unspecified_3

“He turned sideways to be sure that we would see that he has an open carry gun, which is legal, it’s fine, but it’s intimidating. If he wants to support his candidate that’s fine, but don’t come here and stare into the office all day.” – Virginia Democrat House candidate Jane Dittmar in Gun-toting Trump supporters ‘protest’ at office of Daily Kos candidate Jane Dittmar [via dailykos.com]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

Recommended For You

58 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Open-Carrying Trump Supporter ‘Intimidates’ Virginia House Candidate

  1. Love the air quotes around “protest.”

    But hey, he just stood there, he didn’t beat anyone up, so he’s obviously not a Hillary supporter. At least based on observational evidence.

    • Trumpinator supporters have done their share of beating up and there is plenty of video to confirm this. Let’s see the video of clinton supporters beating on people.

      • Trolls. Trolls everywhere. Paid by – ” Correct The Record ” : AKA the Hillary camp, to derail and confuse online content not 100% favorable to wanna-be dear leader. Read Wiki.

      • Are you serious? Did you not see the article on this website, YESTERDAY, where two, you guessed it, black men, harassed, stalked, and threatened a group of Trump supporters with a gun? This is commonplace for their kind.

      • It happened rather famously at the trump rally in San Jose, ca. Lots of nasty and unprovoked violence against attendees, condoned by local law enforcement as well.

        A rally by a harmless nationalist group attacked by progs in Sacramento, ca that ended up in knife fights. Led by a school teacher from the bay area who had not faced any legal repercussions for her assaadults with deadly weapon. The nationalist group were the victims here.

        Every BLM protest that turns into a riot.

        Shall we expand it to leftists and democrats in general? How about the union goons who attacked Steven Crowder for asking a question? All gang violence. All riots. Etc…

        The violence from trump supporters has been a few incidents from individuals that were deliberately provoked by someone agitating at a rally. The most famous one, where the redneck elbowed the protestor saw the elbower arrested if I recall correctly.

        Furthermore violence from democrats, specifically against those they disagree with politically, tends to be given a pass from law enforcement.

      • At Bill Clinton’s Hillary rally in Fort Myers, FL a Trump supporter got pushed around and eventually pushed to the back where cops were. All for wearing a Bill’s a rapist shirt. I haven’t seen any video of the small rally. Trump had over 7,000 in attendance at his Fort Myers rally. I think Clinton had about 200.

    • The cure to “feeling” intimidated by a person practicing a constitutional right is to practice that right themselves.

      I’ve OC’d for eight years now and when I see a fellow american OC’ing a firearm, I only “feel” a great sense of gratitude for being able to practice a freedom denied over six billion people around the world.

      I also know that person is more than likely a law abiding person, and one that I might look to as a potential ally in dealing with a human predator, unlike 99% of the rest of the population not wearing a uniform and a badge.

      • No, the cure to ‘feeling’ intimidated is to grow up and act like an adult.
        Carrying is a defense against actual threats, not psychosomatic ones.

        • Umm, perhaps. But a good way to get over an irrational fear is to do what one is fearful of. Fear of public speaking? Take a public speaking class. Fear of heights? Go seek out high places. etc.

  2. These people. They need to be reminded that they *should* fear We the People; not the other way around. The message should be very clear; they are NOT elite, and they serve at our pleasure.

  3. They were holding signs, or standing with signs planted in the ground. So they weren’t “just standing there,” because I’ll admit, that’d be weird.

    Two guys without any sign of affiliation just standing in front of the office all day would be either stupid or blatantly intimidating (though still legal, depending on how they were acting), but standing in front of your opposition with your side’s signs is pretty much how protesting is done, innit?

    I’m sure there are some folks who open carry who also support the blue side. Would the Republican candidate/office whine about intimidation if there were Dem supporters out front with {gasp} guns? Somehow I think not.

    • Except they would most likely be felons in possession of a weapon
      … most likely demtard voting gun owners who else.would have those child killing plane destroying. Full nuclear powered weapons

  4. Would it be appropriate to say: “She turned sideways to be sure that we would see that she has a completely closed mind, which is legal, it’s fine, but it’s intimidating. If she wants to support her candidate that’s fine, but don’t come here and stare at us, blankly, out at the “insignificant people’s” area, whom you are elected, are supposed to represent, sworn by their Constitution?”

  5. So, apparently if you are a liberal picketing for some cause then you are just exercising your right to free speech but if you’re a conservative, then you are scary and intimidating. So, some people are more equal than others.

    Sure. Just keep poking that bear. You’ll be fine.

    • No, I believe alinsky said (paraphrased): Conservatives aren’t as equal, but you must continually tell people that or they’ll forget that you want them to remember something that isn’t so. Repetition beats thought. Even when poking bears [obviously not a hunter].

    • If you’re a liberal you can loot the local CVS pharmacy and burn it down and you’re just exercising your First Amendment right to protest police brutality.

  6. The real money shot from the article is this gem: “We may not be able—yet, with this Congress—to fix the messed-up gun laws that allow this kind of blatant scare tactic.”

    So they want this candidate and her ilk, whom Kos has endorsed, to impose federal laws not only trampling over the Second Amendment, but trampling over states’ rights, too?

    How are you going to do that, I mean, without sending forth highly intimidating, heavily armed agents of the state to attempt forcible disarmament? Oh? That’s exactly how you intend to? Well.

    Be careful what you wish for, sweetie, because you just might get it.

    • The federal power elite reject the tenth Amendment even more than the 2nd. It’s just that they’ve got to do away with the 2nd in order to more easily eliminate the 10th. In fact, though, the federal government has already essentially invalidated, in large part, the “reserved for the states” portion of the 10th Amendment by taxing the people in excess and then returning to the states only that portion they choose to return. The power of the purse should not be underestimated. That same threat (or promise, if you’re on the left) has been made by Hillary Clinton in many speeches, where she advocates a 25% federal excise tax on all guns and ammunition. Once you’ve eliminated the 2nd Amendment, what remains of the tenth (“or the people”) is with means to sustain it.

      The state of the Supreme Court is such that, if elected, Hillary Clinton will be in a position to effectively eliminate the 2nd Amendment within one term.

      • This is how we came about to have a national drinking age of 21 – extortion. Even with the twisted statist interpretation the courts have of the interstate commerce clause there was no way to get it passed the courts on 10th Amendment grounds so they extorted the states by withholding highway funds. Same with the 55mph speed limit except that the drinking age had absolutely nothing to do with highways.

        Point of fact, but there already is an 11% national excise tax on firearms and ammuni tion. The money is supposed to be reserved for conservation of wildlife habitat. I’m not sure if HRC is proposing an increase in the tax or an additional tax and if it’s an additional tax she probably wants to tax us on the tax. But the tax is already there despite the 2nd Amendment. We lost ‘shall not be infringed’ a long time ago.

      • Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) none have been repealed and so far as I know not one single word has been legally, Constitutionally altered.

        Should the Progs ever be successful in the attempt to repeal or even re-write the Second Amendment you can be certain that the 10th Amendment will be next on the chopping block, followed by extreme efforts to repeal or re-write Article V.

  7. “If he wants to support his candidate that’s fine, but don’t come here and stare into the office all day.”

    If you want to run for office, fine, but don’t stand around being a Communist all day.

  8. Need a reality dose of the level of looney from the nuts that are on the left? Go to that dailykook link are read thru the comments. WOW

    • I read some of their insane ramblings over there. What do they mean by “TrumPO” in their comments? What is the PO capitalization supposed to mean? It’s not a typo, as I saw it several times by different kooks.

  9. So, in the midst of a politically hot election, including civilian disarmament as an issue, a motivated supporter of the other guys protested right outside your digs for a whole day … and didn’t shoot anybody.

    Just another out of control crazy trumpkin. We gotta ban all the guns because regular folks will be bullet-hosing at anyone they don’t like, at the drop of a slogan. Just like that guy did.

    Wait, what? He just stood there?

    Nevermind.

  10. If House candidate Jane Dittmar and other democrat candidates honored 27 words written over 200 years ago, no opposing supporter would feel compeled to stand outside offices and commit time to preserving the second amendment.

  11. Be afraid, Kos Proggies.

    Be very afraid.

    Wait, that’s redundant. You’re already afraid of your own shadows. The best thing you could do is go suck your rubber ducks under your beds until the fear subsides.

    Or you could grow up.

  12. With how hot under the collar people have become for this whole election season, I would endeavor to arm myself before standing in a place espousing a message likely to enrage 40% of passers-by, as well. Regardless which side I was on.

  13. While the second half of her statement is a bit loony, the first is a bit more troublesome and raises a good question. What is brandishing?

    Yes, this would devolve into a he-said she-said wash, and even video would make it difficult to determine mental state.

    That being said, even if the weapon remains holstered, can making specific display of the weapon he considered brandishing? Most discussions I’ve seen would have only considered it such if removed from the holster and displayed in hand, but it seems to me that making intentional display, such that your intent is to draw attention to the weapon for the purpose of intimidating the viewer into believing that you intend to use it against them, you may have crossed the line. This is distinct from OC of pistols and long arms, including at protests and rally’s, as in those cases, the primary purpose is to carry for personal protection or for public display. Of course, nothing would stop you from turning that into brandishing of mishandled.

    It’s tough, again, because it goes to a mental state that becomes an easily abused charge by restriction-focused prosecutors.

    It’s early Sunday, and I’m a bit cobwebbed, but I hope the question makes sense.

    • Actually, I find your posts to be thoughtful and your questions insightful. Sometimes those things can be in short supply here.

    • Your question does make sense.

      My guess would be, unless he were pointing at it, or looking down at it frequently, or doing something clearly intended to draw attention to it, you’d have a hard time convincing an objective observer he was brandishing.

      Just moving around and turning side to side isn’t necessarily intended to make sure someone sees it. Otherwise I’d be brandishing my eyeglasses every time I looked around a room.

      If she fixated on the gun, without his purposely and specifically having drawn attention to it, that’s on her, not him. We see similar effects all the time when, say, a young man spots a pretty young lady.

      • You point out the exact challenge with proving the allegation – you’d have to be able to reach into his mind and extract the truth of the moment. Without some direct evidence the charge likely wouldn’t hold up, drawing attention doesn’t leave any marks, but it’s still going to make for a rough day.

        In the end, I don’t begrudge those who OC where they can – I’ve been known to OC in higher threat areas as a matter of speed – but this is probably going to become a more common reality, as restriction advocates advocate that the presence/existence of a weapon constitutes a threat to their safety.

        Today, he may have had to fiddle with a firearm, tomorrow it’s if he made a move that accentuated its presence, the day after it will he if he had it with him. And, worryingly, the day after that it’s if he makes it known that he owns a weapon.

    • Open carry means just that – the firearm is plainly visible to anyone who cares to look. Brandishing means to purposefully display the weapon in a manner intended to instill fear. In this case, as in most case with Liberals, the fear was irrational and in no way could be attributed to the OC, which was entirely legal and within what a “reasonable person” would consider unthreatening.

      If the very fact of open carry causes in some people an unreasonable fear that you are “brandishing” then it would be obviously illegal to open carry anywhere in public since you would have no way to predict the reactions of the people you encountered.

      For example; the BLM people claim to have a rational fear of police violence. Does the appearance of a uniformed officer with a holstered pistol in their community automatically qualify as the officer “brandishing” his gun? Obviously not.

      • It’s a balancing act that I fear may tip poorly in certain jurisdictions. If I am OCing and going about my business, there is no cause to call it brandishing. If I OC and make a point to draw attention to the weapon, am I not using its presence to make a threat?

        The trouble will be that I may be doing the former while Jane here perceives the latter. In a reasonable jurisdiction, the absence of any direct evidence one way or another makes this a non-issue. In others, the allegation may be enough to make for a very long day for me. I don’t begrudge people who OC their choice, but I fear that if this gets the play that DK and friends want, this type of harassment will be their new weapon of choice.

  14. Liberal Dems make me wish Open Carry was legal in Florida. And. Some days makes me wish I owned an AR or AK pistol and a belt holster.
    “Sacred” of what a law abiding legal citizen???
    These folks need some mental help.

    • “Liberal Dems make me wish Open Carry was legal in Florida.”

      We’re working on it.

      Hey, it looks like medical marijuana will pass this Nov, maybe that will chill them out long enough to get OC passed…

  15. From her campaign website:

    “Jane joins with our citizens across political lines to support universal background checks for all gun sales and supports the passage of relevant legislation as soon as possible.

    Jane also supports preventing individuals deemed to be dangerous and placed on the “no-fly” Terrorist Watch list from purchasing a gun. This list must also include a speedy appeals process for people who are on the list erroneously.”

    She’ll be another reliable vote for gun control.

  16. “Ostentatiously abiding by open carry laws.” [sic]

    I saw a driver today ostenstiously obeying the speed limit. Terrifying! Do they really not understand how foolish it sounds to say they were threatened by someone obeying the law ‘ostentatiously’. Can anyone think of an example where obeying the law in such a manner is actually intimidating?

  17. “Ostentatiously abiding by open carry laws.” [sic]

    I saw a driver today ostenstiously obeying the speed limit. Terrifying! Do they really not understand how foolish it sounds to say they were threatened by someone obeying the law ‘ostentatiously’. Can anyone think of an example where obeying the law in such a manner is actually intimidating?

  18. Opencarry is a terrorist’s wet dream because you won’t think twice until he has already pulled the trigger on you.
    Let’s get rid of open carry and get back to reasonable discourse

    • To each their own. That’s the only way this will work, since we’re supposed to be on the same side. Demanding that some of us conform to the petty preferences of others is also tyranny. I’ll make a deal with you; I won’t demand you OC and you stop demanding I don’t. Not that I can except while hunting/fishing/ on private property….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *