I would imagine that the ratio of people supporting MDA's views to people supporting OCT's is about 1:10 as well, which makes this demonstration about proportionate. On the other hand, if I knew someone who had an irrational and publicly demonstrated fear of spiders, then showing up at their house with a tarantula would obviously be uncomfortable for them. Their irrational fears should have no bearing on my right to keep and bear tarantulas. Further, it is ridiculous for her to lobby lawmakers to outlaw tarantulas simply because she, and a minority of others, has an irrational fear of them.
Do you not believe your own eyes when you compare photos? Do you count 40 armed men, or 20 armed men, women and children. When this was covered on the TV news on the day it happened, they reported 25 men, women and children. They interviewed the police that were notified in advance of this gathering. They reported a good relationship with Open Carry Texas.
The mere sight of a firearm is not legally sufficient for a charge of intimidation to be sustained. Not even the sight of forty firearms would be sufficient for a charge of intimidation. Should the general public claim they felt intimidation at the sight of armed police officers, in response to the news extensively documenting widespread abuse carried out by police officers? One cannot claim that they were intimidated by witnessing something that is legal. If one is going to go down that road, they will eventually have to claim that they cannot cross at the crosswalk, because they were intimidated by drivers who were waiting for them to get across the street, for fear that they would be run over for not moving quickly enough.
I carry because of innocent children, women, men. Too bad you don't care enough about them to carry ...eh?
They are not only thinking about themselves, they are thinking about their families. We are not responsible for the criminal acts of others.
And what of the individuals that choose to own firearms in order to protect their children? What do you say to them?
They bring guns because nearly every weekend they walk in public to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Their cause is to show people that there is no reason to be alarmed just because you see people with firearms. They want it to become commonplace.
So yes, they had to bring guns because to sell the message that they're peaceful, they had to stand outside a cafe and wait for people with loaded weapons? That sounds an awful lot like intimidation.
its pretty sad when gun banners try to denigrate our constitutional rights with crocodile tears over dead children. Children are the last refuge of collectivist gun banners - - - Updated - - - it apparently causes garment soiling and consternation among those who would abrogate our rights.
So what you're saying is they did intimidate. Whether you think of their stance on gun rights is irrelevant. No one should feel intimidated in the public sphere. That's detrimental to rights just as any gun legislation will do.
there was no objective intimidation. Just because cowardly anti rights twits are "intimidated" means nothing. I cannot help if a coward is intimidated if I wear a t-shirt that says "Molan Labe" or one that says Obama voters are stupid morons or "Reverend Wright-the FUNGUS AMONG US etc. In a free society, you do not have a RIGHT to go through LIFE Un-Offended or never being "intimidated" I remember as a college boy, I came back to my dad's country club to shoot in a holiday skeet shoot. None of the members had seen me for a couple years because I had been living in New Haven and during the summer-at the Olympic training center preparing for the 1980 Olympic games that I narrowly missed making before the idiot Carter forced us to miss the games. So before I showed up-the guy who fancied himself the top dog asked my dad how well I was shooting, and my father just shrugged and said-he shot OK at the JO's (Junior Olympics-20 and under) and did OK at the trials. So I show up and unlike the wannabes, I don't have any '100 STRAIGHT patches on my vest etc. Just my name and a big USA on the back. anyway I shot a fifty straight and the wannabe shot a 41. and my father asked the guy who ran the range-WTF happened to tim-I thought he was good? and the guy said-he was INTIMIDATED by your son's vest, your son's Perazzi Mirage which had the Olympic rings and a USA flag on it, and especially when your son crushed the first 25 targets. intimidation comes in many forms. You don't have a right to be free from "intimidation" you have a right to be free from MENACING or assault/ Someone packing heat legally is not menacing nor assault. so I would tell those whining bed wetters to grow up and quit whining.
three separate news accounts all agreeing 4 women talking in coffee shop - 40 protesters with arms outside
If this were government troops though would you claim "no intimidation"? There is an inherent threat when someone is armed that is not there when they are not armed
sounds like the first amendment rights of speech and assembly were intact good news - - - Updated - - - Troops signify something different than citizens. we don't live in a military dictatorship I cannot help it if you are afraid of people with guns. We know that already
So it would be OK if this were government troops? I can easily imagine where a government simply hires "rent a mob" to turn up anywhere there is a meeting discussing unpopular ideas with arms and even if they simply stood outside the building staring in the threat is there and the freedom of speech is curtailed Simpler yet - these could have been plain clothes government employees hired by the current regime to prevent action against a proposed legislation Honestly for all you Americans sprout off about your "fist amendment" an awful lot of you do not seem to know what on earth it really means and more importantly why it is really there
No - there was an inherent threat designed to break up the meeting - that is disruption of the first amendment What I am saying is how do you tell "troops" from government employees in plain clothes?
All news accounts come from what they were told by the women. Do you think the women with an agenda would say anything other than they were intimidated? Cops and TV news on the scene. Cops were notified in advance by OCT. How could they intimidate with cops there? Please tell me how many men women and children did you count in the photo? Even the TV news that was on the scene made it seem very lighthearted.
Yes, standing next to the police that they notified in advance that they would be there. Who calls the cops on themselves if they have ill intent?
If the government sent troops to watch me drink coffee with a gun on my shoulder, I'd invite them to join me. I used to be one of them active duty and national guard. The OCT people were breaking no laws and exercising their 2A. What did they say using their 1A to intimidate or threaten the ladies? Why did OCT call the police ahead of time? Why was nobody arrested? Answer: They called the police to let them know what they were doing as a courtesy, just in case somebody called 911 and claimed there were armed gunmen scaring people. OCT didn't want the 4 ladies exaggerating their accusations to get OCT in trouble with the media or the law. Nobody was arrested because nobody broke the law. Unless somebody spilled hot coffee, the 4 ladies were in a very safe place. Any one of those OCT demonstrators would protect those 4 ladies if someone tried to harm them.
Did they tell that to the people inside the Cafe? It's not about their intent, rather what their actions are. So now you have the police outside as well, hey look, who are they going to turn to if they decide to have a confrontation?
