40 Gunmen Armed with Assault Rifles Terrorize Gun Control Group at a Texas Restaurant

This should’ve been one of the biggest domestic news stories of the weekend, but as a sense of futility sweeps nation in the face of increasingly commonplace incidents of gun violence followed by aggressive, defiant reactions from the gun lobby, it went sadly ignored.

A gun control activist group called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, or MDA for short, held a membership meeting at the Blue Mesa Grill in Dallas, Texas on Saturday. Not a protest or a public rally, just a meeting over some Tex-Mex and beverages.

Harmless enough. A group of moms, activated by last year’s gun massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, gathered to discuss ways to boost membership and popular support for gun control legislation. The group’s goals are standard fare:

  1. Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases;
  2. Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds;
  3. Track the sale of large quantities of ammunition, and ban online sales;
  4. Establish product safety oversight of guns and ammunition, and require child-safe gun technology;
  5. Support policies at companies and public institutions that promote gun safety;
  6. Counter the gun industry’s efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.

There’s nothing particularly radical about this agenda. However, MDA and other gun control activists are up against deeply entrenched extremists fueled by a bottomless treasure chest of cash, and any gun control legislation is perceived as a radical trespass against the Constitution, even laws like expanded background checks that are supported by 80 percent of Americans. And so, right on cue, a company of pro-gun extremists appeared outside the Blue Mesa Grill to counter-protest a non-protest lunch meeting, and they did so in the most over-the-top, aggressive way possible.

40 armed gunmen representing the pro-gun group Open Carry Texas (OCT) gathered in the parking lot of the restaurant — fully armed, with some of the gunmen crouched as if in a line of battle. Among other things, OCT believes Texas law is too restrictive against gun owners, forbidding open carry. Yes, Texas is too liberal for OCT.

Oh, and did I mention there were only four MDA members in the meeting? Yes, four moms who were gathered at a luncheon were confronted by 40 gunmen brandishing AR-style assault rifles.

According to Esther Yu-Hsi Lee at ThinkProgress, the MDA members and other restaurant patrons were afraid to step outside — “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” The manager of the restaurant didn’t alert the authorities out of fear of inciting the OCT goons. And, naturally, that was the goal of the group — to frighten and intimidate the moms and anyone aiding their endeavors.

There's a familiar and obvious word for this reprehensible behavior: terrorism.

There’s a familiar and obvious word for this reprehensible behavior: terrorism.

No one’s denying that there ought to be a debate about the Second Amendment in which all sides should have a part. But this goes beyond a debate into armed thuggery and, yes, terrorism in an age when gunmen carrying semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons have routinely entered public places and killed a lot of innocent people.

The OCT gunmen knew this, and they used it to their advantage. It doesn’t matter whether the firearms were loaded or whether the gunmen, deep down, intended to use them. If you see a firing line of unhinged yokels without badges or credentials, brandishing firearms held in what’s known as the “low ready” position, it’s reasonable to assume the guns are loaded and one of these potentially disturbed, very misled freaks might snap and actually pull the trigger — especially if you know they’ve gathered on account of your specific presence. Toss into the mix a lot of blustery talk in the media and online about armed revolution and other violent rhetoric, and anything can happen.

Military style assault weapons are totally necessary to defeat these people.

Military style assault weapons are totally necessary to defeat these people.

There’s no other reason to do it. The goal is clearly to scare the pants off four moms at lunch. The message: keep doing what you’re doing and we’ll have no choice but to defend ourselves by, you know, shooting you. Indeed, after the MDA issued a statement referring to the OCT gunmen as “bullies,” a member of the OCT tweeted a response containing the hashtag #Comeandtakeit. The unspoken portion of the hashtag is “…andwewillshootyou.” All of this in the name of retaining the constitutional right to own a retail product.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a large-scale rally at the National Mall or a small scale lunch with four activists, pro-gun groups want gun control supporters to know that deadly force can and will be used if anyone tries to so much as sneeze in the direction of a gun control law — even laws as innocuous as calling for better child safety technology or increased gun safety. The only hope for overcoming the extremists is to continue to act in defiance of their threats and, ironically enough, hope they continue to self-marginalize. But before that happens, we have to actually believe that it’s possible to achieve something, anything, on this issue, no matter how minor.

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

  • Sheamus Warior

    Wow, awesome blog, thanks for the article.restaurants
    in astana

  • disqus_Cc3PcBrXQA

    You’re a lying a$$hole.

    ‘Come and take it’ refers to ‘molon labe’ , a statement made by King Leonidas the Thermopylae almost 2500 years ago. There is no implied ‘and we will shoot you’.

    2nd; look up what lo-ready is. Hint, if you’re crouching down, you’re not ‘low ready’.

    3rd; the agenda you list is completely radical. Perhaps you aren’t smart enough to understand what it says. There is no part of this agenda that is about gun safety, it’s about infringement and control. Child safety laws are about charged liability, not safety. Your kid gets your gun, you are automatically held liable, regardless of what steps you took to safeguard the children. That’s not safety; that’s an attack against my right to keep and bear. You wouldn’t support the same for automobiles or alcohol, so you’re just making stuff up. In your world increased gun safety is synonymous with ‘more gun free zones’. Gun free zones seem to be a magnet for crazy people with guns. All you’ve done is ensure that law abiding citizens will be unable to defend the children. Deep down, I am sure you don’t really care about that. That isn’t your purpose.

    In short; Fuh Que you fuqqing little lying fuq.

  • sidney05

    I hope you all know that this was a doctored picture!
    they were posing for a photo and not threatening anyone not cowards. just posing for a photo
    easy to check out and confirm.

  • Jon Dittman

    criminals don’t buy guns at firearms shops.
    just as drug addicts don’t buy their drugs at pharmacies.( other than those addicted to prescriptions) I wonder what kind of prescribed drugs the mothers at the restaurant pop daily?

  • Jon Dittman

    the food they were eating was more deadly to them than the mechanical tools carried legally and safely by the 2nd. A supporters.

  • Rick Heidel

    TYPICAL LIBERAL DECEPTION… they were posing for a picture… and the liberal media “Crafted the story”.

    http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/files/2013/11/7698_603813492998608_1827509272_n.png

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Pile of hot and steaming BS. If they were only posing for a picture, they are corn snorting pea picking DUMB. This is meant to be good publicity and they posed for it. LOL.

      A bunch of guys with guns who are so dumb they are lucky they can find their anus to wipe it and they have GUNS. Yeah, that is comforting. I will stop worrying right now. LOLOLOL.

  • Patrick Keogan

    EPIC WIN for freedom against these uneducated, ignorant, no-life house moms. Maybe they’ll find a new cause in life like breast cancer, drunk driving or granny porn.

  • Kolby

    This story is complete bullshit! These men were not confronting anyone with their empty assault rifles, this is when they were posing for a photo op! Hey over dramatic mindless sheeple (wink, wink), these men and women have EVERY right to protect their family with equal arms. Conservative does not mean racist, trigger happy and malevolent. Liberals are such hypocrites.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Conservatives are such idiots.

      And apparently think we are, too. They fully accept that these men were not confronting anyone, but simply posing for a photo. And are stupid enough to think we don’t see reality.

      • Kolby

        I am honored that such a self affirmed internet troll has chosen me to spew his blind rhetoric at. No facts to guide his enamored hate of conservatism, just blatant spurts of negativity at the world. Another fine example of the hypocrisy otherwise known as liberalism. Too bad no one gives a shit about what he has to say. Keep making a difference Christopher Foxx, maybe one day someone else will accidentally have the pleasure of reading one of your amusing rants. No need to reply, I will be too busy running around with that militia looking for fucks like you to set straight, face to face ;)

        • Christopher Foxx

          I am honored that such a self affirmed internet troll has chosen me to spew his blind rhetoric at. No facts to guide his enamored hate of conservatism, just blatant spurts of negativity at the world.

          I love conservatives. They have absolutely no self-awareness or sense of irony.

          But, please, continue. Tell my how much you hate people making blanket statements in response to your blanket statements.

          Too bad no one gives a shit about what he has to say.

          Which is why, on a thread where discussion really ended a month ago you reply to my post within hours.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        God’s truth. Great publicity they gave themselves. LOL.

  • MechWarrior894 .

    Congratulations gentlemen! You people deserve acknowledgement because like everybody else who were dumb enough to get laws written after them, expect guns to disappear! You currently represent those who own guns in American, a bunch of armed thugs raving about “‘MERICA!” and your freedoms being taken away by Obama, yet you’re the ones most deserving of having those rights removed because you can’t fucking handle a situation peacefully while minding the audience you are trying to influence! Now you look like the Southerners in the 1960’s, hanging black men outside of the courthouse and wonder why the world looks at you in shock.

    Seriously, this article pisses me off. Who in their right mind would try and do something like this? I’m all for the second Amendment on having a gun to defend yourself and to use for hunting but when you threaten other people with it, regardless if it’s a group against guns or not, that immediately makes you a criminal. All it takes is one of you having the safety off and assuming the gun is ‘unloaded’ and boom, innocent blood is now on your hands. Enjoy having your guns taken away and getting all guns banned! Thanks a lot, fuckers!

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      Well said.

  • Gunluvr

    I absolutely support this gathering of Patriots to counter and show the radical anti-gunners that if they want to try to take our guns they can have them bullets first. The 2nd Amendment civil right is absolute and will be defended to the death.

  • Keith_Indy

    “All of this in the name of retaining the constitutional right to own a retail product.”

    uh, no, I’m defending peoples rights to own an effective means with which to defend themselves, not an ipod.

  • Keith_Indy

    I often wonder how many anti-gun people realize that the police have NO DUTY to protect an individual. If a cop were to see someone getting mugged or raped in a dark alley, they have NO DUTY to rush in to save you.

    Granted, most cops would probably rush in to save you, if they happened to be there, but they are under no legal obligation. If you get raped and you saw a patrol car stop, look and keep going, you have no legal recourse against the police for ignoring you.

    And since NO ONE will take my word for it, here it is from a source you probably do trust…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

    • William Carr

      You entirely forgot the “Protect and Serve” bit, didn’t you ?

      If an OFF-Duty cop is present at a holdup and does nothing, they’re going to go see the Judge.

      Follow through on your stupid claim. A Cop sees a rape happening, but he gets a call on his radio that there’s a bank robbery going on.

      He turns and runs off. The victim survives the rape, and SUES the Police Department for $50 Million Dollars.

      The problem with ideologues is you make up stuff that sounds good, but it doesn’t stand up in the real world.

      • Keith_Indy

        “Protect and Serve” yeah, that’s a nice decal they got on their cars, BUT IT MEANS NOTHING.

        **** STRAIGHT FROM THE STORY I LINKED

        The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a
        constitutional duty to protect a person from harm

  • Harold

    Funny how Libtards always know what’s best for everybody .

    • William Carr

      “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

      “Equal Protection under the Law”.

      Yeah, we DO know what’s best for everybody. It’s simple in this case; the bully is always wrong.

  • Harold

    The poor Libtards were scared? Lol.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      No, the gun regulation folks did not have to bring guns to Starbucks because they are not scared of anyone.

      The gunNuts are the scared ones and because they are so scared they brought their guns.

      I think you underestimate how many liberals own guns. Look sharp.

  • Bob Sibson

    There is definitely something unhinged in the OCT collective mind. What exactly do they feel they need these guns for? A psychiatrist could have a field day with this bunch, I reckon there would be more mental health disorders in the group than you could normally expect from the general population.
    I’m sure there’s a legend of abuse in various forms, or simply sociopathy. If they weren’t so dangerous I’d feel sorry for them.
    Their behavior is the true definition of terrorism. It’s a crime, plain and simple. Why weren’t they arrested? There was no evident threat towards them, theirs was a simple act of aggression. How can this be interpreted any other way?

    • Keith_Indy

      Gee, let’s see, protecting my family against home invasions, protecting our chickens from predators, and lastly, because I have the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

      Yes, they’re so dangerous that the SWAT team was called out and there was a bloodbath in the parking lot. OH wait that didn’t happen.

      They weren’t arrested for the same reason Occupy Wall Street participants were not arrested, they were engaging in political theater.

  • Super Gonz

    No quotes, no photos (save one unidentified group shot) and no q&a from “officials”.

    I call bullshit

    • That River Gal

      Oh look, more astroturf by gun nuts. How precious.

  • http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com The Sanity Inspector

    I disagree with gun control and support the 2nd Amendment. But I also support the right of peaceable assembly, without being molested by a pack of Marlboro Men.

    • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

      Don’t talk about those poor anti-gun nut women like that! It’s rude!!!

  • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

    That picture looks like they were posing for someone in front of them,hence the scary “gunmen crouched as if in a line of battle”.Bob,do you oppose police having normal capacity magazines that hold 15 – 30 rounds of ammunition? Should they only have firearms and magazines like you propose for law abiding citizens?

    • Christopher Foxx

      Police have a great deal of training, and any time they actually use (or even draw) a firearm their actions are subject to significant review.

      If you want ordinary citizens to have police style weapons, why not require they have police-style training and oversight? You know, in a well-regulated way.

      • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

        You apparently don’t realize many non-police citizens have more training and practice with firearm use than law enforcement.If you think when a citizen uses a firearm to defend themselves they don’t have “significant review”,then you live in fantasy land.You failed to answer why the police NEED weapons different than what folks like you think we should have in a,you know,well regulated way.

        • Christopher Foxx

          You failed to answer why the police NEED weapons different than what folks like you think we should have

          No, I refused to accept the false basis for your question or follow your attempt to divert the conversation.

          You apparently don’t realize many non-police citizens have more training and practice with firearm use than law enforcement.

          I’m sure some do. Ex-police officers or military personnel, for example. But if you’re really going to make the support for your argument “some private citizens have more firearms training than police officers”, if that’s going to be the reason you give for it being OK for private citizens to have all the weapons available to law enforcement, then you have tied ownership of those weapons to being trained in their use.

          Good to see we’re on the same side here.

          • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

            Again,answer the question.You won’t though.That’s because the answer is they need the weapons and standard capacity magazines to defend themselves against the criminal monsters out there.The same monsters we face.But for some reason,you think a police officer,who has to fire 50 rounds a year at a target 25 feet away to qualify is an expert.Ex-military personnel? The vast majority see 2 firearms:the M-16 and Beretta 92 pistol during initial training,then never fire a weapon again.You feel free to wait the 15 to 20 minutes for the police to arrive to save you and your family from the thugs kicking in your door.Hey,you could even do what Crazy Joe Biden recommends:simply get a double barreled shotgun and shoot thru the door.I’ll just keep my perfectly safe firearms.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Again,answer the question.You won’t though

            Nope, I won’t.
            Not just because the premise for your question is false, but principally because you have no interest in my answer. No matter what I say, you’ll (try to) go off on some other tangent of nonsense.

            If you’re not willing to have an actual discussion about this, fine. But if you want to just keep beating yourself off, well, I leave that to you.

          • Keith_Indy

            I agree, it is every Americans birthright to have appropriate firearm training in defense of themselves and others. Training of every one shall commence at once. We shall leave no citizen without the know how to A) handle a firearm correctly, and B) when it is legal to use said firearm.

      • Keith_Indy

        Because, as has happened in the past, tests can be used to bar people from exercising their rights. Make the test to hard, or to expensive, then nobody can pass, afford it.

        • Christopher Foxx

          You’re equating this to the literacy tests used to disenfranchise folks? Reed Richards would have trouble stretching that far.

          Conditions are placed on people’s ability to exercise their rights all the time. First Amendment rights are not absolute. You can’t say anything you want if it includes inciting imminent lawless action, for example. Voting rights are not absolute. You can’t exercise them until you’re 18, for example. Freedom to assemble is not absolute. Most gathering places have limits placed by fire marshals, and parades usually require permits, for example.

          We recognize that individual rights have limits, particularly when the rights of the individual, in as high regard as we hold them, conflict with the collective rights or greater good of the general public. Your house can be taken from you if it’s determined it would be more beneficial to the general public for it to be turned into a highway, or if a valuable resource is discovered under it, for example (Eminent Domain).

          So, reasonable restrictions on who can own a gun, such as requiring the person to not be mentally unstable, to not have a criminal record, to pass a basic test (yes, a test) to show they know how to use the gun properly and have the ability to do so are appropriate and proper.

          • Keith_Indy

            And who decides what is reasonable with regards to a test, or regulating process.

            Try to get a concealed carry permit in Indiana, it’s fairly simple and straightforward. They take your fingerprints, and do a background check for a criminal record.

            Try to get a concealed carry permit in California, and it’s near impossible. They take your fingerprints, do a background check for a criminal record, and then the local sheriff decides if he wants to give you a permit. Hence, in California, it is mostly the rich and politically connected that have permits.

            That to me is a violation of an individuals right to protect themselves.

          • Christopher Foxx

            That to me is a violation of an individuals right to protect themselves.

            I don’t remember seeing that right in the Constitution. “A person’s right to protect themselves being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” No, that doesn’t sound right.

            OK, a bit snarky, but I’ve been dealing with an unrepentant gun nut on another thread and my threshold for irrationality is a bit low right now.

            Who decides what is reasonable with regard to a regulating process? The unspoken implication behind your asking that question is that there is no acceptable answer, and therefore it can’t/shouldn’t be done. But in reality the question has already been answered hundreds of times, at all levels of gov’t from local town to federal.

            Regulating rules and processes are put in place all the time and the procedure for doing so is already set.

            Let me ask a question of you. I don’t get the concealed carry bit. Why does one need to conceal their firearm? The reason given for having a gun is defense and deterrence. “People have a right to be able to defend themselves.” “An armed society is a polite society.” Those kinds of things.

            So why hide the fact that you’re armed? Wouldn’t having your gun in a visible holster serve as a good deterrent? If having an armed populace means a criminal is less likely to attack because their potential victim could be armed, wouldn’t they be even more discouraged from attacking if they knew the potential victim really is armed?

            Isn’t “I want you to know I have a gun so that I never have to actually use it” a better situation than “I want you to wonder” which has a higher chance of someone getting shot?

          • Keith_Indy

            Hey, I’m all for open carry without any permit needed. But that’s not the law in the state I live in.

            As it is, with 1 in 10 Hoosiers having a carry permit, robbers and rapists don’t know who is armed, and so are probably more cautious about who the victimize.

            Also if the people were only allowed to openly carry, you’d be readily identifying those who were not, making it easier to victimize the innocent and unprotected.

            I’m also for the death penalty, for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. As much for deterring the behavior as getting rid of human predators.

  • Larry Dumlao

    Hey Bob, nice objectivity …They were simply posing for a photo.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201042177683092&set=p.10201042177683092&type=1

  • Last sane person, apparently

    Bob, and I say this will all due respect, you are a utter failure as a journalist.

  • 1454

    I say we give all you nancies the gun control you want. With the right to secession, and the dismantling of every government spying agency attached to it. Then we will see how quickly anything gets passed. Idiots.

    • That River Gal

      The person who posts this word salad calls other people idiots. Precious.

      • 1454

        It’s my fault you can’t read? Sorry, I think not.

  • Keith_Indy

    Seems to me, the only people being infantile on this discussion are the anti-OCT crowd. For people who are supposed to be tolerant what ever they’re calling themselves these days are pretty uncivil with those they disagree with.

    • That River Gal

      Yeah, not wanting to be gunned down in a school, mall or airport is *so* intolerant.

      • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

        No,it’s not intolerant to not want to be gunned down in the “gun free zone” mall.Not wanting others to be able to do something besides waiting to be slaughtered is,though.

      • Keith_Indy

        My comment was about the TONE of the conversation. Your “witty” quips do nothing to advance understanding. But the anti-crowd never seeks to understand the other side. To often I’ve seen name calling, and what not, and it’s primarily from the anti’s

  • Newton Snookers

    If the “moms” were lunching at the Blue Mesa Grill, then why is the photo posted clearly in front of the Black Eyed Pea. Maybe because this is a rable rousing photo. See this photo from a differend angle.

  • mrbishop
  • linefeeder

    Reminds me of a group of Taliban loitering outside an Afghan schoolhouse trying to intimidate a few girls into not getting an education.

    • Petakillspets Andyouknowit

      Which you have no problem with.

  • Chris Salcedo

    As usual, you extremist leftists miss the point. Those 40 men were law abiding citizens, partaking in their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. The fact the left-wing think progress folks heard that people were intimidated is hardly proof. There was no violence, no intimidation, except in the minds of delusional liberals, and there was no conflict. We had two groups on different sides of an issue. One group was determined to use the force of government to restrict rights, something beyond government’s legitimate ability. Rights are rights. And another group that was determined to make sure that their rights were not abridged. You lefties have to get it through your head that there are limits, or there are supposed to be, to governments power in our system.

    • kfreed

      I cannot abide liars. Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

    • Badgerite

      Again, you do not have a First Amendment right to gather at a parking lot where some people who disagree with you are having lunch just to wave your guns around and ‘demonstrate’ your opinion in front of them.
      If you think that you do have that right, then I suggest you go to where the Supreme Court meets and when they are in session try that same activity and see how long it takes for you to be rounded up and sent to the nearest jail for questioning.
      Go ahead. Make my day.
      As to ‘rights are rights’. So I take it you do not accept traffic speed limits or drunk driving laws? etc. In the Constitutional scheme of things, no right is absolute. None.
      If there was not ‘conflict’ then why do we even know about this? You sound like a man who is telling the police there’s no trouble , his wife just hit herself, that’s all. And see, she’s fine now.
      You had two groups on different sides of an issue and one of those groups thought it would be a good idea to go to where members of the other group along with other patrons of that restaurant , were having lunch to ‘demonstrate’ their opinion to that group with weaponry at the ready ( when you see a weapon, one must assume it is armed, locked and loaded, as it were, you cannot assume otherwise).
      Yeah, sounds like great fun.

    • pitbullgirl1965

      So you would be fine with 40 armed citizens protesting against you? They were 4 women in a restaurant exercising their 1st amendment rights. Those goons were intimidating them.
      We call idiots like OCT Suburban Tough Guys(tm), in my rural area. We have nothing but contempt for these types.
      Maybe it’s a rural Yankee thing, but people around here treat their guns with respect for what they are: potentially deadly weapons, not toys to showboat with.
      BTW, us extreme lefties are also gun owners.

  • Keith_Indy

    According to this, a member of Moms Demand Action asked the members of OCT to POSE for this picture. So, narrative fail…

    https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201572898978959&l=73434b3cca

  • Joe Smith

    Yea, nothing radical about their antigun agenda other than it would only effect the honest citizen and not the criminal which is the one they have to worry about.

    • kfreed

      “Honest citizen” is quite the stretch if intimidating four women in a restaraunt (and the rest of patrons) is your idea of “responsible gun ownership.”

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

      • Badgerite

        Thanks for the link. I wasn’t aware that this was more than an isolated incident. I guess I should be by going over the comments and seeing the kind of counter push it has generated among the gun-nut culture.

        • kfreed

          You’re so welcome:)

      • Joe Smith

        Anti gun laws only affect the honest citizen as criminals don’t follow the law.

        “Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?”

        To exercise their rights as allowed by law or they would have been arrested

        • kfreed

          News flash: you don’t have the right to terrorize. These would be the perps you’re looking for… nothing honest about these so-called citizens.

          Like I said… tactics like these are the best argument for gun control out there:) People don’t appear to be amused.

  • Ken Reid

    Didn’t realize you libs had your own cute little clubhouse! Please stay here and re-assure each other! LOL

    • Badgerite

      That is L-I-B-E-R-A-L! Say the whole word now. I know you can.

    • beulahmo

      Reassure each other? Do you think most Americans see this kind of behavior as reasonable and acceptable? Maybe you should venture out of your little clubhouses more often.

      You genuinely don’t realize that most folks around you think this kind of behavior is — at best — extremely obnoxious and socially disruptive, do you? Good God, try to look at this from others’ perspective. I have good friends (who are Republican, by the way) who easily imagine themselves in a restaurant with their kids when something like this occurs, and they hate it. You may like the idea of everybody walking around packing heat, but the rest of us want to live in a civilized society that leaves deadly-force-protection of life and property to trained professionals (law enforcement).
      If this kind stunt keeps happening, you’re going to see a public backlash and outcry for even stricter regulation than what this group (Moms Demand Action) is advocating.

  • joatesiii

    Good morning Bob…nicely done sir…incomplete, but nicely done…this is the side photo…the front photo shows the group displaying an American Flag on Veteran’s Day…I acknowledge the divisiveness that you help to create and I am perpetually intrigued by the amount of emotional name-calling that folks participate in…I no longer hold much hope for our Nation because we are more interested in our own righteousness than we are in co-creating solutions to the issues that we face…we are indeed ripping our national guts out from the inside…my vision is one where we are able to unite to solve vice divide and fail…however, we have chosen a path that I am not sure that we can turn…we have created several generations without respect, responsibility, and accountability…that is a death-spiral that only parents can stop.

    • feloniousgrammar

      Well, when you’ve finished fixing the world with your verbiage, let us know.

      • joatesiii

        Hi felonious…the verbiage is where everything begins, don’t you agree? And it seems that many do not wish to listen…

    • kfreed

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • Sam Houston

    For all you paranoid dimwits stricken with gun phobia. Please get together in a quorum with your neighbors about your shared fears. Then notify your local Law Enforcement that you do not approve of guns and that your neighborhood will not allow any guns to enter the confines of said neighborhood. The Authorities will oblige but will no longer be able to send anyone to your aid like Investigators, Police Officers, EMT, Fire Fighters and such to your neighborhood because their Unions will not allow them to send unarmed personnel into harms way. Just look at how the Police and Fire Departments won’t enter certain neighborhoods in Detroit anymore after sunset. Of course, you knew that already, right?

    • kfreed

      Try to focus.
      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

      • Rottiemomma

        If they were truly intimidated- why did they go out of their way to a) take a photo/ask them to pose b) announce where they’re meeting at? If they’re so terrified of these boys- why take a photo?

        These women were not intimidated. They may have been a)annoyed as the LEO’s wouldn’t do anything as the guys were peaceful b) excited to use this as a press starter c) paranoid- these men have never harmed them.

        These men are doing a righteous thing; I am thankful there are others who are willing to step up and advocate for rights that have been granted for over 200 years. I have helped coordinate pro2A events and I am learning on thing as I go– more and more women are becoming proficient and safe shooters. I have encountered many MANY many women (all ages- all races) while I am at the range. These ladies are mothers, daughters, wives and sisters… They’re protecting their safety, their homes and their dignity. By taking away our rights AS WOMEN- it is leaving us vulnerable. Owning a firearm and knowing how to use it ensures that I am on equal footing if someone should try to harm me. A gun is the ultimate feminist tool! What other item will give you an ‘edge’ against a 200 pound male intent on raping you? What other tool will prevent a grouo of thugs who wish to cart off your tv, your kid’s xbox or your wedding ring while holding you and your children at gunpoint? Ladies; this truly is something that many of you are ignorant about. Invite those boys to the range… Learn to operate one safely … Ask questions … Many of you have so many assumptions that are unfounded. I bet you that those boys would put politics aside to show you how to use a gun safely. Hell- I bet they’d buy the ammo. You may learn something.

        As for myself- I am thankful that I have a tool to protect my family. I am grateful that I know how to use a weapon if the worst case scenario happened. My child is a better shot than most adults and has taken several safety courses and has demonstrated a responsibility that is impressive. If a child comes into our home- I warn the parents that we have guns. I don’t lock them up nor do I make them taboo- with prior permission- I will take those kids out to the range. They have never fooled around with them because they know that I will take them to the range any time they ask. I removed the curiosity and the prohibition. I give them a safety lesson each time we go and each child will have a responsible adult with them.

        I suppose I am some crazed gun owner?

        • kfreed

          Perhaps these women, in spite of the obvious intimidation tactics, have the kind of courage you gun nuts so seriously lack:)

  • melanie

    here’s the REAL story!!

    • kfreed

      Mmmm… or not.

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • Rick Ellington

    HEY DUMBASS LIBTARDS GOT CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTIES DOWN AGAIN READ THIS RETARDS!!!

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/93596-thinkprogress-posts-deceptive-picture-to-make-gun-rights-activists-appear-threatening/

  • in_awe

    the photo shown on Think Progress has been debunked. the supposed crouching in a combat position was nothing more than a group pose in front of a flag. even that site finally was shamed into showing the same group photographed at the same instant from the front.

    • kfreed

      Nope.

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • notworthmytime

    This is blatantly FALSE. These men are posing for a PICTURE, not in some Revolutionary War firing line. They are NOT brandishing their weapons in any way that is threatening. Most of them are slung. None are pointed, aimed, or otherwise in the direction of the building. Just because someone possesses a weapon, does not mean they are using it to threaten anyone. Stop being a bunch of cry babies. This is a constitutional RIGHT, but you’re afraid of what you don’t understand. If the first amendment were ever as blatantly assaulted, you would see people expressing it. This is a blatant assault on the 2nd, and here they are in support of it. It only makes sense to bring your items the subject is on. EVERY time this boo hooing knee jerk reaction from the left, and how many times has it turned into a mass shooting? Or even a shooting at all? Get over yourselves!

    • kfreed

      Wrong.
      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.ong.

  • Fritz

    This stupid photo as been going around for a day. There is another photo taken from the front — they were not forming a “firing line” — they were posing for a group photo. Sheesh.

  • Nelson Munford III

    What a group of cry baby candy assed folks……….both the First & Second Amendment where in action here!!!

    • kfreed

      Guns do not equal speech.

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

    • That River Gal

      Too bad a grasp of speaking our native language was not in action here.

  • Rottiemomma

    Of course the liberal left will distort the facts.

    These guys were taking a photo- they were not crouched down ready to fire. It’s interesting to see how this photo can be spun to make them appear to be “bullied” lol.

    And if these terrified soccer moms were truly afraid for their lives then why would they go out of their way to photograph these armed men?!? I suppose they used the word “bully” to make them appear victimized. Anything for publicity, eh?

    I am a mother and I think these ladies are nuts. If more people were armed- society would benefit. The cities with stringent gun legislation have a higher rate of gun fatalities. Why is that?

  • Angus Young
    • Angus Young

      This link shows the other side of the photo. No terrorizing at all.

      • Pink No More

        Your lie has already been addressed, liar boy.

  • Angus Young

    AAH guys there is another photo from another angle. They were taking a picture with an American flag. This is a manipulation piece.

    • kfreed

      Ahhh, guy… not exactly…

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • Dennis Olson

    Libtards. BTW, “brandishing” a weapon is a felony. If you imbeciles are going to discuss firearms and various activities of gun owners, get your facts straight. (But of course “facts” never enter into your discourses.)

  • greg knapp

    Awww boohoo… I’m sad cause someone disagrees with me and I’m a crybaby liberal .. your guns scare me :(. You anti gun pussies are what’s wrong with this country. I hope someday someone with a gun does not save your life. And lets you die. Liberal pukes. Go suck 0bama off some more.

  • Rub

    Other than being false, malicious and misleading, Great Journalism!

    • Pink No More

      Yeah, that describes you to a T, RWNJ liar.

    • kfreed

      More journalism from beyond the bubble…

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • John Crouch

    sounds to me like the liberal media needs to learn what an “ASSAULT” Rifle is…. that is a Rifle where the squeeze of a trigger will fire multiple rounds down range, what this OCT group was brandishing was OBVIOUSLY NOT an “Assault” Rifle but the more common standard rifle that can be purchased by almost anyone anywhere…. just because it’s dressed up as an assault rifle does not make it an assault rifle… much in the same way that we can dress a woman up to “look” like a hooker but that does not make her a Hooker…

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      That’s all you’ve got? Hilarious.

      • Angus Young
        • Pink No More

          Bob’s already “shot down”, so to speak, this RWNJ lie, boy. I suggest you leave.

          • Angus Young

            leave where?

        • kfreed

          Too bad the fact that armed gun nutters have been stalking the ladies of MDA is gettign around.

      • Christopher Foxx

        Seriously, yes it is. And he knows it. That’s why he’s so desperate to divert the discussion over to the technical definition of an assault rifle. Because when it stays on what these folks were actually, clearly doing, he has no defense.

    • kfreed

      No such animal as the “liberal media”…

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

    • Christopher Foxx

      hat this OCT group was brandishing was OBVIOUSLY NOT an “Assault” Rifle but the more common standard rifle that can be purchased by almost anyone anywhere

      Because actual assault rifles can’t be purchased by almost anyone anywhere.

      Oh, wait. That’s not right.

  • Adam

    This is called an extremist group. I support the 2nd amendment and all, and really don’t like gun control, but then there’s these guys. Don’t let a few ruin the entire group.

  • nerdnam

    They should have been arrested. And charged with cowardice.
    Doesn’t Texas have a law to cover that?

    • Laura Truxillo

      It does, apparently, have laws against open carry. So yes, they really should have been charged.

      (I think you can also be charged with intimidation, but that’s a bit harder to prove since the counter is, “No, we were just displaying our 2cd Amendment right, it’s not our fault if people got scared of our guns.”)

      • Keith_Indy

        Get your facts straight if you’re going to make claims…

        While open carry of a handgun is illegal in Texas, the “open carry” of a rifle is not.

  • HilaryB

    Were the local arts and crafts stores out of cardboard and markers? Seriously though, why weren’t any of them arrested? I believe open carry is illegal in TX.

  • StPete

    Don’t let the corporate news chickens ignore this. Everybody who reads this story here needs to tweet, FB share and email links (from other sources as well as this one) to all major media in Texas and major population centers. SOMEBODY will pick it up, and once that happens it will go national- and viral.

  • Gary Gatchel

    THIS IS A LIE, THIS IS NOT TRUE. I called the Blue Mesa both locations in Dallas, this never happened,plus Moms Demand Action never had a meeting on Saturday or Sunday or anytime this month at the Blue Mesa. Moms Demand Action never posted this event on their web site.

    • Gary Gatchel

      Here is the truth, stop drinking the liberal koolaid.
      http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/11/think-progress-on-guns-lying-lazy-or-both/

      • Richard_thunderbay

        Take your wingnut shit and eat it elsewhere.

      • william trent

        Nobody with any sense believes a word published in that piece of shit known as the Daily Caller.

        • kfreed

          Ahem:

          Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

          A clue:

          “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee shops.

          In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

          ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed protesters.’

          In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

          In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

          *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

    • feloniousgrammar

      Since these gun groups have made a habit of stalking Moms Demand Action while armed, I’m guessing they want to be low key and not draw targets on their backs.

      The New York Times reported this story— and you’re not going to believe this— they asked the women how they felt.

      “I was terrified,” said the woman who helped coordinate the meeting and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said she feared for her safety. “They didn’t want to talk. They wanted to display force.”

      And that is exactly how these gun licking thugs want them to feel. Talking, debating, voting, and all that other bothersome, nay “pussy” democratic stuff that some people think are a threat to their FREEDOMS just isn’t as effective for them as the threat of bodily harm, stray bullets, and death.

      God knows the NRA can’t spend enough money to make sure that there are as few limits as possible on the sale of their products. They need goons.

      • Keith_Indy

        They were so terrorized that they asked the OCT group to pose for a picture???

        narrative fail…

        • kfreed

          The entire restaurant was terrorized. Maybe these women have the balls you gun nuts are missing:)

        • feloniousgrammar

          Oh, no one is properly fearful unless they wet themselves and collapse into a tear stained mess or something? Have you heard about bravery? It’s when someone confronts a situation even though they’re afraid.

          • Keith_Indy

            Hmm, I’d bank money on the amount of violence this crowd is responsible for (probably very near zero) vs the destruction of private property and rapes perpetrated during Occupy Wall Street…

            Political theater… it’s in the eye of the beholder isn’t it.

    • kfreed

      It IS true… and not hardly the first such incident.

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully
      lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • Gary Gatchel

    How bout some more Koolaid? Problem with you wacko liberals is that you believe everything that is spoon fed to you. Now educate yourself. This is a fake story. Here is the truth. http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/11/think-progress-on-guns-lying-lazy-or-both/

    • D_C_Wilson

      Isn’t there a fake prostitute scandal for the Daily Caller could be covering right now?

    • kfreed

      Daily Caller? Seriously?

      Four women were meeting inside a restaurant. It wasn’t even a rally. Why were the gun nuts there if not to intimidate?

      A clue:

      USA Today: “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers group successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee
      shops.

      In April, a group of armed men also showed up at an MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.

      ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded
      semi-automatic rifles,” Watts said. “Many of our moms had children with
      them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation — it’s happened in
      many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If
      open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed
      protesters.’

      In the Arlington incident, Watts said, the OCT apparently learned of the meeting through Facebook.”

      In full: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/11/moms-demand-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

      *The best arguments for gun control are news stories like this one:) Keep it up, wingnuts.

  • David Starkey

    Someone just tried to tell me that this bullshit is legal. My response:
    In Texas it damned sure IS illegal – I know – I have a concealed handgun license & that was part of the law we have to know. The threat of deadly force is only legal when the actual USE of deadly force is legal.

    • Badgerite

      Thank you. I thought so. Just because no one called the police on them does not mean what they did was legal or within the law.

      • Keith_Indy

        Probably means they weren’t all that much terrorized either…

        • Badgerite

          To me, this simply doesn’t matter, one way or the other. Though the story itself states that the owner of the restaurant was afraid to call the police as he thought it might upset the people with the guns.
          But the simple fact of showing up in a parking lot outside where you know people who you disagree with politically are having lunch armed to the teeth and having a ‘demonstration’ is a tactic MEANT to instill fear and that would be the normal response to it.
          There are lots of pictures of lynchings, you know.
          They gathered around the hanging corpse and SMILED for the cameras.
          The smiling is belied by the weapons they were holding.
          And the simple fact is, you have no First Amendment right to target individuals going about their daily activities who you know disagree with you politically to involve them in your ‘demonstration’.
          You just don’t. That is a violation of THEIR rights.

          • Keith_Indy

            Says you. To me, a gun owner, it looks like a pretty peaceable assembly. In fact, this kind of group here in Indiana wouldn’t raise much suspicion at all. They look like hunters, and target shooters to me. NOT DERANGED BOOGEY MEN.

            They aren’t holding their weapons in an offensive manner to me. If I saw this in a mall parking lot, I’d probably stop to check out what was going on.

            Now, if they’re pointing it at me, and intent on shooting someone, I’d do my best to take them out using whatever means needed.

          • Badgerite

            Actually, says a USA Today report on the incident. As more details came out it was quite clear that not only the ladies they were targeting but other diners and the restaurant manager, who, indeed, did call the police right after some cars showed up in the parking lot and people started pulling guns out of the trunks of the cars. were afraid and concerned.

          • Keith_Indy

            I believe the same can be said of small groups of anarchists infiltrating and disrupting protests. Or Occupy Wall Street or whatever they’ll call themselves next, who caused property damage in many cases, rapes, etc.

            These guys walked around, did not point their guns at anyone in a threatening manner, posed for some pictures and left. No one was arrested. People got over their “fear and concern.” Nobody was hurt, and despite the fantasies of some on here, a bloodbath didn’t occur.

            Responsible, and legal, political theater. Disagree with their tactics, but we wouldn’t be talking about it if they only held placards.

          • Badgerite

            Say what? What ‘small groups of anarchists infiltrating protests’ are you talking about and how is the world is that similar to pulling up to a restaurant in cars, piling out and starting, as a group, to pull guns out of the car trunks. The report said one of the ladies inside who was a teacher and knew what was happening went around to each table to tell the clearly terrified customers what was going on, because they had no idea. This is America. And you are not supposed to be afraid to go to lunch. From the article:

            “The two groups have been at odds since the mothers successfully lobbied Starbucks to ban the open carrying of weapons in its coffee shops. (Aside: I’ll bet they really had to ‘twist’ Starbucks’ arm to get it to do that. )
            In April a group of armed men showed up at the MDA gun-control rally in Indianapolis, Watts said.
            ‘We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles,’ Watts said. ‘Many of our moms had children with them. Unfortunately, this is not a unique situation —- it’s happened in many states including, Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, and now Texas. If open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed protesters.”

            These groups are following these ladies around and seeking to intimidate them into silence. That is certainly clear. That is not ‘theater’. That is threat.

          • Keith_Indy

            You say intimidate them into silence, I say raising our arms in protest and getting noticed. And it aint even raising our arms, arms shouldered, arms holstered. That isn’t a threat to me at all.

          • Badgerite

            Surrounding a group of mommy’s at a rally with men armed with guns is not ‘raising your arms’. It is, indeed, threatening and again, feel free to try that at the Supreme Court and see how they feel about that.
            Lying in wait for me, were ya? Jesus, don’t you people have something to do?
            Oh that’s right. It’s all about the Constitution. Except when it isn’t and then it is all about the “tribe”.

          • Keith_Indy

            Exhibit A: http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/164397/politicians_son_released_from_psych

            Didn’t seem to need a firearm, found, I assume a kitchen knife. He could have torn through a house of sleeping adults and children.

          • Badgerite

            But, probably not a school. Again, just because you can’t stop ALL crime DOES NOT MEAN OR INDICATE THAT YOU SHOULD STOP TRYING TO STOP THE CRIMES THAT YOU CAN OR THAT YOU SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE THOSE CRIMES HARDER TO COMMIT.
            If you are an airline traveler you don’t stop trying to make airline travel safer just because you might ACTUALLY die from a car crash. The country can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.
            Here’s a flash for you. Zimmerman arrested and charged with felony assault for pointing a gun at his current woman. Surprise! Surprise!

          • Badgerite

            Say, is that picture a ‘true’ likeness?

          • Keith_Indy

            actual it is self portrait. if you look at the full rez image, I am there photographing this very cool grill ornament from I think a 49 Merc

          • Badgerite

            Ah, the shadowy figure. To each their own.

          • Keith_Indy

            To each their own. exactly

          • Badgerite

            I don’t mean tribes, doufus. Bye.

          • Keith_Indy

            “Ah, the shadowy figure.” said the default avatar…

    • Angus Young

      a David carrying a Long rifle open carry is legal. You should know that. Just a fellow Texan. also you got fooled by the photo. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=609338985790255&set=a.542268289163992.1073741829.542219879168833&type=1&relevant_count=1 Take a look at this.

      • Pink No More

        Suck that RWNJ cock, boy. Suck it good!

        • Angus Young

          suck what? i have the gun. what am I going to be sucking?

  • swinedance

    I could say something like “Only a (sexist, derogatory term for the female sex organ that starts with a p or an c, take your pick) needs an assault rifle to hunt.” I would not be referring to any members of MDA. This group is taking a heroic and patriotic stand. Real heroes don’t need guns.

  • Robert Scalzi

    I see the REAL trolls are out in force today – especially on this story on whatever Blog or news site it is being reported on… anyhow I’m outta here on this one – it’s hard to argue w/ the thick headed morons supporting these TERRORISTS – so

    arrivederci to my allies, I wish You all well and that I could raise a glass with you all -

  • shjlaw

    Hypothetical question: Let’s say I’m in that restaurant, in
    the restroom, when the gang of 40 men brandishing guns shows up outside and,
    yes, I do mean brandishing. I come out of the restroom to see a gang of armed
    hooligans confronting the place; guns displayed, a sight that would be
    threatening to any reasonable person, including me. My fear is validated when I
    hear and see fear in the panicked voices and faces of the patrons and owner. These
    people are in fear for their lives. I am in fear for their lives. So, here’s
    the question: Under “stand your ground”, wouldn’t I be justified to respond to
    the perceived threat by whipping out my AR, loading my 50 round magazine, and mowing
    down the whole lot of them before they could get off a single shot? In order, of course, to defend the lives of
    those who felt threatened. Yah, know what I’m sayin’? It occurs to me that if you want to live in a
    world in which it is acceptable to use your weapon as a form of speech, you
    also have to live with the corollary that others might not like what you have
    to say or how you say it, that they may feel threatened by it, and…according to
    your own rules… that they have every right to respond to your threat with
    speech of their own, which could include firing a round directly into your
    Neanderthal brain. That isn’t how I would deal with you, but there are those
    that might…we liberals being such a violent lot, and all.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      You are spot on. It would become a world where he who has the biggest and/or most guns win. Justice and peace do not and cannot exist in such a world. They like that though. Gun nuts are so sure that they are under-represented and if they could only get rid of the “authorities” who keep them “down”, they could flex their muscles and show everyone who really should be boss. It’s like a Napoleon Complex of the soul.

      • stacib23

        Gun nuts underrepresented – ha, these idiots have never been to the southside of Chicago. If they want to have a gun fight, there are plenty of goofballs here just itching to shoot it out with somebody.

    • Badgerite

      Shoot out at the OK Corral. Feel the freedom.

      • shjlaw

        Nicely done! :-)

        • Badgerite

          Thanks.

    • Sam Houston

      Let’s say you are sitting down to a peaceful dinner with Friends and Family. Suddenly, a For Ranger pickup comes barreling thru the front window into the crowded tables. You think to yourself, there has been an accident. A fellow patron walks over to assist the driver. Bam! “What the heck was that?” as the man slumped over. The driver gets out of the truck and begins firing shots at mostly female patrons. A 71 year old man strikes out against the gunman only to be fatally shot. His wife is soon shot dead cradling him. A woman had a concealed handgun but the Law did not allow her to take it into the restaurant so it was in her car. The 71 year old man and his wife were her parents. In the end, the deranged shooter kills 23 people and wounded 20 with only 2 handguns. No semi-automatic rifles. No assault rifles. Nary an AR-15 in sight. That was the Luby’s massacre in Killeen, Texas 1991.
      Proof that the crazies will get their evil job done, with or without an AR-15.

      • shjlaw

        Yes, that was a tragic event…aided by semi-auto pistols, as I recall. I even agree that there will always be crazies and that we can’t prevent every tragedy, but do we have to make it quite so easy to kill so many in so short a time? Moreover, if it’s a given that there will always be crazies, does the probability of mass shootings by crazies with firearms go up or down as the number of guns increases? More guns is good only for gun-makers…for the rest of us, more guns is the problem, not the solution.

  • Christopher Foxx

    Folks, obviously “TL671″ is a shill for the NRA and not much more. Nearly 500 comments in the past year on a variety of sites incuding The Daily Orange, The Washington Times, Examiner.com, Politico, ABC News, CBS LA, WCCB Charlotte and Film Industry Network. Not to mention the vast number here in this one thread (over 40 in the past 2 hours).

    He does nothing but move from site to site tolling threads related to responsible gun control looking to stir up trouble. NOTHING you post will make a dent. I’ve given enough replies to him already. I’m done. I suggest you similarly treat the troll as he deserves and ignore his further sociopathic postings.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      LOL he just told me he’s an anarchist. Whatever! Thank you for the info Mr. Foxx.

      • fojap

        Hey, man, even if anarchists don’t pay rent, they still have to eat. It’s not like you can get balanced nutrition out of a dumpster. I suddenly have the image of a fifty-something former punk in a squat hunched over a laptop using a neighbor’s internet connection, working a dozen different online personas for different advocacy groups.

        Thank goodness the internet didn’t exist when I was young. I could see more than a few people I once knew doing that.

      • NintendoWii10

        And I just busted him down below for supporting the Taliban. These gun nuts are wacko birds!

    • Badgerite

      Yes, but he does provide a convenient foil to debunk some of the talking points you hear from NRA types all the time. Right down to the “It’s not really an assault rifle” meme. I particularly like his “It is my Constitutional right to show up where you are with a group of armed men” bullshit. They used to call that lynching.

      • Laura Truxillo

        Speaking of things that led to lynching…man, can you imagine if most of those armed folks had been black? Or Hispanic? Or sheesh, Middle Eastern? This story would have a very different ending and the folks crowing about this being covered under their second amendment rights would be the ones saying they got what they deserved.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      Paid moron.

    • Richard_thunderbay

      It seems that TL671 has a twitter account…

      @TL671:disqus
      Confederate Pirate. One of the
      merry band of III%, defender of The Constitution, and ALL of The Bill of
      Rights. Long live the founding vision. #TGDN
      North Cuba (Miami, FLA)

      Yes, a Confederate defender of the Constitution. Putting the moron in oxymoron.

  • NintendoWii10

    If
    these had been 40 African Americans, Hispanics, or Muslims, this would
    be BREAKING NEWS on Fox News with the following headlines:

    If they had been African American: “Texas Police Break Up Violent Obama New Panther Group”
    If they had been Hispanic: “Texas Police Break Up Violent Illegal Obama Voting Hispanic Group”
    If they had been Muslim: “Texas Police Break Up Violent Obama associated Muslim Brotherhood Group”

  • gmart

    The bigger the gun, the smaller the penis.

    • Sam Houston

      You would know.

  • Craig

    This is a fake story with a misleading picture. The real one is here:

    • Craig
      • Pink No More

        Ghoul.

      • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

        Gun control kills? Nice projection. Very grown-up. Again, please clarify your claim that the story is false. Did they just happen to show up at the exact same place as the MDA meeting? Clearly not. This was intentional intimidation in an age when public gun massacres are increasingly common. Nice try, though.

        • Joy

          What I don’t understand is if these idiots are supposed to be responsible gun owners, why are they intimidating people with their guns? Of course, the well-regulated part of the 2nd Amendment is completely ignored by them, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    • jewelbomb

      What part of the story is fake?

      • Badgerite

        Oh, he just links to a post telling you how the global economy is going to hell and we should all be doing survival skills I guess. Who know?

        • fojap

          Yeah, I followed the link and saw that. I don’t think he’ll persuade too many people with that.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Are you suggesting they weren’t there to intimidate the MDA moms? And just because they had their picture taken changes the story how exactly?

      • Laura Truxillo

        But see? There’s ‘Murrica in the picture now. ‘Murrica and guns.

    • feloniousgrammar

      Look at this guy. He’s smiling. Is that an RPG? It’s probably unloaded, because SHUT UP THAT’S WHY.

      • Badgerite

        I’d take a wide berth around them.

      • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

        For the win.

      • Jonk

        It’s an RPG, and it’s unloaded. (The rocket-propelled thing that goes boom sticks onto the end, and you can see when it’s attached to the outside.)

        • feloniousgrammar

          Great! If I see him around I’ll buy him a cup of coffee and tell him to invite his friends and all their unloaded weapons. Surely those banana clips are empty as well.

  • Regina Freitag

    hahaaaa Americans are funny!! :-D

    • Badgerite

      We try!

  • Proudscalawag

    I’m ready to mow those filthy bullies down and leave their stinking carcasses to poison the poor vultures!!!

    • feloniousgrammar

      You’re not helping.

  • disqus_Njs8lVnwOT

    How in hell were these idiots not arrested and their guns confiscated? These cowardly wife-beating bitches try to intimidate a handful of fucking mothers and nobody does ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!?? I am totally disgusted. America has gone to SHIT!

  • Dan Daniel

    I’m really glad you called these guys what they are, “terrorists”. No one wins an argument through intimidation and these cowards are a perfect example of that. It is just one more instance that motivates me to continue fighting for rational gun control. This type of gun intimidation should be illegal!

  • NintendoWii10

    Arrest these men and take their guns away!

    • feloniousgrammar

      And put them in a registry so that they can’t legally carry again. They’ve proven themselves to be threatening, irresponsible and violent.

    • Badgerite

      I would sue their asses off civilly.

  • Dylan Mikkel Page

    Here’s the correct angle. These people were not terrorizing anyone. http://i.imgur.com/P7mnNtN.jpg

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Yeah, sure, when the DICKLESS wonders posed for a picture, the smiles and children come out.

      Pathetic assholes.

    • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

      Uh-huh. So what was their true objective? You know, with their military-style assault rifles in a public parking lot?

      • TL671

        They are NOT assault rifles. Assault rifles are select-fire. Meaning they can fire in either semi, or full-auto, at the flick of a switch. These are legal, semi-automatic rifles. name one military on the planet, in the last 70 years, that has used semi-automatics.

        • jewelbomb

          Ugh. It’s so tiresome when gun goofs get so worked up over these irrelevant details. Here’s a clue: no one cares about your “assault-rifle,” “select-fire,” “full-auto” blather. What we see is a bunch of unstable goofs with fucked up priorities using their big fucking guns to intimidate a group of middle-aged women. No one cares about your stupid, irrelevant technical quibbles.

          • TL671

            If you haven’t got a clue as to simple nomenclature, how can anyone take you seriously on any related subject? These “middle-aged women” were so terrified, they took pictures. Rather than call the police.

          • jewelbomb

            Sorry, but we don’t need to do extensive research on your dumb little hobby in order to conclude that parading around a parking lot armed to the teeth is a bit abnormal. Spare me.

          • Badgerite

            Women don’t usually like to cause an upset. That would be the men department you are looking for.
            They were taking pictures as evidence, idiot. Not to show their grand kids.

          • TL671

            Evidence of what? If they refused to call the police, for whom were they collecting this “evidence”?

          • Badgerite

            So that they had evidence of the groups actions so as to prevent them in the future by complaining to 1) the body politic, 2)legal groups and probably 3) law enforcement later. When they were out of range, as it were.

          • beulahmo

            Nobody has to become knowledgeable on esoteric gun information in order to make the reasonable point that weapons, openly carried, are socially disruptive and inappropriate in this situation. Pretending that using the “wrong terminology” significantly changes the meaning here is simply not going to work. Society does NOT approve of this sort of thing, and the only result this acting-out nonsense will accomplish for gun enthusiasts is intensifying public backlash. So far, the public hasn’t gotten aggravated enough to motivate them to swat these social pariahs back, but if they keep up this behavior, we’ll see a stronger public reaction toward restrictions on gun ownership and use. Think about it.

        • NintendoWii10

          Thanks for failing to answer Bob Cesca’s question.

          • TL671

            The question is based on a fallacy, and therefore, irrelevant. Plus, not having been there, not being in contact with anyone that was there, or knowing anything of the group involved, I can’t speak for them. But you seem not to have a problem with that.

          • Badgerite

            Not in the least. Any way you slice it. This is not the valid exercise of First Amendment rights of Free Speech.

          • beulahmo

            Now that’s an experiment I sincerely wish they’d try.

            Gun enthusiasts: Please go “express yourselves” to our Supreme Court justices by congregating a few dozen of you in front of the Supreme Court building, and openly carry your firearms as a “first amendment expression” of your love for the second amendment. Make sure there are lots of video cameras to record the liberty and freedom that ensues.

          • Badgerite

            Yeah, I’m not holding my breath on that one.
            Bullies don’t like it when there are people around who will actually stand up to them. Terrorizing a group of moms having lunch sound about like their speed.

          • Lady Willpower

            Yet you don’t have a problem labeling them as “peaceful” even though you have no actual knowledge of their character or intentions.

          • TL671

            Any reports of violence? Any assault charges brought? Sounds peaceful to me.

          • Lady Willpower

            No, it just sounds like there wasn’t any violence. That’s not the same as peaceful.

          • TL671

            Really? What is your definition of peaceful?

          • feloniousgrammar

            It isn’t everything up to the moment someone starts shooting into the crowd. Peace is not merely the absence of violence, it actually requires the absence of threats.

          • Lady Willpower

            Non-threatening and non-intimidating would certainly be a good place to start.

        • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

          You lose.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Of course he does. That’s why he’s trying to switch the conversation to the legal definition of ‘brandishing” or the specific details of what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle.

            ANYTHING other than actually have to explain what their objective was.

            Because he knows it was exactly what it looks like. To terrorize.

        • Badgerite

          Who cares? They look mean enough to me.

      • Christopher Foxx

        You don’t really expect an answer, of course. Actually addressing that head on is the LAST thing the gun wingnuts want to do.

        Everything they post is frantic spin to avoid doing exactly that.

    • jewelbomb

      You guys keep throwing this picture around like this is normal behavior. Sorry, but a bunch of goons spending their Saturday afternoon parading around a parking lot with their dopey guns is fucking creepy.

    • Pink No More

      RWNJ FB shitmeme lie.

    • Badgerite

      Well, at least they were smiling. But so was Jared Loughner at his trial.
      Either way. The First Amendment does not carry with it the right to express your political views at any time, in any way and any where that you want. Reasonable time place and manner restrictions placed by local, state and federal ordinances have always been and continue to be the law. An armed group gathering in a restaurant, particularly if they are doing it to target the people who may be having lunch inside, violates all kinds of laws. That is not the First Amendment. That is just asshole-ism.

    • Lady Willpower

      Boy that’s a…uh… real diverse looking bunch of citizens.

    • NintendoWii10
  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    10 DICKLESS men bent on intimidating 4 unarmed women.

    Makes perfect sense to the wingnuts. NO fucking sense to the rest of us.

    I truly HATE these goddamn people!

  • Bill Davis

    Damn Texass terrorist assholes! Why weren’t these bastards arrested–open carry is not legal in Texass!

  • Ty Ellison

    40 armed men, 4 unarmed moms. Using the LaPierre Theroem of Self Defense, the only way to stop one unarmed mom is with 10 men with guns.

    • Nihilarian

      I always knew my mom was a superhero, now I have proof!

      • Badgerite

        Yes, you do!

    • fukoff

      40 armed men and how many people got killed?

      • William Carr

        How many people get killed at your average Cross Burning?

        It’s still an act of Hate.

  • TL671

    Another well defined legal term you anti-gun, anti-rights, anti-freedom types like to throw around, which does not hold true in real life, assault rifle. I can guarantee not one assault rifle was present in that crowd. Regardless of the open carry laws of a particular state, one is not allowed to walk around with an assault rifle.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Thanks for the red herring but I’ve already eaten. About 20 people had weapons in their hands and were “lying in wait” to intimidate a group of 4 women having lunch. That’s all that needs to be said.

      • TL671

        The specific legal definition of a term you anti-gunners misuse, is a “red herring”. You idiots are too funny.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Arguing over the definition of “assault rifle” is completely irrelevant to the main point of this article–the fact that the women, the restaurant owner and others in the restaurant were intimidated. That is the EXACT definition of a red herring.

    • Badgerite

      I believe that actual debating topic here is not what constitutes and ‘assault riffle’ in the mind of the NRA but rather whether 20-30 men seriously armed to the teeth and gathered in the parking lot of a restaurant where four local ladies who are known to favor reasonable gun control laws constitutes a implied threat or an attempt to intimidate their own free speech and rights to freedom of association? Which it clearly does. Again. Not an abortion clinic or anything. Just individual ladies meeting for lunch. That is not the exercise of their free speech. That is the ‘targeting’ of someone else’s. And after what happened to Representative Gabrielle Giffords at her political meet and greet at a Tucson shopping mall to pretend that these ladies and whoever was in that restaurant was not put in fear of their lives is utterly ridiculous. .

    • Badgerite

      Who cares. The weaponry involved can clearly do a great deal of damage. That is the point.

      • TL671

        Actually, part of the design spec for an “assault weapon”, of which you people seem so afraid, was a cartridge of reduced size. Which leads to a case with reduced powder capacity, and owing to physics, reduced power. Any “hunting” rifle, many of which are also semi-automatic, will have a much higher velocity, and therefore more energy.

        • Richard_thunderbay

          No doubt the bullets just bounce off their targets and just tickle people.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Kudos!

          • TL671

            Reductio ad absurdum much?

          • Richard_thunderbay

            I presume you were looking in the mirror when you asked that given the idiocy of your previous comment.

          • Badgerite

            Good grief! Much!

          • kfreed

            When the occasion calls for it. This one certainly does.

        • Badgerite

          Gee, I guess I can stand in front of it and get shot and nothing will happen to me. Kind of like the Matrix movie, huh?

    • Joy

      What kind of guns they were carrying is really beside the point. What I want to know is why you think it was ok for these people to intimidate everyone in that restaurant with their guns.

      • TL671

        Because, there was no intimidation.

        • Richard_thunderbay

          LOL.

        • Joy

          ahahahahahahaha *SNORT*

          Oh, you were serious.

  • Christopher Foxx

    The donation page for Moms Demand Action is here: https://momsdemandaction.nationbuilder.com/donate

  • TL671

    Here’s the actual picture, from the angle intended. Not from a carefully considered angle to vilify a group of Americans peacefully exercising fundamental rights to assemble freely.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      And if you think that all those people holding weapons, regardless of what angle you’re looking at it from, isn’t threatening to four women having lunch who oppose their politics then you are delusional. Even if I wasn’t those women, if I walked around the corner and saw those people I probably would have drawn myself (presuming I was carrying). It might actually make me think that I should start carrying more, which is a shame. An American shouldn’t feel like they have to have a gun on their hip in order to be free of intimidation and that’s the point. This is the USA. Four women should be able to have lunch and talk about their group without having to go outside and see about 20 people with weapons waiting for them.

      • TL671

        So, you are as anti-First Amendment, as you are Second? Good to know that you consider those peacefully exercising both those rights, to be threatening. This is the USA, which means, until further notice, citizens have the right to assemble freely. Whether you like it or not.

        • feloniousgrammar

          The idea that people should know that a group of men with rifles in a parking lot is innocuous, but wait— they’re white!— is lacking the theory of mind that four year olds are working on. It’s just too idiotic that people who are concerned about having guns for their safety are asking people not to fear them when it appears that they’re gearing up for an assault on the public

          Grow some fucking balls— learn to face the world without a gun.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          No, actually they are free to assemble. Just as the women were free to assemble. But there’s a profound difference in four women meeting to have lunch and 20 people with weapons assembling outside of a restaurant to wait for those women to come out of the restaurant. Obviously, you can’t see the difference in not only their method of “assembly” but also the way in which they decided to express themselves. There was no need for the guns at all. Signs would have been more than sufficient. The guns were there for intimidation.

          I obviously support both the 1st and 2nd amendment. I’m a gun owning liberal. I believe in a well organized militia which means gun regulations are needed. Right now, we have next to nothing in many states. And that’s a problem.

          • Christopher Foxx

            The guns were there for intimidation.

            Exactly. 40 armed men showing up outside the restaurant had the clearly foreseeable (and intended) consequence of intimidating the moms. The restaurant owner was afraid to call the police for fear of the gunmen doing something violent.

            “TL671″ knows this. He knows this went down exactly as the terrorists intended.

          • Badgerite

            Right on the money. Free speech my ass. What they were doing was trying to infringe on the free speech of others. And their sense of security. Right at the moment, I have steam coming out of my ears! Sons of a bitches.

          • Christopher Foxx

            What they were doing was trying to infringe on the free speech of others.

            Exactly.

            1st Amendment doesn’t give the freedom to threaten others who are exercising theirs.

          • TL671

            You must have missed both elementary school English class, and the Heller decision. In elementary school they would have taught you about dependent, and independent clauses of sentences. And the Heller decision further supports that the militia clause was not a limitation, but rather an example of why the right of “The People” To Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT Be Infringed.

          • Badgerite

            The Heller decision was based on the right of a citizen to see to their own self defense. It in no way implies any support for citizenry engaging in a group activity of threat and intimidation towards those who have differing political opinions. The ‘differing political opinions’ would be the First Amendment free speech part and the actions of this group of yahoos is trying to intimidate and suppress that. Please don’t try to pretend otherwise. I got eyes, don’t I?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            You have no idea what my educational level is. In any case, you must not understand that a clause can be used to clarify the clause that comes before or after. Its dependency notwithstanding. And keep on spewing those NRA talking points. They were wrong when they pulled them out of their ass and they’re wrong now.

          • TL671

            Not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be a member of the NRA. I do not support gun control organizations. And the NRA is the most successful gun control group in American history. They wrote, or supported every major infringement we have currently on the books. Starting with NFA1934.

          • Badgerite

            Infringement? Whoa! Tin foil hat alert! Tin foil hat alert!

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Jeebus, you’re to the right of the NRA?! That’s pretty damn extreme.

          • TL671

            Nope, I’m to the center of freedom. For everyone. You, me, gun owners, non gun owners, homosexuals, drug users. You name it’s, I support the free use, or ownership.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            There are no rights without obligations and restrictions. The 2nd Amendment is the only Constitutional right that isn’t regulated. Does your “freedom” also extend to a woman’s body being her own? Or do you believe in “state rights” and they determine what she can and cannot do with her own body?

          • TL671

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Isn’t regulated? In what world is the application of over 22,000 federal, state, and local laws = not regulated? The 2nd, is by far the MOST regulated of the Bill of Rights.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Many of those laws are pro-gun laws allowing un-permitted concealed carrying, allowing guns on campuses (that’s a brilliant fucking idea BTW), allowing teacher to carry on Elementary schools, etc. By all means, lets get rid of those laws! Also noticed that you didn’t answer my question about women’s rights. I suspect you’re a Libertarian who talks a real good game about freedom but always falls back to “states’ rights”, which would mean all those Federal protections for minorities and women would go away. We’d lose a ton of freedom if you had your way. But that probably doesn’t bother you.

          • TL671

            I must have missed your question about women’s rights. So I’ll answer it this way. Are women human beings? I’m a human rights kinda guy. Among those rights I have, just by being human, is the right to defend my life. With whatever means I see fit.Along those same lines, females of the species, have the right to do whatever they please with their bodies.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Including abortion? (Edited to add: You still didn’t really answer my question….)

          • TL671

            Yes, including abortion. As stated several times throughout this thread. I thought you might be smart enough to grasp that anything one wanted to do with their body, included abortion. I apologize for over estimating you. Won’t happen again.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            And there you go again! Thanks Carnac, you keep undermining your argument by using such ad hominem attacks. The reason I kept pursuing the point was because many Libertarians will claim to be pro-woman but in the end are no such thing and they will obfuscate their real beliefs on the subject in order to make common cause with liberals (i.e., we both want to legalize drugs). I like to call them on their BS is all. So state’s rights? You didn’t say anything about that…..And yes, be specific. If you aren’t then you’re hiding something.

          • TL671

            I stop just shy of admitting to being an anarchist. I don’t believe anyone/group has the right to tell me, or anyone else how to live, or what I may own or do. That includes federal, state, local governments, or any individual. Including you.

          • fojap

            Some of my friends do admit to being anarchists, but I don’t believe them because they’re always complaining about something the government isn’t doing.

          • TL671

            I have never, nor will I ever complain that the government doesn’t do enough. Or that there is something they should be doing that they aren’t.

          • fojap

            I didn’t mean you and I was just humorously referring to a general human tendency towards inconsistency. Again, having nothing to do with you. I temporarily forgot rule number one of internet commenting: no humor whatsoever, no matter how trivial or minor.

            Generally speaking, I see libertarians, anarchists and the like as amusing, childish goofballs. Very likeable when playing in a band. Sort of annoying when talking about politics. Happily, their opinions are typically irrelevant and can be ignored. Your opinions on firearms would also be irrelevant if they didn’t happen to coincide with the opinions of the far right.

          • feloniousgrammar

            This is an agrarian society. Anarchists have no place in it.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Okay, thank you for finally answering my questions.

          • Badgerite

            You mean laws that don’t let you just draw a weapon and shoot someone without reason. Those are called (repeat after me) —-Criminal Laws. And there are lots of them that relate to guns. Primarily because guns are quite frequently used in such illegal criminal activities.

          • Lady Willpower

            Then you’re certainly not a Republican.

          • TL671

            Absolutely not. Never claimed to be. That is a label stuck on me by those on this site that pigeon hole people into one of two boxes, politically.

          • Badgerite

            Freedom and guns are not synonymous. Guns are all over the world. Freedom is associated with a system of laws involving restrictions on unchecked power. Civil restrictions. Not guns.

          • fojap

            If it was something covered in elementary school, I wouldn’t think they’d need multiple court cases to settle the meaning.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=0

            I don’t even have an interest in guns, and I think we should treat guns as a public health issue, so I’m not even advocating changes in gun laws, although there are many that I wouldn’t oppose either, yet I remembered that little article from many years ago. Between the fact that I haven’t seen you around here before and your avatar image, I assume guns are important to you, yet you either don’t know about this comma question, or you’re lying.

          • fojap

            Whenever people say that they own a gun, I wonder why. For what purpose do you use your gun?

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            It’s kind of leftover from my days as a LEO. It was my duty weapon and I lived in a very rough neighborhood at the time. Had to sleep with it loaded under my pillow kind of rough. Later used to take it hiking with me as I would go into some VERY remote areas of AZ hiking alone. It’s been gathering dust in recent years. I just recently made a decision that if I wasn’t going to sell it and planned to keep it for personal protection (other more recent private reasons won’t go into here for keeping it), I was going to get familiar with it again because I believe that it’s irresponsible not to. Have been target shooting and such. So, short story, personal protection.

          • feloniousgrammar

            Hey, I did some target shooting in the desert when I lived in Arizona but would never shoot a seguaro. It made me angry to see holes in those old and magnificent cacti. Having a gun or using one does not require anyone to be an asshole.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            I shoot indoors or at Ben Avery. A lot of people just shoot wherever they want. And yeah, they are brutal to saguaro. They think nothing of dumping chemicals in the desert (particularly on the reservations) or hazardous junk for target shooting (often on official park land). Taxpayers spend quite a lot of money to clean up things like old refrigerators, TVs, cans, metal signs, etc that were used for target practice. The desert takes so long to heal and the people here treat it so shabbily.

          • fojap

            Thanks for answering.

          • Badgerite

            They are not free to assemble at all times and anywhere. The Court has always held that reasonable time, place restrictions are not a violation of the First Amendment. A group of armed men cannot spontaneously gather outside your house and ‘demonstrate’. That would be a violation of all kind of laws. The First Amendment does not mean any time, any where, any place.
            Scott Walker just got done enforcing a ban on peaceful unarmed assembly in the state capitol building. So, no. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to ‘demonstrate’ anywhere at any time. Armed or otherwise.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Badge, you are right, I stand corrected.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Good to know that you consider those peacefully exercising both those rights, to be threatening

          The difference is, one group is brandishing guns with the clear intent (you will deny it, but that’s why they brought their guns instead of signs) of intimidating the other.

          • TL671

            Brandishing too has a specific legal definition. Not met by anything these peaceful Americans were doing. You anti-rights, anti-gun types sure like to bandy about legal phrases that you seem to have no clue as to the definition.

          • fojap

            I don’t know Texas laws, but this is the first definition I found:

            “California Penal Code 417 PC prohibits “drawing, exhibiting, or using a firearm or deadly weapon”.1 This offense is commonly referred to as “brandishing” a weapon.”

            Seems to fit.

          • Badgerite

            I would say gathering in an armed group with weapons at the ready qualifies as brandishing. Please don’t pretend you know anything about law when you clearly do not.

          • Christopher Foxx

            Brandishing too has a specific legal definition

            I wasn’t using it in any specific legal sense. Only as an accurate verb for what they were doing.

            But thank you for trying to derail the topic by getting into nit picking. We do notice when you do that.

        • Badgerite

          There is a time and a place for the exercise of First Amendment rights. Showing up armed to the teeth outside or where someone is just having lunch, because you disagree with them on some political issue is not the appropriate exercise of the First Amendment. That is threat, intimidation and harassment. And if the police are too afraid to do anything, I guarantee you , there will be legal groups that are not.

          • TL671

            The police didn’t do anything, because 1) there were no laws broken, 2) no one was scared, or threatened enough to call them.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Again, you refuse to acknowledge the restaurant owner who specifically said they were too scared to call the police. You’d be surprised how many Americans would feel the same way.

          • TL671

            And free, peaceful Americans should suffer due to one store owners mental issues? Hoplophobia is real. There is a great deal of it displayed on this page alone.

          • Badgerite

            Insensitive self absorbed stupidity is indeed real. And there is a lot of it displayed in your comments. This wasn’t an abortion clinic, you understand, this is some ladies having lunch. Targeting individuals just going about their private life to ‘demonstrate’ against the political views they hold is not upholding free speech or the First Amendment. Not even close. It is, per se, threatening and intimidating behavior that target individuals just going about their private lives. It also targets freedom of association. Whether anyone actually thought you yahoos would shoot anyone or not is irrelevant. You just had no right to be there doing that period.

          • TL671

            What does abortion, an activity I support, as well as gay rights, drug legalization, and a host of other freedoms, have to do with this? Kinda smashes you bigotry, doesn’t it?

          • Badgerite

            ‘Kinda smashes you bigotry, doesn’t it?’
            Only if you are an idiot and know nothing of Constitutional law.
            Anti abortion groups have been known to target the homes of individuals who work in those clinics and demonstrate in front of them. There were cases that went up to the Supreme Court on this very point. And the result was this: you have no right to violate property laws or I’m sure other laws against stalking and harassment in order to demonstrate for your political opinion. At the point where you do this, you invade the rights of another to peaceful enjoyment of their life.
            Kinda smashes your “They are violating my First Amendment right to be an asshole”, doesn’t it?

          • TL671

            Talk about red herrings. Whose home was this? What laws, of any kind were violated?

          • Badgerite

            The point of the cases mentioned is that you do not get to violate other proper laws in order to express your political opinions. They trespassed on the restaurant owners property for one thing. But that aside, they do not get to stalk ( otherwise known as an unwelcome following around of someone) in order to conduct an armed ‘demonstration’ of their political views in front of them. That is calledl intimidation and harassment. Not free speech. Just because you are expressing a view and the law puts reasonable restrictions on time and place of that expression does not mean the First Amendment is being violated.

          • fojap

            The internet is not your friend. Hoplophobia was made up by a gun expert, not a mental health expert.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

            “Hoplophobia is not a phobia listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association. It is listed in The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties, Third Edition as well as the Oxford Dictionary of Psychology.

            The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the definition of a phobia used by the DSM. For example, one diagnostic criteria of phobias is that the person be aware and acknowledge that their fear is irrational, and usually causes some kind of functional impairment. True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.”

            And thanks for helping me with my procrastination.

          • feloniousgrammar

            Oh. The “irrational fear” of guns. When in public it is rational to fear guns being brandished. The U.S. is the land of mass shootings. It should be obvious to anyone that asking people to assume that a person in public who is openly carrying a gun and who is not a uniformed police officer should be considered a possible threat, such that evasive action is wise. Learning to ignore people walking around with guns is about as smart as ignoring alarms. These people want to put people on alert and then to ignore the warning signs that are healthy.

            For persons who have been a victim of gun violence or are/was close to someone who is/was a victim of gun violence, the fear of a person in public brandishing a gun is not “irrational” or a mere trigger, it’s an inability to comfortably deny the risk. It’s an informed fear and it should be respected.

          • beulahmo

            ;-) Hee. I’m procrastinating too.

          • Lady Willpower

            The fact that you keep referring to them as “peaceful Americans” reveals your bias.

          • feloniousgrammar

            I’m wondering is his bias if worth a nickel a comment, or if he actually thinks he’s making a convincing argument.

          • fojap

            It’s funny that you should bring that up because within the past year and a half I have become more anti-gun due to the pro-gun people on the internet. Their behavior frankly scares me – and I never even gave the subject a whole lot of thought before.

          • Badgerite

            “Suffer”? Seriously, you equate having to go through a background check, which is pretty painless, with you or your family member being killed or maimed for life? The Constitution balances many interests and rights off against each other. No one right is without a conflicting right or interest. It is called a balance test but you could just as easily refer to it as a two way street. Respect for your rights entails respect for the rights of others.

          • TL671

            With a 94% false denial rate, yes, those may need firearms for their protection suffer.

          • NintendoWii10

            If you’re complaining about suffering because of background checks, maybe you shouldn’t be owning a gun in the first place.

            And “those may need firearms for protection,” who are the THOSE you refer to, and what protection do they need firearms for?

          • TL671

            Maybe you should mind your own business, and not worry about what I may, or may not own.

          • Badgerite

            You don’t inflict your opinions on a blog and then turn around and tell the readers of the blog to ‘mind their own business’. You are currently busy making your opinions about this specific issue other people’s business.
            Are you not?

          • fojap

            I’m having a hard time confirming this figure. Do you have a source?

          • TL671

            This is the first one that came up when I searched “false NICS”. And I misspoke, this article claims 93%.

            http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-matters-attempts-to-defend.html

          • That River Gal

            Oh, the discredited Lott link. Have a reputable source?

          • Joy
          • TL671

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! AAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Stop it, I can’t breath.

          • fojap

            Before I asked about your source, I had already done a bit of poking around. I came across a different Lott op-ed and the Media Matters piece. I was trying to find a source that was more neutral.

            This was the best I could come up with, but it only indirectly addresses your claim:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-brady-law-prevented-15-million-people-from-buying-a-firearm/2013/01/23/77a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html

            ‘Now, let’s back up a moment. As far as we can determine, the very low rate of referrals does not mean that most of the denials were “false positives” or unwarranted. But it does mean that such cases are a low priority for government prosecutors.’

            ‘ “The special agents we spoke with generally commented that they do not consider the vast majority of NICS referral subjects a danger to the public because the prohibiting factors are often minor or based on incidents that occurred many years in the past,” the report added. The report cited, as examples of people prohibited from buying gun, someone who had stolen four hubcaps and a person convicted in 1941 of stealing a pig. Of the cases reviewed by the IG, 48 percent of the crimes had occurred more than five years earlier — and 13 percent at least 20 years
            previously.’

            It seems better data is needed.

          • Badgerite

            Good!

          • Badgerite

            Mr. Truthful strikes again. That 94% denial rate is simply a fabrication. Otherwise known as an out right lie. You are busted dude. Deal with it
            You just make shit up.

          • mrbrink

            Guns are a tool for control as much as they are a tool for your fragile sense of freedom. When you’re skinning unarmed Americans so the leader of the White Peoples’ Resistance Army and Meth Distribution Company can wear them as a peaceful statement to the rest of the population when it all goes to Hell because you don’t understand the proper role of government, or the exercise of rights within a democratic society, remember that your guns didn’t turn on you– the marauders wielding the most of them did.

            Actual “free and peaceful Americans” would be much freer and peaceful if they weren’t anchored to a gun, or being harassed by suburban splinter factions of the Aryan brotherhood who show up uninvited to lunch.

          • Badgerite

            If the restaurant owner was indeed afraid to call the police, then yes a law was broken.

          • Robert Scalzi

            yes there were laws broken you Fuckwad – OPEN CARRY IS ILLEGAL IN TX – go back to the goddamned hole you reside in cretin and maybe do some fucking reading, you might actually learn you hate yourself.

          • TL671

            Not quite. The open carrying of UNLOADED long guns is perfectly legal in Texas. But why let facts, or the law get in the way of your agenda?

          • NintendoWii10

            I’m sure that you and your gun nut friends would not utter a single peep if the 40 people with assault weapons were black? or Hispanic? Or Muslim?

          • TL671

            I sure wouldn’t. Nor would anyone I associate with. Everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation, or what have you has the same rights as any other citizen. Perhaps you would do well to remember this.

          • NintendoWii10

            Bullshit!

            I know for a fact that if they were black, Hispanic, or Muslim, it would be BREAKING NEWS on Fox News.

            If they were black, Fox would run a story on how the police busted up a crazed New Black Panther group associated with Obama.

            If they were Hispanic, Fox would run a story on how the police busted a group of illegal Obama voters.

            If they were Muslim, Fox would run a story on how the police busted an American Muslim Brotherhood group associated with Obama.

            In short, you LIE through your teeth!

          • TL671

            Who gives the slightest shit about what fox does? Other than you? I get my news and information from many sources. The least of which is fox, or msnbc, or cnn, or any other “mainstream” source. Mostly local sources across the nation, all of which are available on this magical invention called, the internet.

          • NintendoWii10

            My point is that if that if these 40 morons with assault rifles were black, Hispanic, Muslim, any other race other than paleface white, Fox News and the far right would NOT keep quiet about it, and you know it! How else can you explain the fear behind five “New Black Panthers” at a polling place in 2010 by the right, the rants about how Obama is part of the Muslim Brotherhood by Beck, Bachmann, etc, and the rants about illegal Hispanics from the right?

          • TL671

            And my point is, despite your stereotyping, I could not possibly care less what fox does. They are as useless as any other news for hire organization. Maybe you should see someone about your unhealthy obsession with fox.

          • NintendoWii10

            I didn’t just mention Fox News in my post, I did mention “the right.” Beck is not a member of the right? Bachmann is not a member of the right? Shitpants Ted Nugent is not a member of the right? Palin is not a member of the right?

          • TL671

            Except, you know, you did mention fox news. Four times in your comment. And no mention what so ever of “the right” as a whole.

            “I know for a fact that if they were black, Hispanic, or Muslim, it would be BREAKING NEWS on Fox News.

            If they were black, Fox would run a story on how the police busted up a crazed New Black Panther group associated with Obama.

            If they were Hispanic, Fox would run a story on how the police busted a group of illegal Obama voters.

            If they were Muslim, Fox would run a story on how the police busted an American Muslim Brotherhood group associated with Obama.”

          • NintendoWii10

            So Fox News isn’t representative of the right anymore?

            Who knew!

          • TL671

            They represent what every news for hire outfit represents, their bottom line.

          • Badgerite

            Really. And where did you get the information that Jarred Lee Loughner was ‘leftist, and anti gun control’ as you called him in a previous post?

          • NintendoWii10

            It’s ironic that these gun nuts call these mass shooters leftist liberals, yet we continue to hear ranting and raving about armed rebellion against the government from the likes of Beck, Sharron Angle, Palin, Shitpants Ted, etc etc etc.

          • TL671

            Really?

          • NintendoWii10

            I guess you missed Sharron Angle’s “second Amendment remedies” from 2010?

            Or Palin saying “Don’t retreat, reload?”

            or Joyce Kauffman saying “if ballots don’t work, bullets will”?

          • Pink No More

            I’ve had my fill of your RWNJ FB-shitmeme spamming. You’re done, boy.

          • TL671

            Yep, you know me. One of them abortion, gay rights supporting, drug legalization rwnj’s.

          • Pink No More

            You’re a glibertarian, which makes you – wait for it – A RWNJ.

          • Badgerite

            You don’t get a free pass on this issue, no matter what else you ‘support’.

          • Badgerite

            And there it is. You lump Adam Lanza, Nidal Hassan and Jared Loughner in with the phrase liberal. You are so busted.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Several of these people were mentally ill. I could go down them one by one and tell you who was officially declared crazy and who wasn’t and of those who weren’t what political leanings the information indicated they might be. Ultimately, using this as a sign of how liberals are violent is so disingenuous that it beggars belief. We try to debate facts here, not outright lies. You’re going to have to do better than that.

          • That River Gal

            Oh no, not an internet meme!

          • http://www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go Bob Cesca

            And you know the rifles were unloaded how?

          • TL671

            And you know they weren’t how? These people were so terrified, they had time to take pictures, but not call the police.

          • Badgerite

            Pictures are evidence. It only takes a moment with current technology and it can provide evidence to show that you did feel intimidated and why.

          • TL671

            And? How long does it take to dial 9-1-1? With the same piece of technology, no less.

          • Badgerite

            I’m guessing it takes longer in Texas.

          • TL671

            Why? Do people’s fingers work more slowly in Texas? Is cell reception worse in Texas? That statement doesn’t even make sense.

          • Badgerite

            I believe the article states that the owner and probably the ladies who took the picture did not want to upset the people with guns. I’m guessing that is pretty accurate.

          • beulahmo

            - __ –
            Anh. You’ve moved on from obnoxious but mildly interesting to obnoxious and boring. I think you’ve run through all your material.

          • stacib23

            Because these dumb fucks would never go out in mass with unloaded weapons. It’s part of their identity.

          • Badgerite

            I believe you would have to assume they were loaded. How can you assume otherwise? For the purposes of law enforcement, they would certainly assume they were loaded. Either way, it is still a threatening and intimidating message that they were attempting to send to the ladies and other people inside.

        • Christopher Foxx

          So, you are as anti-First Amendment, as you are Second?

          I’m far more for the First Amendment than those terrorist than or you. When I exercise my First Amendment rights I don’t do so in a way specifically designed to stop other people from exercising theirs.

        • Joy

          They were breaking Texas law by brandishing their weapons. Texas does not allow open carry. Breaking the law is not protected by the First Amendment.

          • TL671

            They were breaking no laws. There was no brandishing, and Texas law allows for the open carry of UNLOADED long guns.

          • Joy

            Again, how does anyone know they were unloaded? I was always taught that you treat any gun as if it were loaded. Which is what RESPONSIBLE gun owners do.

        • Badgerite

          Again. Reasonable time, place, manner restrictions. Meaning if the manner of how you should choose to express your free speech is considered threatening, that particular manner can be acted upon based on any laws against such activity ( like disorderly conduct or harassment or assault or trespassing ) that happen to be on the books. And if the police won’t act you can be sued civilly.
          The First Amendment means you cannot be restricted by the government from expressing a political opinion, but you must add the phrase, as has the Court, within reason.
          As in reasonable time, place and manner restrictions put in to protect the rights of other or other societal interests ( like some ladies being able to meet for lunch without fear of a group of people in the parking lot with guns). DEAL WITH IT! That is the First Amendment. That is the law.

      • http://www.wallsofthecity.net/ Linoge

        Folks used to believe four women should be able to have a lunch and talk about their group without having to go outside and see about 20 darkies waiting for them.

        Human rights are here to stay, including the right to self-defense, the right to own private property, and the right to assemble peaceably. Deal with it.

        • Badgerite

          Let’s put it this way. You have no right to gather an armed assembly in front of someone just having lunch. That is nooooobody’s right. Constitutional or otherwise. You cannot violate property laws or other laws against individual harassment or stalking in order to express your political opinions.
          Occupy Wall Street were removed from the parks they occupied eventually weren’t they. Know why? They were violating local ordinances about the proper time and place of engaging in peaceful assembly.

          • http://www.wallsofthecity.net/ Linoge

            “You have no right to gather an armed assembly in front of someone just having lunch.”

            In fact I do. They can choose to move on if my behavior offends them in some fashion – which the Moms Demand Action useful idiots did not… interesting that – but I still have the right to be there.

            Oddly enough, exercising your Second Amendment-protected rights doesn’t mean you automatically give up the rights protected by the First Amendment.

          • NintendoWii10

            What if it had been this group exercising their Second Amendment rights instead?

            http://awwproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/13-taliban.jpg

          • beulahmo

            I guaran–damn–tee you that owners of businesses will rise up against you assholes because you’re driving customers away. You will not win this. You are social pariahs.

          • Badgerite

            Oh, but you don’t. I tell you what. Let’s do an experiment in Constitutional Law. You go and conduct an armed ‘demonstration’ in front of the Supreme Court when it is in session and let’s just see how long that ‘demonstration’ is allowed to proceed before police hustle you and whoever right out of there and into the nearest jail for questioning.
            In fact, the Court has always held that the First Amendment right to Free Speech is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. You cannot act any old boorish, threatening or intimidating way you want and call it free speech.
            Indeed, here in Wisconsin, Scott Walker and the GOP in control in the legislature have imposed a ban on demonstrations or even assemblies inside of the capitol building. I think once a week the pro union groups get an hour to go into the capitol dome and sing songs.
            So, in fact, no you do not.
            You cannot claim the First Amendment as protection if you are violating trespass or stalking or harassment or disorderly conduct or any of the other laws that might be in force in this instance.

          • Badgerite

            In fact you do not. Again. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. I think the activity of the yahoos in the parking lot would violate all of those.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Did you seriously just use the term “darkies”? You racist fuck. I hope Bob bans you.

          • http://www.wallsofthecity.net/ Linoge

            God forbid someone use period-accurate terminology. *yawn*

          • william trent

            What period are you talking about? I don’t think “darkies” has been “period-accurate” for well over a century.

        • beulahmo

          There’s a motivation among your fellow human beings that’s more abiding than any of the desires you try to ostentatiously dress up with your sanctimonious rhetoric: the motivation to live in a civil, secure, peaceful society. We human beings have worked and struggled and persevered for a very long time to create a secure society in which we assign protection of our persons and property to trained professionals, so that we don’t feel the need to walk around, armed and ready to defend against attack. And the vast majority of us will eventually get sick and goddamned tired of the efforts of a few in our society to return all of us to some sort of wild-west-style frontier.

          You will not win this. You will never win this.

    • Robert Scalzi

      Fuck you – you have Lead poisoning and hopefully some lead will kill you – live by the gun ….. Fuck you to Hell you goddamned Zealot
      and save your invalid interpretation of the constitutional bullshit and stuff it where the sun don’t shine

      • TL671

        Typical, violent, scumbag anti-gunner. Why is it you anti-Americans are so violent?

        • Robert Scalzi

          I served too you fuckwad – Go to hell

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Robert, don’t let him get too much under your skin. I’ve seen this kind of bating hundreds of times and it does get very old. The gun nuts will make veiled threats and then when anyone responds to them, they get all excited and say ‘see, see, the liberals/blacks/browns/(fill in an epithet they like to use) are the REAL violent ones, not us!’ Same reason this guy can’t and won’t admit that what that group did was intimidation. They honestly believe they are the only ones who deserve to be in power and they believe might makes right. So their use of intimidation is justified and anyone who stands up to them are violent and in the wrong. They’re the true authoritarians.

          • TL671

            WOW. Seek help IrishGrrrl. Your insanity is showing.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            And thanks for that cherry on top of your ad hominem attack. So far you’ve insulted my English reading comprehension skills, my knowledge of American jurisprudence, and now mental stability. You must be The Great Carnac with your ability to gauge someone’s mental and intellectual level over the Internet! I bet you have a tin foil hat in the shape of a turban with a little tea bag hanging jauntily down the front.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Here you go, in case you missed the reference.

          • Robert Scalzi

            I’m done with him – I said my piece – he’s a useless twit . been a bad weekend – Fired from a job I’ve had for 7 yrs so I’m in an extra pissy mood, thanks for the support IG :-)

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Ouch, I’m sorry. Then definitely don’t let some anonymous twit get you down. If you work in IT let me know if there is anything I can do for you. I know a few headhunters who work for national firms.

          • fojap

            So sorry to hear that. This guy has specifically come here looking for a fight. Try not to let him get to you.

          • feloniousgrammar

            Sorry to hear that. Life really sux sometimes. Be kind to yourself.

        • Badgerite

          More like anti stupid and anti mean. Would you like it if about 20-30 guys, whom you did not know or trust, armed to the teeth, showed up outside where you were having lunch? Or would you feel the impulse to reach for your own gun? I’m guessing the latter.

          • TL671

            Unlike you, I do not fear my fellow Americans. Regardless of what they have in their hands. Or strapped to their backs, or waists.

          • Badgerite

            Really!. Maybe you should talk to Captain Mark Kelly the husband of Gabrielle Giffords or the mother of that 9 years old girl who was killed in that shooting and see what they have to say about that.

          • TL671

            So, you are going to use the actions of a mentally ill, leftist, gun control supporter to tar all gun owners? No bigotry there.

          • Badgerite

            Yes I am. The mentally ill part. He was clearly not a ‘leftist, gun control supporter’. That part is just made up. Mr. Truthful.

          • Pink No More

            You lie about Loughner. He is a rightist anti-governmentist. You’re done, boy. You will be silent.

          • TL671

            I guess you would know better than he, what his political leanings were/are. You got me.

        • fojap

          You were right to be annoyed that other people assumed you were homophobic, misogynist, etc. Likewise, you shouldn’t assume that Robert Scalzi is anti-American.

          • TL671

            I assumed nothing. It’s right there in his violent rants.

          • fojap

            You don’t argue honestly. I took a second look at what he wrote and I can’t get anything anti-American out of it.

        • william trent

          Gun nuts have no right to call anyone else violent.

    • Christopher Foxx

      Not from a carefully considered angle to vilify a group of Americans peacefully exercising fundamental rights to assemble freely.

      Gun wingnuts have ZERO sense of irony or hypocrisy.

      • feloniousgrammar

        Understanding cause and effect is a necessary part of understanding irony.

        They need to appear threatening with guns coupled with their self-defense argument is the hypocrisy. It’s all about THEM and they have no concerns about the people they threaten.

    • Badgerite

      Sir or ma’am, from any ankle a group of people with guns showing up where you are having a luncheon meeting is not a peaceful protest. This is threatening, intimidating behavior. Stalking and assault. And holding up a flag in front of it does not change that.

      • TL671

        If anyone was threatened, why not call the police? Stalking? And assault? really? Both of those terms have very specific, legal definitions, neither of which are met by a group exercising Constitutionally protected rights.

        • Badgerite

          Yes they do have specific legal meanings. Putting someone in fear for their life is assault. You have no constitutionally protected right to intimidate another American citizen who is having lunch.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          The restaurant owner didn’t call the police because he was afraid to call them thinking that it might end up in a shoot out. The owner of the restaurant has a very good legal case. Hell, he/she wasn’t even the target and they felt threatened. The owner would make a great witness for the women.

    • fojap

      Why did they decide to pose in front of that particular restaurant?

      • TL671

        1st Amendment. Perhaps.

        • Badgerite

          The First Amendment does not give you the right to follow people around where they are and have a ‘demonstration’ every five minutes. That would be called—-harassment. And infringing on the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and association of others. You don’t get to follow people around and ‘demonstrate’ everywhere. That is not the first amendment.

    • jewelbomb

      Not sure what point you are trying to make.These goofs look ridiculous irrespective of the angle from which they are photographed.

    • Pink No More

      RWNJ lie.

    • NintendoWii10

      I wonder what you’d be saying about this group of folks exercising their Second Amendment rights?

      http://awwproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/13-taliban.jpg

      • TL671

        That’s fine. Except for the guy with the pistol, with lousy trigger discipline.

        • NintendoWii10

          Aaaaaand BUSTED!

          That is a photo of the Taliban, the government that harbored the terrorist group responsible for the worst terrorist attack on American soil. You just openly admitted for the blog to see that you’ll defend any group that brandishes weapons, even if they are a terrorist group.

          The irony is, that if this radical group of Muslims had been the group in front of the restaurant as opposed to the 40 white folks this thread is about, the right wing would go apeshit ranting about the Muslim Brotherhood, and how they are a part of President Obama’s scheme to implement Sharia Law here in America.

          And on that note, I’m done with you.

          • TL671

            I knew exactly who they were. It’s easy enough to tell, from the firearms they have, none of which we can get in the states.

        • Badgerite

          ‘That’s fine’. Yeah right!

  • mea_mark

    Soon one of these gun masturbaters is going to accidentally shoot someone at one of these events. This is so inappropriate and uncalled for. Make a sign with a picture of a gun on it if you want, don’t bring your guns out in public where they cannot be legally discharged with purpose. Protest without threatening, do not disturb the peace.

    • Robert Scalzi

      it has already happened !!! in a fucking Gun safety class – more than once

  • fojap

    This is so thoroughly insane, I don’t even know where to start to try to wrap my mind around it. It’s some mild consolation that I don’t live in the south, and since I’ve stopped speaking to my southern relatives I will probably never have a reason to go there ever again. It’s definitely not my culture. Does anyone realize what a nice country the U.S. would be without the south?

  • Richard Lawrence Adlof

    This is assault. This is threats with deadly weapons. This is terrorism.

  • missliberties

    That darn librul media. They are so in Obama’s lap.

  • Charmagne Elliott

    All the goons with their phallic symbols. They need shotguns to face an unarmed perceived threat. That’s real men for ya.

  • ellenry

    What is sad..the fact that these idiots don’t realize that actions such as this will only bring MORE support for gun control. They are obviously not intelligent or respectful enough to have guns. They operate from a fear based idea that everyone is out to get them and they must therefore attack first..Idiots!

    • feloniousgrammar

      I suspect that for a lot of them their guns are or will be used to threaten and intimate their girlfriends or wives.

  • Charmagne Elliott

    Why weren’t these men with guns arrested? Obviously, they represent a threat to the peaceful protestors. Sorry folks, but this is going too far.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      That’s what adds insult to the injury…there were no peaceful protesters! Just four women who belong to a group having a planning lunch together. I mean, people can’t have lunch and talk about a shared interest? FFS!

    • Badgerite

      Way too far. I think this violates even open carry laws. If it doesn’t, it should.

    • Nancy A. Collins

      Because the restaurant’s manager was too big of a pussy to call the cops.

    • Sam Houston

      What peaceful protestors? First it’s just 4 unarmed little old ladies having tea to a group of protestors. Which is it?

      • Badgerite

        If you are confused here is a synopsis. Four ladies having lunch to talk and socialize. Group of 20-30 armed men gather in the parking lot to ‘protest’.
        To protest what? Lunch?
        Like I said. If you think this is your First Amendment right just try it at the Supreme Court while the Supreme Court is in session. I guarantee you that they WILL call the police.

  • Vipsanius

    These OCT types need to be taught that attempts at intimidation fail. The MDA folks need to carry on; if this occurs again, they need to summon the authorities.

    • formerlywhatithink

      .. if this occurs again, they need to summon the authorities.

      This is Texas your’e talking about. If the MDA folks had called the police, the cops would’ve arrested the members of MDA for intimidating the OCT cowards.

      • Maike Hudson

        No. The OCT fools are rallying because open carry is NOT allowed in Texas, only concealed carry with a license. Don’t paint things in Texas even worse than they are.

        • TL671

          Open carry of UNLOADED long guns, is indeed legal in Texas.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, but that is not just ‘carrying’. That is use in a threatening and intimidating manner. Assault, really.

          • TL671

            Really? How so? Posing for a picture is threatening? Since when? If anyone was truly threatened, why not call the police? Instead, they take a misleading picture, and lie about the facts to suit their citizen disarmament agenda.

          • Badgerite

            So, your story is that this group of 20-30 seriously armed men just showed up in the parking lot where these ladies, who are local supporters of reasonable gun control laws, were having lunch—- to take pictures? What a coincident. Why would anyone feel threatened? Beats me.
            Why there? Why not at a gun range or the public square? You are too transparent for words.

          • fojap

            It was in the article, but apparently you didn’t bother to read it.

            “The manager of the restaurant didn’t alert the authorities out of fear of inciting the OCT goons.”

            Do you have a new alert for gun related articles and you scroll down to the comments and start pasting prepared arguments without even bothering to read?

          • Stephen Bryce

            An agenda that you have never proven exists.

            Oh and the last time I checked brandishing loaded assault weapons near a group for political reasons IS TERRORISM.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Don’t paint things in Texas even worse than they are.

          That’s a very difficult thing to do.

      • Robert Scalzi

        actually they might have been arrested – as it is currently ILLEGAL to openly carry in TX

    • Christopher Foxx

      These OCT types need to be taught that attempts at intimidation fail. The MDA folks need to carry on; if this occurs again, they need to summon the authorities.

      Someone down voted that? I wonder again why up votes get names attached and down votes are anonymous. Why is the Daily Banter empowering cowards?

      • beulahmo

        I’m pretty sure it’s Disqus. It’s like that everywhere else I’ve seen the Disqus platform used.

        • Christopher Foxx

          Thanks. Looks like I mis-directed my irritation to the Banter.

          I won’t begin to touch the handle vs name issue and that folks can post essentially anonymously. But to mask which posters are down voting (a second layer of anonymity) just further enables cowards to avoid responsibilities, IMHO.

          • beulahmo

            Maybe this’ll help: look at it this way–some trolls are satisfied to cast their little downvotes and then leave. A lot of times, that little down arrow gives them an opportunity to vent their little hostile feelings without having to post comments, and that helps prevent at least some of troll droppings from mucking up Banter threads! :-)

  • anotherbozo

    “The message: keep doing what you’re doing and we’ll have no choice [BUT] to defend ourselves by, you know, shooting you.”

  • Lazarus Durden

    I’ve been through it, and anyone who has organized anything liberal in a deep red district has. We still have tea party activists who stand on an overpass with “Impeach Obama” signs every Sunday. It’s like church for them. And the gun rallies. Got them too.

    The only way to handle this is to shame them. To tell them you’re not afraid. Say it to their fucking face. The catch is you’re throwing your life on the table, because one unhinged asshole might take you out. Doesn’t matter if he goes to jail or not you’ll still be dead so I can understand why these women were in fear for their lives.

    • Badgerite

      I would sue them civilly and probably insist on criminal charges of assault because I’m pretty sure that ‘open carry’ does not mean the right to line up firing squad style in front of a restaurant. That goes well beyond ‘open carry’.
      Assault ( putting someone in fear for their life) is both a criminal offense and one that can be sued on civilly as well.

      • mea_mark

        Their actions are not protected by an open carry law in Texas.

        • Badgerite

          I wouldn’t think so. At the very least, it would be disturbing the peace. At the very least.

    • Sam Houston

      That is how life for you in Texas will always be. Stop trying to change something that you have no control over nor will ever have. There is a reason that we say “Don’t Mess With Texas”. It’s our home and we don’t take kindly to trespassers stirring up the peace. What women live in fear of their lives? They got guns too you Libtard. We feel no shame for the lowest of scum; a Liberal.

      • villemar

        Why don’t you secede then? It worked out so well for you guys last time.

        • Sam Houston

          Last time the North had all the power and most of the economy. This time the tables are turned. The Northern cities are in economic ruin, as well as your allies in the West. Texas has the power and economy now. How far would you get with no fuel oil this winter or electricity from our coal and natural gas? Need diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel? Oh, I am so sorry. I am sure that Solyndra has your back. Texas also has global connections so there is absolutely no need from the Blue States for anything. Think I am full of it? Well, then why are the Progressives spending so much of their resources trying to change Texas to Blue. Come on. What’s your lame explanation for that?

          • Badgerite

            So you will quite f-cking up the rest of the country with your stupidity? And we can address real issues like global warming without waiting on you until it is too late. Stuff like that.
            So the GOP will come over from the ‘Dark Side’.

        • Sam Houston

          Careful what you wish for. Last time the North had the political power and the majority of the economy. This time around will be much different. The Blue State North’s major cities, the bastions of Democratic prowess, have crumbled into decay and economic failure. Texas holds the cards now. We have the political might, we have the resources, we have the global connections to succeed. There is one critical flaw to your plan there bub. Texas, along with her Sister Red States pretty much holds all the cards on Natural Gas, Coal, Oil, Propane, Petroleum Industry, Helium, and Uranium. It will be a cold winter this year without your fuel oil or electricity. Forget about your gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Your fishing fleet will be crippled. Your trains will cease to run. Only Nuclear power can save you except that we have the Uranium you need for your plants. We will also cut off your endless supply of slave labor from South of the Border. It will come at a price for us as there are no cranberry bogs in the South.

          • fojap

            Please then, Texas Whiner, go. Southern culture is not my culture. I like mine. I don’t like yours. I won’t even argue the details. I’ve haven’t liked the way the southern part of the country has tried to use the federal government to impose their culture on the rest of us since the 1980s. I’d be perfectly happy to put up a border at Virginia to stop guns from there from coming north.

      • formerlywhatithink

        You’re an idiot. You’re really going to quote an anti-littering campaign slogan and pretend it’s a sign of how tough Texas is? Pitiful.

      • Badgerite

        Nothing intimidating there. Just move along. These women don’t need any help. They just forgot where they are and what the ‘rules’ are. And you wonder why no one called the police. I can’t imagine.

      • Kyle Edwards

        Sam.. you are a joke..and we laugh at you .. right IN your face.

      • Lazarus Durden

        LOL did you actually post “we don’t take kindly”? Wait let me read it again. ROFL! You did! You actually did!

        Wow. I was going to slam you but forget it Skeeter. I’ll let your post mock itself.

        • fojap

          Hey! You’re stirring up the peace. Sounds like you’re some sort of subversive agitator. What, is this guy the heavy in a Clifford Odet’s play?

          Hmm. I’m remember that parody of Rand Paul Chez did the other day….

  • formerlywhatithink

    Take those 40 armed cowards, change it to 40 armed African Americans and this story would’ve taken a radical turn. Fucking cowards. The fact that they were intimidated by four women speaks volumes to their self image problems. If you need a gun to fight intellectual ideas, you neither deserve the right to own a gun nor do you have a right to have a voice in the argument since they are obviously incapable of formulating any sort of coherent argument in their favor.

    And to every Republican who blathers on about “2nd Amendment solutions” (wink, wink), fuck you too.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      And to every Republican who blathers on about “2nd Amendment solutions” (wink, wink), fuck you too.

      I upvote this 1000%. Did you see the string from Bob’s article last week, Sadistic Obamacare, where the conservative poster started going on about his 2nd Amendment rights trying to intimidate me. I’m not afraid of him or them because I REFUSE to let them intimidate me. Fuck em.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        I didn’t see that; can you link?

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          Here’s the link. http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/sadistic-obamacare-opponents-giggle-and-smirk-over-relatively-minor-aca-glitches/#comment-1111832611

          Some stupid con commenter said something about us being stalinesque and I made fun of him, next thing I know he’s going on about 2nd Amendment rights. Nothing pisses me off more than when they pull that out. They really do think that they would and could just walk all over liberals because we’re a bunch of peaceful drugged up hippies. They’re completely delusional.

          • beulahmo

            Funny how it doesn’t occur to some of these people that liberals own guns too (hopefully they do so safely and responsibly). We just don’t make a fetish out of it.

          • Lady Willpower

            We don’t use them as penis replacements.

          • beulahmo

            LOL and yikes! I just visualized one of ‘em tucking a handgun into the crotch area of his underpants. {:-[]

          • Joe Smith

            Yo make a fetish about controlling the way other people act instead

          • beulahmo

            Bondage and discipline? Well I’ve done bondage and liked it, but I wouldn’t be into the discipline part. ;-)

          • Joe Smith

            Hee hee

          • Sheryl Hunter

            Well most liberals who own guns have learned not to mention it around other liberals .. because don’t take this wrong but a liberal saying “I have a gun and I am responsible with it” around other liberals is like being an injured shark around other sharks. It turns into a feeding frenzy.

          • beulahmo

            Really? Hmm.
            It’s not something I intentionally keep hidden. And when I have mentioned it, I’ve never gotten a bad response about it. ::shrug::

          • William Carr

            I have a gun and I am responsible with it.

            Signed, “A Liberal”.

          • Sam Houston

            Good to hear. I applaud you coming forth at risk from your fellow Liberals eviscerating you. Don’t know how this whole gun control debate/lobby became so politically aligned by party when the 2nd Amendment is written for 100% of American Citizens.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            This is true Sheryl. I’ve seen many an ugly but amusing argument about this on the Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground.
            They end up slinging poo at each other.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            1000%^^^^^^.

          • greg knapp

            What a whiny cunt you are… I bet you are about 300 pounds. And your babydaddy is a big ol smelly nig. And you live with about 45 cats because people can’t stand to be around your bull dyke wanna bee ass.. am I close here?? You “follow me cause I’m right” liberal pukes are what made me change my political views completely. I couldn’t belong to a party of such whiny pussies.. I hope you all meet a tragic end.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            No, greg, I won’t meet a tragic end, but your kind of hate and racism is fading away and will reach an end. And I don’t have to do or say a thing. It’s just plain old demographics. So keep on ranting and foaming at the mouth all the way to obscurity.

          • William Carr

            Excellent. Excellent !

            When Conservatives start foaming at the mouth, and saying, (my greatest victory) “I look forward to your funeral”, that’s when Liberals know we’ve WON.

            BTW, you accused her of having a black boyfriend, and then said she was a bull dyke.

            I think you’re confused.

          • fojap

            You do realize that this is just plain weird, right?

          • pitbullgirl1965

            Bless your heart Greg.

          • Sam Houston

            Ha! I know some Liberals who would take offense to your slandering their lifestyle choices.

            So, I take it that I am the gun nut of your contention? Laughs on you, I have never nor do I ever plan on buying a firearm. ha ha I am just standing up against the Libtard agenda.

      • Sam Houston

        Just the fact that you Libtards are up in arms over this proves that you feel intimidated. You just don’t get it and never will. It’s the bad people with the guns that are doing the killing. Laws obviously mean nothing to them. Why don’t you go flock to your control cities like Detroit, Chicago, and DC where murder is rampant. Murder rates are low in Texas because perps realize that outside of the major cities where you Libtards are holed-up, pretty much everyone owns a gun. Sandy Hook would have occurred no matter what gun control measure you had on the books. That basterd could have went in there with a hand gun, explosives, or a machete to the same effect.

        • Badgerite

          This is your problem. You don’t even know what we ‘Libtards’ are advocating for. The Heller decision ( see Supreme Court) has held that the Second Amendment does provide a Constitutional right of a citizen to own weaponry for purposes of self defense.
          However, that Constitutional right can be over ridden by certain individual characteristics such as MENTAL INSTABILITY or previous criminal or violent activity. Therefore, background checks before being allowed to purchase a weapon.
          Nobody needs a Bushmaster AR-15 for self defense or hunting.
          Therefore a ban on that kind of over the top anti personnel weaponry.
          And what that would have done at Sandy Hook was saved lives.
          They estimate that Adam Lanza managed to fire off 150 rounds in about 2 minutes. With that kind of weaponry, he did a lot of damage very quickly before anyone had any chance to respond. And that, after all, is the purpose of automatic weaponry that was developed for war.
          For war, not because you want to defend yourself in civil society. For war. One of the teachers tried to charge him. But, of course, she had no chance. With that kind of weaponry you don’t even have to shoot good. You can just lay down a spray and kill anything that moves or approaches. Which is kind what he did.
          Would that he had only had a machete or a handgun, sir.

          • Matthew Greene

            Have you ever shot a gun before? I’d like to see you hit a target at 10 meters without aiming. Also, an ar-15 is not an assault rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle). An ar-15 uses .223, a .45 caliber handgun would by far put a larger hole in someone than an ar. Why do you think the military is asking for a weapon with more stopping power? This whole two sided debate over this gun issue where people feel so inclined to wear their political party affiliations on their sleeves is the most annoying part. No one will ever stop the acquisition of fire-arms, especially with the new 3d printer guns going around. Bad people exist, we can’t change that either. Spreading propaganda and not forming an opinion on your own is not the way to fix any of this. I don’t care how this thing ends up, I just wish everyone would stop getting hurt because people have a difference in opinion.

          • Badgerite

            Yes I have. What makes the AR-15 so deadly and the weapon of choice for your average mass murderer taking on a school or a shopping mall of lots of unarmed people is the speed at which the rounds can be discharged giving them the ability to literally spray bullets out at anyone and everyone who tries to stop them or who tries to flee from them. With the element of surprise, which they always have, it takes away any method of defense. They do not even have to be a good shot to hit their targets since they can discharge so many rounds so fast.
            I always form opinions on my own. That is why I know that how big of a hole the particular weapon causes is not really the issue. It is the speed of discharge. They estimate that Adam Lanza got off 150 rounds in two minutes time. That is a lot of firepower brought to bear on some children and their teachers. Now, tell me why you need or anyone needs that kind of firepower for any legitimate purpose.

          • Matthew Greene

            It’s a semi automatic weapon, meaning as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. Pretty sure there are plenty of other semi auto weapons that would do more damage and are just as legal.

          • Sam Houston

            Most modern handguns can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Heck, you could do it with the old six-shooter side irons of the Old West. Remember the Rifleman? That was a real Winchester that was modified to shoot as fast as you can. A Beretta holds about 15 rounds. The magazines, with little practice can be changed out within 1 sec. 3-D printed magazines off an even larger capacity. With the manner in which these psychos attack their targets, a hand gun would prove to be much deadlier and since you Liberals are so concerned about the number of rounds squeezed off over accuracy, a hand gun has the ability to fire off nearly the same amount of rounds per time period. This pretty much nullifies your AR-15 witch hunt.
            The issue here is not get rid of the guns. It is get rid of the bad guys. Back when we executed murdering basterds, we did not have these kind of massacres like the multitude of today. People also had better social skills and could deal with Life instead of this internet frenzied mush that we have for the past couple of generations.

          • Badgerite

            See above comment about ammunition clip. Idiot.

          • Sam Houston

            Again, it’s been proven that a hand gun works better at close than a rifle. It’s been proven (Luby’s massacre) that person with a couple of 15-round, magload handguns, with a marginal amount of practice, can maintain a high firing rate. A firing rate that can match a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15.
            Badgerite, the issue that you have is the magazine capacity. If the handgun used had an extended mag load out of 30-rounds and the AR-15 had the same, the firing rate would be nearly identical based on the play of the action. Only a full auto weapon would have a faster firing rate. Take an AK-47 and put only a few rounds in it and it is nothing more than a regular rifle.
            From my experience, a jam in a handgun is easily cleared. A jam in a rifle can be troublesome. That is not 100%, just my observations and experience.
            So now you can see what I have been trying to drive home to you. Your anger and energy are misplaced. The AR-15 is not the issue. It is the amount of rounds it can hold.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, I know. I believe I mentioned magazine capacity. That was also part of the proposed gun control legislation.

          • Sam Houston

            Hey, I am all for limiting the magazine round capacity. Remember the “Tommy Gun” with the 100-round drum? The Gangsters favorite. I believe that was outlawed way back when. But limiting magazine capacity will only affect Law abiding Citizens. Criminals and the mentally ill will go on, business as usual. It won’t be all that difficult to get larger magazines here in the US and from outside with our Open Borders policy of this Administration. How are you going to stop that? I have also brought up several times about 3-D printing. This is a very real danger. The technology will soon enough allow a person to build a fully functional weapon, of any design, that will be reliable for more than just one use. The other hidden danger is that the resins used are non-metallic leaving metal detection technologies useless. That will REQUIRE more intensive body scanning technologies. The same ones that people have been protesting about with the TSA.
            I will say it again, your efforts are being directed in the wrong place. Simply taking guns away from Law abiding Citizens is not the answer.

          • Badgerite

            There is currently in effect the Undetectable Firearms Act which does address this issue. It was enacted in 1988 with a ten year sunset provision (the NRA probably got that included). It has been renewed on a regular basis since then but is set to expire again soon due to the Sunset Provision. And the GOP, of course, are dragging their feet on renewal. 3D printers would, by necessity, fall under this legislation. They ‘print out’ in ceramic or plastic or other undetectable materials, thus making the metal detectors at airports and other venues useless to detect deadly weaponry.
            You have to buy these machines and someone, some manufacturer had to make them for you. Usually. So that can be affected by legislation. Except, to quote wikipedia,

            “Proposed renewals and expansions of the current Undetectable Firearms Act include provisions to criminalize individual production of firearm receivers and magazines that do not include arbitrary amounts of metal, measures outside the scope of the original UFA and not extended to cover commercial manufacture. These ‘modernizations’ have been criticized as disingenuous attempts to suppress adoption of and experimentation with 3D printers in home gunsmithing.”

            Gee, I wonder who that could possibly be who criticized proposed changes to the UFA to address “home gunsmithing”? Any ideas on that? Oh, I know. Maybe the NRA and people such as yourself.

          • Jon Dittman

            I have never heard of plastic that will properly contain the forces of an explosion created in the chamber area of a firearm?

          • Keith_Indy

            ditto…

          • Badgerite

            See above reply, Ditto.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, and in Adam Lanza’s case that was 150 shoots in two minutes time. That is about 1-2 bullets every second. Thing about the AR-15 is that it takes clips with looooooads of bullets in them. And he had several ammunition clips. Ammunition clip capacity is also a a gun control issue. Adam Lanza had planned on doing a lot more killing. What stopped him, according to police, was that his gun jammed. I’m going to say that again. HIS GUN JAMMED. That saved the lives of several children that day. It gave them the time to get away and the police the time to get there. So, obviously, the speed with which the AR-15 and its humongous ammunition clip was capable of firing had a lot to do with how many people died that day.

          • White Rabbit

            Children were allowed in to see the opening of The Dark Knight? Frightening

          • Keith_Indy

            You think a determined individual couldn’t do the same thing with a handgun, and 20-10 round magazines…

            Go look at videos on youtube, you can certainly find someone who has practiced reloading, achieving better more consistent hits with a 9mm handgun then an AR15. And if there isn’t one, I’ll go ahead and make one. It’s not that difficult with a bare minimum of practice.

            It’s the person behind the gun, not the gun itself.

            And large group of people where there are not people likely to be armed is a SOFT TARGET. Funny, these keep happening in “gun free zones.” Places that explicitly try to ban people with guns from the premises, regardless if they are the “right” or “wrong” sort of person.

          • Badgerite

            Then why do you NEED the AR-15 so badly for ‘defense’. Are you not ‘determined’? This argument is repeated a lot, though no in the very same comment. First they say how easily an AR-15 semi-automatic can be replaced by other easily acquired weaponry. And then in a later post they tell me how crucial the AR-15 semi-automatic is to them and in the defense of their homes and families that they just couldn’t do without it.
            So, which is it?
            Someone else in this comment thread told me that the AR-15 was exempted from any controls under Connecticut law because a large manufacturer of the weapon is located there. Adam Lanza’s mother, an average person, could and did purchase one with no trouble. She went to shooting ranges and hung out with gun aficionados at local bars.
            Someone else in this comment thread keeps bringing up Charles Whitman. I believe that happened in Texas.
            The person behind the gun forms the deadly intent. But the gun itself and specifically the type of gun allows that person to carry out that purpose with greater efficiency (as Lanza did with 150 bullets fired in 2 minutes time) and less recourse to defense or escape.
            It matters what weapons they use. It matters what weapons they have available to them. To pretend it doesn’t is ridiculous.

          • Jon Dittman

            are you of the belief that only the AR has what you refer to as ” a humongous ammunition clip”? again, it is a magazine, it is difficult to properly discuss when the seemingly self proclaimed experts know not of what they speak.
            Most any firearm that utilizes a magazine has higher capacity mags available.
            a “jam” ( generic term) can be cleared in seconds or less.
            the fact is, he should not have had access to firearms. his mother violated laws and morality. she was a fool and paid for it with her life and the forfeiture of others lives. had she not been killed she would/should be charged with several crimes.
            the person committing the crime and/or facilitating said person is responsible, not the tool used.
            burglary has been around a long time. no one has called for a ban on crowbars.
            drunk drivers kill families often, but no one goes after the alcohol company or the auto manufacturer.

          • Badgerite

            So why, exactly, do you NEED the AR-15? Someone said he needed it to defend his family. What if there is other weaponry to do that with, why do you need the AR-15?

          • Keith_Indy

            if there is other weaponry to defend my family with, it is just as easy for a criminal or insane person to use it to kill the innocent and defenseless.

            THAT IS OUR POINT

            If all you allowed were machetes, bats, and 6 shot revolvers, the unarmed would still be massacred for political, personal, criminal, or psychotic reasons. Look to massacres all through out history, in all times, from Cain and Able being sacrificed with a knife. And responsible citizens train with what’s available so they can defend themselves, their family, and their community.

            Self-defense is the ultimate civil right.

            THAT IS OUR POINT

            If we can’t agree to that, we’ll never agree to anything.

            So, what’s it matter the amount of fire power. If it were my tribe against yours, I’ll take my armed and trained with what ever you make available, vs yours. Hand to hand, weapon vs weapon, words vs words.

          • Badgerite

            Your point is that EVERYONE in our society has to carry an AR-15 semi-automatic and large capacity ammo clips to be safe. That basically is a prescription for the breakdown of civil society. And you prove my point by the other crap you go on about. “My tribe against yours”? Seriously. That is how you see yourself and this country? Don’t ever talk to me again about the ‘flag’ or the Constitution, because you don’t even believe in it.

          • Keith_Indy

            Yes, right, that’s what I meant. That’s not how I see this country, but take a look at the rest of the world, and all the different ages to see the relative peace we live in.

            So, does this describe the society you live in. A police person with a firearm, is just a whistle away. They will instantly attend to your every self defense need, protecting you from death, personal injury, and theft. But don’t worry, he’s an expert shot, and will shoot the weapon out of your attackers hands.

            That’s the sound of your la la land to me. Only the police should have firearms in public. Everyone else should have them locked up. In fact, you can keep them in lockers at the lock police armory. Yeah, that’s working our real well in the U.K.

          • Badgerite

            I believe I have REPEATEDLY stated that I believe in the right of self defense WITH the NECESSARY firearms. Not those that are not necessary to any legitimate purpose. And in the category of not necessary to any legitimate purpose I would put the AR-15 semi-automatic.
            I have also said REPEATEDLY that if I felt I needed a handgun or some other kind of personal protection, I would certainly like to be able to secure it.
            So——-what the f–k are YOU talking about? Don’t answer that please. I’m a little tired of repeating myself.
            To quote the great Red Green:
            Keep your stick on the ice and remember, we are all in this together

          • Badgerite

            Keep you stick on the ice and repeat after me the Possum Lodge Man’s Prayer: (heads down)
            I am a man. But I can change. If I have to. I guess.

          • Jon Dittman

            it is the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.
            since the AR is no different than any other semi auto rifle, if we allowed the banning if the AR, soon “they” would also deny us our rights to own the other hunting/sport rifles. Then semi auto handguns,and so on.
            No one “needs” to have a sports car, no one “needs” to have a motorcycle, no one “needs” to have a vacation home, no one “needs” to have a big screen TV, no one “needs” to have 6 children, no one “needs” to have pets……..and the list goes on….

          • Nelson Munford III

            Hey ,
            Google Charles Whitman and get back to us about his weapon…..

          • Badgerite

            Since you have not even tried to answer my question to you as to why you or anyone else needs that kind of firepower for any legitimate purpose, I’m assuming you can’t.

          • Nelson Munford III

            Have you researched Charles Whitman yet???Firepower? What do you mean by this? My S&W 500 pistol has more “firepower” than an AR-15. Volume or rate of fire of fire maybe what you mean. Have you ever spent any time in wolf country up in Alaska?A practiced/skilled person can change magazines in seconds.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, by firepower I mean rounds per minute as anyone could tell who read my comment about 150 rounds fired off by Lanza in 2 minutes time before his gun jammed. The fact that his gun jammed, literally saved lives. That should tell you something. That speed and ammunition clip capacity makes a difference in how many people get killed. That, of course, is my point. Adam Lanza did not have to be a ‘practiced/skilled person’ to kill 20 children and ( I think) 6 teachers. Any idiot could pick up an AR-15 and devastate a room or a building full of people before anyone had any time to respond. They would not need to be a ‘skilled marksman’ or a ‘practiced/skilled person’.

            I think Adam Lanza’s mother is pretty much the norm in terms of ‘not securing this weapon’. As I understand it she bought the guns for self defense and took Adam Lanza with her to the shooting range and kept the gun in a closet in his room or something. And her son used it to kill her. Like I said in previous comment, statistically, you are far more likely to be killed by a family member of someone you know and trust than by a criminal. Statistically speaking. And she is one of those statistics. Isn’t she? I imagine she would gladly have willingly given her life to have been the only life taken that day. Now it is too late.

            Issues of mental illness and instability cannot be so finely assessed that people will necessarily know that someone is truly dangerous. Missed signals are to be expected and cannot be somehow made to not occur. Given that that is the case, a proliferation of this kind of weaponry ( AR-15 Bushmaster) will mean that invariably and predictably, such weaponry will find its way into the hands of dangerously deranged people. It is going to happen, so long as this kind of weaponry is common, as it happened at Sandy Hook.

          • Nelson Munford III

            That weapon was exempted from the “assault weapon” ban in CT, specifically due to the maker being a major employer in CT. I worked in medicine in CT ER for many years and the major frustration with trying to get the mentally ill care cannot be described. The CT Legislature along with the ACLU blocked a bill from coming up for a vote that would have tightened the background checks to include the mentally ill as it was” too intrusive” and stigmatizing 10 months before this shooting by Lanza. All of my friends with firearms have safes and gun locks so the general statement of not securing their weapons.Laws don’t stop crazies or criminals punishing lawful owners won’t deter these people. Again, what about Charles Whitman and his weapons????

          • Badgerite

            If it was exempted for the reason you state, it clearly should not have been exempted. For any reason. I have asked why anyone needs that kind of weaponry and what I get back is 1) that kind of weaponry is not really important to the function of killing ( Charles Whitman, etc) and a description of all the various other weaponry that can be used just as effectively to kill , AND 2) followed by the contention that people must have this particular weaponry that they have just said is easily replaced, as it is indispensable to defend themselves and their families ( one guy said against Mexican drug cartels) . So which is it? Are they easily replaced by other weaponry that is just as effective OR indispensable to your ability to defend yourself. Or —do you just like having them?
            You see, they can’t be both. If they are indispensable to you, which is why you claim to NEED them when so much other weaponry is available, then this kind of assault weaponry was certainly indispensable to Adam Lamza in killing as many kids as he could before the police got there. Adam Lanza’s aim was multiple murder so I’m guessing one can make the case that that weaponry was far more indispensable to him in doing what he did than to someone who only wants to defend themselves and their family.
            Charles Whitman was in a tower for 2 hours and killed 16 people people. He was a US Marine and a skilled marksman. Adam Lanza was a kid with his mommy’s guns and he had about a 2 minute window of opportunity. And he killed 20 children and 6 adults. I believe that makes my point as to the effectiveness of this weaponry with respect to the purpose Adam Lanza had.
            As to the healthcare issues, well great, I’m all for better options for healthcare. The ACLU frequently supports causes I don’t agree with. What’s your point? There is not a magic bullet for this, is there? Assessing blame would not be the purpose of those ladies, as such. Keeping it from happening again or at least cutting down on the ease and frequency with which it can happen is. They are certainly NOT saying DON’T make background checks more vigorous, are they?
            The point of the background checks is not really to prosecute people who shouldn’t have guns from getting them. The point is to keep them from easily acquiring the guns.
            True story. This happened in the town where I went to school. One fine morning an patient at a local mental health facility left the facility on a day long furlough. He took a cab downtown, told the cabby to wait, walked into a gun shop, purchased a gun, and held the gun to the cabby’s head for 24 hours before the police could talk him into surrendering. This happened. I was there. It was pre Brady.
            It’s nice that all your friends lock up their weaponry. That is responsible. But with all due respect, that would not even be a statistical blip. Many, many many people don’t act responsibly. Mrs. Lanza would have been one of them. Just because you don’t drink and drive doesn’t mean we don’t need laws against drinking and driving because many people DO.

          • Sam Houston

            I see your initial point, but does it really matter which it is? People that live in neighborhoods where the houses are close together and near the street do not. A shotgun or pistol would suffice. Those that live on large tracts of land or in a wilderness area should have a rifle as well for protection. Some little pea shooter ain’t going to stop a bear, moose, large wolf, panther/cougar/mountain lion or alligator It will only serve to piss them off more. They call it a squirrel gun for a reason. An AR-15 is a good choice because it is accurate, has the stopping power, allows you to control the firing rate and is affordable. No, it does not take 30 rounds to take down a bear or a moose but it will take more than just a few if they are rampaging, especially if you miss. You urban dwellers just don’t understand that outside of the sprawling cities, the Wild still exists. Y’all haven’t killed it off yet.
            Border States that actually border to another Country (Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) “South Dakota is a border state”) have a daily problem with thieves, murders, and drug runners along the Borders with Mexico and even further inland. Being that this article is written about Texas, we have a vested interest in telling the whole story. Border security is a very real issue for us. Our Families lives are at risk. AG Eric Holder recently outfitted the drug cartels with all new fully automatic weaponry. We have felt the sting of that fast and furious scandal already, paid for in the blood of innocents and those of criminal nature. A pistol will have little effect against an actual assault rifle. A shotgun does not have the range. Unless you are a crack shot, a bolt action rifle will leave you exposed. A rifle with atleast the same capacity as a handgun (15-rounds) and semi-automatic firing (fast as you pull the trigger) is what we need. Law Enforcement in these regions are spread thin and get no support from the Obama Administration so, yes, matters have to be taken into the Citizens’ own hands.
            Semantics aside, you have to understand why we have handguns and rifles? A handgun is just a shorter version of a rifle with a different handgrip (sometimes). Some handguns shoot the same ammunition as rifles and vice versa. The difference is how they are used. Ever sight a gun? Handguns are sighted for close range and rifles are sighted for much longer range. Notice that Charles Whitman used his rifles for sniping his victims. He had the handguns at the ready for close quarters fighting. Lanza used the weapons that were available to him. A handgun would have been, for his sick cause, a better choice. We will never know if he would have chosen a handgun over that the AR-15. Maybe he would have still used the AR-15 for it’s media value as this sick minds do what they do to inflict fear. This makes them feel empowered and most likely why Lanza choose an Elementary school where he would feel the most in control. I don’t believe his choice of weapon or how many he murdered really would have matter as much if he did not feel empowered. That’s my personal opinion. Like you and everyone else, all that we have to go on is what the media tells us.

          • Badgerite

            “Rampaging” deer. Interesting concept! I have been in the North woods and have seen Moose and I never saw one “rampaging” yet.
            Bear either, for that matter. They are usually just looking for food and will pretty much keep to themselves, if allowed.
            I have got to go. I have things to do. I will read this maybe on Sunday. See ya, “Sam”

          • Badgerite

            I’m sorry but the idea that AR-15 weaponry should be available to anyone and everyone due to the dangers of ‘rampaging’ moose is just ridiculous. How about, get out of the way of the Moose and calll the DNR. I don’t think you can make the case for moose that are stalking you or anything. You say that at Sandy Hook it was an unessential weapon to the purpose of the killer which was to kill as many victims as he could as fast as he could. But it is essential for you to take on a ‘rampaging’ moose that is apparently stalking you. FAIL!

            Wisconsin is a border state. Of course, it is with the Canadians, eh!
            I can, however, sympathize with those on a border that have had drug cartel activity, etc. But was it not you who said that such weaponry could easily be replaced for the purposes of killing human beings with other weaponry that was just as effective? I’ll answer that. Yes it was you.
            Nonetheless. I can recognize that people on a border where there has been a high level of criminal activity of a violent nature, might feel more secure owning an AR-15 semi-automatic. Notice I said feel secure, not be secure. That is not a reason for allowing them everywhere and anywhere to anyone for any purpose. Is it? Exceptions can be made for demonstrated dangers. I doubt that Mrs. Lanza had any real need whatsoever for the AR-15 she had at the house and stored in her disturbed son’s bedroom closet.
            And there is no law and no one has proposed one, that limits self protection to handguns. But if you are firing at a distance, exactly how do you know what you are firing at? Anything that moves, maybe? That is what Whitman fired at. How is that self defense. I a mean really. What are you doing? Taking on the cartels all by yourself? 10 rounds and then taking the time to put in a new cartridge should not be too burdensome unless you actually are defending the Alamo.
            And issues of sighting when it comes to close quarters like Adam Lanza choose are kind of ridiculous. As long as he had the gun pointed in the right direction he was going to hit someone. The decisive factor in how many people (kids) he was going to hit and whether anyone could stop him before the police came was all about the speed of firing. And that required what he did use. His mother’s Bushmaster AR-15 with large capacity magazines that allowed him to spit out 150 rounds in 2 minutes time. The speed of firing overcame any issues of marksmanship or ‘sighting’ that he might have had.

            As to the issues of ‘gun studies’ which Kyle and Phil brought up please read my reply to Phil so I don’t have to repeat it. Studies and long term trends actually show just the opposite. A long term decline in violent gun activity in the US which correlates with a decline in the number of households that own guns during that same period.
            Have a good day.

          • Keith_Indy

            Gee, here I thought we already had laws that don’t allow people to murder other people.

            Why aren’t those working.

          • Badgerite

            Well, by all means, if we can’t stop all people from killing, why don’t we just make it easier for them to do that by providing them with outstanding weaponry for that purpose. Just because more people die on roadways than in airplane crashes doesn’t mean you stop trying to make airplane flight safe. If you have to prevent all deaths from roadway accidents before you address concerns with safety of air travel, you will never get around to it. Likewise doctors don’t stop treating the disease you have just because more people die of a different disease. These are ridiculous arguments.

          • Badgerite

            By the way, the reason this group targeted these ladies while they were having lunch is because the ladies had waged a successful campaign to get Starbucks to prohibit open carry in their own stores. Something, of course, Starbucks and their customers have every right to do. They targeted these ladies having lunch specifically to make them and the local business accept what they wanted as opposed to what the business and the overwhelming majority of their customers wanted, which would be to enjoy a cup of coffee or a meal in peace without having to worry about the intentions of the guy sitting at the table with a loaded Ar-15.

          • Sam Houston

            Can we target these same ladies for bringing their dang babies (lap dogs) into stores and restaurants? How do we know the health of those animals? How do we know that they won’t bite children in the place of business? Are there any people in the place of business that are allergic to dog dander? What about their Rights? I am willing to bet that most in Alaska have no issue with people carrying weapons into places of business. The State is mostly wilderness and you can be attacked by a wild animal just about anywhere. This a very real danger. Just ask anyone who have lived there for more than 6 months. Should they be forced to keep their firearms at home locked in a safe?

          • Badgerite

            In my state, the ‘No Firearms’ signs on businesses are common. You can always keep it in the locked car or truck.
            I really don’t think ‘dog dander’ is a threat. That’s right up there with ‘rampaging’ deer that ‘Sam Houston’ seems to consider so dangerous. If they want to exclude lap dogs, they certainly have that right. And I’m guessing if they did at your request, no group of ladies with lap dogs would turn up out side to ‘demonstrate’ for 2 hours.
            It is a place of business. Not your home. And if they want to exclude weapons, they have every right to do so. That is THEIR right.

          • Sam Houston

            In the case if the Luby’s Massacre, a .38 revolver could have literally saved most everyone’s lives and prevented the further casualties.
            You keep talking about speed as a datum to the kill ratio. Speed of what, the firing rate? With a weapons used at Luby’s and the AR-15, the only delimiter to the firing rate is the speed at with you pull the trigger. The action rates are fairly similar. The .38 Special would be comparatively much slower. So this mute this part of your argument.
            Now if you are also talking the speed about which it takes to change mags in an AR-15 to that of other mag-load weapons, You might have a case. A case compared only to pre-WWII weapons. Not talking about jams or feed problems. We are talking about the speed at which a magazine changes. Early mag load weapons in WWI, especially French made weapons, were rather difficult to change the magazines as compared to their modern day counter-parts. In short, the speed at which you change a magazines on an AR-15 is similar to that of other types of rifles and handguns.

          • Badgerite

            If ‘the .38 Special would be comparatively much slower’, well, that is the point, isn’t it. A revolver could have saved everyone’s life, ONLY if most of the people, including the lady with the gun in her purse,did not get mowed down first. At 1-2 bullets per second, it is more then a little bit likely that she would have been killed immediately just as the kids and teachers at Sandy Hook. 150 rounds in 2 minutes.
            And ONLY if she was a pretty good shot.
            There was an armed deputy at Columbine. He confronted and got off a few shots at Eric Harris. But he missed. I think one can assume the Guard at Columbine was a good shot as he was a long time veteran of the Sheriff’s Department and it would be part of his job.

          • Sam Houston

            Good point. Miss Lanza seems to be immune from any prerogative of the Law yet it was by her actions of not securing the weapons that allowed her son access to them that he might not normally have. Though dead, it can be ruled that she was culpable for the act.

          • Badgerite

            Whatever good the ‘ineffective’ background check did in keeping weapons out of the hands of a dangerously disturbed young man, his mother did away with by having it available to him in her own home. She was sold the idea that she needed that kind of weaponry for self defense, or something. Maybe just to feel cool. Who knows? I have no interest in guns so I don’t get the fascination myself.
            This kind of weaponry was available to her, a woman who clearly did not need it for anything, let alone self defense. So it was available to her son, as well.

          • Jon Dittman

            I will answer as if I haven’t already pointed out that “need” matters not.
            I “need” a reliable means of defense equal to that of those who would offend/ attack myself or others. ( see wording in bill of rights and 2nd. amendment to constitution)
            drug cartels and criminals have superior firearms compared to what I/we, as average citizens can legally own, they have actual assault ( full auto) rifles, hand grenades machine guns etc., as do foreign military, US military, police depts. ( police in US have killed more citizens, primarily NON-criminal innocents/un armed, then have died in the middle east military conflict).
            Criminals will will always have such firearms as there is no magic to make them disappear. Laws only affect those who would obey them.

          • Kyle R

            Interesting article based on a study from the known conservative university Harvard (sarcasm) that shows facts that countries with stricter gun laws have a higher homicide rate. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

            Before a ban goes into effect for any firearm we need to have a serious discussion about those deadly automobiles that killed 32,367 in 2011. What, over 32 THOUSAND deaths by one product?!?! How can we continue to allow citizens to own these type of mass killing deadly weapons?!?! And they pollute too?!?! What madness is this?!?!

          • Badgerite

            Russia? Seriously, they are comparing the United States with the Thugdom that is Russia. Uh Huh. Well, that’s a fair comparison.
            Comparisons of that sort are pretty tricky due to the gazillion variables that are likely to impact the homicide rate in any given country or locale or time.
            The more brutal the regime, the more brutal the society. I would take that as a rule of thumb. Christ, one of the world’s most notorious arms merchants was a Russian. And when there is economic distress or other kinds of dislocation, crime and homicide rates always go up.

            And you must have missed this paragraph:

            “While research published by Harvard may show a direct correlation between lower gun related incidents and less stringent laws, and Boston, specifically, is experiencing an alleged gun crisis, STRICTER RULES ON FIREARMS IN MASSACHUSETTS HAS SEEMINGLY LEAD TO FEWER DEATHS, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST DATA AVAILABLE,——”

            For the record, correlation does not prove cause and effect. The sentence highlighted would seem to belie the ‘correlation’. Would it not? Or is there some unique factor why the ‘correlation’ would not hold true in Massachusetts?
            I couldn’t read the whole study. It is too friggin’ dry and I want some breakfast. But also it is kind of a jumble of comparisons of different historical eras, ( post WWII and the present ), societies with many differences, not just gun laws, etc. So I’m not particularly swayed.
            Overall, in the United States, homicide rates are supposed to be declining. And the group of people even owning guns is smaller than ever before. There are a lot of guns, but they are not necessarily spread throughout the population. And the article defines the term ‘strict gun laws’ as a complete ban on handguns.
            That is not something gun control advocates are seeking and would not even be legally possible due to the Heller decision. So they are equating societies where the governments are notoriously corrupt and brutal and that have a complete ban on guns to societies where their are restrictions, but not a ban.
            We are talking about background checks and the banning of a specific type of weapon that you do not need for self defense or any other reason. Not “strict guns laws” as they define that in the article. This would be striking a balance and that is always likely to be the MOST effective course for securing the interests of a people. If you can show me a study that shows that when the ban on assault rifles was in effect, as it was for about a decade, I think, before Bush let it lapse, that crime increased, I’m all ears. Since that is the issue, not the banning of guns, that would be the relevant study to cite. If there is one.

            When you get on a roadway in this country, you are aware of the dangers and you must be a LICENSED driver. (The government even knows where you live and all because they might want to come and confiscate your car – snark). When you get on a roadway, you assume a certain risk that goes with the activity. Not so getting mowed or having your children mowed down by somebody with a gun.
            Society cannot do away with all dangers. We couldn’t live. Life is fraught with danger. That is the way it is. But society can try to regulate and decrease the more dangerous activities that provide no real benefit ( like assault rifles ). I’ve had people tell me they are no more effective than other weaponry that is legal. Then why do you need them?

          • Kyle R

            Here is some information I pulled from the Wall Street Journal that quotes FBI statistics that violent-crime went down after the ban expired in 2004.

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068

          • Badgerite

            Violent crime was going down before the ban expired. It has been a long term trend. The article you cite is precisely why I don’t credit these kinds of studies much. What is clearly demonstrated is that there has been a long term decline in gun violence most likely associated with factors other than gun laws (either pro or con).

            “Ms. Feinstein points to two studies by criminology professors Chris Koper and Jeff Roth for the National Institute of Justice to back up her contention that the ban reduced crime. She claims that their first study in 1997 showed that the ban decreased total ‘gun murders’. In fact, the authors wrote, ‘THE EVIDENCE IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH FOR US TO CONCLUDE that there was any meaningful effect (ie, that the effect was different from zero) ”
            “—Seven years later, in 2004, they published a follow up study for the National Institute of Justice with fellow criminologist Dan Woods that concluded, ‘we cannot CLEARLY CREDIT THE BAN WITH ANY OF THE NATION’S DROP IN GUN VIOLENCE. and indeed there has been no drop in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

            Gun violence didn’t go down AFTER the ban expired. It had been going down consistently for a decade PRIOR to the ban expiring and the trend CONTINUED after the ban expired. The most those studies could conclude is that the ban may have had no affect on the overall rate of gun violence. That is all. They don’t really know why it went down but it started on the decline in the late 1990s and kept going.

            And this one the writer had to have just pulled out of his ass.
            “With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.”
            You mean like a school. From the Huffington post:
            “Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15 year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colorado Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him.”
            So, what citizens should have been armed. The students? Well, two of them were and they murdered 15 and wounded 23.

            The writer goes on to the usual stuff about how the Bushmaster is not REALLY a military weapon. Look, I don’t really care whether the rifle can fire out a 3-4 bullets a second or 1-2 bullets a second. The difference in terms of being able to mount any real defense or escape is inconsequential. Then he states that large capacity magazines can be easily made. Really. Show me one of these killers who actually did that. Not a one, I’m sure.
            Then he says banning them would deprive the deer hunters of an effective weapon. They’re deer, for God sake, not the mafia. And hunting is a sport. Not to be confused with public health and safety issues. Sport means there is supposed to be some challenge to it and some skill involved. So cry me a river.

            And finally, the problem with everyone carrying that kind of weaponry around is that there is no way to distinguish the truly dangerous person from one who is not. I believe it was the Montana legislature that passed an open carry law and then got really upset when a man was observed roaming around the capitol building with a rifle. Well, of course. Who knows what the intention is? .
            There is one statistic that seems to always hold true though. You are far more likely to be killed by a family member or a friend than a criminal. I don’t know that that matters if you actually ARE killed by a criminal but we are not talking about the banning of all guns.

          • Sam Houston

            What separates America from Russia? Our Democracy? Our free-enterprise? Our Freedoms? Those are all quickly and methodically eroding away. So what is left that will make us different? We speak Spanglish and they speak Russian?

          • Badgerite

            Yes , it does separate us from them. And, no they are not ‘quickly eroding away’. Just because you didn’t win an election , ( I will say that again, a free and fair election) does not mean your ‘freedoms’ are eroding away. Quite the contrary. Gun rights, if you can call it that, have gone to such extremes that the health and safety of the rest of the society are put at risk.

          • Sam Houston

            You are actually right about the autos. People have and do still use them as weapons against people. 9.876 times our of 10, it was a spur of the moment decision of anger, “snapped” if you will, that the driver decided to maim and/or kill innocent people. Those under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol don’t purposely get behind the wheel to convert their vehicle into a killing machine but they do so by the very act of driving. In the Luby’s Massacre in 1991, the shooter first used his truck as a weapon to crash into the restaurant and maim/kill as many as he could before his shooting rampage. A large number of the injuries was from the vehicle crash.
            This will never be a big national political debate, at least in the realm of Progressive Democrats, because just about everyone owns a car and that driving is not a Right in the Constitution. There is noting to glamorize, nothing to galvanize the public on. Gun Control Legislation provides all that. Roughly 40-50% of American households (Citizens) have atleast one gun. The other 50-60% and immigrants do not according to polls. That means there is a large enough group of non-owners to make out gun owners as a special interest group. That makes it easy to demonize them and get support behind the gun control cause.
            I have to ask you to honestly answer this one set of questions. What do you think would happen if the NRA did not exist? No other pro-gun organization. What do you think would happen to the Second Amendment and private gun ownership?

          • Kyle R

            Thank you for your response. It sure is hard to argue with facts.

            I believe that if the NRA were not here today that more local Grassroots organizations would step up, like VCDL and GRNC. Though I would be scared of what the Government would do though without a National Organization like the NRA looking out for America’s best interest.

          • Badgerite

            You have to be licensed both to drive and to have a vehicle in every state in the Union. The NRA has specifically stood in the way of any kind of safety or registering requirements or even compiling of accurate statistics on gun ownership. What are they afraid of with respect to the numbers, I wonder? Gun ownership has been on the decline during the last couple of decades. The increase in guns is due to one owner buying LOTS of guns. So, decline in gun ownership —- decline in violent gun crime. See a correlation?
            Plus, just because you cannot stop all bad things does not mean that you should throw up your hands and not stop the bad things that you can. Just because more people die in roadway accidents than plane crashes does not mean you do away with laws, regulations or concerns with respect to airplane safety. Now does it?

          • patriot 86

            Yeah right ‘ gun ownership has been on the decline .You really should check your facts because gun ownership has risen steadily in the last five years.The highest rise in gun ownership has been among women i might add and the applications for conceal carry has been at a all time high ‘ so do some research before you come on here and make yourself look like a bafoon by quoting democratic nonsense.This crap about if lanza hadnt had a ar 15 is academic ‘if he had had a colt 1911 45 with 5 eight round mags and knew how to shoot there would have still been 26 dead.Its always the same with you idiots blame the tool not the person wielding it as if the gun could walk in by itself and start shooting.

          • Badgerite

            The number of households owning guns has gone down. Households with multiple guns has gone up. Another words. The same people are buying more guns.
            People kill people. But people semi-automatic weapons with ammo clips with 30 rounds kill people a lot FASTER and WITH LESS OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE OR FIGHT BACK.

          • patriot 86

            Oh so you took a survey of your utopian cul de sac and found there was only one home where there was a gun huh.What a moron you are .I would go out on a limb and say that 70 percent of homes have a gun in them and i think that may be conservative so dont come on here and say something stupid like the gun owners are all buying more guns not more people are buying guns cuz thats bullshit.If thats the case how do you explain the explosion of conceal carry permit apps.Oh wait ‘ you are gonna say that every gun owner has five conceal carry permits right.I sure hope you never breed

          • Badgerite

            What’s more, with respect to the article that this comment thread is attached to:
            In modern society we have to deal with a lot of people we do not know. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable having to work around or shop in a store with people I don’t know carrying loaded weaponry on them. And familiarity with having to experience that fear all the time would hardly make the fear go away. These ladies have every right to object to that. And I think the overwhelming number of people would agree with that.

          • Mez Kitsu

            Actually in close quarters a handgun is a preferable weapon than a long rifle. You do not go into close range combat with a long rifle, it makes no sense.

            In my culture we use long rifles to improve many of our skills, such as accuracy, dexterity, stamina, coordination, and will power.

          • Badgerite

            He was doing combat with 6 and 7 year old school children. Anything that fired fast would do.

          • Mez Kitsu

            A sword would have been more effective in such a situation, against individuals who are unable to fight back. A sword will also not jam and would prevent anyone from rushing you. Couple a longsword with plate armor and you have more protection than kevlar and you’re far more effective in close quarters. I say this to point out that other weapons are just as, if not far more effective than firearms. I am bound by a code of honor and I would never promote or wish harm on any civilian, nor on any unarmed or surrendered combatant.

          • Badgerite

            Oddly enough. He chose an Bushmaster AR15. To decimate a room full of 6 and 7 year olds. No one succeeded in rushing him. He had a lot of bullets to work with.

          • Mez Kitsu

            It is a typical American attitude to not understand firearms. The USA is a strange country in that regard, for it is filled with firearms and yet very few individuals know how to use them correctly. Even your military are poorly trained and have an inability to shoot straight. You refuse to teach children how to shoot firearms correctly, and yet you are quite happy to throw them into a world of firearms when they reach maturity. There is no education program on firearms, no marksmanship courses, and no gun safety being taught in your academies. Your land is filled with anti-gun groups who disregard logic in place of emotional rhetoric, and your pro-gun groups use corporate lobbying as if it is the answer to any problem. You blame the tools for your crime rate, while ignoring the complete lack of moral education in your country. You promote freedom over honor, selfishness over duty, and you believe that rule by fear of punishment somehow works or is justified. I just sigh in disbelief if you truly believe that more fear of punishment can magically fix problems that are endemic to your very social structure.

          • Jon Dittman

            any semi auto rifle or handgun will fire as fast as trigger is pulled. one round per trigger pull. they do not “spray” bullets. that is a closer description to a full auto assault rifle. or sub machine gun. illegal for the average citizen. the military and police have these.
            the length of the cartridge determines the cyclic rate. a smaller caliber rifle or handgun technically speaking could be fired at a faster rate. such as a .22, a 9mm, a .45 etc. which all have a much shorter length cartridge.
            I wonder, had Lanza used a vehicle to run over children where you would place the blame for the tragedy?

          • Sam Houston

            Well said. These gun control nuts have a world of hurt coming to them with 3-D printed weapons. They should probably be more worried about that.
            Lanza decides one day that he hates the World and wants to kill a bunch of kids to prove it. He downloads a 3-D markup model of a gun posted by an Islamic website. He prints it out, assembles it rather quickly, loads it up and precedes to do the worst. How you going to stop that?

          • Badgerite

            I believe I hear you positively salivating at that thought. People in fear and all.
            Lanza didn’t have to do any of that. He just killed his mother and took her guns. The ones she bought for self defense.

          • Sam Houston

            Salivating? Wake up pal. It is already becoming a reality and Congress is too busy dealing with Obama’s messes to pick up on this. With Holder’s impending impeachment hearings (articles dropped today) and subsequent removal, we might actually have a chance with correcting any issues that might be with current gun control Legislations. With Holder choosing to enforce/not enforce Federal Laws as he saw fit, the NRA was not about to negotiate.

          • Badgerite

            Uh Huh. The Defense of Marriage Act was enforced by all the relevant agencies of government. ( The only impact DOMA would have at the Federal level is the benefits accorded spouses, tax issues as in the Windsor case and such. And those issues are precisely what the Windsor case was about. Her complaint was that the Obama administration had, indeed, enforced DOMA to her and her partners detriment). So, actually DOMA was indeed enforced. What the administration declined to do was file a brief IN DEFENSE OF DOMA in the Windsor case in which the Supreme Court subsequently ruled DOMA unconstitutional. That has always been and still is the right of any administration if they have come to conclude that the law in question is unconstitutional. And apparently the Supreme Court agreed with them. The other stuff is equally spurious bullshit.

          • Gary Haran Doyle

            an AR15 is an Assault Rifle by every nation in the worlds standards except US gun (no)control advocates. “hole” size doesn’t matter when its a 7 year old childs head that is getting the hole. The military is not asking for a weapon with more stopping power, the USMC have a decent length barrel so .223 works, the Rangers use .223 in two of their three core-rifles. The army needs a better than M4 because its a lousy weapon, not the calibre.

          • Badgerite

            And your way leads to what? Everybody is OBLIGED to carry around loaded weaponry while going about their day because you have no idea what the intentions of the other people who are carrying around loaded weaponry are? Yeah, that’ll make everything safer, won’t it?
            The genuine effectiveness of 3D printer guns aside, there can be laws passed restricting the sale of such software. There just hasn’t been yet. That is not an argument to do nothing about where everyone gets their guns now which is from a gun manufacturer.

          • Kyle R

            I don’t push my beliefs on others and I expect others to show the same respect. It seems that the majority of pro-Constitution individuals show this respect while anti-Constitution individuals want to force their opinions on others.

          • Badgerite

            It’s called a DEBATE Karl. And a debate in the ‘Market Place of Ideas’ is all about ‘pushing your beliefs on others’. That is what the Constitution expects of its citizens, to be vigorous advocates for their views and their rights. It is called the Free Speech.
            It seems to me what those gentlemen in Texas were doing was more than just pushing their beliefs on other people, they were positively trying to intimidate and frighten them.
            Those ladies had organized a consumer campaign that got Starbucks to ban firearms in their stores. Which is their right ( actually any business owners right – I see no firearms signs all over the place these days) and their customers right. These Yahoos found out where some of these ladies were having lunch and showed up in a group of 20-30 armed men and held a 2 hour ‘demonstration’ with their guns prominently displayed right outside where these ladies were trying to have lunch. I guess they felt they needed them for self defense. (snark)
            How is that NOT forcing your beliefs on others?
            You know, you form stereo types in your mind that aren’t even real.
            You think everyone is trying to ban guns. I would not even support that because, although I don’t own gun and don’t really ever expect to, if I were to live in an isolated or dangerous area, I would want that right for myself. So that is not even the issue.
            The issue initially was the behavior of this group of men towards these ladies. The comments that gun supporters have made have strayed from whether a business has a right to ban fire arms in its establishment ( it absolutely does ) and the boorish treatment of these ladies to just basic gun control issues.
            90 percent of the country supports beefed up background checks. So who is imposing their opinion on whom?

          • Kyle R

            It’s not about the debate. It’s about trying to force your beliefs on others.

            If you are anti-Constitution that’s fine, but don’t try to take my rights away. I’m sure there are few, if any, pro-Constitution folks out there that want to force you to own a firearm. However the anti-Constitution folks have no issue trying to take my rights away.

          • Badgerite

            Background checks are not ‘taking your rights away’. Restricting the type of gun you can own is already part of the Constitutional make up of the law. You cannot legally own, for instance, a machine gun. The Court in Heller ruled unconstitutional a city ordinance that banned gun ownership in the city. This decision was based on a perceived right to self defense of the average citizen inherent in the 2nd Amendment. However, the Court then and since has been quite clear that the right to own A weapon does not include the right to own ANY AND ALL kinds of weapons. You are overstating what your Constitutional rights are and looking to completely obliterate mine.
            Conflicting Constitutional rights are always balanced off against each other and countervailing interests of society.
            Two wordy for you , then how about Constitutional rights are a two way street. Respect for your Constitutional rights imposes and obligation on you to respect mine and those of the ladies in Dallas who were trying to have lunch in private and in peace.

          • Kyle R

            It’s a shame that you obviously feel you have to insult other folks education (Two [**Too**] wordy for you) when they present you with facts. I won’t lower myself to your level. Hopefully next time you’ll be better prepared.

            Unlike some (I’m sure) I do enjoy a good, respectful debate and have had some of my views changed by them, as well as I’ve changed some of theirs.

          • Badgerite

            You didn’t present me with any ‘facts’. You just made an untrue assertion that I was trying to interfere with your Constitutional right to own any and all weapons that you want. Except that you don’t have that Constitutional right. You have a right to self defense, only, and the weaponry appropriate and necessary to that purpose. Nothing more.
            And, not to put to fine a point on it, but you totally misread that article you referred me to in the WSJ. The article actually says that gun violence has been declining since the late 1990’s, while the assault weapons ban was in effect and continued to decline after the ban lapsed. Not that the decline was brought about by the ban expiring. No where does it even imply that.
            I’m signing off now. Feel free to be insulted if you like. I can be a bit arrogant but I consider that one of my better qualities.

          • Kyle R

            Debates are fine. What I have an issue with is others trying to force their beliefs on me.

            Being anti-Constitutional is fine, however don’t try and take my rights away because of your beliefs. I am sure that there are few, if any, pro-Constitution folks out there that want to force you to own a firearm. Yet the anti-Constitutional folks want to take my rights away.

            In response to your off topic statement: the percentage of the polled individuals that want more background checks decreased 8% in 3 months, 3 days to 83% (22-25 April 2013, http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx#2). That being said background checks are not what you and I have been debating.

            ** When having a debate it is best to reference your source, at least that is what I learned in school.

          • Badgerite

            Wow. Only 83 %. Do you have any idea how rare it is for the American public to have a consensus about any issue to that level of support. It is unheard of. So basically, 10 % ( up to 17% – wow) of the public are opposed to background checks. Well, what was I thinking? That 83-90% should be the controlling number. Not the 10-17%.

          • Sam Houston

            So you are all for Uncle Joe Biden’s recommendation of a double-barrel shotgun then? Do you even know what you are talking about. The AR-15 does not spray bullets. It is not fully automatic. Anyone experienced with automatic weaponry will tell you that inexperienced shooters with full auto weaponry usually completely miss their mark because 1) they don’t understand the weapon 2) Can’t handle the recoil. That is why thugs who “spray” bullets from their Uzi and automatic pistols usually miss their intended target and sometimes miss all together. An inexperienced person with a handgun at close range, however, has about an 80%+ chance of scoring a hit. An inexperienced person with a shot gun, rarely misses. Lanza could have easily walked in with a saw-off shotgun and do far worse. Our schools are now fenced in around the building with electronic locks. Millions of dollars spent on nothing really as the kids/parents usually hold the gate open, you could easily scale the fence or just shoot thru the fence. Heck, a sick basterd could wait till the playground is full of kids and just plow thru then with a truck. The point being that nothing your camp is offering is anything more than a band-aid solution. If someone wants to kill, they are going to do it. Your silly little gun control is not going to stop them. Laws don’t work. That is why the prisons are full of murderers.
            Not too long ago, cops in New York City and other major gun control cities were doing little against violent crimes with their pea shooter .38 Specials. Criminals knew they always had the upper hand with their shotguns and full auto weapons. SWAT Teams became the norm in major cities to combat these well armed criminals but it was not enough. Cops soon began to carry shotguns and auto weapons themselves. Why? Because gun control does NOT work against criminals. In fact, they love it knowing that the Citizenry has been regulated to pea shooters. What they fear is people as well armed as themselves not knowing if the person they are robbing, the person they are mugging, the person they are raping, the person they are trying to kill has the means to put them 6 foot under. Back to your AR-15 comment that no one needs one. Maybe you have never been to Border Towns with our Mexican neighbors. Drug cartel violence is spilling over our open Border. Property owners are finding themselves pitted against these well armed cartels with little to no Law Enforcement to stop them. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. You have a Right to protect you and your Family no matter what you use. If you are still so passionate about rifles then you need to boycott the Olympics. There is a Winter Sport that involves shooting a sniper rifle while cross-country skiing. Why does anyone need a sniper rifle while they are skiing? Why aren’t you marching on the Olympic Committee and making your demands?

          • Badgerite

            Actually Australia has implemented national gun control laws and apparently has been quite successful at lowering the violent crime rate.

          • Phil

            There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You seem to be a perfect example of this.

            It is proven that where there are more law-abiding citizens with guns that crime is lower. The FBI’s uniform crime reporting shows this. Despite the influx of shooting stories in the media, homicides in the US are declining as the years go on. In the same time frame, the number of gun owners is slowly rising. Do you see the correlation? If not, you’re either dumb beyond help or just being willfully ignorant.

            Your logic that a law abiding gun owner wouldn’t stop a gunman with an AR15 is nonsense. Most criminals don’t train with their weapon like those who carry do. They also do not anticipate someone actually firing back.

            Do you really think that American gun companies just “sell” to the cartels? Yes, Winchester has a bulk buy discount if you flash your cartel affiliation tattoo. NO you dunce! The majority of weapons used by the cartels are stolen. Either from military or police armories, or gleaned from gun-owning citizens. They have broken into gun shops here in the US and made off with arms. There’s also “straw man” buying: someone with a clean record is paid to acquire arms for someone who isn’t.

            Let’s also not forget the illicit global arms black market, which I’d bet my lunch is very prevalent in lawless, war-torn drug countries in Latin America. And in case your memory is short: remember Fast and Furious? That “genius” plot involving the ATF, Eric Holder and your lord and saviour Barack Obama? You know, the one where they actually sold captured and illegally purchased arms TO the cartels? Yeah, that one.

            So please tell me how the Mexican government’s inability to keep its citizens from killing each other with STOLEN weapons should be the American gun owner’s fault? It shouldn’t be.

            You should really educate yourself on what’s going on before you spout off with your emotion-based anti-gun drivel.

          • Badgerite

            You know, it is interesting that the NRA managed to get its minions in Congress to restrict any agency in the federal government from studying gun violence in the country. You would think, if what you say is true, that they would want that validation to their contentions. But there is a study coming out from Boston University and published in the American Journal of Public Health. Quoting:

            The study by professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two co-authors, has been peer reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Seigel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

            Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than gun ownership. They also employed the largest number ever of statistical controls for other variables of this kind in the study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty,unemployment, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, non violent crime rate——-etc.”

            No good data on rates of national gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are in any one place the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

            With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect OVERALL DECLINE IN FIREARM OWNERSHIP from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering:” for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership”, Siegel et al found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

            To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal”, the authors wright, ” our model would predict that if the (FS/S) in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% ( the highest in all states) its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

            End of quote.
            And then there is this
            http://www.newyorktimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html
            Which states that surveys ( the government is not allowed to compile or keep statistics as to gun ownership – I wonder why) show GUN OWNERSHIP ON A FOUR DECADE DECLINE.
            Or this at CNN
            http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining
            “A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation’s guns…..”

            Gun ownership has been on a decades long decline at the same time that violent crime has been on a decades long decline.
            Correlation?

            P.S. Like the Bay of Pigs which had its genesis in the Eisenhower administration but its debacle in the Kennedy administration,
            ‘Fast and Furious’ was a Bush administration program.
            And what it was trying to do was track where the Mexican cartels were getting their weapons from. And they get them from —-America.

          • Keith_Indy

            You do realize that this administration has lied, and lied, and lied again about where the “well armed cartels” are getting their guns.

            Most of them come the Mexican army, and south of their own border. Well, and the ones we let them buy over here and ship down south (aka Fast and Furious)

          • Badgerite

            Fast and Furious was a program started during the Bush administration and continued on by the Obama administration. It was meant to track the flow of guns from America to the cartels with an eye toward getting at the cartels and their supply chain. And the supply chain is there, with or without ‘Fast and Furious’. The reason the government could channel guns to these groups through the black market is because the black market exists. The government didn’t create it. They just sought to exploit it to get at the cartels.

          • Jon Dittman

            and under the Bush administration they did track the firearms. it was Holder under Obama that supplied the firearms to cartels then went on vacation and didn’t bother to track or assign any other team to track the firearms. oh, and the firearms were purchased with taxpayer money.

          • Jon Dittman

            armor piercing rounds are illegal. only military or law enforcement has them. the correct term is magazine, not clip. and the cartels get their firearms from corrupt law enforcement and military, they occasionally use others to commit criminal straw purchases, and they also steal them,or our US government, Eric Holder for one, gives them to the cartels.
            also, fact is, an AR rifle is not any more capable of anything that any semi auto hunting rifle is capable of doing.
            And I had no idea that the NRA had a conversation with Lanzaa’s mother and told her to purchase/own firearms. I don’t believe the NRA advocates mentally ill freaks having access to firearms. In fact, the NRA promotes safe and responsible ownership.

          • Keith_Indy

            Hell, out here, I see school buses driving by all the time. Determined terrorists could simply wait until they are in the buses, and block them in. All chaos would ensue.

          • Badgerite

            Or——an Adam Lanza. What’s your point. Trying to dampen down some dangers in society does not require that you first do away with all dangers. That’s not possible. Life itself can be a risky business. But there is no reason for government policies or a lack thereof to make it riskier.

          • Phil

            You’re an idiot. NOTHING available over the counter in ANY gun shop in this country is made for war. The “evil black assault thingies” you lot so despise are NOT the same thing you’d find in a military armory or in the hands of a soldier in Afghanistan. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of selective fire. Meaning there is a function that actually allows it to fire multiple shots with one pull of the trigger. Again, nothing conventionally available can do that. Additionally, the amount of weapons truly fitting that description used in shootings is almost nil. Firing as fast as you can pull the trigger is not the same as a weapon that is actually automatic, no matter how hard Diane Feinstein tries to tell you otherwise.

            You’ve obviously never fired an AR-15. Someone with even minimal training can reload a magazine and be ready to fire again in about 5 seconds…so regardless of capacity, the ability to do damage is still there.

            I have a right to defend myself and my family with whatever I choose — there’s no rules when you’re fighting for your life. If I want to stick the barrel of my AK74 into the face of the bastard dumb enough to break and enter my house, by God I will. If you want to shout harsh words and threaten him with a 9-iron, go right ahead, best of luck to you.

            And if you believe that weapons of war need to be off our streets, you’d better write your congressman and ask why a CIVILIAN police agency (DHS) has bought thousands of uparmored mine-resistant military vehicles. The very same ones our soldiers patrol routes in Afghanistan with. They are a civilian force and have no war-making powers… so who are they planning to face off against?

          • Badgerite

            Right back at ja. I didn’t call anything an “evil black assault thingie”.
            Again, Adam Lanza fired off 150 rounds in 2 minutes and only stopped because his gun jammed. Had it not jammed, he would have killed more kids. The jammed gun was what stopped him from doing that.
            So, let us conclude from this that the speed at which you can fire rounds without having to stop to reload ( a crucial factor) will be directly proportional to the number of people you can kill, if that is your aim. I don’t give a flying F–k whether this is a gun that is ACTUALLY used in military combat or not. For me the crucial factor is not whether it operates like a machine gun where you just put your finger on the trigger and bullets rip out or not. The crucial factor is the not having to take the time to reload. Which allowed Adam Lanza to fire off the number of rounds into those kids ( 150 bullets) that he did in 2 minutes time. It averages out to about 1-2 bullets a second. You can run but you cannot get away from that kind of speed ( firepower). Likewise the teacher who tried to rush him had no chance.
            The only thing that stopped him was that his gun jammed and he heard the police coming. The police got there very fast. But not faster than 2 minutes. The ammo clip and the semi automatic was indeed developed for military use.
            Anything else?

          • Keith_Indy

            And had a couple of teachers, administrators, or security people had a handgun, they would have been able to shoot Adam Lanza multiple times. That’s the appropriate response to armed intruders.

            When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. And aren’t required by law and supreme court ruling to protect any individual.

            Hope that’s comforting to you, when 4 thugs break in your door, intent on robbing you of your property, your personal self as they physically and sexually abuse you, and if you aren’t lucky your life.

            When the coyotes come after our chickens or dogs, an AR would be a handy rifle to have. I’ve seen them in packs of 6-8 a few times. If/when 2 legged predators come to invade our house, we’ve got what we need to defend ourselves.

          • Badgerite

            Chickens and coyotes. You need more than a few shots to scare off some coyotes? I doubt it.
            There was an armed guard at Columbine. He got off a couple of shots at Eric Harris. He was a retired policeman. With the appropriate skill levels. He missed.
            Adam Lanza also was wearing Kevlar. Someone with a gun MIGHT have got off a shot. Maybe. Maybe not. But I think the firepower he brought to bear and the protection he had probably would have prevented that.
            As to my personal safety, you mistake what this argument is all about. I don’t dispute the right to self defense. If I lived in a dangerous or isolated area I would own a handgun. But I’m pretty sure that if I needed an AR-15 semi-automatic with a magazine clip of 30 rounds or so to fend off whatever, I’m probably a goner anyway.

          • Mez Kitsu

            The armed guard at Columbine was credited with saved many lives by providing covering fire to keep the shooters from firing upon those who were escaping. If it were not for him then move lives would have been lost. In your situation, I’d rather have the chance of a “maybe” than having no chance at all.

          • Jon Dittman

            Adams mother was the responsible party that facilitated this tragedy. She failed everyone involved. Ban motherhood.

          • Badgerite

            The NRA failed her. They told her all that weaponry and target practice would make her and her family safe. How’d that work out?

          • Jon Dittman

            fact: the larger the magazine the more likely it is to cause a failure to feed.

          • Badgerite

            Uh huh. Well, let’s just rely on that then.

          • Justin Dunn

            just FYI, if I take my government non-automatic low round rifle… I can augment it to be an automatic high round firearm in two youtube videos and 5hours of my time… The laws wont matter. What needs to be done is peers evaluate and help each other with and through problems in our lives so no one feels like they have to shoot up 100kids to prove a point.

          • Sam Houston

            You make some darn good points. You spelled God correctly with a capital G. Earning extra brownie points.

          • Jon Dittman

            you would rather he hacked children to death? firing any firearm at least makes noise and draws attention thereby alerting others of the crime in progress. A handgun can fire at same rate ( actually faster cyclic rate due to shorter cartridge length/ shorter action) as an A R.
            Any semi auto rifle or handgun can fire as fast as trigger can be pulled.

          • Badgerite

            Yes, that’s right. (eye roll) That’s my complaint. That he didn’t ‘hack’ the children to death.
            Truth be told, if all he Adam Lanza would have had to work with was a bladed weapon, I think the principal could have taken him. He was what you would call ‘scrawny’. Certainly, quite a few of the people (children) that were killed could have escaped or survived to he treated at the hospital.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          “It’s the bad people with the guns that are doing the killing”

          Of course, bad people commit crimes of all kinds. Our point is how are we supposed to tell if someone is bad or not. The average American isn’t going to hang out and see if someone with a rifle is friendly or not. Should the Sandy Hook kids have approached the shooter and asked him if he was bad? Anyone with a gun in their hand is a threat until they prove otherwise. Ask an officer, most of use feel this way.

          • Sam Houston

            Your asinine comment an argument it does not make. Kids are as stupid as your Common Core tries to make them out to be. You called him “shooter”. Can’t be classified as a shooter till you actually shoot. The kids could have easily figured out that one. I suggest that you just continue living your life paranoid. Learn how to protect yourself.

          • Badgerite

            Barely coherent.

        • William Carr

          And the murders you refer to are being done with… guns.

          Guns simply bought out of State at Gun Shows and smuggled in.

          That would be impossible if background checks were mandatory; “I’m sorry, Sir; you live in Chicago and we can’t sell you an AR-15.”

          The doors at Sandy Hook Elementary were LOCKED.

          The shooter used the AR-15 to gun his way through the glass doors, blasting them down.

          A handgun would have needed two, maybe three clips to do that, and it would have taken much longer.

          The cops would have been there in time to stop him if all he had was a machete.

          As for explosives, they aren’t widely available and you need at least SOME brains to figure out how to improvise them.

          That weeds out most of your potential killers.

          Say Adam Lanza had made a propane tank into a bomb.

          Not easy; the mix of fuel to air has to be right. But, say he did.

          He’s outside the school. Locked out. The bomb goes off, breaks some windows… and the kids are hiding under their desks, unhurt.

          Without that assault weapon, he couldn’t have gotten IN to the school to kill anybody, and shooting from outside is a lot less likely to be lethal.

          • Sam Houston

            Background checks only work to stop the average Joe. A criminal will get a gun no matter what piece of paper you throw in front of them. Look at how much the Government is defrauded over bogus welfare claims. People with 6 Obama phones, dead people getting food stamps and medical care, and so forth. These programs require a version of a background check yet that does not stop the freeloading criminals from stealing, now does it?
            The doors were locked? Big deal. It does not take an AR-15 to break a lock, pry a door, break a window, or have someone open the door. Heck he could have picked the lock. You fail.
            I spent 12 years in the Navy and only touched a weapon a few times. Before that, I only shot .22 rifles at BSA Summer Camp. With no training, I qualified 3 times as an Expert Marksman with the Berretta M-9 pistol. I could change out a clip in less than a second. I could shoot from the hip. I could draw from a holster with the safety on in just a hare over 1 second. I could squeeze out a 15 round mag in about 6 seconds. All while hitting my target effectively from 15 yards. I am not even a gun owner nor do I even go with friends to the range. I much prefer the King’s sport of archery so looks like another fail for you.
            Explosives? Hard to come by or make? Seriously, you have to stop Farcebooking and trolling blogs. The Internet is full of recipies for homemade explosives and how to make bombs. Young kids are making them. It is the same methods that Timothy McVeigh used in the Oklahoma City bombing. Fertilizer bomb was fairly effective. He just parked next to the building. You fail again. Ever heard of IEDs? They are all the rage with insurgents as they are easy to build, easy to deploy, and effective. Double-Fail.
            Have you ever seen a propane tank explosion? There are vids on the internet. No mixing required. They are ready made go boom! Cooking off a liquid propane tank is the deadliest. There are actual scientific studies on this as they pose an incredible risk for Fire Fighters. It’s rather easy to make a thermite fuse for your propane incendiary. Again all on available on the Internet and in instructables. Starting a fire is not the target so duck taping nails and staples around the tank will do the job as an anti-personnel device. No, the Internet is not to blame for that tid-bit. No the award goes to Hollywood for providing many an example in movies and the current spat of NCIS, FBI, SWAT, and CIA TV shows. Quadruple Fail. Time for you to go back to school son.

          • Badgerite

            Well, you are clearly not the ‘average Joe’, now are you? I guess I know now why the ladies were afraid.

          • Sam Houston

            Average Joe’s don’t Serve their Country unless drafted. The Ladies, well, that’s a different story altogether and best told over a pint.

          • Badgerite

            Thank you for your service. Now leave the ladies alone, go have a pint, and let them enjoy their lunch without a pack of armed men outside harassing them.

          • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

            Out of millions of people who have received welfare since good old Ronnie Raygun brought up the idea that “welfare queens” exist, there have maybe 2 or 3 actual documented cases. That’s like less than a .0001% rate of purposeful, criminal fraud. So for that you want to deny millions of hardworking Americans (most of whom are white, BTW) welfare? You have no idea what you’re talking about and just spouting BS that conservative websites have fed you. Go back to where you can share this crap with other like-minded haters.

        • not open to replies

          you lost me at “Libtards”

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          I do not feel intimidated. I got a gun just for azzoles like you. You walk into a coffee shop I am in and I even see your gun, I am not going to wait to find out if you are an azzhole or a mass killer. I am going to blow your stupid azz away. And you azzoles voted for the laws that make that possible. Bye bye.

          • Parker Spence

            So, you’re going to eradicate my right to own and carry a gun…with another gun. I can’t even begin to describe how done I am.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Hey, baggerpukes created the law and the situation that makes my actions sensible and legal. Do not blame me. Blame the NRA and the Tea Party open carry mofos.

          • Parker Spence

            “I got a gun just for azzoles like you. You walk into a coffee shop I am in and I even see your gun…I am going to blow your stupid azz away.”

            Sensible and legal are not words I typically hear when applied to death threats. Also – if you’re going to call me an asshole, please spell it correctly.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Sensible and legal and azzole open carry gunnut mofos made it that way. Stand your ground. LMAO.

          • Parker Spence

            Open carry and Stand Your Ground laws do not justify premeditated homicide, you dullard. Never have, never will.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Nothing premeditated about responding to a gun.

          • Parker Spence

            Okay, I’ll concede that. I’d have a hard time convincing a jury that you’d brought a weapon for the sole purpose of killing a bystander. You’re right. I’ll give you that.

            We’ll call it murder in the second degree then, shall we?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Nothing premeditated about responding to a gun, open carry or concealed, carried into a public place like a Mall. No way I can tell if you are just a gunNut or a terrorist or a plain old killer. I see the gun = equals I blow you away when I see it. It is called standing my ground. Bam! And just like the Zimster, I will get off. And the gunNuts and authoritiarians made it this way. LOL. I loves it.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you. We shall see.

            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
            http://thinkprogress.org/justi

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you. We shall see.

            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
            http://thinkprogress.org/justi

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you. Seems I am not the only dullard. We shall see. Please tell my why this comment is getting removed.
            …………………………….
            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
            http://thinkprogress.org/justi

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you. We shall see.

            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
            http://thinkprogress.org/justi

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Laughing at you. We shall see.

            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            CASTLE ROCK, Colo. — After four hours of public comment at a packed meeting, the city council gave its initial approval to a proposal to repeal an ordinance outlawing the open-carrying of firearms in public buildings and parks.

            The council voted 4-to-3 in favor of the proposal around 11 p.m.

            As the public debate over gun laws expands from the state Capitol to municipal meeting rooms, emotions continue to be charged on any question of public policy related to guns and the Second Amendment.

            In this small town in one of the state’s most conservative counties, public officials are split.

            While Mayor Paul Donahue, who is managing partner of the Centennial Gun Club, has said he supports repealing the ban on open-carry; but many county planning commissioners are threatening to resign “because of the increased possibility for intimidation and/or violence”, they stated in a letter from the Castle Rock Planning Commission last week.

            The Castle Rock Public Safety Commission voted in September to recommend against repealing the ban; and about 95 percent of town employees surveyed said they didn’t want it repealed.

            In December, the council moved to develop an ordinance allowing open-carry, which is allowed by state law, but local governments can ban the option in facilities or spaces owned by the town.

            The meeting started at 6 p.m. Tuesday night at the Castle Rock Town Hall, located at 100 N. Wilcox Street. The debate continued late into the night.

            The measure now faces a second hearing for final approval at a future meeting.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            We shall see.

            Florida Man Claims Self-Defense After Hopping A Fence To Shoot, Kill 21-Year-Old In A Hoodie
            On Thursday, an Orlando man shot and killed a 21-year-old who was fleeing his yard. He didn’t appear to be stealing anything, according to witness accounts. He didn’t appear to be threatening anybody. But Claudius Smith said he feared he was a burglar, followed him over the fence to a neighboring apartment complex, where he shot him after he said he felt threatened, according to a confession documented in an Orlando Police Department report. Smith even said he feared victim Ricardo Sanes was armed “because his pants were falling down” and his hands were in his hoodie pockets, according to a report obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            How come you keep censoring my responses? Skeered?

    • dbtheonly

      fwit,

      Didn’t you know the 2nd Amendment only applies to white guys?

      IG, if I missed the harassment; my apologies.

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Oh, no worries! I took care of him, I think. Link to comments above in response to Graf.

    • Lorraine Messineo

      40 UNARMED AFRICAN AMERICANS camped outside this restaurant wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes (nor would 40 unarmed Mexicans, for that matter). Intimidating someone with a gun is called “criminal threatening” and should be addressed as such!

      • Rottiemomma

        Yes- because Pro2A Americans shoot up 40 blacks or Mexicans on a regular basis. You’re an ignorant ass.

        • William Carr

          No, she’s not the ignorant one here.

          If 40 African Americans WITHOUT guns had showed up to intimidate a group of 4 moms out at lunch, the cops would have been there within three minutes.

          If they’d brought guns, the cops would likely have called the Fire Department and brought in dogs, as well as their own machine guns.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            And SWAT.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Look, here is the deal. If I am in a restaurand and you enter with a gun and scare me, I am going to stand my ground. I am going to blow you away when I SEE THE GUN.

          I am not going to wait to find out if you are a 2nd amendment azzhole or a mass killer. I am going to shoot your azz on sight of the gun. You ready for that? I hope so. Because that is what you are going to get, Pal. Instant death if I see a gun on you in Starbucks.

          • Keith_Indy

            Right, you see a concealed gun peaking out, and you’re gonna whip your gun out and do what exactly.

            Commit murder.

            Look it up.

          • Badgerite

            Stand your ground. He felt threatened. That is all you really need in some states these days.

          • Parker Spence

            That’s incorrect. The text of Stand Your Ground laws usually reads something like: “[The application of deadly force is justified if] the individual honestly and reasonably believes that [deadly force] is necessary to prevent…the imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of himself of another.” All of them have in common one thing: the term “reasonable belief.”

            This requirement differs from a requirement of sincere belief, in that a “reasonable person” should be able to examine the situation and see an immediate and credible threat to life or safety. I highly doubt that most reasonable persons would consider the exercise of a Constitutional right as such a threat.

            If so, then I propose that I be allowed to shoot anyone I suspect of being a homophobe on sight. If they express a belief in Christianity or wear religious insignia, then I feel threatened. If they express distain for any LGBT individual, regardless of their reasons for such feeling, then I feel threatened. I mean, sure, it’s their right under the US Constitution, but after all, so much violence has been perpetrated against LGBT folks that this sort of thing is justified, right?

          • Badgerite

            There is a difference between espousing a constitutional right and carrying a loaded weapon. One is just free speech. The other carries with it the potential and therefore the threat of lethal violence. This, of course, is why just about all businesses that I have seen have a circle with the word weapons with the picture of a firearm and a line drawn throw, on their doors. Weapons not allowed. How is one supposed to reasonably assess the intent of someone carrying a weapon, since many people with bad intent carry weapons and they carry them to commit violent crimes. Just by the fact that a person has a weapon, threat comes into the interaction.
            There is not a celestial sign above people that says “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy”. And in this situation, if you are mistaken, the stakes are quite high.

          • Jon Dittman

            honestly and reasonably. seeing a gun on someone in a holster would never be considered reasonable even in our screwed up courts.

          • Eva Rinaldi

            Forty men with assault rifles who are known to be members of a rival political group have followed you to a lunch meeting with a small amount of other people from that political group.
            I would legitmately feel threatened if a large group of people with guns followed me around because they disagreed with me.

          • Jon Dittman

            you should never be allowed to posses a firearm with that attitude.
            just having a firearm on your person is neither brandishing nor threatening.
            you would be guilty of cold blooded murder.
            you need psychiatric help.

          • Jon Dittman

            you are a fool.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      I’ve said this (and really, really, really hated to say it) before, and I’ll say it (and really, really, really hate to say it) again:

      I think more “armed African Americans” need to start showing up at NRA rallies.

      • Badgerite

        I shouldn’t. But I kind of like that idea. Taste of their own medicine and all.

      • feloniousgrammar

        I beg to differ. Blacks are being sacrificed to the gun licking god of mammon, especially in Stand Your Ground states. They’re already illustrating the viciousness of gun lickers, but for some reason, most people aren’t getting it, don’t want to, or are happy with this.

        • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

          I prefer “gun fellaters” to “gun lickers” but hey, to each his own! ;)

        • GrafZeppelin127

          Only reason I say that is to reflect formerlywhatithink’s point that people’s feelings and perceptions about guns may depend heavily on who’s actually carrying them. They may regard the group pictured above as peaceful law-abiding Americans expressing their opinions peacefully in public in an exercise of their G-d-given rights, but replace those European faces with African faces, all else being equal, and they might feel quite differently.

          • feloniousgrammar

            I agree, it’s just that there every black teenager and man in a Stand Your Ground state is significantly more at risk. Studies have shown (don’t have a link for this right now) that a person who is carrying a gun is more likely to “see” a gun which makes it yet riskier to walking around while black.

            The very idea that it is reasonable to walk around with a loaded gun daily is either paranoid, hostile, or both. For people to walk around with rifles is absolutely outrageous and no reasonable person should feel safe around that person because paranoia and/or hostility is a dangerous state of mind without guns, when it’s armed there is really no reason for society to accept this as normal.

          • Sam Houston

            As a Native American with White Ancestry, I have been warned several times by both White and Black Police Officers to stay out of certain locales for my own safety. Some where Stand Your Ground States so should I have been afraid of racial violence and being shot?

          • Badgerite

            Well, then if you are carrying, it is clearly for self defense and within the category outlined by the Court in the Heller decision as Constitutionally protected. Nobody at this site is advocating taking away your right to defend yourself if attacked.

          • Joe Smith

            You might want to do some research, stand your ground laws have been used more by African Americans to defend themselves than any other group.

        • Sam Houston

          That’s a load of Spike Lee horse crap. Citizens have a right to protect themselves from criminals. If you don’t like the fact that the demographics of those criminals point to Black, then you should attack the problem at the source, the Black Community. Besides, with today’s inter-racially integrated Families, most Blacks aren’t truly Black anymore. So there, you can blame their White ancestry.

          • Badgerite

            Of course they have a right to self defense and Irishgirl herself is a gun owner for that very reason. That isn’t what the debate is about. That was settled in the Supreme Court decision in Heller. Your right to self defense is constitutionally protected.

          • Lazarus Durden

            Hey! We don’t take kindly to racist posts round here!

          • William Carr

            Actually, the demographics point to POVERTY.

            But the “black community” and “not truly Black” bit was predictably racist.

          • Sam Houston

            How so exactly. Are you going against your own dogma of Diversity? Diversity teaches to point out the differences as strengths. Demographics, wholly used and endorsed by our Federal Government, is a direct extension of that. White people love to drink beer. Is that racist as well? Stop contradicting yourselves.
            What is your issue with mixed race people?

          • fojap

            No one here has an issue with mixed race people, and I imaging you already know that. You’re just spouting a lot of silly stuff to get a rise out of people. I doubt you even believe all of it yourself. After all, what you said doesn’t even make sense. All you know is that mentioning race will trigger anger. That’s your goal. If you wanted to persuade people to agree with you about guns, you’d be trying to be as reasonable as possible. In other words, you’re just a troll.

          • Sam Houston

            Exactly opposite my friend. I am not eliciting reactionary anger. I am only try to prove two points.

            1) Few people in the US today are pure race. Whites have Black DNA and Blacks have White DNA. A big racist in Montana finds that he is 1/4 Black. Several Black Community Leaders and Proponents discover from a Harvard Race Study that they have White Ancestry and not necessarily from Slave Owners. To quote many issues as a “Black” issue is just no longer a correct statement. To continue to do so is a slant against mixed race but it continues to be used for the purpose gerrymandering the “Black” vote by it’s own political Leaders. Just how many people that claim to be Black (1/8 or less) just to get the benefits of being Black? One cannot deny this as people have been ingrained over the decades to take advantage of the system. Once the LGBT issues are settled, the mixed race begin activism to seek an identity and equal rights.

            2) Do you remember the days of when we did not judge a book by it’s cover? This was before you Gen X/Y/Z crowd. We were taught to treat everyone as equals. It mattered not what race, religion, sex, handicaps, language, height, weight, hair color, etc. Along comes this Progressive dogma of Diversity. Diversity teaches you to point out those differences. It teaches you that we are NOT the same. We are NOT equals. Not necessarily equal Rights but that we are not equals in our abilities and life experiences. These are considered strengths by Diversity teachings. As such, these differences are expounded upon, not overlooked. Demographics is the main tool for Diversity implementation. Some say that it is for Affirmative Action but it goes much further than that. With this Age of Diversification, one should be able to talk about race, in a non-hateful manner, without any fear of being called a race monger. For to call a conversation about race in the aforementioned manner, would be to call the entire idea of Diversity a racist institution. So which is it?

            I have no malice against a person for their race. I Served 12 years in the Navy with Shipmates from all races and walks of Life. I worked, side-by-side in the Corporate World with the same. I grew up in the Boy Scouts being taught that we are all Brothers and Sisters in the Worldwide Scouting program. I grew up with the teachings of the Bible that taught me to Love my Neighbor as my Brother. What I do have great issue with are those that break the Law and those that don’t have to live by the same rules as everyone else. That is inequality.

        • Sheryl Hunter
      • Fritz

        What a great idea. I am sure Mr. Colion Noir would be glad to organize it.

      • Sam Houston

        That sure sounds like a racist statement. All Americans should show up to NRA rallies.

        • Badgerite

          Does it? What color am I then? What ‘race’ am I against?
          As I said, I shouldn’t and I don’t. An eye for an eye making the whole world blind. I just get a little tired of their bullshit.

          • Sam Houston

            It matters not what race you are. You signified yourself as separate from a group and then proceeded to wax disdain for said group. That is the basis tenet of racism. Making yourself apart and out to be better than others.

          • Badgerite

            Well, that’s stupid. My disdain is for the people who would show up loaded for bear outside of restaurant where someone is having lunch just to intimidate them. Which is exactly what happened.

      • Joe Smith

        Yes they should as we would welcome our armed brothers and would love more members of all races

      • Super Gonz

        I agree. We need all the support we can get

    • gmart

      Thank you for calling them cowards. I am always appalled when they call themselves “patriots” while they use their guns to intimidate unarmed people. This action is something the Taliban would do.

      • Sam Houston

        Why do you feel intimidated by them? They were carrying unloaded arms with no ammunition on their person. Funny how that Police Officer guarding your bank, your grocery store, your kid’s school, your movie theater or that Agent that guards your Borders doesn’t seem to bother you much. I your neighbor’s kid pulls the old gun finger out of it’s holster, do you scream like a little girl and go into panic mode?

        • Badgerite

          Yes I do.
          But, when police come upon a person with a gun do you think they assume that the gun is loaded or is the procedure to assume it is loaded? I will answer that. You assume it is loaded. And act accordingly.
          You know, a lot of the people commenting on this site that you sneer at are actually gun owners. They just want there to be reasonable gun laws such as background checks with no gun show loopholes, and the banning of automatic or semi automatic weaponry.

          • Sam Houston

            I would agree with you on the First Amendment except that the Federal Government protects such protests all the time. Black Panther rallies, burning the US Flag even though that is considered public arson, hostile immigrant groups taking over Congressional Offices forcing to be seen, Occupy Wall Street trespassing and vandalism, violent war protests and civil riots in the 60’s, calls to create civil unrest from Black “Leaders” over the Martin/Zimmerman, etc Those have gone on unchallenged by the Government and, at times, protected by the Feds.

          • Badgerite

            Hey, Zimmerman did it again. Under arrest for assaulting his current girlfriend with a gun. I’m thinking firearms are not really his friend. Not really. And the last incident involving his ex wife also involved him destroying her laptop to destroy evidence of the encounter. Interesting.

        • Joy

          And how are people supposed to know those guns are unloaded? I learned at a very young age you treat all guns as if they are loaded. Why do you want people to be irresponsible?

          • Sam Houston

            You are absolutely correct Joy. Any and every gun should be treated as if loaded. Same goes with any unexploded or inert training ordinance. People dig up unexploded and inert ordinance all the time in their neighborhoods and parks. Most of the WWII practice ranges were hastily dismantled then the cities encroached upon the lands for subdivisions and public spaces.
            As for the demonstrators, the last group had orange caps placed on the end of the barrels denoting they are unloaded. Don’t know about this group as the article does not go much into detail beyond what the 4 ladies were having for lunch.

        • William Carr

          So you believe the spin about the guns being unloaded?

          Tell me, did they post a video showing every one of the forty coming forward and proving his gun was unloaded?

          You ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded; just as you always assume a lynch mob wearing bedsheets, pointy hoods and carrying a noose intends to intimidate and murder people.

          Otherwise, bigots and lunatics could parade around, intimidating people, threatening them, and we would have way of stopping them.

          • Joe Smith

            You can assume what you want but no evidence says they were loaded and if they were, what law did they break?…the answer is none or they would have been arrested

          • Badgerite

            If someone has a gun around you, you have to assume it is loaded. Better to assume it is loaded and act accordingly , then assume it isn’t and be wrong.

      • Joe Smith

        They were squatting down holding their guns posing for a picture that was being taken from the from the the biased media didn’t show that part

        • Sam Houston

          Taking it out of context was by their design.

        • William Carr

          And that’s supposed to be an excuse?

          All forty of them pile into their cars and show up at a business, carrying guns, to intimidate four women having lunch; and your response is “they were only posing for a picture” ?

          • Joe Smith

            It was to show the purposeful bias of the article, show me where they did anything against the law. Zero threats

            I am not saying what the did was smart, it wasn’t, just not what the bias media say it was

  • Badgerite

    And if someone had brought a gun to that restaurant and displayed it to the armed goons lying in wait ( lying in wait to kill being the legal definition of intentional premeditated homicide) and someone from either side had lost their head and a literal gun fight had broke out, then it would be a case of ‘stand your ground’. Wouldn’t it. So there would be no legal consequence at all.
    People may like to read about the ‘gun fight at the OK corral’ and all but almost no one actually wants to re live it. Especially when the people gunned down might be a group of mom’s advocating for child safety locks on weaponry and background checks.
    Behavior like these men displayed used to fall under the legal definition of assault, (that is putting a person in fear for their life). And that is a crime. Was a crime. Now it is just considered by them to be their right. To threaten and intimidate.
    What happens if groups like these decide it is okay to threaten an intimidate at the ballot box. Suppose they show up at election time at a polling place. Is that alright too.
    I blame the Supreme Court for this kind of over the top behavior. In the Heller decision, they gave these goons a hat rack to hang their violent stupidity on. And they have grabbed onto it with a vengeance. And the rest of the country ( the rest of the country being the overwhelming majority of the citizenry who do not own guns and do not even want to own guns) are less safe because of it.

    If I were those ladies, I would find out who those men were, contact a lawyer and file a lawsuit. There should be consequences to this kind of threatening, menacing behavior with really does satisfy the legal definition of assault.

    • formerlywhatithink

      Suppose they show up at election time at a polling place.

      One black man with a baton at a polling place is a national scandal, 40 white men with assault rifles intimidating four women is standing up for constitutional rights. This is what’s wrong with this country. And they say racism is dead.

      • Badgerite

        And it isn’t like it has made the citizenry safer. Is it? In Detroit, a young girl whose car had broken down in a white neighborhood was gunned down on someone’s porch where she had gone to seek help.
        And a young boy (13) carrying a toy gun was gunned down by police.
        The Heller decision has not made the country’s citizenry safer. Quite the contrary. It has emboldened the NRA and goon squad types to act in even more over the top and reckless manner. Shootings at theaters, schools and malls are occurring almost on a regular basis And tragic ‘stand your ground’ shooting are also becoming common. How exactly has this proliferation of guns made us safer as a citizenry? I don’t see it.
        I don’t quibble with the actual rule of law so much as with the predictable result that a certain segment of the society ( who has never read the Constitution and never will ) suddenly sees themselves as ‘guarding our freedoms’ by insisting that they have the right to line up, firing squad style, with loaded assault rifles at the ready, in front of a restaurant where four ladies who want reasonable gun control laws are having lunch.
        The truth is that in Heller, the Court just traded what could be considered one problem ( citizens feeling vulnerable to crime) for another worse problem ( citizens feeling vulnerable to any and all forms of violence directed at them from any direction and protected by law).

        • Sam Houston

          Whites are the minority in Detroit. Black on Black crime is rampant. You glorious leader’s hometown of Chicago. What about it? Gun control there too yet Black on Black murders are on the rise.

          • Badgerite

            The girl’s car broke down in a white suburb. SUBURB. A suburb that was overwhelmingly white. She went to a house to seek help. Probably use the phone. Someone inside just shot her in the head.
            The HEAD. A 19 year old girl.

          • Sam Houston

            OK, sad case but it is a drop in the bucket to what really goes on there.
            BTW. Suburbs usually self identify with the main metropolitan center. This entire area around New Orleans self-identifies as New Orleanian.

      • Sam Houston

        One Black Man with a baton? Are you for real? There is eye-witness accounts and video that begs to differ with your Liberal sense of reality. It was the damn Black Panther Party several deep, spread out across the voting precincts in predominately Black neighborhoods with more than just a baton. That was straight up voter intimidation and candidate endorsement at the polls. Both highly illegal. And what did Eric Holder do about it? Nothing. So ya, I will be at the polls with my non-functioning, 3-D printed rifle and there is nothing that you can do about it. Ya know, just to prevent any voter intimidation. There are no laws written yet about 3-D printer weaponry.

        • Badgerite

          I didn’t say anything about a ‘black man with a baton’. You are replying to someone else’s post. Nonetheless, I vaguely heard this in 2008 and I believe it was supposed to have occurred in Kansas. I know this because I heard about it from someone who has kin there.
          Now, the ridiculousness of a ‘Black Panther Party’ existing at all in Kansas is self evident. What are there, 3 blacks in the entire state. So pardon my skepticism but——————. You are full of it, Sammy.

          • Sam Houston

            It was in response to formerlywhatithink. I too find these “replied to” conversation setups a pain in the rear.
            I know nothing about Kansas. This was in Philadelphia and said to have been in New York as well. Though there was sufficient evidence, AG Holder had the DOJ silently dismiss the case.

          • Badgerite

            People will ‘say’ lots of things. A ‘silent’ dismissal means there was nothing to it. As in no complaining parties and no evidence.

    • Lazarus Durden

      Oh it’s coming. We’ll see it before it’s all over with if some places haven’t already. I’m waiting for the day a group of “poll watchers” descend into a poor neighborhood armed to the teeth.

      • Badgerite

        God, I hope not.

      • Sam Houston

        You sound like a conspiracy nutjob.

        • Badgerite

          I’m a person who likes to vote.

    • Sam Houston

      They did not have ammunition you twerp. Not much you can do with an empty gun. Your use of the OK Coral is out of context. Why don’t you try Wikipedia something else. It was a gun fight to settle control of an area between the Law and the Crooks. Nothing about protesting soccer moms. There are already background checks on guns and there are laws for child safety locks. Again, as with Obamacare and Immigration reform, you want to “fix” something that is not broken in order to fundamentally change it. You people need to lay off the pot. You’re just a bit too paranoid.

      • Badgerite

        You’re GOP aren’t ja? Do they pay you or is this just gratis.

        • Sam Houston

          Shoot, I wish. Got kicked out of the Navy because of Obama’s drastic cutbacks and downsizing. 12 years of Faithful Service manning a Red Billet (urgently needed, severely undermanned skilled job) down the tubes. All I got was a lousy case of nerve damage, no career, no disability, and no ability to find a job.
          I never claim to be anything but voter of my conscious. I tend to vote Republican and Conservative but I have voted for Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents that I felt or knew could do a better job than just a straight party pick. That was in the past as I find almost all Democratic candidates plagued with Progressive mandates in their Party. My Mother is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat voter though she is more like the Democrats of the 70’s. Much to my chagrin, she voted for Obama, twice!

      • pitbullgirl1965

        1.They did not have ammunition you twerp. Not much you can do with an empty gun
        All guns are always loaded.
        All guns are always loaded.
        All guns are always loaded.
        All guns are always loaded.
        All guns are always loaded.
        Every gun is a loaded gun
        Every gun is a loaded gun.
        Every gun is a loaded gun
        Every gun is a loaded gun
        The difference between a gun owner and an idiot who flaunts their guns lies in respecting the above rule.
        Gun owners respect it.
        Idiots are the ones who shoot themselves while cleaning it.

        • Sam Houston

          As you said, every gun owner knows that yet some still shoot themselves because they always seem to fail to check for a chambered round. They are also running the action. A loaded gun will not fire without human interaction.
          These people were definitely NOT flaunting their guns as you say. I see them shouldered or pointed in the down and safe position. Another blog post clears up the issue with the photo. It was setup by one of those MDA Moms. They actually came out of the restaurant and confronted these people. They asked if they could take their photo and the group obliged. What they did not notice was one of the women peeled off to the side, went behind them and snapped that photo at the same interval. The angle of the photo gives the impression that there was an aggressive stance. The men and women with some of their children are smiling. The men in front are squatted to fit everyone in the photo. There is a link at the bottom of this blog.
          Do smiling men and women form a posse, grab their kids and head out for a confrontation? No. They are just demonstrating as a peaceful assembly. What is illegal about what they did? Your Bubble head author seems to be basing his judgments from a photo and little else.

          • pitbullgirl1965

            Ok, I’ll give you that. I did see the front and side pictures and it makes sense. I still maintain people like that make gun owners look like yahoo idiots. I think it’s fun to shoot tbh.
            But damn, they aren’t toys to parade around in public.
            It is intimidation in this day and age, with all the public shootings we’ve had.

          • Sam Houston

            Thank you. And I will admit that their implementation of this demonstration was a bit unorthodox. I really can’t say if they were flaunting the Open Carry Law in the MDA’s face, was trying to open dialogue, or had ill intent as none of us has the story from either parties’ perspective. Just a third-hand story written with a narrative that is biased.

          • Badgerite

            You go right ahead, as I have suggested, and try that ‘demonstration’ in front of the Supreme Court sometime and we’ll see how ‘peaceful’ they think that is. You never do respond to this suggestion. And I know you won’t. Because we both know that the Supreme Court, and the people who protect them, would not stand for it.

      • Badgerite

        There is something you can do with an empty gun. You can scare and intimidate people. Because they have no way of knowing the gun is not loaded and you would have to assume that it is.
        As to the stuff about the OK Coral — Oh dear lord, develop a sense of humor, why don’t you?
        I’ll respond to your ‘point’ about the OK Coral with the same type of lucid and insightful comment that you made.
        How do you know there were no soccer moms protesting at the OK Coral. Where you there? (She said, accusingly)
        Seriously! You went to Wikipedia for the OK Coral. That is only the most well known story of the old west. WTF

  • Auld_mac

    Instilling terror in your adversaries as a means of control. The first line tool of organised criminals, fascists, preachers et al. Terrorism is a useful tool because it works.

    • Badgerite

      Yes, but terrorism should be and is illegal. I think terrorizing these ladies was indeed the intent. Therefore I think pressure should be brought to file charges or file a lawsuit. There should be consequences to this kind of terrorizing of the citizenry. Should there not?

      • Auld_mac

        Of course, I just made a statement as to the efficacy of manipulating people with fear. It will be interesting to see what if anything comes of this. Having happened in Dallas I suspect probably not much.

        • feloniousgrammar

          Seems to me that any of those power hungry men show up twice, it’s stalking with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such.

          • Auld_mac

            Operative word ‘should’.

        • Sam Houston

          Your jack arse that burned the US Flag on the steps of the Dallas County courthouse got away with it so you are probably correct.

          • Badgerite

            That was in the 1980’s. Most of the people commenting were probably not alive. The kids, and they were kids, who did that were protesting the death squads that had ravaged places like Nicaragua and Guatemala who had been militarily trained in the USA. Some of those death squads were responsible for the rape and murder of four nuns doing charity work in Nicaragua, the murder of a priest and his whole household including the housekeeper and her 18 year old daughter, not to mention untold numbers of native people disappeared, tortured and killed.
            I think the Flag can survive the outrage of the young when they discover ‘flaws’ , shall we say, in their country’s behavior. The young tend to hold to a higher standard than later in life. When they are taught history as indoctrination rather than as seeking the truth and find out they have been lied to, they rebel. What’s your point again.

          • fojap

            I was, and I actually remember the Supreme Court decision very well. It was one little factor in the many steps I took away from radicalism towards liberalism. I could have sworn my friends were actually disappointed in the decision because the were convinced that the U.S. was a big evil country heading towards fascism. I remember saying, “But isn’t this good, right? They made the right decision, right?”

  • Draxiar

    How clever. Using the 2nd to intimidate using the 1st. What a pack of cowards. I guess when you can’t defend your ideas intelligently the recourse is violence (or the implication of it in this case).

    • Richard Lawrence Adlof

      What Second Amendment? Open Carry Texas is not a well-regulated militia . . .

      • fojap

        They don’t exactly look like “responsible” gun owners, either.

        I find pro-gun people to be very strange. I don’t even have a firm position on gun control, but the pro-gun people have attacked me online for not clapping like a trained seal when the brag about their guns.

    • Sam Houston

      How about you be a bit clever yourself. 2nd Amendment aside, you want to get rid of the guns? Then you have to get rid of the criminals that use them.

      • Badgerite

        Most of the murders in this country are at the hands of people you know and trust. Husband and wife. Friends and relatives. That is a statistical fact.
        And, once again, this is not about BANNING gun ownership. This is about reasonable laws to keep regular guns and deadly, effective anti personnel weaponry out of the hands of the deranged or the violent.

        • Sam Houston

          Only the sensationalized murders occur like that. Gang bangers aren’t “friends”. Come to New Orleans, the murder capital of Louisiana. The weekly murders rarely come off as domestic squabbles. It’s straight thuggy crime here. Your statistical facts can’t be blanketed to every locale. In the bedroom community where my kids grew up in Texas, there was only 4 murders. The two Routier brothers that were murdered by the mother Darlee with a knife (My Son was in Kindergarten with the oldest) and a Hispanic couple (illegals) that were shot and killed in front of an affluent neighborhood for no apparent reason. They had no connection the area and it was speculated that it as Hispanic gang related, possible drug deal.

          • Badgerite

            Of course they can’t be blanketed to every locale. But here in my locale, most of the murders do seem to be committed by people that the victim knows and frequently know well. Like I said, self defense is perfectly fine. But you don’t need an arsenal to do that.

        • Joe Smith

          Which one of the proposed laws would the criminals follow?

          • Badgerite

            The one that says you cannot walk out of a mental institution on a day long furlough, as happened in the town I went to school in, take a cab downtown, tell the cabby to wait,walk into a gun shop and purchase a gun and then go back and hold the gun to the cabby’s head for 24 hours before the police can talk you down. That one.

            Or maybe the one that says if you go into a Starbucks to enjoy a cup of coffee you shouldn’t have to do it while wondering what the intentions are of the ‘smiling’ guy next to you with the loaded Ar-15.

          • Joe Smith

            So you are saying criminals follow the above laws?
            I think you might want to Google the word criminal.

            Show me a law they broke please

          • Badgerite

            You might want to Google -“Police Brief On Key Solutions to Gun Violence in America” by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Read the whole thing. In one year there were 71,000 referrals from the ATF to the Department of Justice for prosecution of people who were denied gun purchases due to issues in their background check. So, obviously, some who you would not want to be allowed to purchase guns are trying to purchase them the way every one else does.
            There is also their assessment that criminals, in acquiring guns , have relied on the ‘gun show’ loophole in the background check laws much as the Columbine killers did. To date, that loophole still exists and is still the obvious place for people with criminal intent to purchase weapons. Adam Lanza did not have to do that as he had his mothers’ guns which she had purchased for self defense available to him. But the Columbine killers did use that loophole.

          • Joe Smith

            And of those 70 thousand 44 were prosecuted by the feds so whats the sense of having laws if they don’t enforce the ones they have?
            800 thousand used guns to stop crime per year so the good far outweighs the bad

            And there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole, people at gun shows have to follow the same law as anywhere else.

            And Adams stole a gun = criminal

            Again, gun laws only affect the honest people

            You are wasting my time so good luck in the future and have a good weekend

          • Badgerite

            77 actually. The law was enforced. Background checks are there to keep people who should not have guns because of criminal backgrounds or mental instability or some other issue from getting them. Not to have some basis for prosecution. It is called prosecutorial discretion. Not all crimes are prosecuted. It costs money to prosecute and imprison people and there is no basis to assume that beyond attempting to purchase a gun, these people have done anything to get them imprisoned. The 77 are probably the exception who have.
            Again. The laws purpose is to prevent people from getting guns for reasons of criminal background or mental instability or demonstrated violent tendencies. Not to imprison them for perjury if they lie on the application. So the laws are being enforced. What you want is to substitute your judgement for that of the prosecutor. And the decision to prosecute or not is within that person’s professional judgement as to how best to serve his communities interests.
            There is indeed a gun show loop hole. They are exempt from background check requirements. If they do them, it is because they want to. Not because they have to.
            I don’t know where you get your figures about used guns stopping crime, but the statistics have always said and still do that you are more likely to be killed by a family member or someone you know then by a criminal. How does that fit in with the bad out weighing the good?
            The gun Adam Lanza “stole” was the Bushmaster AR-15 that his mother kept in HIS room. That is an unusual definition of stealing.
            He took his mom’s gun. shot her and then went to the school and shot those kids and 6 teachers within 2 minutes time. And then he shot himself.
            71,000 people who were not honest people sought to purchase guns and the background check laws prevented them from doing so.
            You have a good weekend also.

          • Badgerite

            77 were prosecuted. The purpose of the laws are not to put people in prison for lying on an application. The purpose is to prevent them from purchasing fire arms, which the law clearly did. 17,000 people who society say should not have the right to purchase guns were prevented from purchasing them.
            Whether to prosecute for the lying on the application part, like all such matters, are a matter of prosecutorial discretion. Not all crimes are prosecuted. I imagine the 77 that were prosecuted had some outstanding crimes or other issues that warranted the time and expense to the state of trying and imprisoning them.
            Gun Control Advocates are not about BANNING guns. The Heller decision makes that legally impossible even if that were the aim. So if there actually are 800 thousand guns stopping crime., while great. That isn’t really the issue.
            There is a gun show exception ( loop hole). If they do background checks at all it is because they want to. Not because it is required by law.
            Adam Lanza’s mother kept her guns and ammunition in a closet in his room. So he took those. How is that stealing.
            If gun laws only affect the ;’honest people’ why were 71,000 people prevented by the background check from purchasing weapons? 71,000 seems like a lot of not honest.
            And 77 were so not honest they indeed were prosecuted.
            Time is money. Have a good weekend yourself.

          • Joe Smith

            I had to respond to one point ( even though I told myself I wouldn’t) You are absolutely insane if you think there are special laws for gun shows, the law applies to every gun show as it does anywhere else. Please show me the text of where where you say is allowed. As a former Deputy, I want to see the text because we missed it at the police academy

          • Badgerite

            The ‘loophole’ is this.
            From Wikipedia.
            ” US Federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearms commerce, or those who are ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License and do background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals ‘not engaged in the business’ of dealing firearms , or who only make occasional sales within their state of residence are under no requirement to do background checks on purchases or maintain records of sale.
            The ATF reports that between 50 % and 75% of the vendors at gun shows possess a Federal Firearms License. —–
            Those concerned about these events claim that the American gun shows are a primary source of illegally trafficked firearms, both within the United States and abroad. ”

            Slightly wrong but certainly not ‘insanely’ wrong. Have a good night.

    • Joe Smith

      The ladies are using the 1st to take away 2nd amendment rights so why not the other way around? And can you point out who was violent at this rally because I missed it

      • Badgerite

        You have no 2nd Amendment right to go into a Starbucks armed. That is not the government ‘infringing’ on anything. As the owners of a private business and private property, excluding firearms from their establishment is their right.
        And if you are a ‘deputy’ or whatever, how come you don’t know that?
        Businesses are going to keep your guns out because you will harm their business by scaring their customers away. So, no, you don’t have any ‘2nd amendment rights’ to do that.

        • Joe Smith

          Then show me where they were arrested for violating the law

          • Badgerite

            You said, it was ok to violate the ladies First Amendment Rights since they violated YOUR Second Amendment Rights. The Constitution acts to restrain GOVERNMENT action with respect to your guns. It does not restrain or contravene individual property rights. The women were well within their rights to petition Starbucks to restrict firearms in their place of business. The company itself was well within its rights to keep firearms out of their place of business. ( Just an aside, but how the hell is some hapless waitress or store clerk supposed to know when you bring a firearm into a place of business that you are NOT a criminal and be alarmed since that is just what criminals are apt to do? How are they supposed to know that you are not there to do them harm?)
            Violating a Constitutional right is not always a criminal offense. It would give rise to a civil case. But, I tell you what. Try that in front of the Supreme Court sometimes, and I guarantee you that you will be arrested and hustled off. They may not prosecute. But they would absolutely hustle you the hell out of there and ask questions later.
            Carrying weaponry, in and of itself, can be a threatening and menacing action. And quite frankly, pulling up in a group of cars, piling out and pulling a bunch of guns out of car trunks while people who don’t know what the hell is going on could give some hapless person inside a heart attack. You idiot. And for what? To protest that Starbucks listened to these ladies and did what any business would and most have done. Establish a ‘no firearms’ zone on their property.

          • Joe Smith

            You are just too slow to get it, enjoy your day

          • Badgerite

            I will.

          • Badgerite

            I will. I think I now have a much better appreciation,now, of what those ladies had to put up with just to have a cup of coffee in a Starbucks without some________ coming in with a loaded weapon and giving them a heart attack.

          • Badgerite

            And people keep claiming that no one was afraid and no one was arrested so……
            From Forbes:
            “For those of you who would suggest that the members of Open Carry Texas were simply engaging in their constitutional right to gather and protest what was going on inside the restaurant, you would be wrong.
            While the group is certainly entitled to protest,( although there are questions raised about them doing so on private property without invitation as was the case here ), they are not according to Texas law, entitled to do OPENLY SHOWING THEIR WEAPONS”
            “While Texas permits licensed gun owners to carry CONCEALED weapons, Texas does not permit open carry of guns, except for LONG GUNS THAT ARE NOT BEING USED IN A MENACING WAY (added). Indeed, it is the desire to change this law the Open Carry Texas is all about.”
            “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.”

            Good guys with guns, you say. I don’t think so. More like Assholes with guns, breaking the law and expecting everyone to cater to them. The police there have had run ins with this particular group before. Just because they don’t arrest them doesn’t mean what they did was legal. Frankly the mother’s group should file a lawsuit.

            Enjoy your day, also. Again.