The Ever Expanding Second Amendment

Oh fer fuck’s sake:

Over the weekend, a soldier with the National Guard was told to leave his gun outside of the Nicholasville Waffle House or he wouldn’t be served. The situation is now getting national attention.

Billy Welch said that he stopped at the Waffle House Sunday morning for breakfast. He was in his Army National Guard uniform and had his gun holstered to his side. After ordering his food, Welch said that a waitress signaled for him to come over.

“I got up and I walked over to them, asked them how they were doing and stuff, and they said I’d have to take my firearm outside,” said Welch. “I don’t feel comfortable taking my firearm away from me. I always keep it with me and they said, ‘it’s one of our policies.’”

Welch said that he didn’t think too much of it, just told the waitress that he could not leave his firearm outside.

“You know, if I can’t have my firearm, then I can’t be here,” said Welch. “I walked inside to the other waitress. I said, ‘thank you, but no thank you ma’am. I’m gonna have to leave.'”

Welch started hearing from people and organizations all over the country after one witness took the details of the situation to Facebook.

“I have a bunch of family members and friends who have been active military and in the military and retired and it hurts my feelings when people disrespect them,” said Micaela Shaw, who was sitting in a booth nearby. “I just wanted to stand up for him.”

This is absurd. They didn’t refuse to serve him because he was carrying a firearm, they refused to serve him WHILE he carried a firearm in THEIR establishment. There’s a difference here, and it is crucial. His second amendment right to own a firearm does not supercede society’s right to determine whether or not we have to be around people with guns when we don’t want to.

What if this had been a bank instead of a restaurant? Would the headlines be blaring “Bank refuses to serve wingnut with manhood issues who needs to overcompensate by carrying a penis extension everywhere man with gun?” Of course not, because we all recognize that banks have a right to not have people packing heat in the lobby. The same with restaurants.

This country has lost its damned mind when it comes to guns.






184 replies
  1. 1
    EricNNY says:

    But he was National Guard, John. I can’t believe you have so little respect for our Soldiers…..

    PS. I’d have been outta there. Army veteran.

  2. 2
    dedc79 says:

    If President HIllary gets a chance to replace Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy, SCOTUS would presumably be primed to reverse the disaster that was the Heller opinion. But the price would be high for the Democratic Party. We need to change minds. I don’t know how, but we’re stuck with this awful status quo until we do.

  3. 3

    Is the National Guard less strict than the Army about carrying arms while in uniform, or did this guy violate policy?

  4. 4
    benw says:

    This country has lost its damned mind when it comes to guns.

    We apparently live in a country where “I don’t feel comfortable taking my firearm away from me.” is not considered a deeply weird thing to say, asking any fool in a uniform to do something they don’t want to do is “disrespectful”, and “standing up for someone” means posting word-salad on Facebook, so yeah, I think we’ve lost whatever damned mind we started with in the first place. Except apparently the waitstaff at the Nicholasville Waffle House; good for them!

  5. 5
    bystander says:

    Are there rules that an NG in uniform can’t leave his or her weapon locked up in the car? I’m a lot less bothered by a guy in uniform with a weapon than Billie Bob in bib overalls visibly packing heat. Grand Central Terminal has throngs of uniformed, heavily armed soldiers all the time. They’re usually clustered together chatting, so seldom does it feel threatening.

  6. 6
    BGinCHI says:

    If it was a cigarette he would have had no choice and there would be no outrage.

    What is the difference?

    In the minds of wingnuts, sadly it’s that they think guns are an absolute right. Against the kind of tyranny that often invades a Waffle House.

  7. 7
    Amir Khalid says:

    The story isn’t clear on this: Was the National Guard soldier carrying his personal weapon, or was he on duty and carrying a military-issue weapon?

  8. 8
    LWA says:

    This is why I keep challenging the “right” to carry or even own a deadly weapon.

    It isn’t enough to play timid defense- we need to challenge the root, and force people to question the basic framing assertions.

    Why is there some cosmic natural, axiomatic “right” to a pistol, but not an RPG? What moral logic says I should be allowed to walk around with a rifle, but not a grenade?

    Its kind of like how everyone grasps that 300 MPH dragsters should not be allowed on the streets, because driving a car itself is a privilege, because of how dangerous they are.

    Guns should be a privilege, restricted to those who demonstrate a rational need for one.

  9. 9
    charluckles says:

    If you can’t be out in a public place for an hour without a firearm you are exactly the kind of person that has no business owning and operating a firearm.

  10. 10
    g says:

    He was not disrespected. He was asked politely and he chose to leave instead. End of matter, except for those who want to exploit it for political means.

  11. 11
    Kryptik says:

    Guns are the only freedom that matters in this country. Clearly.

  12. 12
    Mike J says:

    What difference does national guard make? Lots of people have shitty jobs.

  13. 13
    dedc79 says:

    @BGinCHI:

    If it was a cigarette he would have had no choice and there would be no outrage.

    What is the difference?

    What they’d say is that there’s no 2nd amendment equivalent for cigarettes.

    What we’d then say is that this is a private business – they’re not bound by the 2nd amendment.

    What they’d say is nananananananana I can’t hear you.

  14. 14
    Luthe says:

    @dedc79: Oh, plenty of people are pro gun-control, but until we get rid of the NRA’s stranglehold on Our Fine Congresscritters there’s very little that will happen on the subject.

  15. 15
    Robin G. says:

    In fairness, it doesn’t sound like the NG guy thought it was that big a deal. He didn’t want to leave his gun sitting outside somewhere (probably smart), so he went on his way. But it got out, and now nutjobs gotta nut.

  16. 16
    catclub says:

    What is the latest on guns in your car while in the employers parking lot? They can obviously forbid guns in the workplace, but I thought there was a ruling that you could keep a gun in your car – even while in the employers parking lot.

  17. 17
    Adam L Silverman says:

    In partial response to Mnemosyne (iPhone), but as the general question that I have when I clicked through to check the news report and then came back, is exactly why was this Soldier carrying. If he was called up to State Active Duty (SAD) or under Title 32/Full Time National Guard Duty, then the Soldier may have been authorized to carry. If he was called up under Title 10/Active-Duty, unless he was either an MP or an exemption to policy was issued, he would (should) not be authorized to carry because of the Federal regulation regarding arming US uniformed military personnel in garrison.

    If this Soldier is simply a full time carrier, in this case open carry, carrying his every day carry (EDC) weapon, and was in his uniform en route to or from routine training or duty this could get interesting. And not in the Waffle House is going to catch six types of public relations hell. Depending on his activation status he may or may not have been authorized to carry while in uniform. If he was carrying without that authorization, then he’s got a problem under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If he’s wearing his uniform and he’s not activated under SAD, Title 32, or Title 10 because he just likes to wear his uniform, he may also have a problem under the UCMJ.

    To quote the late Mr. Berra: this ain’t over till its over.

  18. 18
    Adam L Silverman says:

    Here’s the link to the two page pdf explaining the differences in National Guard status:
    http://www.ngaus.org/sites/def.....tatues.pdf

    Knew I forgot something…

  19. 19
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @catclub: depends on the state.

  20. 20
    philpm says:

    @catclub: He wasn’t an employee of Waffle House, so doesn’t apply in this situation.

    Also, naturally the meme cranked up right away was “what if a robber came in, huh, HUH!” by the usual bunch of idiots.

  21. 21
    Mike in NC says:

    In 30 years in uniform I never heard of an incident like this. Why was the clown armed in a public place? If going to lunch, the weapon should have been properly secured.

  22. 22
    Hoodie says:

    The Waffle House is a dangerous place, never know when you might need to pop a cap in some guy for messin’ with your Texas Bacon Patty Melt. Of course, it would have been cool to deny him service fora his gay wedding rehearsal dinner.

  23. 23
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Adam L Silverman:
    My question exactly,but in more technical detail. We don’t know from the story if the soldier was supposed to be carrying that gun, or failing that if it was okay for him to do so.

  24. 24
    Starfish says:

    Pick a restaurant with a drive through asshole.

  25. 25
    Citizen_X says:

    “I don’t feel comfortable taking my firearm away from me.”

    Huh. So “comfort” and “feelings” are a thing in the military now. Never mind your orders or the regs then, soldier, gotta feel comfortable!

  26. 26
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @charluckles:@Amir Khalid: Its not clear and that’s going to be a huge issue. Apparently, even before the Chattanooga recruiting center shooting, KY authorized its National Guard Soldiers to conceal carry their every day carry in state facilities. This was clearly open carry…
    http://www.timesfreepress.com/.....es/315976/

  27. 27
    Sherparick says:

    20 years ago no one “open carried” who was not a policeman/woman or security guard. But the NRA and gun manufacturers, with the help of the Right Wing Industrial Media Complex, when on grotesque propaganda campaign that gangs of ravaging blahs and browns were out their attacking everywhere and you could not count on feeble Government to protect you, but must be armed to the teeth yourself. And then Obama got elected and carrying openly became a another totem of tribal affinity.

    Waffle House his private property and if other customers are not comfortable with armed nut in their midst it is their right to tell them we won’t serve you armed.

  28. 28
    Benw says:

    @Starfish: comment of the day, hands down.

  29. 29
    Poopyman says:

    @Starfish: Your failure to use a comma is refreshing.

  30. 30
    raven says:

    @LWA: There ain’t no other kind of weapon besides deadly.

  31. 31
    guachi says:

    As an active duty member of the US Armed Forces, I’m embarrassed. Why on earth was this guy carrying his weapon in uniform? The only times I carried my weapons on me were when I was training and we had to go basically everywhere with our rifle and pistol, or when I was transporting my weapon while I was in Iraq.

    We aren’t even allowed to have personal weapons on base. And if you do have one in your possession you have to be going to/from the gun range.

  32. 32
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Citizen_X: Its called sniffle gear. My night ops research manager, a retired Green Beret First Sergeant, used to give me (good hearted) grief in Iraq for packing a small sobakawa pillow into my hack sack when we would go and work off of the combat outposts or patrol bases. This lasted until our first night at one of the less comfortable patrol bases and he realized that now that he’d reached his mid 50s, using a helmet as a pillow was no longer a smart option…

    I love that old guy!

  33. 33
    Kay says:

    Having spent some time in Waffle Houses, late night, no one should have a gun in there. It’s weird enough.

  34. 34
    Eric S. says:

    @catclub: RE: Guns in your car in your employer’s parking lot.

    You are on their property and the last I knew they could explicitly forbid it. I know there was a case – I don’t know if it went to court so let’s re-term it a situation – in Indiana where a gun owner was challenging his employer’s right to forbid guns in the parking lot. IIRC the employer won.

  35. 35
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    This country has lost its damned mind when it comes to guns.

    I have a bad feeling we haven’t seen nearly the worst of it. However, the backlash, when/if it finally comes, will be the NRA’s worst nightmare.

    By rejecting any and all control legislation, they’ve forced the debate into either “everybody gets one issued at birth” or “BAN THEM ALL” territory. Eventually, because the pro-gun people refuse to acknowledge reality, we will see a comprehensive ban. Probably not in my lifetime, but we will see one.

    As for me, when these troglodytes show up packing, I make it a point to leave very publicly and to let everyone in the establishment know why at high volume. And then I follow up with management. People who insist on doing this are bullies and the potential for violence simmers very close to the surface with these folks. Not getting shot because some asshole was born with appropriately sized genitals.

    You are on their property and the last I knew they could explicitly forbid it. I know there was a case – I don’t know if it went to court so let’s re-term it a situation – in Indiana where a gun owner was challenging his employer’s right to forbid guns in the parking lot. IIRC the employer won.

    @Eric S.: FedEx bans them nationally on their premises. They have never lost a challenge to that policy.

  36. 36
    dr. luba says:

    @guachi:

    We aren’t even allowed to have personal weapons on base. And if you do have one in your possession you have to be going to/from the gun range.

    This. I’m not now, nor have ever been in the military, but recall hearing this many a time. No weapons on base.

  37. 37

    The soldier seems to have been entirely polite about it. If he doesn’t want to leave his gun behind, he accepted that he can’t eat there and didn’t make a scene. And yet complete strangers are outraged, supposedly on his behalf.

    @Luthe:
    I will point out that the NRA are not the people coming out in droves to defend this guy. It is the little people, the voters. Most voters may support gun control, but the nutcases against it are frothingly passionate.

  38. 38
    eric says:

    strikes me that this something the free market can settle. Waffle House #1: “No open firearms”; Waffle House #2: “No firearms”; and Waffle House #3: “No Holds Barred”

    There will likely be regional differences.

    But anyone (with or without a firearm) that even goes to a bar that allows firearms is flirting with disaster.

    EDIT TO ADD: i am not advocating, i am merely pointing that I think that the world would choose less guns, not more.

  39. 39
    cmorenc says:

    @dedc79:

    If President HIllary gets a chance to replace Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy, SCOTUS would presumably be primed to reverse the disaster that was the Heller opinion.

    I doubt a court re-aligned 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of a more moderate/mildly liberal court would directly overrule Heller – instead, they would probably focus on the “well-regulated militia” language to substantially whittle back the potential scope of 2A limits on regulating or restricting firearms toward a more reasonably modest scope for home/self-defense and hunting.

  40. 40
    Brachiator says:

    His second amendment right to own a firearm does not supercede society’s right to determine whether or not we have to be around people with guns when we don’t want to.

    Yes it does, dammit. This here is America, and the 2nd Amendment is so sacred that America won’t be America until we can genetically engineer Real American babies who will come sliding out their mamma’s lady parts with a pistol in one hand and an American flag in the other.

  41. 41
    Matthew Prior says:

    I was in the Army Reserve, and the rare time we had weapons outside of the reserve center (going to Ft. Lewis for FX etc.) we were in a group and someone took turns standing outside with the M16s and the handguns if we stopped to eat.

  42. 42
    gvg says:

    How about a businesses right to not have someone scare away their customers. In spite of what the gun nuts think, if I see guns often in some place of business (other than a gun store OK) I will grab my child and leave. this includes Walmart which carries guns as well as normal things. Frankly I would prefer it if department stores that had gun sales made seperate rooms for gun sales like they used to do with liquor. It’s not just the gun buyers themselves, its also the cops over reactions. These right to carry anywhere laws are really hurting business.
    That this guy actually said he was uncomfortable going without his gun makes me consider him a dangerous nut and if I were the NG, I’d be looking to discharge him. Not rational.

  43. 43
    dedc79 says:

    @cmorenc:

    they would probably focus on the “well-regulated militia” language to substantially whittle back the potential scope of 2A limits on regulating or restricting firearms toward a more reasonably modest scope for home/self-defense and hunting.

    That would amount to overruling Heller though, wouldn’t it? Heller was the first time the Supreme Court set aside the “well-regulated militia” language and recognized an unprecedented individual right to bear arms.

  44. 44
    SatanicPanic says:

    I imagine there’s some overlap between people angry at Waffle House and with people who think the Constitution protects their right to refuse to serve black people

  45. 45
    Tinare says:

    If I had a time machine the first thing I would do would be to go back and have a stern talking to with the Convention about that amendment. I don’t think they could have imagined how it would be interpreted.

  46. 46
    eric says:

    @Tinare: i might have taken a run at 3/5s, then that one ;)

  47. 47
    kc says:

    “I don’t feel comfortable taking my firearm away from me. I always keep it with me “

    Fuckin’ weenie.

  48. 48
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    In the minds of wingnuts, sadly it’s that they think guns are an absolute right. Against the kind of tyranny that often invades a Waffle House.

    @BGinCHI: Took my wife to the South, she’d never been. Decided to throw her in the deep end and take her to Waffle House. In South Carolina.

    Sure as shit, some middle-aged white guy sitting there with a gun on his belt. She frankly was far less traumatized by that than by the menu designed for people who cannot read. And by the hygiene. Hell, it was the cleanest Awful House I’d ever been in, but she wouldn’t even set her purse down anywhere.

    Rest of the trip was great, but I figured she should get a taste of the real South before we did the beaches and gourmet restaurants and all that.

  49. 49
    Cervantes says:

    @Poopyman:

    Not to mention a hyphen.

  50. 50
  51. 51
    kc says:

    Do a Google news search for Waffle House and you see 50 hysterical headlines: “Waffle House Refuses Service to Uniformed Soldier”

  52. 52
    low-tech cyclist says:

    Shorter gun nuts: our right to carry trumps private property rights!

  53. 53

    @SatanicPanic:
    Cliven Bundy thinks so. So does Stormfront. Oathkeepers don’t want to say it, but could be taken as evidence.

  54. 54
    dedc79 says:

    @Tinare: “The right to bear arms while in service of a state militia shall not be infringed.” That would probably have done the trick.

  55. 55
    Poopyman says:

    @Cervantes: What? There are no hyphens on assholes. They’re on vaginas.

  56. 56
    raven says:

    “Unfortunately, we have been besieged with a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the incident with the National Guardsman, Mr. Welch, at one of LexiDan Foods Waffle House establishments. The facts are simple. We do have a policy posted on our Waffle House franchise buildings stating our policy in permitting firearms in our buildings. We normally are very loose on how we enforce that policy in terms of the military. However, on this particular incident, two facts have not been reported accurately that facilitated the situation with Mr. Welch. First, he was an active participant in a fight on the premises several weeks prior to September 27th. He was restrained and taken off the premises by off-duty police officers that were eating in the restaurant at the time. The second item not reported accurately was the time the most recent incident occurred, 2AM. We have associates who have to make snap decisions on our third shifts to provide for their own safety and the safety of our customers. Our associates decided because of Mr. Welch’s recent altercation, which they witnessed, it was in their best interest at 2 AM to ask Mr. Welch to leave his firearm in his vehicle. Mr. Welch decided to leave. We still tried to garner his business at that point. I am supportive of my team’s decision. I was not there and will not judge their decision making after the fact. If this incident occurred at 10am in the morning and Mr. Welch had not been involved in a previous fight I’m sure the outcome would have been different. I feel Lex 18 did not do due diligence in their reporting. We are highly supportive of all our military branches and especially supportive of our veterans. I hope this provides some clarification on the matter. Thank you for taking the time to read this and understanding that in any business, judgment decisions have to be made to provide for the safety of our associates and customers.”

  57. 57
    Tinare says:

    @eric:

    Good point.

  58. 58
    Eric S. says:

    @eric:

    i am not advocating, i am merely pointing that I think that the world would choose less guns, not more.

    I can only speak intelligently for the north side and Loop are of Chicago I frequent but when Illinois was forced to legalize conceal carry they wrote into the law that any establishment serving the public could ban guns. All they had to do was post a sign, free download from the State, and put in the window. Those signs are absolutely everywhere.

  59. 59
    Patrick says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    The soldier seems to have been entirely polite about it. If he doesn’t want to leave his gun behind, he accepted that he can’t eat there and didn’t make a scene.

    And if he hadn’t left, I would have if I had been a customer. There have been to many accidents with idiots with guns. Kudos to the waffle house to sticking to their policy.

    I know it sounds crazy, but people that don’t believe in carrying guns have rights too. At least they should.

  60. 60
    Patricia Kayden says:

    “This country has lost its damned mind when it comes to guns.”

    Not all of us. I would be fine with gun laws like what they have in England or Canada. Seems like the 2nd Amendment is pretty much an “I can have guns everywhere without any restrictions” card that wingunts love to play. Private businesses, such as restaurants, should be able to say, “No, we don’t want armed customers in our establishments. It hurts our ambiance”.

    Why couldn’t this soldier simply leave his weapon in his car? He can’t eat waffles without it? Sigh.

  61. 61
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    @raven:

    IOW, “he was no angel.”

    I knew there had to be more to the story.

  62. 62
  63. 63
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @raven: But what do facts matter in such highly emotional situations? Let’s just railroad Waffle House based on a limited set of facts since that’s easier to do. Funny how Mr. Welch left out his recent altercation on the premises in the telling of his persecution story.

  64. 64
    Booger says:

    So, if a gay military person openly carrying goes into a bakery to order a cake for their gay wedding, or goes into certain KY courthouses to get a marriage license, what prevails?

    Or is that kind of a “tree-falling-in-the-woods” hypothetical?

  65. 65

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Thanks! I know that Cole and other ex-military folks have said that the rules about carrying weapons while in uniform are very strict, so I was surprised to hear about a guy tooling around town in his uniform with a sidearm deciding to stop off at the Waffle House.

    His “defenders” may end up getting him in trouble by rushing to publicize his story

  66. 66
    MomSense says:

    OH MY DOG. Why are people afraid to run errands, eat waffles, walk down the street, and do other ordinary life activities without having a weapon on their person? What is this nonsense? What in the world are people afraid of? The only rational concern at this point is that you may encounter one of these insecure, gun-carrying fools while out doing ordinary life activities.

  67. 67
    raven says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Hell ye they are. The other place where firearms are not allowed is the goddamn Veterans Administration facilities. These jackasses should boycott the VA too (of course then they couldn’t get their “free stuff”)!

  68. 68
    cokane says:

    @benw: Seriously. I read that line and was like wtf? Who the fuck is so terrified that they can’t even visit a Kentucky Waffle House unarmed?

  69. 69
    Amir Khalid says:

    @raven:
    Is there a link to that statement? I can’t seem to find it on their website.

  70. 70
  71. 71
    No One of Consequence says:

    After Sandyhook, I was optimistic. Six-year-old children, lives horrifically ended with a long gun by a deranged lunatic. And…

    Nothing happens.

    Nothing.

    NRA comes out stronger. Defying logic, good sense, or any conceivable rationale — their position is somehow, insanely stronger.

    Extrapolating from Australia’s Port Arthur massacre, (and making a completely unsupported analogy of proximate mental health parity with the blokes and Sheila’s down under) a change in America’s collective delusional mindset on firearms, will require a single incident of 612 to 613 dead and 402 or 403 wounded.

    My guess: a small team (5 to 12 or so) of high school social outcasts who game together online (one of the many shoot’em’up first-person shooters), and actively train online, will acquire a small arsenal and enough ammunition to be significant. They will construct rudimentary pipe-bombs, molotov cocktails and possibly other incendiary devices. The target will be set as a mall of not-inconsiderable size, and they will logchain the exits. The team will then proceed to open fire on the captive humanity, eliminating most all targets within the structure, before committing suicide as a group, or from being taken out by the eventual law-enforcement response.

    Until such a horrific crime is perpetrated, I cannot conceive of any event that will lessen the hold of the NRA on our collective fates.

    What a fucking country.

    – NOoC

  72. 72
    WJS says:

    Good order and discipline, son.

    I don’t know about other veterans, but I was specifically told not to go into public establishments in my battle dress uniform (BDUs) and I sure as hell was not able to take an issued weapon off post. The exception would be to pay for gas on the way home or in a dire emergency. Every time I see someone in uniform, walking around the mall or Target, I wince because the standards have continued to fall (and they weren’t that high to begin with).

    If this was his personal weapon he was carrying, sorry, son–you’re wrong. Your personally owned weapon should not be on your body when you’re on duty. WTF?

    If this was an issued weapon and he had his cover on, he had to know that going into a restaurant while on duty should have been a “get it and go” situation as well.

    No matter how anyone feels about the 2nd Amendment, you are in uniform and mingling with civilians. You do not inconvenience them or make them uncomfortable in any way, shape or form unless you are there to save them from flood waters or monsters.

    Good order and discipline while in uniform comes before wanking around with a sidearm in public. His company commander should initiate separation paperwork ASAP because he’s not a good fit for any decent unit anywhere.

  73. 73
    Matt McIrvin says:

    I disagree with John’s contention that there would have been no fuss if he’d been ejected from a bank. I think we’re pretty much at the point where a lot of people will insist on carrying there too. If robbers take out all the guards they can go all Die Hard!

  74. 74
    Cervantes says:

    @No One of Consequence:

    a change in America’s collective delusional mindset on firearms, will require a single incident of 612 to 613 dead and 402 or 403 wounded.

    No, if anything of that magnitude were to happen, we’d probably just invade Iraq again. What could it hurt?

  75. 75
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @raven: ” I am supportive of my team’s decision. I was not there and will not judge their decision making after the fact.”

    Props to this franchisee.

  76. 76
    raven says:

    @WJS: Guys in my time will love to tell you how they were told NOT to wear uniforms because of them fucking hippies waiting to spit on them (us). Then I knew lifers that hated the fact that we came home, grew out hair and still wore our shit!

  77. 77
    Cervantes says:

    @benw:

    We apparently live in a country where “I don’t feel comfortable taking my firearm away from me.” is not considered a deeply weird thing to say,

    asking any fool in a uniform to do something they don’t want to do is “disrespectful”,

    and “standing up for someone” means posting word-salad on Facebook,

    so yeah, I think we’ve lost whatever damned mind we started with in the first place.

    Except apparently the waitstaff at the Nicholasville Waffle House; good for them!

    Could not have said it better. Thanks.

  78. 78

    @raven:

    Waffle House banning a guy who had already started a fight and proceeded to show up armed at 2 am a few days later? I would have thrown him out, too.

  79. 79
    Honus says:

    @LWA: that’s pretty much what they were until about twenty years ago. To carry a handgun in West Virginia and most states you had to get a permit from a judge, by demonstrating a need. In West Virginia it was also illegal to have rifle or shotgun in a gun rack except during daylight hours during hunting season. Now everybody carries handguns everywhere.

  80. 80
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @No One of Consequence: That would probably just make the push to give the good guys their guns even stronger.

    I actually think it’ll take a civil war killing at least a million people and wiping out the current constitutional regime before anything changes. And the change may be for the worse.

  81. 81
    Honus says:

    @charluckles: this. Absolutely.

  82. 82
    DTTM says:

    It seems to me that a majority of Americans are reasonable and rational about guns and wish for more sensible policies. Sadly, the minority, egged on my the NRA and spineless politicians seem to have won the argument. If a member of Congress can be shot in the face, or 20 suburban 1st graders slaughtered and nothing changes–indeed, the minority have become more strident and emboldened–then I fear we are beyond the point of meaningful change.

  83. 83
    WJS says:

    @raven: Yep, if you returned from Vietnam, invariably you transited through San Francisco or Los Angeles and people did, in fact, spit on active duty members of the military. You’ll get endless arguments about it because it’s all anecdotal, however.

  84. 84
    Kropadope says:

    @eric:

    i might have taken a run at 3/5s, then that one ;)

    The 3/5 clause weakened the political clout of slave-holding states and probably ensured less pro-slavery legislation at the federal level.

  85. 85
    raven says:

    @g: As we exploit it for OUR political purposes!

  86. 86
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Cervantes: I hadn’t considered that. Sadly, you are probably more right than I am.

    But then again, that’s not saying much…

    – NOoC

  87. 87
    Poopyman says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I (who worked 3rd shift for a time in a similar restaurant) would probably have called the cops, which certainly would have escalated the situation. Props to the staff for de-escalating it.

    (Hey Cervantes! I found yer hyphen!)

  88. 88
    raven says:

    @WJS: I refer you to “Spitting Image” by Jerry Lembeck. He did a content analysis of news reports because he said it MUST have been reported somewhere. He found very little. As my buddy Karl, the door gunner said, “the only people that spit on me were cops”.

    People came home through McCord too. The Seattle hippies were especially mean.

  89. 89
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Matt McIrvin: I was assuming that there would (at least) be a couple of armed individuals in that captive mass. Perhaps security guards that would be taken out initially at the start of such a crime, or from private citizenry that happened to carry that day, but simply being outgunned by the criminals.

    Again, after Sandyhook, I really am at a loss of what it will take in order for all of our citizenry to say, ‘Damn, maybe we don’t need these things and can get back to fisticuffs to handle differences.’ Easier to treat black eyes than bullet holes anyway.

    Sadly, I fear, no such luck.

    – NOoC

  90. 90
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    Shorter gun nuts: our right to carry trumps private property rights!

    @low-tech cyclist: They do believe this.

    @raven: Too bad nobody will ever read that. In light of those facts, they absolutely did the right thing.

    ETA: I suspect he was there for score-settling, or thought he was in for some, which is why he didn’t want to leave his gun in the car.

  91. 91
    trollhattan says:

    @Poopyman:
    I was gonna say, Cole can probably find one of those in Vegas.

  92. 92

    @No One of Consequence:

    I saw an Australian comedian say that when the Aussie government announced they were banning guns after that massacre, the reaction from the public was basically, “Okay, we’ve proven we’re not responsible enough to handle guns, fair play to ya.” He was more than a little shocked by the American reaction to multiple similar massacres.

  93. 93

    @No One of Consequence:
    It will take reducing the GOP to a clearly minority party, or waiting decades until they are less racially desperate. Or both. Even most GOP voters would like gun controls, but they will not vote for anyone who might enact them. This is tribalism, driven by the constant terror felt by the harder racist wing of the party now that they see minorities everywhere in their daily life.

  94. 94
    Kerry Reid says:

    If I am in a public place and someone who is not clearly law enforcement* enters carrying a weapon, I’m leaving. I don’t have time to think about whether or not they’re a competent, albeit insecure, gun lover who simply can’t function unless they take their killing machine every goddamn place they go for “protection,” or someone looking to go on a spree kill.

    *Being a middle-aged privileged white lady, I generally assume I don’t have much to fear from trigger-happy cops. Which also sucks.

  95. 95
  96. 96
    trollhattan says:

    @WJS:
    GREAT post–appreciate the insight, as a civilian ignorant of the fine points, hell, most of the coarse ones too.

  97. 97
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Yes, I saw that brilliant piece too. Jim Jeffries is the comedian. I cannot recommend that highly enough. Worth watching if you can find it.

    It was also the aha moment where I thought a compromise might be possible. We tell the NRA that we don’t want to ban all guns, we want to respect the Constitution just like the rest of the ammosexuals. Our compromise is that they can have as many blunderbusses, flintlock rifles and muskets as they like. Nothing that fires a cartridge round, but as many you-have-to-prime-and-load-it weapons as they like.

    Sounds reasonable to me! In line with the Framers and Ammendmenters, doesn’t totally obliterate the gun industry, just seriously cuts back on the mass-casualty numbers.

    – NOoC

  98. 98
    Calouste says:

    So…, what’s the over/under that this guy actually isn’t with the National Guard but was just wearing a uniform he got from somewhere?

  99. 99
    raven says:

    @WJS:

    No matter how anyone feels about the 2nd Amendment, you are in uniform and mingling with civilians. You do not inconvenience them or make them uncomfortable in any way, shape or form unless you are there to save them from flood waters or monsters.

    Remember the difference Gen Honore made when he told his troops to stop pointing their weapons at the people they were there to help?

  100. 100
    trollhattan says:

    @No One of Consequence:
    I have basically the same sense of despair, just the sliver of hope that comes from knowing the percentage of gun-owning households continues to drop despite record gun sales. And yet when The Onion is the only news organization that can properly capture the NRA’s actual stance, we do seem screwed.

  101. 101
    Cervantes says:

    @dedc79:

    What we’d then say is that this is a private business – they’re not bound by the 2nd amendment.

    What they’d say is nananananananana I can’t hear you.

    They don’t stop there.

  102. 102
    Cervantes says:

    @Poopyman:

    (Hey Cervantes! I found yer hyphen!)

    It’s yours now. Use it wisely and in good health.

  103. 103
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @raven: and he is reviled as a traitor to the 2nd Amendment in the comments sections of most of the firearms sites.

  104. 104
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Cervantes: actually its a bit more complicated. There’s a lot of mixed opinion among those that comment on the firearms’ sites on this. A lot of the commenters argue that private property rights are just as important and that appropriately indicated restrictions by the property owner should be followed. Then there are the folks in the middle, splitting the hair, that go all legalese over the signage. For these folks if it isn’t in full legal compliance with the statutes that allow it, they’re free to ignore it. This is followed by the folks posting: “concealed is concealed”. Finally, you’ve got the folks screaming, in their comments, that “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEANS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” That’s usually followed by something about statists…

  105. 105
    raven says:

    @Adam L Silverman: I needed a trigger warning before I read that (s/)!

  106. 106
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: That is folly. I wish it were not, but I truly believe it now. The powers-that-be have a victory over me. They have beaten me down with their approach to politics, abetted by our ‘press’, and the worship of ignorance that has been gaining ground for the last few decades. I used to pay rapt attention to nearly all things political. After a couple of decades out of school, I realized that the whole thing is pretty much a rigged game, and that for the most part, myself and my fellow citizens hardly even matter to the equation anymore. A billionaire now because of Citizens United, can have the same political voice as a million run-of-the-mill Americans who can just happen to spare $1,000 to the party/prospect/candidate of their choice.

    Pubs aren’t going away. They have small tastes of victory all the time. Their rubes are ever-gullible. How else could they get them to the polls each election? God gays and guns.

    I’m neither the first, last, nor most eloquent: One of our two national political parties is demonstrably insane at best, and maliciously, actively sabotaging our democracy and way of life at worst.

    Had we the collective fortitude, will and intelligence as our Founding Fathers, we would take that Living Document, and implement a parlimentary system that would minimize the stranglehold our two corrupt political parties have on our governance. I am not sure how that would play out, but I would like to have other options than Bozo A for president and slightly-less-offensive (but demonstrably more sane) Democrat B.

    Something like 90% of Amercians (the carriers and abstainers alike) think comprehensive background checks are a good idea. Why the fuck isn’t this law already then?!

    – NOoC

  107. 107
    Paul in KY says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): I’m wondering if it was his ‘personal’ gun. I wouldn’t think the Gurad would let you carry around one of theirs while off base, etc.

    He might be violating some kind of reg if it was his own.

  108. 108
    Frank Bolton says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: Personally, I think that gun proliferation and American racism are kissing cousins. Personal firearm ownership is a huge plank of neo-confederate ideology. I won’t get into it too much, but let’s just say that the second and third waves of the KKK would not have been a thing without near-universal gun ownership.

    Now, talking about gun ownership in, say, the Rockies doesn’t necessarily have to be racialized. It’s crazy-talk there (and in a lot of ways its worse than in the South), but it’s not bigotry per-se. We might be able to wheedle some gun control regulation out of those areas. But in the South? That’s not happening until demographic sea change completely crushes confederate ideology. And even then, I expect pushback from entrenched organizations for decades.

  109. 109
    No One of Consequence says:

    @trollhattan: Holy shit dood, I had missed that. *THANK YOU* !!!

    It will get better, but I’ve no idea when.

    Peace,

    – NOoC

  110. 110

    @No One of Consequence:
    If the rich were truly in charge, and not just a factor, America’s credit rating would never have been downgraded and Medicaid would have expanded to all states.

  111. 111

    @No One of Consequence:

    I’ve actually seen arguments by gun nuts that the assault rate in places like the UK “proves” that it’s better to have guns everywhere. Of course, what the assault rates proves is that idiots all over the world are going to get into fights, but those fights are less deadly when guns are removed from the picture. Can’t convince a gun nut that it’s wrong to shoot and kill the person who wants to fight them, though.

  112. 112
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Over the weekend, a soldier with the National Guard was told to leave his gun outside of the Nicholasville Waffle House

    No way! An actual member of a well-regulated militia!

  113. 113
    Tommy says:

    @Kerry Reid: My state was the last state in this nation to do a carry permit. Supreme Court told us we had to do it. I live in a rural area. Guns all around I am sure. Not seen a single person with a gun on them. If I did I wouldn’t go back to that place.

  114. 114
    Jay C says:

    Lot of facts-not-in-evidence being assumed here, but what I don’t understand is why the Waffle House manager couldn’t have just asked Mr. (PVT, SGT, COL?) Welch to simply check his gun with the cashier or whoever,, and retrieve it when he was done eating? It’s understandable that, if he was indeed on duty, or heading thereto, or from, that he might not want to let his (?government-issue?) sidearm out of his possession, or not want to leave it in his car. But framing this as an issue of “disrespect”? -BS: as a business, Waffle House has the right to frame – and enforce – whatever policy on carrying firearms they want: the gunhumpers, as usual, are more wrong than right.

  115. 115
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: Without a 2nd Amendment repeal, which would take a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court to completely over turn the amendment, all that would happen is it would be handled piecemeal state by state. A number of states have their own state constitutional equivalent to the 2nd Amendment – some from the time of the founding. Many of the states that came in since the Civil War simply copied the 2nd Amendment outright. And there’s a whole bunch that have gone back in the past decade or so and reinforced and expanded there’s.

    While, to a certain extent, this would be something of a problem for the 2nd Amendment maximalists because they think that the 2nd Amendment should be fully federalized. Similar to what’s been done with the other amendments since the 1930s – even though many disagree with a lot of those applications because of separation of church and state issues. So national concealed carry reciprocity would be out. We’d basically just have the same patchwork we have now – some states have constitutional carry (anyone legally allowed to can carry anywhere its legal to do so – open or concealed); some have unlicensed open carry with shall issue licensed concealed carry with exemptions/caveats for certain locations; others have shall issued licensed concealed carry only; and even others have open carry permitted for shall issued licensed concealed carry. And there are a few states such as Maryland, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, and New York, which are all may issue with significant restrictions.

    Should a future Supreme Court return to a pre-Heller status quo that their is an implicit right for individual’s to keep and bear arms, as well as an explicit right to do so for self defense which is still subject to reasonable regulation, then essentially we’d have what we have now with the existing patchwork and people on all sides at the issue screaming at each other over whether an implicit right is still a right or whether that covers self defense, etc.

    The past is not past, it is not even dead.

  116. 116
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @No One of Consequence:

    Had we the collective fortitude, will and intelligence as our Founding Fathers, we would take that Living Document, and implement a parlimentary system that would minimize the stranglehold our two corrupt political parties have on our governance. I am not sure how that would play out, but I would like to have other options than Bozo A for president and slightly-less-offensive (but demonstrably more sane) Democrat B.

    I think this would make less of a difference than people imagine.

    In a parliamentary system, you wouldn’t be voting for president at all. You’d be voting for your party in Congress, which might be nicely suited to your actual opinions. But the prime minister (or whatever we’d call it) would be chosen by some governing coalition of parties, and if your party is a left-minority one, you’d be faced with either seeing them completely shut out, or going into coalition with the Slightly Less Offensive Party to elect a slightly less offensive prime minister, similar to Democrat B.

    Or, worse, going into coalition with the more offensive party through some ill-conceived stab at eleven-dimensional chess.

    Always remember, Australia put Tony Abbott in power. And their system seems structurally superior to ours in several ways.

  117. 117
    Frank Bolton says:

    @No One of Consequence: It does seem like a pretty intractable problem. But I think that sensible gun control can be done. It’d have to be done in steps. And it’d have to be done with the knowledge that leftists would have to be continually picking off gun proliferationists on the margin of the coalition.

    The first three steps would be to:
    A.) Reduce Middle America’s hysteria towards violent crime. Fortunately, the lowering violence rate does most of our job for it. When the face of gun violence becomes an angry militiaman
    B.) Tamp down on Middle America’s general fear. This is a big one. The key finding of Altermeyer’s The Authoritarians is that authoritarianism is a gradient in all humans. Some people start on one end of the gradient and others start on the others, but the point is that people can shift. And the biggest thing that influences authoritarianism is someone’s fear level. Things like economic security and health care, despite having nothing to do with authoritarianism per se, reduce its appeal by making people feel more secure.
    C.) Crack apart the alliance between social conservatives and plutocrats. The NRA punches way above its weight class, but only in the sense that a skinny 16-year old slaps around trained boxers because everyone knows that his dad is the consigliere to the city’s biggest gun runner. If the NRA wasn’t piggybacking on the apparatus that the plutocracy uses to fund climate change denialism and supply side economics, they’d be left in the lurch. And they’ll only stick up for a controversial organization like the NRA as long as they promise to bring out the gunclowns.

  118. 118
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Frankensteinbeck: I follow your rationale about the credit downgrade (but I wonder which Warbucks made cash on that debacle), however I don’t follow the logic ont he Medicare expanded to 50 states though. Can you help me understand that?

    Thank you,
    – NOoC

  119. 119
    benw says:

    @Cervantes:

    Could not have said it better. Thanks.

    Probably could have. You are welcome!

  120. 120

    @No One of Consequence:

    Again, after Sandyhook, I really am at a loss of what it will take in order for all of our citizenry to say, ‘Damn, maybe we don’t need these things and can get back to fisticuffs to handle differences.’

    IMO, about the only thing that would do it would be a mass casualty attack on the NRA convention.

  121. 121
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Matt McIrvin: Which, if you think of the Senate, is pretty much what we have now. A center-right faction, a center-left faction, a right faction and a far-right freakazoid faction. It’s just that the first two are one party and the latter two are another. So the president would probably be someone like Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer: a compromise between prominent factions. Hooray?

  122. 122
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Our political parties are actually a lot like the coalitions in parliamentary systems; they just have names and a longer-lived existence.

  123. 123
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): Yes, well there was actually a time when one could enter into a fistfight and have a reasonable expectation of living through it. These days, not so much. I agree, the gun-humpers think the whole world is going to draw down on them at any moment. The ones that make me laugh out loud at them are the ones that insist that their petty little arsenals are going to help them stand up against governmental tyranny. Bullshit, I laugh at them. Those poor deluded souls do not have a proper appreciation for what two squads of marines and an APC can actually *DO*…

    – NOoC

  124. 124
    Fred says:

    The “previous altercation” and 2:00 in the morning give this story a way different color than it read before raven posted. What I pictured as a polite young man in uniform, concerned abort leaving a weapon unattended in his car has flipped to a drunken Ahole looking for a fight or worse.
    No doubt I’m just as wrong on that score but the human mind has to fill in the blanks so we can see a complete picture. We are all characters in a novel we are writing. The 2nd amendment freaks are writing a Hollywood action drama and the rest of us are just expenable bit player. Some of us need to die to move the story along.

  125. 125
    Aleta says:

    @raven: In other words, this is an excellent opportunity for the totalitarian branch of gun-libertarians to practice their pure ideology. Information, reason, and consideration of others are not the goals of totalitarians and ideologues. The point is to whip up donations to organizations (that might employ them), and expand email lists that can harass politicians. (Show your support by shopping for another gun.) It’s about supremacy and dominance, so fighting fair just gets in the way of victory.

  126. 126
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @raven: Its interesting stuff. I wound up accidentally doing a guest post on German firearms restrictions and the hypothetical/conterfactual arguments over whether different rules would’ve given Jewish Germans a greater chance against the NAZIs, as well as whether the US Holocaust Memorial Museum actually covered this in their exhibits for the highest traffic firearms site on the web. Basically, I am acquainted with the publisher and sent him a note about the above that corrected some erroneous information in someone else’s guest post about the Holocaust Museum. He liked it so much he put it up as a guest post.

    Hilarity ensued! Some commenters actually tried to engage with what I wrote. Some got upset that I did not explicitly name check the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – I referenced the collective post 1942 European resistance, both from partisans (Jewish and non-Jewish), as well as by actual militaries. Many of these folks were themselves caught out for not knowing the difference between the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the latter, and much more successful, but still ultimately futile Warsaw Uprising. Then several folks who have seen me right on defense issues over the years jumped in to tell people that I should actually be listened to (I have fans, who knew?). Then one of the top commenters and firearms reviewers there, an older Jewish American from MA, decided to write that I was a self loathing Jew (based solely on my name) and took me to task for bashing the Israeli military. This, of course, was way outside the scope of what was originally an email about the Holocaust museum.

    Then, since this wasn’t intended as a guest post, I went into comments and introduced myself by providing my bio, including that I’m a specialist in low intensity warfare. This led to one of the other authors, who’d been a medic in OEF, to welcome me, several folks to thank me for my service, and several others to argue that despite my experience and credentials I was still wrong.

    And all the way through people were commenting about when the revolution against the statist government would start to take back America. Or who might be the right person to organize it. Or if there was really a leader out their to follow.

    All the way through, just like here when I post, I try to substantively deal with the commenters remarks about the post.

    Good times!

  127. 127
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Matt McIrvin: You are probably right, damn you. However, I like to fantasize that in such a system, the looneys would be marginalized as opposed to mainstreamed…

    Could be too much to hope for.

    Probably is.

    – NOoC
    And thank you for the reasoned and informed response. Typical, I get into these things at work, and cannot devote the appropriate time to reflect and respond to folks posting here. Much to my dismay.

  128. 128
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Paul in KY: check the article I linked to earlier. KY National Guard personnel are authorized, if they have conceal carry permits, to carry their every day carry gun concealed into state facilities. This was open carry. Which means if its not duty issued, then he’s got a problem.

  129. 129
    Cervantes says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    actually its a bit more complicated.

    Yes, it almost always is. But given that someone had said:

    Of course not, because we all recognize that banks have a right to not have people packing heat in the lobby.

    The list I cited shows that “we all” do not recognize this: some people think firearms should be allowed not only in banks, but also in malls, and grocery stores, and so on.

  130. 130
    Flatlander says:

    @raven: I think you left out paragraph 2, where they say “We were going to be quiet about your little, uh, problem, but you had to go and be an asshole about it, so here you go.”

    Next time, it’s the cops get called, ima betcha.

  131. 131
    TerryC says:

    @WJS: Yeah, anecdotal means not real. I was in Nam 67–71, several times, and was welcomed back with flags, parties, and greeting cards. There is a lot of misremembering going which, I think, is covering for the veterans’ realization that they had been had by the government and war mongers which, of course, they can never consciously perceive.

  132. 132
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Frank Bolton: A and B I get, and I think that we are on our way there. Part C, I don’t really see how that can be accomplished. We are rapidly approaching a Neo-Feudal state in our modern civilization. Lords will be replaced by corporations. Vassals will be fed so long as they accomplish a task that has not yet / can not yet be offloaded to robotic labor.

    Capital interests will, of course, own the robotic means of production…

    Again, thank you very much for the reasoned response. You have given me some good thought fodder. Much appreciated.

    – NOoC

  133. 133
    D58826 says:

    @benw: No the country has just lost its mind period.

  134. 134

    @No One of Consequence:
    Medicaid money does not go to poor people. It helps poor people, but it goes to businesses, especially hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Expanded Medicaid is a very pro-business position. Refusing to expand medicaid only benefits racists.

  135. 135
    rikyrah says:

    Count me among those who would leave if they see someone coming in with a gun. don’t have time for explanations.

  136. 136
    raven says:

    @Adam L Silverman: I wonder what Pat Lang thinks?

  137. 137
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Roger Moore: As good a place as any. I was hoping for something more dramatic, like the publicly-aired karmic come-uppence of one LaPierre. Something like a televised hostage taking, enhanced interrogation and the inevitable, embarrassing, involuntary loosening of his bowels on live TV to compliment his position on the 2nd ammendment.. Followed shortly by a retraction of each and every pro-gun policy position for which he has stood and that the NRA supports.

    – NOoC

  138. 138
    raven says:

    @TerryC: Welcome home brother!

  139. 139
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    @cokane:

    I’ve been in a few Waffle Houses where I’ve wished I was armed.

  140. 140
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @No One of Consequence: I had a conversation Monday night with a very good friend who is a cop. He indicated that while its anecdotal, every cop he’s talked to about it here in FL, inside and outside his own department, think that given FL’s current stand your ground law we’d be better off with open carry not concealed. Apparently what he’s hearing from other cops is that they seem to get a lot of cases where it appears that two licensed concealed carriers are trying to egg on the other into doing something in an altercation so they can stand their ground.

    Again, anecdotal. He’s not seen any attempt to systematically quantify or qualify this, but given that FL’s stand your ground law states that one has to feel threatened, which is, itself, subjective, that doesn’t surprise me. Moreover, we do have good evidence from St. Pete Time’s reporting that their is a significant percentage of stand your ground claims in shootings where there are no witnesses and no close circuit surveillance. So there’s no one and nothing to contest the claim that one had to stand their ground because of a perceived threat.

  141. 141
    raven says:

    @rikyrah: Wonder what people will say in LA @ 3:3o am Monday when I show up with two big guns cases!

  142. 142
    raven says:

    @J.D. Rhoades: And the LAST thing anyone would want to do was hand over a weapon to someone who fucking works there!

  143. 143
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @raven: Click over and find out. I honestly don’t know. And even if I did, I would not presume to speak for him.

    I owe him a debt I can’t repay him, because he simply doesn’t need anything from me, for training me for my assignment in Iraq and work for the Army. And for mentoring me over the years. His views are his own. I agree with some of them and not with others. But if you want to know what he thinks, you’ll need to click over to his site to find out.

  144. 144
    raven says:

    @Adam L Silverman: I know, I really like your stuff there and SOME of his are really informative. I simply quit posting there when he banned me and then let me back.

    I was just sort of kidding!

  145. 145
    Paul in KY says:

    @Adam L Silverman: In KY anyone who legally owns a gun can ‘open carry’ (subject to some restrictions in Louisville, I think). If that was his own gun (not a military issued sidearm), then if National Guard specifically prohibits you having a non-government-owned firearm displayed (i.e. in the holster), then he’s in trouble (I guess).

  146. 146
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Adam L Silverman: Honestly Adam, I would expect that. Florida degrading to the point where it is the Wild West again. Draw! Bang bang bang.

    Is it legal(ly defensible) to shoot Trayvon Martin’s killer on site? I’d feel threatened if he was within eyesight of me. If I was armed, woudn’t it be conceivable that I felt in imminent danger because of his proven track record of violent behavior, aggression and oh yeah, the dead skittles and ice tea drinking teenager who was beating the crap out of him?

    I understand Stand Your Ground. They are trying to get that ridiculous shit passed here in Iowa. Nucking futs.

    And a huge problem I *do* have with the legislation is the PURE subjectiveness of it. I feel lots of things. Rarely threatened. But if a feeling is all I need to go on, my behaviour would become more questionable almost immediately…

    Florida. Won’t darken that state’s borders anytime soon. Floridaman can have it uncontested. Enjoy your swamp, humidity and Mickey; poor bastards.

    – NOoC

  147. 147
    skerry says:

    @Cervantes: But no open carry into Congress.

    Myself, I do not want to see armed, uniformed soldiers walking around. The military are not law enforcement. This includes an uniformed National Guardsman at 2am in a public restaurant.

  148. 148
    Rasputin's Evil Twin says:

    @charluckles: Or being out in public at all.

  149. 149
  150. 150
    sukabi says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone): don’t know if they’ve changed policy, but it used to be that if you weren’t in the field doing some training requiring your weapon, or an MP, then it had to be checked into the armory. You couldn’t just carry them around Willy nilly. National guard should have the same regs.

  151. 151
  152. 152
    rdldot says:

    @raven: Good for him for standing up for his people, too!

  153. 153
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @No One of Consequence: Its really not that bad here. Though the Baxley Amendment, DBA FL’s Stand Your Ground Law, was poorly written. Baxley, a state legislator from up Betty C’s way, didn’t actually write the language. It was provided to his office by Marion Hammer one of the state’s premier lobbyists, as well as the senior NRA person in the state at the time. If I’m recalling correctly, ALEC may have also had a hand in it.

    At the time it passed many folks tried to point out that, even though they supported an expansion of the castle doctrine, Baxley’s amendment was poorly written because of the subjectivity component it created. Baxley denied it. There were a number of op-eds and other comments that facetiously made the argument that Baxley, and his legislative actions, scared them and therefore they should be justified in taking him out. When Trayvon Martin was shot, Baxley repeatedly gave interviews where he asserted that stand your ground could not apply to that case. And Zimmerman’s defense team did not mount a stand your ground defense, though my understanding is that the jurors were still influenced by that concept.

    As to Zimmerman: my take is that his recent social media activity is intended to actually create this type of situation. He’s acting out and making outrageous statements in the attempt of getting someone so riled up as to start a confrontation with him that he can then finish. I personally think he should’ve been convicted of at least manslaughter, but the jury acquitted him and we have to live with that. But its clear he needs professional help.

  154. 154
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @sukabi: If you live on post, then you have to have approval from the Provost Marshall (or service equivalent) on behalf of the garrison/base commander to have your personal firearm on base. It must then be registered with the Provost Marshall’s Office and stored in the armory. It may be checked out for personal use.

    I’m not aware of anything that authorizes the open carry of a personal firearm while on duty status and in uniform. A service issued weapon – yes, but not a personal one.

  155. 155
    MyName says:

    Clearly, this is a white soldier. Black people who refuse to put down their weapons are swatted and frequently killed.

  156. 156
    benw says:

    @D58826: We had a mind?

  157. 157
    trollhattan says:

    @raven:

    And the LAST thing anyone would want to do was hand over a weapon to someone who fucking works there!

    Plus, the owner (or corporation if it’s a chain) would absolutely NOT want an employee handling a firearm on the job, as a part of their jerb duties. The potential liability is mind-boggling irrespective of the fact these are minimum-wage folks working the late shift.

  158. 158
    Cervantes says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Baxley, a state legislator from up Betty C’s way, didn’t actually write the language.

    Funny thing about Dennis Baxley: he owns a string of funeral homes …

    If I’m recalling correctly, ALEC may have also had a hand in it.

    Other way around: ALEC took what Hammer/Baxley did and adapted it for use elsewhere.

  159. 159
    Frances says:

    So the place that people go to after a night of drinking does not want people to bring guns into the building. Make sense to me.

    The servers should not be put in a position to have to make these decisions therefore there is a policy.

  160. 160
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @Cervantes: couldn’t remember the direction of ALEC’s travel on that one.

  161. 161

    @Adam L Silverman:

    I think the link I had for it is now dead, but IIRC Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as enacted with the amendments added extra subjectivity to the self-defense law.

    Here in sunny California we’ve had the castle doctrine and stand your ground laws for over a century, but the difference here is that if you started the fight, you legally cannot claim self-defense if the other guy ends up dead. That is not the case with Florida’s law, where either party in a fight can claim self-defense because they felt threatened. It’s basically legalized dueling brought back to life.

  162. 162
    J.D. Rhoades says:

    @trollhattan:

    Plus, the owner (or corporation if it’s a chain) would absolutely NOT want an employee handling a firearm on the job, as a part of their jerb duties. The potential liability is mind-boggling irrespective of the fact these are minimum-wage folks working the late shift.

    Entirely possible that some of them would be convicted felons and thus committing another felony by possessing a firearm.

  163. 163
    Starfish says:

    @Poopyman: I laughed until I almost cried.

  164. 164
    No One of Consequence says:

    @Adam L Silverman: I probably came across as absolutist in that last response. I am not. I know that there must be (I mean come one, mathematically there almost has to be) a few sane people in Florida. I have been to the state several times, but largely only saw golf courses. And this has been more than a decade or two ago.

    FloridaMan is an amusement. Stand Your Ground (or Baxley’s law) is flawed, IMHO, and I agree with Memnosyne who posted about legalized dueling brought back. Seems that way to me, but dueling had a sense of honor to it. There were rules. “I feel threatened!’ is not sufficient, IMHO for the taking of a life. Castle doctrine is long-established law, dating back hundreds of years. IANAL, but my feelings would be different were someone to break into my home and threaten my family. I get the castle doctrine, it is understandable to me.

    I concur that Zimmerdouche deserved at least manslaughter. At the very least. Now, I assume that his days will end with his lifeblood spilling out onto the pavement after a questionable altercation with another gun-humper. One can hope anyway.

    I should not diss the whole state of Florida, but I am still going to carry the grudge of the hanging chads and put a significant amount of blame at the feet of collective Florida for sentencing us to 8 years of C+ Augustus. I know it was the Supremes, but if you bastards had had optical scanning machines, we probably wouldn’t have had the Mess’o’Potamia. I doubt Gore would have gone that route.

    Just my $0.02. Mostly worthless I know.

    – NOoC

  165. 165
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @No One of Consequence: I knew you weren’t being absolute. No worries here.

  166. 166
    JaneE says:

    @eric: That would have given the south a lock on representation in the house. Not a good idea, in my opinion.

  167. 167
    Bokonon says:

    So – the owner of a business can’t ask people to leave their guns outside somehow. Got it.

    Why does the right wing hate personal property rights so much? That’s what I want to know.

  168. 168
    Blue Stater says:

    @charluckles: Exactly right. Furthermore, I can’t believe there aren’t DOD regulations prohibiting soldiers from carrying weapons into civilian establishments when they are off duty. if he was *on* duty, what was he doing in that restaurant? Rampant gun-buttery.

  169. 169
    KS in MA says:

    @raven:

    Thanks for the link. That looks like one of those books I always wished someone would write.

  170. 170
    J R in WV says:

    @Honus:

    In W Va CCW permits USED to come from a county judge, that’s how Mrs J got hers. Now they’re issued by your county Sheriff after you take a class on self-defence law and gun safety, pass a test, shoot with the instructor, and submit your cert from hyour class to the Sheriff’s office.

    Then they do a background check to see if you have any domestic violence incidents on your record, etc, etc. They you get a diploma-sized permit, and a reduced size laminated wallet permit to carry. You have to have both that permit and a picture-id to carry concealed.

    As far as I know open carry has always been permitted in WV, except for conditions related to hunting regulations, which are pretty strict, and enforced by DNR Police who are used to every person they talk to being armed. Pretty hard core LEOs in DNR.

    At first I was giving this guy in the Waffle House a point for preferring not to leave his weapon unattended in his vehicle, but after Raven’s update on the circumstances, NAW, Just a Kentucky Redneck with no manners, should have still been in jail from the first event at that restaurant, er, Waffle House.

  171. 171
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I saw an Australian comedian say that when the Aussie government announced they were banning guns after that massacre, the reaction from the public was basically, “Okay, we’ve proven we’re not responsible enough to handle guns, fair play to ya.”

    I think it’s been fairly well established over recent years that, in spite of possessing so many of them, Americans are really shit at guns.

  172. 172
    Bulletin 1147 says:

    @trollhattan: The best part of that Onion article is the caption to the picture of kids. I had to count twice.

  173. 173
    J R in WV says:

    @raven:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    One or the other of you guys (or both) need to post links so the rest of us can catch up with you. Articles solicited and posted, names dropped I’m not familiar with. etc, etc I’m just a country boy up a holler in the country.

    Raven, what you gonna carry in those big gun cases? To LA? Something for the wedding, my bet.

    Adam, no offense, I enjoy your informed comments with which I mostlyl agree, just want links to the internal references. Thanks All,

    JR

  174. 174
    yet another jeff says:

    @LWA:
    Well, yeah…because the NHRA is a proper sanctioning body, unlike the NRA…

  175. 175
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    When Trayvon Martin was shot, Baxley repeatedly gave interviews where he asserted that stand your ground could not apply to that case. And Zimmerman’s defense team did not mount a stand your ground defense, though my understanding is that the jurors were still influenced by that concept.

    My impression was that, while Zimmerman’s defense never used Stand Your Ground, the law was the reason he initially wasn’t even arrested (which was the thing that sparked the real outrage).

  176. 176
    WJS says:

    @raven: I served in Korea when General Honore was running 2ID and worked on his warfighter exercise. That man has no tolerance for any level of bullshit no matter what.

    @TerryC: And yet many, many still swear they were spit on! I am glad you were welcomed back and treated with dignity. You deserved that because of your service.

  177. 177
    sukabi says:

    @No One of Consequence: no, the participants of that will be oafkeepers and more militiamen, and other assorted good ole boys tired of the wait to “get their country back”.

  178. 178
    sukabi says:

    @Adam L Silverman: yeah, was talking about service weapon. Funny isn’t it how the the military has a better grasp on how dangerous guns are and doesn’t permit every insecure dipshit to pack them around at will.

  179. 179
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @J R in WV: Not sure which internal references you mean. Please let me know and I’ll see what I can do.

  180. 180
    J R in WV says:

    @Adam L Silverman: My bad, I found everything I was curious about via search-engine fu. I was talking about some guy you referred to w/o naming, but found the name in another post by Raven = Pat Lang, who I wasn’t aware of yet. An interesting site, pretty cut and dried, with me or against me kind of guy / site. Stonekettle is more my kind of site.

    Thanks though!

  181. 181
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @J R in WV: No worries. There’s a tab off to the right over there. If you click on the link you’ll find almost all my posts from when I was a front pager there. I have also done about a 1/2 dozen guest posts for Tom Ricks at his Foreign Policy site – though the last of those was in 2012 and I did one or two for Juan Cole on Iraq stuff when I got back.

    I think you’ve identified COL Lang’s editorial concept quite well. I will say, as I’ve said here before, on stuff dealing with the Middle East, war, military operations, intelligence operations – that sort of thing, you’re not going to find someone more knowledgable. Basically he’s forgotten more than most people ever learned and he’s not forgotten a lot.

  182. 182
    Adam L Silverman says:

    @sukabi: My impression has always been that because we have what we call a Zero Defect Army – meaning that one black mark can end a career given the up or out nature of the US military, is that the real concern is for negligent discharges. Essentially commanding officers and supervisory officers that have a Soldier who negligently discharged a weapon would/could be held accountable. This could potentially end a career.

    Even on base in Iraq, at least when I was there in 2008, it was condition green (no magazine in the weapon, no round in the chamber) on post and condition red off (magazine seated in the weapon, round chambered/weapon charged). Upon returning to base everyone had to clear their weapon – drop the magazine, rack the slide/charging handle to eject the unspent round. This was done at clearing barrels and either one’s battle buddy or the senior NCO in the returning element policed and verified the clearing of the weapon. There were many old timers, like my retired snake eater, who argued that the negligent discharges that did happen tended to happen during these transitional uses of clearing one’s weapons.

  183. 183
    2liberal says:

    just tell the RWNJs that it violates their religious principles to serve someone packing heat

  184. 184
    Tim Carter says:

    If this Guardsman wouldn’t have been in an fight altercation a week prior to where 2 officers removed him from premises then they probably wouldn’t have had an issue with the gun or if it was at 10 a.m and not 2 a.m.. He was previously intoxicated it is believed when he started the fight a week prior…here is the statement from owner Ray Daniels…Unfortunately, we have been besieged with a misrepresentation of the facts regarding the incident with the National Guardsman, Mr. Welch, at one of LexiDan Foods Waffle House establishments. The facts are simple. We do have a policy posted on our Waffle House franchise buildings stating our policy in permitting firearms in our buildings. We normally are very loose on how we enforce that policy in terms of the military.

    However, on this particular incident, two facts have not been reported accurately that facilitated the situation with Mr. Welch. First, he was an active participant in a fight on the premises several weeks prior to September 27th. He was restrained and taken off the premises by off-duty police officers that were eating in the restaurant at the time. The second item not reported accurately was the time the most recent incident occurred, 2AM. We have associates who have to make snap decisions on our third shifts to provide for their own safety and the safety of our customers. Our associates decided because of Mr. Welch’s recent altercation, which they witnessed, it was in their best interest at 2 AM to ask Mr. Welch to leave his firearm in his vehicle. Mr. Welch decided to leave. We still tried to garner his business at that point. I am supportive of my team’s decision. I was not there and will not judge their decision making after the fact.

    If this incident occurred at 10am in the morning and Mr. Welch had not been involved in a previous fight I’m sure the outcome would have been different. I feel Lex 18 did not do due diligence in their reporting. We are highly supportive of all our military branches and especially supportive of our veterans. I hope this provides some clarification on the matter. Thank you for taking the time to read this and understanding that in any business, judgment decisions have to be made to provide for the safety of our associates and customers.

Comments are closed.