Armed 'patriots' in US turn protests toward Muslim Americans

[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,

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.

It might id you stayed out in the sun a little longer and got a tan.

[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.

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.

If you don't go in with a chip on your shoulder, you aren't likely to have any problems.

These guys are ex-military trying to protect their unarmed brothers in the gun free recruiting offices. Nothing more.

The Republican Congress is trying to attach a ban removal amendment to a must-have piece of legislation so it won't be vetoed by Obama.

We will see.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248685-mccarthy-says-defense-bill-could-lift-restrictions-on-military-guns

Edited December 13, 2015 by chuckd

[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,

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.

Finally something we agree on!!

doing more listening and less talking would do you a world of good

I also agree that good o'ld boys have no trouble talking to each other But I remember what they did to a Sikh Indian after 9/11 when these ivy league educated gentleman mistook him for a muslim. So when you talk to them a little advise, No beard and no towel on the head.

[MZurf]

"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.

" 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."

How can clarifying a question for those who are either slow or deliberately obfuscate be changing it???

So, do you have an answer to my question or not??

[Publicus]

Just goes to show stupidity is a God given right a nd 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.

Where the native speaking English island foreigner sees irony everywhere in Americans and in the USA, we see foreigners who have read too much into British Lit.

Americans too read British Lit in high school and university, and we read the Greek dramas and literature. But we tend to focus on the tragedy and hubris presented in the ancient Greek literature. BritLit is more for the descendants of the Elizabethans and the Victorians. Pip and his great expectations and all of that. (Shakespeare wuz a righteous guy, either himself or the bunch of 'em.)

Irony normally is included in each body of literature, more or less depending on the play. Let it be a lesson to the cultural supremacists of certain island nations that when you hear an American say "unintended consequences" you can think irony if that's the word you're historically comfortable with. Either way, do try to put a check on the superiority complex. The Iraq war was a definitional lesson of unintended consequence(s). Daesh = unintended consequences. Trump emerging out of the culture of the Republican party to bite the party in its arse is the hapless R's own unintended consequences of decades of crackpot politics. Etc.

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

Rational, reasonable, well thought through.

NRA would run you out of town and your elected representatives in Congress too, from both the House and the Senate. They'd pin the governor of your state against the wall of his office until he signed on against it. Same with your state legislators.

Talking about raising taxes on guns or ammunition would get you thrown overboard into the harbor with an anchor around your neck and bags of tea in your pockets.

NRA would scream holler and shout every day that your proposal to take guns away from people committing accidental shootings is a plot to demolish and destroy the Second Amendment completely.

The proposals are far too rational, reasonable, well thought through, fair minded, measured, balanced. Which means you're sunk before you start.

[sirineou]

"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.

" 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."

How can clarifying a question for those who are either slow or deliberately obfuscate be changing it???

So, do you have an answer to my question or not??

Your question is a simple one, easy to understand and IMO apropos

if your opponent is intelligent enough to engage in the intellectual gymnastics he is engaging in trying to evade answering it, he is intelligent enough to understand it, and should be intelligent enough to realise that a terrorist that is willing to die , so much so that he/she wears a suicide vest , would not be deterred by a couple of "hunting" rifles or a hand gun . So to suggest that

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

Is simply a debating devise used to evade answering your question. The answer is obvious. Maybe a few , who knows? but not enough to justify the expense .

(expense not only in monetary terms)

[NeverSure]

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

They'd immediately submit to arrest by law enforcement. They are law abiding people.

Then they'd sue the shit out of that government entity for violating their US and state rights and win money. Then that government and any others watching wouldn't do that again.

That's the way it's supposed to work - the rule of law.

[lostboy]

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.

If you don't go in with a chip on your shoulder, you aren't likely to have any problems.

These guys are ex-military trying to protect their unarmed brothers in the gun free recruiting offices. Nothing more.

The Republican Congress is trying to attach a ban removal amendment to a must-have piece of legislation so it won't be vetoed by Obama.

We will see.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/248685-mccarthy-says-defense-bill-could-lift-restrictions-on-military-guns

The volunteers were there to protect their comrades who were in a gun free zone. This workplace is a soft target and there is the potential for it to be attacked by muslim terrorists.

Out of curiosity, I thought of another soft target that is also a gun free zone. I did a search and found a listing for 675 pre-schools in Dallas. If you add in Grade Schools, Middle Schools, Hospitals, Planned Parenthood Clinics (or maybe there aren't any in Dallas) and other places that are peopled by those who are unable to defend themselves, you will have quite a few locations. How do we know that these will not be attacked on Sunday 13 December (US time)? We now know that they were not attacked on Saturday 12 December. What then of these gun free zones. Are the lives of children, the ill and infirm less worthy than the lives of military recruiting officers? Why are not questions being asked about the priorities of where these vigilantes hold their vigils?

I know we agreed to disagree but the whole gun free zone thing is just too much to let slide. Once you start down this road, where to you end up?

I did enjoy my visit to Dallas last year. Have been to Texas a few times but that was my first to Dallas. Some good restaurants and nice downtown areas near our conference hotel.

Edited December 13, 2015 by lostboy

[Pinot]

I love the rational, if there was only one person there who was carrying, we could have saved all those people. That's such a twisted argument. See...a normal person wouldn't/couldn't say that.

In other words, more guns is always the answer.

There was a guy carrying at a mass shooting recently (Sorry, I forget which one). Some off duty cop or something. He didn't pull his piece because...he said if he had a gun out the cops would kill him when they saw him. So...he was at a mass shooting and didn't pull his piece so that he could live. So much for the "if only there was someone there with a gun".

It's impossible to argue with the wingnuts. They have the rational for craziness. Fox gives them more ammunition all day and night. They immerse themselves in the crazy hate 24/7. Arguing with them is wrestling with a pig.

They hate and they're afraid. Happiness is a warm gun.

[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.

" 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."

How can clarifying a question for those who are either slow or deliberately obfuscate be changing it???

So, do you have an answer to my question or not??

You didn't clarify anything. You changed it, probably hoping I wouldn't notice it.

You have lost all credibility with this action and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It was a cheap amateurish stunt pulled by a cheap amateurish poster. End of story and end of responses from me.

Play your devious games with somebody else.

[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.

" 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."

How can clarifying a question for those who are either slow or deliberately obfuscate be changing it???

So, do you have an answer to my question or not??

Your question is a simple one, easy to understand and IMO apropos

if your opponent is intelligent enough to engage in the intellectual gymnastics he is engaging in trying to evade answering it, he is intelligent enough to understand it, and should be intelligent enough to realise that a terrorist that is willing to die , so much so that he/she wears a suicide vest , would not be deterred by a couple of "hunting" rifles or a hand gun . So to suggest that

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

Is simply a debating devise used to evade answering your question. The answer is obvious. Maybe a few , who knows? but not enough to justify the expense .

(expense not only in monetary terms)

If others are too ignorant to write a proper question, don't blame the responders.

You aren't exactly on a roll of intelligent posts with your comments on that other thread.

Edited December 13, 2015 by chuckd

[chuckd]

I love the rational, if there was only one person there who was carrying, we could have saved all those people. That's such a twisted argument. See...a normal person wouldn't/couldn't say that.

In other words, more guns is always the answer.

There was a guy carrying at a mass shooting recently (Sorry, I forget which one). Some off duty cop or something. He didn't pull his piece because...he said if he had a gun out the cops would kill him when they saw him. So...he was at a mass shooting and didn't pull his piece so that he could live. So much for the "if only there was someone there with a gun".

It's impossible to argue with the wingnuts. They have the rational for craziness. Fox gives them more ammunition all day and night. They immerse themselves in the crazy hate 24/7. Arguing with them is wrestling with a pig.

They hate and they're afraid. Happiness is a warm gun.

If you can't remember where it happened how can you remember what happened?

The armed man was in another building across the campus from where the shooting was taking place. He was leaving the Veteran's Center heading to the gunfire when he observed the Police and SWAT teams heading for the shooting.

Others persuaded him not to get involved due to possible confusion.

Had he been in the same classroom, I doubt 9 people would have been gunned down, most after admitting they were Christians.

The armed individual had recently returned from deployment to Afghanistan.

This is a shooting case I just knew you gun control people would jump on since Oregon law says legally licensed guns may be carried on all college campuses.

You could all then start screeching this was a legal carry gun zone so it is not a gun free zone.

If any of you had been so astute as to bring this up, I might have told you that Oregon law states each individual school says in which buildings where guns are not allowed.

Umpqua Community College banned guns in all building where classes were held. Anybody want to guess where the shootings occurred?

That's a rhetorical question.

[slipperylobster]

555

I know the guy in the black shirt on the far right.

[slipperylobster]

I love the rational, if there was only one person there who was carrying, we could have saved all those people. That's such a twisted argument. See...a normal person wouldn't/couldn't say that.

In other words, more guns is always the answer.

There was a guy carrying at a mass shooting recently (Sorry, I forget which one). Some off duty cop or something. He didn't pull his piece because...he said if he had a gun out the cops would kill him when they saw him. So...he was at a mass shooting and didn't pull his piece so that he could live. So much for the "if only there was someone there with a gun".

It's impossible to argue with the wingnuts. They have the rational for craziness. Fox gives them more ammunition all day and night. They immerse themselves in the crazy hate 24/7. Arguing with them is wrestling with a pig.

They hate and they're afraid. Happiness is a warm gun.

Your last line gives away your agenda. You almost made sense until you wrote something ("They"). Now you just pulled the golden banana award for silly comments. Who in dahel is "They"??? You cannot possibly mean all americans? That would be insane..

I know plenty people, all across the USA, that do not hate and are not afraid.

Most foolish post of the year award...for being biased, unfair, prejudice, and spreading lies.

This is why Americans do not respect the opinions of awkward Euro/Brit/Aussie comments that just insult..but do not contribute to solving issues. (not that solving our problems is your business)

Edited December 13, 2015 by slipperylobster

[Publicus]

Oops......

[simple1]

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

So in Texas, I assume other States as well, it is legal to openly carry a long gun without a license, therefore I assume no mandated training whatsoever for open carry of long guns. Do you and other pro gun supporters concur that a license & training not being required is acceptable?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[Publicus]

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?

Texas passed an open carry law for long rifles as has been pointed out in the thread by an expat local gunman.

Texas law had been silent on open carry of long rifles, so a number of people had been doing it at will and without much consequence anyway. The Texas gun culture and its voters along with the NRA wanted a law to make it officially legal so they got one. Takes effect in January, as noted by the gunman poster.

Some mothers and grandparents had complained against open carry of rifles etc cause it scared the kids, not to mention the parents and their elders. We see what happened at the fast foot joint. So in January open carry of long rifles in Texas will be sanctioned and protected in the laws of the state.

The bizarre guyz in these photos who aren't already legal will then become legal. It however doesn't make these nationally interspersed small bands of crackpots right.

[Richard W]

Bunch of idiots, what part of you shall not kill in thce bible didn't you understand.

I'd suggest its alleged presence. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Richard W

[Scott]

Bunch of idiots, what part of you shall not kill in thce bible didn't you understand.

I'd suggest its alleged presence. Book, chapter and verse, please.

Please stick to the topic. Discussion of the Bible is off-topic.

[MZurf]

"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.

" 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."

How can clarifying a question for those who are either slow or deliberately obfuscate be changing it???

So, do you have an answer to my question or not??

You didn't clarify anything. You changed it, probably hoping I wouldn't notice it.

You have lost all credibility with this action and you should be ashamed of yourself.

It was a cheap amateurish stunt pulled by a cheap amateurish poster. End of story and end of responses from me.

Play your devious games with somebody else.

"So, do you have an answer to my question or not??"

OK, so I guess the answer is no then!

[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

So in Texas, I assume other States as well, it is legal to openly carry a long gun without a license, therefore I assume no mandated training whatsoever for open carry of long guns. Do you and other pro gun supporters concur that a license & training not being required is acceptable?

I don't know about other states. You mentioned Texas and that is what I responded to.

Check Google for the other states if you have such a compelling interest.

I had training in handling weapons from around 9 years old, military training and law enforcement.

I have no idea what other gun supporters believe. Start a poll and find out.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts removed.

[simple1]

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

So in Texas, I assume other States as well, it is legal to openly carry a long gun without a license, therefore I assume no mandated training whatsoever for open carry of long guns. Do you and other pro gun supporters concur that a license & training not being required is acceptable?

I don't know about other states. You mentioned Texas and that is what I responded to.

Check Google for the other states if you have such a compelling interest.

I had training in handling weapons from around 9 years old, military training and law enforcement.

I have no idea what other gun supporters believe. Start a poll and find out.

Was in sales for Raytheon in the UK, so some exposure to the defense industry. have also worked for other US MNCs. I'm just curious, haven't been to the US for a number of years, but visited on business and for pleasure, mainly New York and the Raytheon plant in New Hampshire.

Up to US citizens what is deemed acceptable or not. So again out of curiosity, to rephrase my question, - Do you believe a license & training for open carry not being required for long guns is acceptable?

[NeverSure]

I did enjoy my visit to Dallas last year. Have been to Texas a few times but that was my first to Dallas. Some good restaurants and nice downtown areas near our conference hotel.

I don't believe you. Everyone who visits Texas is shot by vigilantes. I'm sure you noticed that everyone including women had a six shooter on the hip. How did you enjoy those meals with assault rifles on almost every table in the restaurant? How many times were you robbed at gunpoint? Did you enjoy the mass shootings in the restaurants while you were eating?

Next time be sure to keep your head down with all of the bullets that are flying around.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

Was in sales for Raytheon in the UK, so some exposure to the defense industry. have also worked for other US MNCs. I'm just curious, haven't been to the US for a number of years, but visited on business and for pleasure, mainly New York and the Raytheon plant in New Hampshire.

Up to US citizens what is deemed acceptable or not. So again out of curiosity, to rephrase my question, - Do you believe a license & training for open carry not being required for long guns is acceptable?

New York and New Jersey. You haven't seen the "real" US or the ordinary people.

Long guns? You've never seen anyone in the US open carrying a long gun yet you talk like it's a common event.

What's your problem? Libs blow this stuff all out of proportion and take a pic of some ex military guys protecting their brothers outside of a military recruiting station, then broadcast it all over the world.

I've lived in the US for more than 60 years and I've never seen anyone open carrying any type of a gun in a town. Hunting, yes. Police, yes.

The law abiding citizen who legally owns a gun is not the problem here.

Cheers.

[chuckd]

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

So in Texas, I assume other States as well, it is legal to openly carry a long gun without a license, therefore I assume no mandated training whatsoever for open carry of long guns. Do you and other pro gun supporters concur that a license & training not being required is acceptable?

I don't know about other states. You mentioned Texas and that is what I responded to.

Check Google for the other states if you have such a compelling interest.

I had training in handling weapons from around 9 years old, military training and law enforcement.

I have no idea what other gun supporters believe. Start a poll and find out.

Was in sales for Raytheon in the UK, so some exposure to the defense industry. have also worked for other US MNCs. I'm just curious, haven't been to the US for a number of years, but visited on business and for pleasure, mainly New York and the Raytheon plant in New Hampshire.

Up to US citizens what is deemed acceptable or not. So again out of curiosity, to rephrase my question, - Do you believe a license & training for open carry not being required for long guns is acceptable?

Any training is acceptable. Making it a requirement for purchasing as weapon is not something that I would agree with.

I think a requirement such as you describe would be in violation of the 2nd Amendment's "infringement" clause.

There were a total of 285 deaths by rifle and 308 deaths from shotguns in the last year reported by the FBI, 2013.

There were 687 people that were beaten or kicked to death the same year.

None of them were killed by the men pictured guarding the recruitment center.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

[simple1]

Was in sales for Raytheon in the UK, so some exposure to the defense industry. have also worked for other US MNCs. I'm just curious, haven't been to the US for a number of years, but visited on business and for pleasure, mainly New York and the Raytheon plant in New Hampshire.

Up to US citizens what is deemed acceptable or not. So again out of curiosity, to rephrase my question, - Do you believe a license & training for open carry not being required for long guns is acceptable?

New York and New Jersey. You haven't seen the "real" US or the ordinary people.

Long guns? You've never seen anyone in the US open carrying a long gun yet you talk like it's a common event.

What's your problem? Libs blow this stuff all out of proportion and take a pic of some ex military guys protecting their brothers outside of a military recruiting station, then broadcast it all over the world.

I've lived in the US for more than 60 years and I've never seen anyone open carrying any type of a gun in a town. Hunting, yes. Police, yes.

The law abiding citizen who legally owns a gun is not the problem here.

Cheers.

Errr some false accusations Mr. NeverSure.

BTW haven't spent time in N.J., but have spent a fair amount of time, years in fact, with 'ordinary' citizens from the US at work & socially. Have been very good friends with a number of US nationals, still am with a few.

For some reason unknown to me, quite a few weirdos from the US, as well as other nationalities, are members of TV; I guess the feeling is reciprocal.

[lostboy]

I did enjoy my visit to Dallas last year. Have been to Texas a few times but that was my first to Dallas. Some good restaurants and nice downtown areas near our conference hotel.

I don't believe you. Everyone who visits Texas is shot by vigilantes. I'm sure you noticed that everyone including women had a six shooter on the hip. How did you enjoy those meals with assault rifles on almost every table in the restaurant? How many times were you robbed at gunpoint? Did you enjoy the mass shootings in the restaurants while you were eating?

Next time be sure to keep your head down with all of the bullets that are flying around.

Cheers.

Well pity then that you are not on my FB list as you would have seen quite a few pictures of the enormous piles of food that we were served at one of the Tex Mex restaurants. The conference hotel was the Omni, quite near Daley Plaza which was the nearest I got to any shooting incident in all of my trips to the US since I first visited Oregon in 1980 to play basketball. I will keep a look out for your Friend request.

As a former gun owner until the 1996 legislation in Australia made it more difficult for me to retain my collection, I can respect a persons interest in guns for sport. Stricter controls and enforcement for urban environments and handguns including stricter controls of how guns can be stored, transported and fired are things I support as sensible and necessary. But it seems no one is allowed to take any position except for the polar extremes.

I do not subscribe to the view that the reason why I did not encounter bullets flying around in Dallas is that guns are less restricted there. I did not encounter bullets because I was statistically unlikely to do so and even less statistically likely to encounter any muslim suicide bombers there.

Effective gun control is possible in America. It is constitutional. It is feasible. It is sensible. It is a shame a minority of people will not allow it to happen.

[Pinot]

Publicus, on 12 Dec 2015 - 23:31, said:

Something for you to think about.

For all your bluster, redneck gun nut slurs, who are not patriots merely idiots.

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.

You might want to tone down the rhetoric.

Quantify please thanks.

One cannot be expected to support vacant claims, ghostsbusters of the bad guys only they can see, nor can one support unknown or unknowable guessed at stuff The post refers to...well ..nothing. The post presents the unknowable that may perhaps be known only to and kept by rednecks. Rednecks running around with guns under their bushman beards.

Rednecks.

Trying to put forth the unknowable as a rationale is truly desperate not to mention vacuous.

Can't recall ever having seen anything like this.

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.

Don't you love the logic? You don't know how many attacks these rednecks have stopped. Wow.

We actually do know...none. Because there aren't any attacks!

Let's keep in mind that the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack is 20 million to one. Now, how many attacks have been stopped?