Jump to content

60 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted

no picture to see if the firearms had a magazine inserted and the bolt closed. difficult to say without pics as to whether this was menacing or not.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.

i suppose it would help to understand the legal definition of menacing.

Hmmm I'll get on that after I look up the legal definition of 'complete irrelevance' lol

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
Posted

I asked you why you thought the legal definition mattered. Apparently that's a question that's a little too hard for you. The fact is that 40 armed people deliberately intimidated people in a restaurant going about their lawful business and you want to quibble as to what the legal definition of menacing is? I do not care, the people in the restaurant did not care and most rational human beings do not care. Carrying guns around to reinforce your right to carry guns around is barmy, doing so deliberately to upset people who are not causing you any harm is indefensible.

because that is what determines if they were breaking the law? one can pitch a fit about it, but it's the law that determines if they were wrong ;)

* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Posted (edited)

because that is what determines if they were breaking the law? one can pitch a fit about it, but it's the law that determines if they were wrong wink.png

What does it matter if they were breaking the law or not? The law could be wrong, indeed is wrong if assembling with arms in a restaurant car park with the express purpose of intimidating law abiding citizens inside a restaurant is legal in Texas. The whole point about the article is to observe that such an act crosses a boundary of what should and shouldn't be acceptable in terms of defending rights. Defending the right to bear arms by assembling in a car park of a restaurant on mass carrying weapons with the purpose of getting in the face of people who do not agree with them is not just stupid it is also disrespectful, unnecessary and the tactic of thugs so I guess it's no surprise you do not care about the people inside the restaurant because they are just hysterical women who do not understand guns. The purpose of the article has been proved. Many gun rights advocates will defend the right of gun rights activists to intimidate law abiding unarmed citizens. Brilliant!

Edited by The Truth™

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Filed: Country: Monaco
Timeline
Posted

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/11/texas-gun-bullies-use-semi-automatics-to-terrorize-mothers-against-guns-nra-remains-silent/

Accordingly, Open Carry’s chosen method to make its point and preferences known is not only to break the law but to severely frighten unarmed people in the process.

The owner of the Blue Mesa made the decision not to call the police when the armed protestors showed up in his parking lot, fearing that the situation might devolve into a dangerous riot—although there is reason to believe it might not have mattered if he had called the cops.

These bullies were lucky nobody else was carrying and felt the need to stand their ground.

200px-FSM_Logo.svg.png


www.ffrf.org




Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Yemen
Timeline
Posted (edited)

Not exactly the way to win hearts and minds, and let's face it, 2nd amendment advocates have a serious PR problem. Much of it they bring upon themselves. I mean, NRA's history of holding rallies nearby cities that only just fell victim to gun violence is disgusting and reprehensible. This open carry group is only reinforcing the stereotype that firearm owners are menacing, angry and detrimental to society, therefore harming their cause.

Edited by Sarah and Adnan

"If you’re brave enough to say goodbye, life will reward you with a new hello."

- Paulo Coelho

Posted

because that is what determines if they were breaking the law? one can pitch a fit about it, but it's the law that determines if they were wrong wink.png

Charles you and I agree about 99% on guns

However this time...What the guys did was perfectly legal and within their rights. No argument there.

It was stupid, counter productive, and did zero to help support the rights of legal gun owners.

It reinforced every negative stereotype,and probably won the mothers lot's off free positive national PR and national political support and sympathy, nobody would have ever heard of those women, had it not been for The TOC bunch.

They hurt gun rights tremendously by what they did. They need a PR person badly.

There is a time and a place for everything. That was not it

Filed: Timeline
Posted

A couple of things.

1. I think Open Carry Protests (while legal in many states) are not good PR. In some states, its actually backfired and made open carry illegal. There is a percentage of the population that is afraid of firearms and the protestors should taken that into consideration, however.....

2. Open Carry of firearm in and of itself is not threatening. Going to protest with long guns on one's back in and of itself is not threatening. If the protestors were brandishing the firearms at the group that is threatening.

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Posted

A couple of things.

1. I think Open Carry Protests (while legal in many states) are not good PR. In some states, its actually backfired and made open carry illegal. There is a percentage of the population that is afraid of firearms and the protestors should taken that into consideration, however.....

2. Open Carry of firearm in and of itself is not threatening. Going to protest with long guns on one's back in and of itself is not threatening. If the protestors were brandishing the firearms at the group that is threatening.

That is emphatically NOT the reason I do not want to see people wandering around with guns. What is worrying is those people who feel the need to go around a modern, urban city carrying a gun. There is nothing sensible, logical or reasonable about doing so, it denotes someone who is unreasonable fearful of their surroundings and having someone who is unreasonably fearful trotting around with a gun is an unnecessary danger to the large population. THAT is what's wrong with open or concealed carry of firearms. It's completely reckless and unnecessary behavour.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Posted

As for point 2, please, please explain what carrying a gun means exactly? If a person was to carry a gun in a bag from their home to a place to discharge the gun safely, that's not threatening in the least nor is there any possibility of anyone interpreting that as malicious, menacing or threatening, but carrying guns to a car park to form a protest group against people who are behaving normally and legally is atrocious thuggery.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Filed: Timeline
Posted

That is emphatically NOT the reason I do not want to see people wandering around with guns. What is worrying is those people who feel the need to go around a modern, urban city carrying a gun. There is nothing sensible, logical or reasonable about doing so, it denotes someone who is unreasonable fearful of their surroundings and having someone who is unreasonably fearful trotting around with a gun is an unnecessary danger to the large population. THAT is what's wrong with open or concealed carry of firearms. It's completely reckless and unnecessary behavour.

Your welcome to your welcome to your opinion. From what you have said there is simply too much distance between us to have any sort of debate on is "reckless".

As for point 2, please, please explain what carrying a gun means exactly? If a person was to carry a gun in a bag from their home to a place to discharge the gun safely, that's not threatening in the least nor is there any possibility of anyone interpreting that as malicious, menacing or threatening, but carrying guns to a car park to form a protest group against people who are behaving normally and legally is atrocious thuggery.

Its fairly normal to have guns in a progun rally or protest where legal to do so.

1d35bdb6477b38fedf8f1ad2b4c743ea.jpg

Posted

Your welcome to your welcome to your opinion. From what you have said there is simply too much distance between us to have any sort of debate on is "reckless".

I can't think of anything more reckless than carrying a firearm into a place where you have no reasonable expectation of using it. Perhaps you can point out something equally reckless that unarmed citizens in restaurants are doing?

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Posted

Its fairly normal to have guns in a progun rally or protest where legal to do so.

Why? Why do you think it's normal to carry guns when you have no reasonable expectation of using them? That seems to me not only foolish but in a situation like this entirely thuggish . Explain to me what message you think 40 armed people standing around outside a restaurant sends? I can't think of one peaceful message, but maybe you have some wisdom to impart?

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...