This Is How Intimidation Looks

Filed in National by on November 11, 2013

I can’t believe I’m writing another gun post, but this nonsense has to stop.  Take a look at this picture.  Read below to discover what it is.

open carry texas moms demand action gun

CREDIT: https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction

On Saturday, nearly 40 armed men, women, and children waited outside a Dallas, Texas area restaurant to protest a membership meeting for the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun safety advocacy group formed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT) — an open carry advocacy group — “pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks.” The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of “inciting a riot” and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.

This is blatant intimidation.  These people are the reason people like me would censor ourselves at public meetings with guns present. Know why?  Because gun owners who feel the need to bring a gun to a public meeting or to stand and crouch, with weapons drawn, outside a restaurant where 4 MDA members met are crazy.

Seriously, what was the point of this… other than intimidation.  Such freedom lovers.

 

 

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (74)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal. | November 16, 2013
  1. socialistic ben says:

    Que the “well I’m a gun owner and I’m responsible, plus it is their right! If those moms didnt want to feel intimidated, they should own guns.” auto-response.

  2. Perry says:

    It is quite telling, Pandora, when the intimidation has risen to a level such that a restaurant owner would opt not to call 911. This situation is a serious flaw in our culture.

    Sadly, the NRA, backed effectively by the right wing extremists, have managed to intimidate Congress into not acting on gun control legislation.

    I don’t see this changing any time soon, but we cannot ever give up trying.

  3. Dana says:

    Perry wrote:

    Sadly, the NRA, backed effectively by the right wing extremists, have managed to intimidate Congress into not acting on gun control legislation.

    Right-wing extremists like James Madison, Elbridge Gerry, and George Read, I suppose.

  4. Dana says:

    As for calling 911, did the OCT members actually violate any law?

  5. pandora says:

    Did I say they broke a law? I said this is what intimidation looks like.

  6. Geezer says:

    The only law they violated was the one that states, “If you’re that attached to your gun, you’re probably impotent.”

    It wasn’t illegal. It was, as most things conservative, just dumb, and probably did more than those four moms ever will to show that you don’t want a gun nut living next door to you.

  7. liberalgeek says:

    But God-forbid that a black man stand outside of a polling place…

  8. cnapier0999 says:

    Intentionally or knowingly restraining someone, that is, substantially interfering with one’s liberty by confining someone by means of force, intimidation or deception, is what the Texas Penal Code calls Unlawful Restraint which is a Class A misdemeanor. It is a felony if the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of bodily harm. Might be a stretch, but I could see probable cause for arrest. Would depend on what MDA members said. They would have to parrot the magic words that they were confined to the restaurant because they were intimidated by the OCT folks.

  9. radef16 says:

    No one commenting here seems to have seen the front view for this photo-op:
    http://c5.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/BYzDxSWCQAENPXg.jpg
    Nothing more than a peaceful protest. Note that openly carrying rifles & shotguns
    is perfectly legal in Texas. OCT’s goal is simply to promote the fact that the possession of arms by law abiding citizens is not a threat to anyone.

  10. liberalgeek says:

    And I’m sure they all got back in their cars and drove home after the photo-op, right?

    No, they probably milled about (necessarily occupying a MUCH larger area) with their rifles and shotguns. In both photos, we at least get to see the whole group in a single frame.

  11. Dana says:

    Does it matter if they “milled about?” Does the First Amendment freedom of assembly confine people to a specific area?

  12. liberalgeek says:

    No, but their point was to intimidate. The fact that this was a group photo doesn’t mitigate that fact. Milling about after means that they covered enough area that the gun-control people had to walk by a few of the gun-nuts to get to their meeting.

  13. jason330 says:

    Dana, Were you introduced to guns as a child? Was that something you shared with your father, or some other authority figure in your life?

  14. Geezer says:

    “And I’m sure they all got back in their cars and drove home after the photo-op, right?”

    According to press accounts, they stayed two hours in the parking lot and then went to Hooters. Not making that up. Makes the link to threatened manhood all the more obvious, no?

  15. Geezer says:

    “Nothing more than a peaceful protest.”

    Because nothing threatens these mooks like four moms in support of gun control.

  16. Geezer says:

    “OCT’s goal is simply to promote the fact that the possession of arms by law abiding citizens is not a threat to anyone.”

    Check out the statistics on accidental shootings in this country. No threat my ass.

  17. Dave says:

    I honestly believe that the vast majority gun owners are responsible, do not engage in such phallic displays of their manhood, and support sane measures such as background checks for all purchases. A counter protest against the Moms could have been conducted without a single firearm present. The presence of firearms is obviously intended to demonstrate power and the objective of power demonstrations is to intimidate as it is in any case of someone who open carries whether to church, school, the shopping center, et al. Responsible gun owners are typically not a danger to others. These gun owners are the type that are a danger to the public. About the best you can do, is to cross the street when you see them or leave when they arrive at a public place, because they are liable to respond to any situation (or perceived situation) with deadly force. In summary they are whack jobs and should be avoided.

  18. Dana says:

    Mr 330 attempts internet psychology:

    Dana, Were you introduced to guns as a child? Was that something you shared with your father, or some other authority figure in your life?

    Actually, my father decided that he’d rather have another wife, and was gone by the time I turned seven, so no, he wasn’t involved. I grew up in a small Southern town, where everybody had guns, but there was no particular pressure put on me. I owned a .22 and a 12 gauge when I was a teenager, but decided that I really didn’t like hunting, and sold them, and haven’t owned a firearm since.

    In Mt Sterling, we had a tradition called October Court Day, the third Monday in October, where the country people came to town and sold their crafts. I was 13 or 14 when I bought my rifle, and walked home, right through town, in full view of the police station, with that rifle over my shoulder, and no one thought a thing about it. I could buy ammunition at a local grocery store; no big deal.

    We had a sensible attitude about guns; we knew gun safety, and they weren’t mistreated or misused. In the entire time I lived in that small town, I never heard of a murder in town.

    Fast forward to today, in the small town of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. We’ve had three murders in our county so far this century, and firearm ownership is fairly widespread; it’s a mostly rural county, with a lot of hunters. Maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t the ownership of firearms by responsible, law abiding people.

    (By the way, of our three murders, one was where a teenaged boy strangled his mother, and the other was a stabbing over a girl; no firearms involved.)

    What I do believe in is the Constitution. I believe that when the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, it means just that: no law! I believe that when the Constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means just that: shall not be infringed.

    Here we had a group of interested people, assembling peaceably, to express their opinions, and exercising their right to bear arms. No one was harmed, no one was injured, and if the Moms Demand Action group has a right to express their opinions — as they certainly do — so does Open Carry Texas.

    It’s an odd thing. Back in the early 1970s, when I was in college, it was the liberals who were most vociferous about the absolute nature of their constitutional rights, the ones continually asserting their freedom of speech. Today, it is my friends on the left who want to shut down speech with which they disagree, who want to restrict rights they don’t believe people should exercise. Sometimes it seems as though my friends on the left are pro-choice about exactly one thing.

  19. jason330 says:

    Thanks for sharing a little bit of your background. It is a reminder to be kind to everyone. Because as the Unitarians say, they are probably fighting a difficult battle.

  20. Dana says:

    Why, Mr 330, that’s the politest thing you’ve ever said to me! :)

  21. Dana says:

    Dave wrote:

    These gun owners are the type that are a danger to the public. About the best you can do, is to cross the street when you see them or leave when they arrive at a public place, because they are liable to respond to any situation (or perceived situation) with deadly force. In summary they are whack jobs and should be avoided.

    Really? And you know this how?

    The only information that we have about the members of Open Carry Texas is that they showed up at a protest, carrying their weapons, and that they did not use them in the manner you suggested was “liable.” “Liable” in your usage means likely, or more probable than not, yet they did nothing illegal or irresponsible in the slightest.

    You said that, ” Responsible gun owners are typically not a danger to others,” yet are complaining about gun owners who behaved responsibly.

    An obvious question here: these people support open carry, something I support as well. Would you rather that they were carrying only concealed weapons? If so, how does that help you, individually, or society as a whole?

  22. Tom McKenney says:

    Dana,We used to carry shotguns like you did here in New Castle county. It’s a shame that the NRA cares more about manufacturers than hunters.

    I don’t how you think you think the left is trying to suppress speech, when it is the right that has been active in speech suppression.

    You are too bright to confuse speech with intimidation.The members of Open Carry Texas are a bunch of cowards. Reminds me of the time right-wingers were yelling at the Gold Star Mothers, when the VietNam Veterans Against the War confronted them suddenly they were silent.

  23. cassandra m says:

    The only information that we have about the members of Open Carry Texas is that they showed up at a protest, carrying their weapons, and that they did not use them in the manner you suggested was “liable.”

    The other thing you know is that they are white — and if the pictures had been of black men with guns hanging around in a parking lot, Fox News would have led the story with a chyron screaming HUEY NEWTON LIVES!!!!!

    I would have called the cops on this crew of morons. Because this crew of morons would certainly called the cops if a bunch of black or brown guys with guns were sitting around a mall parking lot.

  24. Dana says:

    Mr McKinney wrote:

    You are too bright to confuse speech with intimidation.The members of Open Carry Texas are a bunch of cowards. Reminds me of the time right-wingers were yelling at the Gold Star Mothers, when the VietNam Veterans Against the War confronted them suddenly they were silent.

    If someone felt intimidated, it was within themselves, because we have seen no stories at all that OCT members in any way threatened to use their weapons.

    I am unfamiliar with the episode to which you refer, but, assuming that you meant an event where the old VVAW was present with the Gold Star Mothers, it would have meant a demonstration of respect for their service; anyone who is a Vietnam veteran is now in his late fifties or older, so it’s not like they are particularly threatening.

  25. Dana says:

    Cassandra wrote:

    I would have called the cops on this crew of morons. Because this crew of morons would certainly called the cops if a bunch of black or brown guys with guns were sitting around a mall parking lot.

    You would have “called the cops” on people who were not breaking the law? Do you believe that the police have some sort of right or authority to restrict the rights of people who are behaving lawfully?

    OCT were exercising three of their constitutional rights: the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, and the right to bear arms. I am unsure why you think that exercising these rights is somehow unlawful.

  26. cassandra m says:

    I would have called the cops on a group of people who looked intimidating, armed and dangerous to me and all of the people in the vicinity of that mall.

    There is no way I stop to find out what the intent of these people might be.

  27. Jason330 says:

    Absolutely correct to call the cops there. I’d call them if I saw someone open carrying regardless.

  28. Tom McKenney says:

    Dana, The demonstration was in 1971 ; I was a VVAW member. They were trying to intimidate marchers.
    If I held a gun to your head and asked for money,would it be your problem because I did not threaten to use it.

  29. pandora says:

    Dana, if you meet with a group of like minded people and I show up with a much larger group – sitting outside the restaurant sharpening knives or tying hangman nooses how would you feel?

    This is my main problem with gun supporters – they demand that I trust all of them. They demand I give complete strangers the benefit of the doubt. I refuse to do this, mainly because… how big of a loser do you have to be to spend two hours outside a restaurant where 4 (4!) moms are having a meal. Heading to Hooters after the two hours is just icing on the cake.

  30. cassandra m says:

    I’d call them if I saw someone open carrying regardless.

    I *have* called the cops on open carry types. Once from a hardware store in Silver Spring while the DC sniper was out and about.

  31. pandora says:

    Oh, I’d call the cops if I ever saw a person carrying a gun – it’s their job to sort out responsible gun owners from dangerous gun owners. I can’t tell the difference, nor should I have to.

    Dana, you sound those people after a shooting that says, “They seemed okay to me.” I question your judgement, as is my right.

  32. Jason330 says:

    Since 289 people are shot in the US everyday, you’d be crazy to not call the cops if you saw a bunch of people (or a person) milling around with guns.

  33. Dana says:

    Mr 330 wrote:

    Absolutely correct to call the cops there. I’d call them if I saw someone open carrying regardless.

    And you would do this even though you knew that open carry was perfectly legal?

    Look at the picture again: open carry of long guns is legal in Texas, while open carry of handguns is not, something which OCT is attempting to change. At least in the photo linked by radef16 above, the only weapons I could see were long guns.

    Why would you call the cops on someone for doing something perfectly legal?

  34. Dana says:

    Pandora wrote:

    Oh, I’d call the cops if I ever saw a person carrying a gun – it’s their job to sort out responsible gun owners from dangerous gun owners. I can’t tell the difference, nor should I have to.

    and

    This is my main problem with gun supporters – they demand that I trust all of them. They demand I give complete strangers the benefit of the doubt.

    And Cassandra wrote:

    I would have called the cops on a group of people who looked intimidating, armed and dangerous to me and all of the people in the vicinity of that mall.

    Congratulations! Y’all have just vindicated George Zimmerman’s suspicions concerning Trayvon Martin!

    Mr Zimmerman saw someone whose behavior he thought meant he was up to no good, and he called the cops. And, after all, your basis for action was not the actions of the OCT ralliers, but your prejudices as to what their intent might have been or what they might do.

  35. Geezer says:

    “Why would you call the cops on someone for doing something perfectly legal?”

    Because doing something perfectly legal can turn into a crime in a split-second when a gun is involved. Accidental shootings in this country are sometimes illegal.

    Additionally, how are people supposed to tell the difference between “responsible gun owners” and people carrying weapons in public?

    Oh, wait. A responsible gun owner has no reason to carry the weapon in public.

    I think it’s more accurate to say they were doing something imperfectly legal.

  36. Dana says:

    Mr Geezer wrote:

    Because doing something perfectly legal can turn into a crime in a split-second when a gun is involved. Accidental shootings in this country are sometimes illegal.

    Additionally, how are people supposed to tell the difference between “responsible gun owners” and people carrying weapons in public?

    So, you are stating that people must prove their innocence, and that criminal intent can simply be presumed?

    Oh, wait. A responsible gun owner has no reason to carry the weapon in public.

    I think it’s more accurate to say they were doing something imperfectly legal.

    Are you saying here that the judgement of other people should prevail concerning whether someone ought to be allowed to exercise his constitutional rights? Why should I not be allowed to call the cops on you for, say, supporting welfare, because I could assume that you were actually advocating welfare cheating?

  37. cassandra m says:

    but your prejudices as to what their intent might have been or what they might do.

    The difference here is that Zimmerman made his judgement solely looking at the color of that young man’s skin. I’m making mine based on the presence of a gun in the hands of someone whose intentions I have no way of knowing.

    There’s a big difference.

  38. pandora says:

    “Congratulations! Y’all have just vindicated George Zimmerman’s suspicions concerning Trayvon Martin!”

    Are you nuts? The only way this analogy works is if I were to shoot the OCT guys. Step up your game, Dana

  39. radef16 says:

    Why is someone carrying a gun automatically intimidating? In the picture, the guns are either shouldered or pointing in a safe direction. No one has their finger anywhere near a trigger nor is anyone showing any aggression. If I saw a similar situation my first response would be one of curiosity, probably to go and ask them what was up.
    If you ever do see someone open carrying in Delaware, please do call the police. The well trained dispatchers will ask you what the person is doing. If they’re only getting a cup of coffee at WaWa, don’t expect to see a police officer.

  40. pandora says:

    You have no idea what you’re talking about. Call 911 and mention seeing a gun and you become priority #1. And carrying a gun, by its nature, is intimidating. You can kill me, therefore, not knowing you… you are a threat.

  41. jason330 says:

    They are all upright citizens right up to the minute they shoot someone.

  42. liberalgeek says:

    In the picture, the guns are either shouldered or pointing in a safe direction.

    Just like the mass shooters as they move from classroom to classroom…

  43. Dana says:

    Cassandra wrote:

    The difference here is that Zimmerman made his judgement solely looking at the color of that young man’s skin. I’m making mine based on the presence of a gun in the hands of someone whose intentions I have no way of knowing.

    There’s a big difference.

    No, Mr Zimmerman took his judgement based on the fact that an unfamiar young male, dressed in a hoodie, was walking around after dark in a gated community, where he was part of the neighborhood watch due to several recent burglaries. He had, as you put it, “no way of knowing” Mr Martin’s intentions, but, due to his suspicions, he called the police.

    Let’s imagine, for a moment, that the physical confrontation never occurred, and the police had arrived. If the incident had become public, y’all would have been complaining that the police had stopped and questioned Mr Martin for “walking while black,” and that his civil rights had been violated.

    How, I have to ask, is that different from your (plural) assertions that you would call the cops on a group of people who were not in any way breaking the law, because they were visibly armed, and you had no way of knowing what their intentions were?

  44. Dana says:

    Mr 330 was being snarky, but he told the truth:

    They are all upright citizens right up to the minute they shoot someone.

    Yes, actually; they are not criminals until they actually commit a crime. Perhaps you are arguing for a form of Minority Report law enforcement? Not only do you have to prove that you didn’t commit a crime, but that you didn’t intend to commit a crime sometime in the future?

  45. Jason330 says:

    BTW I just took my first look at that picture and they look belligerent as all get out. I’m clearly calling the cops on those idiots.

    Me: There are some deranged looking, heavily armed, guys out front in a tactical fire team formation. I believe they are Islamic of White Supremacists terrorists.

  46. cassandra m says:

    You can recast Zimmerman’s decision-making all you want. He saw a black kid and presumed he was dangerous because he was a black kid.

    I’m calling the cops on people open carrying because they are carrying something demonstrably dangerous in a parking lot (where it isn’t normal for groups of people to be carrying guns) and it is up to the cops to sort that out. I wouldn’t be doing my civic duty by just ignoring a group of white guys with guns in the parking lot of the mall.

  47. Dana says:

    Cassandra wrote:

    You can recast Zimmerman’s decision-making all you want. He saw a black kid and presumed he was dangerous because he was a black kid.

    I’m calling the cops on people open carrying because they are carrying something demonstrably dangerous in a parking lot (where it isn’t normal for groups of people to be carrying guns) and it is up to the cops to sort that out. I wouldn’t be doing my civic duty by just ignoring a group of white guys with guns in the parking lot of the mall.

    So, you are stating that your judgement is the qualification for calling the cops. If that is the case, then George Zimmerman’s judgement was as well.

    And you even have the benefit of hindsight here: the police were not called, and the OCT ralliers went their separate ways without committing any crimes. To me, it seems as though you want to try to use the force of law to break up a completely legal demonstration.

  48. liberalgeek says:

    If only George Zimmerman had just called the cops. That would have been wonderful.

    And if the cops had just said, “You’re calling because there is a black kid in your gated community? Sorry, he isn’t breaking any laws.” Then Perhaps GZ would have learned something that day.

  49. Dana says:

    radef16 wrote:

    No one has their finger anywhere near a trigger nor is anyone showing any aggression.

    Note the man in the red shirt on the lower right: he is demonstrating perfect trigger discipline, as taught by the United States Army, by having his trigger finger extended and off of the trigger when not intending to shoot.

    Army trigger discipline, as exhibited by several soldiers, including my daughter.

  50. cassandra m says:

    My judgement wouldn’t kill anyone and puts the business of deciding who is dangerous in the hands of the people who should sort it out — the police.

    Or we can put it this way — George Zimmerman saw a threat in an unarmed black kid and I see a threat in a group of white guys in a mall parking lot with guns. One of these things is potentially dangerous and it is the potentially dangerous ones that Dana is trying to convince us is somehow normal.

    Not gonna happen. If I see these guys, I call 911. Period.

  51. liberalgeek says:

    And the real lesson of the GZ issue is that stand your ground laws mean whatever the gun owner wants them to mean. So if you are going to interact with someone brandishing a weapon, it is best to have law-enforcement mediate that interaction.

  52. Geezer says:

    “So, you are stating that people must prove their innocence, and that criminal intent can simply be presumed?”

    Calling the cops also is legal, or didn’t you realize that?

    “Are you saying here that the judgement of other people should prevail concerning whether someone ought to be allowed to exercise his constitutional rights?”

    Yes, I’ll let the cops sort it out. I see no more reason to assume innocent motives than malign ones. Many reporters exercising their constitutional rights find they have to defend themselves in court. Let gun nuts do the same.

    “Why should I not be allowed to call the cops on you for, say, supporting welfare, because I could assume that you were actually advocating welfare cheating?”

    You can. You can expect to be charged with misusing the 911 system, though. Nobody is going to prosecute you for calling the police over a parking lot full of armed men.

    The more you type, the more shallowness you exhibit.

  53. cassandra m says:

    So based on Dana’s justifications here, if I drive by his house and see a guy using a crowbar to open a window, I should just drive by, no worries. Because I have no idea if this guy is a burglar or Dana who forgot his keys, and HEY crow bars are legal!

  54. Perry says:

    We saw the same kind of intimidation during the 2012 campaign at Obama’s appearances and rallies, with extremists exhibiting their weapons. There is no legitimate purpose for this behavior other than to intimidate and threaten, then who knows what disaster the increased tensions might trigger.

  55. Dana says:

    Cassandra wrote:

    So based on Dana’s justifications here, if I drive by his house and see a guy using a crowbar to open a window, I should just drive by, no worries. Because I have no idea if this guy is a burglar or Dana who forgot his keys, and HEY crow bars are legal!

    Silly stuff; you would, at that point, be witnessing a crime. Your previous position would be that you would call the police on people who were not committing any crime, simply because you did not know what their intentions were.

    Of course, given the mind set here, if I happened to be in the house, and saw said malefactor trying to break in, and I used a firearm to send him to his eternal reward, you’d want me locked up.

  56. Dana says:

    Mr Geek wrote:

    If only George Zimmerman had just called the cops. That would have been wonderful.

    And if the cops had just said, “You’re calling because there is a black kid in your gated community? Sorry, he isn’t breaking any laws.” Then Perhaps GZ would have learned something that day.

    The police dispatcher said that officers were going to be coming, which was the reasonable response to Mr Zimmerman’s call. It would have been a lot better if the physical altercation had never occurred.

    But if we look at your response, we should hope that the police would tell Cassandra when she calls them about several people openly carrying firearms, but not using them illegally, “Sorry, they aren’t breaking any laws.”

  57. cassandra m says:

    Not so silly. Especially since you are here arguing that your assessment of potential danger is better than the rest of us. The point (which you ran right by) was that I can’t be certain that a guy trying to get into your house is a crime. But this is why you all the police, right? Let them sort it out.

  58. Jason330 says:

    Absolutely, I’d call the cops based on their possibly sinister intentions. With 289 people getting shot in this country everyday – it would be madness not to.

  59. cassandra m says:

    we should hope that the police would tell Cassandra when she calls them about several people openly carrying firearms

    You need to learn something about how the police prioritize their responses. Like P said, a weapons call goes right to the top of the list. And — at least where I live — the police will come out to *personally* make a determination as to what is and is not criminal.

  60. Jason330 says:

    FYI – About 50 people have been shot in the US since the first comment was placed on this thread.

  61. Dave says:

    If I see a bunch of people with long guns out in the woods during deer season, I leave because hunters tend to shoot themselves with alarming frequency. But I don’t call the cops.

    When I see a bunch of people with long guns in the parking lot of the mall, I leave and I call the cops.

    If you cannot comprehend the situational difference Dana then you may not have the ability to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. People who show up with guns in a mall parking lot demonstrate an alarming lack of judgment and with that, a questionable ability to act responsibly. Irresponsible people with firearms are a threat. Such threats must be mitigated.

  62. Jason330 says:

    Well said.

  63. pandora says:

    Hello? Dana lives in Jim Thorpe, PA. Ever been there? I have (passing through). Just sayin’ ;-)

  64. SussexAnon says:

    https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1461823_10201461097384166_198442482_n.jpg

    Just a different perspective on the photo you find so intimidating.

    Yeah, call the police, like they have a stellar track record on keeping peoples constitutional rights intact. ‘memba “freedom zones?”

  65. liberalgeek says:

    That picture was posted in this thread last night. We get it. They smiled for the camera and had their fingers in the right place.

    What part of “an armed group of men in a parking lot” do you find so comforting?

  66. cassandra_m says:

    Seriously, I wish someone would tell me* why the other image is supposed to be a better representation. Because I have no idea why I’m supposed to think the people in that picture are any different than these people. And these people didn’t muster in the local mall.

    *Yes, yes, I already know why.

  67. Jason330 says:

    @LG They were white.

  68. Jason330 says:

    I’m so calling the cops on those guys, not matter what direction you take a picture from.

  69. pandora says:

    Why would anyone find a group of people in a mall parking lot carrying guns not intimidating? Seriously, isn’t being intimidating the point?

  70. Perry says:

    From past experience I can tell you that Dana gets hung up on thinking that the Second Amendment is an absolute, therefore the fear and intimidation effect should be ignored.

  71. Geezer says:

    God forbid we inject facts into the argument, but consider this anyway:

    Writing at Forbes, Rick Ungar highlights one problem with the OCT argument: “While Texas permits licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons, Texas does not permit the open carry of guns except for long guns that are not being used in a menacing way.” In other words, Texas permits the carrying of long guns in public. However the Texas penal code also provides, under its definition of disorderly conduct, that “a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly … displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

    If they wanted to confront four unarmed women, I think they were acting in a manner “calculated to alarm.”

    Plus, of course, they’re douchebags.

Switch to our mobile site