Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When people hide in a freezer upon seeing a person(s) with a gun it's safe to say they were freaked out. Or do people normally hide in freezers for no reason?
See? You're assuming. That's what "it's safe to say" means.
And also ignoring the 911 call as a factor. Have you not created your own timeline with "upon seeing a person(s) wth a gun"? You don't know that alone was the catalyst, that's the point.
And even if it is, you don't know what they saw or interpreted in the way of, say, threatening body language. And the fact remains it's a restaurant -- not a shooting range. Which means there's no discernible reason for people to be approaching it with firearms ----- unless they intended to rob the place.
And voilà, we're back where we started.
Are you really as stupid as you seem?
Why else would they hide in a freezer if not for seeing the men with rifles? Why else would they dial 911?
It was never reported the men with rifles approached the restaurant. I draw my conclusions based on what was reported, you are making shit up per the liberal standard of dishonesty and trying to read more into than what was reported.
Just stick to the facts as we know them.
The employees saw men with guns, thought they were being robbed and hid in the freezer. They freaked out! It was never reported the "armed" men ever entered the establishment.
If you would watch the video accompanying the article you would see how the anti-gun idiot overreacts.
The management and the employees have all stated they did not hide in the cooler. This was already linked at least once. The claim was a lie.
Further in a State with open carry where people have been carrying for MONTHS in that area, why would they suddenly feel afraid?
Perhaps you can link for us when the last time armed robbers openly slung rifles on their shoulders brazenly walked about and THEN resorted to robbery?
Personally if I were the cop I would arrest the idiot that made the 911 call for false reporting.
Did you even read the article?
No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.
Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.
Hi LL sorry this wasn't clear
the "due process" applies to "judging PEOPLE for wrongs or wrongful intent"
(not whether events happened or not)
as for what caused them to hide, what happened to the part of the story that
a false alarm or some other warning [false 911 call from customer?] caused them to go hide?
If the gun owners had zero criminal intent, I can see how no charges would be filed
(to prevent even more headache and media frenzy over the controversy and confusion).
But even if their actions "unintentionally" caused a breach of the peace, and scared employees, disrupting business operations at their workplace, that is still an imposition on those workers and that business, even if no crime occurred.
I'm glad they worked it out peaceably without further incident, and nobody got hurt.
If they saw the differences in intent and perception were mutual, perhaps it was equal.
Still I do not see how anyone can be blamed for how they react to guns when there was not an agreement in advance how to deal with this crowd and what to expect.
[Note: it says that after employees were assured by police that there was no threat, "some even took photos" with the protestors.
if they were "trying to be overreactive" or ugly to each other, would they have been on friendly terms afterwards? wasn't this an honest
mistake because of past gun confrontations that have happened before? weren't they just trying to be safe and call police instead?]
I see some people arts clinging to the lies of the gun grabbers.
Molon Labe
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?
I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.
Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?
Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?
The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.
Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat to anyone.
Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that. And the blanket statement that 'person X carrying a gun is by definition not a threat' is clearly inoperative. Because there are plenty of times when he absolutely is.
I see some people arts clinging to the lies of the gun grabbers.
Molon Labe
The gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more, which is typical of the left.
I see some people arts clinging to the lies of the gun grabbers.
Molon Labe
The gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more, which is typical of the left.
not just the gun grabbers but pretty much all leftists
Did you even read the article?
No one but Emily that I'm aware of brought up "due process" which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with the article.
Saying you can't know motivations because you weren't there is stupid, what were the motivations of those that tore down the Berlin Wall? Well you can't know because you weren't there. What were the motivations of those that put man on the moon? You can't know because you weren't there. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Yes they are ignorant people, they see law abiding citizens with rifles and they freak out because they do not know the law, by definition that is ignorant.
Hi LL sorry this wasn't clear
the "due process" applies to "judging PEOPLE for wrongs or wrongful intent"
(not whether events happened or not)
as for what caused them to hide, what happened to the part of the story that
a false alarm or some other warning [false 911 call from customer?] caused them to go hide?
If the gun owners had zero criminal intent, I can see how no charges would be filed
(to prevent even more headache and media frenzy over the controversy and confusion).
But even if their actions "unintentionally" caused a breach of the peace, and scared employees, disrupting business operations at their workplace, that is still an imposition on those workers and that business, even if no crime occurred.
I'm glad they worked it out peaceably without further incident, and nobody got hurt.
If they saw the differences in intent and perception were mutual, perhaps it was equal.
Still I do not see how anyone can be blamed for how they react to guns when there was not an agreement in advance how to deal with this crowd and what to expect.
[Note: it says that after employees were assured by police that there was no threat, "some even took photos" with the protestors.
if they were "trying to be overreactive" or ugly to each other, would they have been on friendly terms afterwards? wasn't this an honest
mistake because of past gun confrontations that have happened before? weren't they just trying to be safe and call police instead?]
Great response, however, the person that made the bogus 911 call is responsible for the 'imposition'. not the legally carrying demonstrators.
I disagree with your "if we weren't there" comment.
Do you have to be present to look at the facts presented and draw a conclusion?
Were you there when the Berlin Wall came down or when man walked on the moon? Do you discount the events as told by the people that were there because you wasn't there?
The fact is, no laws were broken, no one went to jail or was given a citation. It was an overreaction by ignorant people concerning our gun laws. The men never even entered the restaurant according to the news article.
Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat to anyone.
Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that. And the blanket statement that 'person X carrying a gun is by definition not a threat' is clearly inoperative. Because there are plenty of times when he absolutely is.
but more times it isn't. that's like saying if you see a black person walking down the street its a threat, because plenty of times it is
Of course. The perfect time to employ your deadly 'sleepfu'
Actually, 3am is the perfect time for most clandestine activity...people are either already sleeping or totally exhausted.
And that's when his only skills come into play. See, he is such a damn badass that he can threaten to beat people with a bat while they are asleep. Yes, he is that tough. He walked the earth for years studying at the feet of masters in order to learn this deadly art. Truly, a steely-eyed hard case.
Hi LL sorry this wasn't clear
the "due process" applies to "judging PEOPLE for wrongs or wrongful intent"
(not whether events happened or not)
as for what caused them to hide, what happened to the part of the story that
a false alarm or some other warning [false 911 call from customer?] caused them to go hide?
If the gun owners had zero criminal intent, I can see how no charges would be filed
(to prevent even more headache and media frenzy over the controversy and confusion).
But even if their actions "unintentionally" caused a breach of the peace, and scared employees, disrupting business operations at their workplace, that is still an imposition on those workers and that business, even if no crime occurred.
I'm glad they worked it out peaceably without further incident, and nobody got hurt.
If they saw the differences in intent and perception were mutual, perhaps it was equal.
Still I do not see how anyone can be blamed for how they react to guns when there was not an agreement in advance how to deal with this crowd and what to expect.
[Note: it says that after employees were assured by police that there was no threat, "some even took photos" with the protestors.
if they were "trying to be overreactive" or ugly to each other, would they have been on friendly terms afterwards? wasn't this an honest
mistake because of past gun confrontations that have happened before? weren't they just trying to be safe and call police instead?]
Great response, however, the person that made the bogus 911 call is responsible for the 'imposition'. not the legally carrying demonstrators.
Perhaps, but if that Jack in the Box had gun confrontations with customers in the past, I would not be so quick to blame how people reacted. I would call it even at mutual -- mutual misperception by others, and failure of the gun owners for not making their intent known in advance because they didn't know that location had such a history.
On that note, you can also blame the "people who abuse guns to MAKE it a problem of not being able to tell the difference."
Now THIS I WOULD blame on the criminals. I DO believe that people who abuse firearms to commit abuses or crimes HARM the rights of others to carry firearms for lawful intent.
So I DO believe there should be additional laws and requirements in place, to educate and train people and ensure there is an advanced signed agreement and commitment to exercise the right to bear arms for defense of the law only, and not to commit any breach, abuse or crime. I believe especially that abusing firearms to commit a PREMEDITATED crime such as rape or robbery should come with an agreement to forfeit citizenship if convicted of such a premeditated crime (where it is also agreed that "due process" involves full cooperation and disclosure with authorities so there is no doubt that such a crime was committed, ie raise the standards on due process to make sure there are no false convictions if citizenship is going to ride on this condition); so that people take responsibility for the right to bear arms.
I believe THAT is a better standard to enforce, than "trying to ban guns at public places."
We DO need to distinguish the people with criminal intent to abuse weapons; so why not screen these out in advance by having districts "opt in" to local ordinances where the residents AGREE on signed terms for upholding the laws if citizens are going to carry firearms freely.
The citizens clearly do not agree to the ban. So why not sit down and write out what terms the residents DO agree to sign onto, in order to be assured which citizens are law abiding.
The ordinance should be written and agreed upon by all residents in that community, so anyone with criminal intent will be screened out in the process and/or not allowed in that district.
That would do more to unite the community on the law and weed out criminal influences.
If it works in one community, it would likely catch on in others, where there is ZERO tolerance for criminal intent (instead of punishing law abiding gun owners because people can't tell the difference).
Horribly dysfunctional analogy. Nobody protested that the Berlin Wall or the moon landing was a violation of due process. Or a threat to anyone.
Emily's right; we're in no position to judge motivations if we didn't witness it. Your assessment of "overreaction by ignorant people" is no more informed than "they all scrambled into the freezer". Because you don't know that. And the blanket statement that 'person X carrying a gun is by definition not a threat' is clearly inoperative. Because there are plenty of times when he absolutely is.
but more times it isn't. that's like saying if you see a black person walking down the street its a threat, because plenty of times it is
It's one thing to react. It's another thing to take it so far as to BLAME and ACCUSE the person for how you reacted.
Also, it is interesting that taking care "not to judge if we didn't witness it"
equally applies to "assuming" if the employees really hid in the freezer or not.
In any case, if the Jack in the Box had past confrontations with customers with guns,
I would blame any CRIMINALS who created this environment of "not knowing" who has lawful or unlawful intent. For the people who committed NO crime, they are indirectly
affected by those people in the past who committed crimes, so people reacted as they did.
Those criminals who were disruptive in the past thus imposed on the rights of others.
That's where the problem and blame really starts.
Citizens who want unrestricted gun rights thus face the added responsibility for addressing that problem, so the wrong people don't get punished for the criminal abuses of others.
As with the health care bill, the Liberals are too happy to pass laws putting the burden on lawabiding citizens to deprive us of liberty, instead of going after the real violators causing the burden. So like everything else, it is up to the Constitutionalists to find BETTER ways of solving the problem, instead of "passing more laws after the fact" that affect and punish lawabiding citizens (who are easy to hold to laws while letting the very criminals causing the problems get away with abuses who aren't so easy to police!) Same old, same old.
Where is the fast-forward button on this learning curve?
Actually, 3am is the perfect time for most clandestine activity...people are either already sleeping or totally exhausted.
And that's when his only skills come into play. See, he is such a damn badass that he can threaten to beat people with a bat while they are asleep. Yes, he is that tough. He walked the earth for years studying at the feet of masters in order to learn this deadly art. Truly, a steely-eyed hard case.
You didn't read his post, did you. (That is not a question.)
The gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more, which is typical of the left.
not just the gun grabbers but pretty much all leftists
I know leftists that are still honest people, but they can get no oxygen as the Big Lie Media sells add time on the basis of controversy, and thus ignores them.
It is the leftwing agitators who are the liars and the leftwing trolls that infest this message board.
I see some people arts clinging to the lies of the gun grabbers.
Molon Labe
The gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more, which is typical of the left.
not just the gun grabbers but pretty much all leftists
The gun grabbers lie, lie and lie some more, which is typical of the left.
not just the gun grabbers but pretty much all leftists
You actually believe a political philosophy leads to a character trait?
Maybe in your case...
not just the gun grabbers but pretty much all leftists
You actually believe a political philosophy leads to a character trait?
Maybe in your case...
yes
i used to be a full blown liberal
You actually believe a political philosophy leads to a character trait?
Maybe in your case...
yes
i used to be a full blown liberal
So you think you're a liar?
Because you may be right about that, and lying about being a Liberal.
