CDZ Texas Open-Carry Laws Blurred Lines Between Suspects and Marchers

[Divine Wind]

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Do you assume police will start shooting anyone carrying a gun?

Which of my sentences are you referring to? The first is self-explanatory, and so are those that follow. There is a reason militaries like to put uniforms on their soldiers; that way they have a better chance of identifying and distinguishing between their own and the enemy soldiers. How is one going to make those distinctions in a mall or somewhere with no police around and 20 or 30 people carrying weapons around who don't know each other? It's a recipe for some serious screwing up.

The one where you violated "innocent until proven guilty": "I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents".

FWIW, what percentage of police officers do you assume were there compared to protesters? How long do you think it would take them to "check out these people"? Do you think all people who are exercising their enumerated Constitutional rights should be checked out by the police or do you think only those you don't like or disagree with should be checked out? Please expand on your position regarding American citizens and their Constitutional rights.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Do you assume police will start shooting anyone carrying a gun?

Which of my sentences are you referring to? The first is self-explanatory, and so are those that follow. There is a reason militaries like to put uniforms on their soldiers; that way they have a better chance of identifying and distinguishing between their own and the enemy soldiers. How is one going to make those distinctions in a mall or somewhere with no police around and 20 or 30 people carrying weapons around who don't know each other? It's a recipe for some serious screwing up. I, for one, am never going to make such an assumption if I hear gunfire breaking out in a Wally World or any other place; everybody carrying that isn't a cop is suspect as far as my personal safety and my family's is concerned. I have no way of telling if it's a loner or several vermin involved,. Pistols are far less of a threat than a rifle with 30 round magazines, period.

And yet in two mass public shootings....the Gifford's shooting and the Dallas shooting......you are shown to be wrong.....in the Gifford's shooting there were at a minimum two concealed carry gun owners on the scene...they did not fire their weapons because they did not have to and they were not shot by responding police.....

The Dallas shooting you had individuals with rifles openly carried....and when the shooting started they did not join in, they let the police on the scene handle it...and they were not shot by the police......

Your post is wrong......

A pistol murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech.......

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yesterday I heard this asshole referred to as a martyr.

Black Lives Matters needs to be classified as a hate group.

and a domestic terror organization

 

[Picaro]

The one where you violated "innocent until proven guilty": "I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents".

Since I didn't do any of that, I guess you're just making it up; since when is one required to wait for a court ruling to begin defending oneself in a situation from being shot??? That's ridiculous.

FWIW, what percentage of police officers do you assume were there compared to protesters?

Doesn't matter.

How long do you think it would take them to "check out these people"?

Probably not long, since the parade participants gathered at single spot, and according to the videos I've seen made a point of introducing themselves to officers before the march started.

Do you think all people who are exercising their enumerated Constitutional rights should be checked out by the police or do you think only those you don't like or disagree with should be checked out? Please expand on your position regarding American citizens and their Constitutional rights.

what I think is you're avoiding answering the second part of my post, because you know what I'm saying makes sense, while you can't come up with a sane rebuttal.

As for a Black Lice Matter rally, noted for their 'Pigs In Blanket! More Dead Cops Now!' schtick, there would nothing at all wrong with the police just shooting the vermin on sight, especially if they're carrying rifles; they have no right to the benefit of the doubt, period, despite the dissembling about 'Constitutional rights'. Police aren't required wait around and get shot, assaulted, or anything else in such circumstance, despite your weird belief otherwise.

 

[Picaro]

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Do you assume police will start shooting anyone carrying a gun?

Which of my sentences are you referring to? The first is self-explanatory, and so are those that follow. There is a reason militaries like to put uniforms on their soldiers; that way they have a better chance of identifying and distinguishing between their own and the enemy soldiers. How is one going to make those distinctions in a mall or somewhere with no police around and 20 or 30 people carrying weapons around who don't know each other? It's a recipe for some serious screwing up. I, for one, am never going to make such an assumption if I hear gunfire breaking out in a Wally World or any other place; everybody carrying that isn't a cop is suspect as far as my personal safety and my family's is concerned. I have no way of telling if it's a loner or several vermin involved,. Pistols are far less of a threat than a rifle with 30 round magazines, period.

And yet in two mass public shootings....the Gifford's shooting and the Dallas shooting......you are shown to be wrong.....in the Gifford's shooting there were at a minimum two concealed carry gun owners on the scene...they did not fire their weapons because they did not have to and they were not shot by responding police.....

The Dallas shooting you had individuals with rifles openly carried....and when the shooting started they did not join in, they let the police on the scene handle it...and they were not shot by the police......

Your post is wrong......

A pistol murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech.......

throw up all the anecdotes you want, it doesn't make your point valid, especially since your 'side' of the argument doesn't have a 100% accuracy stat, either, so you can't require that of anybody else's points. And, the situation in Dallas was a fluke; you can bet it won't play out that way 100% of the time, especially with more and more shootings happening, thanks to the media fanning the flames and still treating Black Lice Matter as some sort of legitimate protest group.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Do you assume police will start shooting anyone carrying a gun?

Which of my sentences are you referring to? The first is self-explanatory, and so are those that follow. There is a reason militaries like to put uniforms on their soldiers; that way they have a better chance of identifying and distinguishing between their own and the enemy soldiers. How is one going to make those distinctions in a mall or somewhere with no police around and 20 or 30 people carrying weapons around who don't know each other? It's a recipe for some serious screwing up. I, for one, am never going to make such an assumption if I hear gunfire breaking out in a Wally World or any other place; everybody carrying that isn't a cop is suspect as far as my personal safety and my family's is concerned. I have no way of telling if it's a loner or several vermin involved,. Pistols are far less of a threat than a rifle with 30 round magazines, period.

And yet in two mass public shootings....the Gifford's shooting and the Dallas shooting......you are shown to be wrong.....in the Gifford's shooting there were at a minimum two concealed carry gun owners on the scene...they did not fire their weapons because they did not have to and they were not shot by responding police.....

The Dallas shooting you had individuals with rifles openly carried....and when the shooting started they did not join in, they let the police on the scene handle it...and they were not shot by the police......

Your post is wrong......

A pistol murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech.......

throw up all the anecdotes you want, it doesn't make your point valid, especially since your 'side' of the argument doesn't have a 100% accuracy stat, either, so you can't require that of anybody else's points. And, the situation in Dallas was fluke; you can bet it won't play out that way 100% of the time.

Except it did in Gifford's shooting.....and you guys aren't into 100% anyway....you keep telling us that when we point out that none of your new gun laws will stop one criminal or mass shooter....you tell us...Well of course it won't stop all of them.....and then you say that it is okay to violate rights based on that.......

You are wrong....Dallas and Tucson showed you are wrong...

 

[Picaro]

[
Except it did in Gifford's shooting.....and you guys aren't into 100% anyway....you keep telling us that when we point out that none of your new gun laws will stop one criminal or mass shooter....you tell us...Well of course it won't stop all of them.....and then you say that it is okay to violate rights based on that.......

You are wrong....Dallas and Tucson showed you are wrong...

Who is 'you guys'? ... And your two examples aren't enough to claim my cases are invalid, no matter how much you keep repeating them. You're the one claiming the other side has to be 100% 'right', while you hold no such standards for your arguments.

And, since you like anecdotes, one police officer here took out two terrorists with body armor and rifles with just his service pistol not long ago. According to you, that invalidates any need to carry rifles around at all.

 

[2aguy]

[
Except it did in Gifford's shooting.....and you guys aren't into 100% anyway....you keep telling us that when we point out that none of your new gun laws will stop one criminal or mass shooter....you tell us...Well of course it won't stop all of them.....and then you say that it is okay to violate rights based on that.......

You are wrong....Dallas and Tucson showed you are wrong...

Who is 'you guys'? ... And your two examples aren't enough to claim my cases are invalid, no matter how much you keep repeating them. You're the one claiming the other side has to be 100% 'right', while you hold no such standards for your arguments.

And, since you like anecdotes, one police officer here took out two terrorists with body armor and rifles with just his service pistol not long ago. According to you, that invalidates any need to carry rifles around at all.

Nope.....the need for rifles is to prevent the government from becoming like the Mexican government......it is not based on a police officer using his pistol to kill two muslim terrorists with 2 shots, 2 hits and 2 kills.......

We have two real world events....actual mass public shootings with actual gun carring civilians....and nothing you keep claiming would happen...happened.....

 

[martybegan]

Then how did the Assault Weapons Ban survive Supreme Court scrutiny for ten years?

Bad judges.

If bad judges wasn't code for "issued a ruling I disagree with" someone might take you seriously.

Its rulings that go beyond interpretation and into bench legislation. Strict construction has the issue with it along with me.

 

[Divine Wind]

Since I didn't do any of that.....

LOL

 

[Picaro]

Nope.....the need for rifles is to prevent the government from becoming like the Mexican government......it is not based on a police officer using his pistol to kill two muslim terrorists with 2 shots, 2 hits and 2 kills......

According to your standards of proof, it very much is..

We have two real world events....actual mass public shootings with actual gun carring civilians....and nothing you keep claiming would happen...happened.....

Weren't the shooters in Dallas and Baton Rouge openly carrying rifles? Why are they exempt from your tiny number of anecdotes? They were civilians, weren't they? Did the Orlando shooter have his rifle hidden in his pants pocket? Was he not a civilian?

 

[Picaro]

Since I didn't do any of that.....

LOL

Yes, I didn't think you would answer.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes, I didn't think you would answer.

Correct: You don't think.

You obviously don't understand your own posts either:

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

 

[2aguy]

Nope.....the need for rifles is to prevent the government from becoming like the Mexican government......it is not based on a police officer using his pistol to kill two muslim terrorists with 2 shots, 2 hits and 2 kills......

According to your standards of proof, it very much is..

We have two real world events....actual mass public shootings with actual gun carring civilians....and nothing you keep claiming would happen...happened.....

Weren't the shooters in Dallas and Baton Rouge openly carrying rifles? Why are they exempt from your tiny number of anecdotes? They were civilians, weren't they? Did the Orlando shooter have his rifle hidden in his pants pocket? Was he not a civilian?

Yeah...until the part where they started shooting police officers...that was kind of a clue that they had bad intent.....and we're not law abiding citizens...


And the Dallas shooter was not part of the March....he parked in the garage and geared up there and start d shooting cops....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

Think about that. Libs are gun owners. They want control, not Australia.

You want to ban and confiscate all semi-autos.
That's Australia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Did you hear the Dallas shooter was using armor piercing ammunition? It was going straight through the cops' gear.

Nonsense.
Standard ball ammo easily defeats body armor typically worn by a police officer, and will usually do so as he takes cover behind a car door.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
There is nothing in the Constitution stating what 'arms' one can bear. We have banned rifles that have a "full auto" option....

No. We have not.

You may well be right that no Congress would ever pass such legislation, but I am at a loss as to why it would be unconstitutional.

Simple:
They are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes. According to the court, banning such firearms violates the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I like learning new stuff.
During the 10 years of the Assault Weapons Ban, so called, it withstood several challenges to the Supreme Court.

False. The 1994 AWB was never taken to the SCotUS. Not once.

 

[Picaro]

Yeah...until the part where they started shooting police officers...that was kind of a clue that they had bad intent.....and we're not law abiding citizens...

Well duh ... You do know that police officers are rquired to check out people carrying guns, open carry being legal or not, right? That's what the police did with those marchers who were carrying. And, according to you, we should all wait until somebody starts shooting before doing that, which is ridiculous, especially in the current environment.

And, if open carrying is such a big ass 'deterrent', why didn't the marchers carrying use theirs, again? Isn't the whole 'point' of 'open carry' to deter criminals? Why didn't that meme work in Dallas?

And the Dallas shooter was not part of the March....he parked in the garage and geared up there and start d shooting cops....

Of course he was there for the march; he wasn't there because he was going to church or going clubbing. He wasn't there for an Easter Parade or handing out food to the homeless. He didn't just pick a day at random. Black Lice Matter exists to encourage vermin like him.

 

[Picaro]

Yes, I didn't think you would answer.

Correct: You don't think.

You obviously don't understand your own posts either:

The problem with this is the police had time from the beginning of the march until the shooting started to check out these people carrying in the parade, they were talking and socializing with them, which is unlikely to be the case in the future. So what does one do when no police are around, there are 20 or so people running around with rifles, and shots are fired and people start falling? I certainly wouldn't assume the 'open carry' types are automatically innocents and not doing the shooting.or associated with those doing the shooting, and I can't imagine any of the others would, either, unless they all just happen to know each other, which isn't likely.

Doesn't help you cover up any; and you still won't reply to what I actually said. typical, just play 'I Touched You Last!!!' , cuz that means you scored points on the innernetz ... lol