It depends on the circumstances....in family restaurants, the fear likely generated overweighs the positive effect of exercising one's rights, so still heroic? Maybe...I'm torn. Douche-baggy for no reason? Certainly.

However, those that, alone, are willing to calmly and responsibly open carry in public places where it's allowed (IE not at a playground, bank, school, airport, etc.) in order to strengthen their right to do so, especially in locals where they know they'll be harassed at the least, yes, I would say they're heroic. Perhaps misguided, but heroic.
An argument could be made that it's maybe time to revisit that right in today's society, but so long as it's a right I support people exercising it (responsibly) and would say they're heroic if they do it responsibly and at some risk to themselves.

I guess the toolishness would have been more evident if this guy would have been one of those guys who go into family restaurants while brandishing AR-15's, in open carry states? Those guys are exercising rights that people in some sense fought and died to be able to establish, and they're acting within their legal rights... but they're just such fucking assholes. Maybe you take a stand on principle and call those guys heroes too; if so I'd admire your consistency but still disagree.

It was a residential pool. Members are only allowed 2 guests. only ONE teen lived there and more than one fight broke out. The Teens were cussing out everyone and getting in to everyone's faces and climbed over the fences to get in.

ONE cop went stupid. One, and as of today he no longer works in The McKinney police dept.

Also not everyone here in Texas agrees with the stupid open carry and I honestly hope every time one of these idiots shows up in public the police get called out every time.

I read that the second part was done in a state that doesnt allow open carry.
Anyone can confirm?

Does that go for officers as well, giving me probable cause to stop and interrogate them as to why they're such cowardly infants that they need to be holding a gun to feel 'safe'? Can I put my cocked gun to their head while I scream my questions? Can I empty my clip into them if they move? Somehow I doubt it.
Open carry is only probable cause in DC...unless that's changed now.
Federal law trumps local law, and federal law said any citizen can carry, even if the community doesn't like that.

EDIT: It makes me think of the normal procedure where a cop will say 'I'm going to take your weapon and put it over here away from you...FOR YOUR SAFETY.' I always wonder why the citizen doesn't reply..."OK, but first I'm going to take YOUR gun and put it over here away from YOUR grasp for YOUR safety...officer." You know...'What's good for the goose', and all.

newtboy says he has nothing against 'those fucking cowards in blue'.

lol

Isn't this akin to anecdotal evidence? One video versus one video?

Here's a video of a black man, open carry, not even questioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDQp2WJELTw

I'll bet if newtboy saw a black man open carry in front of his house, he'd get on the phone to 911 faster than you can say 'hypocrisy'.

Also...you'll notice the black man in this video was not shot because he complied with the officer's orders. That by itself gives the video some value.

yes, racism is terrible and american police is usually terrible as well, but I fucking hate these open-carry morons.

Also, the woman filming the black guy was pregnant and she willingly placed herself in this unbelievably stupid situation on purpose. I wonder if she was open carrying as well.

and I agree with ulysses1904, this proves nothing.

I wish they had treated the white guy the same as the black guy. Open carry in city limits should be probable cause.

Thank god racism is over...right?

Fucking cowards in blue. Get a grip, asshats. 10 cops, 5+ cars, dogs, weapons drawn, aimed, and cocked...for what?!? Legal open carrying while black, which is just fine if you're white?

Every day I'm more surprised there isn't a racial uprising against police and reciprocation of this behavior, ending in numerous cops shot dead by 57 bullets in self defense because they had a pen and pad in their hand. If 'well trained' officers can make that mistake constantly, why not citizens? Maybe that's why they are so pant-pissingly terrified of a black man with a gun, they know it would be reasonable for it to be used against them in self defense?

If I were black, I would be dead or in jail today. No question.
Totally disappointed in cops every-single-time lately. This shit boils my blood.
*promote

No matter how you look at it, this is one terrible PSA/ad campaign for "anti-gun". There are pro's and con's to owning a firearm. And whether or not it is right to have one, to not have one, to open carry, to conceal carry, it's all subjective opinion. I can't argue for or against for any of them...

Because frankly, I don't give a damn.

We already live in an illusion of safety. Even if Open-carry was world-wide, people still will (and do) conceal weapons regardless.

I would love to rid the world of firearms entirely, but the fact that it is literally impossible due to the proliferation of unlicensed weapons, (something no law can fix), and that I don't trust any government to protect, and not victimize, me (also why I agree with the pro-gun nuts) is the primary reason I feel that way.

Exactly... this guy is a waste of good air, trolling a cop because he wants to look smart by being able to quote legal precedent. Get a life, or a job, or go do something useful with your smarts instead of this shit.

Open carry is like being naked at a wedding... often not illegal, but it sure as hell makes everyone uncomfortable, you know there's going to be confrontation, and you're just being a dick. If I'm out in public and want to carry a gun, I don't want anyone to know I have one... concealed carry is the way to go.

What i see is vigilantes and crazy people wanting to get shot down and martyred by cops.

I'm pretty sure that when you ask the citizens in a warn torn country where guns are actually a requisite to survival what they feel about people carrying guns out in the open and i'll bet they don't like it either. They just have to do it. You, on the other hand, carrying one in USA don't actually need it. If you open carry, you just like to scare people.

The whole "i'm allowed to do what i want" theme goes out the window when the symbol in question actually is designed to kill living things. I had to think hard what is the difference between other freedoms, say, gay pride parade. You have to just accept it no matter what you think about it. One could say the same about freedom to carry guns but that's where i draw the line: does it kill you or not. If it doesn't, deal with it and move on. If it does, remove it from the public. Not against guns in the privacy of your own home but they DO NOT belong to streets unless they are carried by a professional.

And no, i don't trust the law enforcement blindly but they enforce laws that we have allowed our representatives to put in place.. if you have a problem with laws, you take it where the laws are made, not to the people enforcing them... And definitely you don't scare everyone else getting one either, which this "open carry activism" WILL lead to: you see guns out in the open, "I think need one now just to pop to get some milk, better get my AK".. Stupid stupider gun-nut. The same people are "rolling coal" plus a host of other symptoms.

Having more guns will just leave to more violence, that is a fact that is definitely shown in study after study. The way non-carrying citizens react to this should be a clear sign: society does NOT want that. Isn't that enough reason to stop?

Title of the video is misleading, it's not a student prevailing, it's a crazy person abusing laws and getting away with it because of one obscure sentence in an old scripture that does not even mean what he think it means.

Carrying a gun and walking up and down the street. Should be in jail for two days or getting treatment in an institute, IMHO. Open carry are CRAZY, mentally not balanced individuals, period. No one needs to parade with their gun unless they have some obsession about using the damn thing (or it's sexual). But then again, i come from sensible place on earth with strict and very practical gun laws (no open carry, concealment only allowed for professionals)

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.