'It Was Terrifying:’ Campus Carry Protester Feels Targeted by Gory YouTube Video

[stone space]

http://kut.org/post/it-was-terrifying-campus-carry-protester-feels-targeted-gory-youtube-video

How can students be expected to study when campus carry gun nuts are putting out videos depicting them in interactions with gun owners in which the student "cocks, not glocks" activist get shot in the head and her blood splatters all over the place?



Somebody please tell me how having campus carry doesn't interferer with the educational purposes of a university.

It only took days for this to happen.

This is just the beginning of the very first semester of campus carry, and these students being targeted here are probably just now beginning to study for their first major exam in most of their classes under the new regime.

[demmiblue]

1. The video has a content warning: This video may be inappropriate for some users.

I''m not signing in.

Gun nuts are a nasty, nasty breed.

[lpbk2713]

2. It proves one point.

You can't deal with these idiots as if they were rational minded people.

[procon]

3. Maybe its not so much about the gun, as it is a power trip for those with guns?

The gun is their statement of power, a declaration of their superiority. Most people would be afraid and feel threatened by a stranger with a loaded gun in a public space, and the terror is magnified when guns come into our normal safe spaces like work, schools and churches. For someone with a gun, seeing lots of people react in fear must give them an enormous feeling of power, intimidation and gratification.

[beevul]

4. From the article...

"When rabid gun fanatics can't win an argument, they resort to threats and publicly daydreaming and laughing about the rape and murder of their detractors," Jessica Jin, a UT alumna who thought up the sex toys protest, posted on Facebook.

The gun rights side already won the argument, that's why she chose to protest.

How can students be expected to study when campus carry gun nuts are putting out videos depicting them in interactions with gun owners in which the student "cocks, not glocks" activist get shot in the head and her blood splatters all over the place?

The usual equivocation we've come to expect from you. The person depicted in the video was a violent home invader, not simply "a gun owner", but its nice to know they're the same thing in your mind.

[mythology]

6. So they were smart enough to not actually depict themselves doing the violence

And they were smart enough (or more likely just racist enough) to shift it to a scary black man. Funny how you neglected to mention that when talking about equivocation. Can I now claim that you think black men are home invaders? It would be same intellectually dishonest thing you did to somebody else, so I assume you must be okay with it.

You can't actually claim with any sort of credibility that this isn't targeted at the protesters. It's specifically designed to target their exact protest. This is the same type of nonsense that Sarah Palin tried when Gabby Douglas was shot to justify her use of gun target sights over various congressional districts. It was vacuous nonsense then too.

But then again given the statistics on guns make it clear that owning a gun is far more likely to result in the owner or somebody in their family dying than in harming a potential attacker, maybe I've not giving their stupidity enough credit.

Just because an idiotic judge rules otherwise, doesn't actually mean that the argument is over. There have been plenty of stupid laws that were eventually overturned. Separate but equal was once the law of the land. And now it's not.

[Throd]

7. Gabby Douglas?

[beevul]

10. Think that poster meant Giffords...

Of the group that just endorsed 2 republicans:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141556670

[kcr]

11. Oh, noes! 2 whole Republicans?

So, how many gun supporters are of groups that support republicans. Are they of how many of those? Gotta be at least one. Are you still gonna like guns, then?

[beevul]

13. I don't know, sometimes it doesn't look like there are many at all, like at their protests...

Oh, and they supported those republicans over two pro-control Democrats with solid records. That's ok with you is it? Very interesting.

Are you still gonna like guns, then?

My support of the right of individuals to own guns isn't dependent on who or what else supports it, or who doesn't. I don't measure the issue on that scale. But I'm pretty sure the person I referred to as 'that poster' does. Maybe you can ask them.

[kcr]

16. Well, if your support isn't dependent on who else supports it

what makes you think anyone else's should be?

[beevul]

17. I didn't claim anyone elses *should be*.

But then I don't insists that Democrats MUST support gun control, either.

[kcr]

18. So, you just wanted to point out those 2 republicans for *no reason especially*

I see.

[beevul]

19. In general, I think pointing it out is 'sauce for the goose'...

I also think it contrasts nicely with this:

NRA endorses Democrat Koster over Republican Greitens for Missouri governor

After a primary election season that featured the Republican candidate for governor shooting guns and blowing things up, the National Rifle Association on Tuesday endorsed his opponent, Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster.

The NRA Political Victory Fund said Koster’s commitment to the Second Amendment earned him an “A” rating.

“For over 17 years, he has fought to preserve the constitutional rights of law-abiding Missourians,” said Chris W. Cox, chairman, NRA-PVF. “The NRA is proud to endorse Chris Koster and we urge Missouri’s gun owners and sportsmen to get out this November and vote to elect a governor with a proven record of fighting to preserve the Second Amendment.”

The announcement came as Republican newcomer Eric Greitens, a former Navy SEAL, was campaigning in Springfield and Chesterfield with Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/nra-endorses-democrat-koster-over-republican-greitens-for-missouri-governor/article_a1e8f3d1-1c96-5125-820c-61b9bd24b316.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Original LBN thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141566566

[sarisataka]

14. Are you saying you agree

with some of the DU gun control folks?

Don't vote party, vote gun violence. That's why Gabby Gifford's has endorsed two Republicans for senate. The two have consistently voted against the NRA and for her that's the most important issue for the short term.

Even if it is for only one or two election cycles, if the NRA's mythological omnipotence can be defeated and shown for being a mile deep and an inch wide it is worth it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028123984#post28

[kcr]

15. Does it look like I'm saying that?

or does it look like I'm saying that a DUer is implying that just because Giffords apparently endorsed 2 WHOLE REPBLUCANS OMGFWTF!!!! then wow what are we doing even being for gun control? Am I saying what the hell is the point of bringing up that Giffords endorsed the ungodly number of 2, count them, 2 Republicans, we should all hang our heads in shame.

[beevul]

9. Yours is an unimpressive, unconvincing, failure of an argument.

So they were smart enough to not actually depict themselves doing the violence

A presumptive unproven assertion that assumes motive without evidence. Gee, why would you do that?

And they were smart enough (or more likely just racist enough) to shift it to a scary black man. Funny how you neglected to mention that when talking about equivocation.

Another presumptive unproven assertion that assumes motive without evidence. Gee, why would you do that...again ?

Can I now claim that you think black men are home invaders?

No, but you can claim that people that kick in someone elses door are home invaders no matter what color their skin is. In making such a claim, your argument would have the added benefit of being aligned with reality.

It would be same intellectually dishonest thing you did to somebody else, so I assume you must be okay with it.

What I said was in no way intellectually dishonest. You either don't understand the argument, or you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand in the worst possible context, to gain what you perceive as advantage in argument.

That shit doesn't work on me. Bummer, isn't it?

The OP deliberately characterized the interaction between the hypothetical resident and the hypothetical door kicker as "interaction with gun owners". Gun owners generally don't go around kicking in the doors of others. Home invaders do. The OP was characterizing home invaders by what they own. I was characterizing home invaders by what they do - invade homes - they're home invaders. I didn't bring up race. You did. If you have a problem with a black man being portrayed as a home invader, maybe you should take it up with the black man who volunteered to portray a home invader in the video instead of me.

You can't actually claim with any sort of credibility that this isn't targeted at the protesters. It's specifically designed to target their exact protest. This is the same type of nonsense that Sarah Palin tried when Gabby Douglas was shot to justify her use of gun target sights over various congressional districts. It was vacuous nonsense then too.

And this is spin worthy of a commercial grade whirlpool, all presumption and no proof.

But then again given the statistics on guns make it clear that owning a gun is far more likely to result in the owner or somebody in their family dying than in harming a potential attacker, maybe I've not giving their stupidity enough credit.

Yes, I've seen them. With probably 350 million guns in America in the hands of well over 100 million people - 44 percent of homes in America have guns as of the latest polls - I think we'd be seeing a whole lot more "blood in the streets" annually rather than a trend downward, if anti-gun dogma were aligned with reality to any great degree.

Just because an idiotic judge rules otherwise, doesn't actually mean that the argument is over. There have been plenty of stupid laws that were eventually overturned. Separate but equal was once the law of the land. And now it's not.

Yes, I'm sure Texas is going to wake up one day soon, maybe as early as next week and say "Please, come take our guns, we don't want them anymore, we were wrong about self defense".

[LanternWaste]

5. I wonder if the irrational pejorative "precious snowflakes" will be used against the CNG movement

I wonder if the irrational pejorative "precious snowflakes" will be used against the CNG movement, as it seems the trendy and popular go-to insult for the sub-literate and the dogmatic (and yes-- as well as the many righteous and noble statesmen throughout history who use it also... had to put that in there for the knee-jerk reactionary crowd)

[Throd]

8. What is the CNG movement?

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Gunner trash are some of the worst people in our society