Tasered for openly carrying rifle in Texas

[Artema]

Different area. People react to guns differently in different locales. Obviously nobody had a problem with this guy carrying a gun in that area of Alabama. I have no problem with that.

My whole problem with the kid open carrying was that he was doing it in a place that was obviously not used to seeing people walking around with firearms, and I thought the whole point of him doing that was because he wanted to elicit a response.

Yes, it was no more or less legal in Alabama. And where did you hear him say that?

[IVC]

My whole problem with the kid open carrying was that he was doing it in a place that was obviously not used to seeing people walking around with firearms, and I thought the whole point of him doing that was because he wanted to elicit a response.

No question. I have problem with that too. It's stupid. But, who am I to judge?

I just don't give police a pass for the tactics they used. If it turns out that what they did was illegal, then I certainly won't feel sorry for them. This one, on the other hand, I *will* judge since police are representatives of the state.

[Jimmybacon43]

I don't think so.

I believe that you're engaging in an honest conversation and are enough open minded to have a civil discussion. The purpose is to give you something to think about and have you try to come up with good arguments to support your view. If you can't, you'll see our angle much better.

lol. I didn't comment on this thread in an effort to start a whole debate. I just got kinda roped into it.

I just think we've all become deadlocked here and there isn't really a point to continue....since we just disagree with each other.

I'll still answer any questions or if you want me to respond specifically to one of your posts I'll do that. I'm not bailing, I just don't think there's any progress to be made here.

[Artema]

lol. I didn't comment on this thread in an effort to start a whole debate. I just got kinda roped into it.

I just think we've all become deadlocked here and there isn't really a point to continue....since we just disagree with each other.

I'll still answer any questions or if you want me to respond specifically to one of your posts I'll do that. I'm not bailing, I just don't think there's any progress to be made here.

Glad to know things aren't getting tense. I hate when that happens and I start to feel bad for expressing myself. We must all be master-debaters!

[Jimmybacon43]

Yes, it was no more or less legal in Alabama. And where did you hear him say that?

I can't think of any other reason he would be doing it.

Not good for self defense.

Any reasonable person in his particular area would understand how people feel about guns, positively or negatively.

By carrying his gun around with his camera I assumed he wanted to get the police to come out, so he could video tape them and their reaction. So his objective kind of worked.

Why do you think he was carrying his rifle?

[Jimmybacon43]

Glad to know things aren't getting tense. I hate when that happens and I start to feel bad for expressing myself. We must all be master-debaters!

haha, yeah no worries. I'm not trying to be an ******* or a troll. Just arguing with some strangers on the internet lol

[IVC]

I'll still answer any questions or if you want me to respond specifically to one of your posts I'll do that.

Here is the question (note the conditionals).

If there is a right to carry in public (such as in "bear arms") and if one of the modes of permitted carry is "open carry," does open carrying a fierarm in public represents an exercise of a civil right?

[Jimmybacon43]

Here is the question (note the conditionals).

If there is a right to carry in public (such as in "bear arms") and if one of the modes of permitted carry is "open carry," does open carrying a fierarm in public represents an exercise of a civil right?

I would have to ask what is your definition of "exercising a right" and what it fulfills.

[IVC]

I would have to ask what is your definition of "exercising a right" and what it fulfills.

Exercising a right means being involved in an activity that is protected by that right.

It doesn't fulfil anything. It's just an activity.

[Artema]

I can't think of any other reason he would be doing it.

Not good for self defense.

Any reasonable person in his particular area would understand how people feel about guns, positively or negatively.

By carrying his gun around with his camera I assumed he wanted to get the police to come out, so he could video tape them and their reaction. So his objective kind of worked.

Why do you think he was carrying his rifle?

I don't even want to know why he was carrying his rifle. I don't care why he was wearing pants instead of shorts, or why he picked THAT color of socks. They're all not my business, and not illegal.

[Jimmybacon43]

Exercising a right means being involved in an activity that is protected by that right.

It doesn't fulfil anything. It's just an activity.

Then by your definition yes, open carrying represents exercising a right. But things that are legal may not be socially acceptable. It might be legal for me to wear women's clothes, but if I did that, I would be judged harshly by the people around me, and someone might even call the police on me.

I don't even want to know why he was carrying his rifle. I don't care why he was wearing pants instead of shorts, or why he picked THAT color of socks. They're all not my business, and not illegal.

I think the people who lived in the neighborhood he was walking in were afraid of him because he was carrying a gun. They probably didn't care about what he was wearing either.

They do not see firearms as a normal object like pants or shoes. They see firearms as a weapon. And I think he understood that, and was eliciting a police response because he knew people wouldn't take kindly with him carrying a gun down the street.

[Artema]

I think the people who lived in the neighborhood he was walking in were afraid of him because he was carrying a gun. They probably didn't care about what he was wearing either.

They do not see firearms as a normal object like pants or shoes. They see firearms as a weapon. And I think he understood that, and was eliciting a police response because he knew people wouldn't take kindly with him carrying a gun down the street.

I just see this as a form of victim blaming. I remember hearing about people saying a woman was asking for a beating by provoking her husband. She KNEW she would get a response. She was asking for it! He KNEW that someone would freak out about his legal activity. He deserved to be tazed!

[Jimmybacon43]

Well a woman being beaten by her husband probably doesn't pose that much of a threat to him.

A 19 year old male carrying a rifle is capable of killing people, even if he wasn't actually going to do that. He was still capable of it. I think that's why the police and the neighbors reacted strongly.


I'm really getting tired folks. I'll be back to comment on your responses tomorrow. Good night.

[Roering]

Think about it....

If they had received a call of someone matching this guys description with the claim that he was pointing a gun at them the police would not roll up and simply engage in conversation to see what the situation is. They would go straight to arrest mode meaning either he gets down on the ground right away, or they put him on the ground right away. Then comes the bracelets, then comes the search, then comes the Miranda, then the ride to the station for processing.

[IVC]

A 19 year old male carrying a rifle is capable of killing people, even if he wasn't actually going to do that. He was still capable of it. I think that's why the police and the neighbors reacted strongly.

A male gay couple walking down the street is capable of raping the little boy playing in the park, even if they weren't actually going to do that. They are still capable.

Again, do you see how a negative association is completely arbitrary and bigoted?