Texas Pro-Gun Crusaders Take Extreme Open Carry Approach

[KNB]

Since criminals don't follow laws, why have any laws? "It's to punish people when they break those laws."

Correct.

What is my response to that? George W. Bush, Barack Obama, HSBC, GM, BP, Monsanto, Pfizer, etc. etc. etc. Every corporation or individual that breaks serious laws is supposed to face the same Justice [and do not]...

Aww... iit's cute that you thnk the fact that some people (supposedly) break the law and are not punished changes the fact that we enact laws not to prevent people form doing things but punish them when they do.

Nothing in your rants will ever change the soundness of that statement.

We've seen the "soundness" of a Republican's argument. It does not result in Justice.

The Record on CURVEBALL

 

[SmedlyButler]

Texas Pro-Gun Crusaders Take Extreme Open Carry Approach - YouTube

If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.

Some of you are saying that the immediate conclusion that there is danger inherent in this situation is irrational. We (and the simplest logic tree) are saying that some unknown level of danger is involved a priori. We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.

Unnecessarily inducing even a modest amount of fear in an innocent group of restaurant patrons is disturbing the peace.

Can someone explain why it isn't that simple?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"The only reason that crime has decline in the last decade or so, is because we have incarcerated more people than any other country on the planet, and because we have allowed those who are armed, more ability to defend themselves and others."

Nope. Violent crime has been declining for decades due to the aging of the baby boomers.

Wait....
If violent crime has been declining for decades whilwe the number of guns increases by a few million every year, doesn't that pretty much destroy the claim that more guns = more crime?

I never made that argument.

 

[Contumacious]

If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger.?

Answer this question first:

How the fuck do you prevent people like

James Holmes

from entering a business establishment , where people come to be entertained, from mass murdering?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And not guns. Right?

Guns are the easiest means of committing a crime. A crime that would be justified would be to riddle the CEOs of weapons companies with bullets from their own firearms until the military-industrial complex understands that people are not supposed to profit from death and misery. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, etc.

Hey!

Its been almost 12 hours since you asked why, when laws do not prevent people from breaking the law, we enact any laws at all, and had your question answered for the 2nd time.

Were you going tio respond to the answer, or were you going to ask agan in a day or two, still thinking you're clever and relevant?

So answer it again. What is the point of passing any law if criminals don't follow any laws?

For the THIRD time in fewer days

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ll-regulated-militia-mean-35.html#post9343997
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...treme-open-carry-approach-12.html#post9348370

All criminal, and most civil, law exists so that the state can punish people who step outside the boundaries set by society and violate the rights of others.
That is, laws against murder do not and can not prevent murder, only punish people who commit it.

Now then -- do you have an effective response, or are you going to pretend you haven't been answered yet again?

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress; it is not a bunch of overweight middle aged white guys carrying the stars and bars and guns down Maint St. USA, or confronting Federal Authorities defending a scaflaw who denies the authority of the Federal Court.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".

 

[Contumacious]

Guns are the easiest means of committing a crime. A crime that would be justified would be to riddle the CEOs of weapons companies with bullets from their own firearms until the military-industrial complex understands that people are not supposed to profit from death and misery. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, etc.


So answer it again. What is the point of passing any law if criminals don't follow any laws?

For the THIRD time in fewer days

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ll-regulated-militia-mean-35.html#post9343997
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...treme-open-carry-approach-12.html#post9348370

All criminal, and most civil, law exists so that the state can punish people who step outside the boundaries set by society and violate the rights of others.
That is, laws against murder do not and can not prevent murder, only punish people who commit it.

Now then -- do you have an effective response, or are you going to pretend you haven't been answered yet again?

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress; it is not a bunch of overweight middle aged white guys carrying the stars and bars and guns down Maint St. USA, or confronting Federal Authorities defending a scaflaw who denies the authority of the Federal Court.

How about those of us who are over weight COLORED PEOPLE?

Was he denying the "authority" of the Federal Court or objecting to the fact that we no longer have Article III federal courts?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Vorskla]

If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".

This is the beauty of freedom. You can do whatever you want and not enter whatever establishment you wish (I would also recommend not entering biker bars - 1%ters are vicious these days, I hear).
Though, from what I understand, there are plenty of states in the US (unlike Texas) where trying to own a gun is a legal nightmare and being openly seen with a pistol, much less a rifle, in public will be severely punished by law. So, you should just stick to those states and this kind of issue will never come up for you

 

[Two Thumbs]

Wow. Freakin' psychos.

yea the cop that arrested him for having a rifle was a true tyrant.

everyone else is just doing what they are allowed to do.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We've seen the "soundness" of a Republican's argument. It does not result in Justice.

Nothing you posted changes the fact that we enact laws not to prevent people form doing things but punish them when they do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the THIRD time in fewer days

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ll-regulated-militia-mean-35.html#post9343997
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...treme-open-carry-approach-12.html#post9348370

All criminal, and most civil, law exists so that the state can punish people who step outside the boundaries set by society and violate the rights of others.
That is, laws against murder do not and can not prevent murder, only punish people who commit it.

Now then -- do you have an effective response, or are you going to pretend you haven't been answered yet again?

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress; it is not a bunch of overweight middle aged white guys carrying the stars and bars and guns down Maint St. USA, or confronting Federal Authorities defending a scaflaw who denies the authority of the Federal Court.

How about those of us who are over weight COLORED PEOPLE?

Was he denying the "authority" of the Federal Court or objecting to the fact that we no longer have Article III federal courts?!?!?!?!?

.

Mea Culpa, there was one black guy in the OP video. Much like the big tent of the Republican Party let's pretend the open carry club is diverse.

You need to clarify your comment, what do you mean by "we no longer have Article III Federal Courts"? There are trial courts, appelate courts and the Supreme Court, see:

Structure of Federal Courts

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a man walks into a restaurant carrying an AR-15 the other patrons (families with young children included) must immediately assess the situation. To a rational person, especially a parent, a man in open possession of a firearm in a densely populated urban setting with no apparent or obvious need for a weapon (e.g. is not an officer of the law) represents a danger. The scope of danger to be assessed ranges from accidental discharge to (more unlikely but still in play) the most extreme possibility that he is a James Eagan Holmes type psychopath intent on murderous mayhem.

Just so I understand, you state here that the danger of aacidental discharge, which we know is extraordinarily small, is greater than that of a mass shooter - right?
If that's the case, then immediately puckering your sphincter and rushing to the door is, at best an over-reaction to an irrational fear.

Some of you are saying that the immediate conclusion that there is danger inherent in this situation is irrational. We (and the simplest logic tree) are saying that some unknown level of danger is involved a priori.

See above.
There is a exceedingly tiny danger from accidental discharge, and a smaller danger, as you say, of a shooter. Thus, irrational.

We're saying that it is not fair that the public has to contend with this individuals risks without exigent cause. We're saying a show demonstrating 2ndA rights is not exigent cause.

Wait... people should be denied their 2A rights because of an irrational fear of a few? Funny, but no - that's not how things work here.

What gets me here is the fact certain people are terrorized when know someone legally has a gun while they are comfortable - at least to the point that they do not break out in mass hysteria --when they do NOT when people legally have guns.

The difference? Irrational fear - they are so wrapped up in their own mal-imaginations as to the inherent evil of certain guns that they cannot control themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The only reason that crime has decline in the last decade or so, is because we have incarcerated more people than any other country on the planet, and because we have allowed those who are armed, more ability to defend themselves and others."

Nope. Violent crime has been declining for decades due to the aging of the baby boomers.

Wait....
If violent crime has been declining for decades whilwe the number of guns increases by a few million every year, doesn't that pretty much destroy the claim that more guns = more crime?

I never made that argument.

And so, you agree that said argument is unsound.
Correct?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Guns are the easiest means of committing a crime. A crime that would be justified would be to riddle the CEOs of weapons companies with bullets from their own firearms until the military-industrial complex understands that people are not supposed to profit from death and misery. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, BAE, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc. Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, etc.


So answer it again. What is the point of passing any law if criminals don't follow any laws?

For the THIRD time in fewer days

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ll-regulated-militia-mean-35.html#post9343997
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...treme-open-carry-approach-12.html#post9348370

All criminal, and most civil, law exists so that the state can punish people who step outside the boundaries set by society and violate the rights of others.

That is, laws against murder do not and can not prevent murder, only punish people who commit it.

Now then -- do you have an effective response, or are you going to pretend you haven't been answered yet again?

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress;

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Thus, your starement is imeaningless, and irrelevant as a response to my post.

But then, you knew that when you posted it.
Why you chose to be meaningless and irrelevant is beyond me, but you apparently enjoy it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a business owner allows idiots to enter their place of business with AR-15's slung over their shoulders, I am not going to enter that business, or I will leave it immediately. I don't care if the law allows it or not. I do not even want to be under the same roof as people like that. I will do business with his competitor who has a sign on his front door reading, "No firearms allowed".

Afraid, this one is - in him, irrational fear is strong.

 

[KNB]

You accuse everyone else of being meaningless and irrelevant while you're sitting in a Chili's with an assault rifle.

That's why you're a fucking moron. The NSA is still spying on you. The big government is still taking your rights. You 2nd Amendment advocates don't know shit so you think that you're fighting a "revolution" by being douches with assault rifles in a restaurant.

Storm the Pentagon or shut the fuck up. Quit your grandstanding and all of your bullshit and stand up for the US Constitution. Bush wiped his ass with our laws and Obama protected him so that Obama could do the same. Go, 2nd Amendment "freedom fighters". Go fight against the big oppressive US government or shut the fuck up. The 2nd Amendment is not to defend your television from black people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

For the THIRD time in fewer days

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ll-regulated-militia-mean-35.html#post9343997
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...treme-open-carry-approach-12.html#post9348370

All criminal, and most civil, law exists so that the state can punish people who step outside the boundaries set by society and violate the rights of others.

That is, laws against murder do not and can not prevent murder, only punish people who commit it.

Now then -- do you have an effective response, or are you going to pretend you haven't been answered yet again?

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress;

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Thus, your starement is imeaningless, and irrelevant as a response to my post.

But then, you knew that when you posted it.
Why you chose to be meaningless and irrelevant is beyond me, but you apparently enjoy it.

Heller is no more settled law than was Dred Scott; in fact Dred Scott was considered Dictum by many citizens in the 19th Century and many of us today believe the Heller decision (5-4) was Dictum too.

 

[Contumacious]

Once again, a well regulated militia is one organized, armed and disciplined by The Congress; it is not a bunch of overweight middle aged white guys carrying the stars and bars and guns down Maint St. USA, or confronting Federal Authorities defending a scaflaw who denies the authority of the Federal Court.

How about those of us who are over weight COLORED PEOPLE?

Was he denying the "authority" of the Federal Court or objecting to the fact that we no longer have Article III federal courts?!?!?!?!?

.

Mea Culpa, there was one black guy in the OP video. Much like the big tent of the Republican Party let's pretend the open carry club is diverse.

You need to clarify your comment, what do you mean by "we no longer have Article III Federal Courts"? There are trial courts, appelate courts and the Supreme Court, see:

Structure of Federal Courts

Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.

Nowadays their job is to pretend that we have judicial review, collect steady paychecks and enjoy theirr federal blue cross blue shield.

Back in 1935 they concealed , suppressed , censored Justice James Clark McReynolds's dissenting opinion opposing the encroaching power of the welfare/warfare state. Once that happens you no longer have a judiciary.

.

 

[KNB]

If there aren't any laws, then job creators are free to make as much money as they possibly can. More rich job creators means more jobs. That's how trickle down economics works.

Rich people have been doing great without a court system. What are you upset about?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Federal Courts were destroyed primarily in 1935 when one scumbag known as FDR threatened to abolish SCOTUS. The "justices" succumbed and have approved every welfare/warfare state measure since then.

Packing the court is not the same as doing away with it. Learn history.