40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot

[warrior1]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/10/2921121/dallas-gun-advocates-protest-restaurant-gun-control-advocates/



On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

This is not the first time that gun advocates have rallied at MDA events. In March, a group of armed men crashed a MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis. Other gun advocate groups will hold rallies this upcoming December 14th, the anniversary date of the Sandy Hook shooting.

snip

[NMDemDist2]

1. Good Heavens

what a bunch of assholes

[BlueJazz]

138. I'm truly one sick SOB 'cause It would have been fun to be behind those fellows (about 30 feet...

....and hidden) and thrown a pack of large firecrackers behind them. Not one of them is patrolling the rear.
They would have had to carry about 4 pounds of shit home in their pants.
'
'
'
'
(No, I wouldn't really do that..too many innocent people around)

[OldRedneck]

174. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

I'm sitting here visualizing what would have happened had someone done that (thrown firecrackers)!!!

Every one of those clowns would have shit in his pants!!!!!!

[lpbk2713]

175. Good thing for them they're at the mall.

It would make it real easy for them to go in and buy some new drawers.

[erpowers]

275. Too Many Innocents

Your last thought is right. It may be true that many of those people would have gone home with crap in there pants, but many innocent people could have been hurt. Once the firecrackers went off, those people could have started shooting into the other crowd, or just shooting in any direction and that could have led to many innocent people getting hurt, or worse.

[Ranchemp.]

419. Wow, first post and already...........................

[arcane1]

423. No kidding. Was that post even worth the effort of signing up to post it?

[Ranchemp.]

425. Cavers and dwellers must think so,

luckily, MIRt is on the job.

[BlueJazz]

431. He was answering to my post. I'll bet it was something flattering. (I didn't get to see it)

Did he say something like "Damn Bluejazz, you have to be one of the smartest people on the web!" ?

[Ranchemp.]

435. Not quite,

something to the tune of and when someone shoots you in the head, what then tough guy.
Something close to that.

But, let me say, Damn Bluejazz, you have to be one of the smartest people on the web!

[BlueJazz]

440. Then let me say Ranchemp, you have to be the 2nd smartest for recognizing my brilliance.

On the other hard, My brilliance and my "Tough Guy" persona will do me no good when I'm shot in the head. Rats

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

441. FYI: Here's a copy & paste

and then what would you do?

If you got a bullet in the head from one of these so called clowns...big man?

[BlueJazz]

447. Oh..well....sounds like to me he was just concerned for my safety, plus ...he did call them clowns.

No harm done.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

449. :wink:

I wouldn't worry about it.

[mrsadm]

453. Incite to riot, I think

[BlueJazz]

454. or insight to a riot

[tenderfoot]

2. The posture on the guys with the guns...

[JDPriestly]

186. They fantasize about being heros. I wonder how many of them served in the military at some point?

If they like to shoot, that is where they belong.

[lpbk2713]

204. What are you talking about? They know all about the military.

Why they've seen every one of Chuck Norris's movies.

A couple of them even went to the open house at the
local military installation on Armed Forces Day.

[delta17]

216. Probably "near veterans."

http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/10/halfway-heroes-near-veterans-seek-recognition-for-almost-serving-in-military/

[Ineeda]

475. That site is the military version of the Onion, right?

I'm often quite gullible, but even I saw right through this. Quite funny, BTW, if it weren't so sickeningly (almost) believable.

[delta17]

500. Yeah, it is pretty funny.

Some of it is hard to understand if you haven't been in the service. Lots of the stories make fun of arbitrary military policies and war in general.

[vinny9698]

266. Like some comedy movie: Are you a weapons expert? Yes, I have played Halo for over 10 years.

They watch movies and play those military style video games. Go to the rifle range or in the woods and shoot them up.

[AtheistCrusader]

283. You all got suckered. They're posing for a group photo, not facing the 'Mothers group.

This is a cropped version of the group photo. Note the layout is the same, though, it was taken a few seconds before or after the photo in the OP.

That headline and photo is designed to foment a particular narrative that didn't apparently occur, whatever you may think of people showing up to a protest with guns.

https://twitter.com/MomsDemand/status/399250250260430849/photo/1

[frylock]

291. we got suckered? did these 40 assholes show up with their guns to intimidate 4 women or not?

nobody gives a shit about their super-awesome group photo opportunity. 40 armed fuckheads showed up to intimidate 4 women as they ate their lunch. that's what this thread concerns.

[AtheistCrusader]

292. I refer you to Tenderfoot's post.

"The posture on the guys with the guns..."

There is a narrative being associated with that photo that is not true.

That's why I said 'whatever you may think of...'. Because I disapprove of that sort of 'protest' as well, as it can be interpreted as threatening.

But the photo was posted with associated verbiage to suggest they are facing off against/intimidating the mothers in that photo. You can read the sentiment in the responses of several posters in this thread, who were misled by the association of the two. That's essentially a lie. Just like when Fox plays up the number of people at a anti-ACA rally in WADC. It's false. Unfair.

I agree with you on the overall context of their protest though. I think it's a terrible idea, and a disservice. They shouldn't be doing that.

[Erose999]

480. Look at those butt-nuggets with their hands on the triggers, as if they're "ready for combat" in a

mall parking lot. What about the narrative isn't true? That these people were there to intimidate? That they are fond of dangerous and unnecessary posturing? Do tell.

[Ranchemp.]

482. None of them had their fingers on the triggers.

There's a frontal picture that clearly shows none had fingers on triggers.
Now, that being said, this was definitely a foolish display, legal, but foolish and unnecessary.

[Nine]

295. +1 (nt)

[EOTE]

304. I think you've got a really fucked up interpretation of the word "suckered".

So you're suggesting that 40 armed assholes DIDN'T show up to intimidate a group of people who were interested in sensible gun control? Because that's the only way I'd consider any of us or them to be "suckered" by these particular pieces of shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

306. Again, I refer you to Tenderfoot's post about their posture.

In that moment, as the photo is taken. That's important.

I talked about the disrespectful/potentially threatening nature of the 'protest' overall, elsewhere. I agree with that broader interpretation. I disagree, with Tenderfoot's analysis, and I don't blame her for it, because that's how the narrative was crafted for the article cited in the OP.

[EOTE]

308. Ahhh, so by "You all", you mean "This one guy" and by "suckered" you mean

that one guy took a group of aggressive assholes and said of them "The posture on the guys with the guns"? Care to tell me what is inaccurate about that sentence which doesn't even make a declarative statement at all? Is it that he decided not to mention that they are idiotic wastes of space? I'd agree that something should have been said of their low 2 digit IQs and propensity for cousin fucking, but I'd hardly consider the omission of such to be considered "suckered".

[AtheistCrusader]

310. There are at least three top-level responses

that assume they are brandishing/intimidating, DIRECTLY, not just by having guns, in that photo.

I'm not sure if I should name them, as it might be considered a callout, but they are right there. Just look at the posts top row. They are clearly misled by the nature of the description/photo. I would assume they might not come to that conclusion in the context of the group photo they are taking in that moment.

[EOTE]

311. You pointed to one response and that response says NOTHING like you say it does.

The one response you mention is of a guy who basically says "What a bunch of asses" while being a good deal more good natured about it. These people are worthless pieces of shit and I didn't need to look at a single photo to confirm that suspicion. No one here is mislead about anything. Here we have a group of armed neanderthals attempting to intimidate a group of people who are working to make peaceful change. I'm thinking that you are clearly misled that people here would support pathetic assholes like those described above.

[AtheistCrusader]

312. Oh please, it's right there in plain english.

"The posture on the guys with the guns..."

"That guy in the red shirt How is that not threatening? Flat out, he should have been arrested at the very least. Outrageous."

"why are three of those fools taking cover behind a car and brandishing? they hiding from a sniper?"


Quit wasting my time.

[EOTE]

315. Why the hell are you running away from your own statements.

You reply to a man who simply said "The posture on the guys with the guns". Again, that's not even a declarative statement and you deem it to be false and suggest the guy was "suckered". That seems pretty damned ignorant to me. I would say the posture of those guys provides further evidence they're a bunch of inbred, ignorant jackasses. I don't give a fuck whether or not they were taking a picture, everything about those assholes screams ignorant fuckwads.

[AtheistCrusader]

318. I'm not running away from anything.

That single sentence (also coupled with the facepalm smiley) says everything I need to know about the intent.

Because in the context of them facing a group of the 'mothers, that could be read as bad/threatening.
In the context of posing for a group photo, there is nothing wrong with the posture at all. Barrels are down. Fingers away from triggers, the people crouched are doing so because they are in the front row.

There is nothing to 'run away from'. That poster was misled by the textual context of the photo, not the posture.

[EOTE]

321. Uh huh. So you think that the non-declarative statement the poster made is him being "suckered".

For having the nerve to speak out against some stupid, inbred fucks who can't leave their house without a gun for fear of people realizing how terrified and stupid they are. The problem was them being there with their guns PERIOD. That you're still unable to realize this speaks very poorly of you.

[AtheistCrusader]

323. He is a she.

Just pointing that out. Initially I made the same mistake, but I edited my post.

That statement is, in fact, declarative. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but I'm not buying. That poster is free to clarify, but there is nothing there to say otherwise.

[EOTE]

331. And what is that statement, exactly? If I were to garner a statement from that non-declarative

statement, it would be that those guys are a bunch of assholes. You disagree with that statement? It sure as hell sounds like you do. You're willing to say that someone was suckered by basically just inferring that those guys are assholes, so you surely disagree. Any way you slice it, I can't make your response to that post sound even remotely intelligent.

[AtheistCrusader]

336. It doesn't say 'the guys with the guns -facepalm'.

It specifies the POSTURE of the guys with the guns - facepalm.

Think about that for a second.

[EOTE]

339. It really hurts you to get specific, doesn't it?

I've seen the posture of those assholes and I'd think the posturing would be indicative of insecure, terrified, inbred assholes REGARDLESS of whether their picture is being taken or not. But again, the fact that you attempt to demean and belittle DUers rather than the pieces of shit in the above piece speaks just as much to you as it does to the assholes in the OP.

[AtheistCrusader]

346. Not posturing, POSTURE.

The poster isn't critiquing their slumped shoulders, spinal alignment, etc.

You are inventing meaning where there is none. Plain English. Until that poster specifies otherwise, your backpedal on that poster's behalf is laughable.

[EOTE]

349. Your attack of a fellow DUer for rightfully going after these evil fucks is what's laughable.

Actually, it's rather sickening. And you do know that posturing is the verb form of posture, right? Plain English, the poster was going after some ignorant, inbred fucks for abhorrent behavior. You found it fit to attack that poster, that is utterly sick. You find more in common with those despicable fucks than you do with the one rightly going after them. That's unconscionable.

[AtheistCrusader]

350. That's not an attack.

Again, inventing meaning where there is none.

I specified that I understand why that poster and others were led to express that sort of interpretation.

You have created two more strawmen, on top of the earlier one, in coming after me, here.

[EOTE]

352. You said they were "suckered" again for a non-declarative statement.

That's an attack, and an insanely stupid one. You haven't even ATTEMPTED to explain how this poster was suckered (or how the fuck anyone can be shown to have been suckered for making a non-declarative statement). Knowing that those assholes were posing for a picture doesn't make them look any less stupid or evil. But go on, keep doubling down on the stupidity.

[AtheistCrusader]

355. That is not an attack.

Would you feel better if I said bamboozled or something like that?

The poster's meaning is quite plain. The other two references I gave you are EVEN MORE illustrative, quell surprise you stopped talking about those.

[EOTE]

363. No, I'd have felt better if you didn't make such a stupid comment in the first place.

Barring that, being decent enough to apologize for making such a stupid comment. Any suggestion that going after those worthless fucks in any way means that they were "suckered", "bamboozled" etc. is powerfully stupid. Those dumb fucks could have been at Glamour Shots and it wouldn't have made their behavior OR posture any less despicable. For you to criticize someone for going after their posture or anything else shows you how pathetic your priorities are.

[AtheistCrusader]

372. Error.

"in any way"

By this logic, one could claim they are all pedophiles and cannibals.

I prefer to go after people based on facts, not 'any way'. 'in any way' is the sort of rhetoric the right has poisoned political discourse with. I am averse to it, and I will point it out when I see it.

I specified repeatedly, that what they are doing can be considered threatening to some, and is a disservice to their own cause, etc. I like facts. Facts are reassuring. Helpful. Worth discussing.

[EOTE]

379. Christ, isn't it tiring being so pedantic?

And for such stupid reasons? In spite of your frequent protests, you were defending those worthless fucks and simultaneously going after fellow DUers who have far better intentions than you. There is no need to defend any of those pieces of shit and no need to go after any DUer for pointing out how incredibly stupid they are.

[AtheistCrusader]

381. No, being pedantic normally helps.

I did not 'defend them'. Correcting an error isn't a defense of their actions. I was, and have been, repeatedly critical of their actions, here and in other threads.

I did not 'go after' anyone. Again, you are intentionally misconstruing my intent, especially after I have so thoroughly and repeatedly explained the intent and context.

[EOTE]

385. What was the poster's error again?

I say again, but I'm fairly certain you haven't even attempted to offer it in the first place. But go on, what was the poster's error again? Now, I'm not looking for any innuendo or for you to suggest to me that the error should be evident. I'm asking you to use your words and show me how what that poster was inaccurate.

[AtheistCrusader]

387. I cannot simply any more than the post itself offers.

As I said, it is self-evident. You are wandering afield of the post by adding context that is not there.

[EOTE]

391. Now you're not even providing full sentences.

I'm trying to make sense of your word salad, but still having difficulty. Again, you're simply unable to explain how this "self-evident" sentence is inaccurate? Sounds like a cop-out based on ignorance to me. This should be incredibly simple for a logical person like yourself. It couldn't possibly be that you're unable to disprove a non-declarative sentence, could it? It couldn't possibly be that it was sheer bone-headedness to attempt to insult someone based upon one in the first place and then desperately try to save face? Nah, couldn't be it.

[AtheistCrusader]

394. I'm going to wait for the original poster to clarify it for you

because I refuse to read additional context into other people's posts. If the poster objects (Which, she may, given the negative baggage the word 'suckered' can carry, I am willing to own that) or adds context to 'posture' beyond their physical stance in the photo, then I will retract.

[EOTE]

396. You go ahead and do that.

But whatever you do, don't apologize for making such an assholish comment. If a poster isn't willing to respond back to such an idiotic comment, an apology isn't due.

[AtheistCrusader]

402. I firmly believe you are misconstruing the comment.

It also appears willful. So, no. Not a chance, not on your account.

[EOTE]

408. I firmly believe you are talking out of your ass.

And throwing out stupid insults because you're incapable of comprehending something very simple. Again, don't stupidly lash out at someone because your comprehension skills are so lacking. It speaks very poorly of you.

[EOTE]

364. And how surprising I'm NOT talking about the insults you gave to people you weren't even responding

to? I'd respond to that by saying how incredibly stupid it is for you to expect me to defend comments you claim to be to other people when the one person you ACTUALLY responded to said nothing that you claim for her to have said. Christ, are you attempting to set a record for most illogical bullshit spewed in a 24 hour period or something?

[AtheistCrusader]

367. Yes, I speak in plural to individuals. "You all"

I am not prone to repeating the same thing to multiple posters. I simply picked the first in the thread.

I have said nothing illogical. You are simply pretending I am saying things I am not saying, and ignoring things I HAVE said that should have forestalled most/all of this tangent.

[EOTE]

371. So, I show you how incredibly stupid and baseless your attack on the person you ACTUALLY responded

to. And then you complain because I'm not focusing on the people you truly meant to attack but didn't.

Seriously, I see far more reasonable and logical discussion on any visit to Freerepublic.

[AtheistCrusader]

375. Begs the question.

You are still assuming I attacked anyone. I didn't. My very first response to you spelled it out. Quit pretending I didn't say anything about the context of my objection.

I DO NOT BLAME those posters for having been misled.

[EOTE]

377. The poster wasn't misled.

And even if she were, you owe that poster an apology for suggesting her comments were off base. Whether or not they were having their picture taken is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't make their actions or even their posture any less stupid and evil.

[AtheistCrusader]

383. It is entirely relevant to their posture in that photo.

I see you are determined to misconstrue.

[EOTE]

388. And again, what was inaccurate about what the poster said?

Care to look into words that weren't said? Gonna pull more assumptions out of your ass? Are you EVER going to explain how the poster was suckered?

[AtheistCrusader]

390. I have repeatedly explained.

My explanation appears to bounce off, because it does not fit your preconceptions.

[EOTE]

393. You haven't even come CLOSE to explaining. You've simply said that it's "self evident".

That's actually worse than nothing. I think it's self evident that your comments were well beyond asinine, ignorant and offensive. But at least I actually offered evidence as why that's so. You simply declaring that something is "self evident", does not make it close to being so. In fact, it likely means just the opposite.

[AtheistCrusader]

400. Your 'evidence' is a fabrication, that is intentionally bereft of EVERY attempt I have made to

illustrate the precise boundaries of my meaning when I used the word 'suckered'. It is not different than your use of 'ignorant' there.

I know you aren't sitting there calling me an ignorant person as a direct personal attack. You are interpreting that as a personal, direct attack on the poster, when it is not. It is an instance, a single transaction. Not an indictment of the poster.

[EOTE]

404. Again, are you going to even attempt to present evidence?

Or are you simply going to say it's self-evident again? You DO know that you simply saying something doesn't make it true, right? I've shown numerous reasons why what you've said is offensive. You haven't even attempted to show how the post you commented on was inaccurate. I saw that post after I was aware that those pieces of shit were posing for a picture. The post seemed no less appropriate after that. So go on, what was said that was inaccurate? Are you even going to try?

[AtheistCrusader]

407. If you are so hell bent on interpreting it as a personal attack

then click the fucking alert button, and let a jury decide.

[EOTE]

410. I don't use the alert button.

I prefer idiotic comments to stand so that people here can better know the half-wits posting them.

[AtheistCrusader]

411. Hidden posts can be viewed if one wishes.

[EOTE]

413. I know how DU works.

That doesn't make my objection to the alert button any less. I'd prefer these posts to be as visible as possible. I've used the alert button exactly once and I decided it was fruitless. I won't be using it again.

[AtheistCrusader]

418. If you REALLY believe

I was personally attacking that user, that is a rule violation of this site, and I should be censured for it.

At the very least, I would no longer be able to post in this thread. And then you could say whatever you wanted about me and have the last word.

[EOTE]

422. I am under no obligation to alert on anything.

So your incessant requests that I do are pretty damned stupid. And again, I don't give one half a fuck as to whether or not you're able to post in this thread. I find it's far better that people see the idiocy in its full technocolor glory.

[AtheistCrusader]

313. Also, quit building strawmen.

I never said they should be supported in any way. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, repeatedly.

[EOTE]

314. So why, exactly, did you accuse someone who didn't even make a declarative statement

of being "suckered"? I'm sure you'll be able to explain that one. I'm also interested in why you consider this one person who didn't make a declarative statement to be "you all". Seems to me your posts are all full of fail. Calling a group of assholes a group of assholes is nothing even approaching being suckered.

[AtheistCrusader]

316. Poster didn't call them assholes.

Poster called them out for "The posture on the guys with the guns..."

When in reality, they are just posed for a 2-deep group photo. (Down in front)
There is nothing implicitly threatening or odd about their posture. Not in that context.

[EOTE]

319. Uhhh, what part of "not a declarative statement" don't you understand?

What the hell did the poster say that wasn't accurate? The poster didn't say that there was any implicit threat regarding their posture (although I'd think that them merely being there and armed is a threat in and of itself). Again, you are taking a poster who hasn't even made a declarative statement and saying that he's been suckered. That's pretty damned stupid. It's also well beyond ignorance to suggest that these assholes aren't threatening.

[AtheistCrusader]

322. Keep ignoring the facepalm icon.

Keep twisting in knots trying to pretend it says anything other than what it says in plain English.

[EOTE]

333. Ahhh, so it's the facepalm icon that's the declarative statement.

And what does that facepalm say, exactly, that makes the poster "suckered" for saying it? That these guys are a bunch of massive tools? That's what I got out of it. Apparently you disagree. Then again, you're able to suggest that someone was suckered based upon a non-declarative statement that she made, so I'm guessing that logic isn't your strong point.

[AtheistCrusader]

337. Again, posture.

SPECIFYING posture.

Keep pretending it doesn't say what it says.

[EOTE]

340. What OF their posture?

Their posture is of a bunch of terrified, dickless assholes ganging together to terrify innocents. It doesn't matter whether or not they're getting their pictures taken, it does nothing to lessen the depravity and soullessness of these assholes. But the fact that you're denigrating fellow DUers for them insulting these pieces of shit DOES say an awful lot about you.

[AtheistCrusader]

347. Invented.

That's not what the poster is talking about. Nor the other posters I cited. Keep flailing.

[EOTE]

351. YOU are the one who has repeatedly mentioned their posture. At least a good half dozen times now.

As if that poster mentioning the posture of these pieces of shit is somehow getting "suckered". You made a ridiculously stupid statement and have done nothing but attempt to defend that bone-headed statement. Fuck, as if it weren't stupid enough attacking someone for making a non-declarative statement, you've doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on the stupidity. Is it REALLY that hard to admit you made such a stupid statement? Or is it that you still stand by your statement and envy those hillbilly fucks in the picture?

[AtheistCrusader]

354. Quit feigning outrage.

"I disagree, with Tenderfoot's analysis, and I don't blame her for it, because that's how the narrative was crafted for the article cited in the OP."

That is not an ATTACK on Tenderfoot.
You are inventing words/meaning where there is none. The word 'suckered' may have been more inflammatory than necessary, but I think it is linguistically accurate.


Envy them? Again with your strawmen.

"I agree with you on the overall context of their protest though. I think it's a terrible idea, and a disservice. They shouldn't be doing that."

"I talked about the disrespectful/potentially threatening nature of the 'protest' overall, elsewhere. I agree with that broader interpretation."

"I never said they should be supported in any way. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, repeatedly."

There are also other threads on the front page about this issue where I have been highly critical of the gun-protestors.

[EOTE]

358. Suggesting someone is a sucker is not an attack? Are you sure I'm feigning outrage?

Or do I really despise intense stupidity? Especially when that impotent stupidity is lashing out at something/someone far smarter than the one who's dishing it out. Saying someone is a "sucker" for speaking out against these cretins is really fucking stupid. You haven't come close to explaining your position, just bringing out one massive deflection after the next (even stupidly suggesting that the one you were responding to was not the one the comment was for). Sorry, I don't suffer fools gladly.

[AtheistCrusader]

362. You're good at word games.

One can be suckered without being 'a sucker', meaning always falling for shit. It's one instance of it. Much like saying someone was fooled by something, does not imply that person is 'A Fool(TM)'.

Clearly you have assigned to it the most negative of synonyms. I object to that based on my CLEAR SPECIFICIATION that I DO NOT BLAME Tenderfoot for that interpretation. But with that one post, by itself, I can understand why you may have read it that way. Much like I understand why Tenderfoot interpreted the photo, combined with the headline/narrative in that way.

[EOTE]

365. If you truly thought that any one could have fooled by something, it was rather foolish to suggest

they were suckered. And I still contend that it's incredibly bone-headed to suggest that anyone was fooled, suckered or otherwise for making a comment like that because the validity of a non-declarative statement like that would have ZERO bearing on whether or not those pieces of shit were getting their picture taken.

[AtheistCrusader]

369. They are synonyms.

However, as I said, I will grant that it can have a negative connotation. I offered substitute synonyms, and SPECIFIED in my very first response to you that I do not blame that poster for having been misled.

Still you continue to object.

[EOTE]

374. You should apologize to the poster, not to me.

First of all, you've presented absolutely ZILCH in terms of evidence that the poster HAS been misled. It would have been a stupid and offensive comment even if the poster had, but you being completely unable to provide any information suggesting that the poster has been misled make it stupid, offensive and comically off-base.

[AtheistCrusader]

380. The comment is self-evident.

Also, that poster has not objected.

You are massively exaggerating your objection, especially since the comment is accurate.

[EOTE]

382. Their postures were those of ignorant, alpha-male wannabe assholes.

Whether or not they were having their pictures taken has zero affect on that. Yes, the comment IS self-evident. It was your incredibly rude and stupid response to it that I have an issue with. And whether or not the person being insulted/bullied objects to it also has zero bearing on me.

[AtheistCrusader]

384. You are specifying a different usage of 'posture' than the context of that comment assumes.

That is fabrication, and you should stop it.

[EOTE]

386. Posture could either mean their pose or their behavior.

Either way you slice it, there is NOTHING that poster said was inaccurate.

[AtheistCrusader]

389. Says you.

Perhaps the poster in question should pipe in, before you add context to her post.

What I said also remains accurate for the other posts I specified, some of whom were more verbose.

[EOTE]

392. Uhhh, says the dictionary, champ.

No wonder you're so confused here. You're not quite familiar with the concept that words have fixed meanings. If you are going simply by what you believe words to mean, it's very understandable how incredibly confused you are.

[AtheistCrusader]

395. Yes, words do have fixed meanings.

And in this case, the post gives context of which specific definition is in play.

[EOTE]

398. And what definition would that be, champ?

Go on, provide the definition that makes what she said any less valid. I'll be waiting.

[AtheistCrusader]

403. Noun. Definition one.

a. A position of the body or of body parts: a sitting posture.
b. An attitude; a pose: assumed a posture of angry defiance.

This is not difficult.

[EOTE]

406. Uhhh, that's the one I mentioned champ. I mentioned it a few posts ago, were you not paying

attention?

And again I'll ask you, using that definition, what was wrong with the post you originally responded to? Christ, even little children can admit they were wrong when shown how bereft of logic their arguments are. You can't even come close to doing that.

[AtheistCrusader]

409. I did notice that, but you misconstrue it.

You are trying to extend it to their presence that day, and the fact they are armed.

A stance or disposition with regard to something: "Those bases are essential to our military posture in the Middle East"

You're not even subtle.

[EOTE]

412. I misconstrued nothing.

Everything about those fuckers is worthy of scorn. For you to go after someone because they made a comment on their posture is unbelievably stupid. First, it was stupid to assume they didn't know it was a posed picture they were looking at and it was stupid to assume that the fact they were posing for a picture means anything in defense of those stupid fucks. Just stupidity all around.

[AtheistCrusader]

416. First, I did not 'go after'.

I immediately specified the boundaries to the objection, for you and the poster above you.
Second, I specified additional posts that are even clearer than that one, in the same misled context.
Third, I am not defending "those stupid fucks: in fact, I used similar language several times.

[EOTE]

420. Suggesting that someone got "suckered" because of a perfectly reasonably comment

is going after in my book. Any way you slice it, it's pretty stupid and counter-productive. Their posing/posturing (whichever term you'd like to use) is ungodly stupid and offensive regardless of whether or not they were having their picture taken. I could have just as easily made the same comment fully knowing the context. You still haven't even attempted to explain why the original comment you objected to was inaccurate. Not even a try.

[AtheistCrusader]

428. I am casting aspersions.

You correctly caught that. But they are at, not the OP, but the content author of the info cited in the OP.

I deplore people that try to mislead other people.

I have explained it. Multiple times. You reject the explanation. We are at an impasse, without further input from the poster I responded to.

[Nine]

326. Brandishing is not the same as pointing or aiming.

They WERE brandishing their guns. I can't speak for anyone else but I never thought they were pointing their weapons straight at the MDA group because the article said the MDA group was inside the restaurant until the OCT group finally moved onto Hooters.

They were flaunting their guns. They were putting their hands on the trigger. They were not carrying their guns slung over their shoulder but in a position that gave them the ability to fire the weapons at any moment. The fact that they were smiling and smirking in a photo doesn't make them seem any less dangerous to me; if anything, it makes them seem more so. But the important part is that they WERE brandishing.

[AtheistCrusader]

327. No they weren't.

If you think they were, per Texas state law, by all means, call the cops. There's multiple photos of the activity.

Where the fuck do you see fingers on the trigger?

[Nine]

335. Call the cops? You remind me of someone else on this thread.

In the photo you linked, the guy in the dark green shirt with gold writing sure looks to me like he has finger on a trigger. Is what they are doing illegal by Texas law? I don't know. But they are certainly doing what I call brandishing. If you don't want to call it that, fine. The exact term doesn't matter. Why do YOU think they brought their guns there if not to intimidate?

[AtheistCrusader]

338. You claim they are breaking the law.

As a law-abiding gun owner, I expect people to be held accountable when breaking the law, even if they happen to be people with guns. (Actually, especially, since I don't condone this behavior at all, and I think the presence of firearms means they should be held to the highest standard)

The guy with the green shirt is perfectly indexed on the side of the receiver. His finger isn't anywhere near entering the trigger guard.

[Nine]

341. I never made the claim that they are breaking TX law.

I just said one post ago that I don't know Texas law. If you don't think the guy in green has his finger on the trigger, I won't argue with you. But he certainly looks to me like someone who could fire almost instantly.

I think that their intent is to intimidate in order to suppress the free speech and assembly of the MDA group. I also think that they are recklessly creating a very dangerous situation. I think that they are terrorizing the public.

You think the point is whether or not they are technically breaking TX law or skating just on the right side of it, and that is not the most important point to me at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

348. Yes you did.

"They WERE brandishing their guns."

Brandishing is a crime in any state. Whether it's a gun, a knife, etc. That word has specific legal meaning, commensurate with its conversational meaning as well. If there's a state where brandishing a weapon ISN'T legal, I'll be a monkey's uncle..

Words have meaning. If you didn't mean it that way, ok, but if you did, then SOMEONE needs to call the cops. Because even as a gun owner myself, I can, have, and will in the future, call the cops when I see other gun owners breaking the law. I don't see any gun owners breaking the law in those photos. I think they are being callous asses, for starters, but legal.

[Nine]

353. Words have meanings beyond a narrow legal definition.

You claimed that we all got suckered because we supposedly thought OCT was pointing guns at MDA. I was telling you I never thought that. I thought that they were out in public flaunting (if you don't like brandishing) their guns, intimidating people, being reckless, etc. You apparently don't think it's terrorizing people to protest a small group by waiting outside a restaurant holding guns. If I recall correctly, you also didn't think it was terrorizing people for a hundred motorcyclists to be surrounding a family in a car and chasing them down a highway. You must have nerves of steel but not all of us are as brave as you seem to be, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

359. Flaunting I agree with.

It carries a negative connotation (horrendous breach of civil discourse) and I totally accept that. Much more better.

You have altered the terms of my objection to the motorcycle thread. No chasing occurred prior to the incident that would have justified fleeing. There are 11 indictments in play though, so we shall see what the juries think of the evidence and testimony of the pre-flight contact between driver and riders. I do not consider a whole bunch of people around me, even inhibiting my movement, on its own, to be threatening behavior. Critical Mass did it to me once every couple months on bicycles, and I never felt threatened. They were just blocking the road to do their thing. An inconvenience, to be sure, but not a threat. There MAY well have been threatening behavior in that instance with the motorcycles, but it is not captured on the video that was publicly shown.

[AAO]

485. Doesn't really matter - it was agains the TX Penal Code

PENAL CODE
TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY
CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

--snip --

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;


Therefore intimidation, therefore disorderly conduct. They should have all been arreseted.

[AtheistCrusader]

486. Calculated to alarm is informed by decades of case law.

This event didn't meet that bar, even though, yes, as a reasonable person, one might have been alarmed to see it.

[AAO]

492. It meets the letter of the law. Done discussing.

[AtheistCrusader]

493. That's not how it works in real life.

[AAO]

494. Hows that?

[AtheistCrusader]

495. Case law informs how officers enforce the black letter of the law.

[AAO]

503. Well, I just read the law, and it seems to apply here, undeniably.

I'll agree to disagree. Nice chatting with you AC.

[AtheistCrusader]

504. I can supply you state appeals court level decisions on this for my state, if you'd like.

Washington's open carry law is similar, except that we are also allowed to open carry pistols.

I don't have the relevant cases from Texas handy.

Our RCW:

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.—RCW 9.41.270


“We note that, in connection with this case, several individuals have commented that they would find it strange, maybe shocking, to see a man carrying a gun down the street in broad daylight. Casad’s appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individual’s lack of comfort with firearms does not equate to reasonable alarm. We agree. It is not unlawful for a person to responsibly walk down the street with a visible firearm, even if this action would shock some people.”—Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II”

(Casad was still went to jail for related reasons though. Being a felon in possession of a firearm.)

An intent to intimidate would likely fall under the criteria I mentioned upthread, around 'aiming it at them', or gesturing to the gun while staring at them, like one might draw a finger across their neck to signal a threat, etc.

One could make a case that this was merely a political demonstration, albeit, a tasteless, and potentially frightening one.
I'm a gun owner, and I'd be disturbed to see something like that, and I would NEVER carry a gun to a rally of similar nature, even if I was so inclined to protest about something related. (I am not)

[AAO]

505. A political demonstration that intimidates with guns some mothers eating lunch?

Sorry, I'll agree to disagree. EOM

[AtheistCrusader]

506. It's a language nuance I think.

That it is a political demonstration tends to lend it first amendment cover, actually.

That it might be intimidating to someone doesn't mean it was MEANT to intimidate. Again, I contrast the difference between being armed at the demonstration, versus one of them pointing at the Mothers, then pointing at the rifle, or some similar calculated threatening gesture.

Free speech in some forms isn't always nice, comfortable, neighborly, or even a good idea. (I think that protest was a really bad idea, and wasted whatever general support capital they may have had prior, by being so incredibly unreasonable.)

[AAO]

508. If a bunch of people weilding rifles forms a group outside a restaraunt I'm eating at....

I would be very intimidated. I don't like being around ANY guns - they are killing machines and no one can tell what those people have in mind. I think you are being very dismissive of most peoples reaction to that situation. If these gun lovers are so naive that they don't think it is intimidating, then they are too fucking stupid to own a gun, in my world.

[AtheistCrusader]

509. I certainly appreciate your point of view.

I would be concerned as well.

My thoughts on why I wouldn't call the protest unlawful are more centered around what people of the same political persuasion have done to us in the past, with 'free speech zones' and deciding certain protests are a threat, etc. I want to protect the broadest range of political speech, because in the end, it protects me as well, even if it means allowing things like this.

Also, sunlight is a disinfectant. All the gun owners I know personally backed way the hell away from supporting these people.

[AAO]

510. Thanks.

[BainsBane]

427. They turned up at the mother's group with guns

That is a clear threat. Are you seriously going to claim you wouldn't see 40 armed men at your door as threatening?

[AtheistCrusader]

430. I actually specified that at one point.

I agree, it is easily construed as threatening, within a certain context, and poisonous to civil discourse.
They should not be doing that. It is a self-defeating political strategy.

[BainsBane]

433. I just got a text from work

There is a gunman on the premises.

[AtheistCrusader]

434. :( Stay safe.

You're not seriously still posting on the internet with a nutbag about?

[BainsBane]

437. No, I'm not there now

but even if I were, his location is far (about 1/2 mile) from my office. It's a big place.

[AtheistCrusader]

439. I hope your co-workers/the public are ok.

I don't see any news reports yet, but I don't know where I'd be looking.

[BainsBane]

451. I haven't either

but got a text saying the search was complete and no one was shot. Perhaps it was a false report.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

442. So the fact that these idiots came fully armed in response to a small group meeting....

....somehow means we got them all wrong? Because of a picture angle?

Whoo-kay.

[AtheistCrusader]

443. Sigh

[Tommy_Carcetti]

444. Care to elaborate? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

445. I have.

Ad nausea.

That is not an aggressive posture. They are taking a two-deep photo. Smiling, fingers off triggers, barrels down, etc.

Yes, they are also assholes, and poisoning public discourse with their 'protest'. But there was an inferred context in the quoted material of the OP that does not exist.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

476. The context was that these thugs chose it upon themselves...

...to parade out in a public shopping center parking lot openly carrying semi-automatic rifles. All because a couple of women were inside a restaurant talking gun control.

It's lunacy and intimidation. Period.

I don't care if you think they got a bad rap from a camera angle. That's not the point.

There's no excusing this behavior.

[AtheistCrusader]

477. And you'll note, I'm not excusing the behavior.

I'm pointing out that specific narrative in the OP's quoted material is misleading.

Am I to be silent when I see a factual error, because pointing out a factual error might by extension be beneficial to the parties in question? Who cares. I will not be silent. I think it can be adequately demonstrated that their behavior is boorish, asshole bullshit, without the false narrative.

In fact, when you allow these false narratives to exist, you aid them. When people then spread the 'look at the posture/hostile pose/intimidation' and the other side can falsify part of that narrative, you actually bolster their position. You reinforce the already strong idea that they are behaving 'normal' or that the behavior can be 'normal' in your target audience. Just by having an easily knocked over 'fact' in the objection.

Stick to the facts, they have no excuses, and no place to hide, no cover for their behavior.

Edit: I won't post it, because it's hostile propaganda, but I've seen the group in question's 'viral' facebook response, and I think in the minds of most people, it adequately deflects the issue, because the false narrative is weak, and can be falsified. That is unfortunate, because it takes the issue that they are poisoning public discourse with their weapons/show of force, off the table.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

479. You will at least admit the intimidation was there, right?

Regardless of whether the fact that one guy appeared to be crouching in a prone position but in actually was just kneeling for a picture, he's strapped with a semi-automatic rifle.

That's intimidation, right? Intimidation is intimidation is intimidation, am I correct?

So if the narrative is that these guys were out there and intimidating the public and/or these women inside, how is that false?

[AtheistCrusader]

481. I can see how it can be threatening.

The Mother's group was not engaged in a protest of their own, to warrant a counter-protest, so there's that dimension to it.
Second, a public/protest event in favor of gun ownership need not be festooned with actual firearms.
There is the potential violence dimension to being armed, for a protest.

So, while I reject the brandishing/intimidation interpretation, yes, there is an intimidating element to it, and that has the negative connotation of rules gaming the laws around brandishing, plus just the general distaste of people behaving this way.

And in a way that's helpful, because I think pretty much any reasonable person would look at that and say 'that's not really acceptable'.

[nomorenomore08]

497. It's threatening, bullying (at best) behavior, period. No "can" about it. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

496. +1

Quibbling over small details when the whole situation is completely unacceptable, is pretty much the definition of inane...

[Maraya1969]

345. My tweet conversation with one of the #gunbullies

ME - How about the next time the #gunbullies want to play tough they skip the Moms in a restaurant and go straight on with our military.

Libtard (other person)
The military won't help. This is about self defense, fool.

ME - You need self defense against a bunch of non-armed women? WooHoo! Big Man on Campus!

And that was the last I heard of him..........

[kcr]

3. That guy in the red shirt

How is that not threatening? Flat out, he should have been arrested at the very least. Outrageous.

[dionysus]

6. the other idiots are just standing there, which i guess is legal in that backwards area.

red shirt (and it looks like the douchepile behind him, as well) are obviously brandishing, that's illegal.

[kcr]

7. Yep.

I don't see how anyone can defend that. Who would want anyone standing outside waiting for you holding a gun like that? Geeze. ETA it's hard to tell in the pic, but I don't think he's the only one. It looks like the one guy in a black shirt is holdig a gun too, pointing downwards.

[AAO]

288. Here's the happy gang of nuts

:large

[Keefer]

460. A RW friend sent me this:

.

[mwrguy]

461. That's bullshit!

I don't care what they looked like from the front.

They should all be in jail.

[Ranchemp.]

462. In jail for what?

Besides being colossal dicks, what TX. laws have they broken?

[mwrguy]

470. Menacing and brandishing a weapon

[Ranchemp.]

471. Police on the scene disagree with you.

[mwrguy]

472. Redneck cops let a bunch of armed thugs terrorize liberals

Go figure.

[Ranchemp.]

473. If that's what makes you sleep better at night,

go for it, but again, the cops and the state of TX disagrees with you.

[AAO]

474. The state of TX disagrees with logic in many cases. FUCK Texas - I'll never go there.

[Ranchemp.]

478. Don't go there, that's your right,

I don't have that choice, sometimes my job requires it.

[AAO]

483. I have nothing against normal everyday Texans - just their politicians and the moron teabaggers.

[Ranchemp.]

484. On that we can agree on.

Most of my dealings have to do with coordinating with TX. LEA's, not ordinary citizens, but I do find most of the citizens of TX to be warm, friendly people, plus, their TexMex food is to die for.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

515. You hate cops but want people arrested.

Interesting.

[mwrguy]

516. I hate the corrupt ones that won't protect unarmed women

[Nuclear Unicorn]

517. What protection was required? There was never a threat.

[G_j]

13. he should still be identified and arrested

but of course, that won't happen..

[gopiscrap]

162. absolutely!

[Control-Z]

225. I would be horrified to see these assholes in person.

This looks like something out of a movie. How do they get away with it?

[hack89]

4. Fucking idiots

This is why I oppose open carry.

[Hoyt]

38. What they are doing is open intimidation. People should not carry guns in public, concealed, open,

or tucked up their . . . . . . .to resemble a body part.

[hack89]

89. Classy as always Hoyt - please don't change. .nt

[billh58]

157. But they are all

"responsible" gun owners who are just exercising their Second Amendment rights to be complete assholes in the name of Freedom and Justice. It's not surprising where this is allowed to happen.

Just the kind of unstable ignorant bullies and imbeciles that you want to see with a gun.

[Packerowner740]

230. I've seen a number of your posts concerning guns and the seem to be as nutty as the

Gun owners. Why is that? I understand your opposition but why the act, if it is an act. Like another poster posted, "classy as always" I think he said.

[Hoyt]

231. Why post rationally to people who have to strap on a gun to venture out in public?

Easiest thing to do is use the ignore button. You would not be the first.

[Packerowner740]

236. "Why post rationally"?

It's the only way to be taken seriously.

[oldhippie]

239. Ha! That's funny!

Hoyt? Taken seriously? On gun issues?

That horse has left the building.

But at least he adds some levity to otherwise contentious subjects.

[Lizzie Poppet]

298. "Discussing" gun issues here is a waste of time, for the most part.

Sure, I've had some constructive conversations on gun control here (thus the "for the most part&quot , but they're rare. It's mostly irrational histrionics, seeing how far you can go without getting alerted, and trying to goad the opposition into a ban-worthy outburst.

Allowing gun threads in GD remains one of the worst admin decisions ever made on DU.

[Packerowner740]

458. So is he really serious in what he posts or is he just yanking the chain?

Is he not even worth responding to?

[oldhippie]

459. Both, actually .....

..... He is fun to watch, but I wouldn't bother responding, you won't get a satisfying reply.

I'm sure he believes what he says.

[cyberswede]

5. Did the restaurant owner think the moms would riot?

Surely he didn't think the law-abiding OCT fellows would riot. Right?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Insanity! We're spending billions warring on "terrorism" and...

these thugs are getting worse.

Forty useless shits show up to frighten four women? That's 10 sets of balls each-- real men there.

[Uncle Joe]

97. In the gun owners defense, if they didn't have their assault weapons,

the women would've kicked their ass, so they needed them for their own protection.

[Ava Gadro]

9. Well this is frightening!

A bunch of guns loose on the streets From the pic, it looks like automatic assault rifles too. It's a miracle nobody was killed. I would have been scared out of my wits if I had been there!

[Ranchemp.]

26. Those were not automatic assault rifles, just semi auto clones of real assault rifles,

that said, what a bunch of assholes, this is why I adamantly oppose open carry, it's foolish and counterproductive.

[Hoyt]

31. So, folks who are attracted to "clones" of real assault rifles are still sick losers. Maybe sicker

than those who have the real thing.

[Ranchemp.]

56. We all have our own opinion, there's yours,

and then there's mine, just as valid as anyone else's.

[Hoyt]

63. You are a gun promoter/lover, I get that.

[Ranchemp.]

71. I am?

Thanks for letting me know, I would've never known without your extraordinary internet psychic abilities.
I tip my hat to your "special" skills.

[rhett o rick]

114. What special skills were needed to determine that there were no fully automatic

weapons in that group?

[Ranchemp.]

122. There are very few full auto rifles legally owned in this country,

what are the chances that one of these morons is carrying one? Especially considering that this reaction could have very well gotten a police response with the chance of the weapons being confiscated pending a court hearing.

[rhett o rick]

183. That's not much comfort to those being intimidated.

How would police recognize a semi-auto converted to full auto?

[Ranchemp.]

187. It's not that easy to convert a modern semi auto to a full auto,

and the ATF takes a very dim view of such practices, that will get someone a stint in club fed for a minimum of 20 years, and federal prisons don't have such things as parole.

What are the chances that any of these morons are carrying an illegally converted rifle at a protest?

[rhett o rick]

196. It only takes one moron. Again, your rationalizations are no comfort to those being intimidated. nm

[SwankyXomb]

357. Since it's in Texas

probability approaching 1000%.

[Ranchemp.]

361. More like probablility approaching 0.00%.

Unless they want to be guests of club fed courtesy of the fed. govt.

These morons had to figure that the police were going to be called and no one wants to get caught with an illegal machine gun, that would put you on the fast track for incarceration.

[SwankyXomb]

370. Anyone stupid enough to pull a stunt like this

is absolutely stupid enough to bring their full auto conversion and show it off.

[Ranchemp.]

373. I seriously doubt it.

During my whole career, I ran into exactly 0 illegally converted or owned machine guns, most people don't want to get caught with those weapons, that's federal and, unlike state prison terms, there is no parole in the federal system.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

269. That would be a felony...

Even gun lunatics aren't stupid enough to carry an illegal fully-automatic weapon in plain view.

[rhett o rick]

421. I dont think you can tell a illegally converted automatic weapon from sight.

And I dont agree that some arent that stupid. They were, after all, using their guns to intimidate some ladies. That's stupid right there.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

424. There's "I'm An Asshole" Stupid and then there's "I'm Going To Jail" Stupid...

These guys are definitely part of the "I'm An Asshole" Stupid congregation. They know really, really well what the law will and won't allow -- mostly because they can't stand those laws and piss and moan about them constantly.

They know enough to keep out of jail, and they're definitely not going to risk having someone in law enforcement notice that their "baby" is not street legal. If you know what to look for, you actually can tell on sight if a semi has been converted to full auto.

[Ranchemp.]

432. And you would be wrong,

it would take me all of 5 seconds to determine if a weapon has been converted from semi to full auto.
These fools aren't going to take that chance, knowing full well that LE will most likely be called to check them out.

These fools want to make a statement, however foolish it is, not spend at least a decade in club fed and pay a $100,000 fine and lose their 2A rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

328. In the case of the AR, pop the take-down pin and look inside.

See an auto-sear? See a full length bolt with disconnect? 10 year federal felony with a $100,000 fine.

Trivial to do.

[Ranchemp.]

82. Curious.

Is this your usual MO? Label people, whom you know nothing about, as gun promoters/lovers just because you disagree with them? Is this how you plan to change minds?
If so, you really should use a different tactic, because, quite honestly, it ain't working.

[hack89]

104. Hoyt has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek

He is so over the top it can be nothing else. Typical discussion board performance art.

[Ranchemp.]

112. So it would seem.

I get a kick out of reading his posts on gun issues.

[Duckhunter935]

108. yes it is

There are a few that label anyone who does not agree 100% with their POV

[Major Nikon]

279. Quite honestly I could care less about changing the hearts and minds of gun promoters/lovers

They are already in the minority and only enjoy political relevancy by ALEC and other right wing organizations throwing massive amounts of campaign cash around. The idea that anyone has a vested interest in pandering to their paranoia is not a good one.

[Kingofalldems]

399. You mean you are not a gun promoter/lover?

Could have fooled me and the people in Gun Control Reform Activism.

[Ranchemp.]

405. Not even close.

I could care less if people own firearms, carry firearms.
I guess that you fool easily then, and just to clarify, I am not calling you a fool, far from it.

If your talking about this thread,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625056

kindly point out where I am promoting/loving guns.

[Ranchemp.]

415. Hmmmm, I noticed you made an assumption about me in a group I've been blocked from,

so, let me answer it here, I have never been a member of the NRA, would never be a member of the NRA and detest the NRA.
Satisfied?

[tkmorris]

113. Sorry, failure in logic there

As they say, everyone is entitled to their opinion (I'm not certain that old adage has any value but that's for another time).

However that does NOT mean that all opinions are equally valid. To be pedantic about it, "valid" and "opinion" don't really belong in the same sentence. Measuring the value of an opinion is an analog thing, not an either/or proposition. For example, Sarah Palin's opinions on foreign policy have a measure greater than zero, though said value is so infinitesimally small that it has yet to be measured. John Kerry's opinions on same are not unquestionably correct in all cases, and thus not "one", but are immeasurably greater than Palin's.

Your opinions on guns, Guns Rights Activists, and their actions in this case are not valid or invalid. They exist in a grey area somewhere in between. I happen to think they lean rather heavily in one direction, though I will leave it to you to figure out which.

[Ranchemp.]

118. I disagree,

My opinion is just as valid as anyone else, now if you want to talk facts, that's a different color of horse.

See, your opinion of my opinion are just as valid as my opinion of your opinion of my post.

[tkmorris]

135. No. Facts are valid or invalid; opinions are not

You can disagree all you like, you'll still be wrong. Your opinion is only relevant commensurate to the value other people give it, i.e. do they feel you are objective, informed, and intelligent enough to be worth listening to. Your opinion may be just as valid TO YOU, but that only matters if you enjoy standing in an empty closet speaking to yourself.

[Ranchemp.]

137. That's your opinion, which I disagree with

which is my opinion of your post.

[tkmorris]

142. Apparently I have confused you

My apologies.

You have a smurfy day now, hear?

[Ranchemp.]

147. Not you,

I think I confused myself with my first answer to you, it took about 10 minutes for me to untwist my tongue and brain.
You have a good day too.

[Caretha]

240. Well done tk

[billh58]

489. Not really, as this

one knows how to play the game after returning from the pizza shop on more than one occasion.

[Ranchemp.]

511. You have any proof of this accusation and why don't you address me directly?

[dionysus]

169. to be fair, owning one of those and parading around with it like a douchebag are two different thing

s.

[hollowdweller]

277. I just don't think you should carry assault weapons in public

I mean these guys stated goal is to get people used to seeing people carrying them in public.

I think that's a bad idea.

Where I live I see people carrying shotguns and rifles all the time in hunting season. I do it. I'm used to it.

However if I see a guy with an AK or AR or a Uzi or something in public, like a mall or downtown street I want to know he's trouble and
get something between he and I.

I feel like allowing open carry of assault rifles could give a person a false sense of complacency when the person is a mass shooter.

I also think carrying AK's or AR's or something line an FN-FAL is too dangerous to use AGAINST a mass shooter due to the energy of the bullets causing richochets and stuff.

So let me restate:

I have nothing against so called assault rifles, but I think the stated goal of getting the public used to them on the streets, given the numbers of mass shootings recently is a bad thing and could wind up getting some people shot when they thought a mass shooter was just some crazy redneck parading around with his gun playing army.

I think assault rifles in the city as a defense are too dangerous and think only pistol rounds that won't richochet or travel as far are the only safe self defense rounds in the city.

[Ava Gadro]

191. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

I did not know the difference. All I've ever heard these guns called on TV is "automatic assault rifles" or some number that I can't recall. I probably have this confused and should have refrained for commenting other than I'm glad the members were not killed.

[bowens43]

223. who the fuck cares what they were? This assholes should be in jail and all firearms illegal.

If person owns a gun they are a potential murderer and should be treated like one.

[Packerowner740]

232. That sounds as crazy as the

"All men are potential rapists because they have the equipment" or "all women are potential prostitutes because the have the equipment".

I've seen both off those many times and it's just as nutty.

[Ranchemp.]

248. So all men should be treated as potential rapists because they have a penis?

That's just as stupid as your post.

[mwrguy]

252. This is absolutely right!

They all need to go.

[Ohio Joe]

10. Fuckin gun nuts

With their violent rhetoric and violent open threats like this one... They really do need to have their guns taken away.

But noooooo... We still support their 'right' to be murderous assholes.

[Hoyt]

11. Gun cultists are bullies. Police should have arrested those losers.

Photo looks like your typical group of bigoted gun loving yahoos.

Moron Labes.

[dionysus]

12. why are three of those fools taking cover behind a car and brandishing? they hiding from a sniper?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

15. Why? Because it's acting. It's not real. It's Astroturf.

[Hoyt]

17. No, it's sick gun nuttery, and it's time we quit putting up with this crap.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. It is public theater.

[Bjorn Against]

28. This is not theater, this is terrorism

Brandishing guns to threaten political opponents is terrorism by definition.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. If you really believed that, you would report them to the police instead of just posting here.

[Bjorn Against]

58. I am supposed to call the police over a news article?

Do you call the police every time you read about a crime in the news?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. If you believe the law was broken, passionately so, call the police. I dare you.

[Bjorn Against]

78. I dare you to call the police every time you read a story in the news which involves a broken law.

You keep insisting I call the police but you keep dodging me when I suggest you call the police over a news story in which you think a law was broken.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

79. See #76. You claim to believe that the photo is real. I think it was staged.

[chowder66]

96. Wow. You cannot see that this looks threatening?

How can you expect people to (my words > ) "Get it" when you won't try to "Get it" from
the perspective of people who can't possibly know these are not real guns?

That's some pretty crappy theater.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

235. Which one of the Rhodes Scholars in the picture is you?

Do you ever wonder why you find yourself defending some of the dumbest fuckstains to ever draw a breath and jack off to images of Sarah Palin? I do.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

237. If you want to see a Rhodes Scholar, try this photo:

Even HRC has gone hunting.

Here's a photo of someone who is very smart even if he is not a Rhodes Scholar:

[Bjorn Against]

244. What the hell do Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have to do with the open carry idiots?

Maybe you can point them out to me, but I sure as hell am not seeing either of their faces in the crowd of gun toting idiots this thread is about. I am pretty sure that neither one of them would approve of the sort of open carry terroristic intimidation tactics the assholes in Open Carry Texas are engaging in.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

245. IMO, nobody should approve of open carry. But you indicated that you wanted to see a Rhodes Scholar

[Bjorn Against]

247. Actually no, I did not indicate that I wanted to see a Rhodes scholar

And I am pretty certain the Rhodes Scholar that you did include a picture of would tell you that you are taking that picture of him way out of context if you think it is in any way comparable to the open carry idiots this thread is focused on.

[Caretha]

241. How old are you

cuz you sound like a nut or a kid

[dionysus]

296. sleep well, sweet, sweet prince.. polish your precious for me!

[Paladin]

342. Thank you, administrators. At long last...... (nt)

[uponit7771]

242. +1

[Hoyt]

35. It is a bunch of white gun bigots intimidating people. You can call it theater, but it's terrorism.

What -- other than your gun love -- makes you try to label it theater?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. Why don't you find out when the two groups are having their next meeting? You could be on one

side and have your picture taken?

Just expect more group meetings like this.

[Bjorn Against]

41. Hopefully next time the terrorists at these "group meetings" will be arrested

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. If you are really concerned, prove it. Call the police for the current activity and report it.

[Bjorn Against]

48. If I witnessed something like that I would call the police on those terrorists

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. You did witness that. You saw the OP with the photo, above. Take action instead of making excuses.

[Bjorn Against]

64. Do you call the police every time you read a crime story?

If so I suspect the police are quite sick of you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

67. So you're not going to call the police? I dare you to do so.

[Bjorn Against]

73. Answer the question. Do you call the police every time you read a crime story in the news?

I dare you to do so.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

76. Everytime that I believe that photographic evidence of someone brandishing a gun, and I post

comments about it, I do.

[Bjorn Against]

86. Well I assume the police are really annoyed with you then

Sorry, but if I were to call the police over every article I read in which I thought a law was broken I would be on the phone with the police constantly. Nobody except a complete moron would call the police over a news article unless they had info beyond what is in the news. The police are no doubt aware of this story already.

[kcr]

106. You mean, you haven't heard of the internet article police investigation team?

They sit there by their phones eagerly awaiting those calls by alert citizens scoping the internet, on the alert for evidence of crime. They can't do it alone, dammit!

[dionysus]

213. you're just afraid cases like this will make the gummint take away your pew pew pew toys, arent you?

[Comrade Grumpy]

227. Really? You're "daring" an anonymous poster on the Internet? Ooooohhhh. Well, okay, then.

[elehhhhna]

134. FFS are you in that picture or something? quit badgering already.

cripes.

call 911 yourself or take your meds or something

[AAO]

293. Why should I reply to a pizza?

[Hoyt]

49. There are plenty of group meetings of bigots and their guns, long before Mothers Against Guns.

Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Shoot, go to any gun show or store. You'll see the same losers drooling over guns.

[dionysus]

84. what a diverse group. two of them are left handed. nt

[Hoyt]

91. LMAO. According to the gun guy above, they are just actors.

[SQUEE]

285. And your feelings on these guys?

[Hoyt]

289. First, I have seen a number of right wing bigots throw that photo out to justify their gun love.

Second, those guys really don't scare me because most are likely dead now, and were making a valid point at the time, one that obviously escapes you.

Those in my post are alive, promoting gunz and hatred right now. They are a threat to our country.

But thanks for confirming -- "Gun Ownership And Racist Attitudes Are Linked, Study Finds"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=640994

[SQUEE]

299. As an admited felonious character, I can see why you fear guns..

And I I see more threat to our country from armed robbers than idiots posturing with guns, they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, you admit to being a dangerous felon.... only circumstance has kept you from killing someone, and yet you want to heap your guilt and lack of self control on to others.
BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, you are a dangerous and unlawful person.
As I see it you really have no place to stand on this as your own interest in the matter is purely self preservation.

[Hoyt]

309. Nope, SQUEE, I am not a felon. You need to learn to read in context and quit spewing gun love and

use of guns for intimidation and hatred. You are also a stalker, who again can't read in context. Go stroke your gunz.

[SQUEE]

448. You bragged about commiting a felony.

I am quite certain you made such post in complete honesty, that or you are just lying to illicit a response, taking on a persona that will illicit a response from people a Dramatis Personae of sorts in your ongoing crusade against lawful Americans, using terror, theft and humorous juxtoposition to ... well i haven't figured that out, but I keep watching, much like Eraserhead to figure out what it is you are on about.
tschüß, Mon frere, have a wonderful day.

[AAO]

294. Same as playing cowboys and indians as a kid.

Fucking moron loser dress-up pretenders.

[Ranchemp.]

94. You're calling a long time member a troll?

Ever heard of the term Pot, Kettle?

[billh58]

512. But he WAS a troll

Slick - a gun troll. Sometimes it just takes a little longer to expose them. Know what I mean?

[NYC_SKP]

513. Ya. There are trolls on both sides of the issue, doncha know!

Some are really obvious.

[Ranchemp.]

514. No, I don't know what you mean,

Sparky.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. If you really believed that, you would report them to the police instead of just posting here.

[Lizzie Poppet]

177. At least you waited until post #35 to play the race card.

/rolleyes

[Hoyt]

221. You must have missed this: "Gun Ownership And Racist Attitudes Are Linked, Study Finds"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=640994

Of course, anyone honest about guns does not need a study to prove that, as I was saying over a year ago in the Gungeon. The truth hurt some of the gun folks.

[Eleanors38]

250. Yeah, got there faster than the penis card!

[Hoyt]

278. As gun manufacturers and marketeers have recognized, the "penis card" sells guns to yahoos.

[geek tragedy]

148. So is cross-burning, which I imagine the goons who pulled this stunt

also indulge in.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

151. I'm not Black but I assume that the KKK would like to disarm all Black Americans.

[geek tragedy]

154. No, just intimidate. Just like these Taliban types nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. If they don't have those funny Taliban hats, they are not Taliban types.

[geek tragedy]

159. No, just Confederate flag caps and t-shirts. Call them Tealiban if you like nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

163. They all look like they shopped at the same Walmart.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

273. theatre is by definition, an entertainment --an agreement, if you will, between the performers

and audience.

There is no threat involved in theatre. The audience engages willingly and may leave at anytime without fear of harm.

That is not the case here.

This interection was planned by the "performers" specifically to cause fear in the people they are ANGRY at. That is called threatening. If those guns were carved out of soap, if they looked realistic enough to be taken for the real thing, it would still be threatening.

Of course, somewhere deep down, you know this, which is why your "argument" (*coff* tantrum *coff*) is stuck in a repetitive loop and the "I dare you" game.

[LanternWaste]

320. The one does not deny the other.

The one (terrorism) does not deny the other (public theater-- which is in fact, part and parcel of terrorism itself...)


Although I imagine anyone whose sacred cow is being slow-grilled would argue otherwise.

[dionysus]

18. .

[Skidmore]

29. And how do you know that

someone in that group won't be a headline because he felt so threatened by those who don't carry weapons? Why are these people so fearful of those who don't own or carry guns? And don't tell me it is because of their need to hunt game.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. If you really believed that this was real, you would report them to the police.

[HERVEPA]

280. One trick pony

[AAO]

297. One trick pizza!

[billh58]

488. One down, and only a

few cold-dead-hands NRA supporters to go. At this rate, the Gungeon will soon become a place to discuss the gun violence problem rationally. There is little doubt that this one will attempt to return as one who "supports" gun control and only wants to be friends, as with others who have returned and are building their post counts daily.

[LanternWaste]

324. If you really believe this was theater, you would call their agent for a Broadway show...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other...


And both as petulantly irrelevant as the other (insert brain-dead rationalization here...)

[nomorenomore08]

501. ...

[bettyellen]

87. apparently you don't know the history of OCT, they are serious, and have pulled this stunt before.

the restaurant manager should have called the cops, you know damned well it is useless for anyone here to do it. Why persist with that bullshit response? Why are you covering for these sick individuals and attacking DUers?

[dionysus]

110. because they see this thread as an attack on their pew pew pew toys.

[Uncle Joe]

100. Because the women were going to beat them to death with their purses, the gun owners had no choice

fortunately there was a nearby "safe house" Hooters for them to escape to.

[DevonRex]

194. They're hiding from some unarmed moms, LOL!! Bunch of babies.

Either that or they don't mind looking like they want to murder unarmed moms in the parking lot lot a diner, like terrorists do.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. Is this real? Or Astroturf with both groups financed by the same people?

[Nine]

23. What? Who do you suspect is financing both group?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

33. What rw stop-and-frisk billionaire has been supporting let's-take firearms-away-from-everyone

except the rich and the super-rich?

It's public theater. We'll probably see more of it.

[Hoyt]

55. Those losers don't look like actors, they look like your typical gun terrorists.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. They look like gun terrorists? Really. Then call the police. I dare you.

[Hoyt]

80. Just because you consider them friends, I don't. They are armed initimidators, doing what is natural

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. All criminals who brandish firearms should be arrested and prosecuted.

[cui bono]

125. Yeah, because there's nobody that idiotic, selfish, inarticulate, fearful and so unable to cope

with reality that they need to use rifles to intimidate a tiny group of mothers.

Oh wait... there are morons like that. We see them in the news all the time. Fucking assholes who think their rifles are more important than people's lives and their right to speak out in public.

Is that your way of defending this thuggish behavior? By pretending it was all fake?

And... if it's fake then why don't you write a LTE and complain about it? I dare you.

[Skidmore]

30. That doesn't even make sense at any level.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. If you really believed they were violating the law, you should report them to the police.

[Skidmore]

99. So. Is that the only thing you can astroturf.

Had I been there, I would have called in a group of threatening people on the street with guns. But, since we are learning of this after the fact, your astroturf response is as pointless as their bullying.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

121. A contemporaneous appearance is not a requirement. Crimes can be reported after they've occurred.

[TomCADem]

446. Seriously, Another False Flag Conspiracy?

Let me guess? Are you going to argue that Sandy Hook was a hoax?

[WinkyDink]

37. Please.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. If you really believed they were violating the law, you should report them to the police.

[pangaia]

101. Why do you keep telling everyone who doesn't agree with you to 'call the police?'

What's that about?

[dionysus]

107. when one has lost the argument, keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over...

surely the 20th time it's posted will win the argument!

[pangaia]

109. +1111

[AnotherMcIntosh]

123. Pot calling a kettle black?

[dionysus]

128. don't worry, no one's going to take away the precious.

[awoke_in_2003]

251. He hates Bilbo Baggins. nt

[dionysus]

254. we hates the bagginses, yes we do.. the shiny precioussss....

[awoke_in_2003]

255. Perfect...

I couldn't remember the exact verbiage.

[defacto7]

203. It's a simple taunt.

Children learn this technique somewhere around 6 or 7 years old. Some grow out of it, some do not. It's like repeating, "your mom wears army boots" when there's nothing left to say.

Adults use it as a trolling device to goad those with whom they disagree. It's typical passive aggressive behavior in adults.

[pangaia]

220. Yes, I was trying to be nice.

I remember the phrase as, 'your mother wears Army boots in church, "and that was in the late '50s. Yikes, I can actually remember that. Did I ever say it? I don't remember. Maybe I have blocked it out.

[defacto7]

226. I'm sure you were being nice...

I was just trying to fill in the blanks.

The Army boots phrase... just something out of the dregs of my memory.... It was a long time ago. I wonder where it originated or if it was just a passing reference to childish arguments?

[LeftyMom]

46. I think you might have missed a dose.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

66. You should report them to the police if you really believed this was not just public theater.

Brandishing a firearm is a crime. Report it if you think this was real.

You've seen the OP. You've seen the photo. You can easily find the phone number for the police.

Or, if you don't think it was real, you can just continue to post here.

[cui bono]

129. There is a concept that exists called time.

You should learn about it.

[MattBaggins]

276. Time gets all distorted in your moms basement

[kcr]

51. .

[dionysus]

61. i think we just discovered someone who really loves their pew pew pew toys...

[kcr]

75. I think so

A good rule of thumb is, when you start stooping to kooky conspiracy theories, maybe it's time to step back and reevaluate. Because, man, that's embarrassing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. What you should think is that all criminals who brandish firearms should be arrested and prosecuted.

No one here is calling the police because no one here really thinks that this is real. Not even you. I dare you to call the police if you think that it is real.

[kcr]

90. I know! Because it's perfect world, where every criminal is rightfully arrested

And prosecuted. We should get right on that! Because then they'll go right out and arrest him! Seriously, you're hilarious.

[redwitch]

130. You're making my head hurt.

Please stop.

[AAO]

300. I double-dog-dare you to shutup and eat your pizza that you so fervently asked for.

[Bobbie Jo]

317. Long overdue, that one.

[Paladin]

343. Amen. (nt)

[AAO]

397. I hope right as he was taking the first bite, a cockroach popped up right in his mouth!

Fuck these mother fucking fuckheads. They fuking fuck everything up.

[dionysus]

53. ...bringing absurdity to new heights. performance art bro?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. If you really believed they were violating the law, you would report them to the police.

[Bjorn Against]

68. I ask again, do you call the police every time you read a crime story in the news?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. See #76, above.

[Nine]

120. Why don't YOU call the police?

Since you think it's all staged, it seems like you should be glad to have the police investigate and expose it for the farce it is.

C'mon, what are you afraid of?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

124. Obviously, I think it was public theater with two groups. That's not against the law.

[Nine]

143. You don't have to share your personal opinion.

Just send them a link to the news story and ask them to look into whether any laws were broken.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

150. Agreed.

And, in addition to the police, why not send a link of the news story to the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and ask the same thing.

[Nine]

195. What do you mean, "Agreed."?

I'm suggesting that YOU do it instead of harassing everyone else on the thread.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

202. Agreed with your "Just send them a link to the news story and ask them to look into whether any

laws were broken."

Since I believe that what they are doing is coordinated public theater and no laws were broken, I neither

(1) have an obligation to report that to the police nor do I
(2) have an obligation to report to the police that some DU posters claim to believe that laws were broken.

Those who claim to believe that laws were broken should either

(1)call the police in a manner consistent with that asserted belief or
(2) otherwise "send them a link to the news story and ask them to look into whether any laws were broken."

It's my position that all criminals who brandish firearms should be arrested and prosecuted. Shouldn't that be yours?

If so, take action consistent with your belief that laws were broken, if any.

[HERVEPA]

281. What an idiotic comment.

[shenmue]

16. Stay classy, gun nuts!

Ugh.

[mopinko]

19. for 4 women?

just in case anybody is wondering what cowards look like.

[NYC_SKP]

34. Bully cowards. I'd slap 'em. Stupid asses. Article says they left and went over to Hooters.

Where, again, they should be slapped if they walked in there with guns.

WTF.

The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.

[Deep13]

103. Ten to one, plus they're armed, plus they're men.

And apparently they were too scared to simply pick up the phone and calmly and politely to talk to them.

Different cultures construct masculinity differently, of course. I had always been under the impression that "real" men do not threaten to act violently toward women. It's a cowardly thing to do, of course, but also "real" men are not supposed to be carried away in an emotional outburst. Finally, women create men, so they are due a degree of respect for that (beyond what is due for simply being human).

Being RW types, I'm assuming most of those guys self-identify as Christian. So I'm wonder what part of Christianity makes it okay to form an armed street gang, just to intimidate four people who are doing nothing but talking.

[TeamPooka]

20. These boys are too afraid to face those Moms unarmed.

What are you babies going to do? Shoot unarmed women? Real fucking tough boys.

[rrneck]

21. Interesting image.

From the side it looks like they are arrayed tactically. If you stood in front of the group, it would look like a group photo.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

24. Looks they are posing for a picture.

The photographer is to the left. They need proof that they are real men.

We showed them women, now let's go to Hooters!

[Heather MC]

25. I know this sounds Crazy, but I would have called their bluff

They claim to be responsible gun owners who don't need rules and regulations to own a gun.

If they pulled the trigger on a group of unarmed moms. What does that say about their "responsibilty"?????

[zeemike]

43. That was exactly my thought...

And I would not have gone to another place...I would have called the cops and insisted I be free to do what I wanted to do...the worst thing you can do with bullies is give even one inch.

[safeinOhio]

149. Thank god a car didn't backfire or

or some wise guy set off a firecracker.

[Heather MC]

152. I think there was a greater chance they would have shot themselves in the foot

Barney Fife Style

[AAO]

305. At least 'ol Barn only had one bullet.

When he shot himself in the foot Ange would just giv him anothern!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

153. Or that one of the Armed Gun Advocates didn't have gas.

[Lizzie Poppet]

301. I'd like to think I'd have had something to say, too.

I'm a gun owner and gun rights advocate (albeit one who supports a number of additional regulations), and I think demonstrations like this are flat-out stupid. There is simply no need to openly carry in this kind of situation. Regardless of intent, it IS intimidating to the other side, and that's an infringement on their right to free speech. The First Amendment's no less important than the Second.

[Packerowner740]

27. That's just craziness.

[The Wizard]

32. Call them what they are

Short Peckered Punks.

[WinkyDink]

36. Good thing for the OCT'ers that they weren't carrying TOY guns! They'd be dead now!

[Vashta Nerada]

40. Big men there, intimidating unarmed women with their weapons.

I'm pretty sure each of those armed men have small penises as well.

[RedCappedBandit]

42. Fuckin' cowards.

[Fla Dem]

144. Bingo! nt

[leftyohiolib]

45. but let a little boy walk down the street with a toy gun

[lobodons]

59. Ironically, they are proving the Mom's point

No one is safe in America's gun crazy culture.

[dickthegrouch]

62. Didn't want to call 911????

If any ONE of the people involved felt threatened, 911 is the ONLY option. The police are trained to defuse threatening situations. How long do you wait? Until you see the first person frightened.

The only people likely to riot were the gun nuts. If they felt threatened by the police showing up, they can WALK AWAY. Many are expected to be too stupid to do that, apparently.

Warning to gun nuts: If I'm ever put in the position of having to face you down like this, my FIRST act is to call 911. Then turn on my video camera. You brought the intimidation, you deal with it.

[Deep13]

92. The single most idiotic detail in the whole story.

Those unwilling to challenge bullies are both victims and bully-enablers themselves.

[47of74]

158. Same here

I'm calling 911. Any restaurant or store manager not liking that can suck it.

[kcr]

161. It was the store that didn't want to call 911

[AnotherMcIntosh]

164. "the restaurant manager did not want to call 911". Nothing prevented the women from doing so.

[kcr]

166. And nothing in the story says they didn't do so.

[47of74]

168. The restaurant manager should be fired.

You don't mess with the safety of your guests like that.

[kcr]

172. I agree.

I can't believe a bunch of people standing outside a store brandishing weapons didn't constitute a call to 911. I bet corporate will have something. to say about that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

173. The fact that no one called the police for "approximately two hours," not even other customers,

indicates (to me at least) that this was public theater and known to be public threater.

[kcr]

179. Well of course you do

Why not consider the more likely scenario? That would be boring, huh. Much better to ignore the reality, based on clues from the story. They mention the fact the store manager didn't want to call 911. Now why would they know that? Because they asked the manager. Why would they do that? Because they wanted 911 called. You could counter by asking why they didn't call themselves. Well, haven't you ever been inside a store where the cell phone coverage was non-existent? I have. Multiple times. There's always at least one store where you can never make a phone call and always have to go outside.

[Packerowner740]

233. Aren't most act of civil disobedience or public demonstrations

"Public theater"?

[47of74]

165. I saw that

That's why I said I would call 911. I wouldn't trust a store or restaurant manager to do so.

[kcr]

198. But there could be a reason they didn't call 911 even though they wanted to

They may not have had cell phone coverage, for example. I think the fact they asked the manager is evidence they wanted 911 called, and likely couldn't call themselves for whatever reason.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

170. I would have been on the horn, trust me.

NO hesitation about that. None.

Good idea re: the video... my phone has that feature.

[oldhippie]

188. So I guess none of the women had a cell phone .....

... to call 911 themselves? Why did they think the manager had to do it?

My guess is that the manager has had to call 911 several times over his career, and most calls probably don't end well.

[kcr]

189. You've never been in a store where you couldn't get cell phone coverage?

And had to go outside to make a call? We have a grocery store where we can never make a call inside.

[oldhippie]

192. Uh, no, I haven't.

Especially if near a window looking out at the street to see guys with guns.

I mean, really, this was in Dallas, in a restaurant, not in a shielded vault in a bank. You're really stretching.

[kcr]

193. I think it's a bigger stretch to claim they didn't want to call 911

The spokesperson said the manager didn't want to call 911. How do they know that if they didn't ask? But hey, we have to get all victim blamey. Better than placing the blame where it really belongs, on the threatening assholes with the guns standing outside Because it's so hard to imagine they didn't have cell phone service for whatever reason! Tht's such a stretch!

[oldhippie]

197. Then why didn't one of the women call 911?

Even if their cell phones didn't work, the restaurant must have had a phone if they wanted the manager to call. Do you think the manager would deny one of the women the use of the phone?

[kcr]

199. The manager didn't want 911 called, fearing it would make matters worse.

So, yes.

[oldhippie]

200. And so then the women said, "OK" .......

... and ordered another coffee or something rather than call themselves. Yeah, that makes sense.

[kcr]

201. So, their fault

I can totally understand your focus on them and their roll in this matter.

[oldhippie]

205. Nope, I am not trying to assign fault, ....

... but to ascertain circumstances.

Since this story has been all over the news and the internet, and it appears to be that no one in authority seems to believe a crime was committed, I'm not sure if "fault" is an operative term.

But you can believe what you wish. It's a free country.

[kcr]

210. And it's just so hard to ascertain the circumstances

of a group brandishing weapons outside a place of business, waiting for another party to come out?

[oldhippie]

212. And what were the circumstances that .......

Never mind. You're not gonna get it. Back to football.

[kcr]

246. Oh, I get it. Given that

there were multiple posts claiming that this situation was a false flag, and which post do you zero in on as irrational? Hoyt's. I think I've got it pretty well pegged.

[dionysus]

218. clearly, you're the type of "hippie" who supports 40 knuckledraggers with guns trying to intimidate

4 women. Jesus Christ, you love guns so much you'd support that. fucking pathetic man.

do you carry to get the mail? never know where 4 women might be nearby, conspiring to take your preciouses away...

[oldhippie]

224. Since you are so smart ....

.... maybe you can tell me how, exactly, asking why one of the women did not call 911 has ANY fucking thing to do with supporting " 40 knuckledraggers with guns trying to intimidate 4 women." I never mentioned either the guns or the said knuckledraggers in any of my posts. So how do you "clearly" get I am supporting them?

My question posed was why none of the women called 911 themselves. If you weren't going to address my question in my post, why did you feel you had to make something up and accuse me of it?

You've got some 'splainin' to do. Please be specific.

[Packerowner740]

234. "Your preciouses"?

[lpbk2713]

65. Way to go mouth breathing geniuses. You settled the argument right there.

100% against you, without a doubt.


What dumb asses.

[TRoN33]

69. A message for gun-toting idiots...

Oh, apparently using the guns are giving these 2nd amendment bearing idiots an hard on...

[Deep13]

81. "The group moved to a nearby Hooters...."

It would be funny if what they did were not so deplorable.

Where to start with these guys?

First, what a cowardly, despicable thing to do. They object to these women talking to each other--something everyone has a perfect right to do--so they come to their meeting place with dangerous weapons to intimidate them. They were not protesters. They were an armed mob. Frankly, the police would would have been justified in assuming that the hooligans were there for a mass murder and to shoot them all to protect the lives of their hostages. And how is calling the lawful authorities "inciting a riot?" More cowards. Give the bullies anything and they will just keep taking more and more.

Anyway, at the very least under this state's law, what these guys did is called aggravated menacing, conduct designed to intimidate others. The aggravated part comes from the firearms. It's a misdemeanor, but that could still put them away for six months. Don't know the TX law.

post script.

Here's an idea. Why don't a few of you guys just ask those ladies why they feel the way they do. I don't mean crashing the meeting, but maybe send their contact person a polite e-mail asking to talk about it. You may find a lot of common ground. But probably you will simply lose your temper because someone has the never to disagree with you.

[etherealtruth]

93. Who would have thought 'gun enthusiasts" would be so terrified ...

... of a bunch of unarmed mom's and their kids.

I do suppose a stroller could be wielded as a deadly weapon.

This would be comical (the obvious fear of the unarmed) except its real and obviously unstable, paranoid, knuckle draggers are truly wielding implements of death and destruction.

[Deep13]

141. They're whole perspective is fear of the other. nt

[alphafemale]

95. meh. I'd have walked over and talked to them.

People don't scare me.

[sakabatou]

98. I saw that on another site (America Blog)

And yeah, it's pretty much intimidation.

[JEB]

102. 40 chickenshit rat bastards too scared to debate 4 women

without their guns to fondle.

[nonpareil]

105. Gollums

Gollems-that's what they've become. Each clutching their "Precious" to themselves afraid that some harmless moms are going to take it away. Pathetic.

[freshwest]

111. These brownshirt tactics are being used in several states, harrassing people in public meetings.

They haven't stopped since they disrupted town hall meetings over the ACA.

[KG]

115. Im guessing these are those wonderful, 'responsible' gun owners I keep hearing so much about.

[etherealtruth]

127. they are all responsible gun owners ...

... until that moment they are murderous psychos.

(It has become quite clear that responsible gun owners = those that use weaponry to intimidate those that disagree with them ... until that moment they are murderous psychos, of course)

[annabanana]

116. THIS is what comes of the NRA's stranglehold on debate.

Is there a Constitutional right to threaten?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

117. Reminds me of photos taken in the middle east.

What point are they trying to make?
This is exactly what I don't want want the country to become like, a bunch of assholes running around with guns.
Do you want our kids to grow up in this kind of culture?

[47of74]

155. I felt and was a lot safer in Turkey

[Pakid]

119. Wow What a bunch of really big men LOL

I am sick an tired of gun nuts willfully endangering the rest of us. Something needs to be done. If this had been a group of lefties the cops would have been all over them but since its gun nuts not a word will be said.

[SwankyXomb]

366. If they'd been black

the National Guard would have been called in.

[Snake Plissken]

126. Taliban wannabes

what a bunch of pathetic losers

[on point]

131. The whole open carry thing needs to be outlawed. These people show they can't be trusted

With guns and they should be put on exclusion list

[Decaffeinated]

132. Hmm...

[MyNameGoesHere]

133. I bet everyone here we can't make AnotherMacintosh write

"call the police" a 1000 times. I just don't think anyone could be that "strong willed"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

139. You win. Of course, there will be those who will claim to believe that criminal actiity has taken

place but will not take action consistent with their asserted beliefs.

[MyNameGoesHere]

211. That counts.

Shoot I may have underestimated your "strong will"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

136. I've seen open carry demonstrations before.

Last edited Sun Nov 10, 2013, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

This is the first time I've seen one where the demonstrators were in a crouched ready to fire position.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

146. Also notice that they are all White. I'm not Black, but I suspect that the KKK would like to disarm

all Blacks. As would the billionaire Mayor (or former Mayor) Bloomberg.

[Nine]

264. Is this the newest incarnation of Godwin's law? (nt)

[Fla Dem]

140. They are nothing more than Gun Terrorist. No different than the Taliban. nt

[City Lights]

145. Fucking assholes. nt

[gopiscrap]

160. fucking gun nut asswipes!

[99Forever]

167. Just your typical law-abiding, responsible bunch of gun wackos.

Scumbucket bullies, the entire lot of them. Probably some from the Gungeon there, celebrating their Freedumbs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

171. If it were 40 armed Black men gathered outside a meeting of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Just sayin'.......

[uponit7771]

243. +1

[gollygee]

329. +1000

The police would have come out en masse. Bunches of people would have seen it and instantly called 911. And it would have been all the hell over national TV news channels.

[Politicalboi]

176. Pathetic pieces of shit

[locdlib]

178. So, out of this group of assholes,

which ones are the "good guys" with guns? The way I see it, they are all assholes with guns for this shit. The only point they made was that they are all assholes. They showed up at a restaurant where a group was meeting to discuss better gun safety measures and this group of idiots show up with their guns to intimidate them. Assholes.

[frylock]

180. dumbshit in the red shirt probably learned that cool pose playing medal of honor

[Lizzie Poppet]

302. He knows he's doomed.

Red shirt and all...

[perdita9]

181. The right of the people to peacefully assemble SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Thank you, gun nuts, for illustrating exactly why American needs to enact gun control.

[Paladin]

182. Domestic terrorism, pure and simple. (nt)

[heaven05]

184. looks like something

a bunch of neanderthal bullies doing what they do best, be really stupid. This is one reason not to be proud of our 'freedom' to own weapons. MDA is a reason to be very proud of our 'freedoms'. December 14 in Sandy Hook? A neanderthal gun rally! How very sad this whole love affair in Amerikkka, with guns, has become. How sick and disrespectful of all who died in that school. I am fighting real anger. Will it ever stop? This stupidity, ignorance and backwardness.

[Le Taz Hot]

185. I'm sorry.

All that firepower for 4 WOMEN???? Aren't they just the big bad brave dudes. And typical.

[Skittles]

263. gun humpers are cowards

[PumpkinAle]

190. So if they are against the Mothers against gun violence

doesn't that mean that these gun nuts are for gun violence?

[etherealtruth]

228. their assumed posture certainly implies that

[SoapBox]

206. For the gun krazy, it's all about free speech...Right?

Oh that's right.... NO it's not!

It's about suppressing those that disagree with them on any level.

...sick bunch of assholes.

[appleannie1]

207. They would have taken out half their own. LOL

[dem in texas]

208. Hiding from Mommy!

Look at them, hiding behind a car, afraid of 4 or 5 ladies having lunch. They got big gun equipment to hide the fact that they have little equipment in their pants!

[bobclark86]

209. A small handful of women? Let's bring 10x as many people with GUNZ!

...because THAT will totally win EVERYONE over and convince them we're not batshit crazy!...



I know these kinds of people. I've lived around them all my life. I STILL can not figure out WTF is wrong with them.

[Mopar151]

378. Some seriously bad wiring in the amiglydae

My bad on spelling? But, my mixed metaphors aside, these are folks who stick out in a crowd, ill at ease and out of sorts. Some of 'em need a medical hold on being out in public.

[bobclark86]

450. I think an adjustment on

their internal filter would be adequate.

[Buns_of_Fire]

214. I think the manager of the Blue Mesa Grill needs a good talking to.

Was afraid they'd "incite a riot," indeed. That's a pretty chickenshit excuse, if I ever heard one.

Perhaps a 911 call wasn't necessary, but it wouldn't have hurt just to call and ask if a unit in the vicinity could just drop by and cruise through the lot once or twice. Just for appearances, you know. (Open carry isn't legal in Texas, by the way. Not yet.)

[SwankyXomb]

368. Maybe a Yelp-bombing

http://www.yelp.com/biz/blue-mesa-grill-dallas-5

[spanone]

215. assholes, one and ALL.

[red dog 1]

217. IMO, the restaurant manager is a coward for not calling 911

It wasn't just the four moms who were terrified, it was also the restaurant patrons.

When our founding fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment, I don't think this is what they had in mind...(I know that the "right to bear arms" was originally part of the Bill of Rights)

[KAESNO2]

219. These fools make responsible gun owners look horrible. Thanks, assholes. nt

[bowens43]

222. All gun owners are irresponsible thugs.

[hack89]

229. Including pro-gun Dems?

Do I need to post the pictures of Clinton and Kerry hunting?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

238. They, of course, are not the only experienced ones:

[ThoughtCriminal]

249. Just imagine the public reaction in Dallas

if this collection of self-appointed "Well regulated militia", had not been all white.

[mwrguy]

256. There would have been a SWAT team dispatched

As there should have been in this case.

[rdharma]

253. Wouldn't it be fun to take an inert Claymore Mine.......

.......and place it behind these "good 'ol boys"?



Sheet! NO threat! It's INERT! What's y'alls' problem?!!!!!

[2naSalit]

257. Several things come to mind

all at once.

First, there are at least four individuals crouching.

Second, fuck the restaurant manager, I'd have called the police and told them there was an armed ambush detail threatening me and everyone in the restaurant... or the whole mall, that I was taking cover under a table and the cops better get there ASAP.

Third, they really don't seem to have more than one or two functioning brain cells among them given their positioning... unless they were posing for the picture that was taken.

Lastly, I'd take their picture, walking right past them (after the cops arrived) and call the cops every time I saw one of them following me, better yet, identify them and get restraining orders for every last one of them. If they were dumb enough to continue to intimidate me or my group, I'd sue them all for harassment and terrorist-like intimidation.

I think that people have to start taking this sort of action until it gets to a point that the authorities or courts do something about it. the only way to circumvent an ignorant Congress is to get the judicial branch involved.

[hollowdweller]

258. Just think if those guys were black.

I mean the picture really shows them in a somewhat threatening posture.

See I've always loved guns and shooting, but guys like these are really a bigger threat to the right to own guns than the ladies they were counter protesting.

About that counter protesting. I mean first that's low class to do that to a simple meeting and not a public protest- and second the whole toting your guns around and looking all military and shit. Small penises I guess. Why not carry some damn signs or something?

I've been around guns and hunting all my life and the current gun culture is so juvenile.

I blame the fascination with military rifles and end times porn on our entertainment industry and glorification of the military and wars. I mean who comes up to a fireman and says "thanks for your service"?? I blame the paranoia and victim mentality of the gun culture on the NRA and right wing.

Seriously though these guys look like bunch of assholes and they really make gun owners look bad. I can't believe they actually think what they are doing in any way helps the public image of gun owners.

[2naSalit]

259. I can't argue with that

I grew up around guns, was taught to shoot real bullets when I was four, and I was good at hitting my target then, and I only got better at it. That being said, I was taught what guns were for and how they were to be properly used. I have never had any inclination to be seen with one outside of a target practice setting in an appropriate location. I can't discuss what I learned about guns as an adult but I can say that it was still within the realm of safety and respect for life and limb and not for weeny-waving or entertainment.

I think the only boys who act like that and claim they were in the military weren't engaged in combat. I don't know anyone who was that thinks this is any way to act. And girls who act like that are only trying to make points with the clueless boys... not mature enough to be considered adults regardless of how long they have been breathing.

As you said, the present day whole gun culture and love of violence as an answer to everything and/or entertainment is one of the three biggest problems this nation has, it is a mental illness.

[NBachers]

260. Send in Sonoma County sheriff's deputy Erick Gelhaus

[CuriousAboutPolls]

261. Hooters?

Lost in all this, I think, is that Hooters serves alcohol in most locations...don't they?

Were these heavily armed, "responsible gun owners" carrying their weapons around while intoxicated...or did they at least have the sense to put them away?

[B Calm]

262. They look like a gang of Nazi Skin Heads! Where's the police?

[UncleYoder]

265. Know what that picture reminds me of?

Kent State 1970

2 lines, front line kneels. Keep backups in reserve to cover reloading.

[KrazyinKS]

267. The NRA has created a monster and doesn't know it

I know guys like that. I have days where I think they are wired that way, they have a propensity for bigotry and violence. All they need is a slight push.

[MillennialDem]

287. NRA doesn't care. They're trying to find out who those guys are to send them

a 5% coupon off ammo.

[Paladin]

268. Open Carry Demonstrations: God's Gift To Gun Control Advocates.

Keep up the good work, guys.

[allan01]

270. re:40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot

looking at the age of most of those gunnies.e i had they opned up , oh dear. alli a can say is stupid is as stupid does.

[ConcernedCanuk]

271. Don't try that in Canada

.
.
.

Sure glad we are not allowed to behave like that.

Anyhow, I only see about 14 people there - not 40, but then again, only one or two would be unacceptqble to me.

Here's some links to more more pics of this "gang".

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-epxuIRg4Wk8/UoADGpDv2HI/AAAAAAAAN2s/MdusBJGkGrg/s1600/a+gun+bullies+in+dallas+go+to+hooters.png

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-f3n4jo8W7LQ/UoADguGU4CI/AAAAAAAAN20/WR6LiligtVY/s400/a+gun+bullies+in+Dallas+via+moms+demand+action+on+fb.png

http://theimpolitic.blogspot.ca/2013/11/gun-thuggery-in-texas.html

CC

[sinkingfeeling]

272. Looks like a hostage situtation. Can't help but wonder what the

hell these 'brave' men think they're doing.

[warrior1]

274. here's their website

http://momsdemandaction.org/

[KansDem]

282. Looks like a fucking siege!

Afraid to call 9/11? Afraid of inciting a riot? Afraid these goons and dumbasses will be laid to waste by SWAT?

[jpak]

284. Gun nut douchebaggery

yup

[AAO]

286. Looks like the perfect drone hit.

- And NO I WILL NOT append a sarcasm smiley!

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

290. 100%

certifiable!

[myrna minx]

303. How is this not terrorism? These "responsible gun owner" cowards are disgusting. n/t

[ajk2821]

307. Easy

They are white folk in Texas. Everyone knows that only non-White folk can be terrorists in Texas.

[world wide wally]

325. LaPierre is right…

It IS the mental health issue that is the biggest problem.

And as can be plainly seen, every one of these people have a mental problem. I am not a shrink, but I think the condition is called paranoia when one feels they must carry a gun to a restaurant, a mall, or to church to protect themselves because "someone is out to get them".

Now, if we could only have a way to take the guns from these obviously mentally ill people right on the spot, we could probably avoid a lot of mass shootings. I wonder if the NRA would support that idea since they constantly claim it is a "mental illness problem"

[leftynyc]

330. Why would anyone find these clowns

intimidating? They know if anything happens, they're just going to hurt their cause. My reaction would be going outside and asking each and every one of them "just how small is your dick"?

[LanternWaste]

332. And people wonder why I consciously avoid gun owners when and where possible...

And people wonder why I consciously avoid gun owners when and where possible...

[Special Prosciuto]

334. Maybe these guys were really at the mall for the

Grand Opening of the Penile Extension Discount Outlet.

[El Shaman]

344. Looks like

some of the crew from 'Deliverance'!!!

[Gothmog]

356. Juanita Jean thinks that this is the wee winkie parade

http://www.juanitajean.com/2013/11/10/oh-look-yall-its-a-wee-winkie-parade/

No, Honey, not like Deliverance. The guys in Deliverance could play the banjo. The only thing these guys can play is stoopid.

Now let me see if I have this right. They are the ones with guns. They are also the ones hiding behind cars. I’m having trouble with computation here. If they have the guns and this is simply a protest, why are the hiding like they are fixing to ambush somedamnthing? Are they buying into David Dewhurst’s idea that tampons are dangerous weapons liable to come at you suddenly?

Good Lord, it’s a bunch of women having a meeting. If that scares you, let me tell you about what happens at a Tupperware Party.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

360. Did the HAVE TO go to a Hooters?

[JEFF9K]

376. That doesn't look like a "well-regulated militia."

[AAO]

401. If we ever had the balls/ovaries to call them out on this. They're entire second amendment would

be toast. Unless they wanted to join up to the national guard. The NG, tend to frown upon the nuts.

[thefool_wa]

417. People like this

Give sane, legitimate 2nd Amendment supporters a REALLY bad name. These are just bullies with guns. I wish they would stop being grouped in with those of us who simply believe that ALL of our rights are worth protecting.

[derby378]

426. Calling the restaurant a "Dallas-area" establishment is just plain wrong

Arlington is closer to Fort Worth than it is to Dallas. Any idiot with a map could see that.

But still, yeah, I believe in the right to counter-protest, and I have counter-protested once or twice, but never with a gun in my hand. There's no need. I support the First Amendment as much as the Second. And these assholes are just that - a bunch of freakin' assholes.

This message brought to you by your friendly neighborhood AK-toting liberal Democrat.

[0rganism]

436. "The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours."

Really? Did y'all catch that line? I had to doublecheck the source -- that part definitely seemed Onion-worthy.

[kidgie]

438. No different from when the KKK use to intimidate African-Americans at civil rights rallies

[Nanjing to Seoul]

452. Not to be a reverse racist (I'm white), but notice the gender and the race of

all those gun toting troglodytes?

I did too.

[go west young man]

455. It won't be long before one of these "open carry" idiots

goes on a killing spree for real. States need to repeal these open carry laws before a psycho uses it as a means of destroying innocent lives. There are way too many of these nut jobs with guns walking around freely. Personally I am not worried about the government taking my right to own a gun away. I am much more worried about nut jobs with guns who may attempt to kill my family and I think every right minded US parent should feel the same way.

The data is in on guns. More deaths occur through negligence, suicide, domestic disputes, hunting accidents, and sheer stupidity than occur through shootouts with bad guys. Having a gun around doesn't reduce your risk it increases it. Ask all the parents of all the kids who have died accidentally since Sandy Hook how they feel about guns now. I bet you they wished they'd never owned one.

And as for all the gun lovers that think my post is ridiculous. Why not get a creative hobby instead and give something back to the planet instead of pursuing such a damaging cause?

I write this as a former marine 0341 mortar man, 1st battalion, 6th marines, 85-88 on veterans day. I've fired loads of weapons but I can't for the life of me understand why our culture is so wrapped up in fear and silliness when it comes to guns. Band assault rifles first. Ban high capacity magazines. Do more extensive checks. No guns for mentally unwell people. And work towards a society that is gun free. That is a noble goal.

[Taitertots]

456. Why didn't any of them call the police?

Oh yeah, that wouldn't help MDA get more money/members.

[TomCADem]

457. Update - USA Today - Police Were Called, But Did Nothing

Here is the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

[Ranchemp.]

464. Police didn't do anything because OCT wasn't doing anything illegal,

it was a moronic thing to do, but not illegal.
I also noticed a false statement in the article.

The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee shops

Starbucks did not ban the open carrying of weapons in their coffee shops, they asked that patrons not carry openly but would not ask any patron to leave if they are openly carrying unless it violates the state law of where it happened.

[TomCADem]

466. Intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury...

...is criminal. The gun control group was meeting at the restaurant and a group of men show up brandishing weapons. It does not matter that gun rights activists may have never intended to actually shoot the women. What matters is that they were intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury. This is bullying pure and simple. If the men wanted to express their point of view, than display a sign. But, to purposely show up at a meeting of gun control advocates brandishing weapons is reckless and dangerous, and the judgment of the police in not recognizing the fact that the women in the restaurant were being placed in fear is deplorable. The fact of the matter is that the manager of the restaurant saw the men brandishing weapons AND called 911 as folks in thread above who claimed this was a hoax claimed that they should do.

[Ranchemp.]

467. Take it up with the TX cops and the legislature,

the cops didn't take any action because, as the police said, no laws were broken.

[TomCADem]

468. The Texas legislature has spoken:

You don't even have to knowingly threaten to cause the women in the restaurant harm. It is disorderly conduct to "display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm."

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

The federal government should consider prosecuting the city for civil rights violations if they continue to impair the First Amendment rights of gun control advocates by showing up at their meeting sites brandishing weapons. If they want to make a point, then display a sign, rather than showing up with an arsenal.

[Ranchemp.]

469. Tne police disagree with you on what is considered disorderly conduct.

The federal government should consider prosecuting the city for civil rights violations if they continue to impair the First Amendment rights of gun control advocates by showing up at their meeting sites brandishing weapons.

Yeah, right, you can't even get the DoJ to prosecute war criminals (Bush), what makes you think they'll even look at this?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

490. You're celebrating ineffective policing. How nice.

It's another Another McIntosh. (Hint: don't get into Earl G's car when he offers you a ride into the desert).

[rustydog]

463. What is it with these people? The only way they have courage is when openly displaying firearms

in numbers. They lack the spine, balls, intestinal fortitude....whatever, to simply stand outside and whine and bitch about people who want gun control. These gutless cowards MUST have their weapons in their hands which apparently gives them courage, in numbers, to so bravely confront fewer unarmed people enjoying lunch.

What a sad state...

[blkmusclmachine]

465. Who are the thugs with the guns? Looks kinda like Afghanistan. Beards and all.

[billh58]

487. They are the

American right-wing Taliban, and the NRA is their religion. The NRA apologists and supporters are out in force attempting to rationalize a bunch of terrorists showing up in a public parking lot for the sole purpose of intimidating a group of mothers who do not agree with them.

[on point]

491. Time to remove their gun privilege for brandishing and threatening others

[friendly_iconoclast]

498. FYI it's a civil right, not a privilege

You may not like the fact that it is a right, but it is according to current case law.

Unless and until they're convicted in a court of law of a disqualifying crime, they get
to keep on doing stupid shit like this...

[on point]

499. Brandishing and threatening others is a disqualification they should be in jail

And never ever able to touch another gun

Sounds like you might need to join them

[friendly_iconoclast]

502. "Sounds like you might need to join them." For abusing my "speech privilege"?

Or just good old fashioned thoughtcrime?

S'okay, I've run into people like you before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x203717

friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 06:34 PM
Original message
Professor Called Police After Student Presentation

http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-calle... /


This happened at Central Connecticut State University

Professor Called Police After Student Presentation
Posted by admin on 2/24/09 • Categorized as News

For CCSU student John Wahlberg, a class presentation on campus violence turned into a confrontation with the campus police due to a complaint by the professor.

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

“I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station,” Wahlberg said, “but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices.”

Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.....

Strange seeing such thoughts expressed by the same person who once wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=227410

No roll back on free speech. What a stupid notion. If the point of view / person cannot stand challenge and ridicule, then it is a sure sign that it is dogma and NEEDS to swept out.

I guess some free speech is freer than other free speech for you...

[Rex]

507. 4 mothers sitting in a restaurant talking about gun control caused

some unstable folks to come out into public with their lethal weapons of choice, because they are that insecure and tiny in scope.

Scared to death someone will take their Precious...they are totally pathetic in their obvious attempt at intimidation.



My Precious gun no one will ever take you away from me!