Incident at Ireland TCU in South Bend

[daddymikey1975]

I'm just saying the principle is the same regardless of the issue. Too many people are hypocritical and will yield on one point, but not another.

By having different values as a person, that makes us hypocrites ?

For example, I was approached at Meijer while OC'ing one day.

read about it here: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ou_to_leave_we_want_you_to_stay_and_shop.html

I also agreed to the terms of this website. How are the two related, and how would this make me and the OP hypocrites ?

I'll just answer that question. By engaging in the argument over his rights vs. their wishes, he's probably kicked off a discussion at the bank.

There's one maybe in your post...

Should they make a formal policy?

They already have one. Re-read the OP. Their policy = OK to carry. "Prefer" if you cover it up. No problem if you don't. (otherwise they would have asked the OP to leave, right ?? )

If they do, the policy will be against us all.

Do you bank there ?? I certainly don't

Oh.. there's another "if"... lots of those piling up here..

What "if" they realize the OP was correct and he enlightened them to where they had a meeting with all of their employees and now the employees are more comfortable knowing that there are armed citizens that bank there, will help to protect them if need be, and there's nothing to worry about

Just sayin'

Companies don't take action until they are prompted to do so, and this prompt has the potential to add one more company to the "no weapons allowed list".

Rosa Parks prompted action too didn't she

The bank may have been prompted to meet with the employees and make them feel better

The result of this situation is that the OP added to the negative stigma of the gun owner.

I don't see how He was very polite and even offered to leave if asked (as did I in my thread, did you read it ?)

The result of this situation is that the OP was very polite and non-confrontational in educating the security guard and branch manager that covering a gun is a big deal (to him) and if it's required to bank there, he would be more than happy to bank somewhere else.

What's the issue ? (I like being argumentative )

By making the threat of closing the account, he became the bad guy.

He didn't threaten to close his account, he offered to leave if asked (and take his banking business elsewhere) How does this make him the bad guy? If they felt he WAS the bad guy, they would have asked him to leave.

Evidently they felt it was more important to keep a customer happy (see how they were sensitive to HIS feelings and rights )

If he would have cooperated, and then closed his account, he would have been the victim. This perception if critical in our fight for gun rights.

Don't we choose to carry a gun because we refuse to be victimized ? Why would the OP submit to being a victim just to close his account ? Why can't he openly carry his sidearm up to the counter and close the account ?

As was posted earlier, you go ahead and make the choice to be a victim and compromise your principles when it's convenient for you and let those of us that stand on principle do it our way

 

[Mark 1911]

My kids always look at me weird when I go into a school to stand on the principal

Like this?

 

[MikeDVB]

My kids always look at me weird when I go into a school to stand on the principal

If I didn't do it, CathyInBlue, or 88GT would have

Haha... Usually I catch such errors but when posting from my iPhone... Sometimes I miss one.

 

[daddymikey1975]

Like this?

YES !!!

Haha... Usually I catch such errors but when posting from my iPhone... Sometimes I miss one.

iPhone spell check/grammar fail

It happens LOL.

 

[MikeDVB]

I'm just saying the principle is the same regardless of the issue. Too many people are hypocritical and will yield on one point, but not another. My original post was directed precisely at that point. Roadie's first sentence:

One does not need to be unwavering in all that they do all day, every day. There are certain things I am willing to concede and then other things that I am not.

Doing so does not make me hypocritical, it makes me selective. To make an example - I may not like the flavor 'grape' but just because I do not like grape does not mean I also have to dislike cherry, lemon, orange, etc... I can, and will, pick and choose what I will or will not do.

I'll just answer that question. By engaging in the argument over his rights vs. their wishes, he's probably kicked off a discussion at the bank. Should they make a formal policy? If they do, the policy will be against us all. Companies don't take action until they are prompted to do so, and this prompt has the potential to add one more company to the "no weapons allowed list".

So your idea is that he should have conceded because the bank might make a policy against firearms? In that case we should all just leave our firearms at home - somebody might see one and they might decide to make a rule against it... Better yet - why own them in the first place? I mean... If you don't own a firearm then you don't have to worry about when, where, and how you can carry it...

The result of this situation is that the OP added to the negative stigma of the gun owner. By making the threat of closing the account, he became the bad guy.

If I am at the bank and I receive terrible service or have another issue - I can, and will, close my account and move banks if I feel justified in doing so and that does not make me a "bad guy."

If he would have cooperated, and then closed his account, he would have been the victim. This perception if critical in our fight for gun rights.

I prefer not to be a victim whenever possible. If I have to be an arsehole to avoid being a victim - I will. That said, if they want to make an anti-firearms policy - that's up to them.

 

[daddymikey1975]

One does not need to be unwavering in all that they do all day, every day. There are certain things I am willing to concede and then other things that I am not.

Doing so does not make me hypocritical, it makes me selective. To make an example - I may not like the flavor 'grape' but just because I do not like grape does not mean I also have to dislike cherry, lemon, orange, etc... I can, and will, pick and choose what I will or will not do.

You're such a rebel

If I am at the bank and I receive terrible service or have another issue - I can, and will, close my account and move banks if I feel justified in doing so and that does not make me a "bad guy."

I just paid a van off and financed it at 1st source. The van loan was at TCU and my wife was very frustrated with how this particular branch treated her. Glad I don't have to mess with them (this is the only interaction we've had with TCU to be fair)

I agree with your point 100% and I really don't like grape

 

[Thegeek]

If you engage in an argument, you are viewed as uncooperative and argumentative. Protest with actions.

It's hypocritical to defend this private site's policy on foul language, and then fight against a private business's request to cover your weapon.

If you get in an argument with a anti-gun manager at your local Meijer and he just won't let it go, takes it to corporate and then they push a policy to my local Meijer, I'm most certainly affected. It also solidifies his position and impacts the position of those who witnessed the event. It's the same argument like the youtube videos we've seen of police stopping and questioning guys carrying a firearm who refuse to identify. I don't care if they are not required to under the law. A douchebag in the right is still a douchebag.

It's the difference between what James Yeager would do and what Colion Noir would do. Too many on the fence see us as James Yeagers. We need to do a better job of being viewed differently.

 

[MikeDVB]

If you engage in an argument, you are viewed as uncooperative and argumentative. Protest with actions.

Without being there you cannot say it was an argument and not a friendly discussion.

It's hypocritical to defend this private site's policy on foul language, and then fight against a private business's request to cover your weapon.

Not quite - you can fight it here too but you'll end up with infractions and eventually a ban. That said, I've been on plenty of forums that were lacking rules and while that sounds ideal - they usually degenerate into a cesspool.

Being a hypocrite would mean that I don't do something and I tell you to do it or vice versa. I am not telling you to violate the forum rules and, as such, I am not being a hypocrite by following them.

Again, your comparison is apples to oranges.

If you get in an argument with a anti-gun manager at your local Meijer and he just won't let it go, takes it to corporate and then they push a policy to my local Meijer

I don't get in arguments - I'm not out to convince anybody of anything. If I'm in a bank my goal is to conduct my banking business and nothing else.

If they want me to leave, I will. If they don't, I won't. It's that simple - but I won't change the way I wear any of my attire [shoes, shirt, pants, light, pocket knife, or firearm] to appease some third party.

You obviously disagree and would cover your firearm - and that's fine, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't. At the end of the day you do what you feel is best and I will do the same.

It also solidifies his position and impacts the position of those who witnessed the event.

You seem to be under the assumption that, if confronted, those of us that will not cover our firearms are going to become irate, start shouting and screaming, cursing, etc... I'm not sure why you believe this - but that's simply not the case for me. I can't speak for everybody else, but I know how I would handle the situation.

It's the same argument like the youtube videos we've seen of police stopping and questioning guys carrying a firearm who refuse to identify. I don't care if they are not required to under the law. A douchebag in the right is still a douchebag.

The issue in those cases is that those people are out walking around with a video camera trying to incite some sort of reaction/get attention. It's not a fair comparison to compare somebody out intentionally looking for attention to somebody going about their normal daily business in their normal daily attire.

For example - I don't strap my gun on OC right before I walk into the bank and then take it off when I get back out - it's on from the moment I wake up to the moment I go to sleep regardless of if I'm at my house all day, if I go to the bank, to the store, the gas station, a friend's house, or even going down the road on my motorcycle.

It's the difference between what James Yeager would do and what Colion Noir would do. Too many on the fence see us as James Yeagers. We need to do a better job of being viewed differently.

Can you tell me how you know that the OP was argumentative, loud, rude, or disrespectful? Was he shouting? Did he curse? Do you think I would do any of that? How do you know?

The only issue you seem to be raising again and again is that you think, when confronted, any of us unwilling to cover our firearms are going to make some sort of scene. No scene is necessary and no argument required - if you wish me to cover my firearm, I will leave. If you wish me to leave, I will leave. If you permit me to leave my firearm uncovered and do not ask me to leave - I will continue going about my business.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Do you ever get the feeling you're pounding your head against the wall, Mike?

I do, however, admire you effort and willingness.

Well said.

Rep inbound!

 

[CPT Nervous]

If you engage in an argument, you are viewed as uncooperative and argumentative. Protest with actions.

It's hypocritical to defend this private site's policy on foul language, and then fight against a private business's request to cover your weapon.

If you get in an argument with a anti-gun manager at your local Meijer and he just won't let it go, takes it to corporate and then they push a policy to my local Meijer, I'm most certainly affected. It also solidifies his position and impacts the position of those who witnessed the event. It's the same argument like the youtube videos we've seen of police stopping and questioning guys carrying a firearm who refuse to identify. I don't care if they are not required to under the law. A douchebag in the right is still a douchebag.

It's the difference between what James Yeager would do and what Colion Noir would do. Too many on the fence see us as James Yeagers. We need to do a better job of being viewed differently.

Where do you draw a line? The reason so many refuse to identify is that they have a right not to. If people just bend over and take it, you'll have a police state like in NY. You must not understand the concept of morals and principles.

If I engage in an argument? Guess what, there was no argument. I was ASKED to do something that was inappropriate for them to ask, and I offered to take my business elsewhere if they wanted me to do that. That, my friend, is compromise. They don't want openly carried firearms in their branch, I don't want to be inconvenienced every time I go to cash my check. I agreed to take my firearm out of the bank and never return, and they didn't want me to to that. Where was the argument?

You are a compliant person. Why even carry? If someone comes up to you, demands that you hand over your gun and your wallet, would you do it? What if it was a property manager? What if it was a cop? You talk about us being hypocrites, while at the same time consistently contradict yourself.

For example, it is not required by law to ID yourself to LE in some states. You call people who refuse to do this "douchebags." In EVERY state, it is not required to hand over all your personal possessions to a mugger, but if I refuse to comply with the request of someone robbing me, I assume you think that's okay, although your ideas are not based in rationality, so I can't be sure.


Hold on, I want to quote this again:

If you engage in an argument, you are viewed as uncooperative and argumentative. Protest with actions.

Okay, so you enter an online discussion where you say I am wrong, people try to correct you, and you continue on your tirade, completely ignoring every point that is made against you.

Who is being argumentative and uncooperative? Oh, right, the guy that came into this thread to argue that because I was unwilling to comply with an outrageous request, that I am stubborn and hurting the cause of gun owners.

It is the people who roll over and comply who are hurting the cause of gun owners. Look at California and New York. That's where compliance with ridiculous requests gets you.

 

[Thegeek]

An argument does not mean uncivil, a scene, nor fight. It wasn't inappropriate for them to ask. It's their property, and they can do as they please. They could have well told you to go disarm and then closed your account for you. They didn't ask you to disarm, only to cover out of courtesy to the staff.

They're a doucebag because just as Mike said, they're doing it purposefully.

I'm compliant until I'm given a reason not to be. Because I can is not a reason.

Where you all got sidetracked is that I pointed out the hypocrisy in the statement made by Roadie. That is all. If we don't comply with reasonable requests, or at least make an effort to get along with the other side, we'll end up looking like places in Wisconsin where signs do have force of law and they're posted everywhere "no firearms or weapons". I do my best not to give the other side a reason to go after legislation to step up the restrictions.

Personally, I'd rather walk into a bank open carrying and walk up to the counter only to see the gal on the other side with a drop leg holster instead of 2" of poly between us.

 

[Caleb]

 

[MikeDVB]

I love a good debate .

An argument does not mean uncivil, a scene, nor fight.

So what you're saying is the fact that they asked and he declined he's a douchebag and is somehow reflecting poorly upon those that carry? Can you elaborate your logic on this for me?

It wasn't inappropriate for them to ask.

You may not think so - but as a customer of the bank the OP certainly does. Ultimately what is or is not appropriate isn't chiseled in stone and varies from person to person... What some people think is appropriate is ... well look at "people of Wal-Mart" for a huge list of people that apparently thought something was appropriate...

It's their property, and they can do as they please.

Sure, just as it's the OP's bank account and they can do as they please [i.e. close account and leave, choose another bank.]

They could have well told you to go disarm and then closed your account for you.

They could close your account at any time for any reason or no reason at all - but there's a reason they don't do that... Let's start with "It's not good business."

They didn't ask you to disarm, only to cover out of courtesy to the staff.

Because a firearm covered by a layer of cloth is safe while one in plain view is a danger to everybody in the room?

I'll have to have this discussion with the next [and admittedly the first] person to ask me to cover my firearm... Here's hoping they're willing to step aside and have a logical and intelligent discussion but I won't hold my breath .

They're a doucebag because just as Mike said, they're doing it purposefully.

Those out seeking attention for attention's sake - sure... Those going about their normal daily business - no.

I'm compliant until I'm given a reason not to be. Because I can is not a reason.

Why is "because I can" not a reason? Why did you ride the roller coaster? "Because I can." Why did you drink 10 beers last night? "Because I can." The reason doesn't always have to be based upon a need - there are a lot of things that people do because they want to and not because they have to.

Where you all got sidetracked is that I pointed out the hypocrisy in the statement made by Roadie. That is all. If we don't comply with reasonable requests, or at least make an effort to get along with the other side, we'll end up looking like places in Wisconsin where signs do have force of law and they're posted everywhere "no firearms or weapons".

I do not need to comply with a request to cover or remove my firearm any more than I have to comply with a request to cover or remove my eyebrows, mustache, beard, shirt, pants, shoes, ring, watch, light, etc...

If you don't like my attire - you can ask me to leave. You won't see me throwing a fit or making a scene.

I do my best not to give the other side a reason to go after legislation to step up the restrictions.

Better keep it at home then, wouldn't want somebody to see it and get the wrong idea.

Personally, I'd rather walk into a bank open carrying and walk up to the counter only to see the gal on the other side with a drop leg holster instead of 2" of poly between us.

I don't go to the banks with the barriers between the customer and the teller... There is a Chase bank just north of me that has it and I avoid it - I will drive out of my way to go to a different branch. Just as they could ask me to leave for having a firearm - I can choose not to enter their branch due to their plastic barriers.

Again - if you are willing to cover up your firearm at the request of an ignorant third party that has irrational fears of inanimate objects ... go for it. I won't tell you that you're wrong or that you're a hypocrite.

 

[Caleb]

I love a good debate .

People reiterating the same argument is hardly a debate

 

[MikeDVB]

People reiterating the same argument is hardly a debate

I figure you can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you figure out it hurts...

 

[Caleb]

I figure you can only bang your head against a wall so many times before you figure out it hurts...

Some never learn

 

[Hammerhead]

Let me post this again, so that its relevance isn't lost.

TCU = credit union; account holder at credit union = shareholder; shareholder = owner.

I bank at a credit union. I am invited to attend the shareholder's meeting which gives all of us information on the bank that we own. I may have more shares or less shares than the guy sitting next to me at that meeting, but my ownership isn't in question.

Credit unions are not like banks in this manner. The people with accounts have a say, versus a bank where the corporation has the say.

I walked into my CU the other day OCing. I walked through the "line" (curved counter that acts as a corral so people can have a surface to write on while waiting), stopped and signed the checks I was depositing, stood at the "wait here" spot until a teller opened up, did my banking, then went and joined Sockmonkey waiting for, and then talking to, a customer service rep for other banking needs. Not one person said a word for the 20-ish minutes I was in the building. This was the main branch, the big fancy building with all the banker types in it.

I OC in the other branches all the time. Perhaps it's because my CU is different, either they don't care, or they know that a member in good standing is the ultimate boss.

The OP is the one in control. He can vote with his membership and his money. And the branch manager would have a hell of a time making a policy prohibiting OC, or carry, without it being being brought up to the shareholders.

 

[Thegeek]

You may not think so - but as a customer of the bank the OP certainly does. Ultimately what is or is not appropriate isn't chiseled in stone and varies from person to person... What some people think is appropriate is ... well look at "people of Wal-Mart" for a huge list of people that apparently thought something was appropriate...

That's the nuts of it right there. Each is entitled to their own views. What I believe is our best course of action for expanding gun rights and yours are different. My position is that provoking the other side doesn't help. Engaging in a logical debate with everyone I come in contact with just adds fuel to their fire.

I never called the OP a douchebag. I was referring to the guys in the videos who are doing their best to **** off the other side and their local police. If the OP inferred that I did, I sincerely apologize. My intent is not to speak of this incident in particular, but moreso our tactics on how we're fighting against the anti-2A groups and individual voters.

I wish this was a country where an upstanding citizen with a gun put everyone at ease. I just don't see that ever happening and I try to be sensitive to that. Movie theaters, malls, banks, and the like are places we know to be sensitive to the issue. I'm not going to stop carrying, but I'll cover up without being asked. Making waves at these places does nothing to help the situation. Why give the other side a reason to get fired up and say "I'm going to get involved"?

 

[CPT Nervous]

That's the nuts of it right there. Each is entitled to their own views. What I believe is our best course of action for expanding gun rights and yours are different. My position is that provoking the other side doesn't help. Engaging in a logical debate with everyone I come in contact with just adds fuel to their fire.

I never called the OP a douchebag. I was referring to the guys in the videos who are doing their best to **** off the other side and their local police. If the OP inferred that I did, I sincerely apologize. My intent is not to speak of this incident in particular, but moreso our tactics on how we're fighting against the anti-2A groups and individual voters.

I wish this was a country where an upstanding citizen with a gun put everyone at ease. I just don't see that ever happening and I try to be sensitive to that. Movie theaters, malls, banks, and the like are places we know to be sensitive to the issue. I'm not going to stop carrying, but I'll cover up without being asked. Making waves at these places does nothing to help the situation. Why give the other side a reason to get fired up and say "I'm going to get involved"?

So you're saying that me going to the local Cinemark theater right after Aurora, dressed in an IOTV with a gas mask, hair dyed orange, carrying an AR15 and a Glock, and asking for a ticket for "Batman" was, how did you put it, "making waves?"

I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot see an issue with the scenario I just described.

You mentioned movie theaters, malls, and banks. Hmmm. Every theater near me prohibits guns. Every mall near me prohibits guns. Some banks near me prohibit guns. Notice a trend? The places most likely to experience a shooting try their damnedest to limit the number of weapons carried by good people. They should try, oh, I don't know, instead of "No Guns" on the door, how about a "No murdering or robbing" sign? Wouldn't it have the same effect? People who were already predisposed to not murdering or robbing would continue to not murder or rob, regardless of the signage, while those intent to do so will continue to not give a **** about vinyl letters on glass that arbitrarily prohibit activities that will be done whether or not those letters are present.

Did you know that casinos around here have no firearms inside? None. The security is unarmed, the staff is unarmed, the patrons are unarmed, yet they keep massive amounts of money on hand. Not really on point, but just wanted to share that little piece of lack of logic.

Anyway, back on topic. I try to be sensitive to other people, too. I provide armed security, free of charge, to every person in my vicinity. I would normally charge $25/hr, but when I'm on my time, you get it for free, just by being in the same place as me.

 

[MikeDVB]

That's the nuts of it right there. Each is entitled to their own views. What I believe is our best course of action for expanding gun rights and yours are different. My position is that provoking the other side doesn't help. Engaging in a logical debate with everyone I come in contact with just adds fuel to their fire.

Wearing a firearm openly is not provocation and refusing to cover it when asked is also not provocation. One does not have to enter a debate if they do not wish to.

If I came over to your house armed and you asked me to disarm - I wouldn't debate it. I would simply tell you that if I must disarm I will just leave. At that point it's up to you - either I leave, or I stay armed... But there would be no debate.

I never called the OP a douchebag. I was referring to the guys in the videos who are doing their best to **** off the other side and their local police.

Then let's stay on-topic? Why are we talking about douchebags walking around looking for attention if this clearly was not the OP?

If the OP inferred that I did, I sincerely apologize.

I don't think that anybody inferred it beyond wondering why you brought it up if it's not relevant.

My intent is not to speak of this incident in particular, but moreso our tactics on how we're fighting against the anti-2A groups and individual voters.

At the end of the day - we're all individuals and will do what we feel is best. While it would be great if all gun owners were on the same page - the pure and simple fact is that anti-gunners cannot control pro-gunners and pro-gunners cannot control other pro-gunners. It is unfortunate that the actions of a few can harm the masses but that's simply the nature of life.

If I were to count the number of times there was something I was not permitted to do because somebody else ****ed it up I would be counting a long time.

I wish this was a country where an upstanding citizen with a gun put everyone at ease.

That used to be the case until we got to the point that guns in public were not commonplace. Now people are scared of them for three reasons:
1. Movies.
2. People don't see them regularly.
3. People used to grow up with / handle / understand firearms - many do not anymore.

I just don't see that ever happening and I try to be sensitive to that. Movie theaters, malls, banks, and the like are places we know to be sensitive to the issue.

I'll carry in all three, no sense in being disarmed in "gun free zone" that bad guys won't abide by.

Honestly - if you could 100% guarantee my safety and that another firearm would not enter the building - I will disarm [but will still keep my knife]. Until you can guarantee 100% beyond any shadow of a doubt that nobody else will have a firearm as well [such as a bad guy that doesn't follow "rules"] I will remain armed unless illegal to do so.

I'm not going to stop carrying, but I'll cover up without being asked.

In short you're pro-CC and anti-OC... That's fine and dandy but quit trying to press your views and opinions on others. If you want to discuss you being pro-CC and anti-CC you should do it here.

Making waves at these places does nothing to help the situation.

Would waves have been made without a firearm on his person? No? Then he didn't make waves - the person who complained did.

Quit blaming the gun for the actions of people - blame the people for their irrational fears. Do you think a carpenter would avoid carrying / using / displaying a hammer on their person if somebody they were working for was scared of hammers? A hammer is a tool, just like a gun.

Why give the other side a reason to get fired up and say "I'm going to get involved"?

Better leave it at home then - wouldn't want somebody to see it and get "fired up."

Newsflash: They don't have to see your gun for them to try and control you by pushing legislators for new laws / limits / controls.