Open Carry Incident - Vincennes

[IndyDave1776]

In before the next post!

​?

 

[Bunnykid68]

 

[stephen87]

So you want to freely exercise your 2nd amendment rights while telling others they shouldn't be able to exercise their 1st amendment rights?

Not at all what I said, but I can play that game too.

So you want to freely exercise your first amendment rights, while telling me that I cannot exercise my second amendment right?

I never said that one COULD not say something, I said that I should be able to exercise my rights without someone *****ing and moaning about it and trying to get someone to throw me out because I have an inanimate object that has no bearing on their life.

Let me guess though, you conceal because then you don't hurt anyone's itty bitty feewings.

 

[SkullDaddy.45]

View attachment 23188

 

[iamhdr]

Not at all what I said, but I can play that game too.

So you want to freely exercise your first amendment rights, while telling me that I cannot exercise my second amendment right?

I never said that one COULD not say something, I said that I should be able to exercise my rights without someone *****ing and moaning about it and trying to get someone to throw me out because I have an inanimate object that has no bearing on their life.

Let me guess though, you conceal because then you don't hurt anyone's itty bitty feewings.

I get it. You support those people's 1st amendment rights to say it. You just think they shouldn't. How is that any different than the people in this thread that say you CAN open carry a rifle, you just shouldn't?

 

[SSGSAD]

I tried to walk away, but the 'gotta carry a loaded long gun in public crowd' is very persistent and seem to be winning by attrition and cheap debate tactics.
I really tried, my mistake was going back and reading the thread some more.

I am probably going to be sorry, that I posted....... BUT, The Rifleman, carried a LONG GUN, everywhere he went, and NO ONE ever asked him to leave .....

 

[actaeon277]

I get it. You support those people's 1st amendment rights to say it. You just think they shouldn't. How is that any different than the people in this thread that say you CAN open carry a rifle, you just shouldn't?

The amendments (and Constitution) apply to limiting the government, not private citizens.
IF you complained to the manager, and IF he told you to pound sand, he would NOT be violating your first amendment rights.

If someone complained to the manager, and he told the person with the firearm to leave, he would NOT be violating the second amendment.

 

[iamhdr]

The amendments (and Constitution) apply to limiting the government, not private citizens.
IF you complained to the manager, and IF he told you to pound sand, he would NOT be violating your first amendment rights.

If someone complained to the manager, and he told the person with the firearm to leave, he would NOT be violating the second amendment.

I agree. But stephen87 said he should be able to exercise his 2nd amendment rights and people that disagree with him shouldn't exercise their 1st amendment rights. It seems hypocritical when others complain about open carrying a rifle and rifle carry advocates respond with "it's my right." It's also other people's right to complain to management if they don't like it. The 2nd amendment doesn't shield you from private citizens asking private companies to take action and complaining that they just shouldn't isn't logically consistent.

 

[stephen87]

I didn't say they could not exercise their rights. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said I should be able to exercise my rights without someone trying to get me removed because they don't like that I exercise my rights. How self centered are you to think that YOU can ask someone else to deny me service unless I remove my firearm in THEIR establishment because you don't like it?

 

[iamhdr]

How self centered are you to think that YOU can ask someone else to deny me service unless I remove my firearm in THEIR establishment because you don't like it?

I'm not asking for you to be denied service. If you want to carry a rifle in a fast food joint for protection, knock yourself out. But if you think you're helping the cause of gun rights by "educating the public," you're not. You're retarding it.

I didn't say they could not exercise their rights. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said I should be able to exercise my rights without someone trying to get me removed because they don't like that I exercise my rights.

My reading comprehension is quite fine. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. A private citizen has a 1st amendment right to complain to a manager or owner about another person in their business. If they want to kick you out it's the manager's prerogative. You wanting to "exercise my rights without someone trying to get me removed (which is their right) because they don't like that I exercise my rights" is hypocritical. The 2nd amendment doesn't shield you from the 1st.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Peanut butter

 

[stephen87]

Where in the Constitution does it state that your rights trump mine and vice versa? It doesn't. Also, it's not hypocritical to want to exercise my rights without someone wanting me removed. It would be hypocritical if I said "I'm going to exercise my rights and you are not allowed to exercise yours." I also never said that carrying a rifle was helping the "cause," whatever that may be. I said that it is his right to carry the rifle, and because of that I will support him in his carrying of said rifle. I have no problem with anyone exercising their rights, I expect the same in return. When someone decides that my legally carried handgun or long gun interferes with their everyday activity, I expect them to suck it up or talk to me themselves, not try to get me kicked out of a restaurant or try to get me arrested. Still my issue with this thread is the people who have failed to read my stance on this. So I'll state it again.

This issue is not someone asking the OP and his friends to leave. The issue is not the OP and his friend carrying handguns and long guns into a McDonalds. The issue is LE who, supposedly, came into McDonald's after visually seeing no threat, hearing no threat, and seeing the persons in question were sitting and eating their meal and pointed a firearm. They then proceeded to rip the carriers out of the store and verbally accost them for nothing more than carrying firearms, which the officers seemed to disagree with. The issue at hand is the treatment of persons who are legally carrying firearms.

 

[stephen87]

Peanut butter

It's peanut butter jelly time, peanut butter jelly time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Where in the Constitution does it state that your rights trump mine and vice versa? It doesn't. Also, it's not hypocritical to want to exercise my rights without someone wanting me removed. It would be hypocritical if I said "I'm going to exercise my rights and you are not allowed to exercise yours." I also never said that carrying a rifle was helping the "cause," whatever that may be. I said that it is his right to carry the rifle, and because of that I will support him in his carrying of said rifle. I have no problem with anyone exercising their rights, I expect the same in return. When someone decides that my legally carried handgun or long gun interferes with their everyday activity, I expect them to suck it up or talk to me themselves, not try to get me kicked out of a restaurant or try to get me arrested. Still my issue with this thread is the people who have failed to read my stance on this. So I'll state it again.

This issue is not someone asking the OP and his friends to leave. The issue is not the OP and his friend carrying handguns and long guns into a McDonalds. The issue is LE who, supposedly, came into McDonald's after visually seeing no threat, hearing no threat, and seeing the persons in question were sitting and eating their meal and pointed a firearm. They then proceeded to rip the carriers out of the store and verbally accost them for nothing more than carrying firearms, which the officers seemed to disagree with. The issue at hand is the treatment of persons who are legally carrying firearms.

So while everyone agrees that the WBC's actions are covered under the 1st Amendment, you have absolutely no issue with the displays, and would even stand by their side in support of their rights? I think most would acknowledge their rights, but wouldn't want to be caught dead in the same vicinity as those morons.

 

[churchmouse]

So while everyone agrees that the WBC's actions are covered under the 1st Amendment, you have absolutely no issue with the displays, and would even stand by their side in support of their rights? I think most would acknowledge their rights, but wouldn't want to be caught dead in the same vicinity as those morons.

Yup^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[stephen87]

So while everyone agrees that the WBC's actions are covered under the 1st Amendment, you have absolutely no issue with the displays, and would even stand by their side in support of their rights? I think most would acknowledge their rights, but wouldn't want to be caught dead in the same vicinity as those morons.

I wouldn't because it's a stance that I personally do not agree with. I support their first amendment rights, but because I don't agree with what they have to say, I would not join them.

 

[KLB]

So while everyone agrees that the WBC's actions are covered under the 1st Amendment, you have absolutely no issue with the displays, and would even stand by their side in support of their rights? I think most would acknowledge their rights, but wouldn't want to be caught dead in the same vicinity as those morons.

This is probably the best 1st Amendment/2nd Amendment analogy for this case. I may not want to stand beside them while they protest, but I do not want to see the police called in with guns drawn and publicly berated for it either.

If they were on private property I would support the owner asking them to leave just as I would them asking someone carrying a rifle.

To take it a step further though, are you going to use the argument that the WBC needs to STHU because we are all going to lose our 1st Amendment rights because of their ?

 

[stephen87]

Can't rep you KLB, but I agree totally.

 

[Dirtebiker]

This is probably the best 1st Amendment/2nd Amendment analogy for this case. I may not want to stand beside them while they protest, but I do not want to see the police called in with guns drawn and publicly berated for it either.

If they were on private property I would support the owner asking them to leave just as I would them asking someone carrying a rifle.

To take it a step further though, are you going to use the argument that the WBC needs to STHU because we are all going to lose our 1st Amendment rights because of their ?

Good point!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Can't rep you KLB, but I agree totally.

I can, and did!