Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, August 31, 2014

The group Moms Demand Action is calling for a boycott of Kroger until it bans shoppers from carrying firearms in its supermarkets, using the Twitter hashtag #groceriesnotguns to promote the effort. "Moms need to shop for groceries, but we don't have to shop at stores that put our families in harm's way," said group founder Shannon Watts. An Open Carry Texas member recently shared a photo of himself shopping in Kroger with a loaded rifle at his back and a baby in a sling. One commenter responded, "My husband and I are gun owners. Please, please, don't be on our side. You are an embarrassment and are doing so much harm to your 'cause.'"

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I guess you can never be too sure that a rogue bag of frozen peas or a paranoid pineapple isn't lying in wait to attack.

#1 | Posted by BGMacaw at 2014-08-31 10:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

This guy is a piker. If he truly believed in open carry, the baby would be armed.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

This guy is a piker. If he truly believed in open carry, the baby would be armed.

That's not a baby. It's a sawed-off shotgun concealed in a doll.

#4 | Posted by RevDarko at 2014-08-31 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think he needs his gun so when he goes past the fruits and Veg he does not feel inadequate ;-) The need for the public display of guns and short fuses go hand in hand. Now I have to ask everyone that is ok with this guy, change the face to someone that looks like the President and if you are still OK then we just disagree and I respect your opinion. The last time gun control was passed it had a lot to do with the Black Panthers showing up at Oakland police calls displaying their 1st Amendment rights.

#5 | Posted by THomewood at 2014-08-31 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with Kroger's position, "Our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws..."

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I shop at Kroger's all the time now. Kroger's is an East Coast supermarket chain and Californians would know it by the name of one of its subsidiaries -- Ralph's Supermarket

#7 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-08-31 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger can do whatever they want and so can shoppers who, if they are like me, will simply not shop where idiots are wearing guns so I guess I would be joining the boycott.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-31 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with Kroger's position ...

Kroger's position is a cop out. The laws allow the supermarket chain to say they don't want guns openly carried on the premises.

If I saw clowns like this guy at a business I frequented, I'd tell the business that until they ban it I'll be shopping someplace else. This guy looks deranged. Anyone who thinks they need a gun to shop at the supermarket seems deranged. I don't shop at places with armed people who might be deranged. I'm weird that way.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

I cross paths with armed gun-nuts, like this fool all the time.
I have no way of knowing if they have severe mental problems, are convicted felons or a just careless gun-nuts with good intentions, who just might shot me "accidentally". So I get far away from them, as fast as possible.
Sound lifesaving advice from..Sammy in GUN CRAZY Arizona

#10 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-08-31 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger's position is a cop out.

That's the wise choice in my opinion. Kroger doesn't have a dog in this fight. Do they need to draft a policy on other "controversies" too like breastfeeding in public, or can they simply rely on whatever local ordinance applies?

The laws allow the supermarket chain to say they don't want guns openly carried on the premises.

I just don't see how Kroger formulating a weapons policy for their shoppers is one of their core competencies. Entire states allow people, deranged and otherwise, to open carry. What does Kroger banning it in their stores actually accomplish?

If you're worried about encountering these guys, which seems reasonable, I suggest a better course of action would be to move to a state that doesn't endorse this sort of silliness.

Now, if the boycott works, then I expect Kroger will take action. I would be surprised if they don't have the actuaries working on the numbers already. Purely to protect their business, not because they have a stake in the open carry debate/debacle.

It is funny though that this would never be happening if that guy hadn't so proudly posted pics of himself with his infant and his Very Scary Looking Assault Weapon in the store. If/when (when seems more likely) KR does ban weapons, I wonder if open carry advocates will turn on this guy for ruining their good time.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 03:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America"

Fear has become the preeminent tool of certain political elites. They push the fear to change our Constitution; to send us to war, or eliminate our rights. Those that thrive and incite such fear are pretending to offer a cure, when the cure represent a much bigger danger to our rights.

Don't Americans deserve transparency from any organization that wishes to create the political will to change elements of the Constitution, whether it be the 1st, 2nd or 4th Amendment?

Who is behind this organization? Who are the directors? Who are the top 25 donors and how much from each, and what is median donation? How much in donations do they receive? What is the political affiliation of CEO and director.

The founder is a Shannon Watts aka Shannon Troughton aka corporate PR hack (Wellpoint, Monsanto, GE, etc) according to Wikipedia and gunfreezone.net
www.linkedin.com

We all have the right to become activists and create organizations, but when we do, the public deserves that the door of transparency be wide open so we know what and who is behind it.

#12 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 03:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Banning the guns will likely cost them more customers than it gets

#13 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-31 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with Kroger's position, "Our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws..."
#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 12:43 PM

The letter of the law is flawed and impacts the majority of shoppers - this gun-toting minority are disguising their "White rage" behind a shopping cart. Disgusting "position".

I shop at Kroger's all the time now. Kroger's is an East Coast supermarket chain and Californians would know it by the name of one of its subsidiaries -- Ralph's Supermarket
#7 | Posted by CalifChris at 2014-08-31 01:15 PM

They bought all of Fred Meyers (which I love) in the NW and are now possibly the largest grocery chain across the US. I will boycott them reluctantly, but it is the right thing to do.

#14 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2014-08-31 03:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good luck with that, I have seen grandmas packing pistols, and I don't feel a bit threatened. I prefer old ladies to pack heat, it discourages the punks that prey upon the weak.

#15 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-08-31 03:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Banning the guns will likely cost them more customers than it gets
#13 | Posted by tmaster

It's surely the other way. Target and the others wouldn't have changed their policy if it weren't a financially viable course of action.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

this gun-toting minority are disguising their "White rage" behind a shopping cart. Disgusting "position".
#14 | Posted by redlightrobot

Maybe. But if it doesn't bother KR so much that they sell off their assets in those states which allow it, then I feel confident that they don't actually care one way or the other. Which is good, because they shouldn't. Like any business, all they want is your money.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger doesn't have a dog in this fight. ... I just don't see how Kroger formulating a weapons policy for their shoppers is one of their core competencies.

Making sure people are comfortable shopping in their stores is essential to their business. Target, Starbucks, Chipotle and other businesses all banned open carry dorks for a simple reason: Their customers let them know they don't want open carry dorks in those businesses.

Kroger will get there too, now that open carry dorks have forced the issue.

#18 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Such organizations and others of its ilk use "provocateurs" and potentially false flags to enhance the fear factor propaganda that they and the media deceptively use.

The demographic connection of the leadership of the anti-gun movement needs analyzed and identified. Does it have its roots in relative newcomers to the USA post 1900, and those who seek out urban areas like NYC where the sheep are more consolidated and more easily manipulated?

Those Americans who have had a long cultural history and direct lineage to rural and founding Americans who worked hard and were independent in mindset and less fearful are rarely part of this movement.

#19 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger will get there too, now that open carry dorks have forced the issue.
#18 | Posted by rcade

I agree, I just don't think it's healthy that we wage the culture wars using commercial retail as the battlegrounds. I guess this applies more to the open carry dorks as they're the ones who are firing the shots, so to speak. But it also applies to Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby and whoever else. This just becomes identity politics for a generation that is always finding new ways to tell themselves how awesome they are.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The demographic connection of the leadership of the anti-gun movement needs analyzed and identified. Does it have its roots in relative newcomers to the USA post 1900, and those who seek out urban areas like NYC where the sheep are more consolidated and more easily manipulated?

Those Americans who have had a long cultural history and direct lineage to rural and founding Americans who worked hard and were independent in mindset and less fearful are rarely part of this movement.
#19 | Posted by Robson

Hmmm, what does this latest spew of amateur-hour right-wing drivel remind me of?

Oh yes, "this just becomes identity politics for a generation that is always finding new ways to tell themselves how awesome they are."

You're awesome, Robson, because you are not from NYC. Go put a gold star next to your name, you've earned it... just for being you!

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If/when (when seems more likely) KR does ban weapons, I wonder if open carry advocates will turn on this guy for ruining their good time.

Nah. That's far too deep for them.

They, being good "conservatives", will pull a 180 on their views regarding property rights and start screaming that their rights are being violated by the fascist grocery stores because in "conservative" land, the only rights are their rights.

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-31 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Divide and conquer using fear. It's gun control or we die is the standard storyline knowing it will divide. Or we invade Iraq and kill ISIS or we die.

It is perpetual and it is destroying the cultural fabric of the USA. The media is behind it and political elites use it to divide us. The nation's big mistake was allowing the media propaganda industry to be consolidated as big business, instead of existing as thousands of small business with independent views. It would have been impossible to reign the media in with the common controlled themes we have today.

Americans need to wake up to the MSM 24/7 news scourge that generates a public ADD and schizoids due to ever changing character and flitting of unrelated news stories without ever concluding anything to a logical ending. The public is being driven to accepting info overload and more news inputs without ever investigating or finishing anything with a conclusion. It is here today and gone from our brains tomorrow...as intended.

#23 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 04:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

POSTED BY JPW

I'm confused...on Sundays you snarkily denigrate millions of law-abiding innocent self/family-protecting folks; but defend gun rights on weekdays?

#24 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-31 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm confused...on Sundays you snarkily denigrate millions of law-abiding innocent self/family-protecting folks; but defend gun rights on weekdays?

I disagree vehemently with open carry activists and see them as a far greater detriment to maintaining the 2nd amendment than any other activist group.

I'm also not a fan because I seem to recall from what little reading I've done on it that they think their 2nd amendment rights trump the rights of private property owners to control their property. Hence, my snarky post above.

I would also question whether these guys:

a. number in the millions

b. are protecting anything

Maybe it's just the media selectively publishing photos, but I can't seem to remember seeing any photos of people carrying more run of the mill firearms. No Remington 700s or 870s. No Mossberg 500s. None of the firearms that are massively popular and household staples for the past several decades. It's always ARs with lots of garbage furniture or AKs or some other military clone.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-31 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Need to feel "manly" while you buy your groceries I guess.

#26 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-31 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger can do whatever they want and so can shoppers who, if they are like me, will simply not shop where idiots are wearing guns so I guess I would be joining the boycott.
#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

Are you going to boycott everything? Is it just the sight of the fire arm that scares you? You probably shop by people everyday who are armed and you just don't know it.

#27 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-08-31 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

POSTED BY JPW

Thanks for a reasoned answer...I agree that open-carrying assault rifles while shopping is a bit bizarre as opposed to CCW; but can only be attributed to an effort to respond to and counter the fervent antigun activists and regime attitude.

#28 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-08-31 06:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't shop at places with armed people who might be deranged. I'm weird that way.
#9 | POSTED BY RCADE

You don't know if you do or not.

#29 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-08-31 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger's are second rate. Want a good store shop Publix or Albertsons :)

#30 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-08-31 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#28.... I've felt the same way, as open carry is something that makes me uncomfortable. Then I come to the conclusion that open carry is more likely a provocative movement intended to make us all uncomfortable OR is done by those as you said to counteract the vehement anti-gun conspiracy that is ultimately intended to strip all Americans of the right of self defense from tyrants and oligarchs.

If you are carrying, the best way to do it is concealed so that you represent no threat to the public, or to those criminals who see you as a threat to them because you are carrying.

#31 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 08:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

to counteract the vehement anti-gun conspiracy

Conspiracy?
Moms Demand Action is a conspiracy now?
Odd that they operate in the open, with a Twitter account and everything.
I guess conspiracies ain't what they used to be.
Either that you're your a paranoid lunatic.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kroger's are second rate. #30 | POSTED BY MSGT
The Fry's Market-Kroger's near here, is a well run store. They always have plenty of cashiers so no waiting, and by far the best deli and bakery dept. Unfortunately it's in a blue collar neighborhood, so there are always open-carry fools in the store. Albertsons is also a good store, its in a higher income area, very seldom do i see open carry gun-nuts there. I shop a Fry's-Kroger mostly, I just kept a good distance between myself, and the folks who can't buy groceries without their toys,
Sammy in Arizona were guns are religious symbols

#33 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-08-31 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hate posting in this thread because I have to see that idiot cradling his baby like it's his favorite gun every time.

Seriously, who brings a baby to a gun fight?

Which is pretty much what the crew of the AH-64 in the Collateral Murder video said after shooting up a van with kids in it. "Well, it's their fault for bringing kids into a battle."

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

The wing nuts are slowly hanging themselves with their own rifle straps. They keep this up, and the 3rd amendment will quickly become the 2nd.

#35 | Posted by apparatchik at 2014-08-31 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32.....I'll say it again, the vehement anti-gun conspiracy are generally made up of puppets of the oligarchs and the 1% that control the media. They see a society of armed average Americans as major political opposition to their ultimate control of government. An armed society will see itself as involved citizens, instead of merely political puppets to those who currently control most of our government. The political elite have already partitioned this issue into a left v right, instead of gullible or not.

The 2nd Amendment was fundamental in creating a USA culture that demanded honesty, private property ownership and that demanded elections. Citizens with a semblance of power can demand, unlike the Jews in Germany, and surfs in Communist Soviet Union that could demand nothing. It is a "mind set" thing that elites in power do hate giving to citizens.

#36 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Conspiracy.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 08:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Thanks for a reasoned answer...

No problem.

I agree that open-carrying assault rifles while shopping is a bit bizarre as opposed to CCW; but can only be attributed to an effort to respond to and counter the fervent antigun activists and regime attitude.

I'm sure that's why they're doing it, I just wish they'd think a little harder before acting.

Turning people who are on the fence off to your cause by being an in-their-face jackass is just plain stupid. Yeah, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, but that doesn't mean they should do it.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-31 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 2nd Amendment was fundamental in creating a USA culture that demanded honesty, private property ownership and that demanded elections.

No it wasn't. That's just propaganda which has achieved mythology status in the minds of some.

Unless the "private property ownership" you're referring to is owning slaves. Guns certainly made owning that sort of property easier. The whips and chains helped too, but the gun serves as an effective backstop of authority. It still does, as seen in Ferguson, MO.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#39 Snoofy, if you owned your own farm land, you needed a critter-canon, whether it was poisonous snakes, coyotes or even wolves.

Owning a farm in early America required gun ownership. It's not a slavery thing - that could be handled with a whip, one would think.

#40 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-31 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you were gonna run, would you rather run from a whip or a gun?

Putting the slavery issue aside, the capacity to dispatch varmints is not fundamental to America.

Probably the most historically important use of guns in American history is Manifest Destiny and the ethnic cleansing of our land. But a lot of that was done by the Army, so it's not really a Second Amendment issue.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#41 You forgot hunting. Rural families used to feed themselves off of what they shot. It was the only way to get fresh meat back then.

#42 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2014-08-31 09:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, but that doesn't mean they should do it.

What they're doing is wrong. It's disturbing people just for the sake of winding them up, in places where children and families often are present just going about their business. It occupies the time of police who get called about a seemingly erratic person carrying a gun.

It's also counterproductive. Every time one of these dorks shares a photo of video of his latest in-your-face stunt, the comments include a bunch of gun owners who are offended by it.

The First Amendment lets us picket the funerals of soldiers and yell horrible things about them in earshot of mourners. Does that mean we should do this just to prove we can?

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't know if you do or not.

We're talking about open carry, where the whole point is to be seen with the gun.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 09:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hate posting in this thread because I have to see that idiot cradling his baby like it's his favorite gun every time.

Fixed. I changed the comment preview to not show the extended part of the blog post.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2014-08-31 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, I agree that allowing people from outside the aristocracy, by virtue of our not having an aristocracy, was evidence of a democratic, egalitarian world-view.

That's probably as close to the claims in #36 as actually happened.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Make that,
allowing people from outside the aristocracy to hunt
(in response to #42)

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, but that doesn't mean they should do it.
#38 | Posted by jpw

I don't think this opinion is shared by the police who gunned down the black man holding an air rifle at the WAL*MART.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hmm. I think I got tripped up by all those negatives.
What I'm getting at is I'm pretty sure the police don't like people carrying guns, even if it's perfectly legal, and especially if the person doing the carrying seems "threatening."
But then there's lots of perfectly legal things the police don't like, for example asking them if you're being detained whenever they decide to initiate a conversation with you.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-31 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The First Amendment lets us picket the funerals of soldiers and yell horrible things about them in earshot of mourners. Does that mean we should do this just to prove we can?

By wrong, I meant punishable.

I would think the rest of my post suggests I think it's wrong in a civility/societal sense for the reasons you mentioned.

But, you cite another great example of something that isn't illegal or punishable (ie wrong), but is reprehensible to the large majority who don't hold those views.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2014-08-31 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

City slickers are already owned by the nepotism and corrupt political machine culture that represents and controls all major metropolitan areas. All major factions for gun control originate in these urban areas. Except their primary focus is on disarming suburban rural white Americans rather than inner city criminal street gangs.

Gun control is but an extension of that conspiracy of control. Politicians need control and city slickers acquiesce to that control. Total mindset difference between urbanites and others. Urbanites are fearful of their neighbors, but would rather dial 911 than resort to defending themselves.

Urbanites have a culture of dependence on government and others have a culture of independence. Urbanites typically think and do what other urbanites do. I have both elements represented in my family and it is quite obvious to ascertain the difference.

#51 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-31 10:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I feel more ascared around of bunch of gated community "tolerant" white people talking about taking my right to free speech or illegal search and seizure away than I do around a group of white country folk drinking beer and BBQing with AR15s strapped around their back...

#52 | Posted by aescal at 2014-08-31 10:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, but that doesn't mean they should do it.

Just because I have the right to smash out my sliding glass doors and make an open air arch to the patio doesn't make it smart or logical to do.

My grandfather was a farmer who kept 2 rifles and a shotgun and had no use for gun control, but the thought of carrying them into "the pig" would have been alien to him.

Rights go hand in hand with responsibility.

#53 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2014-08-31 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

By wrong, I meant punishable.

Oh, that's very different ... never mind.

"What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a 'deaf' penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is!"

#54 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-01 09:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I feel more ascared around of bunch of gated community "tolerant" white people talking about taking my right to free speech or illegal search and seizure away than I do around a group of white country folk drinking beer and BBQing with AR15s strapped around their back..."

Well then you go right ahead and hang with those idiots, the rest of us will avoid you and them like the plague.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2014-09-01 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Urbanites have a culture of dependence on government..."

Yeah, but that didn't work out so well for them in Ferguson, did it?

"Hundreds of business owners and employees had to cut and run or hide in terror as waves of rioters arrived.

BUT WAIT....

"But not everyone was cowering in fear. At two businesses the owners (and some employees and friends) were standing firm, right outside, ready to take on all comers. Why? Because they were armed to the teeth.

At Riverfront Tattoo, owners Mike Gutierrez ( below left) and Adam Weinstein (third from left) brought AR-15s, body armor and lots of high-capacity magazines (the type Obama wants banned) to guard their store against mayhem:"

toprightnews.com

YEP...works a lot better than calling 911. Reminds me of the Korean businesses in L.A. back in 1992. Great proof that armed owners are more effective than government employees for protection.

#56 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 09:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Being the gun nut I am, I must agree that carrying an AR-15 in a grocery store is a little much, especially holding a baby. You want to open carry a pistol or hip mounted weapon, no problem. But carrying an assault weapon in a place where the likely hood of using it is next to nil is sort of stupid.

All this does is bring undue attention to a liberal hotspot.

#57 | Posted by boaz at 2014-09-01 10:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jest: In your right-wing, gun-loving fantasy scenario those shopkeepers have "lots" of high-capacity magazines so they can mow down looters who have decided that instead of food or electronics they want tattoos.

I guess you're imagining a situation where looters keep on coming like zombies after the first group are shot.

How many looters do you think a shopkeeper would be allowed to kill and have the deaths still be called justified? I'm thinking that if Ted Nugent the Tattoo Man unloads on a crowd with a high-capacity magazine and kills a bunch of them, he's probably sharing a cell block with the looters who survive.

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-01 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

"How many looters do you think a shopkeeper would be allowed to kill and have the deaths still be called justified?"

I would imagine that it wouldn't take any more than one to be effective. What's more relevant is the result of seeing armed owners with the resolve to protect their property and their persons prevented any damage. Then, of course, we have incidents like THIS when one is unarmed:

"David Knighten of West Point told AP earlier by phone that he and Weems had gone to a Waffle House early Saturday. He said a man waved him over outside the restaurant and told him politely that people were upset by the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and it wasn't a safe place for whites. When he went in, he said, Weems was inside and was arguing with other men.

They left after an argument that brought police, Knighten said. He said he showed those officers his .45-caliber handgun and his concealed carry permit.

That was about 1 a.m., according to police, who did not give either man's name in a press release posted by WCBI-TV.

On the way to Weems' house, Knighten said, they went into a Huddle House restaurant with a nearly vacant parking lot.

However, he said, they apparently had been followed by more than 20 people.

Knighten, who said he had served with the Air Force in Afghanistan, said he came out of the restroom to find Weems surrounded. "I was trying to defuse the situation," he said.

After some shoving, he said, the security guard told everyone to leave.

Knighten said some people blocked him from leaving with Weems. When he got out, he said, Weems was down and people were kicking him. Knighten said others attacked him, adding "I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd."

Knighten says he has broken bones in his face, a cut over his left eye and a blood clot in his right eye.

Police did not arrive until after the crowd had left, he said."

www.nola.com

"Jest: In your right-wing, gun-loving fantasy scenario those shopkeepers have "lots" of high-capacity magazines so they can mow down looters who have decided that instead of food or electronics they want tattoos."

You think they would have skipped the tatto parlor in the vandalizing and wreckage frenzy? You did notice they skipped the food market that was protected too...right? I'm not a gun nut, 'Cade, and I don't think it's a fantasy that showing the resolve to protect yourself and your property would serve to make any killing unnecessary. There are many examples as you might have noticed in the photos of the Koreans in L.A., ...no?

#59 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#58 | POSTED BY RCADE

Oh, and let me say I definitely believe the advice of this other "right-wing, gun-loving nut"...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

George Washington.

#60 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-01 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not a gun nut, 'Cade, and I don't think it's a fantasy that showing the resolve to protect yourself and your property would serve to make any killing unnecessary.

Fair enough. I have no problem with shopkeepers arming themselves and protecting their stores during societal unrest. I just questioned the idea that "lots" of high-capacity magazines would be necessary.

As for the Washington quote, that's not an accurate quote. Only the first 11 words are real. It's from his First Annual Message to Congress on the State of the Union, and here's the actual quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-01 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jest: There are some questions about the veracity of the white men claiming they were set upon by a black mob at Waffle House and Huddle House:

www.nola.com

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-01 12:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Californians would know it by the name of one of its subsidiaries -- Ralph's Supermarket

#7 | Posted by CalifChris

And in AZ it's Fry's

#63 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I cross paths with armed gun-nuts, like this fool all the time.

#10 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI

And none of them have shot you............. What is the problem?

#64 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

they don't want open carry dorks in those businesses.

#18 | Posted by rcade

Ya but they let all the other DORKS in.

#65 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-09-01 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sammy is a liar. With our liberal concealed carry, you rarely see open carry.

#67 | Posted by willowby at 2014-09-01 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had a nice walk today carrying my .270 over my shoulder and my pistol on my hip. Granted, I was in the middle of the woods and didn't see another person for the few hours I was there. Had some fun shooting while I was out.

#68 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-09-01 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I will be getting my CCW soon. I'm comfortable with open carry of handguns, but find open carry of rifles to be rude. Thanks, Open Carry Texas. You're gonna get another place off limits. That's ok... You impress the heck out of the rest of us with your long gun in the grocery store.

#69 | Posted by rseal at 2014-09-01 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I had a nice walk today carrying my .270 over my shoulder and my pistol on my hip. Granted, I was in the middle of the woods and didn't see another person for the few hours I was there. Had some fun shooting while I was out.
#68 | Posted by rearendhat

Moms Demand Action to boycott woods and hikes!
Seriously, there are sensible reasons for carrying a weapon when you're hiking deep in the woods.
There are not sensible reasons for carrying a long gun and your baby to the grocery store.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-01 07:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

MDA is as stupid as MADD.

#71 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-09-01 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

MDA is as stupid as MADD.

#72 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-09-01 07:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

What they're doing is wrong. It's disturbing people just for the sake of winding them up

While I don't agree with the intentional inflammatory motive in carrying a rifle into the shopping center. I am also not really all that bothered by it. Not any more than the typical gun-control activist is by the extremist on their side that advocate doing away with all firearms. I think you would find that an extremist position will generate an extremist response in like proportion in opposition while the general population remains, more or less, in the middle to one degree or the other.

While, without a doubt, most Americans support some form of gun control, I certainly don't see it to the degree spouted by the loudest gun control activists on the left. This remains true even when you discount the ones calling for an outright ban on firearms. Unfortunately they will twist the polls that say a majority of Americans support gun control to mean support for their position du jour. Much like liberals claim that conservatives are twisting it when they claim majority in abortion or religion issues.

Personally I am no more going to wet my pants at someone peacefully participating in open carry than I will wet my pants at someone screaming to ban all guns. I think an open carry participant that is doing it as a statement is about as likely to pose a danger as a person screaming about a ban on fire arms is likely to try and take my guns himself/herself by force.

#73 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-01 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Personally I am no more going to wet my pants at someone peacefully participating in open carry than I will wet my pants at someone screaming to ban all guns. I think an open carry participant that is doing it as a statement is about as likely to pose a danger as a person screaming about a ban on fire arms is likely to try and take my guns himself/herself by force.
#73 | Posted by moomanfl

I agree on the likelihood, but one of those people has a much higher threat potential than the other.

How about a guy carrying a gun into a Toys R Us or Chuck E Cheez, where one might reasonably expect to find a higher concentration of children? How about a public playground?

Does anyone know if you can open carry near a school in states that allow open carry?

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 01:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree on the likelihood, but one of those people has a much higher threat potential than the other.

A person behind the wheel of a car has a vastly greater threat potential than the guy in Kroger according to the data. I don't see anyone clambering to ban cars over it. If you want to complain about threat potential you need to be consistent or be ignored.

How about a guy carrying a gun into a Toys R Us or Chuck E Cheez,

Ahhhh... an appeal to the kiddies. An appeal to irrational emotional response when a reasoned response is unavailable. Tell me, how is it different than Kroger? Is he somehow magically more likely to pull the gun off his back and start laying waste because of the sign above the door?

Does anyone know if you can open carry near a school in states that allow open carry?

Not any that I know of. But nobody has suggested that these people have tried. I am sure that would make the news quick. If you know differently please provide the article as I would be very interested in seeing a story about an open carry advocate doing something so blatantly and stupidly illegal and getting his ass busted for it.

#75 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

A person behind the wheel of a car has a vastly greater threat potential than the guy in Kroger

You sure? Compare the number of drivers to the number of open carriers.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 04:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Compare the number of deaths and injuries by vehicle by the number of deaths and injury by gun. Cross reference that by the number of cars per capita vs the number of guns per captia.

You will find that guns are far less dangerous than vehicles. I really don't think open carry will have much effect on the equation, if you can even find numbers of those practicing it which I highly doubt.

Nice try though.

#77 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 04:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

You will find that guns are far less dangerous than vehicles

Well, I've spent a lot longer driving than I have firing guns.

So by what metric are you making this claim? Time of use? Total number of accidents? Uninential deaths per shot fired or mile driven? How do you propose to compare these two very different things?

Numerator and denominator, let's hear them.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 05:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

I really don't think open carry will have much effect on the equation, if you can even find numbers of those practicing it which I highly doubt.

I expect it would be a situation like the Concorde, which went from the safest commercial airliner to by far the most dangerous after just one crash in its thirty year history. Because it just doesn't fly that much. And there were only a handful of them. By contrast, the 737 has had many more hull loss incidents, but many, many more flight hours and aircraft in service.

Your comparison likely suffers from the same flaw. The CI on the safety of open carry is going to be huge. For driving, not so much.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 05:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Does anyone know if you can open carry near a school in states that allow open carry?

Not any that I know of.
#75 | Posted by moomanfl

So I looked it up.
en.wikipedia.org
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is a federal United States law that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).

It was introduced in the U.S. Senate in October 1990 by Joseph R. Biden and signed into law in November 1990 by George H. W. Bush.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/18/921
(25) The term "school zone" means --
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 05:11 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't know about that Snoofy? I am just not seeing many reports of legal open carry specific deaths and injuries.

If you have relevant data pointing out your claim I would be willing to look at it with an open mind, but I must remind you that open carry is not really a new phenomena. Open carry has been legal in North Carolina for years as it has in other states. The thing that brought it to national attention recently was GA removing restrictions on particular area for open carry.

Either way you look it at a child is much more likely to die or be injured in a car accident than to be shot in the United States.

A better comparison would be to compare the effects of a similar limited policy change. Which do you think would reduce death and injury more from current statistics? Banning open carry, or increasing the legal driving age to 25?

#81 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 05:19 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 05:11 AM

So I was correct. Thanks for confirming it.

#82 | Posted by moomanfl at 2014-09-02 05:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

A better comparison would be to compare the effects of a similar limited policy change. Which do you think would reduce death and injury more from current statistics? Banning open carry, or increasing the legal driving age to 25?
#81 | Posted by moomanfl

Probably the latter.

But increasing the driving age to 25 would probably cost more than the actuarial cost of all those deaths. In terms of lost sales, lost earnings, etc. Many people basically wouldn't be able to work until they are 25.

Of course, the a similar reduction would probably happen if we banned guns for people under 25. But with lower negative costs, since guns don't have nearly as much to do with living a productive life as having a car to get to work does. And guns cost less than cars so the lost sales will be much smaller.

Driving has nothing to do with this. You brought it up to make a point, but it's a useless point. We should ban both cars and guns if you take this to extremes.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 06:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

#16 That is probably because many conservative individuals are nowhere near as helplessly neurotic as many liberal individuals. They feel no need to boycott every little policy they disagree with from a company.

Many sane and rational individuals realize that if one were hoping to be consistent in their helpless neurotic behavior they would end up being unable to frequent any business as they would disagree with something every business does.

Don't be afraid of guns simply because they are guns. Fear isn't really going to help you as much as you think.

If you don't like open carry, don't open carry. If you don't like guns, don't have one.

To feel as though you telling a store that you won't frequent it because you disagree with the policy of the story is the height of self important pontification hoping to force your beliefs on another individual.

#84 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-09-02 08:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Both sides of the crazy train are just as bad in some regards. Self important belief forcing pontificating neurotics on one side (anti-gun nuts) and ridiculous open carry dorks on the other.

#85 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-09-02 09:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Don't be afraid of guns simply because they are guns."

That's a strawman. Don't make up stupid positions for other people just because you are incapable of debating their actual position.

#86 | Posted by sully at 2014-09-02 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Honestly, if there were a store around me where idiots like this guyy carried around rifles, I just wouldn't shop there. I wouldn't call it a boycott. I wouldn't tell the owner or manager why I was not shopping there anymore. I would just leave and shop somewhere else. Firearms are dangerous in the hands of people who lack sound judgement. And guys like the tool in this picture obviously lack judgement.

He even goes out of his way to brag that it is loaded. Hard to see exactly how the straps for the baby holder and the gun are overlayed from looking at the picture. But it doesn't look like he'd have much of a chance to get that gun into firing position with any kind of speed. So he's not really protecting himself or that baby from assault. It looks like it would be easier for someone else to take that weapon from him than it would for him to defend himself with it given that setup. A pistol would be a much better idea. This guy obviously isn't thinking about self defense at all.

#87 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 09:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

#86 I didn't make up any stupid positions. I was making a statement. My apologies for your misreading.

#88 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-09-02 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#86 I didn't make up any stupid positions. I was making a statement. My apologies for your misreading."

You were making a statement about a position that you know doesn't exist? What would be the point of that? It would like me randomly saying. "This open carry stuff is going to become a disaster when the Bigfoots start showing up to Walmart with laser rifles". And then acting pissy when someone points out that I'm not making sense.

#89 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 10:27 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#89 The comment was made in the context of the following statements, namely:

Don't be afraid of guns simply because they are guns. Fear isn't really going to help you as much as you think.

If you don't like open carry, don't open carry. If you don't like guns, don't have one.


My comment was triggered by reading #16 and replying to it with the first two statements. What followed that two statement specific reply to post #16 was general comments on the matter rather than comments specifically replying to or describing the arguments or positions of #16.

To say that there are not people who are afraid of guns just because it is a gun is quite inaccurate. I simply made comment that no one should be afraid of a gun simply for the reason that it is a gun. It is a true statement and the statement that that fear will not help an individual as much as they think is also true.

You take statements which are not controversial, apply false intent to statements, and then complain about false depictions of arguments and positions?

That is rich, rich indeed.

#90 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-09-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

#90 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2014-09-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm obviously not buying this BS even a little.

In my opinion, the idea that people are afraid of guns "because they are guns" is stupid and unfounded (and BTW #16 doesn't say anything close to that). The idea that "If you don't like open carry, don't open carry" is an argument ender is stupid because it ignores the obvious fact that others are affected other than person carrying.

If you don't like my saying so, learn to be disappointed.....

#91 | Posted by sully at 2014-09-02 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have a problem with CCW or open carry if it makes sense. This moron as pointed out by Sully doesn't have some tactical advantage while holding a baby no less. You could easily carry a pistol on your hip or leg under your pants leg and have a better advantage than this long range high powered rifles. This is nothing more than a moron wanting attention no more no less. I'ts all just to rub it in everyone's nose that "I can legally do this". It's like if I wanted to take my kids to a professional sporting event... I live outside of Atlanta and my kids have been to baseball games but, I would never take them to a Falcons game or nascar race b/c there are a lot of drunken morons that say "I can cuss and act like a drunken fool" b/c they aren't breaking the law. It boils down to being considerate of your fellow fans.

#92 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-09-02 01:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

It boils down to being considerate of your fellow fans.
#92 | Posted by Dalton

Yeah, I think these Open Carry aren't capable of that. What they are doing is parading their Asperger Syndrome for all the world to see. This is their Participation Trophy in life moment. The fascination with guns is probably another symptom of the syndrome, though normally it manifests in a fascination with machines like trucks and trains.

Maybe that's why they carry long guns with all the "furniture" as JPW called it instead of a simple sidearm which would me much more useful in the type of combat scenario that might take place in a grocery store.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-09-02 03:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort