That’s the headline over at Americans Against the Tea Party, who fail to understand that Internet sarcasm requires a “/sarcasm” tag. “In Dallas Texas on Saturday, a group calling itself ‘Open Carry Texas’ showed up armed with semi-automatic pistols, rifles and other various firearms. In order to present a strong and intimidating front against a group [four members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America] they believe wants to limit their liberty, these brave men stood shoulder-to-shoulder, weapons poised for immediate response to any hostile move from their sworn enemies.” Yes, well, no. In the picture above they’re posing (for a photo) not poising. Check out this other angle provided by Moms Demand Action’s Twitter feed . . .
![Open Carry Texas poses outside meeting of [four members of] Moms Demand Action (courtesy Moms Demand Action Twitter feed)](https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-11-at-8.12.33-AM.png "Open Carry Texas poses outside meeting of [four members of] Moms Demand Action (courtesy Moms Demand Action Twitter feed)")
Question: were the civil rights marches of the ’60’s aimed at “intimidating” the racist power structure of the time?
Perception is reality, and so as long as media outlets don’t report most will have trouble understanding.
Here is the problem with that statement. PERCEPTION is NOT reality. That is why they are two different things. If we accept the perception…and not FACT we will surley let our rights slip away.
I am not a fan of intimidation, or open carry for that matter…….but the reality is we have the right to do so.
Think about it……..would you buy a car based on perception?
We shall overcome. We shall overcome. Deep in my heart I do believe we shall overcome. And I believe it because somehow the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We shall overcome because Farago is right; “no lie can live forever”.
“A lie can run around the world six times while the truth is still trying to put on its pants.”
Mark Twain
+1 a genius in his own right.
^ THIS
It’s so easy to become disillusioned in this era of big government. But a quote like this gives me hope.
4 members of mda? They brought their whole membership? Wow. Such committment to the cause. I see at least 3 women with the gun packing side.
MDA and Shannon Watts throwing a hissy fit, over a bunch of families in the parking lot across the street. Say it aint so!!!
I did not serve for glory.
I did not serve for fame.
I served for those who would not serve, and who would never know my name.
I did not serve for “thank you”s,
And certainly not for the pay.
I served because it’s what was right, no matter what you say.
I do not enjoy violence;
I’ve had my fill of gore.
If I were a praying man, I’d pray for no more war.
I served for what I believe in,
Though you may not give a fvck.
But please, dear reader, do remember,
Regarding war: it sucks.
+1………
2
I’ll bet that Shannon Watts is jonesing for another chance with our Dirk Diggler. Jonesing bad.
Here you go Ralph. Nothing says good lovin’ like some Billy Paul . . . . Oh Shannon! WHERE ARE YOU, BOO??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWOTdt9Bovk
Best be careful, Dirk. She seems to me like a bunny boiler.
mmmmmmm, rabbit stew . . . . oh if she can really cook, too? I am in lust.
“OMG! Smiling! I’m afraid of my life! There are people with guns SMILING at me!”
I cannot believe this s**t is being promoted. How can people be so stupid? (facepalm)
Americans Against The Tea Party? Get a life… losers.
What Greenfield will say in his next interview: “And if I like the guns we find in your house, you can keep them.”
They were complaining hard online, but didn’t feel threatened enough at the time to call the police. “waaaah, I’m feeling threatened, but I’m only saying that because it serves my agenda, waaaahhhh” Want some cheese with that whine ladies?
I like the tweet where it is a pic of all the “gun bullies” lounging around, one does a goofy flex pose. The comment says “legal? do you want this kind of country for your kids” or something to that effect. Really? Seriously?
Someone needs to get it through some women’s heads. Just because you shoved a child out of your pussy doesn’t mean you have some extra knowledge or insight. In fact it is prone to make you more emotional and less logical. That goes for both genders. Using “mom” or “dad” as some title is ridiculous.
Well said, Robert.
Last thing 99% of cops care about it what you have when it comes to guns. And we do not want to do “inspections”.there is that 1% that just don’t get it,
the only time I care if someone has firearms in their house is if I’m going to a call that its involved somehow. I work in a rural area and several times my dispatcher has told me “caller thinks soeone is breaking in to their house, they had they firarm out but I told them to put it away” and I respond “tell them to get it back out, I’m still a ways out. ‘ (dispatchers hate this by the way)
That officer was a jackass, plain and simple. I hope the department is embarrassed by his actions and punishes him accordingly (of course not).
From the article above: “He’s supposed to serve and protect. Period.”
To serve yes, to protect, no. ALL Americans must learn the following facts regarding the responsibility of ANY police department to protect anyone.
1. The United States Supreme Court (USSC), (and other circuit courts) has ruled on numerous occasions that law enforcement organizations have NO duty to protect you. I bet the average cop on the street (or your typical Lib/Dem gun grabber) does NOT know this. So throw that out to them at will. Ask then straight out “Is it the job of the police to protect us?”
2. Police don’t like it when honest citizens point out their weaknesses. Hell, no human likes it. But we hear a constant barrage of “call 911 and let the police protect you” responses to why we need guns.
3. Police do not like YOU doing their job. Yes, they have “To Serve and Protect” on the side of their patrol cars, but the USSC has ruled that is a lie. When they see you open carrying, that means that they are not seen as the “protector”, and you are to be intimidated.
The below extracts are great cases for midnight reading…..
In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection… a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.
In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled,[T]here is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.§1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.
In its landmark decision of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1988), the US Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, in which legal land “authorities” stated that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime, after a woman, who’d filed numerous complaints and had gotten restraining order, was continually harassed and had her property vandalized by her ex-husband.
Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.)
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.)
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.)
Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.)
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.)
Just a small rant. I’m noticong the SKS in the center of the 2nd pic looks pretty nice from what I can see.
What I don’t get is why Nine only finds Tacky-cooled SKSs and ones that look like a whittling contest was won with it?
In memory of all the Cav troopers who have lost their lives.
Fiddler’s Green.
Halfway down the trail to Hell, In a shady meadow green Are the Souls of all dead troopers camped, Near a good old-time canteen. And this eternal resting place Is known as Fiddlers’ Green.
Marching past, straight through to Hell The Infantry are seen. Accompanied by the Engineers, Artillery and Marines, For none but the shades of Cavalrymen Dismount at Fiddlers’ Green.
Though some go curving down the trail To seek a warmer scene. No trooper ever gets to Hell Ere he’s emptied his canteen. And so rides back to drink again With friends at Fiddlers’ Green.
And so when man and horse go down Beneath a saber keen, Or in a roaring charge of fierce melee You stop a bullet clean, And the hostiles come to get your scalp, Just empty your canteen, And put your pistol to your head And go to Fiddlers’ Green.
We support these solutions to help address gun violence in the United States:
Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases;
Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds;
Track the sale of large quantities of ammunition, and ban online sales;
Establish product safety oversight of guns and ammunition, and require child-safe gun technology;
Support policies at companies and public institutions that promote gun safety;
Counter the gun industry’s efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.
And when these already proved not to work policies don’t work what will they think of next? I suppose next on the agenda is banning all handguns, elimation of all CCW & SYG laws. Of course the final goal is the elimination of all guns in civilian hands
Not to be sentimental, but since we’re sharing; a cadence from basic comes to mind. This has stuck with me since I dropped out of college and joined shortly after 9/11:
Some Say Freedom is Free
Well I tend to Disagree
Some say freedom is won
Through the Barrel of a Gun
My Daddy Faught in Vietnam
Went to War with the Viet Cong
My Grand dad faught in World War two
And Gave is Life for Me and You
So tell me Why, why O Why..
Do I keep Fightin On
So tell me why why o why
Do we Keep Marchin On
It was a Dark and Dismal Day
Two Planes Crashed into the World Trade
Was a Dark and Dismal Day
Two planes crashed into the world trade
Tell me why, why o why
Did those people have to die
Tell me why, why o why
Did those families have to cry?
Was just after dawn
A plane flew into the pentagon
Was just after dawn
A plane flew into the pentagon
Tell me why, why o why
Did those soldiers have to die
Tell me why why o why
Do these tears fill my eyes.
Some say freedom is free
Well I tend to disagree
Some say freedom is won
Through the barrel of a gun
So I keep fightin on…
If I die in Viet Nam
Mail my body home to mom
In my casket I will ride
Grounded to the inspection side
Lay my hands across my chest
Tell my mom I did my best
Lay my hands across my lap
Tell my girl I died of clap
USN, (Desert Storm) EW
Little Brother, US Army… Air Assault/MP
Mother, US Army…MP
Uncle USN (Vietnam) AO
Grandfather, (WW2) 10th Mountain, Italy Infantry
Grandfather, (WW2) Merchant Marines/Battle of the Atlantic
Aunt, US Army… Supply
Two Cousins, Both USAF (late 90’s)
Grandmother, WW2… WAC
Washington State tried that idea this last year, until they heard the pitchforks tapping the ground.
With the right ordinance and a lack of State preemption, you could see PD getting an administrative search warrant, (fire inspection type, or bldg inspection type, they do exist!) and doing as this guy proposed.
This guy should be recalled on general principal, and definitely not re elected!
600 owners should be sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches before someone thinks this is a dandy idea!
Hysterical bints.
youtube popularity contest time:
MDA has 338 youtube subs today. Kirsten Weiss has 5,721. Iraqvetran8888 has 275,928.
shannon watts dropping some change on the floor would get more attention from me than this bunch of folks holding guns.
edit – woops didnt mean to make this a reply
Very cool!
FAAAAAAKE!
That woman in the middle looks kind of brown. All gun owners are lilly white. I call BS.
/sarc
Schwartz is in pretty much in lock step with Barry O. The other scary prospect is the current PA AG who’s first act as AG was to negate reciprocity for Florida CCW for non-residents of FL.
USMC
Iraq 2005-2009
Afghanistan 2010-2011
1st Marine Division
Get Some
A little bit lachrymogenic, thanks.
On the lighter side:
Why don’t they keep grenades? For one thing, once you use it, it’s gone.
Unless it’s a light grenade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7dsAXPh_qw
Arguing with a liberal? Did Nick’s (I think it was Nick, I’m too lazy to fact check on my phone) article about being banned from an anti-gun forum teach you nothing?
It’s the classic liberal bait and switch. They won’t accept any argument against their beliefs but rail against conservatives as intolerant.
Looks to me like the bully here is the man in blue.
Get a new twitter account. We can hope at some point Ms. Watts will start acting like a grown up.
One day I woke up and smelled the coffee. A whole lot of people were armed, and I wasn’t. White or Black (happened to be Black) this situation put me at a severe disadvantage. The next day I purchased a handgun. When I took it home, I put it on the table in it’s box. I realized that I had just accepted a big resonsibility. Then, I waited for the handgun to force me to feel certain ways and do certain things. I admit, that I did feel more secure knowing that it was there. Did it make me feel bigger, badder or stronger? No. I waited for it to cause me to have an accident with it or put dark thoughts in my head. It just sat there on the table doing nothing. So all that I learned about guns making people feel things and do things was not true (for me anyway). Maybe my father would have had a chance when those young guys (according to the police) stabbed him to death. Maybe everything I learned about fire arms and The NRA might not be true. I joined The NRA yesterday to find out for myself.
Wonder what the protocol is for fallen DMV workers? Animal Control? Prison Medical Staff? FBI Cook Staff? Pentagon Janitors?
Just wondering if this is just the beginning of a line of official funerals for their fallen comrads. Can’t this guy just get a normal funeral?
Feminists and Leftists attempt to turn virtually every political interaction of men and women into a character attack labeling the men sexist, misogynistic, etc often seeking to put the men into the position of defending their social behavior. Meanwhile the event or subject does not get discussed in a mature, informed, and logical manner. People are left with the surface level accusations and political slogans.
Perhaps they believe, from experience, that the nagging irrational wife will always get her way with men and that men will do and agree to anything to get away from the emotional bs.
Feminist web rags do essentially the same thing that was done to Robert. They do not tolerate different viewpoints, constructive criticism, or posted comments with facts and links for reference that do not support their political agenda. They delete and block dissension. Suppressing the truth allows the lies to float easily to the surface.
I’m convinced! My greatest safety will be achieved when I unload my guns and lock them away. I’m going to plug up all my mags so that they only hold 10 no wait, 7, nope 5 rounds! That’s the magical number of peace. Wait – three rounds. Oops Joe Biden says two. Attention law-abiding gun owners – drop all your guns into the pacific except your double barrels and single shots. Dust off your muzzleloaders, and lock them away. World peace is in our hands! This man is a genius.
/sarc
This is really high on my bucket list. Right next to Montana moose.
Yum.
This picture has got some mileage hasn’t it.
Anti-gun campaign is not interested in any facts as the facts of history are contrary to their campaign.
The anti-gun campaign is based on the imaginary situation the USA had never armed its citizens. They do hate any gun of any type and want them eradicated. They have zero interest in what is rational and logical. Total control with total government dependance is the goal of the anti-gun campaign.
Anti-gun rationale: Disarming law-abiding citizens results in disarmed criminals.
Anti-gun rationale: A disarmed Country is a safe Country.
Anti-gun rationale: Give all control to the Government.
Anti-gun rationale: A firearm owner is a murderer.
The anti-gun movement is playing with fire as their actions against the US are similar to the actions of terrorism. The label of traitor is a glove fit.