First, let’s all keep in mind I’m answering a hypothetical about people waving their guns in the air. I have no idea if it has anything to do with the protest at all, and actually I kind of doubt it, because it wouldn’t surprise me if waving around weapons like that in public were illegal itself.
Secondly, nothing could convince me that fear of people who are actually waving weapons in the air is misplaced. After a certain point the assumption that people are in control is misplaced, and while that point may be after the “carrying to a rally” point, it’s certainly before the “waving the weapons around” point.
Ever been to a concert? Seen people raising their fists and/or lighters in the air? What about the “Hook 'em Horns” sign? Same thing.
Also note that “waving the weapons around” is your phrase, not mine. I used the phrase “weapons to the sky”. This is done in a non-reckless manner.
Oh…and for the record, Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my guns have. 
I never said or implied you killed anybody. Heck, I even explicitly stated that you wouldn’t be the one to start firing into the air.
And I think we have this month’s entry for “False Equivalence of the Year”.
Doesn’t matter. The anti-gun crowd has their minds made up, refuse to be swayed by evidence of peaceful exercise of constitutional rights, and mostly use these threads as yet another excuse to taunt conservatives.
You’re absolutely right - we have our minds made up that for gun-owners to deliberately present themselves as a mob of armed thugs is a bad idea from a PR standpoint and is uniquely dubious from a standpoint of political ethics due to the coersion and intimidation angle (as compared to, say, placards or bondage clothing). We refuse to ignore the way the protesters are presenting themselves, due to the mere fact that no violence actually broke out*. And we use these threads as an opportunity to refute the absurd arguments of gun proponents who seem to be completely forgetting that the things are in fact weapons.
You have us pegged.
- which is of course the whole point of intimidation - to get your way without having to shoot people or beat them with your baseball bats. I don’t know why I have to tell a gun-owner this; it’s one of the main arguments for carrying a gun for personal protection.
No, you think it is. Which doesn’t make it so.
That’s what they tell me it is. Let’s look at the options, shall we?
- With the gun, you can shoot the bad guy.
- With the gun, you can convince the bad guy to back off (possibly because he brought a knife to a gunfight).
- If you’ve got a gun the bad guy will decide you’re too big a risk and leave you alone.
- Guns exude a magic aura that turns bad guys into gerbils.
- Other.
Option 1 is to shoot people. Options 2 and 3 are intimidation: you get your way without having to shoot people, exactly as I said. Option 4 is silly and stupid. Option 5 I leave for you to fill in - but I suspect it’s going to have more in common with 4 than 1-3. Care to surprise me?
The only correct thing that you “have been told” is option 1, with a little bit of option 2 minus the standard nonsense rhetoric. The remainder is pure unadulterated hokum that you just made up on the spot. The only person that would ever have told you the rest is yourself considering that option 3 is a crime and option 4 is utter nonsense.
It gets really tiring trying to discuss this because it’s nothing but allegations and hooey from you people. I suppose that I could make stuff up too, but I’m actually trying to argue in good faith, something that you guys are singularly incapable of.
Are you joking?
Seriously, are you joking?
I promise I have heard all of 1-3 from pro-gun people. All of them. Repeatedly. On this message board! I swear it. Cross my heart and hope to be shot! In fact 2 and 3 seem to be pushed more than 1 (possibly because the pro-gun people don’t want to sound bloodthirsty).
And if 3 is a crime, then open carry is a crime, because the bad guy seeing your gun is all it takes for 3 to happen. In fact I can’t figure out how you arrived at the conclusion it’s a crime. What are you imagining I was saying?
I concede I did make up 4 though. You have me there.
Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Open carry is not a crime. And open carry (EDIT: where permitted by law) has nothing to do with intimidation, your assertions to the contrary.
I said nothing about brandishing in 3. (The stuff about waving guns in the air at rallies is earlier in the thread.)
And as for your assertion to the contrary of my assertion to the contrary: that’s not what the gun-proponents have been saying.
ETA: and it also doesn’t make a lick of sense - do you think crooks prefer to attack armed people? Heck, I’ve seen it asserted that when everyone is known to carry crime drops dramatically. What is supposed to be causing this, fairies?
Excellent. Now all you have to do is provide a cite and we can start having a reasonable discussion.
No. Call me a liar outright if you like, but your position that people don’t expect their guns to be a deterrent to criminals, and that people consider shooting to kill to be the only possible option in any conflict regardless of the situation or circumstances, is patently absurd. If you’re determined to cling onto that foolishness then no reasonable discussion is possible anyway.
Also do you know how much rambling argument there is in gun threads - and you can’t even search for ‘gun’ here!
Thought so. Bye.
How many rallies have there been that combined loaded weapons, bandoliers of ammo, ak47’s slung over participants shoulders and irate, angry speakers have there been at National Parks lately?
When people conjecture such stupid stuff as this it usually means that that’s what’s going thru their own minds. Are you secretly hoping that the feds open up on your redneck friends or that bad boys attack you so you all are justified in using ultimate force to defend yourself thereby justifying your walking around armed and dangerous at all times?
Sheesh, I’m a 55 year old woman who’s been around the world and I’ve never felt even close to as threatened as you apparently are. Grow a pair and stop hiding behind your gun.
So you’re actually standing by that? Weird.
Anyway, can I ask to the associated open carry boosters here:
Is it all right to carry swords to a demonstration? Is it okay if each protester has a brick in their left hand? Is it okay to carry a (non-lit) Molotov Cocktail? Is it okay to carry razor-sharp boomerangs like in Mad Max?
It’s about intimidation.
Who is supposed to be intimidated? The people attending the rally all (apparently) had guns. Didn’t see any reports of a counter-protest. 70-some odd people with guns had a rally in the woods (National Park), where guns are allowed. They didn’t surround the DNC headquarters or anything.
Why is it weird? I asked for a cite and got excuses. It got the dismissal it deserved.
Is the demonstration about the right to carry swords, Molotov Cocktails or bricks? No, it was about the right to keep and bear arms.
I can’t believe that you would even pretend to be astonished that people would exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (where legal) during a rally in support of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And who was intimidated, exactly? The people who were there were people who supported the right. In the same way that I would not attend a pro-abortion rally, who would attend something in support of that which they disagree with?
The whole idea of the rally is to intimidate the evil government, to let them know that they’re willing to “take their country back.” or something. I actually expect most of the attendees are a little fuzzy on what they’re actually doing. But they just want to show that they’re not a force to be ignored.
Now mind you, I’m not against gun ownership, but these people are trying to intimidate, just like a group of protesters with swords would be trying to intimidate.
If we ever have a government capable of being intimidated by a double handful of guys exercising their constitutional rights, we’re in deep shit. One APC coulda dusted everybody there. In seconds.