Replies

Again, all kinds of "straw man" arguments. How would all this change if CJ merely exercised his right to ask for quiet enjoyment of his meal without a weapon, visible or not. If he was trained in a deadly martial art?
If he had a "Crocodile Dundee" knife?? Simply being armed does not make you the aggressor. Society and those who are determined to take away your rights conspire with your natural tendency to see the worst in every situation.

And we call liberals "usefull idiots".... sheesh.

A person intends to rob a bank... everyone in line is packing, Guess the robbery doesn't happen, now does it. Not the least of which, nobody in the line was an "aggressor".
Get over it.

It is not "straw man" arguments. CJ and his restaurant companions would be subject to competing reasonableness. It would happen in a court, not in a diner.

Your assertion that CJ has a RIGHT to quiet enjoyment of a meal:

>>CJ merely exercised his right to ask for quiet enjoyment of his meal<<

That is straight up nuts!

If he doesn't like the venue leave. If there is a legal problem in the venue, call the cops, unless you have to intervene before the cops arrive.

There is a basic rule for guns, don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. There should be a carry rule that is similar:

Don't display a gun for show, unless the situation may reasonably require it's use.

Anything anything else and you WILL LOSE every thing you own or will own. It WILL destroy your future.

Ask a Lawyer.

DK

A person intends to rob a bank...

You have the nerve to use that analogy, and accuse me of presenting a straw man?

All I (and others) have done is point out that CJ was lucky this morning. Nothing bad happened. However, from his description, and his description only, if the situation would have escalated, he would be at fault.

Now where is the straw man there.

The point is he could ask the manager to quite the other patrons. He could ask them to be quite him self. But, by getting up, crossing over to where they were, circling them twice, making sure they saw his weapon, he was intimating them.

You do not see this, then there is no point in discussing this with you.

It is not the fact that he asked them to be quite. It was the way he did it that is at fault.

CJ posted this on this forum (and I think proudly). I don't think he expected the reaction he has received.

You don't agree, fine, that does not change the fact that CJ used poor judgement and if it had gone bad, he would be in serious trouble this morning, and that is the subject of the discussion.

Society and those who are determined to take away your rights conspire with your natural tendency to see the worst in every situation.

Leaving aside the legality or propriety of his actions, they were just plain stupid. No firearms instructor I've ever trained with would call it anything else. Defensive weapons are supposed to allow you to go home unscathed, and the BEST defensive method in existence is the Nike defense.

7 yards is the minimum distance away an attacker needs to be for a TRAINED defender to clear leather and get sights on target before he gets a fist in the face or a knife in the neck. Taking on 7 young (even unarmed, because they won't be for long) males at contact distance is suicide.

Joe, if you're going to carry, get some training.

"Again, all kinds of "straw man" arguments. How would all this change if CJ merely exercised his right to ask for quiet enjoyment of his meal without a weapon, visible or not. If he was trained in a deadly martial art?"

CJ specifically started this thread to discuss his firearm display as a tool in quieting that rowdy table. He did NOT start it to merely discuss his experience in calming young men in diners at 4:30 am. His intent in posting was CLEARLY to proclaim his belief that such a display of a deadly weapon was a legitimate way to deal with such an unpleasant situation.

" Simply being armed does not make you the aggressor. Society and those who are determined to take away your rights conspire with your natural tendency to see the worst in every situation."

He does NOT have a right to quiet while eating his breakfast. He does NOT have a right to force his idea of correct behavior upon others. If he does not like the behavior of those in his vicinity, he may choose to deal with that common situation in any one of a number of adult ways:
First of all, he could have chosen to ignore them; perhaps the problem is more HIS tolerance of others than it is THEIR behavior.
Secondly, he could have left. If I find myself in an environment that is unpleasant, I frequently realize that I cannot control everything in life, but I CAN control myself. I might well choose a more pleasant environment.
Thirdly, I could seek to politely inform them that their behavior is objectionable. This is Always A RISKY PROPOSITION. Others may feel that you are out of line, infringing on their territory, and/or the one with the problem. These other people may become confrontational at the very most, or perhaps just up the volume a bit so as to reinforce that they are not willing to have you regulate them at the very least.

The right to bear arms implies a consequent responsibility to avoid situations in which great harm can result from inappropriate use of such arms. Public display of firearms while confronting others with a request to change their objectionable behavior is DEFINITELY inappropriate.