Open carry: how many guns is too many?

[vibise]

Rico Marley was arrested as he emerged from the bathroom at a Publix supermarket in Atlanta. He was wearing body armor and carrying six loaded weapons — four handguns in his jacket pockets, and in a guitar bag, a semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun.

Moments earlier, an Instacart delivery driver had alerted a store employee after seeing Mr. Marley in the bathroom, along with the AR-15-style rifle, which was propped against a wall. A grand jury indictment later described what had come next: “panic, terror and the evacuation of the Publix.”..

Mr. Marley’s arrest kicked off a long and as yet unresolved legal odyssey in which the criminal justice system waffled over what it could charge him with and whether to set him free. Clearly, visiting the grocery store with a trove of guns had frightened people. But was it illegal?..

In states with permissive gun laws, the police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual’s mere presence in a public space sows fear or even panic.

In situations like this, it can take only seconds before a heavily armed person begins shooting. Marley did not shoot anyone, but the outcome was different in a similar situation where the police elected not to act:

In 2015, a woman in Colorado Springs called 911 after seeing a man in her neighborhood with a gun. The dispatcher reportedly explained to her that Colorado was an open-carry state. Within minutes, the man went on a shooting spree, killing three people.

A Heavily Armed Man Caused Panic at a Supermarket. But Did He Break the Law? (Published 2023)

In states with permissive gun laws, police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual sows fear or panic in public.

www.nytimes.com

How should police handle these situations?
What limits should there be on carrying guns in public places?

 

[Thistle]

Open carry: how many guns are too many?

Excellent question! As long as we focus on questions that have nothing to do about whether or not democratic politicians are enforcing the law, which is their primary responsibility as public servants, we don't have to worry about Republicans getting elected. Thank you for making sure that we don't get on track by asking a relevant question!

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

In situations like this, it can take only seconds before a heavily armed person begins shooting. Marley did not shoot anyone, but the outcome was different in a similar situation where the police elected not to act:

A Heavily Armed Man Caused Panic at a Supermarket. But Did He Break the Law? (Published 2023)

In states with permissive gun laws, police and prosecutors have limited tools at their disposal when a heavily armed individual sows fear or panic in public.

www.nytimes.com

How should police handle these situations?
What limits should there be on carrying guns in public places?

Marxists want an unarmed citizenry.

What do you hate most about The Constitution?

Why do you hate Americans that want freedom?

Lastly, people who cherish Fake News and bias quote the cesspool New York Times tabloid.

 

[vibise]

Excellent question! As long as we focus on questions that have nothing to do about whether or not democratic politicians are enforcing the law, which is their primary responsibility as public servants, we don't have to worry about Republicans getting elected. Thank you for making sure that we don't get on track by asking a relevant question!

Why is this not a relevant question?

The case I pointed out involved a man who went into a restroom, put on body armor, loaded his multiple guns and then walked into the store. Apparently this is legal behavior in some states.
It is relevant to ask why this is legal, when reasonable people would regard it as looking like preparation for mass murder.

 

[vibise]

Marxists want an unarmed citizenry.

What do you hate most about The Constitution?

Why do you hate Americans that want freedom?

Lastly, people who cherish Fake News and bias quote the cesspool New York Times tabloid.

If you saw this guy, in body armor, and with multiple major guns in your grocery store, you would give him a high five and a big smile?

 

[Thistle]

Why is this not a relevant question?

Protecting the public from criminals is the job of local politicians, who in most of these instances are Democrats. That is the point of control, is to put people in who will actually enforce the law so that the public is protected. Democrats refuse to do that. They never do that they talk about gun control. You're substituting a real issue which are people being elected to do a job then refusing to do it for a phony issue, and that's a very bad thing. It's really hard to believe that it comes from a good place.

The case I pointed out involved a man who went into a restroom, put on body armor, loaded his multiple guns and then walked into the store.

If this had been the middle ages he could've come out of the latrine adjacent to the tavern with quarterstaff in bashed in 15 heads. The solution to that issue would not be the outlawing of big wooden sticks.

Apparently this is legal behavior in some states.

The right to bear arms is legal everywhere in the United States. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you don't like the constitution, amend it or find someplace that you prefer to the United States.

It is relevant to ask why this is legal,

If you don't know what the Constitution of the United States says, I have very little hope that you're going to discover it on this thread. That kind of ignorance is not accidental.

when reasonable people would regard it

I've seen no evidence that you could identify a reasonable person…

as looking like preparation for mass murder.

What do you think is going on in Ukraine? The Ukrainians are going to accept peace deal that's very much worse than the one that they could've negotiated at the end of April all of the people who are dying right now or dying because people who agree with you have gotten their way regarding our policy in Ukraine.

 

[vibise]

Protecting the public from criminals is the job of local politicians, who in most of these instances are Democrats. That is the point of control, is to put people in who will actually enforce the law so that the public is protected. Democrats refuse to do that. They never do that they talk about gun control. You're substituting a real issue which are people being elected to do a job then refusing to do it for a phony issue, and that's a very bad thing. It's really hard to believe that it comes from a good place.

If this had been the middle ages he could've come out of the latrine adjacent to the tavern with quarterstaff in bashed in 15 heads. The solution to that issue would not be the outlawing of big wooden sticks.

The right to bear arms is legal everywhere in the United States. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you don't like the constitution, amend it or find someplace that you prefer to the United States.

If you don't know what the Constitution of the United States says, I have very little hope that you're going to discover it on this thread. That kind of ignorance is not accidental.

I've seen no evidence that you could identify a reasonable person…

What do you think is going on in Ukraine? The Ukrainians are going to accept peace deal that's very much worse than the one that they could've negotiated at the end of April all of the people who are dying right now or dying because people who agree with you have gotten their way regarding our policy in Ukraine.

How is it a phony issue to protect people from heavily armed people who show up in public places?
Why would a civilized country allow heavily armed people in public places?

Yes, some local areas are under Dem control, but are also in states with gun laws that apply throughout the state. Open carry is legal in 47 states.
Enforcing those laws seems to mean allowing such heavily armed men to strut around without intervention.
This is not a phony issue as the situation in Colorado illustrates, where an armed man, reported to police, was not stopped before he killed 3.
The man in Atlanta was arrested just after he put on his body armor and loaded his guns in a bathroom. Do you think these actions should not have been concerning?

I know what the Constitution says about guns. A single sentence that uses the terms "well-regulated" and "militia", terms your side ignores.

As for Ukraine, I heard this morning that 90% of Ukrainians want to defeat Russia and run them out of Ukraine.

 

[Thistle]

How is it a phony issue

Because replacing leaders who refused to enforce the laws against criminals is a solution that is available to every citizen and should be.

to protect people from heavily armed people who show up in public places?

I have no problem with heavily armed people, I have a problem with criminals. If you elevated your morals above your politics you wouldn't either.

Why would a civilized country allow heavily armed people in public places?

The same reason our civilized society has (at least up to now) allowed left-wing kooks to run around and engage in their "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."

Yes, some local areas are under Dem control, but are also in states with gun laws that apply throughout the state. Open carry is legal in 47 states.

You seem to be confused about the meaning of the expression "bear arms." Having a gun in your gun safe, under lock and key, is not bearing arms. Are you aware of that? The word "bear" in that context means "carry."

Enforcing those laws seems to mean allowing such heavily armed men to strut around without intervention.

Are you aware that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

This is not a phony issue as the situation in Colorado illustrates, where an armed man, reported to police, was not stopped before he killed 3.

It is a rare weekend when at least that many people are not killed over a weekend in Chicago Illinois. You're posing one example to me, and I'm telling you there are 52 weekends in every year. Which is more important, 3 or 156 lives?

The man in Atlanta was arrested just after he put on his body armor and loaded his guns in a bathroom. Do you think these actions should not have been concerning?

You don't live in Atlanta. Are the people who are being murdered in your county of a lot more immediate concern to you? Why are you not demanding of your local public officials (that you have put in office) that they do something about enforcing the laws. Because if I'm not mistaken murder is illegal in your jurisdiction.

I know what the Constitution says about guns.

This post was an excellent way of concealing that factoid.

A single sentence that uses the terms "well-regulated" and "militia", terms your side ignores.

And it does not mean what you suppose.

As for Ukraine, I heard this morning that 90% of Ukrainians want to defeat Russia and run them out of Ukraine.

An absolute number that is becoming substantially smaller every day.

 

[vibise]

Because replacing leaders who refused to enforce the laws against criminals is a solution that is available to every citizen and should be.

I have no problem with heavily armed people, I have a problem with criminals. If you elevated your morals above your politics you wouldn't either.

The same reason our civilized society has (at least up to now) allowed left-wing kooks to run around and engage in their "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."

You seem to be confused about the meaning of the expression "bear arms." Having a gun in your gun safe, under lock and key, is not bearing arms. Are you aware of that? The word "bear" in that context means "carry."

Are you aware that the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

It is a rare weekend when at least that many people are not killed over a weekend in Chicago Illinois. You're posing one example to me, and I'm telling you there are 52 weekends in every year. Which is more important, 3 or 156 lives?

You don't live in Atlanta. Are the people who are being murdered in your county of a lot more immediate concern to you? Why are you not demanding of your local public officials (that you have put in office) that they do something about enforcing the laws. Because if I'm not mistaken murder is illegal in your jurisdiction.

This post was an excellent way of concealing that factoid.

And it does not mean what you suppose.

An absolute number that is becoming substantially smaller every day.

Well, most people seem to have an issue with heavily armed people in public places, as shown by the reaction of people in that Atlanta market.

I cannot believe that you, or anyone, would not run for their lives if a man emerged from a bathroom in a market or mall in full body armor and carrying multiple major guns. What reason would any normal person have for wearing body armor in a grocery store or carrying more than 3 guns? People who are paying attention know that recent mass murders have occurred in grocery stores, schools, a Walmart, and houses of worship. Places where people go everyday. Why should law enforcement be reluctant to stop someone outfitted like that man?

If you can provide a real world justification for being in a grocery store in full body armor and carrying multiple fully loaded weapons, please let us know. Citing the second amendment is not sufficient as there are restrictions on all rights, including gun rights, as Scalia pointed out in his Heller decision.

Sure people are killed in Chicago and other inner cities in gang warfare, but we are talking here of grocery stores.

And no, I don't live in Atlanta, but I do care about people who live there. I gather that is a foreign concept for you.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

How is it a phony issue to protect people from heavily armed people who show up in public places?

We won't ask you about your 17 cats.

How many cats is too many?

In your marxist utopia, who is in charge of defining "too many"?

How many "illegals" is too many?

 

[vibise]

We won't ask you about your 17 cats.

How many cats is too many?

In your marxist utopia, who is in charge of defining "too many"?

How many "illegals" is too many?

I am allergic to cats.

 

[Thistle]

Well, most people seem to have an issue with heavily armed people in public places, as shown by the reaction of people in that Atlanta market.

My experience is that people with body armor and guns are responsible people.

I cannot believe that you, or anyone, would not run for their lives if a man emerged from a bathroom in a market or mall in full body armor and carrying multiple major guns.

No, actually that would not disturb me. You're free to believe whatever you like but if you believe your statement above you're simply wrong. Do you ever come into contact with any actual real Americans?

What reason would any normal person have for wearing body armor in a grocery store or carrying more than 3 guns?

There are any number of reasons, but the person might be a police officer, for example. If I were to ask you where the nearest firearms instruction academy was from your home, could you tell me?

People who are paying attention know that recent mass murders have occurred in grocery stores, schools, a Walmart, and houses of worship.

People who are paying attention noticed that most murders occur in neighborhoods were the police no longer patrol. There are no fools I don't wanna get shot anymore than the locals… if Mayor Beetlejuice made this priority this would not be happening and the police would be able to patrol these neighborhoods. She is obviously responsible for more deaths than any single criminal or group of criminals in all of Chicagoland.

Places where people go everyday. Why should law enforcement be reluctant to stop someone outfitted like that man?

Because there is a law against harassing people with no probable cause. Call me crazy but maybe that police officer doesn't wanna be responsible for his municipality losing a lawsuit.

If you can provide a real world justification for being in a grocery store in full body armor and carrying multiple fully loaded weapons, please let us know.

Perhaps you can provide me with a real-world justification for you expressing this opinion that you've just articulated above. It is within the nature of fundamental rights that they don't need to be justified their axiomatic. The fact is there is no such justification, except for the fact that it's a fundamental right just like bearing arms.

Citing the second amendment is not sufficient

That and a dollar and a quarter will get you one item at the dollar tree.

as there are restrictions on all rights, including gun rights, as Scalia pointed out in his Heller decision.

I never knew you were so fond of justice Scalia. It's a pity that you weren't able to express this appreciation while he was alive.

Sure people are killed in Chicago

You can say that again…

and other inner cities in gang warfare, but we are talking here of grocery stores.

What's the difference…

And no, I don't live in Atlanta,

Which was my understanding…

but I do care about people who live there.

Where is the love for the people who live in Chicago?

I gather that is a foreign concept for you.c

Quite the opposite. From my perspective you appear to give no consideration whatsoever for all the people who are gunned down in the streets of Chicago neighborhoods. The problem in Chicago is not with guns it's with criminals. If everybody in these neighborhoods were carrying there be a lot less shooting going on. In that case, the troublemakers would find themselves in a surprisingly short period of time pushing up daisies.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

For our local red communist, 1 gun is one too many.

 

[vibise]

My experience is that people with body armor and guns are responsible people.

No, actually that would not disturb me. You're free to believe whatever you like but if you believe your statement above you're simply wrong. Do you ever come into contact with any actual real Americans?

There are any number of reasons, but the person might be a police officer, for example. If I were to ask you where the nearest firearms instruction academy was from your home, could you tell me?

People who are paying attention noticed that most murders occur in neighborhoods were the police no longer patrol. There are no fools I don't wanna get shot anymore than the locals… if Mayor Beetlejuice made this priority this would not be happening and the police would be able to patrol these neighborhoods. She is obviously responsible for more deaths than any single criminal or group of criminals in all of Chicagoland.

Because there is a law against harassing people with no probable cause. Call me crazy but maybe that police officer doesn't wanna be responsible for his municipality losing a lawsuit.

Perhaps you can provide me with a real-world justification for you expressing this opinion that you've just articulated above. It is within the nature of fundamental rights that they don't need to be justified their axiomatic. The fact is there is no such justification, except for the fact that it's a fundamental right just like bearing arms.

That and a dollar and a quarter will get you one item at the dollar tree.

I never knew you were so fond of justice Scalia. It's a pity that you weren't able to express this appreciation while he was alive.

You can say that again…

What's the difference…

Which was my understanding…

Where is the love for the people who live in Chicago?

Quite the opposite. From my perspective you appear to give no consideration whatsoever for all the people who are gunned down in the streets of Chicago neighborhoods. The problem in Chicago is not with guns it's with criminals. If everybody in these neighborhoods were carrying there be a lot less shooting going on. In that case, the troublemakers would find themselves in a surprisingly short period of time pushing up daisies.

And responsible people go into store restrooms to don their body armor and load their guns before going back into the store? Really?

What is your experience with people who own body armor? Do they wear that stuff in public spaces while carrying the biggest guns they own, just because they can? I can not imagine a police officer donning that gear unless he was facing a real threat, and people in that vicinity would be likely aware of that. Also, a police office would have a prominent badge or other identifier.

People who use the term "real Americans" usually think that only the RW counts, and that anyone on the LW is some sort of pinko, commie fascist pedophile.

I cited Scalia because he was a RW icon, but even he recognized the legitimacy of restrictions on guns.

All fundamental rights have restrictions, and wearing body armor and carrying more than 3 loaded guns in a grocery does not seem to me to be a fundamental right. Self-protection? Who is this guy afraid of? What was the obvious threat to him? There was none. His lawyer came up with the excuse that he was homeless and had no place to put his guns. So why did he have to load them and don his armor in that restroom?

And your solution to gun violence in Chicago and elsewhere is to hand out even more guns? Seriously? Have you not noticed that the USA has the most lax gun laws and the most gun deaths and injuries among developed countries? Do you not see a connection there? Or do you really think that wild west shootouts are the way to solve this problem?

I gather you are a gun owner and carry a gun around with you. What are you afraid of? I have no fear of walking in my neighborhood or going to the market or to church.

 

[glenlogie]

And responsible people go into store restrooms to don their body armor and load their guns before going back into the store? Really?

What is your experience with people who own body armor? Do they wear that stuff in public spaces while carrying the biggest guns they own, just because they can? I can not imagine a police officer donning that gear unless he was facing a real threat, and people in that vicinity would be likely aware of that. Also, a police office would have a prominent badge or other identifier.

People who use the term "real Americans" usually think that only the RW counts, and that anyone on the LW is some sort of pinko, commie fascist pedophile.

I cited Scalia because he was a RW icon, but even he recognized the legitimacy of restrictions on guns.

All fundamental rights have restrictions, and wearing body armor and carrying more than 3 loaded guns in a grocery does not seem to me to be a fundamental right. Self-protection? Who is this guy afraid of? What was the obvious threat to him? There was none. His lawyer came up with the excuse that he was homeless and had no place to put his guns. So why did he have to load them and don his armor in that restroom?

And your solution to gun violence in Chicago and elsewhere is to hand out even more guns? Seriously? Have you not noticed that the USA has the most lax gun laws and the most gun deaths and injuries among developed countries? Do you not see a connection there? Or do you really think that wild west shootouts are the way to solve this problem?

I gather you are a gun owner and carry a gun around with you. What are you afraid of? I have no fear of walking in my neighborhood or going to the market or to church.

Prove that everyone who has body armor will walk into a store and put in on and then come out.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

How is it a phony issue to protect people from heavily armed people who show up in public places?

\Like Biden's SS?

Why would a civilized country allow heavily armed people in public places?

Why wouldn't they?

Don't try your word games. Are you implying heavily armed are NOT civilized?

Will you admit you have no proof?

Yes, some local areas are under Dem control, but are also in states with gun laws that apply throughout the state. Open carry is legal in 47 states.
Enforcing those laws seems to mean allowing such heavily armed men to strut around without intervention.
This is not a phony issue as the situation in Colorado illustrates, where an armed man, reported to police, was not stopped before he killed 3.
The man in Atlanta was arrested just after he put on his body armor and loaded his guns in a bathroom. Do you think these actions should not have been concerning?

I know what the Constitution says about guns. A single sentence that uses the terms "well-regulated" and "militia", terms your side ignores.

Why do you ignore the terms?

You assume civil armed people can't "regulate" themselves?

As for Ukraine, I heard this morning that 90% of Ukrainians want to defeat Russia and run them out of Ukraine.

Most all gun homicides are in large cities with Democrate mayors.
Your dangerous people

 

[vibise]

Prove that everyone who has body armor will walk into a store and put in on and then come out.

Where did I say that?

The point is that someone did go into a store bathroom where he put on his armor and loaded his guns. Someone who went into that bathroom noticed what was going on and called 911. Was that person wrong to call 911? Is what that person did in the bathroom normal and not concerning at all? What would you have done if you saw someone in a bathroom doing that?

 

[glenlogie]

Where did I say that?

The point is that someone did go into a store bathroom where he put on his armor and loaded his guns. Someone who went into that bathroom noticed what was going on and called 911. Was that person wrong to call 911? Is what that person did in the bathroom normal and not concerning at all? What would you have done if you saw someone in a bathroom doing that?

Thst was what you mentioned when you brought up the subject. Are you now admitting that it would be rare occurrence?

 

[Thistle]

And responsible people go into store restrooms to don their body armor and load their guns before going back into the store? Really?

I suppose that all depends on the alternative places for donning their body armor might be.

What is your experience with people who own body armor?

My experience is there very much like people who don't have body armor, except they do have body armor.

Do they wear that stuff in public spaces while carrying the biggest guns they own, just because they can?

It never dawned on me to ask them. But that's only because I figured they don't owe me an explanation.

I can not imagine a police officer donning that gear unless he was facing a real threat, and people in that vicinity would be likely aware of that.

That is a remarkably stupid and counterfactual assumption in most cases. The police officers depicted below are wearing body armor. Those aren't donuts that are protecting them around their torso.

Also, a police office would have a prominent badge or other identifier.

What does that have to do with anything?

People who use the term "real Americans" usually think that only the RW counts,

What that tells me is that you label anything that's not bat ship crazy "right wing."

and that anyone on the LW is some sort of pinko, commie fascist pedophile.

The record will show that I didn't say that.

I cited Scalia because he was a RW icon, but even he recognized the legitimacy of restrictions on guns.

Scalia is the Justice who pointed out that the term "bear" means to carry. Unless you're carrying a gun you're not bearing arms.

All fundamental rights have restrictions,

We do have such restrictions they're called laws. For example you can't use your gun to carry out a burglary, or a strong armed robbery, or murder. I think you'll find it that's not controversial in the least.

and wearing body armor and carrying more than 3 loaded guns in a grocery does not seem to me to be a fundamental right.

Why? I have freedom of speech, but are you gonna limit that two words that don't begin with Z? What happens if I'm a zoologist?

Self-protection? Who is this guy afraid of?

Unless you're writing a book you don't need to know. And even if you are writing a book he may choose not to tell you, which is precisely his prerogative. That's the nature of rights.

What was the obvious threat to him?

Why are you trying to guess his motivation for exercising his rights? It's really not your business.

There was none.

And?

His lawyer came up with the excuse

When did we transfer from a hypothetical question to a particular instance? You posed a general question and now you're switching to a particular instance, where some of the facts already appear to be established. Those are completely different scenarios.

that he was homeless and had no place to put his guns. So why did he have to load them and don his armor in that restroom?

Again we have gone from "a person" your words not mine, to a particular instance with particular facts that may have been correctly transmitted or possibly not, but that's a very different scenario. When you decide what your argument wants to consist of let me know.

And your solution to gun violence in Chicago and elsewhere is to hand out even more guns? Seriously?

Could you please link to me saying I wanted to hand out guns. If you can't do so this is your opportunity to correct the record.

Have you not noticed that the USA has the most lax gun laws

Yes, and our fugitive slave law is pretty accommodating on the grounds that we don't have slavery. That's kind of the nature of having a right to bear arms is that you don't make laws in violation of constitution.

and the most gun deaths and injuries among developed countries? Do you not see a connection there?

And before 1900 we virtually had no automobile accidents.

Or do you really think that wild west shootouts are the way to solve this problem?

Actually the gun laws in Tombstone Arizona for example were unconstitutionally strict.

I gather you are a gun owner and carry a gun around with you.

That's what happens when you start jumping to conclusions.

What are you afraid of?

Well, if you're not planning on wrecking your car, why do you put on your seatbelt?

I have no fear of walking in my neighborhood or going to the market or to church.

And to heck with all the people who can't afford to live in your neighborhood…

 

[Eightcrackers]

My experience is that people with body armor and guns are responsible people.

Indeed - many of them are responsible for mass shootings.