Man went into Kroger with AK 47

[osan]

A CQB AR-15 would work nicely. 10.5" would do some serious work in Kroger if you ever were put in a horrid situation you had to use it.

You damned better have a GOOD suppressor for it because that monkey is going to be LOUD. 5.56 is horrifically loud in long barrels. It is unbearable in SBRs. 5.56 is also notoriously difficult to suppress effectively. Personally, I value my hearing more than that.

 

[osan]

You have a handgun? He has a rifle.

Largely irrelevant. What counts is shot placement under stress. Many can barely hit the broad side of a barn when under fire. This is understandable as it is not an easy thing to keep one's cool under such circumstances. But if you are referring to the advantage of openly carrying a long arm v. a concealed pistol, you do have a valid point. I carry openly as often as possible for two reasons, the second being my pathological need to exercise my inherent rights and the first being that a gun does one little good if it is not available for use in time.

Gov. Perry refuses to allow the open carry of handguns in TX, likely because he hates black people

What is your ecidence for this? Not saying you're wrong - I can readily believe that dick would be so motivated. Just wondering upon what you base the assertion.

since that's why the law was created in the first place.

Well yes - gun control is at its root of roots Knee-Grow control. It never ceases to amaze me how woefully and willfully ignorant and stooped the average Knee-Grow is on this point. Bring it up and in my experience they look at you either as if you'd just sprouted a dead fetus from the side of your head or as if they are going to kill you. How can any presumably rational and nominally intelligent black person accep the gun control position from one side of their mouth while braying with fathomless and interminable stupidity about "slavery" from the other? The answer is one word: accountability. Such people want nothing to do with being responsible for themselves - their values, thoughts, feelings, choices, actions. They want license to stumble and fuck and smoke and drink their way from one moment to the next with zero accountability. Possessing the means of self defense removes such license. They'd rather see the entire world fall prey to the hunters than assume the least epsilon shred of responsibility for themselves. Therefore, while whining endlessly about how unfair life and whitey are to them, they embrace and rail on about the evils of the gun.

The good news is, the likely GOP candidates for governor of TX don't hate black people and say they support open carry of handguns in TX, but only for CCW holders. So maybe they only half-way hate blacks. Better than Perry, I guess. it's TX, known for horrible gun laws. So anything is better than the current law.

What a quirky-stupid state TX is in these ways. They make no rational sense at all.

 

[Keith and stuff]

Largely irrelevant. What counts is shot placement under stress. Many can barely hit the broad side of a barn when under fire. This is understandable as it is not an easy thing to keep one's cool under such circumstances. But if you are referring to the advantage of openly carrying a long arm v. a concealed pistol, you do have a valid point.

I consider it extraordinarily relevant. Long guns are substantially more likely to freak people out.

Well yes - gun control is at its root of roots Knee-Grow control. It never ceases to amaze me how woefully and willfully ignorant and stooped the average Knee-Grow is on this point. Bring it up and in my experience they look at you either as if you'd just sprouted a dead fetus from the side of your head or as if they are going to kill you. How can any presumably rational and nominally intelligent black person accep the gun control position from one side of their mouth while braying with fathomless and interminable stupidity about "slavery" from the other? The answer is one word: accountability. Such people want nothing to do with being responsible for themselves - their values, thoughts, feelings, choices, actions. They want license to stumble and fuck and smoke and drink their way from one moment to the next with zero accountability. Possessing the means of self defense removes such license. They'd rather see the entire world fall prey to the hunters than assume the least epsilon shred of responsibility for themselves. Therefore, while whining endlessly about how unfair life and whitey are to them, they embrace and rail on about the evils of the gun.

There are other options. Perhaps Gov. Perry hates women, the elderly and kids. He either hates kids, blacks, women, the elderly or some combination of them or he just wants all people to be defenseless and die at the hands of criminals, it has to be either 1 of those or he is completely clueless when it comes to self-defense. Come to think of it, that might partly explain why it is so dangerous to be in TX, with the high crime rate and all.

What a quirky-stupid state TX is in these ways. They make no rational sense at all.

My guess is a lot of it has to due with the historical hatred of black people by those in charge of the TX government. That seems to finally, be slightly changing to only partial hatred. Or again, it could just be hatred of the elderly, kids, poor people, women and so on. My guess is some combination. If I lived in Houston and was an a-hole billionaire, would I really want the average decent citizen to have the ability to surprise me and my security with a firearm? No. And that seems to the part of the basis for current law in TX.

That said, I'm so glad RINO Perry is on his way out and the Republicans that are likely to replace him are somewhat interested in increasing the ability of people to defend themselves. Now if the effort required to receive a CCW or if people were allowed to open carry without a permit, then we would know that the next governor at least somewhat cares about regular folks. Perry only cares about his rich, white, male, non-elderly, non-child friends according to his leadership record. It's why he was a complete joke when he ran for President. He was the most laughed at candidate and if placed head-to-head with Ron Paul in NH in 2012, Rick Perry would have only received less than 3% of the vote with Ron Paul receiving over 97% of the vote if you extrapolate based on the results.

 

[69360]

Why? You make a bold statement, yet give no basis. This seems like a drive-by posting.

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.

If you don't get that, oh well.

So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.

 

[loveshiscountry]

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.

If you don't get that, oh well.

So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.

The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place

 

[AFPVet]

I must agree with FL here. Words matter and our choices of same can have profound effects on meaning and the shape of perception.

Well, they do, but remember, the U.N. has a peace keeping force and it's a bit of a misnomer don't you agree? While peace and security are more or less synonymic terms, I do understand the negative scrutiny associated with the word security nowadays. This being said, it does not negate the fact that the 2nd Amendment explicitly uses the word security. This is why I said security force rather than peace keeping force—in keeping with the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Furthermore, true security forces are peace keeping forces I despise how the words security and peace have been hijacked and used to enforce tyranny

 

[Keith and stuff]

The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place

I somewhat agree with 69360's point of view but you are also corrected. I guess there is all type of middle thinking. Will people getting used to seeing military firearms in grocery stores before the stores and law ban them? I don't know. I believe that the open carrying of military firearms at Starbucks stores in Texas over and over again, and the complaints helped lead to the nationwide "ban" on all firearms (concealed and otherwise) at Starbucks. So in the short-term, the policy has massively backfired. In the long-term, maybe it will work out. But the current suffering is really annoying and it might get worse. And it may never get better, we don't know.

 

[69360]

Another thing to consider is do you really want to show your hand like that. When you do things like tote an AK in public you can be damn sure you get put on a list somewhere. You'll be the first one they come for if shtf. IMO it's better to keep a low profile and not let anyone know exactly what you have.

 

[fr33]

Another thing to consider is do you really want to show your hand like that. When you do things like tote an AK in public you can be damn sure you get put on a list somewhere. You'll be the first one they come for if shtf. IMO it's better to keep a low profile and not let anyone know exactly what you have.

Activism is the opposite of keeping a low profile. It's completely different tactic. I generally side with you in my actions but I don't try to discourage activists because I don't know if their tactics or mine will work to advance the cause of liberty. IMO it's better to promote and encourage liberty activists rather than dissuade them.

 

[RickyJ]

The more people see it the less they will feel threatened. Hopefully, someday it will be common place

If it needs to be common place then we are doomed as a nation, I know we are for all practical purposes doomed already, but not quite yet. Everybody in Libya has guns, yet they are still not safe. I am all for gun ownership, but needing to carry assault rifles while merely shopping in your neighborhood grocery store is a sure sign you are living in a war zone.

 

[osan]

I consider it extraordinarily relevant. Long guns are substantially more likely to freak people out.

How is that relevant to the legitimate exercise of one's inherent right to keep and bear arms?

Tattoos freak lots of people out too. By your apparent reasoning, it would seem folks should be prohibited from displaying them publicly. I would be interested in knowing how one is fundamentally different from the other. To save time I will preempt any attempt to use the "because guns can kill you" argument, which is similarly irrelevant. Nearly any object you may list CAN kill you. The "what-if" argument fails on its face - we can what-if ourselves to death. What LEGITIMATELY REASONED difference is there? If one exists, I would like to know abou it.

It's why [Perry] was a complete joke when he ran for President. He was the most laughed at candidate and if placed head-to-head with Ron Paul in NH in 2012, Rick Perry would have only received less than 3% of the vote with Ron Paul receiving over 97% of the vote if you extrapolate based on the results.

This sparked an idea... Perhaps it's too late - perhaps he is too old or too tired, but I think it would be absolutely fabulous were Ron Paul to run for GOVERNOR of TX. Holy shit... I'm a genius. I'm dead serious, too... would RP NOT be the perfect governor in ANY state?

What think's y'all? Is it worth raising as a question to Dr. Paul?

 

[osan]

Because an AK in the grocery store freaks boobus out. Then they want to ban them. It's that simple.

So let me be sure I have this correctly: you advocate retreating in the face of frightened nitwits by ceding your most fundamental human rights? Is that your strategy for long term prosperity and freedom?

You can protect yourself and others with a concealed handgun. Boobus will never see it and won't want it banned.

This is blindingly naive. B. A. wants them banned ANYWAY, regardless whether they can or cannot see them. Logic FAIL. Mayday mayday... I'm going in...

If you don't get that, oh well.

Oh that's cute, using the "if you don't get it you are hopeless" ploy. Holy crap - I cannot recall the last time I saw that one pulled out. The expanded train of "reasoning" there is: if you disagree with me, you do not understand. Therefore, you are wrong. Need I go through the analysis to identify where the train breaks terminally? OK, if you insist. The rupture occurs between the first and second elements where disagreement reduces to a universal and necessary lack of understanding. In other words, because I disagree with you, I am wrong.

I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that.

So again, I support the OP's right to tote an AK while shopping, but it's stupid if you want to keep your guns.

I don't suppose you see the fundamentally contradictory nature of this statement? You support a given right yet advocate one not exercise it because it may thereby be violated in some broad and formulaic manner. This is the reasoning of surrender. You are entitled to hold this view and the rest are entitled to do otherwise.

 

[osan]

Originally Posted by osan
I must agree with FL here. Words matter and our choices of same can have profound effects on meaning and the shape of perception.

Well, they do, but remember, the U.N. has a peace keeping force and it's a bit of a misnomer don't you agree?

Yes. That is pretty much my point.

While peace and security are more or less synonymic terms,

Peace and security are synonymous? Not sure I can agree. Could you elaborate on your specific meaning? I do no see them as synonymous in a general way. In fact, I see this conflation of general definition to lie close to the heart of the progressive/bunnies-and-light/prohibitionist philosophy. Security per se does not imply peaceful conditions. Various issues arise such as "security for whom?" and the devil's details in the actual implications of the definition of the term itself. All of us here should be well aware of the hanky panky in which Theye engage with their disingenuous use of language. Nothing is safe from Themme because of this - nothing issuing from Theire hands can be trusted in the least measure because they virtually always play from a different dictionary than do the rest of us, save when the gloves are off and they are in bald-faced authoritarian mode. In those increasingly less-rare occasions, certain usages of words, phrases, and terms mean precisely as commonly taken, but it is always along the lines of what you cannot do and what they will do to you if you fail to comply with their whim and caprice.

Just to be clear, and I am sure you probably already know this: Theye may establish for themselves a secure state - from their point of view. In fact, this is being done under our very noses and is very nearly complete now, most of the instrumentality having been put into place. The only major element that remains to be realized is putting these heretofore fallow material and legal instrumentalities into action. That is almost certain to come to pass before much longer. One does not purchase the better part of 2 billion rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of assault rifles, and thousands of armored vehicles for the purposes of ensuring a general state of domestic tranquility. They are acquired with the specific purpose of placing the relevant agencies on a bald-faced war footing and the only possible enemy for which such materiel can be credibly identified is all those who are not Themme or Theire direct cadres and minions.

Of this I hold vanishingly small doubt. This secure state will be for Themme alone and not even for their direct minions as the latter will be every bit as subject to the tyrannies that will be employed to corral the rest. They will be every bit the prisoner-slaves everyone else shall be. The only difference will be their status as trustees of the cage. Prisoners wielding marginal authority over the other prisoners. Their transgressions will be overlooked so long as they sufficiently toe the warden's line. By this shall a cop be able to shoot an inmate of lower status than him at whim, more or less, and expect to be fully excused - perhaps even congratulated. But the moment the trustee steps beyond the metes of the warden's boundaries they, too, shall be cast into the fire. THAT is the bit the willing and eager stooges do not see. They see only their elevated power status above their fellows and it is that lust for even the smallest crumb of differentiation that causes those sad and endlessly corruptible little nitwits to sprout vast and endlessly raging erections that no amount of perfectly skilled stroking will ever sate.

The very worst among us have been elevated to the very positions that, if they can be even marginally regarded as legitimate, should be populated by the very best. This is TRUE revolution - everything is literally turned around. You have no rights. There is no trust. Evil is good and goodness is evil.

Welcome to the world of 1984 my friends. We are literally living Orwell's nightmare vision of the future in virtually every frightful detail. The candy coated happy-face of Huxley's Brave New World is now being washed away in the torrents of the rising and violently rapid tides of tyranny becuse Theye no longer require the overhead of that mask in order to exercise Theire wills as they more truthfully see fit. It is upon us like a ravening predator disemboweling as we lie helplessly, our spines nearly broken and our legs barely functional, free as birds to do nothing more than remain and watch as we are consumed piecemeal by the shades that envelope and savagely devour us.

Furthermore, true security forces are peace keeping forces I despise how the words security and peace have been hijacked and used to enforce tyranny

In this you are definitely not alone.

 

[osan]

I believe that the open carrying of military firearms at Starbucks stores in Texas over and over again, and the complaints helped lead to the nationwide "ban" on all firearms (concealed and otherwise) at Starbucks. So in the short-term, the policy has massively backfired. In the long-term, maybe it will work out. But the current suffering is really annoying and it might get worse. And it may never get better, we don't know.

I don't see it that way at all. Their shitty and hideously $$ coffee aside, Starbuck's is a private enterprise, free to ban weapons on their property if that is their pleasure. This is freedom in action and the honesty of it is helpful to the rest of us so that we, the consumers, are able to better assess the nature of these organizations as they pertain to such questions of one's exercise of their basic rights. If the "government" bans weapons in the ways here discussed, the consumer is left standing bereft of the knowledge of the provider's position on such matters. This way, we know who welcomes the proper exercise of human rights and who does not. I consider this valuable information because it enables me to avoid giving my business to those who embrace tyranny and violation. Those who embrace BEING violated are free to continue giving Starbucks their money. The rest of us are free to walk right on by to their competition. The free market in action is a beautiful thing.

As to current suffering, to what do you refer? Your statement is not clear. My impulse was to parse this to mean people not being to go into Starbuck's armed. I see nothing of suffering there. If going to Starbucks for a cup of horribly over-priced and mediocre-at-best coffee is more important to you than your ability to freely exercise your rights, then leave your gun at home, or perhaps in your car, and go have your coffee. Just bear in mind that if some lunatic on meth or bath salts shows up with HIS guns in search of a little excitement, you may find yourself shit out of luck. It's all a matter of choices and it seems to me that some people want what cannot be rightfully had: license to do anything they want regardless of the wishes of others and consequences. An all too common human failing.

 

[69360]

Activism is the opposite of keeping a low profile. It's completely different tactic. I generally side with you in my actions but I don't try to discourage activists because I don't know if their tactics or mine will work to advance the cause of liberty. IMO it's better to promote and encourage liberty activists rather than dissuade them.

So let me be sure I have this correctly: you advocate retreating in the face of frightened nitwits by ceding your most fundamental human rights? Is that your strategy for long term prosperity and freedom?



This is blindingly naive. B. A. wants them banned ANYWAY, regardless whether they can or cannot see them. Logic FAIL. Mayday mayday... I'm going in...



Oh that's cute, using the "if you don't get it you are hopeless" ploy. Holy crap - I cannot recall the last time I saw that one pulled out. The expanded train of "reasoning" there is: if you disagree with me, you do not understand. Therefore, you are wrong. Need I go through the analysis to identify where the train breaks terminally? OK, if you insist. The rupture occurs between the first and second elements where disagreement reduces to a universal and necessary lack of understanding. In other words, because I disagree with you, I am wrong.

I am sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that.



I don't suppose you see the fundamentally contradictory nature of this statement? You support a given right yet advocate one not exercise it because it may thereby be violated in some broad and formulaic manner. This is the reasoning of surrender. You are entitled to hold this view and the rest are entitled to do otherwise.

You both don't get it do you? I'm talking about survival here and keeping what is yours. In this day and age, you flaunt it you lose it.

 

[osan]

You both don't get it do you? I'm talking about survival here and keeping what is yours. In this day and age, you flaunt it you lose it.

Oh I get it just fine now. For you, mere existence is sufficient. You will toe a line just to keep your paltry and token possessions. That is OK with me. Do as you please. I choose to stand on my feet, come what may. If they render me off the camp, better that than to live as a simpering compliant, too afraid of winning and losing to stand tall and live for real, if only briefly.

You should look up Kahlil Gibran's short story about the violet that became a rose for an hour. Hell, I will even do the legwork for you: http://www.inspirationalstories.com/0/65.html

I am serious. Read this. It is a story of what it means to live for REAL - something that requires a lot of courage. See if it appeals. If not, then perhaps you are not of the right cloth. No sin there and no shame. It simply is what it is. I choose differently, however.

 

[loveshiscountry]

If it needs to be common place then we are doomed as a nation, I know we are for all practical purposes doomed already, but not quite yet. Everybody in Libya has guns, yet they are still not safe. I am all for gun ownership, but needing to carry assault rifles while merely shopping in your neighborhood grocery store is a sure sign you are living in a war zone.

Your life can be threatened almost anywhere. I don't know if that means anywhere is already a war zone then.

 

[69360]

Oh I get it just fine now. For you, mere existence is sufficient. You will toe a line just to keep your paltry and token possessions. That is OK with me. Do as you please. I choose to stand on my feet, come what may. If they render me off the camp, better that than to live as a simpering compliant, too afraid of winning and losing to stand tall and live for real, if only briefly.

You should look up Kahlil Gibran's short story about the violet that became a rose for an hour. Hell, I will even do the legwork for you: http://www.inspirationalstories.com/0/65.html

I am serious. Read this. It is a story of what it means to live for REAL - something that requires a lot of courage. See if it appeals. If not, then perhaps you are not of the right cloth. No sin there and no shame. It simply is what it is. I choose differently, however.

Things are bad in this country, but not bad enough to martyr yourself yet. When I can't live my life the way I want without interference then we'll talk. But for now I can, so I will keep a low profile and keep what's mine.

 

[osan]

Things are bad in this country, but not bad enough to martyr yourself yet. When I can't live my life the way I want without interference then we'll talk. But for now I can, so I will keep a low profile and keep what's mine.

Fair enough. But what you stated previously did not suggest to me "low profile", but rather surrender. Perhaps a simple miscommunication.

 

[69360]

Fair enough. But what you stated previously did not suggest to me "low profile", but rather surrender. Perhaps a simple miscommunication.

We'd be on the same side if shtf. Seems like you think things are worse off than I do right now is all.