Texas Pro-Gun Crusaders Take Extreme Open Carry Approach

[SmedlyButler]

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 **** do you prevent people like

James Holmes

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


.

That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY?

What is the difference?

Was every president thereafter going to be allowed to pack the court or just FDR?

Is it cpacetic when dissenting opinions are censored and not published?!?!?!??!


.

 

[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 **** do you prevent people like

James Holmes

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


.

That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?

Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.

You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.

.

 

[KNB]

We also know that the gun owners are nothing but pussies hiding behind their couches from scary black people while the NSA spies on you and the CIA tortures POWs to death in secret prisons in an endless unwinnable war that was started by big government lies.

You don't deserve to own firearms because you do not know what the 2nd Amendment is for.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

.

You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

You have absolutely no Constitutional right to carry your rifle into another man's private business.

You just earned an "F" on your law exam, Shooter. You will have to take the course over again.

 

[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".

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

Not a problem for me, Vor. I live near Tombstone, AZ. You can carry conceal, or openly in public without a license. Just the same, there is virtually no business in Tombstone that does not have a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on the door. Arizona is not Texas, thank God.

 

[KNB]

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's funnier is that We the People can lose our other rights for the same exact reason, and right-wing gun owners fully support that form of government tyranny.

 

[SmedlyButler]

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.

We can argue degrees but I think my statement demonstrated that the perception of danger is rational, not irrational. I tried not to exaggerate as you have so wantonly done (see bolded). I honestly don't know what the incidence of accidental discharge is, I'll google. I do know that it is not insignifigant in the scenario I posted. A very small danger is signifigant to a parent. Being a parent myself makes me an expert in that assessment. I don't think asking a gun owner to refrain from carrying a weapon openly in such an environment is "denying his 2ndA rights", it's just asking him to be a responsible gun owner.

I've suggested this before. If these "open carry demonstrations" get too far out there or if there is an incident "in-your-face" gun rights activists will probably end up costing respectful gun owners a lot more than what they think they are gaining.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I'd go that one more, I'd pay by CC sans tip and leave without finishing my meal, then put the cost into disput. If everyone who feels the same as we do, it would make a difference.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.

Dream on.

I guess that supports your inertia if you can't handle, or refused to acknowledge, the truth.

 

[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

Not a problem for me, Vor. I live near Tombstone, AZ. You can carry conceal, or openly in public without a license. Just the same, there is virtually no business in Tombstone that does not have a "No Firearms Allowed" sign on the door. Arizona is not Texas, thank God.

Arizona is my favorite state - I used to live in Sierra Vista I love local laws.

And "No Firearms Allowed" (I hate those signs) can be posted by any property owners if it is their preference. It does seem to be the trend these days... again, can't argue with the freedom.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Answer this question first:

How the **** do you prevent people like

James Holmes

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


.

That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?

Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.

You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.

.

To my post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

I'm sorry... your rants really arent all that entertaining anymore.

 

[Contumacious]

That is an important element of my submission, isn't it?

Yes, indeed. That is the crux of the matter.

You dildos enact gun free zones knowing full well that the James Holmes types are going to ignore your mandates.

.

To my post.

Too much pride to admit that you are wrong?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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...

1: Heller was affirmed in McDonald, which went further to state that the 2nd protected a fundamental right of the people.
2: Until it is overturned, it is law.

... and many of us today believe the Heller decision (5-4) was Dictum too.

If that's the case, you don't know what "dictum" means.
See:
Dictum - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Entry 2

You hate the fact that 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. Too bad. You can refuse to accept this fact, but it just means you choose to be wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Rant rant rant...
Tell me: if you were to undergo one of those bread "mental heath background checks" so popular mong the anti-gun loons, would the government let you buy a gun?

Be honest.

 

[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.


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.

You have absolutely no Constitutional right to carry your rifle into another man's private business.

True. He can post a sign and I cannot enter legally.
Absent that sign, I can - which, is, of course, the issue at hand.

Now that your red herring has been dismissed -- do you have an actual response to my post?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

.

You've been reading posts by PC? We have a Federal Court System! That is a fact; your spin is ridiculous, though I suppose you've only parroted one of the conservative lunatics on AM Radio.

Dream on.

I guess that supports your inertia if you can't handle, or refused to acknowledge, the truth.

What truth? You're either brain washed by the propaganda or a liar.

And, BTW, FDR didn't pack the court, which anyone who had taken US History and passed would know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Louie is such scum.

I heard his grandfather and father were in the KKK.