arma virumque cano (et alia)
Look at the way she carries that gun, unsecured. Anyone, including a child could grab that gun.
It's not unsecured. There's a strap over the gun to keep it from being snatched or from falling out.
You can see that?
Well, at least its n a IWB holster. She still fits the bill of those "WalMart people" type.Tactical wise, in my own opinion, that's a bad move.
How can you tell that's a holster? I can't see it.
Since she is sporting the droopy pants fashion, if there was no holster, the pistol would drop down till the front of the grip was resting on the top of the pants. (Hopefully). Something is holding it up.
Ah, another chance to educate Mikeb. Look at her belt near the gun. Do you see the loops or clips? That's an indication of an inside-the-waistband holster.
That is indeed an IWB holster. You can see the clips that secure the holster to the belt fore and aft of the weapon. It is attitudes like this that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, because nosy people with an inaccurate understanding of what they see and what the laws are. I recently had to correct the manager of the sporting goods section at our local Mal-Mart when he told someone that it was illegal to OC in our state. I had to print out the USCCA website map to show him that Washington state is an OC state. Ignorance can be cured with education, but you can't fix stupid.
Here's an angry bitch with a gun:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/dunkin-donuts-employee-beating_n_3800910.html
Thanks, Jim, I just posted that one.
Another? So you two think This woman qualifies as an Angry Bitch? And that she deserves to be lumped in with a couple of criminals who committed an aggravated assault? How so?
No one said "another" except you? And you wonder why I call you a liar from time to time.
I'll take that back. I read Jim's post quickly as I scanned the page. Should have gone back and re-read his comment before posting like I usually do.
And as for your remark about me lying, Yes, I screwed up this time because I read and replied too fast, and I freely admit that. If you think I'm wrong about something, show me where I'm wrong and I'll gladly admit to it and amend my thinking.
Thanks for admitting. Greg, are you paying attention?
Always. When I get something wrong, I say so.
Prove it, and I do it. That's prove, not claim, by the way.
Pitiful, but not surprising. Walmart stores are VERY permissive to gun carrying, and it has come back to bite them. As I've chronicled at the Walmart Shootings blog, there have been at least 10 incidents with legal conceal carry gun owners carrying their guns at Walmart in the past year and a half (including accidents and intentional shootings), not to mention the continuing litany of shootings that are occurring (it's up to 44 shootings so far this year at their stores, not counting all the non-shots-fired incidents, which include at least 38 armed robberies). http://walmartshootings.blogspot.com
I see you're still lying about the nature of that site. You are a representative of a gun control group, but you claim that the blog is not associated with such.
Hi Baldr, I imagine you won't reply here, but here goes. I have stopped by your Walmart blog and also noticed your deceitful claim that the blog isn't affiliated with any gun control group. Lets talk about Walmart. It has between four and five thousand stores serving millions of customers. And one thing I noticed in your record of shootings that you somehow hold Walmart accountable for. Twenty five percent of the shootings are police officers shooting at criminals, including an escaped convict and a child abductor. If you want to "blame" Walmart for all of these shootings, I'd say they also get to take credit for removing some criminals from the gene pool.