Man walks into Walmart with rifle, body armor l ABC News

1. 2cnd amendment right and a constitutional protected activity. That’s a long rifle . Completely legal to walk around Walmart with that unless asked to leave by employees or a manager.

2. Honestly I don’t see nothing wrong with this it’s their right to open carry a rifle

3. 1:07 this guy clearly does not know what "heavly armed" and "military fatigues" means.

4. "Military fatigues" what?! I cant believe it, those must be the new Crye's NEP (Non Existing Pants) and the new Emerson Gear PBT (Plain Black T-shirt)

5. "Military style clothing carrying tactical weapons", what? a plate carrier is not military style clothing?! and "tactical weapons" what is that even suposed to mean, the guys had a glock and an m4, and both guns clearly had no attachements, so I dont get it.

6. Funny how a black man around the same age with a airsoft gun just gets gun downed immediately smh

7. if he was black he would’ve been killed on the spot.

8. He did nothing wrong.

9. Welcome to Springfield!

10. What if he brought it to protect him self?

11. Am i missing something? what law did he break? this guy is not responsible for other peoples fears.

12. Quit calling it "ASSAULT RIFLE" it is just a rifle.

13. Whats wrong with him doing that? Open carry is perfectly Legal.

14. He did nothing illegal. It's not his fault snowflakes overreacted. The only person who broke the law was the firefighter who pulled a gun on him. The man would've been justified in shooting the firefighter.

15. He is allowed to carry his weapon what's the difference between the fire fighter and the other gentlemen none … The fire fighter should have been charged for causing a panic.

16. Ummm the off duty firefighter was armed? What happened to conceal or open carry in Walmart? So now they only want civilians armed in their store when something like this happens. This is ridiculous this is why I never shop at Walmart make up your mind you liberal store

17. I live pretty close to this Walmart

18. AT WHAT FUCKING POINT DID HE STOP BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WITH THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS !

    > THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND
    The general misconception is that any statute or regulation passed by, or written by, "governmental" agencies or legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the LAW OF THE LAND . The U.S. CONSTITUTION is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND , and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement . It is impossible for a law which violates the CONSTITUTION to be valid . This is succinctly stated as follows:

    " All laws which are repugnant to the CONSTITUTION are null and void ." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    " Where rights secured by the CONSTITUTION are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them ." Miranda vs Arizona, 384, US 436 p. 491.

    Amendment 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment 2
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED . On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the CONSTITUTION) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Amendment 14
    All persons born or naturalized in the UNITED STATES (an AMERICAN) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the UNITED STATES and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UNITED STATES; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .

    Every society is governed either by the rule of law or rule by whim. The oldest political states were ruled by the arbitrary whim of a ruler or group of rulers. Rule by arbitrary whim creates a population that is trained to be submissive. The rule of law is rule by a collection of constant general principles. This means that knowing what is to be done within that society is always more or less a matter of logical inference and calculation. It places every person within the society in a position to judge the legitimacy of every act. If the state steps out of line everyone recognizes it, even if the policy remains in place for the time being. Under rule by arbitrary preference such a recognition is impossible in principle. The very popular doctrine that the CONSTITUTION has no objective meaning and therefore should be interpreted in whatever manner a judge, justice or "enforcers of such" "feels" appropriate is a doctrine of rule by arbitrary preference and not the rule of LAW.

    And it is meaningless for advocates of this approach to assure us of how carefully and judiciously the Progressive judge, justice, or "enforcers of such" intends to act, or of the many factors that he or she intends to consider . Rule by a “judicious” figure that is not bound by the letter of THE SUPREME LAW remains nothing but rule by arbitrary personal preference .

    Marbury v. Madison is where the Court gave themselves the power of judicial review. This is not a Constitutionally granted power. And therefore you as a American citizen have no reasonable requirement to obey such arbitrary whim . For THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH CLEARLY STATES . "… the right of the People to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ." (period)

    >"A Government is not legitimate merely because it exist."

    wan-towen, "resistant to control; willful,"

    >"If a "law" is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson.

    > "IS LIFE SO DEAR, OR PEACE SO SWEET, AS TO BE PURCHASED AT THE PRICE OF CHAINS OR SLAVERY?
    FORBID IT. ALMIGHTY GOD!
    I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE BUT AS FOR ME:
    -GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!-"
    ~Patrick Henry.

    > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety…" ~ Benjamin Franklin

    >indoctrination that "enforcers" of "law" are "good" and for "your safety" is a daily insidiousness. "Enforcers" of "law" have murdered hundreds of millions of people over the last 120yrs. They went from Peace to "enforcer". ~a mob "enforcer" is a member or associate of organized crime or corrupt political organization that is (responsible) -for handling those who do not go along with organization; policies, rules, and deals. "enforcement" often involves threats and/or actions of collecting fees, violence, beatings, kidnapping, and murder.~ Just like "enforcers" of "law" do every single day. > enforcer (n.)
    1570s, "one who compels, constrains, or urges," agent noun from enforce. Underworld slang meaning "violent intimidator" is from 1934, U.S. underworld slang. > enforce (v.)
    mid-14c., "to drive by physical force; to try, attempt, strive; to fortify, strengthen a place;" late 14c. as "exert force, compel; make stronger, reinforce; strengthen an argument; grow stronger, become violent," from Old French enforcier "strengthen, reinforce; use force (on), offer violence (to); oppress; violate, rape" (12c.) or a native formation from en- (1) "make, put in" + force (n.). Meaning "compel obedience to" (a law, etc.) is from 1640s. Related: Enforced; enforcing.
    > force (n.)
    c. 1300, "physical strength," from Old French force "force, strength; courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion" (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fortia (source also of Old Spanish forzo, Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis "strong, mighty; firm, steadfast; brave, bold" (see fort). Meanings "power to convince the mind" and "power exerted against will or consent" are from mid-14c. Meaning "body of armed men, a military organization" first recorded late 14c. (also in Old French). Physics sense is from 1660s; force field attested by 1920. Related: Forces.
    force (v.)
    c. 1300, forcen, also forsen, "exert force upon (an adversary)," from Old French forcer "conquer by violence," from force "strength, power, compulsion" (see force (n.)). From early 14c. as "to violate (a woman), to rape." From c. 1400 as "compel by force, constrain (someone to do something)." Meaning "bring about by unusual effort" is from 1550s. Card-playing sense is from 1746 (whist). Related: Forced; forcing.

    >"Listen, what's the most horrible experience you can imagine? To me—it's being left, unarmed, in a sealed cell with a drooling beast of prey or a maniac who's had some disease that's eaten his brain out. You'd have nothing then but your voice—your voice and your thought. You'd scream to that creature why it should not touch you, you'd have the most eloquent words, the unanswerable words, you'd become the vessel of the absolute truth. And you'd see living eyes watching you and you'd know that the thing can't hear you, that it can't be reached, not reached, not in any way, yet it's breathing and moving there before you with a purpose of its own. That's horror. Well, that's what's hanging over the world, prowling somewhere through mankind, that same thing, something closed, mindless, utterly wanton, but something with an aim and a cunning of its own."
    Steven Mallory, The Fountainhead (the beast is the symptom… ellsworth m toohey is the cause)

    > “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984

19. What are you parents feeding your game boy tardo kids these days….

20. https://youtu.be/1r9iK_wDGc4

21. What did he do wrong tho and I really don't care about the el Paso shooting because that's really just an excuse to promote the banning of guns, here in texas you sometimes see people walking around with ar's and its totally normal to some even me.

22. There’s no such thing as an assault rifle for the liberals/Democratsin the chat that stands for ArmaLite not assault rifle

23. Carrying is legal in the state, and recording is legal in the state. Sorry some Walmart employees aren't comfortable with the law but take it up with your congressman. The chud who actually pulled a gun out is lucky he didn't get shot legally in self defense.

24. It's weird how @0:34 he says military fatigues, but the person is NOT wearing military fatigues. Then @0:36 he says carrying an assault rifle, but there is NO evidence to suggest it was a select fire rifle.

25. Just like in the simulations

26. Firefighters do not routinely receive firearms training which makes irrelevant ABC's lame attempt to 'deputize' him. A civilian used a firearm to stop an armed bad guy, period.

27. A Mexican should have taken his gun and beat the brains out of his head.

28. The dumb-fuck-OathKeeper:"Fuck you! I have rights! Honor your oath!" (So-on and so-forth…..)

    All of us 2A supporters know what he was doing, but he's a serious asshole for doing it, now and in this method! He deserves jail or maybe even prison, but not Terrorism charges.

29. That's my nearby Walmart.

30. The eyes of the rangers are upon you

31. Man I’m glad I moved to Iowa

32. News states that the man was wearing a bullet-proof vest, "body armor" for people that don't have any knowledge about the terminology, but he wasn't wearing body armor. The man was wearing a plate carrier without plates. Why than the news would mention he was wearing a plate carrier and refer to it as body armor leads me to assume they have a motive. Of course it is interesting to note that Chuck Schumer the racist recently told media outlets his intention to introduce legislation that would ban body armor. Let me make something very clear, body armor primarily has always been a self-defense tool. To say that these mass shootings where the assailant was wearing body armor could have been avoided by eliminating their ability to wear body armor is dishonest. Or to say that body armor is causing all these shootings and crimes across the US is also statistically false. In fact, criminals that have committed a crime while wearing body armor makes up less than 1% of all crimes committed. Most criminals do not commit a crime wearing body armor, and that is true also for mass shootings. Believe it or not, hundreds of mass shootings occur every year; most from gang related shootings. Of these hundreds of gang related mass shootings that the news never talks about, most of the assailants weren't wearing body armor. This means that out of the hundreds-of-thousands of body armor plates and soft armor bought every year in the civilian market, less than 1% of them would have been used to commit a crime. The 99% of body armor sold that wasn't used to commit a crime was bought for the purpose of self defense. You know what other tool is misused often but not in regards to general every day-to-day use… vehicles. Vehicles are used for transportation but they are also used to evade police, as a get-away car, as a car bomb, to smuggle drugs in between Mexico and the US, to kill large groups of people, to kidnap people, etc. In other words, vehicles, like body armor, have a separate purpose but are also used to commit crimes. To ban vehicles would be counterproductive just as baning body armor would be woefully misguided. You want to prevent deaths as caused by mass shootings, well getting rid of the people's ability to wear body armor sure isn't doing them any favors.

33. White BOY!!!!

Comments are closed.