This has been a lot more than one picture.
Wrong on that one, but nice try getting folks riled up!
Clearly it was placed there by Bloomberg's bodyguards. No "real" gun owner would be so irresponsible. Just another false flag operation in effect.*
*Or...some might suspect .......
ABC News says the the planted gun and the petition are unrelated. Yes I know it is the mainstream media and they do distort the news. But that is what they are reporting.
Oh, but some careless and reckless Yosemite Sam open carrier obviously dropped it while shooting holes in the floor/ceiling during his protest. The hell it's not related to OC. It's meant to plant the seed that the presence of (identifiable) gun-carriers leads to the presence of loose guns. Loose guns are the anti's/parent's worst nightmare. If they can link that with OC, it's done for.
Thanks for calling me out, sparky! You probably should learn the definition of slander though.
I'm not defending counter-productive tactics. I'm calling out nothing other than your/others' rude manner. I usually refrain from busting people about being sarcastic/mocking of others, but it's conflagrating rapidly around here --and it is far more damaging than OC could ever be. I chose your mocking treatise because it was the most obvious example (for the above reasons, which is also why you chose the font you did)
The difference, is that you are not trying to work with the Westboro Baptist Morons to promote a policy initiative. In fact, you are likely adamantly opposed to the "__ hates ____" rhetoric, as well as their incredibly offensive activities at military funerals. By comparing OC'ers who are a bit too crass (and it really is just "a bit" too crass; we'd have much less issue with them protesting outside or down the street, or even just carrying in a scabbard or with hands off the gun like the law requires) with the most repugnant bigots this country has seen since a resurgent Ku Klux Klan...
)
Lots of people on some level imbue guns with free will; ergo, a gun will 'lose itself' or 'go off' if present in the company of decent people. Obviously, this is a lazy/idle thought, so it does occur to these same people so long as they cannot see the gun (and we all know CCW'ers occasionally lose and negligently fire guns, themselves, so it's not like it's a carry-method specific issue)
Well, the guys are activists (crappy ones, sure), so I kind of expect them to behave at least somewhat out of the ordinary. Protesting/picketing is kind of unusual behavior, as well, but it's obnoxious/annoying nature is tolerated in literally all other circles. Still not defending their tactics, btw, but I do defend OC protestor's need to generate some level of controversy (just so long as it's not 'monoversy'
)Neither is legal in Texas. People seem to keep forgetting this, or pretend like the presence of guns at a protest for guns is a completely unimportant aspect of the whole issue. We can't carry handguns openly. We can't protest with them concealed, since revealing you are carrying is a crime. Basically, we cannot show anyone guns in public is not the horror its claimed with anything other than rifles. Our hands are tied. Telling us to keep our hands behind us even as the bonds are cut makes the whole endeavor moot, and pointless to fight for.
We have laws specifically barring the carrying of rifles "in a manner calculated to cause alarm." It's how that guy in Waco was arrested for walking some back-roads along with his son for his Boy Scout merit badge requirements. If these guys were present for an extended time in the Chipotle (i.e. not snapping a selife, and yelling "Cheese it!" before bolting) openly brandishing firearms, we should really be taking our outrage to the police for tolerating unsafe/irresponsible gunplay. You are right guns aren't toys. You should keep them out of your hands unless you are using them; same as any other object. Walking around with a hammer or knife in hand where it would cause alarm is also illegal, for the same reasons.
They could allow a place for people to exercise open carry, though (everyone assumes businesses have only one option on this matter, but that is simply not true. Chipotle could put out a statement specifically saying they will prosecute any protesters carrying in a way calculated to cause alarm, but they instead put out a means-nothing statement; even 30-06 signs could be defended as 'a response,' but a voluntary sign to "not be a jerk" is very weak tea.)
But I thought they couldn't make laws? They can only make laws forbidding weapons carry on the premises? If we based all our actions on what is easy for others to make rash and improper decisions around, we'd all be wearing flannel and using wood/steel bolt guns so as to look as non-threatening and irrelevant to the multitudes of city-dwellers at the polls as possible.
I believe that stopping an ongoing forcible felony that threatens the life of another (maybe not even that, as in rape, for instance) is sufficient cause for intervention in some states (I'm thinking Texas, though I'm not studied on the subject).
And yet...that's exactly what we'd expect a policeman with probably less firearms-training than non-LEO to do for the guy getting beaten to death on the street corner. You are conflating tactics with means. In some circumstances, a passerby's intervention can make all the difference, for the better.
Let me explain: They are exercising their rights under two articles of the Bill of Rights, the First and Second.
Exactly.
