Skip to main content

View Diary: Walmart shopper exercises her 2nd Amendment rights after her coupon is rejected (538 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No (22+ / 0-)

    Bearing a firearm - right

    Brandishing it in an aggressive manner inconsistent with self-defense - crime

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:07:40 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  A well regulated militia being necessary (13+ / 0-)

      to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      Where's the "self-defense" clause?

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:25:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keep and bear arms, not brandish them, as I said (4+ / 0-)

        You can own a gun and bear it on your person.  But the use of the gun is regulated.  You pull a gun out at Walmart and start waving it around and threatening people with it, the only legitimate reason for doing so would be self-defense, which was clearly not the case here.

        The woman brandished a firearm, which goes beyond keep and bear, and did so without legal course to do so.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:43:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well thanks for clarifying that "distinction" (11+ / 0-)

          between "bearing" and "brandishing."

          Can you help me out now with the number of angels on the head of this pin?

          When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

          by litho on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:00:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you see no difference between the two (4+ / 0-)

            All knives must be outlawed - there's no difference between having a knife in your hand and threatening people with it.

            All baseball bats, all metal pipes, wrenches, brooms - anything that can be brandished as a weapon - must be outlawed, because there's no difference between holding these items in your hand and brandishing them.

            Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

            by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:21:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What about some arms, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib, Piren, Eyesbright

              such as numchucks and brass knuckles?

              Does the 2A, in your opinion, cover the right to keep them and walk around in public with them displayed on your hand or in a handy hipcase?

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:41:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure of legal precedents, but for me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                Having brass knuckles displayed on your hand, or numchucks in your hand would be akin to brandishing - you already have them "drawn", ready for use, and just walking around in public does not constitute a self-defense situation.  In a hipcase, same as a holstered gun, I have no problem with it in terms of general carry.

                Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

                by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:53:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here in NYC they are among the arms that (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  absdoggy, Laconic Lib, gratis4, Piren

                  are banned for the public.

                  No one can get a concealed carry license to carry brass knuckles or numchucks.

                  Confess I don't know what the legal reasoning was. My guess is its the same reason you can't carry a sewing shears in carry on luggage on an airplane. You have to check it can pick it up on the other end. You can't carry your sewing shears around in a holster on your hip.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:06:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'll venture a guess that the legal rationale is (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  absdoggy, Laconic Lib, Piren

                  that they aren't useful as self defense at all.

                  They are no protection against a bullet, and they are no protection against a beating.

                  They are useful to threaten a beating and they are useful to conduct a beating, right? But there is nothing within a right to self defense that give a threatened person a right to beat the crap out of the other person.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:08:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Come to think of it, same legal rationale for (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib, Piren

                  banning switchblades.

                  That might make the switchblade the best analogy for banning any firearm that can be modified to shoot on full auto (the bump stocks, etc.)

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:20:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  If a gun has ammunition in it then the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  gun is ready for use.

                  This better be good. Because it is not going away.

                  by DerAmi on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 02:09:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Both of those (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gratis4, CwV

                are felony possession in California.  You cannot own either at all.

                There are waivers for dojos and movie studios, but this state considers them more dangerous than any gun.

                Which I consider buffoonish.  Neither are necessary, and with nunchuks, you are far more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else (any student with them gets a lot of bruises for the first few months), but neither is nearly as deadly as a gun, especially without training.

                I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

                by trumpeter on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:40:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  See that's the hair line over which (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV

            RKBA absolutists think someone steps over when they go from "responsible law abiding gun owner" to "criminal."

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 06:04:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I get this distinction. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          But where does the "well-regulated militia" fall into the scheme of things?  This keeps getting lost in this endless debate.

          The most violent element in society is ignorance.

          by Mr MadAsHell on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:30:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I understand it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mr MadAsHell, LilithGardener

            the meaning of the words "well regulated" at the time really meant well-equipped and well-trained. Also, the militia were citizen soldiers; there were no state police, no standing National Guard, etc. Citizens of a given area were called upon to defend their homes, their towns, etc. and thus had to be armed to do so.

            So, one might paraphrase as "well trained and equipped citizens being necessary for the defense of their homes, their town and indeed their state, the right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be prohibited or made onerous by the government".

            It's why, similar to the 3rd amendment, it is an anachronism that should really be repealed.

            Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

            by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:25:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  She is in the FLMCP (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drmah, LilithGardener, WakeUpNeo

        Florida Militia Coupon Patrol -
        The Fighting Clippers have a long and proud history of defending Florida shoppers from coupon abuse by tyrannical corporations.

        Take back the House in 2014!!!! ( 50-state strategy needed)

        by mungley on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:04:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In partial defense of the crazy lady, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mungley

          it's quite possible that she had a legitimate beef with Walmart, that the coupon was worded to imply that it covered something it didn't. It doesn't justify waving a gun around, of course, but dealing with corporations as a consumer can certainly be crazy-making at times.

          People who need to shop with coupons are a natural constituency for a progressive movement that works to reduce economic inequality, or they would be if such a movement existed.

          "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

          by dumpster on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:35:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And, I said as much further up-thread. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, gratis4

            I am sympathetic to the woman's plight, but heaping abuse on the store employees is not the way to go.

            Please keep in mind that the employees at Wal-Mart are among the most poorly paid and poorly treated workers in the country.

            would be if such a movement existed.
            This site focuses on the plight of underpaid workers all the time. Read Laura Clawson's labor diaries (published a few times a day) for where we are on economic inequality.

            Take back the House in 2014!!!! ( 50-state strategy needed)

            by mungley on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:42:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'd bet not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Piren

            Having worked in retail for far too many years, I can assure you, that nothing makes customers more arrogant, evil, and stupid--than coupons.

            And, yes, nothing gets retail peons more abused than those customers.

            If I were King Of The World, my first law would be to abolish any and all coupons. They're fucking evil. There's a reason they all have fine print--because they are meant to have all kinds of restrictions and only-on-these-three-days and every other thing: because they're a gimmick. They're bait-and-switch. And all these famous Couponing! people and websites have made our stupid, nebbish consumers think that they're a gift, often with no strings. Ha ha ha ha ha.

            "Maybe: it's a vicious little word that could slay me"--Sara Bareilles

            by ChurchofBruce on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:23:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm puzzled... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, nota bene, Tonedevil, gratis4, MRA NY

      How am I supposed to defend myself if my gun stays holstered?

      •  more to the point (13+ / 0-)

        how exactly does one brandish a gun without first bearing the gun to their current location?

      •  The easiest thing to start with is to leave the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2, Laconic Lib

        area, or take cover.

        The next easiest thing to do is yell STOP, followed by addressing the person about whatever seems threatening,

        Such as:

        "Don't come any closer!"
        "Put that ___ down, on the ground right now, and step away from it!"
        "Back up, slowly, keep your hands where I can see them!"

        This is not mysterious people.

        Shit happens - and people can feel legitimately threatened by "good guy with a gun."

        Consider a woman driving alone on a remote road, flashing lights pull up behind her, with or without a siren. She has every right to drive to a well-light area before stopping, then rolling down her window a crack and passing her driver's license through the window crack.

        She does not have any right to have a firearm in her lap as the policeman approaches her driver's side window, or brandish the firearm simply because she has no way of knowing if the person really is a police officer. If she has concern that the uniformed person is not a police officer she has every right to remove herself to a safer environment and ask for proof. She still does not ever have a right to pull a firearm to threaten the uniformed person, even if they are a potential rapist.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:02:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And apparently she can brandish the firearm (10+ / 0-)

      without ever having actually born it, according to the logic of the gun crowd at Daily Kos.

      this is better than SNL.

      •  Sigh, no (7+ / 0-)

        You have a right to keep (own, possess) and bear (carry the gun on your person).  The woman owned a gun, she carried it with her in her car. Fine, no problem.

        She then retrieved the gun from the car, and displayed it in a threatening manner without legal cause to do so (i.e. self-defense). That is the act of brandishing, which is illegal.

        The woman was not engaged in the act of self-defense.  In a legitimate self-defense situation, one may remove a gun from its holster and ready it for use as the situation calls for. That is NOT brandishing.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by absdoggy on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:50:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, big problem. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DerAmi, zinger99

          She should not have been driving around town with a gun in her car.  Then she left that thing in the parking lot, unattended, while she went shopping. That is stupid and dangerous. I refuse to accept the premise that there is nothing we can legally do to limit what is stupid and dangerous.

          "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

          by Reepicheep on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:53:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  it truly is.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChurchofBruce, Piren, LilithGardener

        Comic relief. I've never laughed like this in a gun thread.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site