Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

warrior1

(12,325 posts)
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:35 PM Nov 2013

40 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 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
518 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot (Original Post) warrior1 Nov 2013 OP
Good Heavens NMDemDist2 Nov 2013 #1
I'm truly one sick SOB 'cause It would have been fun to be behind those fellows (about 30 feet... BlueJazz Nov 2013 #138
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!! OldRedneck Nov 2013 #174
Good thing for them they're at the mall. lpbk2713 Nov 2013 #175
Too Many Innocents erpowers Nov 2013 #275
Post removed Post removed Nov 2013 #414
Wow, first post and already........................... Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #419
No kidding. Was that post even worth the effort of signing up to post it? arcane1 Nov 2013 #423
Cavers and dwellers must think so, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #425
He was answering to my post. I'll bet it was something flattering. (I didn't get to see it) BlueJazz Nov 2013 #431
Not quite, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #435
Then let me say Ranchemp, you have to be the 2nd smartest for recognizing my brilliance. BlueJazz Nov 2013 #440
FYI: Here's a copy & paste discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2013 #441
Oh..well....sounds like to me he was just concerned for my safety, plus ...he did call them clowns. BlueJazz Nov 2013 #447
:wink: discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2013 #449
Incite to riot, I think mrsadm Nov 2013 #453
or insight to a riot BlueJazz Nov 2013 #454
The posture on the guys with the guns... tenderfoot Nov 2013 #2
They fantasize about being heros. I wonder how many of them served in the military at some point? JDPriestly Nov 2013 #186
What are you talking about? They know all about the military. lpbk2713 Nov 2013 #204
Probably "near veterans." delta17 Nov 2013 #216
That site is the military version of the Onion, right? Ineeda Nov 2013 #475
Yeah, it is pretty funny. delta17 Nov 2013 #500
Like some comedy movie: Are you a weapons expert? Yes, I have played Halo for over 10 years. vinny9698 Nov 2013 #266
You all got suckered. They're posing for a group photo, not facing the 'Mothers group. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #283
we got suckered? did these 40 assholes show up with their guns to intimidate 4 women or not? frylock Nov 2013 #291
I refer you to Tenderfoot's post. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #292
Look at those butt-nuggets with their hands on the triggers, as if they're "ready for combat" in a Erose999 Nov 2013 #480
None of them had their fingers on the triggers. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #482
+1 (nt) Nine Nov 2013 #295
I think you've got a really fucked up interpretation of the word "suckered". EOTE Nov 2013 #304
Again, I refer you to Tenderfoot's post about their posture. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #306
Ahhh, so by "You all", you mean "This one guy" and by "suckered" you mean EOTE Nov 2013 #308
There are at least three top-level responses AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #310
You pointed to one response and that response says NOTHING like you say it does. EOTE Nov 2013 #311
Oh please, it's right there in plain english. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #312
Why the hell are you running away from your own statements. EOTE Nov 2013 #315
I'm not running away from anything. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #318
Uh huh. So you think that the non-declarative statement the poster made is him being "suckered". EOTE Nov 2013 #321
He is a she. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #323
And what is that statement, exactly? If I were to garner a statement from that non-declarative EOTE Nov 2013 #331
It doesn't say 'the guys with the guns -facepalm'. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #336
It really hurts you to get specific, doesn't it? EOTE Nov 2013 #339
Not posturing, POSTURE. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #346
Your attack of a fellow DUer for rightfully going after these evil fucks is what's laughable. EOTE Nov 2013 #349
That's not an attack. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #350
You said they were "suckered" again for a non-declarative statement. EOTE Nov 2013 #352
That is not an attack. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #355
No, I'd have felt better if you didn't make such a stupid comment in the first place. EOTE Nov 2013 #363
Error. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #372
Christ, isn't it tiring being so pedantic? EOTE Nov 2013 #379
No, being pedantic normally helps. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #381
What was the poster's error again? EOTE Nov 2013 #385
I cannot simply any more than the post itself offers. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #387
Now you're not even providing full sentences. EOTE Nov 2013 #391
I'm going to wait for the original poster to clarify it for you AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #394
You go ahead and do that. EOTE Nov 2013 #396
I firmly believe you are misconstruing the comment. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #402
I firmly believe you are talking out of your ass. EOTE Nov 2013 #408
And how surprising I'm NOT talking about the insults you gave to people you weren't even responding EOTE Nov 2013 #364
Yes, I speak in plural to individuals. "You all" AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #367
So, I show you how incredibly stupid and baseless your attack on the person you ACTUALLY responded EOTE Nov 2013 #371
Begs the question. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #375
The poster wasn't misled. EOTE Nov 2013 #377
It is entirely relevant to their posture in that photo. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #383
And again, what was inaccurate about what the poster said? EOTE Nov 2013 #388
I have repeatedly explained. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #390
You haven't even come CLOSE to explaining. You've simply said that it's "self evident". EOTE Nov 2013 #393
Your 'evidence' is a fabrication, that is intentionally bereft of EVERY attempt I have made to AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #400
Again, are you going to even attempt to present evidence? EOTE Nov 2013 #404
If you are so hell bent on interpreting it as a personal attack AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #407
I don't use the alert button. EOTE Nov 2013 #410
Hidden posts can be viewed if one wishes. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #411
I know how DU works. EOTE Nov 2013 #413
If you REALLY believe AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #418
I am under no obligation to alert on anything. EOTE Nov 2013 #422
Also, quit building strawmen. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #313
So why, exactly, did you accuse someone who didn't even make a declarative statement EOTE Nov 2013 #314
Poster didn't call them assholes. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #316
Uhhh, what part of "not a declarative statement" don't you understand? EOTE Nov 2013 #319
Keep ignoring the facepalm icon. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #322
Ahhh, so it's the facepalm icon that's the declarative statement. EOTE Nov 2013 #333
Again, posture. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #337
What OF their posture? EOTE Nov 2013 #340
Invented. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #347
YOU are the one who has repeatedly mentioned their posture. At least a good half dozen times now. EOTE Nov 2013 #351
Quit feigning outrage. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #354
Suggesting someone is a sucker is not an attack? Are you sure I'm feigning outrage? EOTE Nov 2013 #358
You're good at word games. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #362
If you truly thought that any one could have fooled by something, it was rather foolish to suggest EOTE Nov 2013 #365
They are synonyms. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #369
You should apologize to the poster, not to me. EOTE Nov 2013 #374
The comment is self-evident. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #380
Their postures were those of ignorant, alpha-male wannabe assholes. EOTE Nov 2013 #382
You are specifying a different usage of 'posture' than the context of that comment assumes. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #384
Posture could either mean their pose or their behavior. EOTE Nov 2013 #386
Says you. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #389
Uhhh, says the dictionary, champ. EOTE Nov 2013 #392
Yes, words do have fixed meanings. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #395
And what definition would that be, champ? EOTE Nov 2013 #398
Noun. Definition one. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #403
Uhhh, that's the one I mentioned champ. I mentioned it a few posts ago, were you not paying EOTE Nov 2013 #406
I did notice that, but you misconstrue it. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #409
I misconstrued nothing. EOTE Nov 2013 #412
First, I did not 'go after'. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #416
Suggesting that someone got "suckered" because of a perfectly reasonably comment EOTE Nov 2013 #420
I am casting aspersions. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #428
Brandishing is not the same as pointing or aiming. Nine Nov 2013 #326
No they weren't. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #327
Call the cops? You remind me of someone else on this thread. Nine Nov 2013 #335
You claim they are breaking the law. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #338
I never made the claim that they are breaking TX law. Nine Nov 2013 #341
Yes you did. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #348
Words have meanings beyond a narrow legal definition. Nine Nov 2013 #353
Flaunting I agree with. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #359
Doesn't really matter - it was agains the TX Penal Code AAO Nov 2013 #485
Calculated to alarm is informed by decades of case law. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #486
It meets the letter of the law. Done discussing. AAO Nov 2013 #492
That's not how it works in real life. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #493
Hows that? AAO Nov 2013 #494
Case law informs how officers enforce the black letter of the law. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #495
Well, I just read the law, and it seems to apply here, undeniably. AAO Nov 2013 #503
I can supply you state appeals court level decisions on this for my state, if you'd like. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #504
A political demonstration that intimidates with guns some mothers eating lunch? AAO Nov 2013 #505
It's a language nuance I think. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #506
If a bunch of people weilding rifles forms a group outside a restaraunt I'm eating at.... AAO Nov 2013 #508
I certainly appreciate your point of view. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #509
Thanks. AAO Nov 2013 #510
They turned up at the mother's group with guns BainsBane Nov 2013 #427
I actually specified that at one point. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #430
I just got a text from work BainsBane Nov 2013 #433
:( Stay safe. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #434
No, I'm not there now BainsBane Nov 2013 #437
I hope your co-workers/the public are ok. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #439
I haven't either BainsBane Nov 2013 #451
So the fact that these idiots came fully armed in response to a small group meeting.... Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2013 #442
Sigh AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #443
Care to elaborate? nt Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2013 #444
I have. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #445
The context was that these thugs chose it upon themselves... Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2013 #476
And you'll note, I'm not excusing the behavior. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #477
You will at least admit the intimidation was there, right? Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2013 #479
I can see how it can be threatening. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #481
It's threatening, bullying (at best) behavior, period. No "can" about it. n/t nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #497
+1 nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #496
My tweet conversation with one of the #gunbullies Maraya1969 Nov 2013 #345
That guy in the red shirt kcr Nov 2013 #3
the other idiots are just standing there, which i guess is legal in that backwards area. dionysus Nov 2013 #6
Yep. kcr Nov 2013 #7
Here's the happy gang of nuts AAO Nov 2013 #288
A RW friend sent me this: Keefer Nov 2013 #460
That's bullshit! mwrguy Nov 2013 #461
In jail for what? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #462
Menacing and brandishing a weapon mwrguy Nov 2013 #470
Police on the scene disagree with you. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #471
Redneck cops let a bunch of armed thugs terrorize liberals mwrguy Nov 2013 #472
If that's what makes you sleep better at night, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #473
The state of TX disagrees with logic in many cases. FUCK Texas - I'll never go there. AAO Nov 2013 #474
Don't go there, that's your right, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #478
I have nothing against normal everyday Texans - just their politicians and the moron teabaggers. AAO Nov 2013 #483
On that we can agree on. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #484
You hate cops but want people arrested. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #515
I hate the corrupt ones that won't protect unarmed women mwrguy Nov 2013 #516
What protection was required? There was never a threat. Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #517
he should still be identified and arrested G_j Nov 2013 #13
absolutely! gopiscrap Nov 2013 #162
I would be horrified to see these assholes in person. Control-Z Nov 2013 #225
Fucking idiots hack89 Nov 2013 #4
What they are doing is open intimidation. People should not carry guns in public, concealed, open, Hoyt Nov 2013 #38
Classy as always Hoyt - please don't change. .nt hack89 Nov 2013 #89
But they are all billh58 Nov 2013 #157
I've seen a number of your posts concerning guns and the seem to be as nutty as the Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #230
Why post rationally to people who have to strap on a gun to venture out in public? Hoyt Nov 2013 #231
"Why post rationally"? Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #236
Ha! That's funny! oldhippie Nov 2013 #239
"Discussing" gun issues here is a waste of time, for the most part. Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #298
So is he really serious in what he posts or is he just yanking the chain? Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #458
Both, actually ..... oldhippie Nov 2013 #459
Did the restaurant owner think the moms would riot? cyberswede Nov 2013 #5
Insanity! We're spending billions warring on "terrorism" and... TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #8
In the gun owners defense, if they didn't have their assault weapons, Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #97
Well this is frightening! Ava Gadro Nov 2013 #9
Those were not automatic assault rifles, just semi auto clones of real assault rifles, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #26
So, folks who are attracted to "clones" of real assault rifles are still sick losers. Maybe sicker Hoyt Nov 2013 #31
We all have our own opinion, there's yours, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #56
You are a gun promoter/lover, I get that. Hoyt Nov 2013 #63
I am? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #71
What special skills were needed to determine that there were no fully automatic rhett o rick Nov 2013 #114
There are very few full auto rifles legally owned in this country, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #122
That's not much comfort to those being intimidated. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #183
It's not that easy to convert a modern semi auto to a full auto, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #187
It only takes one moron. Again, your rationalizations are no comfort to those being intimidated. nm rhett o rick Nov 2013 #196
Since it's in Texas SwankyXomb Nov 2013 #357
More like probablility approaching 0.00%. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #361
Anyone stupid enough to pull a stunt like this SwankyXomb Nov 2013 #370
I seriously doubt it. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #373
That would be a felony... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2013 #269
I dont think you can tell a illegally converted automatic weapon from sight. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #421
There's "I'm An Asshole" Stupid and then there's "I'm Going To Jail" Stupid... Jeff In Milwaukee Nov 2013 #424
This message was self-deleted by its author Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #429
And you would be wrong, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #432
In the case of the AR, pop the take-down pin and look inside. AtheistCrusader Nov 2013 #328
Curious. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #82
Hoyt has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek hack89 Nov 2013 #104
So it would seem. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #112
yes it is Duckhunter935 Nov 2013 #108
Quite honestly I could care less about changing the hearts and minds of gun promoters/lovers Major Nikon Nov 2013 #279
You mean you are not a gun promoter/lover? Kingofalldems Nov 2013 #399
Not even close. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #405
Hmmmm, I noticed you made an assumption about me in a group I've been blocked from, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #415
Sorry, failure in logic there tkmorris Nov 2013 #113
I disagree, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #118
No. Facts are valid or invalid; opinions are not tkmorris Nov 2013 #135
That's your opinion, which I disagree with Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #137
Apparently I have confused you tkmorris Nov 2013 #142
Not you, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #147
Well done tk Caretha Nov 2013 #240
Not really, as this billh58 Nov 2013 #489
You have any proof of this accusation and why don't you address me directly? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #511
to be fair, owning one of those and parading around with it like a douchebag are two different thing dionysus Nov 2013 #169
I just don't think you should carry assault weapons in public hollowdweller Nov 2013 #277
Thanks for pointing this out to me. Ava Gadro Nov 2013 #191
who the fuck cares what they were? This assholes should be in jail and all firearms illegal. bowens43 Nov 2013 #223
That sounds as crazy as the Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #232
So all men should be treated as potential rapists because they have a penis? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #248
This is absolutely right! mwrguy Nov 2013 #252
Fuckin gun nuts Ohio Joe Nov 2013 #10
Gun cultists are bullies. Police should have arrested those losers. Hoyt Nov 2013 #11
why are three of those fools taking cover behind a car and brandishing? they hiding from a sniper? dionysus Nov 2013 #12
Why? Because it's acting. It's not real. It's Astroturf. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #15
No, it's sick gun nuttery, and it's time we quit putting up with this crap. Hoyt Nov 2013 #17
It is public theater. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #22
This is not theater, this is terrorism Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #28
If you really believed that, you would report them to the police instead of just posting here. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #50
I am supposed to call the police over a news article? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #58
If you believe the law was broken, passionately so, call the police. I dare you. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #70
I dare you to call the police every time you read a story in the news which involves a broken law. Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #78
See #76. You claim to believe that the photo is real. I think it was staged. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #79
Wow. You cannot see that this looks threatening? chowder66 Nov 2013 #96
Which one of the Rhodes Scholars in the picture is you? DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2013 #235
If you want to see a Rhodes Scholar, try this photo: AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #237
What the hell do Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have to do with the open carry idiots? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #244
IMO, nobody should approve of open carry. But you indicated that you wanted to see a Rhodes Scholar AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #245
Actually no, I did not indicate that I wanted to see a Rhodes scholar Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #247
How old are you Caretha Nov 2013 #241
sleep well, sweet, sweet prince.. polish your precious for me! dionysus Nov 2013 #296
Thank you, administrators. At long last...... (nt) Paladin Nov 2013 #342
+1 uponit7771 Nov 2013 #242
It is a bunch of white gun bigots intimidating people. You can call it theater, but it's terrorism. Hoyt Nov 2013 #35
Why don't you find out when the two groups are having their next meeting? You could be on one AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #39
Hopefully next time the terrorists at these "group meetings" will be arrested Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #41
If you are really concerned, prove it. Call the police for the current activity and report it. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #44
If I witnessed something like that I would call the police on those terrorists Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #48
You did witness that. You saw the OP with the photo, above. Take action instead of making excuses. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #52
Do you call the police every time you read a crime story? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #64
So you're not going to call the police? I dare you to do so. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #67
Answer the question. Do you call the police every time you read a crime story in the news? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #73
Everytime that I believe that photographic evidence of someone brandishing a gun, and I post AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #76
Well I assume the police are really annoyed with you then Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #86
You mean, you haven't heard of the internet article police investigation team? kcr Nov 2013 #106
you're just afraid cases like this will make the gummint take away your pew pew pew toys, arent you? dionysus Nov 2013 #213
Really? You're "daring" an anonymous poster on the Internet? Ooooohhhh. Well, okay, then. Comrade Grumpy Nov 2013 #227
FFS are you in that picture or something? quit badgering already. elehhhhna Nov 2013 #134
Why should I reply to a pizza? AAO Nov 2013 #293
There are plenty of group meetings of bigots and their guns, long before Mothers Against Guns. Hoyt Nov 2013 #49
what a diverse group. two of them are left handed. nt dionysus Nov 2013 #84
LMAO. According to the gun guy above, they are just actors. Hoyt Nov 2013 #91
And your feelings on these guys? SQUEE Nov 2013 #285
First, I have seen a number of right wing bigots throw that photo out to justify their gun love. Hoyt Nov 2013 #289
As an admited felonious character, I can see why you fear guns.. SQUEE Nov 2013 #299
Nope, SQUEE, I am not a felon. You need to learn to read in context and quit spewing gun love and Hoyt Nov 2013 #309
You bragged about commiting a felony. SQUEE Nov 2013 #448
Same as playing cowboys and indians as a kid. AAO Nov 2013 #294
Post removed Post removed Nov 2013 #88
You're calling a long time member a troll? Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #94
But he WAS a troll billh58 Nov 2013 #512
Ya. There are trolls on both sides of the issue, doncha know! NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #513
No, I don't know what you mean, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #514
If you really believed that, you would report them to the police instead of just posting here. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #47
At least you waited until post #35 to play the race card. Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #177
You must have missed this: "Gun Ownership And Racist Attitudes Are Linked, Study Finds" Hoyt Nov 2013 #221
Yeah, got there faster than the penis card! Eleanors38 Nov 2013 #250
As gun manufacturers and marketeers have recognized, the "penis card" sells guns to yahoos. Hoyt Nov 2013 #278
So is cross-burning, which I imagine the goons who pulled this stunt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #148
I'm not Black but I assume that the KKK would like to disarm all Black Americans. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #151
No, just intimidate. Just like these Taliban types nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #154
If they don't have those funny Taliban hats, they are not Taliban types. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #156
No, just Confederate flag caps and t-shirts. Call them Tealiban if you like nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #159
They all look like they shopped at the same Walmart. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #163
theatre is by definition, an entertainment --an agreement, if you will, between the performers BlancheSplanchnik Nov 2013 #273
The one does not deny the other. LanternWaste Nov 2013 #320
. dionysus Nov 2013 #18
And how do you know that Skidmore Nov 2013 #29
If you really believed that this was real, you would report them to the police. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #54
One trick pony HERVEPA Nov 2013 #280
One trick pizza! AAO Nov 2013 #297
One down, and only a billh58 Nov 2013 #488
If you really believe this was theater, you would call their agent for a Broadway show... LanternWaste Nov 2013 #324
... nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #501
apparently you don't know the history of OCT, they are serious, and have pulled this stunt before. bettyellen Nov 2013 #87
because they see this thread as an attack on their pew pew pew toys. dionysus Nov 2013 #110
Because the women were going to beat them to death with their purses, the gun owners had no choice Uncle Joe Nov 2013 #100
They're hiding from some unarmed moms, LOL!! Bunch of babies. DevonRex Nov 2013 #194
Is this real? Or Astroturf with both groups financed by the same people? AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #14
What? Who do you suspect is financing both group? Nine Nov 2013 #23
What rw stop-and-frisk billionaire has been supporting let's-take firearms-away-from-everyone AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #33
Those losers don't look like actors, they look like your typical gun terrorists. Hoyt Nov 2013 #55
They look like gun terrorists? Really. Then call the police. I dare you. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #72
Just because you consider them friends, I don't. They are armed initimidators, doing what is natural Hoyt Nov 2013 #80
All criminals who brandish firearms should be arrested and prosecuted. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #83
Yeah, because there's nobody that idiotic, selfish, inarticulate, fearful and so unable to cope cui bono Nov 2013 #125
That doesn't even make sense at any level. Skidmore Nov 2013 #30
If you really believed they were violating the law, you should report them to the police. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #60
So. Is that the only thing you can astroturf. Skidmore Nov 2013 #99
A contemporaneous appearance is not a requirement. Crimes can be reported after they've occurred. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #121
Seriously, Another False Flag Conspiracy? TomCADem Nov 2013 #446
Please. WinkyDink Nov 2013 #37
If you really believed they were violating the law, you should report them to the police. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #74
Why do you keep telling everyone who doesn't agree with you to 'call the police?' pangaia Nov 2013 #101
when one has lost the argument, keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over... dionysus Nov 2013 #107
+1111 pangaia Nov 2013 #109
Pot calling a kettle black? AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #123
don't worry, no one's going to take away the precious. dionysus Nov 2013 #128
He hates Bilbo Baggins. nt awoke_in_2003 Nov 2013 #251
we hates the bagginses, yes we do.. the shiny precioussss.... dionysus Nov 2013 #254
Perfect... awoke_in_2003 Nov 2013 #255
It's a simple taunt. defacto7 Nov 2013 #203
Yes, I was trying to be nice. pangaia Nov 2013 #220
I'm sure you were being nice... defacto7 Nov 2013 #226
I think you might have missed a dose. LeftyMom Nov 2013 #46
You should report them to the police if you really believed this was not just public theater. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #66
There is a concept that exists called time. cui bono Nov 2013 #129
Time gets all distorted in your moms basement MattBaggins Nov 2013 #276
. kcr Nov 2013 #51
i think we just discovered someone who really loves their pew pew pew toys... dionysus Nov 2013 #61
I think so kcr Nov 2013 #75
What you should think is that all criminals who brandish firearms should be arrested and prosecuted. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #85
I know! Because it's perfect world, where every criminal is rightfully arrested kcr Nov 2013 #90
You're making my head hurt. redwitch Nov 2013 #130
I double-dog-dare you to shutup and eat your pizza that you so fervently asked for. AAO Nov 2013 #300
Long overdue, that one. Bobbie Jo Nov 2013 #317
Amen. (nt) Paladin Nov 2013 #343
I hope right as he was taking the first bite, a cockroach popped up right in his mouth! AAO Nov 2013 #397
...bringing absurdity to new heights. performance art bro? dionysus Nov 2013 #53
If you really believed they were violating the law, you would report them to the police. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #57
I ask again, do you call the police every time you read a crime story in the news? Bjorn Against Nov 2013 #68
See #76, above. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #77
Why don't YOU call the police? Nine Nov 2013 #120
Obviously, I think it was public theater with two groups. That's not against the law. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #124
You don't have to share your personal opinion. Nine Nov 2013 #143
Agreed. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #150
What do you mean, "Agreed."? Nine Nov 2013 #195
Agreed with your "Just send them a link to the news story and ask them to look into whether any AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #202
What an idiotic comment. HERVEPA Nov 2013 #281
Stay classy, gun nuts! shenmue Nov 2013 #16
for 4 women? mopinko Nov 2013 #19
Bully cowards. I'd slap 'em. Stupid asses. Article says they left and went over to Hooters. NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #34
Ten to one, plus they're armed, plus they're men. Deep13 Nov 2013 #103
These boys are too afraid to face those Moms unarmed. TeamPooka Nov 2013 #20
Interesting image. rrneck Nov 2013 #21
Looks they are posing for a picture. GreatCaesarsGhost Nov 2013 #24
I know this sounds Crazy, but I would have called their bluff Heather MC Nov 2013 #25
That was exactly my thought... zeemike Nov 2013 #43
Thank god a car didn't backfire or safeinOhio Nov 2013 #149
I think there was a greater chance they would have shot themselves in the foot Heather MC Nov 2013 #152
At least 'ol Barn only had one bullet. AAO Nov 2013 #305
Or that one of the Armed Gun Advocates didn't have gas. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #153
I'd like to think I'd have had something to say, too. Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #301
That's just craziness. Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #27
Call them what they are The Wizard Nov 2013 #32
Good thing for the OCT'ers that they weren't carrying TOY guns! They'd be dead now! WinkyDink Nov 2013 #36
Big men there, intimidating unarmed women with their weapons. Vashta Nerada Nov 2013 #40
Fuckin' cowards. RedCappedBandit Nov 2013 #42
Bingo! nt Fla Dem Nov 2013 #144
but let a little boy walk down the street with a toy gun leftyohiolib Nov 2013 #45
Ironically, they are proving the Mom's point lobodons Nov 2013 #59
Didn't want to call 911???? dickthegrouch Nov 2013 #62
The single most idiotic detail in the whole story. Deep13 Nov 2013 #92
Same here 47of74 Nov 2013 #158
It was the store that didn't want to call 911 kcr Nov 2013 #161
"the restaurant manager did not want to call 911". Nothing prevented the women from doing so. AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #164
And nothing in the story says they didn't do so. kcr Nov 2013 #166
The restaurant manager should be fired. 47of74 Nov 2013 #168
I agree. kcr Nov 2013 #172
The fact that no one called the police for "approximately two hours," not even other customers, AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #173
Well of course you do kcr Nov 2013 #179
Aren't most act of civil disobedience or public demonstrations Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #233
I saw that 47of74 Nov 2013 #165
But there could be a reason they didn't call 911 even though they wanted to kcr Nov 2013 #198
I would have been on the horn, trust me. WorseBeforeBetter Nov 2013 #170
So I guess none of the women had a cell phone ..... oldhippie Nov 2013 #188
You've never been in a store where you couldn't get cell phone coverage? kcr Nov 2013 #189
Uh, no, I haven't. oldhippie Nov 2013 #192
I think it's a bigger stretch to claim they didn't want to call 911 kcr Nov 2013 #193
Then why didn't one of the women call 911? oldhippie Nov 2013 #197
The manager didn't want 911 called, fearing it would make matters worse. kcr Nov 2013 #199
And so then the women said, "OK" ....... oldhippie Nov 2013 #200
So, their fault kcr Nov 2013 #201
Nope, I am not trying to assign fault, .... oldhippie Nov 2013 #205
And it's just so hard to ascertain the circumstances kcr Nov 2013 #210
And what were the circumstances that ....... oldhippie Nov 2013 #212
Oh, I get it. Given that kcr Nov 2013 #246
clearly, you're the type of "hippie" who supports 40 knuckledraggers with guns trying to intimidate dionysus Nov 2013 #218
Since you are so smart .... oldhippie Nov 2013 #224
"Your preciouses"? Packerowner740 Nov 2013 #234
Way to go mouth breathing geniuses. You settled the argument right there. lpbk2713 Nov 2013 #65
A message for gun-toting idiots... TRoN33 Nov 2013 #69
"The group moved to a nearby Hooters...." Deep13 Nov 2013 #81
Who would have thought 'gun enthusiasts" would be so terrified ... etherealtruth Nov 2013 #93
They're whole perspective is fear of the other. nt Deep13 Nov 2013 #141
meh. I'd have walked over and talked to them. alphafemale Nov 2013 #95
I saw that on another site (America Blog) sakabatou Nov 2013 #98
40 chickenshit rat bastards too scared to debate 4 women JEB Nov 2013 #102
Gollums nonpareil Nov 2013 #105
These brownshirt tactics are being used in several states, harrassing people in public meetings. freshwest Nov 2013 #111
Im guessing these are those wonderful, 'responsible' gun owners I keep hearing so much about. KG Nov 2013 #115
they are all responsible gun owners ... etherealtruth Nov 2013 #127
THIS is what comes of the NRA's stranglehold on debate. annabanana Nov 2013 #116
Reminds me of photos taken in the middle east. WHEN CRABS ROAR Nov 2013 #117
I felt and was a lot safer in Turkey 47of74 Nov 2013 #155
Wow What a bunch of really big men LOL Pakid Nov 2013 #119
If they'd been black SwankyXomb Nov 2013 #366
Taliban wannabes Snake Plissken Nov 2013 #126
The whole open carry thing needs to be outlawed. These people show they can't be trusted on point Nov 2013 #131
Hmm... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #132
I bet everyone here we can't make AnotherMacintosh write MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #133
You win. Of course, there will be those who will claim to believe that criminal actiity has taken AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #139
That counts. MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #211
I've seen open carry demonstrations before. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2013 #136
Also notice that they are all White. I'm not Black, but I suspect that the KKK would like to disarm AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #146
Is this the newest incarnation of Godwin's law? (nt) Nine Nov 2013 #264
They are nothing more than Gun Terrorist. No different than the Taliban. nt Fla Dem Nov 2013 #140
Fucking assholes. nt City Lights Nov 2013 #145
fucking gun nut asswipes! gopiscrap Nov 2013 #160
Just your typical law-abiding, responsible bunch of gun wackos. 99Forever Nov 2013 #167
If it were 40 armed Black men gathered outside a meeting of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #171
+1 uponit7771 Nov 2013 #243
+1000 gollygee Nov 2013 #329
Pathetic pieces of shit Politicalboi Nov 2013 #176
So, out of this group of assholes, locdlib Nov 2013 #178
dumbshit in the red shirt probably learned that cool pose playing medal of honor frylock Nov 2013 #180
He knows he's doomed. Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #302
The right of the people to peacefully assemble SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED perdita9 Nov 2013 #181
Domestic terrorism, pure and simple. (nt) Paladin Nov 2013 #182
looks like something heaven05 Nov 2013 #184
I'm sorry. Le Taz Hot Nov 2013 #185
gun humpers are cowards Skittles Nov 2013 #263
So if they are against the Mothers against gun violence PumpkinAle Nov 2013 #190
their assumed posture certainly implies that etherealtruth Nov 2013 #228
For the gun krazy, it's all about free speech...Right? SoapBox Nov 2013 #206
They would have taken out half their own. LOL appleannie1 Nov 2013 #207
Hiding from Mommy! dem in texas Nov 2013 #208
A small handful of women? Let's bring 10x as many people with GUNZ! bobclark86 Nov 2013 #209
Some seriously bad wiring in the amiglydae Mopar151 Nov 2013 #378
I think an adjustment on bobclark86 Nov 2013 #450
I think the manager of the Blue Mesa Grill needs a good talking to. Buns_of_Fire Nov 2013 #214
Maybe a Yelp-bombing SwankyXomb Nov 2013 #368
assholes, one and ALL. spanone Nov 2013 #215
IMO, the restaurant manager is a coward for not calling 911 red dog 1 Nov 2013 #217
These fools make responsible gun owners look horrible. Thanks, assholes. nt KAESNO2 Nov 2013 #219
All gun owners are irresponsible thugs. bowens43 Nov 2013 #222
Including pro-gun Dems? hack89 Nov 2013 #229
They, of course, are not the only experienced ones: AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2013 #238
Just imagine the public reaction in Dallas ThoughtCriminal Nov 2013 #249
There would have been a SWAT team dispatched mwrguy Nov 2013 #256
Wouldn't it be fun to take an inert Claymore Mine....... rdharma Nov 2013 #253
Several things come to mind 2naSalit Nov 2013 #257
Just think if those guys were black. hollowdweller Nov 2013 #258
I can't argue with that 2naSalit Nov 2013 #259
Send in Sonoma County sheriff's deputy Erick Gelhaus NBachers Nov 2013 #260
Hooters? CuriousAboutPolls Nov 2013 #261
They look like a gang of Nazi Skin Heads! Where's the police? B Calm Nov 2013 #262
Know what that picture reminds me of? UncleYoder Nov 2013 #265
The NRA has created a monster and doesn't know it KrazyinKS Nov 2013 #267
NRA doesn't care. They're trying to find out who those guys are to send them MillennialDem Nov 2013 #287
Open Carry Demonstrations: God's Gift To Gun Control Advocates. Paladin Nov 2013 #268
re:40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot allan01 Nov 2013 #270
Don't try that in Canada ConcernedCanuk Nov 2013 #271
Looks like a hostage situtation. Can't help but wonder what the sinkingfeeling Nov 2013 #272
here's their website warrior1 Nov 2013 #274
Looks like a fucking siege! KansDem Nov 2013 #282
Gun nut douchebaggery jpak Nov 2013 #284
Looks like the perfect drone hit. AAO Nov 2013 #286
100% JimboBillyBubbaBob Nov 2013 #290
How is this not terrorism? These "responsible gun owner" cowards are disgusting. n/t myrna minx Nov 2013 #303
Easy ajk2821 Nov 2013 #307
LaPierre is right… world wide wally Nov 2013 #325
Why would anyone find these clowns leftynyc Nov 2013 #330
And people wonder why I consciously avoid gun owners when and where possible... LanternWaste Nov 2013 #332
Maybe these guys were really at the mall for the Special Prosciuto Nov 2013 #334
Looks like El Shaman Nov 2013 #344
Juanita Jean thinks that this is the wee winkie parade Gothmog Nov 2013 #356
Did the HAVE TO go to a Hooters? Spitfire of ATJ Nov 2013 #360
That doesn't look like a "well-regulated militia." JEFF9K Nov 2013 #376
If we ever had the balls/ovaries to call them out on this. They're entire second amendment would AAO Nov 2013 #401
People like this thefool_wa Nov 2013 #417
Calling the restaurant a "Dallas-area" establishment is just plain wrong derby378 Nov 2013 #426
"The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours." 0rganism Nov 2013 #436
No different from when the KKK use to intimidate African-Americans at civil rights rallies kidgie Nov 2013 #438
Not to be a reverse racist (I'm white), but notice the gender and the race of Nanjing to Seoul Nov 2013 #452
It won't be long before one of these "open carry" idiots go west young man Nov 2013 #455
Why didn't any of them call the police? Taitertots Nov 2013 #456
Update - USA Today - Police Were Called, But Did Nothing TomCADem Nov 2013 #457
Police didn't do anything because OCT wasn't doing anything illegal, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #464
Intentionally or knowingly putting another person in fear of imminent bodily injury... TomCADem Nov 2013 #466
Take it up with the TX cops and the legislature, Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #467
The Texas legislature has spoken: TomCADem Nov 2013 #468
Tne police disagree with you on what is considered disorderly conduct. Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #469
You're celebrating ineffective policing. How nice. DisgustipatedinCA Nov 2013 #490
What is it with these people? The only way they have courage is when openly displaying firearms rustydog Nov 2013 #463
Who are the thugs with the guns? Looks kinda like Afghanistan. Beards and all. blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #465
They are the billh58 Nov 2013 #487
Time to remove their gun privilege for brandishing and threatening others on point Nov 2013 #491
FYI it's a civil right, not a privilege friendly_iconoclast Nov 2013 #498
Brandishing and threatening others is a disqualification they should be in jail on point Nov 2013 #499
"Sounds like you might need to join them." For abusing my "speech privilege"? friendly_iconoclast Nov 2013 #502
4 mothers sitting in a restaurant talking about gun control caused Rex Nov 2013 #507
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2014 #518
 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
138. I'm truly one sick SOB 'cause It would have been fun to be behind those fellows (about 30 feet...
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 03:28 PM
Nov 2013

....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)
174. ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 03:55 PM
Nov 2013

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)
175. Good thing for them they're at the mall.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 03:55 PM
Nov 2013



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



erpowers

(9,398 posts)
275. Too Many Innocents
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:25 AM
Nov 2013

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)

 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
431. He was answering to my post. I'll bet it was something flattering. (I didn't get to see it)
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:17 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

Ranchemp.

(1,991 posts)
435. Not quite,
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:22 PM
Nov 2013

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)
440. Then let me say Ranchemp, you have to be the 2nd smartest for recognizing my brilliance.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:59 PM
Nov 2013

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)
441. FYI: Here's a copy & paste
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:03 PM
Nov 2013
and then what would you do?

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


JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
186. They fantasize about being heros. I wonder how many of them served in the military at some point?
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:12 PM
Nov 2013

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

lpbk2713

(43,203 posts)
204. What are you talking about? They know all about the military.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 04:35 PM
Nov 2013



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.





Ineeda

(3,626 posts)
475. That site is the military version of the Onion, right?
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:09 AM
Nov 2013

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)
500. Yeah, it is pretty funny.
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:22 PM
Nov 2013

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)
266. Like some comedy movie: Are you a weapons expert? Yes, I have played Halo for over 10 years.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 08:10 AM
Nov 2013

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)
283. You all got suckered. They're posing for a group photo, not facing the 'Mothers group.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 11:21 AM
Nov 2013

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)
291. we got suckered? did these 40 assholes show up with their guns to intimidate 4 women or not?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 11:43 AM
Nov 2013

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)
292. I refer you to Tenderfoot's post.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 11:47 AM
Nov 2013

"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)
480. Look at those butt-nuggets with their hands on the triggers, as if they're "ready for combat" in a
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:25 AM
Nov 2013

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)
482. None of them had their fingers on the triggers.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 12:03 PM
Nov 2013

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)
304. I think you've got a really fucked up interpretation of the word "suckered".
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:13 PM
Nov 2013

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)
306. Again, I refer you to Tenderfoot's post about their posture.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:18 PM
Nov 2013

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)
308. Ahhh, so by "You all", you mean "This one guy" and by "suckered" you mean
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:27 PM
Nov 2013

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)
310. There are at least three top-level responses
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:30 PM
Nov 2013

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)
311. You pointed to one response and that response says NOTHING like you say it does.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:35 PM
Nov 2013

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)
312. Oh please, it's right there in plain english.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:38 PM
Nov 2013

"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)
315. Why the hell are you running away from your own statements.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:47 PM
Nov 2013

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)
318. I'm not running away from anything.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:55 PM
Nov 2013

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)
321. Uh huh. So you think that the non-declarative statement the poster made is him being "suckered".
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Nov 2013

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)
323. He is a she.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:59 PM
Nov 2013

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)
331. And what is that statement, exactly? If I were to garner a statement from that non-declarative
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:20 PM
Nov 2013

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)
336. It doesn't say 'the guys with the guns -facepalm'.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:37 PM
Nov 2013

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

Think about that for a second.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
339. It really hurts you to get specific, doesn't it?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:49 PM
Nov 2013

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)
346. Not posturing, POSTURE.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:22 PM
Nov 2013

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)
349. Your attack of a fellow DUer for rightfully going after these evil fucks is what's laughable.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:29 PM
Nov 2013

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)
350. That's not an attack.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:32 PM
Nov 2013

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)
352. You said they were "suckered" again for a non-declarative statement.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:38 PM
Nov 2013

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)
355. That is not an attack.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:42 PM
Nov 2013

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)
363. No, I'd have felt better if you didn't make such a stupid comment in the first place.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:51 PM
Nov 2013

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)
372. Error.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:05 PM
Nov 2013

"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)
379. Christ, isn't it tiring being so pedantic?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:13 PM
Nov 2013

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)
381. No, being pedantic normally helps.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:20 PM
Nov 2013

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)
385. What was the poster's error again?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:22 PM
Nov 2013

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)
387. I cannot simply any more than the post itself offers.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:25 PM
Nov 2013

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)
391. Now you're not even providing full sentences.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:28 PM
Nov 2013

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)
394. I'm going to wait for the original poster to clarify it for you
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:34 PM
Nov 2013

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)
396. You go ahead and do that.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:36 PM
Nov 2013

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)
402. I firmly believe you are misconstruing the comment.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:40 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
408. I firmly believe you are talking out of your ass.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:46 PM
Nov 2013

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)
364. And how surprising I'm NOT talking about the insults you gave to people you weren't even responding
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:53 PM
Nov 2013

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)
367. Yes, I speak in plural to individuals. "You all"
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:01 PM
Nov 2013

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)
371. So, I show you how incredibly stupid and baseless your attack on the person you ACTUALLY responded
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:04 PM
Nov 2013

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)
375. Begs the question.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:07 PM
Nov 2013

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)
377. The poster wasn't misled.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:10 PM
Nov 2013

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.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
388. And again, what was inaccurate about what the poster said?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:25 PM
Nov 2013

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?

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
393. You haven't even come CLOSE to explaining. You've simply said that it's "self evident".
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:32 PM
Nov 2013

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)
400. Your 'evidence' is a fabrication, that is intentionally bereft of EVERY attempt I have made to
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:39 PM
Nov 2013

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)
404. Again, are you going to even attempt to present evidence?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:43 PM
Nov 2013

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)
407. If you are so hell bent on interpreting it as a personal attack
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:45 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
410. I don't use the alert button.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:47 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
413. I know how DU works.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:51 PM
Nov 2013

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)
418. If you REALLY believe
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:57 PM
Nov 2013

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)
422. I am under no obligation to alert on anything.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:02 PM
Nov 2013

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)
313. Also, quit building strawmen.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:39 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
314. So why, exactly, did you accuse someone who didn't even make a declarative statement
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:44 PM
Nov 2013

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)
316. Poster didn't call them assholes.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:52 PM
Nov 2013

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)
319. Uhhh, what part of "not a declarative statement" don't you understand?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:56 PM
Nov 2013

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)
322. Keep ignoring the facepalm icon.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:58 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
333. Ahhh, so it's the facepalm icon that's the declarative statement.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:27 PM
Nov 2013

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.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
340. What OF their posture?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:53 PM
Nov 2013

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.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
351. YOU are the one who has repeatedly mentioned their posture. At least a good half dozen times now.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:33 PM
Nov 2013

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)
354. Quit feigning outrage.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:41 PM
Nov 2013

"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)
358. Suggesting someone is a sucker is not an attack? Are you sure I'm feigning outrage?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:46 PM
Nov 2013

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)
362. You're good at word games.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:50 PM
Nov 2013

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)
365. If you truly thought that any one could have fooled by something, it was rather foolish to suggest
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:56 PM
Nov 2013

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)
369. They are synonyms.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:02 PM
Nov 2013

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)
374. You should apologize to the poster, not to me.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:07 PM
Nov 2013

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)
380. The comment is self-evident.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:17 PM
Nov 2013

Also, that poster has not objected.

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
382. Their postures were those of ignorant, alpha-male wannabe assholes.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:20 PM
Nov 2013

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)
384. You are specifying a different usage of 'posture' than the context of that comment assumes.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:22 PM
Nov 2013

That is fabrication, and you should stop it.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
386. Posture could either mean their pose or their behavior.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:24 PM
Nov 2013

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

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
389. Says you.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:26 PM
Nov 2013

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)
392. Uhhh, says the dictionary, champ.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:30 PM
Nov 2013

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)
395. Yes, words do have fixed meanings.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:35 PM
Nov 2013

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

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
398. And what definition would that be, champ?
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:37 PM
Nov 2013

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

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
403. Noun. Definition one.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:43 PM
Nov 2013

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)
406. Uhhh, that's the one I mentioned champ. I mentioned it a few posts ago, were you not paying
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:45 PM
Nov 2013

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)
409. I did notice that, but you misconstrue it.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:46 PM
Nov 2013

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)
412. I misconstrued nothing.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:50 PM
Nov 2013

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)
416. First, I did not 'go after'.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:56 PM
Nov 2013

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)
420. Suggesting that someone got "suckered" because of a perfectly reasonably comment
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 03:59 PM
Nov 2013

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)
428. I am casting aspersions.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:14 PM
Nov 2013

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)
326. Brandishing is not the same as pointing or aiming.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:11 PM
Nov 2013

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)
327. No they weren't.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:15 PM
Nov 2013

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)
335. Call the cops? You remind me of someone else on this thread.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:32 PM
Nov 2013

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)
338. You claim they are breaking the law.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:42 PM
Nov 2013

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)
341. I never made the claim that they are breaking TX law.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 01:54 PM
Nov 2013

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)
348. Yes you did.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:26 PM
Nov 2013

"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)
353. Words have meanings beyond a narrow legal definition.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:39 PM
Nov 2013

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)
359. Flaunting I agree with.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:47 PM
Nov 2013

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)
485. Doesn't really matter - it was agains the TX Penal Code
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

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)
486. Calculated to alarm is informed by decades of case law.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:18 PM
Nov 2013

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)
503. Well, I just read the law, and it seems to apply here, undeniably.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:54 AM
Nov 2013

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

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
504. I can supply you state appeals court level decisions on this for my state, if you'd like.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:30 AM
Nov 2013

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

(3,300 posts)
505. A political demonstration that intimidates with guns some mothers eating lunch?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:13 PM
Nov 2013

Sorry, I'll agree to disagree. EOM

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
506. It's a language nuance I think.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 01:28 PM
Nov 2013

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)
508. If a bunch of people weilding rifles forms a group outside a restaraunt I'm eating at....
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:21 PM
Nov 2013

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)
509. I certainly appreciate your point of view.
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 02:33 PM
Nov 2013

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.

BainsBane

(55,523 posts)
427. They turned up at the mother's group with guns
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:14 PM
Nov 2013

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)
430. I actually specified that at one point.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 04:16 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,722 posts)
442. So the fact that these idiots came fully armed in response to a small group meeting....
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

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

Whoo-kay.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
445. I have.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:14 PM
Nov 2013

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)
476. The context was that these thugs chose it upon themselves...
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:16 AM
Nov 2013

...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)
477. And you'll note, I'm not excusing the behavior.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 10:56 AM
Nov 2013

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)
479. You will at least admit the intimidation was there, right?
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:14 AM
Nov 2013

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)
481. I can see how it can be threatening.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:58 AM
Nov 2013

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)
496. +1
Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:29 PM
Nov 2013

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

Maraya1969

(23,153 posts)
345. My tweet conversation with one of the #gunbullies
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 02:15 PM
Nov 2013

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)
3. That guy in the red shirt
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:39 PM
Nov 2013

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

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
6. the other idiots are just standing there, which i guess is legal in that backwards area.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:42 PM
Nov 2013

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

kcr

(15,522 posts)
7. Yep.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:44 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

Ranchemp.

(1,991 posts)
473. If that's what makes you sleep better at night,
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 01:43 AM
Nov 2013

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

 

Ranchemp.

(1,991 posts)
484. On that we can agree on.
Tue Nov 12, 2013, 02:12 PM
Nov 2013

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.

Control-Z

(15,685 posts)
225. I would be horrified to see these assholes in person.
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 07:37 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
38. What they are doing is open intimidation. People should not carry guns in public, concealed, open,
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

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

billh58

(6,649 posts)
157. But they are all
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 03:44 PM
Nov 2013

"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)
230. I've seen a number of your posts concerning guns and the seem to be as nutty as the
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:40 PM
Nov 2013

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)
231. Why post rationally to people who have to strap on a gun to venture out in public?
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:46 PM
Nov 2013

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

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
239. Ha! That's funny!
Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:36 PM
Nov 2013

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)
298. "Discussing" gun issues here is a waste of time, for the most part.
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:06 PM
Nov 2013

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.

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
459. Both, actually .....
Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:13 PM
Nov 2013

..... 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.