Gun control and bullying

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Bowerbird, May 29, 2015.

?

Is the scene described bullying or intimidation?

  1. yes it is intimidation and bullying

    3 vote(s)
    12.0%
  2. It is an attempt to thwart the first amendment by using the second

    2 vote(s)
    8.0%
  3. no both parties are simply exercising rights

    15 vote(s)
    60.0%
  4. No it is not intimidation at all

    6 vote(s)
    24.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,111
    Likes Received:
    46,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Clever - having the police there is sending an unconscious message that this is being done with the blessings of the authority - this is getting worse!! There is NO WAY we would stand for that here - it would be seen as a clear intimidation and we do not even have your vaunted "first amendment". Perhaps that is why we are more careful not to suppress rights like this

    Tell me if this were another country - say Russia - and there was a report of four women discussing a politically unpopular subject who were subsequently surrounded by 40 armed people plus police - would you see this in the same context?
     
  2. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23,332
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    How does speech work? It is divided into 3 parts. The last one, how the target and others see it is what matters the most here. It doesn't matter what the original intention was, whether they had a right to say it or not. So long as the target felt threatened, it was intimidation. The way they went about it, it was pretty bad. Why wait outside a store for 4 people with guns? Doesn't really make much sense.

    Ok. That proves my point on how speech works.

    Well, technically you do. Albeit that has more to do with my version of a Tabula Rasa then anything else.

    You see a random stranger on the street, with an assault rifle. Why are they carrying something that weighs what, 10,15 lbs? Are they promoting freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, or is it for some other reason? Remember, you never know what another person is going to do.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,111
    Likes Received:
    46,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    40 people with large weapons on display is pretty intimidating no matter what - but especially if you are standing on the other side of a political line to them.
     
  4. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL, reminds of the time I ran a two minute, 30 sec mile when I was 12. You tell the young people that today, and they won't believe you! :D
     
  5. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    brandishing, another terror-term
    And just who were they intimidating?

    who were they pointing their weapons at?
    I am more than 100% sure that if anyone was brandishing any kind of weapon there, there would have been arrests and it sure as hell would have made the news.
    This is brandishing:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I don't know about other States, but in Indiana, if your brandishing in the manner above, it is a felony, unless you have it out for self-defense or at a target range.
    Why is it you keep portraying guns owners in a bad light. You don't blame the entire nation of Islam for the acts of a few broken minds, but God help the gun owner.
    brandishing, another terror-term

    the use of brandishing, when there is not brandishing:

    "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

    sounds like a bit of distortion to drum up sympathy
     
  6. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,495
    Likes Received:
    6,925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that's pretty good time. its more than a minute faster than the world record for the mile.
     
  7. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are still hanging onto the false narrative that there was 40 armed men. You saw the photo so drop the lie.
    OCT has an agenda. They gather at different locations regularly to prove to people that good family people can excersize their 2A rights, and are not a threat to the public. They let police know in advance so when phone calls come in, reporting people with guns, there is no alarm on the part of law enforcement. Cops have been overseeing these events for a long time and now know these people. If OCT was to act in any threatening or illegal manor, it would be totally counter productive to their message.
    If these ladies felt threatened, it was their own insecurities, not because of any of this groups actions. They have never been associated with any violence. There would have been an arrest if they were to act in a threatening matter. It makes much more sense that these ladies only said they were intimidated to the news, to try to make the 2a supporters look bad. There would have been an arrest if they acted in an intimidating manor.
     
  8. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Quite! :D
     
  9. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are saying I have to give up my rights because someone is intimidated by them? How are the OCT people violating these 4 ladies' rights? Which right of the 4 women did they violate? They didn't threaten them, key their cars, or harm them in any way. My rights are just as valid up until the point that I violate the rights of others. A lack of arrests kind of shoots your theory in the foot. Nobody has a right to not feel intimidated. They can suck it up and get on with their lives.

    I ran against Michael Johnson in the 400m in a track meet once in high school. His history intimidated me. I had heard about his past meets. Maybe he shouldn't have ran against me that day. By the way, he ran a 46 and finished first and I ran a 52 and finished 8th. Did he violate my rights?:roll:
     
  10. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Did any of the Russians break the law or threaten the 4 women?
     
  11. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    They have the right to peacefully assemble as according to the first amendment. This was a peaceful assembly so it is their right to do so. No one has a right to not be offended.
     
  12. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    As far as I know, we do not have a 'fist' amendment, we do have a 'first' amendment though. And we know perfectly well why we have it and what it means.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

    It was put in place to ensure that the government could not suppress the right of free speech to the people. This was after a war with England to which those who spoke out against the king were often prosecuted or jailed.

    In this case, no ones first amendment rights were suppressed by any entity. I am not sure if armed government employees showing up at political gatherings is acceptable in your nation, but here it quite a scandal. The only time government employees are present at these types of gatherings is purely for security.
     
  13. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am lamentably often surprised at how little some Americans (including the founders of your nation) know and knew about the Parliamentary Democracy which was the government of England at the time the American colonists committed high treason.

    Great Britain was governed by a Prime Minister - Lord North - at that time, and speaking out against the Monarch has not been a crime or misdemeanour since the demise of the Absolute Monarchy of Charles the First (over four hundred years ago).

    It is as well to have the facts to hand, before one embarks upon criticisms, implied or explicit, in respect of another society. Even the splendid opening words of the American Declaration of Independence, declined into pages of a childish whine about a King who did not have the power to act as he was thereby accused. The decisions about which this document whinged were made by the British Parliament. :smile:
     
  14. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So your saying that it wasn't King George but Parliament who initiated an embargo of saltpeter being imported into the Colonies ?

    Maybe some white beard scratching liberal will use Marxist-culturalism aka revisionist history and rewrite the Declaration of Independence.

    In fact I'm really surprised the liberals haven't already considering that the Declaration of Independence is so politically incorrect when they referred to indigenous native Americans as "SAVAGES."
    You know when you read the entire Declaration of Independence, it's as if it's referring to the Obama administration not King George.
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,111
    Likes Received:
    46,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Which just goes to prove that anyone can make any claim they want to on the internet - no matter how unsubstantiated
     
  16. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    this one is a champion "What If" gamer.....watch how the goal post shifts.................fluid, like water
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,111
    Likes Received:
    46,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I do not lie and calling someone a liar is considered a personal attack by the moderators. That photo was posed, there is no evidence it was from the day let along associated with the incident under discussion That picture does not match the story - which explains why it was not linked and in fact I found it here http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/open-carry-texas-cancels-march-through which suggests rather than it being of the incident it is a group photo taken for publicity reasons

    More like testosterone poisoning although that site where I found your photo described them as "ammosexual" :D
    And still it was 40 armed people demonstrating against 4 women having coffee - if not intimidation that is the most cowardly act I have heard of in YEARS
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    64,111
    Likes Received:
    46,356
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ah When you have nothing else comment on typos and misspellings Ad Homs will be next
    Ah! You Americans! Shakes head - you are delightful people overall but you do have your blind spots

    So having the police there was not condoning the action of the gun toting OCT but simply to put everyone's mind at rest that the armed ones were not going to be nasty people

    Yes, I have heard the same explanations for Tiananmen Square "The tanks were only there to protect the people"
     
  19. Leo2

    Leo2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    169
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am saying since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660; the Monarch has enjoyed the position of titular head of state. And, by the reign of George III, other than giving Royal assent, has had no role in the formulation of Acts of Parliament. He/she retains the power to dissolve a rogue Parliament, but neither takes part in the daily running of the country, nor makes foreign policy. That is the role of the Prime Minister and Parliament.

    I have read the entire document, but having little knowledge of, and even less interest in, US party politics - I have no comment upon that matter.
     
  20. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no, only the anti gun crowd seems to have the corner on that one....

    "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

    "If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." Author unknown.

    BTW, you claimed that those gun terrorists were brandishing their weapons and intimidating others. I've given you plenty of time to produce the evidence that backs up statement.......guess that wasn't the truth, eh?
     
  21. OrlandoChuck

    OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,002
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is from your post.... #16
    Look at the photo from the event.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/



    Anyone that remembers the TV coverage the day of the event can testify that this was authentic.



    This is from my post #14

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#...-us-if-you-think-they-went-too-far%2F;452;620

    Does the photo look like 40 armed men, or does it look like about 20 armed men, women and children.

    Are you denying that these are the same?

    OCT is about demonstrating 2A Rights. They always have their families with them.
     
  22. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23,332
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No I am not.

    Right to freedom of speech requires right to feel protected.

    Actually that makes it all the worse because then it looks like the police are working with them. They didn't have to do anything like that, simply standing outside with a weapon can be enough to cause intimidation. Remember the case of Voter Intimidation that had the media by storm?
    [video=youtube;neGbKHyGuHU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/video]

    That was with one person and a crowbar. Imagine 40 people outside with guns, then the police is with them. That's a clear cut case of intimidation.


    Yeah. You're walking down a path and another person is walking in the opposite direction. That person gets out of the way for you. You violated their right to continue walking down the path. Violation of rights happens a lot, but when they stop someone from using a right completely, then that's a problem. Michael Johnson didn't stop you from running, even if you were intimidated.
     
  23. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you did make the claim that they were brandishing their firearms. That was a non-truth (lie), disproven by several others in here.
    if you are intimidated by airplanes, do you have the right to demand airplanes get grounded? No, you go seek professional help with a mental disorder
     
  24. Texan

    Texan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    4,131
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    People have no right to "feel" anything, especially if their "right to feel safe" infringes on the rights of others as you claim.

    Your example of a guy with a crowbar is voter intimidation at a polling station on election day. He was actively confronting people who were trying to enter a polling station. Nice try. OCT was at a coffee shop violating nobody's rights. And maybe we should get rid of the police if they are part of the problem.:roll:

    Of course Michael Johnson wasn't violating my rights. I have no right to not be intimidated by another's abilities or exercising of their rights. Why don't you try again and tell us what rights of the 4 ladies were violated?
     
  25. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    23,332
    Likes Received:
    902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Then you don't have the right to feel that your rights are being infringed by the government? All rights infringe upon each other. That is the basic nature of rights.

    And the guy with a crowbar was outside, doing nothing but standing around with a crowbar. Yet you will say that is intimidation. There's 40 people waiting outside a cafe where the opposition has gathered with the police on their side. How is that not intimidation?

    The right to feel safe in a community. The right to freely say what they think without fear of intimidation.
     

Share This Page