Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Shoot first if you "feel threatened." On various threads around this forum, gun-nuts have made it clear that they support the idea of shooting first, and asking questions later, if at all, if they "feel threatened" by the target. This includes the threads I listed, where shooting wildly into the darkness of one's own garage was supported, as was unleashing bullets on unknown people (actually cops) who happened to be too close to one's property. So, we've established that at least certain right-wing gun-nuts are fine with grossly irresponsible use of firearms, provided they are the ones doing the shooting, of course.
2) Threaten people by marching - armed and uninvited - through their neighborhood. The gun-nuts who are marching through this neighborhood are not invited, and probably not welcome based on the article. Since the gun-nuts themselves have advocating shooting people for lesser offenses - shooting blindly into the garage since you heard a noise there, shooting people who are almost trespassing or who step foot on your property uninvited, then by the definition of the gun-nuts, the locals have the right to fill them full of holes when they show up, uninvited and "threatening" them.
The Hypocrisy: Of course, we all know what is really going on here. It's okay to shoot first without even knowing the details of your target if the target is a: liberal, minority, somebody you probably don't like, etc. And yet, the gun-nuts think that they should be above their own rules - that they have the right to shoot others "if they feel threatened," but nobody has the right to treat them the same way when they march around with long-arms through people's neighborhoods, into public restaurants, etc. I'd love to see a minority try that in a right-wing, lily-white neighborhood in the Deep South considering how many such people have been shot for far less, including not even being armed.
So now are you going to cite the law stating that these people need to be invited to march through a neighborhood or will you come back with more fluff to try to deflect the question? That's rhetorical of course.
An open carry march through a black Houston neighborhood has been postponed due to a scheduling conflict (a march in Big Spring TX) but also to re-evaluate strategy.
"If you go marching through the Fifth Ward like a bunch of stuffy old white boys carrying guns and spitting tobacco you'll get a bad response, but if you go in there talking to people like human beings and explain what you're doing, the response will be different," David Amad - Open Carry Texas
"This walk will certainly be a departure from other highly publicized events. It is unclear how many will march but pictures by some of those expected to attend show members mocking the area's Congressional Woman Sheila Jackson Lee are not exactly friendly to the community. One shows a man in front of her office with a sign that reads "Gun Control = Slavery Sheila Jackson Lee Supports Slavery" and caption that read "Queen Sheila ran for the hills," and another simply shows a man eating a piece of fried chicken in front of her office."
That's the first reasonable thing anyone from Open Carry Texas has said. Why not talk to people like human beings instead of carrying guns ALL THE TIME! Open Carry is really dumb. I believe in the Second Amendment, but seeing a bunch of people carrying semi-automatic weapons walk into an establishment is very scary. Just what kind of society do they want where everyone carries guns on all the time? They want us to go back to the Wild West days? It wasn't Utopia back then. Many people were killed for stupid reasons. You could get hanged for stealing a horse. These guys would probably be the type to say that someone should get shot for stealing a car, so I guess similar mindsets. I just don't get it.
So now are you going to cite the law stating that these people need to be invited to march through a neighborhood or will you come back with more fluff to try to deflect the question? That's rhetorical of course.
Thanks for missing the point, although if the area doesn't allow open-carry, there is that law to consider.
Read my post regarding the hypocrisy of the gun-nuts to understand what we're talking about here.
In the short, the double standard: gun fetishist believe, as supported by the replies to other posts on this forum and in court cases where minorities have been gunned down, to have the "right" to shoot first and ask questions never if they "feel threatened." This includes: firing shots blindly into one's own garage and gunning down undercover cops who are close to trespassing on one's property. And yet, the gun fetishists also believe there are immune to being on the business end of such behavior; that they can march - armed and unwelcome - through the neighborhoods of others and not be met with a hail of bullets because they are making OTHERS "feel threatened." It is a double standard and hypocrisy, though perhaps that is too much for you to understand.
Keep in mind this is no knock on responsible gun-owners; I'm fine with them, and I do support the 2nd Amendment. I do NOT, however, support irresponsible firearm use - firing blindly at something that "makes me feel threatened" - nor do I support ramrodding a gun fetish down the throats of others by marching through their neighborhoods with long-arms on display, basically daring anyone to challenge them and rubbing their noses in it. There is a vast difference between a gun owner and a gun fetishist, and that's the key point here.
I think this is a great idea. How many cops will these "open carry" nutters be asking for?
If you are already armed, why would you need the police? They are macho men, let them go without a police escort. Once the first shot comes they will scatter to the four winds and never again think of provoking people who will shoot back.
They are macho men, let them go without a police escort. Once the first shot comes they will scatter to the four winds and never again think of provoking people who will shoot back.
Shoot back? What makes you think anyone is going to shoot at all? For what reason? This is a peaceful demonstration of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Shoot back? What makes you think anyone is going to shoot at all? For what reason? This is a peaceful demonstration of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Because as gun fetishists have made clear, you have the "right" to open fire on anyone who makes you "feel threatened." That includes other gun fetishists who feel they have the "right" to march through a neighborhood - armed and unwelcome - in an attempt to provoke others.
Because as gun fetishists have made clear, you have the "right" to open fire on anyone who makes you "feel threatened." That includes other gun fetishists who feel they have the "right" to march through a neighborhood - armed and unwelcome - in an attempt to provoke others.
Why do anti gunner always talk about a "fetish."
And provide a link that say you can fire on anyne if you feel threatened...
Is it necessary in this country to be invited to walk on public land?
Nope-but I sure as hell would feel threatened if a group of people not from my neighborhood were parading through brandishing AR-15s but maybe that's just me...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
