Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

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

[Peikko 1,575]

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

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 November 12, 2013 by The Truth™

[JohnR! 5,495]

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.

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

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 November 12, 2013 by Sarah and Adnan

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The NRA has a serious image problem to say the least. If they're not willing to denounce thuggery I don't see how anyone can support them in good conscience.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

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 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

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is pretty pathetic to try and intimidate women that way.

Not surprising, though. Cowards are know to do pathetic things.

[Sousuke 1,214]

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

[Sousuke 1,214]

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.

[Peikko 1,575]

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?

[Peikko 1,575]

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?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Worked for Gandhi, he was well known for bringing artillery with him to protests ;-)