"Hi, I'm Bubbah. Gimme a Coke and Fries, or ...."

Gun-rights activists say Fort Worth incident is overblown | Arlington | News from Fort W...:
(Arlington, Texas ... May 07, 2014)

Local gun-rights activists say too much fuss is being made over an incident last week in which some of its demonstrators, carrying shotguns and rifles, walked into a Fort Worth fast-food restaurant to buy soft drinks but were mistaken for robbers. 

Last week, employees at the Jack in the Box at Sycamore School Road and the South Freeway told Fort Worth police officers that “they feared for their lives” and locked themselves in a freezer for protection after seeing men they thought were armed with assault rifles enter the restaurant, according to a police report. 

Kory Watkins, a spokesman for Open Carry Tarrant County, said Tuesday that the men were carrying their firearms in a “nonaggressive fashion” and that they were at the restaurant only to buy drinks while waiting for a nearby gun-rights demonstration to begin. Within moments, police officers arrived to ask the men why they were there. 

“This was blown out of proportion. There was no robbery. The caller must have overexaggerated the situation,” Watkins said.

Cheeze and Rice!

If I was working at the Jack In The Box in Fort Worth, and these guys walked into the store?  I would have .. over-reacted.

You are armed like Storm Troopers and you walk into a Jaque de Boite expecting to get served like anybody else?

Let's get real.

How would the employees know you weren't intended to rob the place and murder everyone in the joint?

When you are packing shotguns and rifles, and walk into a commercial property, what else do you expect the employees to think?

I don't care who you think you are, or what your rights are; you are armed with shotguns and rifles, and you think the employees "overexaggerated" (sp) the situation"????

You guys, those of you who strutted around with your guns ... you are IDIOTS!  Are you so proud of your 2nd Amendment Rights that you forget that you are in a civilized community?  NOBODY --- armed to the hilt as you obviously were --- walks into a commercial establishment populated with folks who can't find A Real Job.

No, I take that back:  "NOBODY WALKS INTO A PUBLIC PLACE WITH EXPOSED RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS!!!!!"  Especially, when you are flashing Major Guns around, you cannot convince anyone that you are doing so in a "non-aggressive fashion".

They will not believe you.

Hell, *_I_* will not believe you!

You couldn't leave them locked in your car?  Or stay in the car with the rifles and shotguns, and send in somebody without a rifle or shotgun to put in your order?  Or go through the DRIVE-THROUGH, for crying out loud?   What did you expect the employees, to do;  serve you without comment?

They expect you to shoot the guy who throws popcorn in your face.  And rightly so!

IDIOTS!

---

You people have set back the Second Amendment by centuries.  You WILL read about how gun-owners are arrogant, insensitive, and abusive of your Second Amendment Rights.

The worst part about is is, at least as far as you YAHOOS are concerned ... they will be right!

Whomever you are, where-ever you live ...  I hope you are tried and convicted as felons.  I hope you serve time in jail .. not because you broke a law, but because will lose your Second Amendment rights; which you obviously do not appreciate.  You will not do your part to protect those rights. by cherishing them and being respectful of folks who don't agree with you.    You are the kind of people who just can't understand, or respect, your God-given rights. You don't f*cking DESERVE them!

The people who locked themselves in the cooler did the right thing.

You ... did not.

McDonald!

McDonald Special Edition

As is true with most folks who read this blog, you are probably aware that the June 28, 2010, Supreme Court decision on "McDonald (et al) vs City of Chicago, Illinois (et al.)" heralds a new, and more traditional, interpretation of the Second Amendment.

And a lot of us like it!

It's not the 'whole answer', and there are still questions about what other restrictions may be applied to firearm ownership,. such as Registration. And the "Gun Show Loophole". And ... well, wait a minute!

Just what DOES that decision mean?


And in fact, just what does the decision SAY? And what were the points raised by the case, what was resolved, what was left for future legal gymnastics?

Finally, why was it a 5/4 decision by the SCOTUS, who ruled against the majority, and what were their arguments?

Whew! The more I read, the less I realize I actually understand.

Thanks to the Magic of the Internet, there are sources which can answer some, even many, of these questions.

In keeping with the Corporate Motto here at Geek Central: "We Surf The Net So You Don't Have To!"
(Either that, or we just surf the net anyway, and pass the good stuff on.)

Here are some good places to look for more information:

First the original link to this article was found at Musings of a Geek with a .45, and leads us to a "Zmag" article titled McDonald Special Edition.

I suspect this is not the best link, as it seems to begin in the middle of a multi-frame article.

Try this link instead. And remember it assumes you're smart enough to find the ZOOM control (look for the orange rectangle) and know to advance to the next page using the right-arrow. Okay, if you can't figure it out, just ... either go back to the porno channels or move on to the next article.

The above links (not the porno channels, the ZMAG article) discusses the dichotomy between the five "for the plaintiff" votes vs the four "for the defendant" votes, and the FIVE different opinions submitted by the nine SCOTUS judges.

Note that Chicago is working hard to undermine the clearly stated fundamentals of the Second Amendment.

The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people's hands.

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

Other restrictions in that ordinance:

_ Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

_ Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.

_ Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

_ Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.

_ Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Those who have handguns, illegal under the ban, would have 90 days from the day the ordinance is enacted to register those weapons.

Registration? Well ... that isn't a big deal anymore, is it? Historically, "registration" has been the first step to "confiscation", but states (and cities) can't do that anymore, can they?

Perhaps not, but if Chicago requires registration, then what happens if you can't register your legal firearm because the mechanism for registration has "broken" ... perhaps even deliberately? For example:

The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983.

Remember that Gun Control is not about guns. It's about Control.