Heads up it's starting

--
Link2

 

--
Link3

 

Link4
--
the pressure is building


Sorry for the multiple posts...the Monkey wouldn't allow me to post all of those links in one msg for some reason

 

Would it not be possible to point out to walmart that as they allowed one group to "open carry" inside that they either had to remove the sign, or dig out the tapes and prosocute the first group.

Otherwise the next fellow walking in with open carry could sue the crap out of them if anything was said or done about it.

Seems the sword would cut both ways.

Hope I said that to get across what I'm saying.

Instead of worrying about the black fellows carrying, use walmarts selective enforcement of their sign to force them to remove the sign or prosecute the first ones. You know they have tapes of it to swear out a warrent etc.

The upshot being that If I was carrying my weapon also then I would have much less worry about others carrying theirs. The fully armed society being inherently a polite society.

 

When this nation was founded most of It's colonists came from Europe. At the time, Europe was a place where most of the "commoners" weren't allowed to own property. At the time, the Right for a "commoner" to own property was uniquely American.

Where RKBA gets muddy to me is when our 2nd Amendment Rights conflict with the property owner's rights.

 

double post am using my crazy laptop outside LOL

 

The sword does cut both ways. You're talking about the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment.

This applies to the govt. only...not Wal-Mart. So, if you were busted by Wal-Mart and they sought to prosecute you and NOT the thugs, you should be able to sue for racial discrimination.

Perhaps the govt. could shrug their shoulders and say "We're following the law, Wal-Mart never called us in the other case, or we would've prosecuted." But, under the EP clause, they should investigate the claims....they would if you were black and it happened the other way around.

Think back to when Holder chose NOT to prosecute the Black Panthers over voter intimidation. If those guys would've been Skin-Heads, do you think there would be the same outcome? That's what the EP clause is meant to do--treat all groups fairly under the law.

 

I don't know if a white person could sue for racial descrimination I think the last time I looked at the law it only applied to a person of color.

 

Hey Guit_FishN this supports link 1 Tipping Point (lol)

Man who fathered 30 kids says he needs a break—on child support<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" />
By Pueng Vongs | The Sideshow – Fri, May 18, 2012
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" oreferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><vath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></vath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape style="WIDTH: 142.5pt; HEIGHT: 92.25pt; VISIBILITY: visible; mso-wrap-style: square" id=Picture_x0020_1 alt="http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BfoZbMQ2BV5XzgXMf9EqYw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http:/media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thesideshow/father.jpg" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1025"><v:imagedata o:title="father" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\COCHRA~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"></v:imagedata></v:shape>Desmond Hatchett (YouTube)
And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.
Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.
The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn't amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.
Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.
Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.
The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn't broken any laws, according to the report.

 

I guess the easy fix for me is if my weapon is not welcome. I don't go there. I don't shop at Walmart because my banking info is not safe with walmart employees.

I'm all for open carry if that is what someone wants to do. My take is when a bad guy sees the gun he will move on to look for an easy target. I carry my weapon concealed but I don't look like a victim so most likely bad guy will look for an easy target and pass me by.

 

time ....

TICK.....TICK......Tick

gafarmboy
If you can not protect what you own, you won't own it long..

 

Now Alpha, you know only us white folks can be Racist!!! Thats why the great Reverends Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton are only looking out for the best interests of their people.

 

Sounds like a bad incident,, trufully blacks are a bigger threat to eachother... they have been successfol at taking over the inner cities, but no one wants to live there anyway.