Skip to comments.Kroger Gun Stunt Sparks 2nd Amendment Debate
Posted on 01/29/2013 11:46:30 AM PST by 1912comeback
Charlottesville police say the man who showed up at a Kroger grocery store with a loaded gun wanted to make a point. On Sunday, an unidentified 22-year-old man carried a loaded AR-15 into the Kroger store on Emmet Street and Hydraulic Road, sparking not only a scare for customers and employees but also a 2nd Amendment debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc29.com ...
Trigger happy? I don’t know what to say if you don’t think someone taking a rifle into a totally inappropriate location is not something to pay extreme attention to. Maybe you’ve forgotten the news they’ve been beating us over the head with for months now. Three punks with uncased rifles in locations they had no business taking them into? Ring any bells? Yeah, you stand there and let him shoulder the weapon. This kid’s stunt was reckless in the extreme.
So then would you let a shooter take the first several shots before acting? Where would you draw the line? For me, in that environment, it’s an attempt to shoulder the rifle. Who knows...maybe I’d just run, but I’d do something if that’s what I believed was happening. Taking a rifle into a grocery store in general is needless, and in the current climate it is a dangerously provocative act.
Im completely pro-gun but I wouldnt walk into Target or Walmart with a shotgun slung over my shoulder.
Then you’re part of the problem.........you would be poliiiiiiiiiiiiitically pro-gun. Putz.
Well, if you’re old enough to recollect expecting trouble from the redcoats, we can forgive you for getting a little off base from time to time.
At least you have an excuse...
A "thinking" gun owner who shoots someone who is NOT threatening anyone with a gun is not in fact a "thinking" gun owner he is an idiot.
The article said he had the gun slung over his shoulder. He was legal. Case closed.
Apparently you have not a clue as to what the word "brandish" means especially when referring to a gun.
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
He had it slung over his shoulder according to the story and the police said he was legal.
He didn't "brandish" it.
And your reaction is why the gun grabbers can get so much traction with their "concern trollage" try not having such a knee jerk reaction and think it through.
He wasn't menacing or brandishing or any other thing. He was doing what the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to do, keep and bear arms!
Yep. Many folks in those times carried weapons with them constantly. Brigands, Indian attacks, and all around personal protection were always a concern. When you traveled on the road there were no phones or radios, help was days away. You were armed or you were at risk. Hell even traveling from the farm into town was an ordeal and not being armed was a risk for those few hours. So it was nothing to see people who had arms on them walking into businesses. See they didn't have car trunks to lock them in.
Good points all. I will consider them.
Do you think there was ever a time when one of the founders thought “I’ll just leave the gun behind”?
“I carry concealed all the time, but I absolutely would not have an issue carrying open; and I would be carrying at least a rifle or shotgun AND a pistol. Its not for attention or to be noticed. Its my RIGHT to protect myself and my family.”
So in other words your 2nd amendment rights trump private property rights?
Where in the story does it say he had it slung over his shoulder? Nowhere. I’m assuming then because he was there to ‘prove a point’ that he was displaying it ostentatiously, or brandishing it.
Bottom line - guns are serious tools. As I said, I grew up in the rural areas and guns are brought out to use, to clean, or to transport. They aren’t some neo-60’s hippie protest statement, and you don’t walk around with one to prove a point. He didn’t do anything illegal, but he sure didn’t use good gun handling protocol either. Like several said here, if I was carrying I would have had safety off ready to put the guy down if he made a wrong move.
Non sequitur, Van. There’s no mention of signage banning this young man from carrying in the Kroger. As a matter of fact, there’s an account stating that he idled around the front of the store appearing to look for a “Gun Free Zone” sign. Kroger made a statement later stating that the safety of their patrons is important but did not clarify if they were “Gun Free.”
If a business decides to post a sign banning me from carrying on their property, then I will not patronize that business. It is their right to do so as it is my right to choose not to patronize them. If they do not post a sign explicitly stating that they do not permit lawful carrying of a firearm, they cannot deny me my right to carry.
If they wish to file trespassing against me after-the-fact, that also is their right, but one cannot trespass if one does not know that the property is private or otherwise prohibited to specific persons.
If you want to keep your business a private club, you can do that too. You can post a sign saying what is acceptable to you. Etc...
So no, it has less to do with one Right trumping another's Rights. It has more to do with mutual respect for those Rights or a lack thereof.
Post your business as a Victim Disarmament Zone or just get over it that your patrons are providing additional FREE security for your business.
I've rarely felt safer.
Don't buy into the stupidity of the Left's hoplophobia.
The solution to random shooters, and even sudden Jihad syndrome, is for more people to carry. Open, concealed, pistol, or rifle. Whatever your personal choice is.
The Israelis figured this out. The Founders figured this out. Heck, even the Swiss figured this out.
Why is it so hard for you?
As long as the establishment is not Posted or Designated as a Weapons Free Area... then yes, 2nd and State Law would trump.
..and had you shot yourself in the foot because you got overly nervous while finger a loaded weapon with the safety off, you would not only get a ride to the hospital, but you would be in trouble for unlawful discharge and whatever else the law could come up with.
Sounds like you’re looking for a fight.
>> “This kids stunt was reckless in the extreme.” <<
I personally would feel more comfortable if people carried rifles around much more freely. That would prevent the crazies from getting the upper hand.
A Right not exercised is more easily taken. A little bit of wisdom you seem to be over looking in your rampant rush to judge and to be seen as not scaring the sheep.