It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?
No?
How weird is that?
Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?
Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.
I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!
Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?
"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"
"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"
"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"
See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.
What logic? You call that "logic?"
I'll tell you what's logical, if you go looking for trouble, eventually you'll find it.
It's also logical to expect that if they keep insisting on exercising their right to open carry at contentious events just to inflame tensions, that right they so cherish might be short lived.
originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish
Actually it did nothing to deter the passing of open carry laws (less gun regulation) here in Texas, so your argument is false. The open carry Texas movement was quite active and present and as such we have campus carry and open carry.
In your opinion, what makes them nuts / dangerous? I'm curious how rooted in Statism your opinions are.
A couple points / questions:
1) It is negligent discharge. No such thing as "accidental discharge" unless there is some kind of rare firearm malfunction.
2) Are you from Austin?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: Flatfish
originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Did they shoot anyone, or even spontaneously fire their weapons into the air?
No?
How weird is that?
Or accidentally discharge their weapon in the parking lot?
Those guys are not only nuts, they're dangerous and nothing good can come from these "Bundy Ranch" style reactions.
I take that back, I guess senseless gun displays like this could help advance the cause of gun control legislation in the future. Go figure!
Senseless gun displays? what exactly is senseless in exercising a right?
"I can't believe OJ and his senseless requesting of a trial by jury"
"Why won't he talk? What a senseless use of the right to remain silent"
"How dare you breastfeed your child!!! Why do you have to senselessly display yourself like that?"
See....it just loses its ring when you apply logic tests to it. A right is a right.
What logic? You call that "logic?"
I'll tell you what's logical, if you go looking for trouble, eventually you'll find it.
It's also logical to expect that if they keep insisting on exercising their right to open carry at contentious events just to inflame tensions, that right they so cherish might be short lived.
Yes, that is what you call "logic". You apply the same reason to similar things to see if the line of thinking holds water.
It is not logical to expect that behaving lawfully would lead to further restrictions of rights.
Should we expect that all those idiots on Twitter and Facebook, and their "senseless" exercising of their first amendment right will lead to curtailing of said rights? No. We shouldn't. Unless we discard reason first.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
It may be within their rights to be there but if Jones is looking to stoke up some action he might just get his wish. Somebody out there probably has a rifle too and will be sorely tempted to take some shots from a distance. White guys standing around with guns who are not the police will look just as much like an enemy to them as the police do. Shame on you Alex Jones. You are putting others lives in jeopardy just to up your ratings.
Shame!!
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.
Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.
originally posted by: xuenchen
oathkeepers
nothing from them on their website.
is this confirmed or just another joke?
originally posted by: Firefly_
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Why can't those oath keepers exercise their pledge to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." and deal with the corrupt politicians and corporations destroying not only the US, but the entire planet for profit, deal with the corrupt organisations and agencies that enforce the corrupt laws?
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.
Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.
The only problem with this statement? It's not about rights. It's about intent. It's about agenda. It's about a potential explosion.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Its almost like doublespeak when you start questioning when, where, and why people choose to exercise their rights.
Would it be considered "inflammatory" for a woman to breast feed while in church? A right is a right.
The only problem with this statement? It's not about rights. It's about intent. It's about agenda. It's about a potential explosion.
Its about rights. They are exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and it is considered inflammatory.
Its like the asinine notion of someone refusing to give testimony being contempt of court. One choosing to not speak is a first amendment right. It isn't inflammatory...its just someone exercising their right.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: ~Lucidity
Led by a man who gave his name only as John, the group, whose members wore bulletproof vests and carried sidearms in addition to combat-style rifles, said they had come to protect a journalist from the conservative "Infowars.com" Web site.
I'm thinking Alex sent them in with his journalist buddy and told them to brush-up on their knowledge of the 2nd amendment, look serious and professional when staring at the camera and create a story by raising tensions. Get other journos to post the news and make sure to add the fact these fellas are white, in a predominantly black area, and they are packin
I think Jones gets lonely unless he's at the center of a ship-storm.
Standing by..........
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
originally posted by: xuenchen
Another joke? What was the other joke?
Imagine the carnage if the other protesters asserted their right to carry too. I swear it seems like some people actually want carnage.
originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Flatfish
Answer me this - in how many of these situations that Oathkeepers (or the Open Carry Texas movement for example) or any other states that allow open carry, have innocent bystanders gotten hurt or killed from a negligent discharge? (I point this out because it demonstrates knowledge of firearm safety and their operational mechanics), whereas you qualify your credibility based on the fact that you "probably own more guns than me".
Now compare that to how many bystanders or innocent people have been wounded / killed by a police officer's firearm?
originally posted by: SonOfThor
Your argument holds no logic if you look at the numbers. Do you apply the same argument to the police that are there in riot gear, openly carrying firearms?
You keep referring to these folks as nuts and stupid, yet you haven't really provided a valid supporting argument other than your perceived fear of people who open carry.