Black Man Lawfully Carrying Gun Gets Pummeled by White Vigilante at Walmart

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sham, how does it work out with the two that helped the man commit the crime?

Is it accessory or not?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Its a tactic promoted by a group.

Sure, arrest and punish only those who are dumb enough to attack gun owners.

But don't bitch when they start getting shot.

a reply to: Sremmos80

BOOM!!! THAT is what you call "throwing their rhetoric back in their faces"

a reply to: projectvxn

I think the idea of taking down some one with a gun cause you think person is going to cause harm to others is also highly pushed by other people.

The blame can be passed to many people to why people decide to do things like this, just thought we were suppose to avoid that.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: LeatherNLace

originally posted by: Mirthful Me

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: LeatherNLace

I'll add my opinion here. The legally carrying black gentleman should have lawfully shot the irrationally overreacting white guy in the face. That's what conceiled-carry permits are for. Someone attacks you, you blast them. End Of Story.

This is the correct answer... The law abiding, properly permitted (African American) citizen should have tapped out the felonious, racist, libtard, anti-gun white idiot...

I'd snackbar that particular outcome...

Actually, the correct answer would have been to use some common sense. In a high crime rate neighborhood, entering a liquor store, I could see the desire to carry a gun or to attack someone for carrying one. But Walmart? I don't have any statistics, but I would wager that Walmarts rarely, if ever, get held up at gunpoint.

But yeah, the first reaction should have been to shoot....just like a criminal or a dirty cop.

My gawd, is there no middle ground anymore?

A quick story, take it as you will.

I cashed a check at a walmart one afternoon. Man was watching and followed me out. I park in the back of parking lots in an attempt to avoid dents and dings, and to single out those whom might follow me. My habits worked in favor this time. The man followed me out to within 20ft of my car. As I opened the door and removed my jacket, which revealed my sidearm, the man turned off and went elsewhere.

Often times the very presence of a firearm will negate a potential incident.

A quick opinion, take it as you will. Perhaps the guy was never following you; but your paranoied thoughts said otherwise. Come back with a REAL crime story.

a reply to: Sremmos80

We can trace the crimes of individual Nazi war criminals to a particular ideology.

But we only prosecuted those guilty of crimes.

I think its cute that you're trying to confuse the issue of personal responsibility with what is widely known as INCITEMENT, which is a misdemeanor, by the way.

Let's face it. Sometimes the guy with a gun is a good guy and sometimes the guy with the gun is a bad guy. Some people are afraid of guns and jump to the worst possible conclusion. Not everyone knows the laws in a particular state. People who don't own guns can be pretty clueless about it too.

Anyway, as more people decide to exercise their right to carry, there will be more opportunities for this kind of fear to happen. Maybe more education all around is the answer. And maybe the NRA could help with that.

The only way this thing might have been a bigger mess is if the man carrying was a cop. Or had shot the guy who tackled him, which there was absolutely no need for. Or maybe if the guy who did the tackling was armed himself and decided to draw. Yeeha.

a reply to: projectvxn

What that man, as in humanity, are evil as all hell?

I know your point is that he took the guns, don't see what that has to do with what I am getting at.

My point is that if this man did not have his permit then the man that attacked would be glorified by some, especially if he was shot.
But since he does have a permit, it must be a crazy anti gunner that did this cause why?

What do we know about the attacker?

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
A quick opinion, take it as you will. Perhaps the guy was never following you; but your paranoied thoughts said otherwise. Come back with a REAL crime story.

There was no real crime story because of my attentiveness and desire to not be a sheep. Also, it's rather funny how after I reported the incident to the police, they found the man right back in the same spot he started out at. At the money center, watching people. Follows me out, decides I'm not an easy mark, goes back to find another mark. Yep. That's paranoia.

a reply to: Sremmos80

What that men, as in humanity, are evil as all hell?

There were specific ideological constructs that allowed Nazis and their staunch supporters the moral direction to commit the crimes they did. I recommend research.

I know your point is that he took the guns, don't see what that has to do with what I am getting at.

That wasn't my point at all.

My point is that if this man did not have his permit then the man that attacked would be glorified by some, especially if he was shot.
But since he does have a permit, it must be a crazy anti gunner that did this cause.

The reason many of us believe it was ideologically motivated is because a person with cursory experience in firearms knows full well that properly holstered weapons on people minding their own business is usually not a sign of trouble.

There are those of us that this was coupled with racial profiling.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Some people are afraid of guns and jump to the worst possible conclusion.

And why are we jumping to the conclusion that the man did this cause he was afraid of guns?

Could it not be cause he was afraid of the PERSON that had it?

a reply to: EternalSolace

There is nothing you can do to explain these types of things to these people.

They refuse to understand them. They live in a bubble that makes them believe that people who legally carry guns are the problem.

With that, I'm done in this thread.

Too much willful ignorance for me.

a reply to: projectvxn

We know nothing about why this guy did what he did.

Just come out and say what you meant then by bringing nazis.

a reply to: projectvxn

We know nothing about why this guy did what he did.

Just come out and say what you meant then by bringing nazis into this.

False Flag !!!



Not enough "White" perpetrators is my guess.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Some people are afraid of guns and jump to the worst possible conclusion.

And why are we jumping to the conclusion that the man did this cause he was afraid of guns?

Could it not be cause he was afraid of the PERSON that had it?

Are you familiar with the hypothetical? Fact is we don't freaking know why, okay? Satisfied?

ETA: ". Some people are afraid of guns..."

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Apologize, was worked up when I wrote the reply.

And decided that you were implying something.

a reply to: projectvxn

They live in a bubble that makes them believe that people who legally carry guns are the problem.

And how have you not presented that those that fear them are the problem?

Willful ignorance indeed

S'okay, Sremmos80.

And I don't mean education like this.


We do need more general awareness that some people are going to be carrying.

Honestly, I don't know how we can change this perception when probably about half the people in this country just aren't used to seeing guns everywhere and immediately thing the worst.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Another thing to this story, doesn't sit so well with my recollections and prejudiced concept of a vigilante...you know, Charles Bronsonesqe ?

from Wikipedia
vig·i·lan·te
ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē/
noun
noun: vigilante; plural noun: vigilantes

a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Origin

My question would be, what was inadequate about the police to stop a law abiding citizen from legally carrying a weapon...hmmmm??? so would this complete moron and criminal really be considered a vigilante if he was the only one known to have broken laws??..... seems like, thug or assailant would really be the proper term...but for some reason vigilante is the word in this instance, which also again implies that the victim was somehow not within lawful bounds ...