A South DaCola foot soldier sent me this today, apparently shopping at Sam’s club in soo-foo requires a gun, and well, a mohawk.
A South DaCola foot soldier sent me this today, apparently shopping at Sam’s club in soo-foo requires a gun, and well, a mohawk.
The photog was lucky the guy didn’t turn around and shoot him.
I have a feeling that if the guy would have turned around and pointed his Handy, this foot soldier would have handed his ass to him, I am just sayin’
Is the mohawk also a phallic symbol? Are we looking at a portrait of double insecurity in one’s manhood?
🙂 Cory I have often associated gun usage, big trucks, … oh nevermind.
The guy is shopping at Walmart, and He’s carrying a gun. What’s the big mystery?
It’s obvious he’s a teacher who can’t afford to shop someplace else, and he’s a sentinel in training.
His wife most likely gave him a honey-do list and he is just “git-R-done.”
I’m somewhat surprised this is allowed at Sam’s as many big box stores have signage on the doors prohibiting firearms.
Had it not been for the mohawk, I may have suggested he was a LEO, but pretty sure that hairstyle would not meet the criteria for any of our various law enforcement organizations or military branches.
One interesting point here is that he is openly carrying which anyone can do, but that you rarely see. On the flip side, concealed carry is only legal if you have the permit, and if you spend a day shopping in Sioux Falls there is a very strong chance you have encountered multiple people who are concealed carrying without your knowledge. It is extremely difficult to spot a concealed weapon especially in the winter when people tend to have coats on.
I suspect the man in this image is more about the shock factor than anything. That explains why he opted to let his wife use the Wahl clipper to shave his head like that and why he opted to skip the jacket and ensured his shirt is tucked behind the firearm just to ensure as many people see it as possible.
Sort of reminds me of those guys running around wearing their huge “Harley Davidson” jackets even in the dead of winter. What they are really doing is saying – “hey look at me I have an extension of my penis and I want everyone around me to know about it”.
Those ‘Harley’ jackets irritate me also.
T-shirt is faded… Does it say Security?
YEA! More places to carry guns!
http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/walmart-plans-to-build-two-new-stores-in-sioux-falls/?id=145028
I think the t-shirt says…”Janklow for Congress.”
Just what we need….two more Walmarts on the outskirts!
I do think anyone who complained about the proposed Walmart on Cliff should be banned from going to the one on 85th and Minnesota however. Seems only fair.
needs a winter coat and a new barber
needs a winter coat and a new barber
Winston – I think on the side of his head he had shaved ‘Spencer Tornado Volunteer’
M2C – gotta laff, I saw a lady wearing peddle-pushers, no socks and flipflops at Slumshine today.
Did I hear a few months ago, that it is now legal to be armed in the Sioux Falls city parks? It seems like I heard that someplace. What about in City Hall and the Courthouse? I think the whole gun bit is getting really ridiculous.
DL, maybe the hats were designed to cover up mohawks?
Joan, maybe they just want us all to go out and buy guns…. wait a minute that is their plan!
Joan – not sure about city parks, but Obama signed legislation allowing firearms to be carried in federal parks.
I guess the NRA owes him two favors… one for expanding gun rights, and two for the incredibly successful member drive he initiated.
I am really getting tired of people who associate carrying a gun with the size of men’s “egoâ€. I know women also carry (openly or concealed) but I really don’t hear jokes about them. Scott, do you really believe that this person would have turn around and shot this photographer? I am sure you don’t and that your comment was one of distain. MTC, I am sure you are just jealous he can have a mohawk.
I guess I don’t know what the photographer was trying to prove with this photo. It’s not a big secret that one can legally Open Carry (OC) in South Dakota without a permit. If it was because the open carrier was trying to “shock†people he did it, he got posted here on this blog.
I am jealous of the Mohawk, but not the gun.
I was told last night that Sam’s Club management was made aware of this photo on my blog, they seemed to be a bit concerned about someone carrying a gun while ‘shopping’. While what he is doing is totally legal, it still doesn’t change the fact he looks like a total d-bag fro doing it, hence the penis jokes.
Maybe he could have dressed better, but I don’t think that automatically makes him a d-bag. My point is that if he didn’t have a gun, this photo would not have been taken.
I am sure that after the managers from Sam’s Club discussed it and that there was support for the guy OCing.And I am sure they watched the video footage and saw that he wasn’t doing anything wrong whether or not he was “shopping”.
I’m sure he was just a good Christian exercising his God-given right to show off his guns everywhere he goes. I bet he’s worn through at least a dozen David Allen Coe 8-tracks.
I find it quite interesting that management at Sam’s is concerned, given the fact that the Walmart Corporation is one of the biggest players in gun and ammunition sales in the country.
http://corporateactionnetwork.org/2012/12/19/walmart-biggest-seller-of-guns-and-ammo-in-the-us
Winston – Walmart sells a lot of condoms too, but it doesn’t mean they want people having sex in the aisles.
Just sayin’.
But I am sure it has happened 🙂
Craig – So based on your logic sex is okay somewhere else and the use of guns, regardless of the usage potentiality, is okay somewhere else as well?…..Just sayin’.
The first amendment trumps the second? You all act as if the guy’s right to exercise his second amendment is ridiculous. Your bowels bind if you can’t speak at a council meeting but then make fun of a guy exercising the 2nd? Ok. I’d rather see a gun in Walmart vs 99% of the people on peopleofwalmart.com
NPO, what does this gun owner at Sam’s fear that requires him to do this? Why do I not have this same fear? Should I?
Or is it not fear, but rather just the mere exercise of a right? If it is just the mere exercise of a right, then what is the logic of the right other than fear? Protection, but is that not fear? The potential defending of self described values, but is that not fear?
Why do I not have this fear? Am I of limited mental capacity? Or is it that I believe the vitality and maintenance of all rights cannot be infinitely sustained with a gun, but you do.
If it takes guns, beyond a standing army to stop foreign invaders, then is not the outcome of first amendment rights (like city council meetings) a product of guns rather than the freedom of unintimidated thought and healthy political discourse?
When this becomes the reality, then how free are we if we are beholden to the intimidating qualities of evident firearms, and have you not perpetuated a fear, which apparently some have, and have lessened the atmosphere of free thought and democratic policy-making; which strikes at the heart of the 1st amendment and the rational understanding of the 2nd amendment and the entire Bill of Rights?
You’re right, NPO, I’d rather not be in the same building as a person with a gun…legal or not.
How low must his self esteem be to require a gun exposing in a peaceful, quiet place? Its like wearing a piece while going to church. What an f’in idiot. If he actually understood the history of the second amendment and its beginnings as a means to intimidate. I wonder if his employer lets him arrive at work with guns on his belt or in his 4×4 in the parking lot?
Very funny!
Winston, you are long winded (and you’d make a great attorney or politician. Attorney, right?). Why do you speak? Are you afraid someone might trample on your rights? Is it just to exercise your 1st amendment? Are we fear based here too?
Guns are not always for foreign invaders (you don’t know your 2nd amendment)! Nor are guns carried by citizens always for fear, although you may think that. I’d say guns are not for fear but preparedness. Are police always in fear? They carry guns. What about the Secret Service? Think of it as a spare tire, do you have one in your car? Are you afraid you will get a flat or are you prepared in case you get a flat? Boy scouts motto, but I’m sure you dislike them as well.
Scott, yes stay home. You’d be surprised how many people carry concealed. I’m sorry you are so sheltered but that is a fact. I’m sure there’s even a couple who come into Taco Bell.
Testor, the movie theater, church, university, mall, etc. etc. etc. were peaceful places too but they became unpeaceful because of a criminal, let me say that again, CRIMINAL (not law abiding citizen who you see above in the photo who did not shoot up “Sammies”. Plus, would the photog of this pic had the balls to take a pic of an actual shooter or would he been shitting his shorts? I’d say the latter. This photog is no better than paparazzi), who decided to make the place unpeaceful (although I’m sure that crazy f’er above would have taken care of the CRIMINAL) . Not a law abiding citizen who is exercising their 2nd amendment. I remember as a kid, guns in the back of many of truck windows. We’ve become a nation of pussies (no disrespect to women). The present lot included. You are a disgrace to our founding fathers and our Constitution.
So for all you sissies who want to make fun of the guy with the mow-hawk and gun, remember how small your penis is and how small your balls will be when a criminal with a gun confronts you. Let me know how all that talk is going to get you out of a sticky situation. Thank God it doesn’t happen in SD too often but that day may come.
NPO does not seem to know the reason the 2nd amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights. A side benefit enhanced the power of the southern slave owners. The Constitutional likely would have failed had Madison not agreed to its insertion.
Try reading about its history here: “The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery” http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery. This is not the story the NRA or ALEC want us to know.
This person appears to be letting us know he is in control and everyone has to know it. You do not strut around with a Mohawk and pistol in a Sioux Falls Sam’s unless you are pushing a point. I wonder what the store management would have done had they seen this jerk.
Winston: “Craig – So based on your logic sex is okay somewhere else and the use of guns, regardless of the usage potentiality, is okay somewhere else as well?…..Just sayin’.”
What mystery machine did you feed my words in to have it output whatever that is you are trying to say? That isn’t at all what I said.
I’m merely saying just because Walmart sells guns does not mean they want guns to be used or that they want loaded guns carried on their property. Just as they sell condoms they don’t want people having sex on their property, and just as they sell chainsaws they probably don’t want people starting them while shopping in the produce section.
That said, the legal usage of a product off of their property they shouldn’t care about, but they have every right to limit what is done in their stores. That is the beautiful thing about a free country – property owners can (and do) make up their own rules and provided they aren’t discriminatory or in violation of existing law (such as the ADA), they can pretty much do what they wish.
We don’t have to agree, but I’m sure we can agree that their right to do so should be protected just as our rights to speak in public or carry a firearm should be protected as well.
@NPO – I think you might be misunderstanding Scott’s statement. He said he would “rather not be in the same building as a person with a gun…legal or not.” That isn’t suggesting he wants to stay home or that he is scared, but merely that he would prefer there were no guns when he enters a building.
Think about it – if we could guarantee that no guns were in a particular facility, there would be no reason for someone like the man featured in the image above to be carrying one. Wouldn’t that offer a certain piece of mind? The truth is we don’t know this man’s history. He could be a nicest most level headed guy you have ever met and he might have 2400 hours of firearms training. On the flip side, he might be a racist redneck who just picked up a used gun at a gun show last week and is just looking for someone to make fun of his hair or his TapOut shirt so he can shove a gun in their face.
Truth is we just don’t know – we never do. There is no way to know whether someone who is carrying is mentally stable, or a future felon. There is no way of knowing how much training they have had or how they might react if someone else pulls a gun and starts shooting. There is no way of knowing their intentions, their skill level, how bad their vision might be, or whether they are currently taking 12 different prescription medications along with 3 illegal narcotics along with the 18 pack of Busch Light they finished off before dinner.
Therefore, if we did live in a world where we were able to enter a building and know for certain that NOBODY was carrying a firearm, wouldn’t that be a good thing? I’m a supporter of our Second Amendment and I have my own concealed permit, but I have to agree with Scott on this one… I’d rather not be in the same building as people with guns because there are just too many unknowns. It isn’t that I’m scared and it isn’t that I’m naive…. I just realize that all things being equal a place with zero guns is going to be a safer place than a place with them. Pretty hard to argue that point.
Craig – Your analogy between sex in the aisle and carrying a gun into a Sam’s store is flawed, because sex in the aisle is illegal and carrying a gun into a store in S.D. apparently is not.
That said, Walmart has established a higher standard than the State when it comes to guns, which is rather ironic when you consider the fact that they are a major player in the sale of guns and ammunition in this country. What does Walmart think people do sometimes with their guns….. maybe carry them around?
Furthermore, not only is your sex analogy flawed, but your chainsaw analogy is weak too. Carrying a gun into a store per se is not the same as shooting a gun, while your sex and chainsaw analogies express more than the capability, but rather the actual act.
My “mystery machine” merely demonstrated how you your initial analogy actually illustrated the hypocrisy of Walmart’s wish to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to guns.
NPO, no doubt I have inadvertently been in the same building as a gun holder. That doesn’t mean I’m happy about that fact. It also doesn’t mean I should never leave my house. I personally feel safer in a gun-free environment, and feel that the odds of a Columbine-ish attack on any place that I’m at is pretty tiny.
Winston: “Craig – Your analogy between sex in the aisle and carrying a gun into a Sam’s store is flawed, because sex in the aisle is illegal and carrying a gun into a store in S.D. apparently is not.”
Oh Christ on a tricycle – we aren’t concerned about what is legal – we are concerned with what their store policy is. You seem to want to debate this dead horse as if Walmart is being hypocritical, but that is an idiotic assumption.
They sell hundreds of thousands of products – does that mean they want to allow people to use all of those products indoors? If you want to speak about legality – show me the state law that says it is illegal to use a chainsaw indoors? Show me the law that says you can’t play your guitar while shopping, or the law that says you can’t skateboard down the aisles?
You won’t find those laws because they don’t exist, yet Walmart will almost certain toss you out on the street if you try to cause a disturbance in their stores will they not? Thus they are not hypocritical by selling chainsaws, guitars, or skateboards and not allowing people to use them in their stores – so how is not allowing people to carry a firearm any different?
If you don’t like their policies that is fine – don’t shop there. Seems pretty simple to me, but Walmart is no more hypocritical than anyplace else regarding the products they sell and what they allow in their stores.
Craig –
“Oh Christ on a tricycle – we aren’t concerned about what is legal – we are concerned with what their store policy is. You seem to want to debate this dead horse as if Walmart is being hypocritical, but that is an idiotic assumption.”
Craig, how do customers who buy guns and ammo from a Walmart leave the building? Are they escorted out? Probably not.
My comments are not “idiotic” they merely demonstrate the hypocrisy of Walmart’s business plan versus their apparent attitude towards its law-abiding customers bringing a gun on to their premises.
The fact that they one-up the State when it comes to gun control demonstrates a concern on their part, but it is a concern with a law-abiding citizen, which can only be justified if they know the dangers of guns. If guns are dangerous why do they sell them? Oh, I know you will come back with some analogy about something like how a comb can kill you and you can buy combs at Walmart, but you know what? How many people were killed by combs last year?
“They sell hundreds of thousands of products – does that mean they want to allow people to use all of those products indoors? If you want to speak about legality – show me the state law that says it is illegal to use a chainsaw indoors? Show me the law that says you can’t play your guitar while shopping, or the law that says you can’t skateboard down the aisles?”
What do these comments have to do with the price of tea in China? Once again, your examples are active, whereas having a gun on your belt is passive. They are not analogous.
“You won’t find those laws because they don’t exist, yet Walmart will almost certain toss you out on the street if you try to cause a disturbance in their stores will they not? Thus they are not hypocritical by selling chainsaws, guitars, or skateboards and not allowing people to use them in their stores – so how is not allowing people to carry a firearm any different?”
I did not know we had a problem in our country with people being intentionally killed with chainsaws, guitars, and skateboards. Once again, bad analogies. (Whatever happen the sex analogy?)
‘If you don’t like their policies that is fine – don’t shop there. Seems pretty simple to me, but Walmart is no more hypocritical than anyplace else regarding the products they sell and what they allow in their stores.”
Oh, I do not know, I think their business plan relative to guns is hypocritical in comparison to their attitude towards law-abiding customers carrying guns into a Walmart. Are they not proud of their product or their association with this type of product?
Perhaps the fact that gun and ammo manufacturers and their appendage marketers (like Walmart) are immune from product liability concerns, when the issue is a gun and harm, further empowers establishments like Walmart to live in this world of hypocrisy….just sayin’
Why are you such a corporate apologist? You name it, KELO, banks, or Walmart you just love answering to the “suits.”
“Craig, how do customers who buy guns and ammo from a Walmart leave the building? Are they escorted out? Probably not.”
I honestly have no idea as I’ve never purchased a gun or ammunition from Walmart. They may walk the gun to the front registers or they may ring it up in the department – not really sure. However, that doesn’t actually change anything because their guns are boxed, so once it is bagged it would generally be assumed the customer would carry it out in the box and bag – not on their hip.
Again – doesn’t matter. You could make the same argument about skateboards. If you buy one in Sporting Goods, it doesn’t mean they will allow you to ride it out of the store. Or since you seem to be so concerned with passive uses of products, just because you buy a bike from Walmart does not mean they will allow you to push it (never mind try to ride it) around the store – instead they will ask you to park it in the bike rack outside.
“My comments are not “idiotic†they merely demonstrate the hypocrisy of Walmart’s business plan versus their apparent attitude towards its law-abiding customers bringing a gun on to their premises.”
I disagree and have shown many examples of how their policies are not hypocritical. This applies to other stores as well, because I’m pretty sure I can’t expect to take a nap on the new mattress I buy at Slumberland nor can I test drive the new toilet I buy at Menards.
“If guns are dangerous why do they sell them?”
I think you are misunderstanding their store policies. They don’t have these policies because the product is dangerous – it is because the product may cause a disturbance. This is the same reason they may ask you to leave if you are wearing nothing but your underwear – you might not be dangerous, but you are more likely making other customers uncomfortable, and that is their concern.
So when someone walks in the store with a gun, I sincerely doubt they feel that person is going to go on a rampage (although this is Walmart so you never know). However, there is a very strong and vocal portion of our population which is either fearful of guns, or outright hates them – and these are the same people who would either voice concerns to management, or would just feel their lives are at risk and they would shop elsewhere. We don’t have to agree with their fears, but we can acknowledge they exist, and this is why I can understand Walmart having a policy against firearms in their stores. It isn’t about a threat of danger, it is about comfort level of the other patrons and a potential disturbance.
“Once again, your examples are active, whereas having a gun on your belt is passive.”
Are you seriously not capable of understanding how even a “passive” use of a product may not be allowed? So you think Walmart would be ok with you pushing your new lawn mower around in their store just as long as you don’t start the engine? You think they would be ok with you wearing a hockey mask and carrying an axe? Hey – you aren’t playing hockey and you aren’t chopping down trees, so that “passive” use of products you purchased at Walmart should be ok?
Stop being purposefully obtuse. It is fairly obvious it has more to do with the comfort level of customers and minimizing any sort of disturbance, and I don’t even need to get into the whole debate about the purpose of gun – because if you really want to argue semantics, a gun is in use when it is worn, because if you ask many gun owners they will tell you simply having the gun, or letting others know you have it is supposedly a deterrent… so perhaps wearing it is more active than passive after all.
“I did not know we had a problem in our country with people being intentionally killed with chainsaws, guitars, and skateboards. Once again, bad analogies.”
I get the feeling you just enjoy arguing thus any analogy is unacceptable to you. You are debating minor, trivial points based upon semantics and you have no desire to look at the core issue – which is why this is my last post on the subject.
“Why are you such a corporate apologist? You name it, KELO, banks, or Walmart you just love answering to the “suits.â€
I will admit it is much easier arguing the side that all corporations are evil… it doesn’t require critical thinking, and it generally is easy to garner support from others even without valid arguments. However I take a different road and see both sides before I make up my mind on the issue. When I see a corporation guilty of an injustice I’m happy to call them out on it, but I’m a big fan of personal responsibility as well.
I’m not going to sit here and whine about Walmart selling a product that they don’t want brought back into their stores because that is their right. If I don’t like that policy, I can choose to take my business elsewhere, so why should I get bent out of shape on the policies a private business enacts provided they aren’t discriminatory towards a religion, disability, race, etc?
That being said, the only person I answer to is myself. If you take personal enjoyment from make assumptions by all means continue to do so, but I’m not going to apologize for so often being a voice of reason or for leaving my truckload of cynicism at home.
With that, you can find someone else to argue with since at this point it seems you have migrated into nothing short of ad hominem logical fallaices. I’ve got free time – but I’d rather spent it watching glue dry on my hand that discuss Walmart at length.
Guns. They sure spur a lot of convo.
Testor…and got this from wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
or this…http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/2/essays/142/to-keep-and-bear-arms
or this…http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
So which one is the truth? Yours or the other 3 I found?
Yes, guns and speech spur a lot of convo.