1. Wow, they give dumbass rednecks a bad name.
    How is this legal? And how could a machine gun fall under an open carry permit? Could they walk into a bank and brandish their weapons like that?

    I’d like to shake the hand of that girl that called them “Texas Retards.”
    They aren’t exercising their rights, they’re being intentionally annoying.

    1. While I agree with you that these guys are complete ass-hats, and these weapons should have been banned years ago,

      oh wait that did happen

      there is no such thing as an “open carry permit”. There’s also no such thing as an “open carry law”. Open carry is the absence of a law. These jerkwads can do this not because there’s a law allowing them to do it, but because there’s no law preventing them from doing it.

      Open carry is the flipside of concealed weapons laws. Those assault rifles only become illegal when they are concealed.

      Personally, I’m a huge supporter of “gun free zone” laws. The NRA hates them but the fact is, if a cop finds a gun on someone in a gun free zone then that person broke the law. If that person was hiding that gun, then they are doubly guilty.

      Open carry is an old story. It’s why you’re supposed to keep your hunting rifle on a gun rack in the back window of your pickup instead of just throwing it into a scabbard and tucking it behind the seat. A cop searches your car and finds a handgun under the seat, that’s a violation of concealed weapons law. But, if you have that handgun in a belt holster that’s just fine. BTW most places will let you buy a hand gun without a CWP. You only need that CWP if you are carrying it under your jacket, or in your glovebox.

      The law is fucked up, I know that.

      I just keep telling myself that the open carry idiots are hurting their cause more than helping with these shenanigans. Also business reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I’m guessing a lot more people who go into Chilies don’t have assault rifles than those that do. I’m also guessing that those that don’t aren’t going to frequent an establishment that routinely allows those with guns in.

      I’m just saying Chipoltle and Chilies know which side their bread is buttered on.

      1. Sorry about that, didn’t close the link address properly. I was trying to refer to the Assault Weapons Ban of the late ’90s during the Clinton Administration.

      2. Thanks for explaining the open carry thing, I did not realize they were exploiting a loophole.
        It seems to me that displaying a weapon always implies a threat of force. On police officers or military personnel, that threat is pretty well defined. If you break the law and endanger other people, they might use it to stop you. But with these idiots, there is no way to tell whether they are harmless or homicidal, so it is reasonable to assume the worst and treat them accordingly. So they really shouldn’t whine when they’re kicked out of a restaurant. The manager’s response was very favorable to them, I thought. He didn’t kick THEM out, only their guns. I don’t think I would have been so lenient (not that I blame him for de-escalating). Then again, there’s a good chance I wouldn’t have been brave enough to antagonize a bunch of dudes with guns, which makes me respect that lady calling them “texas retards” even more.

      3. I didn’t know that they were actually exploiting the absence of a law either. I don’t know if Texas has a “Stand Your Ground” law, but here in Florida those Deliverance rejects could easily have caused another OK Corral.

  2. So what is their point exactly? That gun ownership also allows you to be a ridiculous asshole? I feel sorry for that wee infant considering the gene pool. They are all concerned about their “rights” without considering the right of a proprietor to refuse service to armed, batshit, wingnuts that scare the shit out their other patrons. It truly begs the question “what’s your fucking damage?”

  3. Rights?
    Well yes, the Second Amendment…. Arguably the second amendment is invalid because it was created by a bunch of terrorists.
    We pick and choose what we consider to be inviolable law. The right to bear arms is linked in the amendment to ‘a well regulated militia’, and yet the definition of a militia, and of well-regulated is pretty nebulous.
    But I’d expect a ‘well-regulated militia’ to have regular training sessions, officers etc. And I doubt these muppets fit that definition. What they’re exercising is their rights to be offensive to others.
    And of course, the First amendment protects that.

    What, I ask, is their point? What are they trying to say?

Comments are closed.