Armed 'patriots' in US turn protests toward Muslim Americans

[chuckd]

Why it it "absolutely mind blowing"?

In the USA, in the majority of states, one is allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, a privilege (a right, really), that European citizens are denied.

The people in the Paris theatre were like sheep in a slaughterhouse, awaiting death - are you OK with that?

What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?

It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no.

If you answer yes, then obviously you do not want people to have the right of self-defense.

If you answer no, then what are your solutions to the problem?

As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers.

Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies.

"It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no."

I will, but first you have to answer either yes or no to the following question;

Have you stopped beating your wife?

"As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers."

Are you saying there were armed civilians onboard a plane?? Remember, we are talking about ARMED civilians.

"Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies"

Your opinion isn't very credible without quoting sources. Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder.

@MZurf:

1. You ask in an earlier post...

"What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?"

How does one prove a negative?

How many instances might have been averted because there were armed personnel standing around the target area when the bad guys arrived?

Unless you have access to every mass murder attempt that was never carried out, the answer is impossible to provide, as there is no answer.

2. You further claim...

"Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder."

OK, let's play your selective game. I will do it by asking one very important question that requires your answer to continue.

That question is...

Which of the recent mass murders (other than suicide bombers) have taken place in legally designated "gun free" zones?

You see, legal gun owners are prone to follow the laws of the land. They would not have their weapons in a "gun free" zone.

Please be prepared to defend your answer.

Thanks.

[chuckd]

When you make an attack like this, you are expected to provide some measure of quantifiable justification. let me start off. I would suggest that zero attacks by terrorists have been prevented by gangs of nuts like the ones you are boosting.

You continue to issue instruction to posters as if you have some authority. Publicus is American. You are not. It is his homeland that is affected by this phenomenon, not yours. The CIA is prevented by law from operating on US soil. I really don't think you or these other rednecks have anything to offer America's security and intelligence agencies.

Is it OK with you if I wade in on this? I am an American, Texan and formerly lived in the city these young lads were protecting.

According to your exacting standards for posting entitlement, then that should make me imminently qualified to offer an

opinion on the subject.

Having said all that, terrorists nearly always look for soft targets. Soft targets would be identified as those targets that

don't have armed personnel around them to interfere with the terrorist's shooting spree.

Your comment that zero attacks have been thwarted is meaningless. How do you know there wasn't a plan to attack this

very same recruitment center where the armed civilians were in attendance but plans were changed by the terrorists when

they saw the armed personnel?

Your statement is speculative at best.

I understand you are not an American and my guess would b a European, Australian or a dual nationality even. Since you

are also not an American, please tell us exactly what you might have to offer America's security and intelligence agencies that

SgtRock might not possess..

My guess is the only contribution you could possibly make would be even more rhetoric than we have already been subjected to.

Well, Happy St Jodoc's Day, Charles. I do hope you raise a glass of Lao Khao to the brave Gallic Defender of the Faith.

I would sincerely love to address your points but in the world in which you are I engage, it seems that some citizens are more equal than others and my replies to your points seem to be out of order. I do thank you for acknowledging my Leadership however. I actually prefer a non-complicated life and the times that I have led teams are generally forced on me and I try to complete the tasks quickly and move on. However, I do believe in leading by example and I do hope you don't find meeting certain standards too onerous.

Also, in defence of rhetoric, I do find it more refreshing to hear the thoughts and arguments of people expressed in their own words instead of the quite boring 'argument by proxy'. You know, when people trawl through ideological publications and post the thoughts of others and say "Let me just offer this".

Again, I won't bite at the tidbits you offer and provide more information about myself but bi-nationality is still going down the wrong track. I keep telling you.

You ask me directly what contribution I could make to the US Security Agencies? Why? I make no claim otherwise? The ramblings of some ex British cop notwithstanding, I have always maintained that the kind of terrorism that your 'volunteers' are seeking to combat is a criminal activity best countered by the criminal justice institutions in each country. Australia and the UK have both demonstrated this. Military and para-military responses are entirely inappropriate. From most recent memory, I think the lessons from the Balkans is pertinent in demonstrating the consequences of nationalism and chauvinistic extremism gone mad.

I have told you before that I have lived, worked and paid taxes in America in my past. I do not claim this gives any more rights or insights than any other person, American or non American. I would like to continue but it seems we are destined to be constantly thwarted in our relationship by the powers that be. No matter. I look forward to your next offering.

And a Happy Republic of Malta day to you too. **

Sadly I don't drink, contrary to popular belief, so raising my glass of Lao Khao would be an empty gesture. I will sip my coffee delicately if that might be found acceptable.

It would seem we must agree to disagree. This would therefore entail my last offering here. Perhaps in another thread someday?

** Yeah, I had to look it up, as well as St. Jodoc's day. I am not Catholic so your good wishes meant little to me. It is heartwarming to get a hint that you might have been raised Catholic, perhaps going astray at a later stage in life. Too bad as you seem well educated, if perhaps a bit wordy.

See you around the campfire.

[chuckd]

Deleted - duplicate post.

Must remember it takes only one click on "enter" to make a post.

Edited December 13, 2015 by chuckd

[spidermike007]

I have been saying this for some time now. As moderate as I am, I believe that if the rank and file Muslims, the moderate ones that comprise most of the Muslim population worldwide, the government leaders and their clerics do not stand up and speak in a unified voice, against the idiocy and the maniacs, we are going to see ALOT more of this kind of demonstration of craziness and anger. The average person is really pissed off. And for good reason. Something needs to be done, by the moderates. If they are not going to put on uniforms and fight against the maniacs, the least they can do it speak out. Now. Loudly. With passion. With conviction. The alternative is dire, ugly and potentially horrific.

[SgtRock]

lostboy, on 13 Dec 2015 - 12:07, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Dec 2015 - 08:44, said:

lostboy, on 12 Dec 2015 - 21:53, said:lostboy, on 12 Dec 2015 - 21:53, said:

When you make an attack like this, you are expected to provide some measure of quantifiable justification. let me start off. I would suggest that zero attacks by terrorists have been prevented by gangs of nuts like the ones you are boosting.

You continue to issue instruction to posters as if you have some authority. Publicus is American. You are not. It is his homeland that is affected by this phenomenon, not yours. The CIA is prevented by law from operating on US soil. I really don't think you or these other rednecks have anything to offer America's security and intelligence agencies.

And you can provide quantifiable justification ?

The clue was in the word '' Potential '' The unknown cannot be quantified.

Phrases such as '' I would suggest '' '' I really don't think '' along with your false and wrong assumptions shows you for what you really.

You have a good day now

Quantifiable? Dunno. You were the one making the asinine claim.

Most of the World does not choose to live in the fantasy construct of right wing loons. We choose confidence over fear; engagement over cravenness; progress over stagnant conservatism. I enjoyed the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise. But it was fantasy. Precognition does not exist as far as I know.

I see you keep doubling down on your silliness in subsequent posts. Keep entertaining us with your fantasy scenarios. it is a mildly amusing diversion. Meanwhile the normal people will deal with reality and work their way though it as best we can.

Your third sentence is missing a verb. I really want to know what my assumptions show me as according to your razor wit.

You really a poor little misguided soul aren't you.

According to you fantasy is the construct or right wing loons, but here you are embellishing your enjoyment of fantasy movies. I will have to take your word for that as I have never seen it.

Precognition does not exist as far as you know ? By implication you do not know that it does exist either. Never heard of Nostradamus ? I believe he is world renowned.

Yet again, nothing to say about the topic or the supplementary issues that the topic raises.

I could tell you what your wrong assumptions show. My issue is, I don't really think that you would understand.

So with that I will we can part verbal company.

[lostboy]

lostboy, on 13 Dec 2015 - 12:07, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Dec 2015 - 08:44, said:

lostboy, on 12 Dec 2015 - 21:53, said:lostboy, on 12 Dec 2015 - 21:53, said:

When you make an attack like this, you are expected to provide some measure of quantifiable justification. let me start off. I would suggest that zero attacks by terrorists have been prevented by gangs of nuts like the ones you are boosting.

You continue to issue instruction to posters as if you have some authority. Publicus is American. You are not. It is his homeland that is affected by this phenomenon, not yours. The CIA is prevented by law from operating on US soil. I really don't think you or these other rednecks have anything to offer America's security and intelligence agencies.

And you can provide quantifiable justification ?

The clue was in the word '' Potential '' The unknown cannot be quantified.

Phrases such as '' I would suggest '' '' I really don't think '' along with your false and wrong assumptions shows you for what you really.

You have a good day now

Quantifiable? Dunno. You were the one making the asinine claim.

Most of the World does not choose to live in the fantasy construct of right wing loons. We choose confidence over fear; engagement over cravenness; progress over stagnant conservatism. I enjoyed the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise. But it was fantasy. Precognition does not exist as far as I know.

I see you keep doubling down on your silliness in subsequent posts. Keep entertaining us with your fantasy scenarios. it is a mildly amusing diversion. Meanwhile the normal people will deal with reality and work their way though it as best we can.

Your third sentence is missing a verb. I really want to know what my assumptions show me as according to your razor wit.

You really a poor little misguided soul aren't you.

According to you fantasy is the construct or right wing loons, but here you are embellishing your enjoyment of fantasy movies. I will have to take your word for that as I have never seen it.

Precognition does not exist as far as you know ? By implication you do not know that it does exist either. Never heard of Nostradamus ? I believe he is world renowned.

Yet again, nothing to say about the topic or the supplementary issues that the topic raises.

I could tell you what your wrong assumptions show. My issue is, I don't really think that you would understand.

So with that I will we can part verbal company.

You keep flouncing off. As if you have any say in the matter.

Exploding your inane fantasy on the number of attacks the Texas Derangers have prevented in this parody of Dad's Army is entirely and precisely on topic. Claiming otherwise is further evidence of straws beyond your rhetorical reach. You started the moronic argument that you now claim as a supplementary issue and don't have the chops to maintain it. Your constant descent to ad hominem is a boringly predictable reversion to type. Your slings and arrows are quite ineffective.

Assumptions are not facts. That is the point. People who are prepared to grow and learn understand that assumptions can be proved or disproved. This line of attack is like being flogged by wet lettuce. Again, reversion to type. You see it constantly from a certain type of poster who has only ever engaged with people of similar views and backgrounds and has never been called on their bs.

I will count the minutes until you flounce back. Snide sarcasm is always a tonic for weekend blues.

Edited December 13, 2015 by lostboy

[Chicog]

Richard Nixon banned any Iranians into the USA..during the Iran hostage thing...Obama is too weak to DO ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING MUSLIM. BRING ON HILARY AND TRUMP...GET THESE BASTARD MUSLIM LIARS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY....And I'm posting this from Qatar....

Don't forget to tell your colleagues your views.

That's if you have the cojones.

[slipperylobster]

Check out the guy at the very back he is 70 plus , and they wonder why there are so many shootings..

Video has been released of the moment a reserve police officer in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shot and killed a man by mistake.

The reserve officer, Bob Bates, a 73-year-old insurance executive, told police he had thought he was firing his Taser stun gun at Eric Courtney Harris, 44, a convicted felon who a police report on the incident said was being arrested after having sold a gun to an undercover officer.

The video, which came from a police officer’s body camera, was released by police on Friday. It shows Harris running down a suburban street, away from his pursuers. The officer catches up with him and Harris is brought to the ground. A shot is heard and Harris gasps in pain.

A voice, presumably that of Bates, says: “I shot him. I’m sorry.”

What does that have to do with anything? More people make mistakes by getting drunk and driving...killing more people than an accidental shooting. Drunk drivers don't even need a gun..to accidently kill five or six people in a single accident. A car is just as lethal (even more so) than a gun. It is the driver's fault...not the cars fault.

Edited December 13, 2015 by slipperylobster

[simple1]

That's debatable. And what's absolutely mind blowing is that these guys are actually allowed to strut around in public with semi automatic guns!!!

Why it it "absolutely mind blowing"?

In the USA, in the majority of states, one is allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, a privilege (a right, really), that European citizens are denied.

The people in the Paris theatre were like sheep in a slaughterhouse, awaiting death - are you OK with that?

Seriously, as a private citizen in the USA you're permitted to take a loaded firearm to a rock concert?

Edited December 13, 2015 by simple1

[Rancid]

Just goes to show stupidity is a God given right and not an aberration. Throw in in a defective education system with a biased controlled media and this is the outcome.

What is amusing is that many of these "militiamen" understandably don't trust their government. And yet are too ignorant to see that same government through its wars and intrigues is creating the Muslim terrorist that is being used as the bogey man to manipulate the population into accepting a fascist state, the very thing they don't want.

As such they are also the puppets of what they oppose, ironic.

[lostboy]

When you make an attack like this, you are expected to provide some measure of quantifiable justification. let me start off. I would suggest that zero attacks by terrorists have been prevented by gangs of nuts like the ones you are boosting.

You continue to issue instruction to posters as if you have some authority. Publicus is American. You are not. It is his homeland that is affected by this phenomenon, not yours. The CIA is prevented by law from operating on US soil. I really don't think you or these other rednecks have anything to offer America's security and intelligence agencies.

Is it OK with you if I wade in on this? I am an American, Texan and formerly lived in the city these young lads were protecting.

According to your exacting standards for posting entitlement, then that should make me imminently qualified to offer an

opinion on the subject.

Having said all that, terrorists nearly always look for soft targets. Soft targets would be identified as those targets that

don't have armed personnel around them to interfere with the terrorist's shooting spree.

Your comment that zero attacks have been thwarted is meaningless. How do you know there wasn't a plan to attack this

very same recruitment center where the armed civilians were in attendance but plans were changed by the terrorists when

they saw the armed personnel?

Your statement is speculative at best.

I understand you are not an American and my guess would b a European, Australian or a dual nationality even. Since you

are also not an American, please tell us exactly what you might have to offer America's security and intelligence agencies that

SgtRock might not possess..

My guess is the only contribution you could possibly make would be even more rhetoric than we have already been subjected to.

Well, Happy St Jodoc's Day, Charles. I do hope you raise a glass of Lao Khao to the brave Gallic Defender of the Faith.

I would sincerely love to address your points but in the world in which you are I engage, it seems that some citizens are more equal than others and my replies to your points seem to be out of order. I do thank you for acknowledging my Leadership however. I actually prefer a non-complicated life and the times that I have led teams are generally forced on me and I try to complete the tasks quickly and move on. However, I do believe in leading by example and I do hope you don't find meeting certain standards too onerous.

Also, in defence of rhetoric, I do find it more refreshing to hear the thoughts and arguments of people expressed in their own words instead of the quite boring 'argument by proxy'. You know, when people trawl through ideological publications and post the thoughts of others and say "Let me just offer this".

Again, I won't bite at the tidbits you offer and provide more information about myself but bi-nationality is still going down the wrong track. I keep telling you.

You ask me directly what contribution I could make to the US Security Agencies? Why? I make no claim otherwise? The ramblings of some ex British cop notwithstanding, I have always maintained that the kind of terrorism that your 'volunteers' are seeking to combat is a criminal activity best countered by the criminal justice institutions in each country. Australia and the UK have both demonstrated this. Military and para-military responses are entirely inappropriate. From most recent memory, I think the lessons from the Balkans is pertinent in demonstrating the consequences of nationalism and chauvinistic extremism gone mad.

I have told you before that I have lived, worked and paid taxes in America in my past. I do not claim this gives any more rights or insights than any other person, American or non American. I would like to continue but it seems we are destined to be constantly thwarted in our relationship by the powers that be. No matter. I look forward to your next offering.

And a Happy Republic of Malta day to you too. **

Sadly I don't drink, contrary to popular belief, so raising my glass of Lao Khao would be an empty gesture. I will sip my coffee delicately if that might be found acceptable.

It would seem we must agree to disagree. This would therefore entail my last offering here. Perhaps in another thread someday?

** Yeah, I had to look it up, as well as St. Jodoc's day. I am not Catholic so your good wishes meant little to me. It is heartwarming to get a hint that you might have been raised Catholic, perhaps going astray at a later stage in life. Too bad as you seem well educated, if perhaps a bit wordy.

See you around the campfire.

Graze hafna Chuck. Sadly, you are perfectly correct that there appears to be no middle ground on this issue. I rarely encounter this. I have tended to favour Hegelian Synthesis in dialectic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis. Perhaps I am too simplistic but the idea of these + antithesis = synthesis does not seem to stand the test of dialectic involving Texas Republicans and Australian liberals (there you have it). This, to me, is a worrying sociological flaw.

I'm glad I was not too obtuse on the religious thing. I wanted to play on the kind of logic that we encounter constantly on TVF. You are Christian. Catholics are Christian. You think the same as them. (substitute Islam and you get my point). And I too used the internet since not even devoted Catholics would remember the multiple Saints for every day of the year. And if it helps your other mission, no I am not lapsed but the person you think I am, is.

So farewell. I doubt we will meet again. I mean how many opportunities do you think could arise on TVF for a debate to occur on gun control, muslim immigration or US politics?

I admit to verbosity as a failing. I can control it for certain professional tasks. Writing for social media is still something of a learning experience. I have tried different styles. I admire concise and succinct expression and I will continue to strive for it.

[slipperylobster]

Just goes to show stupidity is a God given right and not an aberration. Throw in in a defective education system with a biased controlled media and this is the outcome.

What is amusing is that many of these "militiamen" understandably don't trust their government. And yet are too ignorant to see that same government through its wars and intrigues is creating the Muslim terrorist that is being used as the bogey man to manipulate the population into accepting a fascist state, the very thing they don't want.

As such they are also the puppets of what they oppose, ironic.

sure..

but then again.....all the smart people will be dead, and all the stupid people will be still standing.

So stupid will be kind of irrelevant...at that point.

[MZurf]

Why it it "absolutely mind blowing"?

In the USA, in the majority of states, one is allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, a privilege (a right, really), that European citizens are denied.

The people in the Paris theatre were like sheep in a slaughterhouse, awaiting death - are you OK with that?

What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?

It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no.

If you answer yes, then obviously you do not want people to have the right of self-defense.

If you answer no, then what are your solutions to the problem?

As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers.

Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies.

"It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no."

I will, but first you have to answer either yes or no to the following question;
Have you stopped beating your wife?

"As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers."

Are you saying there were armed civilians onboard a plane?? Remember, we are talking about ARMED civilians.

"Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies"

Your opinion isn't very credible without quoting sources. Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder.

@MZurf:

1. You ask in an earlier post...

"What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?"

How does one prove a negative?

How many instances might have been averted because there were armed personnel standing around the target area when the bad guys arrived?

Unless you have access to every mass murder attempt that was never carried out, the answer is impossible to provide, as there is no answer.

2. You further claim...

"Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder."

OK, let's play your selective game. I will do it by asking one very important question that requires your answer to continue.

That question is...

Which of the recent mass murders (other than suicide bombers) have taken place in legally designated "gun free" zones?

You see, legal gun owners are prone to follow the laws of the land. They would not have their weapons in a "gun free" zone.

Please be prepared to defend your answer.

Thanks.

1. I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians? If arming the civilians is the answer then the US should be the safest place on earth since everyone and his grandma is armed there, yet that's the place on earth in which atrocities like the Sandy Hook massacre is almost commonplace. And the answer is more guns????

2. No idea, and it doesn't matter because the answer to the question I posed above is like "zero".

[slipperylobster]

Should be harsher laws for misuse of handguns....can agree with that.

I cannot agree with taking away the right to own one.

Therefore...bad guys who commit mass murders should be locked up forever...minimum.

....bad guys who use guns for criminal activity, in my opinion, should be locked up for at least 20 years to life (if nobody was hurt).

....accidental shootings should be punished...and the right to bear arms pemanently revoked (for dumbasses that don't use them properly).

....annual proficiency evaluations and safety exams should be mandatory...for gun owners.

....Insurance for accidental injury/death should be mandatory

....Taxation on guns should be high...(to ensure enforcement)

I think these laws are the minimum. I am all for regulation/safey. I am equally all for the right for a person to bear arms....should they qualify, and accept the requirements.

Its the only way this is going to work

[Publicus]

Publicus, on 13 Dec 2015 - 09:42, said:

SgtRock, on 13 Dec 2015 - 08:50, said:

You do understand the word '' Potential '' ?

You cannot quantify the unknown.

Security Services Worldwide are not in the habit of releasing details of '' Potential '' attacks until long after the event, and then usually during court proceedings during a trial, or they are actively seeking the perpetrators and are hoping for help from the General Public.

I am surprised that an individual, such as yourself is not even aware of the basics.

You have no idea how many potential attacks these people may have stopped by just being rednecks. Nor the FBI, Nor the CIA or whatever other alphabet soup America has.

So from one post to another post, does no one have an idea or does someone have an idea.......

Not surprised you're confusing yourself. Potentially of course. In fact actually.

The starting point here is for you to figure out whether you're coming or going because you just ran into yourself on the way back.

Coming and going.

Going and coming.

Hey down there....drop the shovel so we can lower a rope to you and pull you out.

Who is confused ? Me or you ?

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators are continuing to review information about other possible attack plans involving the San Bernardino shooters, based in part on interviews with the man who provided the two semi-automatic rifles used in last week's assault that left 14 dead, a federal law enforcement official said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/10/san-bernardino-farook-malik/77111838/

Terrorist attacks are aborted for many reasons. Rednecks cutting about with firearms will certainly be one of them.

It's rather odd to see someone advocating and justifying rednecks.

Must be characteristic of expat fahlang. Even the far out rightwing journals of fiction as news do not sing the praises of rednecks per se. The rednecks themselves make it a point to take the euphemism "patriots".

Here's the Second Amendment in action as it is perceived by the extremist rightwingnutosphere of self-appointed patriots.

Terrified Jack in the Box staff lock themselves in the freezer after heavily armed pro-gun group come in for dinner

• Workers fled, believing it were a robbery
• Some 10 police cars arrived at the scene
• The group maintained it should be normal for them to be able to take their guns anywhere

Employees of a fast food restaurant in Texas fled the service counter and locked themselves inside a freezer, convinced they were being held up, after a group of armed men walked in last Thursday. But the band of gun-toting 'bandits' turned out to be members of Open Carry Texas, the pro-gun group,

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621138/Terrified-fast-food-restaurant-staff-lock-freezer-heavily-armed-pro-gun-group-come-dinner.html#ixzz3uBX4ZKW0

The black guy is the restaurant manager.

These redneck minutemen are pretty proud of themselves, carrying big dicks guns around with 'em in public places and space. The weapons we see on 'em shoot their loads very quickly.

In Texas and in some other states it is not only accepted, it is legal.

In Massachusetts it is to the contrary. The law says one can not purchase a firearm for the stated purpose of self-defense. The self-defense mindset states an unlimited and unrestricted willingness to kill another person. The only reason one can give in Massachusetts to purchase a firearm is target shooting. Not to shoot any person for any reason. If you happen to have a gun in your home and an intruder enters, then it occurs at the risk of the intruder and of the homeowner.

[Publicus]

That's debatable. And what's absolutely mind blowing is that these guys are actually allowed to strut around in public with semi automatic guns!!!

Why it it "absolutely mind blowing"?

In the USA, in the majority of states, one is allowed to carry a firearm for personal protection, a privilege (a right, really), that European citizens are denied.

The people in the Paris theatre were like sheep in a slaughterhouse, awaiting death - are you OK with that?

Seriously, as a private citizen in the USA you're permitted to take a loaded firearm to a rock concert?

It's much worse than anyone abroad may think........

A minority of states (Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia) have laws prohibiting openly carrying a handgun in public. Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota also prohibit openly carrying long guns.

Other states—like California, North Dakota, and Utah—allow open carrying, but only of unloaded firearms. And still others (like Hawaii and Iowa) allow open carrying of loaded guns, but only with a permit.

Other laws may apply to openly carrying guns in vehicles. To learn more about that topic, see Can I carry a gun in my car? And for more information about gun permit and carry laws in your state, see Gun Control Laws, and click the link to your state under the section entitled, “Gun Laws by State”.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/which-states-have-open-carry-gun-laws

Very much worse.

[simple1]

Seriously, as a private citizen in the USA you're permitted to take a loaded firearm to a rock concert?

It's much worse than anyone abroad may think........

A minority of states (Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia) have laws prohibiting openly carrying a handgun in public. Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota also prohibit openly carrying long guns.

Other states—like California, North Dakota, and Utah—allow open carrying, but only of unloaded firearms. And still others (like Hawaii and Iowa) allow open carrying of loaded guns, but only with a permit.

Other laws may apply to openly carrying guns in vehicles. To learn more about that topic, see Can I carry a gun in my car? And for more information about gun permit and carry laws in your state, see Gun Control Laws, and click the link to your state under the section entitled, “Gun Laws by State”.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/which-states-have-open-carry-gun-laws

Very much worse.

Thanks.

You may not openly carry a firearm in Texas. (Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)

I assume the photos of people in this thread openly carrying firearms in a public place in Texas are not active service military / law enforcement so they are in fact breaking the law?

[chuckd]

It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no.

If you answer yes, then obviously you do not want people to have the right of self-defense.

If you answer no, then what are your solutions to the problem?

As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers.

Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies.

"It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no."

I will, but first you have to answer either yes or no to the following question;

Have you stopped beating your wife?

"As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers."

Are you saying there were armed civilians onboard a plane?? Remember, we are talking about ARMED civilians.

"Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies"

Your opinion isn't very credible without quoting sources. Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder.

@MZurf:

1. You ask in an earlier post...

"What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?"

How does one prove a negative?

How many instances might have been averted because there were armed personnel standing around the target area when the bad guys arrived?

Unless you have access to every mass murder attempt that was never carried out, the answer is impossible to provide, as there is no answer.

2. You further claim...

"Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder."

OK, let's play your selective game. I will do it by asking one very important question that requires your answer to continue.

That question is...

Which of the recent mass murders (other than suicide bombers) have taken place in legally designated "gun free" zones?

You see, legal gun owners are prone to follow the laws of the land. They would not have their weapons in a "gun free" zone.

Please be prepared to defend your answer.

Thanks.

1. I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians? If arming the civilians is the answer then the US should be the safest place on earth since everyone and his grandma is armed there, yet that's the place on earth in which atrocities like the Sandy Hook massacre is almost commonplace. And the answer is more guns????

2. No idea, and it doesn't matter because the answer to the question I posed above is like "zero".

A good podiatric surgeon can take care of that gunshot wound to your foot.

Sandy Hook could have been prevented had merely ONE person had a gun. Your "more guns" comment isn't even relevant.

You see there is this little thing called "gun free zones" that enters into play here. Gun free zones were explained in the post you quoted.

Sandy Hook, along with San Bernardino, Colorado Springs PP Center, Umpqua Community College, Charleston church shooting, Chattanooga Recruiters, Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, ad infinitum, were all gun free zones.

NOBODY had any weapons to defend themselves.

Perhaps a little education on your part might be helpful, particularly if you insist on posting on a thread you seemingly know very little about.

At the very least, find out what constitutes a gun free zone.

[sirineou]

Just a note. lol

Standing-Guard.jpeg

greetings from your local branch

USISIS

By the way , nice hunting rifles, what are they hunting? ohh wait they already answered that.

Edited December 13, 2015 by sirineou

[chuckd]

Seriously, as a private citizen in the USA you're permitted to take a loaded firearm to a rock concert?

It's much worse than anyone abroad may think........

A minority of states (Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia) have laws prohibiting openly carrying a handgun in public. Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota also prohibit openly carrying long guns.

Other states—like California, North Dakota, and Utah—allow open carrying, but only of unloaded firearms. And still others (like Hawaii and Iowa) allow open carrying of loaded guns, but only with a permit.

Other laws may apply to openly carrying guns in vehicles. To learn more about that topic, see Can I carry a gun in my car? And for more information about gun permit and carry laws in your state, see Gun Control Laws, and click the link to your state under the section entitled, “Gun Laws by State”.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/which-states-have-open-carry-gun-laws

Very much worse.

Thanks.

You may not openly carry a firearm in Texas. (Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)

I assume the photos of people in this thread openly carrying firearms in a public place in Texas are not active service military / law enforcement so they are in fact breaking the law?

As of 1 January 2016 open carry in Texas is legal.

There have never been laws against carrying a long gun openly in Texas. They may be legally displayed and carried anywhere other than a particular store owner who has signage that forbids them, any federal building, some school districts, etc.

The gents in the photo are perfectly legal, but thanks for your concern.

Maybe this link will help you on Texas gun laws: http://www.opencarrytexas.org/faq.html

[sirineou]

Seriously, as a private citizen in the USA you're permitted to take a loaded firearm to a rock concert?

It's much worse than anyone abroad may think........

A minority of states (Florida, Illinois, and the District of Columbia) have laws prohibiting openly carrying a handgun in public. Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota also prohibit openly carrying long guns.

Other states—like California, North Dakota, and Utah—allow open carrying, but only of unloaded firearms. And still others (like Hawaii and Iowa) allow open carrying of loaded guns, but only with a permit.

Other laws may apply to openly carrying guns in vehicles. To learn more about that topic, see Can I carry a gun in my car? And for more information about gun permit and carry laws in your state, see Gun Control Laws, and click the link to your state under the section entitled, “Gun Laws by State”.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/which-states-have-open-carry-gun-laws

Very much worse.

Thanks.

You may not openly carry a firearm in Texas. (Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)

I assume the photos of people in this thread openly carrying firearms in a public place in Texas are not active service military / law enforcement so they are in fact breaking the law?

As of 1 January 2016 open carry in Texas is legal.

There have never been laws against carrying a long gun openly in Texas. They may be legally displayed and carried anywhere other than a particular store owner who has signage that forbids them, any federal building, some school districts, etc.

The gents in the photo are perfectly legal, but thanks for your concern.

Maybe this link will help you on Texas gun laws: http://www.opencarrytexas.org/faq.html

last I checked it was now 12/13/2015 unless these gentlemen (to use the phrase liberally) have time machines they are breaking the law

[Credo]

Personally, I'd be a little reluctant to arrest them. I think I'd rather not be around when someone did either.

[chuckd]

Thanks.

You may not openly carry a firearm in Texas. (Texas Pen. Code § 46.035.)

I assume the photos of people in this thread openly carrying firearms in a public place in Texas are not active service military / law enforcement so they are in fact breaking the law?

As of 1 January 2016 open carry in Texas is legal.

There have never been laws against carrying a long gun openly in Texas. They may be legally displayed and carried anywhere other than a particular store owner who has signage that forbids them, any federal building, some school districts, etc.

The gents in the photo are perfectly legal, but thanks for your concern.

Maybe this link will help you on Texas gun laws: http://www.opencarrytexas.org/faq.html

last I checked it was now 12/13/2015 unless these gentlemen (to use the phrase liberally) have time machines they are breaking the law

From your post:

"last I checked it was now 12/13/2015 unless these gentlemen (to use the phrase liberally) have time machines they are breaking the law"

From my post which you quoted:

"There have never been laws against carrying a long gun openly in Texas."

Cheers

[sirineou]

Personally, I'd be a little reluctant to arrest them. I think I'd rather not be around when someone did either.

and there lays the problem with vigilantes,

[MZurf]

It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no.

If you answer yes, then obviously you do not want people to have the right of self-defense.

If you answer no, then what are your solutions to the problem?

As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers.

Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies.

"It is not a silly question, please answer it yes or no."

I will, but first you have to answer either yes or no to the following question;

Have you stopped beating your wife?

"As to your question, I believe that one of the highjacked planes in 2011 was prevented from crashing into its intended target by the action of the passengers."

Are you saying there were armed civilians onboard a plane?? Remember, we are talking about ARMED civilians.

"Also there are daily reports of everyday crime being stopped by armed citizens, either in public places or home robberies"

Your opinion isn't very credible without quoting sources. Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder.

@MZurf:

1. You ask in an earlier post...

"What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?"

How does one prove a negative?

How many instances might have been averted because there were armed personnel standing around the target area when the bad guys arrived?

Unless you have access to every mass murder attempt that was never carried out, the answer is impossible to provide, as there is no answer.

2. You further claim...

"Besides, we're not talking about "everyday" crime but mass murder."

OK, let's play your selective game. I will do it by asking one very important question that requires your answer to continue.

That question is...

Which of the recent mass murders (other than suicide bombers) have taken place in legally designated "gun free" zones?

You see, legal gun owners are prone to follow the laws of the land. They would not have their weapons in a "gun free" zone.

Please be prepared to defend your answer.

Thanks.

1. I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians? If arming the civilians is the answer then the US should be the safest place on earth since everyone and his grandma is armed there, yet that's the place on earth in which atrocities like the Sandy Hook massacre is almost commonplace. And the answer is more guns????

2. No idea, and it doesn't matter because the answer to the question I posed above is like "zero".

A good podiatric surgeon can take care of that gunshot wound to your foot.

Sandy Hook could have been prevented had merely ONE person had a gun. Your "more guns" comment isn't even relevant.

You see there is this little thing called "gun free zones" that enters into play here. Gun free zones were explained in the post you quoted.

Sandy Hook, along with San Bernardino, Colorado Springs PP Center, Umpqua Community College, Charleston church shooting, Chattanooga Recruiters, Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, ad infinitum, were all gun free zones.

NOBODY had any weapons to defend themselves.

Perhaps a little education on your part might be helpful, particularly if you insist on posting on a thread you seemingly know very little about.

At the very least, find out what constitutes a gun free zone.

"A good podiatric surgeon can take care of that gunshot wound to your foot."

Sorry to break it to you but no surgeon can curebwhat ails you.

"Sandy Hook, along with San Bernardino, Colorado Springs PP Center, Umpqua Community College, Charleston church shooting, Chattanooga Recruiters, Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, ad infinitum, were all gun free zones."

That's amazingly enough but a fraction of the number of mass shootings that has taken place over the last decade.

How about you answer my question that you so far have dodged? I will repeat;

I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians?

Please be prepared to supply sources for your answer.

[sirineou]

Publicus, on 13 Dec 2015 - 09:42, said:

So from one post to another post, does no one have an idea or does someone have an idea.......

Not surprised you're confusing yourself. Potentially of course. In fact actually.

The starting point here is for you to figure out whether you're coming or going because you just ran into yourself on the way back.

Coming and going.

Going and coming.

Hey down there....drop the shovel so we can lower a rope to you and pull you out.

Who is confused ? Me or you ?

WASHINGTON — Federal investigators are continuing to review information about other possible attack plans involving the San Bernardino shooters, based in part on interviews with the man who provided the two semi-automatic rifles used in last week's assault that left 14 dead, a federal law enforcement official said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/10/san-bernardino-farook-malik/77111838/

Terrorist attacks are aborted for many reasons. Rednecks cutting about with firearms will certainly be one of them.

It's rather odd to see someone advocating and justifying rednecks.

Must be characteristic of expat fahlang. Even the far out rightwing journals of fiction as news do not sing the praises of rednecks per se. The rednecks themselves make it a point to take the euphemism "patriots".

Here's the Second Amendment in action as it is perceived by the extremist rightwingnutosphere of self-appointed patriots.

Terrified Jack in the Box staff lock themselves in the freezer after heavily armed pro-gun group come in for dinner

• Workers fled, believing it were a robbery
• Some 10 police cars arrived at the scene
• The group maintained it should be normal for them to be able to take their guns anywhere

Employees of a fast food restaurant in Texas fled the service counter and locked themselves inside a freezer, convinced they were being held up, after a group of armed men walked in last Thursday. But the band of gun-toting 'bandits' turned out to be members of Open Carry Texas, the pro-gun group,

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621138/Terrified-fast-food-restaurant-staff-lock-freezer-heavily-armed-pro-gun-group-come-dinner.html#ixzz3uBX4ZKW0

The black guy is the restaurant manager.

These redneck minutemen are pretty proud of themselves, carrying big dicks guns around with 'em in public places and space. The weapons we see on 'em shoot their loads very quickly.

In Texas and in some other states it is not only accepted, it is legal.

In Massachusetts it is to the contrary. The law says one can not purchase a firearm for the stated purpose of self-defense. The self-defense mindset states an unlimited and unrestricted willingness to kill another person. The only reason one can give in Massachusetts to purchase a firearm is target shooting. Not to shoot any person for any reason. If you happen to have a gun in your home and an intruder enters, then it occurs at the risk of the intruder and of the homeowner.

I dont know about you, but I feel a lot safer having those people well armed, especially the one in the plaid shirt.

and he looks very bipartisan not only does he make the case against gun control, he crosses the isle and makes the case for abortion

[dutchisaan]

Well leave it up to the US "so callad" patriots. Just be ready to hit your keyboard again after the next mass shooting!

[chuckd]

"A good podiatric surgeon can take care of that gunshot wound to your foot."

Sorry to break it to you but no surgeon can curebwhat ails you.

"Sandy Hook, along with San Bernardino, Colorado Springs PP Center, Umpqua Community College, Charleston church shooting, Chattanooga Recruiters, Fort Hood, Washington Navy Yard, ad infinitum, were all gun free zones."

That's amazingly enough but a fraction of the number of mass shootings that has taken place over the last decade.

How about you answer my question that you so far have dodged? I will repeat;

I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians?

Please be prepared to supply sources for your answer.

<<Messed up quotes deleted>>:

You now ask:

"I'm asking in how many instances has a mass murder been attempted and averted by armed civilians?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, but you see, that is not the question you have been asking. This is the question you originally asked:

""What a silly question. I guess you have several examples of massacres averted by armed civilians in the US or elsewhere?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See any difference here? Suddenly your question includes an "attempted and" qualifier.

I answered your original question with my comment that one could not prove a negative.

How many massacres might have been averted with the mere presence of armed personnel?

How can you know if a massacre has been averted by armed civilians if the massacre is never attempted?

You have now come to your senses and realized you really didn't phrase the original question correctly so you are changing it in the middle of this discussion.

Sorry but I can't let you get away with that little trick. Good try though.

Now let me turn the tables on you a bit. Rather than me finding a "massacre", your phrase, which was averted by an armed person, why don't you try and find one that was not committed in a gun free zone.

[chuckd]

Personally, I'd be a little reluctant to arrest them. I think I'd rather not be around when someone did either.

and there lays the problem with vigilantes,

I expect a polite request would move them along much quicker than a polite request addressed to the average St. Louis gang banger.

It wouldn't bother me in the least to walk up and talk to them.

[Credo]

Personally, I'd be a little reluctant to arrest them. I think I'd rather not be around when someone did either.

and there lays the problem with vigilantes,

I expect a polite request would move them along much quicker than a polite request addressed to the average St. Louis gang banger.

It wouldn't bother me in the least to walk up and talk to them.

I agree. I wouldn't have any trouble talking to them, but I'd speak very politely and I wouldn't argue. As a matter of fact, I would be inclined to do more listening than talking.....probably better all the way around.