Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1 A terrible precedent is being set with guns in public places... 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008

    kentuck (69,115 posts)

    A terrible precedent is being set with guns in public places...
    We read of people walking thru the malls with AR-15's slung over their shoulders. We hear of people going into Starbucks with automatic weapons. We read on DU about someone clearing a soccer field, where kids are playing, because somebody shows up with a gun in his holster, because he can.

    This seems to be more and more commonplace. Some people feel the need to go into public places with their guns. Of course, all these people are law-abiding and stable individuals. Of course...

    But I would argue that there is something wrong, something unstable, about individuals that would want to show off their guns in such a way. Who would not be intimidated or frightened for their children if a stranger walks into a public place with a gun?

    There is no good ending to this story.
    What they really hate is the fact that open carry brings out in the open the liberal plan to legislate guns with an eventual plan to confiscate guns. It brings the controversy out in the open and shows just how irrational the gun grabbers are and the unconstitutionality of what they want to do.
    Star Member NYC_SKP (52,986 posts)
    2. Every case I've read about, including the Soccer game stunt, has been for publicity.

    New article, additional details:

    There is no law restricting the carrying of weapons onto school property by those who have concealed pistol licenses. However, the weapon has to be visible and not, in fact, "concealed." Because WMC is a private school, VandenBrand was within his rights to tell the man to get rid of his gun or leave. If the game was played at a public school field, however, there would be no such right.

    Legislation introduced in January by Rep. Andy Schurz, D-Lansing, would close the loophole that allows those with a concealed pistol license to take a gun into schools.

    VandenBrand said a friend of the gun-toting man videotaped as an officer with the Muskegon Police Department warned him about not violating trespassing laws. VandenBrand said the officer told him it's not unusual for those concerned about protecting gun owners rights to post such videos on the Internet.

    When you go to a game with a gun AND a friend with a video camera to record what happens, it's a stunt!

    Same for the Starbucks and Walmart stunts. These assholes are deliberately stirring up fear where there has traditionally been no reason for people to be fearful.

    Isn't that Terrorism, by definition?
    Liberals think that claiming "fear" means they can do whatever they want; they win, kind of like screaming "racism" should shut someone up and give them their way.
    kentuck (69,115 posts)
    3. It is domestic terrorism.

    In my opinion.

    Masquerading as 2nd Amendment rights.
    JoeyT (5,290 posts)
    33. There is a threat of violence.

    Given how many mass murders have been happening, and how much press they've gotten, walking into a crowded place with a rifle is like walking into an airport with a big box covered in wires labeled "BOMB!".

    Threats of violence don't have to be verbal, implied threats work just as well or even better, because you have plausible deniability.
    Star Member NutmegYankee (5,438 posts)
    38. This same logic has justified countless crackdowns on peaceful oppositions.

    Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
    Every gathering is a "mob" or riot about to start. Every sign against the opposing movement an implied threat of violence.

    You should remember I don't support open carry. I oppose the overuse of the term "terrorism" to describe things we dislike.
    Star Member Flatulo (4,248 posts)
    79. Wouldn't terrorism require a law to be broken?

    There are lots of intimidating acts, like stalking, or issuing verbal or written threats, that are clearly illegal by statute, yet are seldom labeled as terrorist acts. Why should carrying a legal object in a legal manner be considered as such?

    Many people are afraid of intimidating dogs like pit bulls or Rottweilers. If I walk my pit bull down the street, am I a terrorist because some people *might* be afraid?
    hack89 (23,307 posts)
    20. Outlaw open carry and mandate concealed carry.

    best solution.
    Star Member Hoyt (13,717 posts)
    52. Better solution -- outlaw both.
    99Forever (6,390 posts)
    22. The term antisocial applies to..

    ... these jerks and all other gun-humping psychos. They are unfit to be part of civilized society.

    Fuck the NRA.
    Star Member etherealtruth (8,980 posts)
    23. They are clearly self indulgent imbeciles (until they cross "that line" and become psychos)

    ...but, there may well be an upside to this idiocy. It is really angering people.

    Folk are not becoming dulled by this, they are not becoming desensitized ... they are becoming angry.

    Every time a sports field is cleared ... every time a school is locked down ... every time patrons leave a commercial business citing a gun carrying yahoo ... every call to police about some jack ass strutting around with a gun ... every disruption of a civil society ... people are sending a message that THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    If social stigmas associated with this idiotic (and potentially dangerous) exercise don't work ... laws will be enacted (of this I am sure).
    Allowing an idiotic (potentially deranged) few disrupt civil society, institutions and commerce will not be tolerated for long.

    As I typically post at the end of my responses on this topic ... why do these idiots choose safe largely suburban low crime areas to pull these stunts/ If they truly wanted to make a larger point about :guns" and the public safety and their personal rights ... wouldn't the point be better made in high crime areas within Detroit, Chicago, DC (or any other high crime/ "unsafe" area)?

    The only point made in these very safe low crime areas is that you are an ass trying to intimidate people.
    And what liberals show is that they are just fine with criminals who DO NOT follow the law regarding guns having and using guns......but they are OK with taking guns away from law abiding people.
    world wide wally (355 posts)
    30. We all need to start making public comments (loudly enough for them to hear)

    about the diminuitive size of their penises.

    Disclaimer: Most of them probably won't shoot you in front of witnesses for that. (Hopefully)
    Ohhhh...that will intimidate and embarrass them so they give up their guns or at least don't open carry.
    Star Member madinmaryland (54,269 posts)
    39. There is no difference between these douchebags and the ones who go around flashing their genitals.
    cynzke (264 posts)
    71. Look What Happened

    in that park in Chicago last week where innocent bystanders got shot while two rival gangs got into a shoot out. What can we expect when some gun toting yahoo interjects himself into the "good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun scenario. Some of these nuts are just itching to show what big hero/tough guys they are. Because, I think this is exactly what these nuts are hoping for....alla Robert DeNiro cab driver vs. the punks.
    Yep....bad guys with guns A-OK, good guys with guns....bad.
    Star Member Hekate (22,877 posts)
    82. The GOP: Soft on domestic terrorism -- of which this is an example.
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #2  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    FL & MO
    Suck it DUmmies. I'd feel a lot safer in a mall filled with ebil
    open carry or concealed carry NRA types any day.
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #3  
    Dear Dummies: malls are a place for mass shootings because no one there is armed.
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts