Duty bound to disarm a drunk?
Yes.
I don't know how to disarm a drunk. I think I would rather ask them to leave.
Well, whatever you choose to do, at that point you are dealing with a drunk with a gun. That's not how I want to spend my leisure time.
Since when am I liable for the actions of another?
Since they are on your property with other invited guests.
If I ask him to leave, or I ask them to shape up and they don't. I would simply call the police and let them handle it.
Uh huh. So, maybe an hour later, the SWAT team shows up and surrounds your house. And while you were waiting for the cops to arrive, you spent the time arguing with a drunk with a gun while your invited guests left in a big hurry. Well, it will make one memorable barbecue. Personally, I would rather just skip all that fun.
I think Wolfman assumes way too much liability for the actions of others.
No, it is just standard tort liability law. The bottom line is that, if that guy comes on your property, then you basically became his babysitter. Look it up yourself (Prosser on Torts is the standard textbook) or ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't think of any city of any real size that I have been in the last thirty years or more where you could carry openly everywhere (anywhere?) without an issue. So . . . if anyone is outraged that someone would ask them to put their weapon away (as some have expressed here) then my conclusion is that either they live in the backwoods and don't get to the city much or they must spend most of their time outraged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah the ever classic rationalization of, "I know what I am doing is not necessarily correct, but since other people are doing it, I feel justified."
I don't know where you got that from what I said. I was simply commenting on the fact that people carrying openly is a pretty rare thing most places I have been. Therefore, anyone who pretends to be greatly offended that someone would ask them to check their piece must not do much traveling to major metropolitan areas. The reason being that, whether you like it or agree with it or not, the fact is that most cities of any size don't allow people to carry guns openly. And, even when those cities do allow it, it seems to be fairly rare and private property owners still impose their own restrictions. Therefore, either they live in the backwoods, or their outrage is phony because they must have encountered this situation many times before.
That doesn't have anything to do with justifying anything I think.
In essence, I know Wolfman still believes in his right to do what he wants on his property. Again, this was never a point.
It was the original point that started the thread, and it was a specific point that I brought up in my example. I know it's a long thread, but if you care to read it, that's what you will find, explained many times.
However, he now brings up that since big city liberals who distrust firearms and firearms owners would never let an openly armed man walk around unchallenged in a large city, Wolfman would take the same actions of the big city anti-gun sheeple.
No, you missed something. I don't know that I would recognize a "big city liberal" without their "big city liberal" t-shirt, and I never get so silly as to try to label people with such simple labels, anyway.
If you will read it again, carefully this time, I was commenting on the fact that it is a pretty rare place where open carry is allowed and, therefore, any gun owner who travels very far outside their property will routinely run into people who will ask them to put it away -- therefore it is pretty strange to act so outraged.
Wolfman, what is the point of your posts?
To discuss the issues. Of course, along the way, it helps if people will stick to what I said, rather than supplying their own meanings when they reply.
You simply continue to destroy the arguments you might have had with more and more failed justifications and flawed logic.
Well, before you make that judgment, how about sticking to what I actually said?
Now you add in little tidbits of information stating how you never see people open carry. What is the point? Why is it relevant that we know your opinion of "I am not sure of what the laws are there but, if open carry is allowed, then I would conclude that thevast majority of people see no need to carry openly,"? So they all carry concealed. What is your point? Are you making an argument against open carry?
No, I am noting that it ain't all that unusual to go places where people object to open carry, therefore I wonder why the people here get so inflamed about the idea that someone might object.
I just don't your point of continuing your posts on this thread.
Because someone responded to what I said and asked me some questions? Of course, I could just refuse to answer you. But, if you didn't want responses, then why did you post?
And, if you care to read back through the thread, you will find that I didn't respond to anything for a long time and the thread went on without me -- even with some people agreeing with me, no less -- so I don't think I am the problem here.
The more you talk, the more I get the idea you don't have the capacity to see the harm you are doing to this cause.
Well, actually, I have been working with people to train them how to promote controversial political causes for the last decade or so, and achieved some measure of success with it. Just FYI, I have some professional experience in the Public Relations field and have taught at least a few semi-prominent people how to make their points more effectively. Of course, there are always people who don't understand the value of what I advised them.
I don't particularly care what the sheeple in a big city think, I already know what they think because I lived there for two years.
That's fine if you don't care. Just don't pretend to be hugely outraged (or even surprised) if you run into a situation that is pretty much the standard across the country (e.g., people will ask you to put your gun away).
Good for you, but that wasn't the issue. I can't recall questioning your ability to think for yourself. I might question your critical reading, however.
And I think that if I expect to retain my rights to self-defense, I have to extend those same rights to others as well. If I feel a need to be armed, I would expect my friends and their friends to see that need too.
Hmmm, then, if you are on my property and I tell you that I have never seen the need for anyone to be armed on my property, then whose feelings should prevail? Yours just because you happen to own a gun and feel a threat that no one else on my property feels?
But as you so aptly pointed out, big city sheeple can't quite coprehend what it means to provide for your own self-defense.
I don't think I mentioned "big city sheeple" or what they might comprehend. I simply stated a fact about the environment you will find if you travel most places in the US. You know, same as I would tell you it rains a lot of places, so don't be surprised if you need a rain coat.
They expect "the authorities" to do it for them. They delegate their self-defense rights to others. Fine by me. You bought into that idea too by thinking you are going to be "the authorities" and provide their personal self-defense for them. Congratulations. Enjoy. You have that right.
Actually, there has never been a situation at any of my barbecues that required anyone to defend themselves with a gun, so protecting everyone has been a pretty easy job so far, and I am happy to say that I have been 100 percent successful -- all my guests have left alive and uninjured. Can't get much better than that. As I said, if Al Qaeda attacks, I will be happy to pass out the guns and ammo and let you help.
But, whether you agree with it or not, that's the case. And that's what the original question was about.
Don't blame me though if I treat you like the rest of "the authorities" that think I don't need to protect myself in the gun-free zones like schools, post offices, and in some states churches. I don't believe you and I will continue to carry and you won't know about it.
If you have the good sense to keep the gun from becoming an issue with the people around you, that's the first step. But, the original question related to a person who went onto someone else's property and was asked to check his weapon. Whether you agree with what they did or not, the property owner is boss as long as you are on their property. Therefore, you either check your weapon or don't go on their property but, either way, you really don't have a bitch.
As a matter of fact, as I recall from childhood, whenever we went anywhere with a weapon we were required to carry the weapon in a manner that anyone fifty feet away could see that the weapon was safe. Bolt visibly open, muzzle in a safe direction, etc. That applied like God's law even on the shooting range itself, so I don't find it all that strange.
This has nothing to do with disrespect to you or me feeling like I am threatened and have to be armed around you.
Thanks. I understand that. And I also understand that it feels good to have a pistol on your hip.
