429953260562406

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss247/kmx21/OCKroger_zps8df83f52.jpg (http://s580.photobucket.com/user/kmx21/media/OCKroger_zps8df83f52.jpg.html)

[jkr]

WAS IT ILL-TEMPERED?

seriously folks, where are those "free range" chicknz i been hearing bout?

and

NOBODY is cutting THIS GUY!

[KMX]

Everything was fine. I got my city on lock now. I had one problem about 6 months ago, I have that on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Agw54qyA4


Every since then, not one problem.

Kroger manager called the cops and dispatcher told him "we know" and he is doing nothing wrong.

[KMX]

Yes, I still rock the Ron Paul wrist band. lol

[juleswin]

Fedora and AK, I thought Fall Fashion season was over? :)

[AFPVet]

Everything was fine. I got my city on lock now. I had one problem about 6 months ago, I have that on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Agw54qyA4


Every since then, not one problem.

Kroger manager called the cops and dispatcher told him "we know" and he is doing nothing wrong.

That's awesome! If the sheriffs want to really kick sand in the faces of the anti-gunners, they could deputize law abiding folks 18 and older with volunteer security duty—which is what the Second Amendment really was. We are all supposed to be one large security force.

[FindLiberty]

We are one large peace force please... (Don't go looking for monsters to destroy.)

[ctiger2]

Just think how much safer this particular Kroger was for just that limited time this person was shopping...

[fisharmor]

That's awesome! If the sheriffs want to really kick sand in the faces of the anti-gunners, they could deputize law abiding folks 18 and older with volunteer security duty—which is what the Second Amendment really was. We are all supposed to be one large security force.

I'm pretty sure the second amendment was never about having the constabulary deputize people.
I'd settle for that, but it's not the ideal.

[Czolgosz]

Jesus Tap Dancing Khrist! Put a warning on your thread title. I had to duck for cover when the pic came up.

[brushfire]

That's one busy store... Either its 1AM or AK47:30 in there... Even the hand truck has been abandoned :)


Looks like it was an 8AM visit? At least the post was made thereabouts.

[kathy88]

Haaahahah. Remember when I thought you were a chick? Nice photo opp.

[CaseyJones]

I saw you at the No War With Syria protest

[KMX]

Yes, Casey I was there. I get around if you know what I mean!! Freedom is calling.

@Brushfire, this was around 10am on Monday morning.

[KMX]

I am with Come and Take it America and Open Carry Texas. We just got a new forum up and running if anyone would like to join. We post all of our events and information. On the 19th we have a HUGE event going on in SA. Expecting around 1,000 people.

http://comeandtakeitamerica.com/forum/index.php

[brushfire]

@Brushfire, this was around 10am on Monday morning.

No harassment by the management? No police called? It didnt jump off your sling and take out everyone in the produce section - sounds like a good day.

Heck, if you had buy-1-get-1 for that "Simple Truth Organic", it'd be a great day.

[KMX]

Went to the Texas Hunting forum to post my Kroger picture. Wow, I am shocked at how many 50%ers there are..... Check all these "2nd amendment supporters" bash me and my OC at Kroger. It's insane!

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4623620/gonew/1/Man_in_Kroger_with_AK47#UNREAD





No harassment by the management? No police called? It didnt jump off your sling and take out everyone in the produce section - sounds like a good day.

Heck, if you had buy-1-get-1 for that "Simple Truth Organic", it'd be a great day.

Manager did call the cops but was informed by dispatcher that I was no harm and not to mess with me. I have created this in my city, by educating the people and the police.

Before I go out (even know I don't have to) I call the local PD and kindly let them know what I am doing that way when people call they get educated. Not every person with a gun is a bad guy and what I am doing is 100% legal.

[Todd]

Quinton Tarantino with an assault rifle. Who'da thunk it.

[Keith and stuff]

Went to the Texas Hunting forum to post my Kroger picture. Wow, I am shocked at how many 50%ers there are..... Check all these "2nd amendment supporters" bash me and my OC at Kroger. It's insane!

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4623620/gonew/1/Man_in_Kroger_with_AK47#UNREAD
...I am doing is 100% legal.

Starbucks asked people to not carry because of similar behavior. Do you think, if 1000s of people did what you did, that Kroger would also ask people to not carry there?

[eduardo89]

Say this on FB, didn't realise it was an RPF member.

[69360]

While I support your right to do this, I think you are stupid to do it.

[sirgonzo420]

While I support your right to do this, I think you are stupid to do it.

What's wrong with shopping at Kroger?

Or are you one of those "Whole Foods" folks?


;)

[AFPVet]

I'm pretty sure the second amendment was never about having the constabulary deputize people.
I'd settle for that, but it's not the ideal.

No... it was called upon in the service of the militia. We were already deputized... didn't need to be formally deputized. Granted, you could argue that we were only "deputized" during an invasion, but I still think we were responsible for national security beyond this. Reference: Article I [8] (15) U.S. Constitution

[shane77m]

What's wrong with shopping at Kroger?

Or are you one of those "Whole Foods" folks?


;)

Piggly Wiggly?

[loveshiscountry]

Guys, guys......it's just me. Getting some organics and stuff for the house. Carry on!

http://texansforkorywatkins.com/

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texans-For-Kory-Watkins/1429953260562406

http://i580.photobucket.com/albums/ss247/kmx21/OCKroger_zps8df83f52.jpg (http://s580.photobucket.com/user/kmx21/media/OCKroger_zps8df83f52.jpg.html)
sweet fashion statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzPsdkTCufs

[shane77m]

Went to the Texas Hunting forum to post my Kroger picture. Wow, I am shocked at how many 50%ers there are..... Check all these "2nd amendment supporters" bash me and my OC at Kroger. It's insane!

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4623620/gonew/1/Man_in_Kroger_with_AK47#UNREAD




Went there and read through the thread. The majority of those commenting would probably vote for John MacCain over Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash.

[fr33]

Went to the Texas Hunting forum to post my Kroger picture. Wow, I am shocked at how many 50%ers there are..... Check all these "2nd amendment supporters" bash me and my OC at Kroger. It's insane!

http://www.texashuntingforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4623620/gonew/1/Man_in_Kroger_with_AK47#UNREAD

I'm not surprised. The majority of them probably like to brag about how many hunting licenses they've bought and how their local game warden is their buddy.

Texas gun laws are not very good and Texas "conservatives" like it that way.

*edit: my advice is to not call them liberals like you've been doing but instead call them statists and maybe even make the case that they are all infected with Stockholm Syndrome.

[Mini-Me]

The real problem with this is your arm must be getting tired with no strap or anything to help hold onto it. ;)

[KMX]

Huh? I have a strap.

[Mini-Me]

Huh? I have a strap.

OH, okay, I see it now. It's on your other shoulder. I was expecting a darker color, and I overlooked it. (I think I mistook you for being skinnier or something, and mistook the strap for being empty space on the shelf behind you, and the part of your shirt below that as something on the shelf, and didn't see that wasn't consistent with the uppermost skin on your arm being occluded...or something.)

Anyway, after thinking about it though, I do have some constructive criticism: I know little about the strengths and weaknesses of various firearms, but my gut tells me an AK-47 might not be a practical choice for defending a crowded grocery store. I understand the point is to get people more accustomed to open carrying and to serve as a deterrent to would-be armed robbers, and the size of that thing probably works well on both counts...but in an actual armed robbery scenario, would you be able to realistically defend the place with an AK-47 without endangering bystanders? If the answer is no, a savvy robber might realize, "LOL, he can't fire that thing in here anyway." A more volatile adversary might continue that thought with, "...but I can...and I kind of want to...and he doesn't know I'm a threat yet."

In general, it seems like the smartest grocery store carry would be something with a strong emphasis on accuracy and control. In the specific climate we're dealing with, where almost nobody carries anything at all (open or concealed), something less flashy might also help you avoid becoming a blitz attack target, even if it diminishes the "desensitization" aspect. That won't be important in the future as open carrying becomes more popular and widespread, but it's probably an important consideration for the time being.

[RickyJ]

I'm with 69360 on this, you have the right to do this, but it isn't the smartest thing in the world, that's for sure.

[sirgonzo420]

Huh? I have a strap.

In vernacular parlance, you have two straps.

[phill4paul]

Look at the handwringing nancies in this thread. :rolleyes: Did any of you read the part where his open carry is educating both the public and the police?

Tip o the hat to you, sir, for exercising your natural rights.

[Seraphim]

Ya, this.


Look at the handwringing nancies in this thread. :rolleyes: Did any of you read the part where his open carry is educating both the public and the police?

Tip o the hat to you, sir, for exercising your natural rights.

[angelatc]

Look at the handwringing nancies in this thread. :rolleyes: Did any of you read the part where his open carry is educating both the public and the police?

Tip o the hat to you, sir, for exercising your natural rights.

But but but someone might get upset!

[MRK]

I'm with 69360 on this, you have the right to do this, but it isn't the smartest thing in the world, that's for sure.

Ya'll are slowly getting domesticated.

[KMX]

OH, okay, I see it now. It's on your other shoulder. I was expecting a darker color, and I overlooked it. (I think I mistook you for being skinnier or something, and mistook the strap for being empty space on the shelf behind you, and the part of your shirt below that as something on the shelf, and didn't see that wasn't consistent with the uppermost skin on your arm being occluded...or something.)

Anyway, after thinking about it though, I do have some constructive criticism: I know little about the strengths and weaknesses of various firearms, but my gut tells me an AK-47 might not be a practical choice for defending a crowded grocery store. I understand the point is to get people more accustomed to open carrying and to serve as a deterrent to would-be armed robbers, and the size of that thing probably works well on both counts...but in an actual armed robbery scenario, would you be able to realistically defend the place with an AK-47 without endangering bystanders? If the answer is no, a savvy robber might realize, "LOL, he can't fire that thing in here anyway." A more volatile adversary might continue that thought with, "...but I can...and I kind of want to...and he doesn't know I'm a threat yet."

In general, it seems like the smartest grocery store carry would be something with a strong emphasis on accuracy and control. In the specific climate we're dealing with, where almost nobody carries anything at all (open or concealed), something less flashy might also help you avoid becoming a blitz attack target, even if it diminishes the "desensitization" aspect. That won't be important in the future as open carrying becomes more popular and widespread, but it's probably an important consideration for the time being.

If a bad guy sees a good guy, armed with a AK and 40 round mag, bad guy is making an exit.

[RickyJ]

If a bad guy sees a good guy, armed with a AK and 40 round mag, bad guy is making an exit.

Or maybe a good guy thinks you are a bad guy, maybe like the shooter at the theater in Aurora Colorado. Anyway, that weapon is overkill for supermarket protection. A concealed pistol would work better in such a situation. Oh and a bad guy isn't necessarily going to be scared of a guy walking around a supermarket with a weapon like that, he might make you his first target and then take your AK-47 as well as rob the store.

[Danke]

Or maybe a good guy thinks you are a bad guy, maybe like the shooter at the theater in Aurora Colorado. Anyway, that weapon is overkill for supermarket protection. A concealed pistol would work better in such a situation. Oh and a bad guy isn't necessarily going to be scared of a guy walking around a supermarket with a weapon like that, he might make you his first target and then take your AK-47 as well as rob the store.

I'd wager if more were walking around as KMX, there would be be less robbers in the first place. But that is just me.

[Mini-Me]

If a bad guy sees a good guy, armed with a AK and 40 round mag, bad guy is making an exit.

Not all bad guys will think the way you expect them to think. You're thinking in terms of the typical convenience store robber archetype: He'll bring a gun (a peashooter), but he'll run from a real fight and pick a better target, because self-preservation is a top priority, and he probably doesn't want to shoot anyone to begin with. I on the other hand am considering the homicidal maniac archetype. Maybe he's a psychopath, maybe he's going through a psychotic break, or maybe he's cracked out or on PCP. Either way, if I see a vulnerability here, so might this guy.

If an insane bad guy armed with a concealed pistol sees a *singular* good guy, armed with an AK-47 and 40 round mag, the well-armed good guy just became a more attractive target than the cash register up front. Given the right amount of crazy, the insane bad guy just might casually sneak up on the well-armed good guy in the produce aisle when he's looking for the freshest oranges (or near the Lucky Charms for irony?) and cap him in the back of the head at point-blank range to acquire his AK-47. He couldn't do this if a bunch of good guys were armed with AK-47's - which is hopefully the end result of the educational effort - but in the current situation, where you're the only one, a wise man will factor this scenario into his thinking.

I'm sure you operate at a higher-than-usual level of vigilance when you're carrying something like an AK-47, but just how vigilant can one person be in a crowded supermarket when your primary focus is buying some groceries...especially when you've already demonstrated a latent assumption that nobody will dare attempt what I'm suggesting they might?

[KMX]

I will not get a CHL. It's unconstitutional. As a patriot I am obligated to disobey unjust laws!

[KMX]

I'd wager if more were walking around as KMX, there would be be less robbers in the first place. But that is just me.

x2

[presence]

#LiveFree

#standwithKMX

[osan]

I open carry at the Elkview Kroger all the time. Also, the one at South Ridge. And all the other stores in the area.

What's the big deal?

[osan]

That's awesome! If the sheriffs want to really kick sand in the faces of the anti-gunners, they could deputize law abiding folks 18 and older with volunteer security duty—which is what the Second Amendment really was. We are all supposed to be one large security force.


We are one large peace force please... (Don't go looking for monsters to destroy.)

I must agree with FL here. Words matter and our choices of same can have profound effects on meaning and the shape of perception.

[osan]

While I support your right to do this, I think you are stupid to do it.

Why? You make a bold statement, yet give no basis. This seems like a drive-by posting.

[osan]

If a bad guy sees a good guy, armed with a AK and 40 round mag, bad guy is making an exit.

Virtual certainty.

[osan]

Not all bad guys will think the way you expect them to think.

His statement, taken as a statistical assertion, is abundantly valid to a very high confidence. There are always outliers just as there are no guarantees of perfect safety.


I on the other hand am considering the homicidal maniac archetype.

Few and far between. Very few. Very far between.


Maybe he's a psychopath, maybe he's going through a psychotic break

Maybe you're wringing your hands over possibilities so far out on the ragged fringes they barely merit the least consideration.


or maybe he's cracked out or on PCP.

Such people most often retain the midbrain sense of fundamental self-preservation.


Either way, if I see a vulnerability here, so might this guy.

A comet may strike the earth at 2:41, too.

Worrying about outliers does not invalidate the remedies proper to the six sigma reality.

[KMX]

Thank you!

[Keith and stuff]

I open carry at the Elkview Kroger all the time. Also, the one at South Ridge. And all the other stores in the area.

What's the big deal?
You have a handgun? He has a rifle. Gov. Perry refuses to allow the open carry of handguns in TX, likely because he hates black people, since that's why the law was created in the first place. The good news is, the likely GOP candidates for governor of TX don't hate black people and say they support open carry of handguns in TX, but only for CCW holders. So maybe they only half-way hate blacks. Better than Perry, I guess. it's TX, known for horrible gun laws. So anything is better than the current law.

[cjm]

Everything was fine. I got my city on lock now. I had one problem about 6 months ago, I have that on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Agw54qyA4


Every since then, not one problem.

Kroger manager called the cops and dispatcher told him "we know" and he is doing nothing wrong.

I wish I had a +rep six pack for you.


Before I go out (even know I don't have to) I call the local PD and kindly let them know what I am doing that way when people call they get educated. Not every person with a gun is a bad guy and what I am doing is 100% legal.

Smart.


While I support your right to do this, I think you are stupid to do it.

This is the difference between having a name and having a number, 69360.


I'm with 69360 on this, you have the right to do this, but it isn't the smartest thing in the world, that's for sure.

IMHO, this may be the smartest way to protect the right to keep and bear arms that exists. I will be here (http://www.newcastleopencarry.com/) on Saturday.

[pcosmar]

If an insane bad guy armed with a concealed pistol sees a *singular* good guy, armed with an AK-47 and 40 round mag, the well-armed good guy just became a more attractive target than the cash register up front. Given the right amount of crazy, the insane bad guy just might casually sneak up on the well-armed good guy in the produce aisle when he's looking for the freshest oranges (or near the Lucky Charms for irony?) and cap him in the back of the head at point-blank range to acquire his AK-47.


Yeah,, because this happens all the time with cops visibly displaying their weapons. :rolleyes:

Roll Eyes Sarcastc.

That is the stupidest argument that is often repeated.

[RickyJ]

Yeah,, because this happens all the time with cops visibly displaying their weapons. :rolleyes:

Roll Eyes Sarcastc.

That is the stupidest argument that is often repeated.

The benefit of concealed weapon is that it doesn't make you in any way appear to be a threat, which you can be in a instant. Advertising you are a threat isn't the smartest idea if your objectives are self defense.

[Danke]

One of my favorite junk yards recently posted a sign on their front door that guns were not allowed. I will not be going there again.

[pcosmar]

The benefit of concealed weapon is that it doesn't make you in any way appear to be a threat, which you can be in a instant. Advertising you are a threat isn't the smartest idea if your objectives are self defense.

A visible firearm does not make a person a threat. Any more than a person with boots is a threat.

Criminals (and I was one once) look for soft targets. Or those that appear soft.

Advertizing that you are a hard target is an immediate deterrent.

and BTW,, The only time I ever carried concealed was when I was involved in criminal activity,, and didn't want to advertize it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

OH, okay, I see it now. It's on your other shoulder. I was expecting a darker color, and I overlooked it. (I think I mistook you for being skinnier or something, and mistook the strap for being empty space on the shelf behind you, and the part of your shirt below that as something on the shelf, and didn't see that wasn't consistent with the uppermost skin on your arm being occluded...or something.)

Anyway, after thinking about it though, I do have some constructive criticism: I know little about the strengths and weaknesses of various firearms, but my gut tells me an AK-47 might not be a practical choice for defending a crowded grocery store. I understand the point is to get people more accustomed to open carrying and to serve as a deterrent to would-be armed robbers, and the size of that thing probably works well on both counts...but in an actual armed robbery scenario, would you be able to realistically defend the place with an AK-47 without endangering bystanders? If the answer is no, a savvy robber might realize, "LOL, he can't fire that thing in here anyway." A more volatile adversary might continue that thought with, "...but I can...and I kind of want to...and he doesn't know I'm a threat yet."

In general, it seems like the smartest grocery store carry would be something with a strong emphasis on accuracy and control. In the specific climate we're dealing with, where almost nobody carries anything at all (open or concealed), something less flashy might also help you avoid becoming a blitz attack target, even if it diminishes the "desensitization" aspect. That won't be important in the future as open carrying becomes more popular and widespread, but it's probably an important consideration for the time being.

A CQB AR-15 would work nicely. 10.5" would do some serious work in Kroger if you ever were put in a horrid situation you had to use it.

[KingNothing]

More power to you for doing this, but you're putting yourself at risk of something bad happening by doing it. And that is just because you're doing something so far from the norm. Right or wrong, it will make people uncomfortable, and people tend to do weird things when faced with an unconventional circumstance. You're introducing more variability into your life. So, just be very careful. I'd hate to read about something bad happening to a person who is obviously a good guy and a freedom lover.

[KingNothing]

One of my favorite junk yards recently posted a sign on their front door that guns were not allowed. I will not be going there again.

Incidentally, I love that you have a "favorite junk yard."

[KingNothing]

Yeah,, because this happens all the time with cops visibly displaying their weapons. :rolleyes:

Roll Eyes Sarcastc.

That is the stupidest argument that is often repeated.

He should be more afraid of being shot by a nervous cop than a potential robber.

[jtap]

He should be more afraid of being shot by a nervous cop than a potential robber.

That is such a valid point it is sad to think about. However, having a concealed weapon and having to remove it from being concealed would make a cop very nervous also. There are multiple facets to everything. The idea that having a gun makes you a target, well not having one makes you a target like not having an anti-theft system for your car makes your car a target over ones that do however, if someone wants to steal a car alarm...then now your anti-theft system made you a target.

What's more likely that they will avoid you when you are visibly armed or select you because you appear unarmed?

Also, another super small possibility that the person who wants to be killed will select you because you are visibly armed and use you instead of their alternate plan of suicide by cop.

[osan]

A CQB AR-15 would work nicely. 10.5" would do some serious work in Kroger if you ever were put in a horrid situation you had to use it.

You damned better have a GOOD suppressor for it because that monkey is going to be LOUD. 5.56 is horrifically loud in long barrels. It is unbearable in SBRs. 5.56 is also notoriously difficult to suppress effectively. Personally, I value my hearing more than that.

[osan]

You have a handgun? He has a rifle.

Largely irrelevant. What counts is shot placement under stress. Many can barely hit the broad side of a barn when under fire. This is understandable as it is not an easy thing to keep one's cool under such circumstances. But if you are referring to the advantage of openly carrying a long arm v. a concealed pistol, you do have a valid point. I carry openly as often as possible for two reasons, the second being my pathological need to exercise my inherent rights and the first being that a gun does one little good if it is not available for use in time.

Gov. Perry refuses to allow the open carry of handguns in TX, likely because he hates black people

What is your ecidence for this? Not saying you're wrong - I can readily believe that dick would be so motivated. Just wondering upon what you base the assertion.


since that's why the law was created in the first place.

Well yes - gun control is at its root of roots Knee-Grow control. It never ceases to amaze me how woefully and willfully ignorant and stooped the average Knee-Grow is on this point. Bring it up and in my experience they look at you either as if you'd just sprouted a dead fetus from the side of your head or as if they are going to kill you. How can any presumably rational and nominally intelligent black person accep the gun control position from one side of their mouth while braying with fathomless and interminable stupidity about "slavery" from the other? The answer is one word: accountability. Such people want nothing to do with being responsible for themselves - their values, thoughts, feelings, choices, actions. They want license to stumble and fuck and smoke and drink their way from one moment to the next with zero accountability. Possessing the means of self defense removes such license. They'd rather see the entire world fall prey to the hunters than assume the least epsilon shred of responsibility for themselves. Therefore, while whining endlessly about how unfair life and whitey are to them, they embrace and rail on about the evils of the gun.


The good news is, the likely GOP candidates for governor of TX don't hate black people and say they support open carry of handguns in TX, but only for CCW holders. So maybe they only half-way hate blacks. Better than Perry, I guess. it's TX, known for horrible gun laws. So anything is better than the current law.

What a quirky-stupid state TX is in these ways. They make no rational sense at all.

[Keith and stuff]

Largely irrelevant. What counts is shot placement under stress. Many can barely hit the broad side of a barn when under fire. This is understandable as it is not an easy thing to keep one's cool under such circumstances. But if you are referring to the advantage of openly carrying a long arm v. a concealed pistol, you do have a valid point.
I consider it extraordinarily relevant. Long guns are substantially more likely to freak people out.


Well yes - gun control is at its root of roots Knee-Grow control. It never ceases to amaze me how woefully and willfully ignorant and stooped the average Knee-Grow is on this point. Bring it up and in my experience they look at you either as if you'd just sprouted a dead fetus from the side of your head or as if they are going to kill you. How can any presumably rational and nominally intelligent black person accep the gun control position from one side of their mouth while braying with fathomless and interminable stupidity about "slavery" from the other? The answer is one word: accountability. Such people want nothing to do with being responsible for themselves - their values, thoughts, feelings, choices, actions. They want license to stumble and fuck and smoke and drink their way from one moment to the next with zero accountability. Possessing the means of self defense removes such license. They'd rather see the entire world fall prey to the hunters than assume the least epsilon shred of responsibility for themselves. Therefore, while whining endlessly about how unfair life and whitey are to them, they embrace and rail on about the evils of the gun.
There are other options. Perhaps Gov. Perry hates women, the elderly and kids. He either hates kids, blacks, women, the elderly or some combination of them or he just wants all people to be defenseless and die at the hands of criminals, it has to be either 1 of those or he is completely clueless when it comes to self-defense. Come to think of it, that might partly explain why it is so dangerous to be in TX, with the high crime rate and all.


What a quirky-stupid state TX is in these ways. They make no rational sense at all.
My guess is a lot of it has to due with the historical hatred of black people by those in charge of the TX government. That seems to finally, be slightly changing to only partial hatred. Or again, it could just be hatred of the elderly, kids, poor people, women and so on. My guess is some combination. If I lived in Houston and was an a-hole billionaire, would I really want the average decent citizen to have the ability to surprise me and my security with a firearm? No. And that seems to the part of the basis for current law in TX.

That said, I'm so glad RINO Perry is on his way out and the Republicans that are likely to replace him are somewhat interested in increasing the ability of people to defend themselves. Now if the effort required to receive a CCW or if people were allowed to open carry without a permit, then we would know that the next governor at least somewhat cares about regular folks. Perry only cares about his rich, white, male, non-elderly, non-child friends according to his leadership record. It's why he was a complete joke when he ran for President. He was the most laughed at candidate and if placed head-to-head with Ron Paul in NH in 2012, Rick Perry would have only received less than 3% of the vote with Ron Paul receiving over 97% of the vote if you extrapolate based on the results.

[69360]

Why? You make a bold statement, yet give no basis. This seems like a drive-by posting.

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.

If you don't get that, oh well.

So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.

[loveshiscountry]

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.

If you don't get that, oh well.

So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.
The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place

[AFPVet]

I must agree with FL here. Words matter and our choices of same can have profound effects on meaning and the shape of perception.

Well, they do, but remember, the U.N. has a peace keeping force and it's a bit of a misnomer don't you agree? While peace and security are more or less synonymic terms, I do understand the negative scrutiny associated with the word security nowadays. This being said, it does not negate the fact that the 2nd Amendment explicitly uses the word security. This is why I said security force rather than peace keeping force—in keeping with the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Furthermore, true security forces are peace keeping forces :) I despise how the words security and peace have been hijacked and used to enforce tyranny :mad:

[Keith and stuff]

The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place
I somewhat agree with 69360's point of view but you are also corrected. I guess there is all type of middle thinking. Will people getting used to seeing military firearms in grocery stores before the stores and law ban them? I don't know. I believe that the open carrying of military firearms at Starbucks stores in Texas over and over again, and the complaints helped lead to the nationwide "ban" on all firearms (concealed and otherwise) at Starbucks. So in the short-term, the policy has massively backfired. In the long-term, maybe it will work out. But the current suffering is really annoying and it might get worse. And it may never get better, we don't know.

[69360]

Another thing to consider is do you really want to show your hand like that. When you do things like tote an AK in public you can be damn sure you get put on a list somewhere. You'll be the first one they come for if shtf. IMO it's better to keep a low profile and not let anyone know exactly what you have.

[fr33]

Another thing to consider is do you really want to show your hand like that. When you do things like tote an AK in public you can be damn sure you get put on a list somewhere. You'll be the first one they come for if shtf. IMO it's better to keep a low profile and not let anyone know exactly what you have.
Activism is the opposite of keeping a low profile. It's completely different tactic. I generally side with you in my actions but I don't try to discourage activists because I don't know if their tactics or mine will work to advance the cause of liberty. IMO it's better to promote and encourage liberty activists rather than dissuade them.

[RickyJ]

The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place

If it needs to be common place then we are doomed as a nation, I know we are for all practical purposes doomed already, but not quite yet. Everybody in Libya has guns, yet they are still not safe. I am all for gun ownership, but needing to carry assault rifles while merely shopping in your neighborhood grocery store is a sure sign you are living in a war zone.

[osan]

I consider it extraordinarily relevant. Long guns are substantially more likely to freak people out.

How is that relevant to the legitimate exercise of one's inherent right to keep and bear arms?

Tattoos freak lots of people out too. By your apparent reasoning, it would seem folks should be prohibited from displaying them publicly. I would be interested in knowing how one is fundamentally different from the other. To save time I will preempt any attempt to use the "because guns can kill you" argument, which is similarly irrelevant. Nearly any object you may list CAN kill you. The "what-if" argument fails on its face - we can what-if ourselves to death. What LEGITIMATELY REASONED difference is there? If one exists, I would like to know abou it.



It's why [Perry] was a complete joke when he ran for President. He was the most laughed at candidate and if placed head-to-head with Ron Paul in NH in 2012, Rick Perry would have only received less than 3% of the vote with Ron Paul receiving over 97% of the vote if you extrapolate based on the results.

This sparked an idea... Perhaps it's too late - perhaps he is too old or too tired, but I think it would be absolutely fabulous were Ron Paul to run for GOVERNOR of TX. Holy shit... I'm a genius. :) I'm dead serious, too... would RP NOT be the perfect governor in ANY state?

What think's y'all? Is it worth raising as a question to Dr. Paul?

[osan]

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

So let me be sure I have this correctly: you advocate retreating in the face of frightened nitwits by ceding your most fundamental human rights? Is that your strategy for long term prosperity and freedom?


You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.


This is blindingly naive. B. A. wants them banned ANYWAY, regardless whether they can or cannot see them. Logic FAIL. Mayday mayday... I'm going in...


If you don't get that, oh well.

Oh that's cute, using the "if you don't get it you are hopeless" ploy. Holy crap - I cannot recall the last time I saw that one pulled out. The expanded train of "reasoning" there is: if you disagree with me, you do not understand. Therefore, you are wrong. Need I go through the analysis to identify where the train breaks terminally? OK, if you insist. The rupture occurs between the first and second elements where disagreement reduces to a universal and necessary lack of understanding. In other words, because I disagree with you, I am wrong.

I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that.


So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.

I don't suppose you see the fundamentally contradictory nature of this statement? You support a given right yet advocate one not exercise it because it may thereby be violated in some broad and formulaic manner. This is the reasoning of surrender. You are entitled to hold this view and the rest are entitled to do otherwise.

[osan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5298737#post5298737)
I must agree with FL here. Words matter and our choices of same can have profound effects on meaning and the shape of perception.

Well, they do, but remember, the U.N. has a peace keeping force and it's a bit of a misnomer don't you agree?

Yes. That is pretty much my point.


While peace and security are more or less synonymic terms,

Peace and security are synonymous? Not sure I can agree. Could you elaborate on your specific meaning? I do no see them as synonymous in a general way. In fact, I see this conflation of general definition to lie close to the heart of the progressive/bunnies-and-light/prohibitionist philosophy. Security per se does not imply peaceful conditions. Various issues arise such as "security for whom?" and the devil's details in the actual implications of the definition of the term itself. All of us here should be well aware of the hanky panky in which Theye engage with their disingenuous use of language. Nothing is safe from Themme because of this - nothing issuing from Theire hands can be trusted in the least measure because they virtually always play from a different dictionary than do the rest of us, save when the gloves are off and they are in bald-faced authoritarian mode. In those increasingly less-rare occasions, certain usages of words, phrases, and terms mean precisely as commonly taken, but it is always along the lines of what you cannot do and what they will do to you if you fail to comply with their whim and caprice.

Just to be clear, and I am sure you probably already know this: Theye may establish for themselves a secure state - from their point of view. In fact, this is being done under our very noses and is very nearly complete now, most of the instrumentality having been put into place. The only major element that remains to be realized is putting these heretofore fallow material and legal instrumentalities into action. That is almost certain to come to pass before much longer. One does not purchase the better part of 2 billion rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of assault rifles, and thousands of armored vehicles for the purposes of ensuring a general state of domestic tranquility. They are acquired with the specific purpose of placing the relevant agencies on a bald-faced war footing and the only possible enemy for which such materiel can be credibly identified is all those who are not Themme or Theire direct cadres and minions.

Of this I hold vanishingly small doubt. This secure state will be for Themme alone and not even for their direct minions as the latter will be every bit as subject to the tyrannies that will be employed to corral the rest. They will be every bit the prisoner-slaves everyone else shall be. The only difference will be their status as trustees of the cage. Prisoners wielding marginal authority over the other prisoners. Their transgressions will be overlooked so long as they sufficiently toe the warden's line. By this shall a cop be able to shoot an inmate of lower status than him at whim, more or less, and expect to be fully excused - perhaps even congratulated. But the moment the trustee steps beyond the metes of the warden's boundaries they, too, shall be cast into the fire. THAT is the bit the willing and eager stooges do not see. They see only their elevated power status above their fellows and it is that lust for even the smallest crumb of differentiation that causes those sad and endlessly corruptible little nitwits to sprout vast and endlessly raging erections that no amount of perfectly skilled stroking will ever sate.

The very worst among us have been elevated to the very positions that, if they can be even marginally regarded as legitimate, should be populated by the very best. This is TRUE revolution - everything is literally turned around. You have no rights. There is no trust. Evil is good and goodness is evil.

Welcome to the world of 1984 my friends. We are literally living Orwell's nightmare vision of the future in virtually every frightful detail. The candy coated happy-face of Huxley's Brave New World is now being washed away in the torrents of the rising and violently rapid tides of tyranny becuse Theye no longer require the overhead of that mask in order to exercise Theire wills as they more truthfully see fit. It is upon us like a ravening predator disemboweling as we lie helplessly, our spines nearly broken and our legs barely functional, free as birds to do nothing more than remain and watch as we are consumed piecemeal by the shades that envelope and savagely devour us.


Furthermore, true security forces are peace keeping forces :) I despise how the words security and peace have been hijacked and used to enforce tyranny :mad:

In this you are definitely not alone.

[osan]

I believe that the open carrying of military firearms at Starbucks stores in Texas over and over again, and the complaints helped lead to the nationwide "ban" on all firearms (concealed and otherwise) at Starbucks. So in the short-term, the policy has massively backfired. In the long-term, maybe it will work out. But the current suffering is really annoying and it might get worse. And it may never get better, we don't know.

I don't see it that way at all. Their shitty and hideously $$ coffee aside, Starbuck's is a private enterprise, free to ban weapons on their property if that is their pleasure. This is freedom in action and the honesty of it is helpful to the rest of us so that we, the consumers, are able to better assess the nature of these organizations as they pertain to such questions of one's exercise of their basic rights. If the "government" bans weapons in the ways here discussed, the consumer is left standing bereft of the knowledge of the provider's position on such matters. This way, we know who welcomes the proper exercise of human rights and who does not. I consider this valuable information because it enables me to avoid giving my business to those who embrace tyranny and violation. Those who embrace BEING violated are free to continue giving Starbucks their money. The rest of us are free to walk right on by to their competition. The free market in action is a beautiful thing.

As to current suffering, to what do you refer? Your statement is not clear. My impulse was to parse this to mean people not being to go into Starbuck's armed. I see nothing of suffering there. If going to Starbucks for a cup of horribly over-priced and mediocre-at-best coffee is more important to you than your ability to freely exercise your rights, then leave your gun at home, or perhaps in your car, and go have your coffee. Just bear in mind that if some lunatic on meth or bath salts shows up with HIS guns in search of a little excitement, you may find yourself shit out of luck. :) It's all a matter of choices and it seems to me that some people want what cannot be rightfully had: license to do anything they want regardless of the wishes of others and consequences. An all too common human failing.

[69360]

Activism is the opposite of keeping a low profile. It's completely different tactic. I generally side with you in my actions but I don't try to discourage activists because I don't know if their tactics or mine will work to advance the cause of liberty. IMO it's better to promote and encourage liberty activists rather than dissuade them.


So let me be sure I have this correctly: you advocate retreating in the face of frightened nitwits by ceding your most fundamental human rights? Is that your strategy for long term prosperity and freedom?



This is blindingly naive. B. A. wants them banned ANYWAY, regardless whether they can or cannot see them. Logic FAIL. Mayday mayday... I'm going in...



Oh that's cute, using the "if you don't get it you are hopeless" ploy. Holy crap - I cannot recall the last time I saw that one pulled out. The expanded train of "reasoning" there is: if you disagree with me, you do not understand. Therefore, you are wrong. Need I go through the analysis to identify where the train breaks terminally? OK, if you insist. The rupture occurs between the first and second elements where disagreement reduces to a universal and necessary lack of understanding. In other words, because I disagree with you, I am wrong.

I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that.



I don't suppose you see the fundamentally contradictory nature of this statement? You support a given right yet advocate one not exercise it because it may thereby be violated in some broad and formulaic manner. This is the reasoning of surrender. You are entitled to hold this view and the rest are entitled to do otherwise.


You both don't get it do you? I'm talking about survival here and keeping what is yours. In this day and age, you flaunt it you lose it.

[osan]

You both don't get it do you? I'm talking about survival here and keeping what is yours. In this day and age, you flaunt it you lose it.

Oh I get it just fine now. For you, mere existence is sufficient. You will toe a line just to keep your paltry and token possessions. That is OK with me. Do as you please. I choose to stand on my feet, come what may. If they render me off the camp, better that than to live as a simpering compliant, too afraid of winning and losing to stand tall and live for real, if only briefly.

You should look up Kahlil Gibran's short story about the violet that became a rose for an hour. Hell, I will even do the legwork for you: http://www.inspirationalstories.com/0/65.html

I am serious. Read this. It is a story of what it means to live for REAL - something that requires a lot of courage. See if it appeals. If not, then perhaps you are not of the right cloth. No sin there and no shame. It simply is what it is. I choose differently, however.

[loveshiscountry]

If it needs to be common place then we are doomed as a nation, I know we are for all practical purposes doomed already, but not quite yet. Everybody in Libya has guns, yet they are still not safe. I am all for gun ownership, but needing to carry assault rifles while merely shopping in your neighborhood grocery store is a sure sign you are living in a war zone.Your life can be threatened almost anywhere. I don't know if that means anywhere is already a war zone then.

[69360]

Oh I get it just fine now. For you, mere existence is sufficient. You will toe a line just to keep your paltry and token possessions. That is OK with me. Do as you please. I choose to stand on my feet, come what may. If they render me off the camp, better that than to live as a simpering compliant, too afraid of winning and losing to stand tall and live for real, if only briefly.

You should look up Kahlil Gibran's short story about the violet that became a rose for an hour. Hell, I will even do the legwork for you: http://www.inspirationalstories.com/0/65.html

I am serious. Read this. It is a story of what it means to live for REAL - something that requires a lot of courage. See if it appeals. If not, then perhaps you are not of the right cloth. No sin there and no shame. It simply is what it is. I choose differently, however.

Things are bad in this country, but not bad enough to martyr yourself yet. When I can't live my life the way I want without interference then we'll talk. But for now I can, so I will keep a low profile and keep what's mine.

[osan]

Things are bad in this country, but not bad enough to martyr yourself yet. When I can't live my life the way I want without interference then we'll talk. But for now I can, so I will keep a low profile and keep what's mine.

Fair enough. But what you stated previously did not suggest to me "low profile", but rather surrender. Perhaps a simple miscommunication.

[69360]

Fair enough. But what you stated previously did not suggest to me "low profile", but rather surrender. Perhaps a simple miscommunication.

We'd be on the same side if shtf. Seems like you think things are worse off than I do right now is all.

[KMX]

Some people just don't understand liberty and freedom. Makes me sick to believe that people actually need someone to have rules or laws to make them feel safe.