Soldier charged after toting rifle through N.C. mall

He might be an idiot for going about it the way he did, but come on folks. Support his right to do it. The bogus charge "going armed to the terror of the public" could one day be applied to anyone open or conceal carrying down a side walk or even in a business that hasn't barred firearms. That charge needs to be squashed immediately.

Also, regardless of state law, I'm of the opinion that any business that's open to the public should not be allowed to bar people from carting firearms. That's a violation of the 2nd when you get down to it.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Challenge it in court then. Which is being done.

Antics like this do more harm than good, in my opinion, when it comes to advancing the pro-2nd cause. The majority will look at him like a nut job. Just like they do every other person that straps on an AR and walks around with it.

I get the message people like this are trying to send, but it's an idiotic way of sending it and to be so dimwitted as to not even recognize that it's not helping is just plain stupid to me.

Any business should have the right to allow or deny fire arms. Why would a gun owner get to dictate what goes on at anothers property. So his rights trump the other person.

a reply to: roadgravel

What? Private property? What's that?

I hope this guy gets the same punishment as the armed cops that came to the mall to arrest him, even though his weapon was non-functional while theirs was.

a reply to: roadgravel

If law can dictate that a business serve all customers (civil rights), the law can dictate that businesses can't violate the 2nd amendment.

dumbass, he should have carried an airsoft ar-15, looks just like a real one

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: roadgravel

If law can dictate that a business serve all customers (civil rights), the law can dictate that businesses can't violate the 2nd amendment.

Because the 2nd amendment is so vague that it is all interpretations. It does not spell out any right other than

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you read that well regulated part it does not seem to give any right beyond having arms. And well regulated means you can regulate the hell out of it. We are just lucky modern courts have been so open in their interpretations of it. It would hard to argue that the founders intended this to protect the right of someone to kit up and carry a weapon into a mall. Even in the wild west guns were banned by businesses and entire towns at time. It is the idiots who have guns who are going shift the courts back to a more strict interpretation down the road. And those same idiots who make the rest of us look bad. Well regulated should mean they start giving IQ tests before letting people have a weapon.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: roadgravel

If law can dictate that a business serve all customers (civil rights), the law can dictate that businesses can't violate the 2nd amendment.

It could but it probably will never be changed. Stupid and careless people with guns will always be a potential problem.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Well that's pretty ignorant but at least you feel better I guess.

originally posted by: luciddream
He is just exercising his rights, i support his action!!.

If he start shooting people i will just say "he does represent me".

You may want to re-read your post.
I have a feeling it isn't saying what you intended.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Or does it?

originally posted by: yuppa
well if there is no law against it why was he arrested?

There is no law specifically about carrying a weapon in the way he did, there ARE laws about terrorism and threats to the public.

This was a threat to the public and his actions caused many to fear for their safety and lives.

It is damn right that he was arrested. He broke the law, acting with stupidity in a way that he knew would cause threat to the public.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Also, regardless of state law, I'm of the opinion that any business that's open to the public should not be allowed to bar people from carting firearms. That's a violation of the 2nd when you get down to it.

How do you feel about people with mental illness owning firearms?
How about fanatical religious people, of all faiths?
How about kids?
How about convicted criminals?

Where do you specifically draw the line about this absolute freedom, written in an outdated document not suitable for application in our modern world without adjustment?

The boy is an idiot. If i was in that Mall i would have hit him with a hammer and took my chances in a court of law.

a reply to: MrSpad

People like to rewrite all kinds of things to suit their needs though, right?
It clearly states a "well regulated militia", that's not lone gunmen walking around public spaces strapped up and looking like a terrorist.

Just that segment of the piece says all we need to know, the intention was that regulated groups could be armed - meaning that the state is responsible for ensuring that those being MEMBERS OF A MILITIA are of sound mind, monitored by the state, licensed if need be. This clearly doesn't mean random individuals being free to have any weapon they like under any circumstances.

The biggest problem in the US is this fanatical adherence to documents no longer appropriate for your modern society, and the people who are stupid enough to believe that they can remain unchanged and set in stone forever without any compromise or alteration.

If the people who wrote those documents could see how they're now used as some kind of religious text by fanatics in modern America, they would instantly want to go back and change them to be more specific about gun control. These were rational and sensible people, and if they could see the damage their vagueness has caused they would feel ashamed that they didn't make these documents clear, and leave statement that they should be altered over time to reflect the needs of the people.

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Shamrock6

I have to admit, I was surprised he was a white guy. Normally, white people can walk around stores with rifles and people applaud them for exercising their rights.

Either way, racist double-standards aside, this is lame. He's intentionally being a dumb-ass, sure, but I don't see what the crime really is. Why is this guy arrested yet countless more can march through a Walmart, armed like a militia?

You're aware that several black organizations have marched while openly carrying and been applauded for it by the media?

Also, I always get a laugh from "no gun policies". Does anyone out there really think someone who wishes to do others harm with a gun would change their mind because the mall has a no gun policy?

a reply to: EternalSolace

He might be an idiot for going about it the way he did, but come on folks. Support his right to do it.

Support his right for what to act like an idiot?

Also, regardless of state law, I'm of the opinion that any business that's open to the public should not be allowed to bar people from carting firearms. That's a violation of the 2nd when you get down to it.

Property owners have the right to say whether a person can carry weapons on their property or not. So no it isn't a violation of the 2nd because the 2nd only works on your property and public property not on someone's property if they don't want you to carry. Besides malls have security so there really is no need to act like Wyatt Earp.

a reply to: buster2010

Property owners have the right to say whether a person can carry weapons on their property or not. So no it isn't a violation of the 2nd because the 2nd only works on your property and public property not on someone's property if they don't want you to carry.

Otherwise it goes against that whole self defense argument where a person shoots an armed intruder, doesn't it.

"I was just dropping in, armed, as usual."

originally posted by: roadgravel
I bet all of us want soldiers walking around town toting rifles. Condition us to martial law.

Is a soldier allowed to take rifles and other firearms off the base for their amusement? If so, that's might explain a few things.

It probably was his personal rifle. The article did say "AR-15" which is the semi-auto version.


You are right, if he did take one of Uncle Sam's rifles off post, he'd be looking at a heck of a lot more than a "stern talking to."