General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot
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 Americas 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 Im 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
(49,314 posts)what a bunch of assholes
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)....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
(1,397 posts)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
(43,203 posts)It would make it real easy for them to go in and buy some new drawers.


erpowers
(9,398 posts)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.
Response to BlueJazz (Reply #138)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)luckily, MIRt is on the job.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Did he say something like "Damn Bluejazz, you have to be one of the smartest people on the web!" ?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)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
(25,348 posts)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
(18,612 posts)If you got a bullet in the head from one of these so called clowns...big man?

BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)No harm done.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,612 posts)I wouldn't worry about it.
mrsadm
(1,198 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)tenderfoot
(8,982 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If they like to shoot, that is where they belong.
lpbk2713
(43,203 posts)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
(283 posts)Ineeda
(3,626 posts)I'm often quite gullible, but even I saw right through this. Quite funny, BTW, if it weren't so sickeningly (almost) believable.
delta17
(283 posts)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
(1,016 posts)They watch movies and play those military style video games. Go to the rifle range or in the woods and shoot them up.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(34,825 posts)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
(33,982 posts)"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
(5,624 posts)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.
(1,991 posts)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.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)"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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)It specifies the POSTURE of the guys with the guns - facepalm.
Think about that for a second.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)"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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)As I said, it is self-evident. You are wandering afield of the post by adding context that is not there.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)It also appears willful. So, no. Not a chance, not on your account.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)I see you are determined to misconstrue.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)My explanation appears to bounce off, because it does not fit your preconceptions.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)then click the fucking alert button, and let a jury decide.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)I prefer idiotic comments to stand so that people here can better know the half-wits posting them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)I never said they should be supported in any way. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, repeatedly.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)Keep twisting in knots trying to pretend it says anything other than what it says in plain English.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)SPECIFYING posture.
Keep pretending it doesn't say what it says.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)That's not what the poster is talking about. Nor the other posters I cited. Keep flailing.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)"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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)Also, that poster has not objected.
You are massively exaggerating your objection, especially since the comment is accurate.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)That is fabrication, and you should stop it.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Either way you slice it, there is NOTHING that poster said was inaccurate.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)And in this case, the post gives context of which specific definition is in play.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Go on, provide the definition that makes what she said any less valid. I'll be waiting.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,409 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(1,741 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(1,741 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(1,741 posts)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
(33,982 posts)"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
(1,741 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(3,300 posts)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
(33,982 posts)This event didn't meet that bar, even though, yes, as a reasonable person, one might have been alarmed to see it.
AAO
(3,300 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)I'll agree to disagree. Nice chatting with you AC.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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. Casads appellate counsel conceded that she would personally react with shock, but she emphasized that an individuals 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
(3,300 posts)Sorry, I'll agree to disagree. EOM
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(3,300 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(3,300 posts)BainsBane
(55,523 posts)That is a clear threat. Are you seriously going to claim you wouldn't see 40 armed men at your door as threatening?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(55,523 posts)There is a gunman on the premises.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You're not seriously still posting on the internet with a nutbag about?
BainsBane
(55,523 posts)but even if I were, his location is far (about 1/2 mile) from my office. It's a big place.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't see any news reports yet, but I don't know where I'd be looking.
BainsBane
(55,523 posts)but got a text saying the search was complete and no one was shot. Perhaps it was a false report.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,722 posts)....somehow means we got them all wrong? Because of a picture angle?
Whoo-kay.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,722 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)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
(43,722 posts)...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
(33,982 posts)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
(43,722 posts)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
(33,982 posts)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
(13,324 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Quibbling over small details when the whole situation is completely unacceptable, is pretty much the definition of inane...
Maraya1969
(23,153 posts)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
(15,522 posts)How is that not threatening? Flat out, he should have been arrested at the very least. Outrageous.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)red shirt (and it looks like the douchepile behind him, as well) are obviously brandishing, that's illegal.
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
(3,300 posts)
Keefer
(713 posts)

mwrguy
(3,245 posts)I don't care what they looked like from the front.
They should all be in jail.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Besides being colossal dicks, what TX. laws have they broken?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Go figure.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)go for it, but again, the cops and the state of TX disagrees with you.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)I don't have that choice, sometimes my job requires it.
AAO
(3,300 posts)
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)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
(19,497 posts)Interesting.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)G_j
(40,464 posts)but of course, that won't happen..
gopiscrap
(24,297 posts)Control-Z
(15,685 posts)This looks like something out of a movie. How do they get away with it?
hack89
(39,180 posts)This is why I oppose open carry.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)or tucked up their . . . . . . .to resemble a body part.
hack89
(39,180 posts)billh58
(6,649 posts)"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
(676 posts)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
(54,770 posts)Easiest thing to do is use the ignore button. You would not be the first.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)It's the only way to be taken seriously.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)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
(10,164 posts)Sure, I've had some constructive conversations on gun control here (thus the "for the most part" , 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
(676 posts)Is he not even worth responding to?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... 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.