four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer

[JimBowie1958]

Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'

Lol, but you would counter that with you cock-suck-fu ...

Nobody wants to hear about your other hobbies, Master Drou-zi....

Nah, you just want to fantasize about my sleeping arrangements, cocky.

 

[Unkotare]

I see Master Drou-zi is already attempting to bore his would-be victims to sleep!

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see Master Drou-zi is already attempting to bore his would-be victims to sleep!

Lol, you are already asleep, whiney bitch



The facts are against you, as is reason, human rights and common decency.

But you libtards don't care as long as your ideology is advanced. Right and wrong, Truth and error are all nothing but stage props to your ilk.

 

[Unkotare]

I see Master Drou-zi is already attempting to bore his would-be victims to sleep!

Lol, you are already asleep...

Are you swinging a pocket watch back and forth, Drou-zi? It's not working....

 

[Unkotare]

But you libtards don't care ...

Again, you don't seem to understand what that juvenile little insult is supposed to mean.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see Master Drou-zi is already attempting to bore his would-be victims to sleep!

Lol, you are already asleep...

Are you swinging a pocket watch back and forth, Drou-zi? It's not working....

I'm not the one that put you to sleep, dumb ass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But you libtards don't care ...

Again, you don't seem to understand what that juvenile little insult is supposed to mean.

lol, of course I do.

It is a reference to liberals who are ideological fools.

Kind of like you.

 

[Unkotare]

Lol, you are already asleep...

Are you swinging a pocket watch back and forth, Drou-zi? It's not working....

I'm not the one that put you to sleep....

I don't imagine you've ever put anyone to sleep, wuss.

 

[Unkotare]

But you libtards don't care ...

Again, you don't seem to understand what that juvenile little insult is supposed to mean.

lol, of course I do.

It is a reference to liberals who are ideological fools.

Kind of like you.

I'm not a liberal, you idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Again, you don't seem to understand what that juvenile little insult is supposed to mean.

lol, of course I do.

It is a reference to liberals who are ideological fools.

Kind of like you.

I'm not a liberal, you idiot.

That is what all the liars say.

Really, we both know that you are a fascist piece of shit pretending to be a liberal.

 

[Unkotare]

lol, of course I do.

It is a reference to liberals who are ideological fools.

Kind of like you.

I'm not a liberal, you idiot.

That is what all the liars say.

Sounds like you need to take up your issues with liars and liberals, not me, you idiot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

These threads seem to always end in insults and personal attacks.

Fact remains, the story was a non-issue. No laws were broken.

 

[JimBowie1958]

These threads seem to always end in insults and personal attacks.

Fact remains, the story was a non-issue. No laws were broken.

That is what the libtards like Unkotare intend when they lose the discussion and are proven wrong.

Change the topic, pollute the thread with nastiness and claim a win based on nothing.

 

[Unkotare]

These threads seem to always end in insults and personal attacks.

Fact remains, the story was a non-issue. No laws were broken.

That is what the libtards like Unkotare .

It seems you still don't understand what that juvenile little term is supposed to mean. You're not very bright, are you Drou-zi?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear JimB, rightwinger, et al:

No, it's not because of the reaction that makes it bullying.
*IF* these men did not have civilized intent, but *intended* to be threatening and disruptive, that is what causes a breach of the peace, which is not civil lawful behavior.

Being disruptive and threatening is NOT respecting the "right of the people
peaceably to assemble" and to be "secure in our persons, houses and effects."

So people are going to react accordingly (as for losing longterm rights over it, that would require due process to determine who had unlawful intent or committed abuses/violations)

Now, I keep hearing different interpretations of what really did and did not happen here.
NONE of us was physically there and saw the demeanor, actions and reactions going on.

Maybe the gun owners were BEING respectful and were NOT threatening or bullying.
Maybe the complainants WERE overreacting and not respecting rights to bear arms legally.

I don't know, I wasn't there.

I do know that we all need to respect equal rights and protections of the law, so we DON'T give the wrong impression to people that we have unlawful intent to abuse our freedoms.

I agree with people on both sides that we should respect equal rights;
where the "right to bear arms" and the "rights to security and peaceful assemble"
are all equal under law.

None of these rights can be "taken out of context" and abused to subvert the others.
Or that also violates the concept behind "equal protection of the laws" and maybe the 9th Amendment.

Gentlemen, it is NOT an "either/or" pissing contest here.
It is how do we uphold and balance ALL rights of ALL people equally, ALL of the ABOVE.

Not either/or, you vs. me, left vs. right, them vs. us, etc.

But equal protection and equal inclusion of ALL people
with equal rights, freedom, and beliefs under law.

If we respect each other as EQUALS, maybe we will earn the respect of others in return.
If we threaten the rights of other people, maybe that is why we get threatened in return.

This is part of "natural law" from which our Constitutional principles are derived.
The law of reciprocity applies to all people, where we get the equal respect we enforce.

Thank you, Gentlemen
I am with you in the commitment to enforce the laws equally for all people
to prevent any infringement or abuse by resolving any threat or conflict civilly in advance.

Once again for the completely stupid. It is COMPLETELY legal to carry rifles in the open in Texas and has been for quite some time. The men in question have been doing it for months in that specific area.

But to the point of criminals. 99.999 percent of crime with firearms is committed with HANDGUNS. Hidden handguns until the perp is IN the store. Criminals do not walk around in PUBLIC with rifles sling over their shoulders. Absolutely no crime happens where 4 men walk about in public with rifles before they rob somewhere.

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. They were bullying and intimidating.

I isn't bulling or intimidating simply because some libtards pissed their pants.

We had a similar incident in a town in Virginia when someone walked into a Krogers with an assault rifle. It caused chaos and total fear. The police came and calmed things down. The man has been banded from the store for life. What did he prove, other than he is an idiot.

He proved what a bunch of cowards the PC Nazis are.

Disarming a population is only done by the fascists and Marxists who want no challenge to the power of the state. So which are you?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Jim: The Aurora Shooter may have picked an easier target to make sure he wasn't shot in advance. But once the shooting starts, for all we know these shooters prepare to get shot and die.

Death is obviously not a deterrent because if they have any such knowledge of the law, they know they would already risk the death penalty if they don't get shot down on the spot.

What motivated this shooter was he was trying to [BUCK] the system to study it.

He had studied how the system handles sick people and was deliberately testing and putting himself in that situation to show he could outsmart it.

The Arizona and Newtown shooters were mentally ill as in unable to control their impulses.

This shooter did have control and was deliberately choosing the actions and reactions that would trigger the BS in the system, the media, the justice system, the public reaction.

You can't compare this shooter with the others.
This guy was and still is studying the whole aftermath and playing the system.

His sickness as a sociopath is on a different level from the others who have no control.

This guy is playing everyone, and enjoying the division and backlash and uproar it causes.
So if you want to keep feeding those demons, just keep up with the backlash and blame.

As long as people project blame, then he gets what he wanted.
If we were to hold him responsible for all restitution, then it's only on him alone.

Quit projecting blame on everyone around him, or that's part of the chaos he
wanted to stir up and study. Very sick what he did and why.

I would like to require him to study the full requirements of restitution to resolve every issue this case brought up, and hold him responsible for those consequences and costs.

Make him do all that work, since his goal was to study the system and society's reaction.
He wanted a job in neuroscience, he can work the rest of his life to pay restitution.

Did The Aurora Shooter Seek Out A "Gun Free" Zone? : GUNFAQ.ORG


So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.
.
In short, Lott maintains that the Cinemark Century 16 was chosen specifically because it was a “gun free” zone.


So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.
.....

Ten Closest Theater Locations
1.Cinema Latino de Aurora (L)
777 Peoria St., Aurora, CO 80011
(gun ban) Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
1.22 miles (3 minutes)
2.Cinema Grill (G)
13682 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
3.72 miles (7 minutes)
3.Century Cinemark Theater (B)
14300 East Alameda Avenue, Aurora, CO 80012
No weapons allowed sign
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
3.97 miles (8 minutes)
4.Harkins Northfield 18 (H)
8300 E. Northfield Blvd., Denver, CO 80238
Not posted at the time of the attack
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
5.13 miles (10 minutes)
5.Aurora Movie Tavern
18605 East Hampden Avenue, Aurora, CO 80013-3533
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
10.04 miles (18 minutes)
6.Elvis Cinemas Tiffany Plaza 6
7400 E. Hampden Ave, Denver, CO 80231
Not posted
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.12 miles (18 minutes)
7.The Movie Tavern At Seven Hills
18305 E. Hampden Ave., Aurora, CO 80013
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
10.02 miles (19 minutes)
8.Landmark Theatre Greenwood Village
5415 Landmark Place, Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
12.88 miles (19 minutes)
9.UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 and IMAX
2000 S. Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80222
Not posted
Showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.66 miles (20 minutes)
10.Esquire Theatre
590 Downing St., Denver, CO 80218
Not showing The Dark Knight Rises
9.95 miles (21 minutes)

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dear JimB, rightwinger, et al:

No, it's not because of the reaction that makes it bullying.
*IF* these men did not have civilized intent, but *intended* to be threatening and disruptive, that is what causes a breach of the peace, which is not civil lawful behavior.

Being disruptive and threatening is NOT respecting the "right of the people
peaceably to assemble" and to be "secure in our persons, houses and effects."

So people are going to react accordingly (as for losing longterm rights over it, that would require due process to determine who had unlawful intent or committed abuses/violations)

Now, I keep hearing different interpretations of what really did and did not happen here.
NONE of us was physically there and saw the demeanor, actions and reactions going on.

Maybe the gun owners were BEING respectful and were NOT threatening or bullying.
Maybe the complainants WERE overreacting and not respecting rights to bear arms legally.

I don't know, I wasn't there.

I do know that we all need to respect equal rights and protections of the law, so we DON'T give the wrong impression to people that we have unlawful intent to abuse our freedoms.

I agree with people on both sides that we should respect equal rights;
where the "right to bear arms" and the "rights to security and peaceful assemble"
are all equal under law.

None of these rights can be "taken out of context" and abused to subvert the others.
Or that also violates the concept behind "equal protection of the laws" and maybe the 9th Amendment.

Gentlemen, it is NOT an "either/or" pissing contest here.
It is how do we uphold and balance ALL rights of ALL people equally, ALL of the ABOVE.

Not either/or, you vs. me, left vs. right, them vs. us, etc.

But equal protection and equal inclusion of ALL people
with equal rights, freedom, and beliefs under law.

If we respect each other as EQUALS, maybe we will earn the respect of others in return.
If we threaten the rights of other people, maybe that is why we get threatened in return.

This is part of "natural law" from which our Constitutional principles are derived.
The law of reciprocity applies to all people, where we get the equal respect we enforce.

Thank you, Gentlemen
I am with you in the commitment to enforce the laws equally for all people
to prevent any infringement or abuse by resolving any threat or conflict civilly in advance.

It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. They were bullying and intimidating.

I isn't bulling or intimidating simply because some libtards pissed their pants.

We had a similar incident in a town in Virginia when someone walked into a Krogers with an assault rifle. It caused chaos and total fear. The police came and calmed things down. The man has been banded from the store for life. What did he prove, other than he is an idiot.

He proved what a bunch of cowards the PC Nazis are.

Disarming a population is only done by the fascists and Marxists who want no challenge to the power of the state. So which are you?

Emily, one doesn't need to be there to know what happened. The liberal left has a history of "overreacting and not respecting rights to bear arms legally". Their overreactions are played out on here daily. IMO

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, one doesn't need to be there to know what happened. The liberal left has a history of "overreacting and not respecting rights to bear arms legally". Their overreactions are played out on here daily. IMO

Hi Lonestar:
by the concept of Constitutional due process, we are not allowed to convict and punish an individual based on what the "liberal left has a history of doing."

A. the people in the actual scenario need to follow due process to redress grievances and be held responsible for their reactions, overreactions, abuses, impositions or threats.

B. the people here need to be held to our own words, perceptions and judgments.

So if someone is right or wrong, it's because we are consistent with our own system.
This is independent of our affiliation, and whether "other people" in the same group are traditionally wrong.

Of this group, I believe rightwinger and I are trying to be fair, minus any name calling which I understand is part of forum pecking order or pack mentality.

Any such namecalling back and forth is distracting and not fair, but
I am willing to forgive that because of the bad history that came from "the past" none of us can change.

But I am not willing to repeat the same mistakes, or that does become my fault. That is our choice and responsibility to change how we react in the future.

Please note I am a progressive Democrat, but happen to put Constitutional laws before any of the party principles, especially where it poses a conflict of interest.

LL I do hold Democrats and liberals personally responsible for correcting violations and threats to Constitutional equal protections.

But I find the best way is to hold people INDIVIDUALLY responsible first.
Only if other members of the left/liberals/Democrats agree to take on the entire
lobby, then we might better address that collective level -- among members within.

But attacking an individual, and assuming they are guilty by association,
is not going to come across effectively as it appears to be skirting due process
and judging someone as guilty by their affiliation. That distracts from what they actually said right or wrong.

What makes someone wrong is when we contradict our own words or principles
by which we judge others. So that can be corrected, but by addressing each other
individually with respect for one another and for the laws, including due process itself.

Thank you, LL
I agree this problem needs to be corrected, but in the right way or it goes in circles!

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Emily, one doesn't need to be there to know what happened. The liberal left has a history of "overreacting and not respecting rights to bear arms legally". Their overreactions are played out on here daily. IMO

Hi Lonestar:
by the concept of Constitutional due process, we are not allowed to convict and punish an individual based on what the "liberal left has a history of doing."

A. the people in the actual scenario need to follow due process to redress grievances and be held responsible for their reactions, overreactions, abuses, impositions or threats.

B. the people here need to be held to our own words, perceptions and judgments.

So if someone is right or wrong, it's because we are consistent with our own system.
This is independent of our affiliation, and whether "other people" in the same group are traditionally wrong.

Of this group, I believe rightwinger and I are trying to be fair, minus any name calling which I understand is part of forum pecking order or pack mentality.

Any such namecalling back and forth is distracting and not fair, but
I am willing to forgive that because of the bad history that came from "the past" none of us can change.

But I am not willing to repeat the same mistakes, or that does become my fault. That is our choice and responsibility to change how we react in the future.

Please note I am a progressive Democrat, but happen to put Constitutional laws before any of the party principles, especially where it poses a conflict of interest.

LL I do hold Democrats and liberals personally responsible for correcting violations and threats to Constitutional equal protections.

But I find the best way is to hold people INDIVIDUALLY responsible first.
Only if other members of the left/liberals/Democrats agree to take on the entire
lobby, then we might better address that collective level -- among members within.

But attacking an individual, and assuming they are guilty by association,
is not going to come across effectively as it appears to be skirting due process
and judging someone as guilty by their affiliation. That distracts from what they actually said right or wrong.

What makes someone wrong is when we contradict our own words or principles
by which we judge others. So that can be corrected, but by addressing each other
individually with respect for one another and for the laws, including due process itself.

Thank you, LL
I agree this problem needs to be corrected, but in the right way or it goes in circles!

Yours truly,
Emily

No one has suggested not honoring due process. In this story there was no violations of due process, so why even bring it up? This story is typical of left wing hysteria when it comes to anyone exercising their second amendment rights. They are the ones that over-reacted. In an open carry state such as where I live (Texas), it is not my fault that my right to openly carry a long gun upsets people. That is their problem to deal with.

The right way to solve this problem is for those on the left to respect the rights or everyone, not just those they agree with.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one has suggested not honoring due process. In this story there was no violations of due process, so why even bring it up? This story is typical of left wing hysteria when it comes to anyone exercising their second amendment rights. They are the ones that over-reacted. In an open carry state such as where I live (Texas), it is not my fault that my right to openly carry a long gun upsets people. That is their problem to deal with.

The right way to solve this problem is for those on the left to respect the rights or everyone, not just those they agree with.

I'm glad we agree on due process.
If anyone "jumped the gun" and assumed someone was guilty, then it is bypassing due process to act in a punitive way and deprive someone of their rights.

So if this is how you see the situation, I agree it is wrongful to bypass due process and start depriving people of liberty based on assumption of guilt.

However, my point remains it is equally wrong to "jump the gun" and assume this or that about the people if we weren't there.

If we start doing that, start presuming guilt and saying things like "it is not necessary to be there" to know which people were guilty of violating rights of others"
that, Lonestar, is equally wrong as the people we accuse of making presumptions of guilt.

So that is why it is not just "their problem" but becomes "our problem," when we jump in doing the same thing, and start making assumptions about guilt as the people we criticize.

Lonestar, at this point, even if the gun owners in the situation were right,
the act of accusing others (as well as anyone else associated) is just as problematic.

Can you and I agree that is the SAME mistake the people make who assume the worst about gun owners and gun rights activists?

What if they said "I don't need to be there to know" and assumed you were in the wrong.
Wouldn't you stop them right there before they made assumptions about you?