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

[Agit8r]

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

It depends on the liberal, of course. Also, not everyone who protests against police are liberals.

 

[320 Years of History]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Could you explain that theory?

Could you take a remedial reading comprehension class, or just take one, remedial or not?

I didn't pose a theory; I articulated a quandary that has crossed my mind "at times." You see the phrase "I have...wondered;" it means that the speaker/writer does not know and s/he wonders if "such and such" may be so. That's in stark contrast with "I think," which indicates the speaker/writer is of a mind that "such and such" is so. Both phrases differ yet again with one's making a direct assertion (without a qualifying adverbial clauses). Taking my original comment and converting it into a direct assertion, one would gets "Bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns." Notice that the last statement is an assertion that something absolutely is so and its being so is demonstrably true; there is no room for one's thinking so and later being shown as mistaken.

 

[2aguy]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Could you explain that theory?

Could you take a remedial reading comprehension class, or just take one, remedial or not?

I didn't pose a theory; I articulated a quandary that has crossed my mind "at times." You see the phrase "I have...wondered;" it means that the speaker/writer does not know and s/he wonders if "such and such" may be so. That's in stark contrast with "I think," which indicates the speaker/writer is of a mind that "such and such" is so. Both phrases differ yet again with one's making a direct assertion (without a qualifying adverbial clauses). Taking my original comment and converting it into a direct assertion, one would gets "Bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns." Notice that the last statement is an assertion that something absolutely is so and its being so is demonstrably true; there is no room for one's thinking so and later being shown as mistaken.

Wow......you are quite the .....*******....aren't you?

Your quandary....is stupid....care to elaborate on your thought process....?

 

[Picaro]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Could you explain that theory?

Could you take a remedial reading comprehension class, or just take one, remedial or not?

I didn't pose a theory; I articulated a quandary that has crossed my mind "at times." You see the phrase "I have...wondered;" it means that the speaker/writer does not know and s/he wonders if "such and such" may be so. That's in stark contrast with "I think," which indicates the speaker/writer is of a mind that "such and such" is so. Both phrases differ yet again with one's making a direct assertion (without a qualifying adverbial clauses). Taking my original comment and converting it into a direct assertion, one would gets "Bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns." Notice that the last statement is an assertion that something absolutely is so and its being so is demonstrably true; there is no room for one's thinking so and later being shown as mistaken.

Wow......you are quite the .....*******....aren't you?

Your quandary....is stupid....care to elaborate on your thought process....?

Most are just ignoring him; he's just another astro-turfng troll who can't really carry a discussion, despite all his bloviating about how intelligent and informed n Stuff' he keeps telling us all he is.

 

[Picaro]

No .......the people carrying guns are exactly who we said they would be....there were actual cops right at the scene of the attack...what did normal gun owners do in that situation....they let the trained professionals handle it.....they did not take it upon themselves to deal with the attacker.......and they were not shot by the police...even in all of the confusion....because they were not shooting people....

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

Killing police simply because they are police is an act of armed insurrection against the government, i.e. a revolution. Liberals do not commit acts of murder or start revolutions. The affair in Dallas was a slave revolt. That is an American tradition too.

Do you ever listen to yourself? First, slavery has been against the law in the US for over 150 years.

Second, do you believe Micah Johnson is a martyr like Miss Alabama, Kalyn Chapman James, claimed?

 

[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?

 

[320 Years of History]

I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.

I have at times wondered whether bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns.

Could you explain that theory?

Could you take a remedial reading comprehension class, or just take one, remedial or not?

I didn't pose a theory; I articulated a quandary that has crossed my mind "at times." You see the phrase "I have...wondered;" it means that the speaker/writer does not know and s/he wonders if "such and such" may be so. That's in stark contrast with "I think," which indicates the speaker/writer is of a mind that "such and such" is so. Both phrases differ yet again with one's making a direct assertion (without a qualifying adverbial clauses). Taking my original comment and converting it into a direct assertion, one would gets "Bullet proof vests do more to deter or abate gun violence than do guns." Notice that the last statement is an assertion that something absolutely is so and its being so is demonstrably true; there is no room for one's thinking so and later being shown as mistaken.

Wow......you are quite the .....*******....aren't you?

Your quandary....is stupid....care to elaborate on your thought process....?

Red:
No.

Blue:
I never claimed to be one who suffers fools well.

 

[Fishlore]

Killing police simply because they are police is an act of armed insurrection against the government, i.e. a revolution. Liberals do not commit acts of murder or start revolutions. The affair in Dallas was a slave revolt. That is an American tradition too.

Do you ever listen to yourself? First, slavery has been against the law in the US for over 150 years.

Second, do you believe Micah Johnson is a martyr like Miss Alabama, Kalyn Chapman James, claimed?

Sorry. I forgot the limitations of this forum. I am aware of the XII Amendment. The term "slave revolt" has a much wider usage in both literature and anthropology that you seem to realize. That's OK. I won't try to explain it to you, although I will say that your snotty sarcasm serves only to show the high water mark of your education in the social sciences.

Were you not so excited by the idea that you had scored a gotcha with your imited resources, you might have pondered the following sentence, "That [i.e. the slave revolt] is an American tradition too." What kind of tradition might still be in effect after the end of slavery? Could "slave revolt" connote a pattern of violent resistence across economic classes racially defined? Curious notion. Let me guess: were you schooled in Dixie?

Second, I have never dated Miss Alabama. I wouldn't call Johnson a martyr. I called him a revolutionary and all stick with that even though he was never a slave.

 

[Divine Wind]

Sorry. I forgot the limitations of this forum. I am aware of the XII Amendment. The term "slave revolt" has a much wider usage in both literature and anthropology that you seem to realize. That's OK. I won't try to explain it to you, although I will say that your snotty sarcasm ....

Says the guy who claimed the Dallas shootings was a "slave revolt".

Dude, your credibility is sinking faster than a lead fishing weight.

 

[Fishlore]

Sorry. I forgot the limitations of this forum. I am aware of the XII Amendment. The term "slave revolt" has a much wider usage in both literature and anthropology that you seem to realize. That's OK. I won't try to explain it to you, although I will say that your snotty sarcasm ....

Says the guy who claimed the Dallas shootings was a "slave revolt".

Dude, your credibility is sinking faster than a lead fishing weight.

"Dude, your credibility is sinking faster than a lead fishing weight."
That's a good thing! When my credibility gets as low as your IQ, I'll be incredible,

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Fortunately, everyone kept their wits about them and none of the armed marchers were shot by mistake. I also have wondered if the actual shooter would have found it so easy to infiltrate the scene with his rifle and bullet proof vest if so many others had not been wearing them as a matter of course.
We have open carry here, too, but I have never seen anyone carry a rifle to a public gathering of any sort. Texas seems to have a lot of cowboys left.

Wasn't he shooting from a parking garage?
He could easily of drove into the parking lot and never hit the street. Or he could have pulled two pins and placed the rifle and body armor in a bag.
And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

 

[Divine Wind]

"Dude, your credibility is sinking faster than a lead fishing weight."
That's a good thing! When my credibility gets as low as your IQ, I'll be incredible,

LOL. Do you even listen to yourself? If my IQ is as low as you accuse, your credibility is as low. Thanks for the Freudian Slip.

 

[Wilbur Right]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

So you'd rather be shot by the police?
Obviously these people were trying to make a statement and personally I wouldnt want to die doing so.
Save it for when it matters.

 

[2aguy]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

No..they were responsible gun owners...they knew the cops were there so they let the paid professionals handle it.....you guys were wrong....they did not act like Rambo, they did not get shot by police.....

You know nothing about guns in this country....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

No..they were responsible gun owners...they knew the cops were there so they let the paid professionals handle it.....you guys were wrong....they did not act like Rambo, they did not get shot by police.....

You know nothing about guns in this country....

True, but are you at least willing to concede that open carrying long weapons inside city limits is stupid given today's climate where you can't just look at a person carrying around an AR15 and know whether they have evil plans or not?

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I'm not talking about this particular case, just carrying around long guns in general.

 

[martybegan]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

No..they were responsible gun owners...they knew the cops were there so they let the paid professionals handle it.....you guys were wrong....they did not act like Rambo, they did not get shot by police.....

You know nothing about guns in this country....

True, but are you at least willing to concede that open carrying long weapons inside city limits is stupid given today's climate where you can't just look at a person carrying around an AR15 and know whether they have evil plans or not?

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I'm not talking about this particular case, just carrying around long guns in general.

It's usually a show of defiance, which wouldn't be needed if local government's didn't keep trying to suppress concealed carry, or like in NYC even keeping a handgun in your own house.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And if it were me and I was open carrying I would have immediately laid my weapon on the ground.

Say what? Why carry the weapon at all if you were going to give it up so readily? Those gun carriers, they weren't posers were they?

No..they were responsible gun owners...they knew the cops were there so they let the paid professionals handle it.....you guys were wrong....they did not act like Rambo, they did not get shot by police.....

You know nothing about guns in this country....

True, but are you at least willing to concede that open carrying long weapons inside city limits is stupid given today's climate where you can't just look at a person carrying around an AR15 and know whether they have evil plans or not?

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

I'm not talking about this particular case, just carrying around long guns in general.

It's usually a show of defiance, which wouldn't be needed if local government's didn't keep trying to suppress concealed carry, or like in NYC even keeping a handgun in your own house.

That's sort of my point.

Take the blacks who keep fighting with police and getting shot for their troubles. In THEIR minds they are merely showing defiance in protest of blacks who are being shot by police. So you see, it's all a matter of perspective. An honest person would objectively look at BOTH situations and say "people need to stop with the stupid defiance" our system has procedures in place to air your grievances without such tactics.

 

[OldLady]

Why are libs armed? Thought they wanted gun control?

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