Man walks into Kroger with loaded AR15

[Throckmorton]

You rebuked nothing. If there were a revolution the military that was on the citizens side wouldn't be able to be everywhere, and there would most definitely be a need for the people to be able to defend themselves, either from other forces, or those that would be taking advantage of the situation to steal, and loot in pockets of absence of military forces.



There is nothing even remotely close to "domestic terrorism" going on here. He definitely picked the worst way to make his statement, but anyone that calls this "domestic terrorism" is a fucking retard.

He's terrorizing people to make some kind of political statement... I'd call it terrorism.

 

[xj0hnx]

He's terrorizing people to make some kind of political statement... I'd call it terrorism.

You apparently don't know what terrorism is.

 

[Throckmorton]

You apparently don't know what terrorism is.

ter·ror·ism

/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[emperus]

You apparently don't know what terrorism is.

ter·ror·ism

/ˈtɛr

əˌrɪz

əm/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [ter-uh-riz-uh

m] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

[f1sherman]

Someone on another forum had taken some things i said and applied them there, another person who was also in Kosovo but not in Afghanistan and was a Swede was included in that, another guy who was an Irish Christian was also included in one but not in another...

I can't keep track, all i can say is that i have verification from the mods about my whereabouts and verification of my unit in more place than one.

Well OK, but the next time you guys clear Srebrenica you might find some time to, you know... inform the Serbs
(who have been living there happily ever after they've conquered it and butchered 8,000 or so Muslims)

- that they have just been CLEARED

 

[RampantAndroid]

im responding to the part about the 2nd amendment beng outdated.

if people were more comfortable with firearms in the US, it wouldn't be a big deal.

as it is, it was legal of this guy to do it, but very stupid.

I still don't advocate open carry, I conceal carry REGULARLY...but I get the point these people are trying to make. I see no terrorism here, he wasn't waving a gun around.

 

[irishScott]

ter·ror·ism

/ˈtɛr

əˌrɪz

əm/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [ter-uh-riz-uh

m] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

There was no violence, and no threat. The fact that some perceived a threat is their own shortcoming.

He would have to be aiming/waving (brandishing) for there to be any threat, and the law recognizes as such.

Seriously, if that's the definition you're applying, then I'm a "terrorist" by simply putting a rifle on my back and stepping off my property; all because my neighbors would irrationally freak out.

I thought liberals were against things like the Patriot Act? Guess when their precious feelings get hurt all bets are off.

 

[irishScott]

ter·ror·ism

/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Note the use of the word, "and". By your own definition, intimidation alone is not terrorism, and there was no violence. Ergo this is not terrorism.

 

[Tom]

There was no violence, and no threat. The fact that some perceived a threat is their own shortcoming.

He would have to be aiming/waving (brandishing) for there to be any threat, and the law recognizes as such.

Seriously, if that's the definition you're applying, then I'm a "terrorist" by simply putting a rifle on my back and stepping off my property; all because my neighbors would irrationally freak out.

I thought liberals were against things like the Patriot Act? Guess when their precious feelings get hurt all bets are off.

Going into a grocery store is not the same thing as stepping off your property.

Carrying a rifle into a grocery store is irrational, an irrational person with a weapon is a threat.

 

[Incorruptible]

No there are not, the only thing the introduction of guns would do would be that more situations ended in death like it works out in the us.

30K gun deaths, sorry but we're doing much better without that.

Yes there are, There are no go areas in England and people getting viciously attacked by gangs.

You are not doing better than the US.

 

[irishScott]

Going into a grocery store is not the same thing as stepping off your property.

Carrying a rifle into a grocery store is irrational, an irrational person with a weapon is a threat.

It's stepping into the public domain either way. What's the difference?

And what if it was done as part of a protest? Shock-value can be quite effective as a protest technique. I disagree with this particular instance, but if it was done as a protest, he certainly made his message heard. Just look at the discussions here.

Suppose one day I decide to carry a gun on my back while going grocery shopping. Just because I can. I have no intention of shooting anyone, or making any point, and the gun might as well be an article of clothing for all I intend to do with it. Am I irrational for doing that, and if so, how?

 

[xj0hnx]

ter·ror·ism

/ˈterəˌrizəm/
Noun
The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Which he didn't do. Next.

ter·ror·ism

/ˈtɛr

əˌrɪz

əm/ Show Spelled [ter-uh-riz-uh

m] Show IPA
noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

He didn't do anything, he didn't threaten anyone, or make any demands. He can't be blamed for other people's fears.

There was no violence, and no threat. The fact that some perceived a threat is their own shortcoming.

He would have to be aiming/waving (brandishing) for there to be any threat, and the law recognizes as such.

Seriously, if that's the definition you're applying, then I'm a "terrorist" by simply putting a rifle on my back and stepping off my property; all because my neighbors would irrationally freak out.

I thought liberals were against things like the Patriot Act? Guess when their precious feelings get hurt all bets are off.

Exactly. +1

 

[airdata]

LOL 2 posts back to back owning xjohnx gotta love that.

 

[airdata]

Which he didn't do. Next.

Originally Posted by irishScott
There was no violence, and no threat. The fact that some perceived a threat is their own shortcoming.

Exactly. +1

+1 ? really?

Are you the same xjohnx from the trayvon martin thread?

You guys are hilarious... you're fucking hypocrites and you don't even try to hide it.

 

[xj0hnx]

LOL 2 posts back to back owning xjohnx gotta love that.

+1 ? really?

Are you the same xjohnx from the trayvon martin thread?

You guys are hilarious... you're fucking hypocrites and you don't even try to hide it.

WTF are you babbling about? Are you still somehow trying to compare this, or any other case to the Zimmerman/Martin shooting? You are a hopeless idiot.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

We need a national take your rifle shopping day so these fools can get it of their system and everyone else can be expecting them. This guy also had a note in his pocket so he knew somewhere in his mind he was asking for trouble.

Officers did find a note in his pocket spelling out his intent to express his 2nd Amendment rights.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/20755619/kroger-gun-stunt-sparks-2nd-amendment-debate

 

[irishScott]

+1 ? really?

Are you the same xjohnx from the trayvon martin thread?

You guys are hilarious... you're fucking hypocrites and you don't even try to hide it.

I'm a hypocrite... how exactly?

 

[airdata]

I'm a hypocrite... how exactly?

No,

xjohn is.

We have a thread thousands of pages long in which john & his pals sole arguments hinge on a man's imagination believing he's in imminent danger when in fact he's not.

And he gives your statement a +1 meaning xjohnx is a fucking hypocrite. Not you bud.

 

[Cerb]

We have a thread thousands of pages long in which john & his pals sole arguments hinge on a man's imagination believing he's in imminent danger when in fact he's not.

You suppose a fact that is not sufficiently substantiated. Given what we do know, which is that the media outlets edited everything they had to suit one side, without regards to lacking facts, filling in the blanks with what they wanted to have happened, that's as much your imagination as anyone else's. His imagination may be filling in the gaps to make a self-defense story, but yours is filling in the gaps to make a murder story.

Based on the most up to date info I've seen, it is now a case of a wannabe gangsta and racist sleazoid meeting in the dark, and the ballistics alone do not support anything like the execution that we got sold on TV, early on. Whether it was murder, self-defense, or a matter-antimatter collision* is for 12 to figure out, and they will have a much clearer picture of what the evidence can substantiate than any of us will have until they are done.

Attacking a poster's credibility because of different interpretations of events for which there is incomplete concrete information, is unbecoming; ad hominem.

* My interpretation, at this point. Why couldn't they both have been armed, and saved the taxpayers a lot of trouble and money?

 

[Tom]

He didn't do anything, he didn't threaten anyone, or make any demands. He can't be blamed for other people's fears.

Open carrying sends a message. "I can kill you." Open carrying a rifle says "I can kill you from a distance."

This isn't just sent to criminals. Its sent to everyone.

 

[CrackRabbit]

It's stepping into the public domain either way. What's the difference?

And what if it was done as part of a protest? Shock-value can be quite effective as a protest technique. I disagree with this particular instance, but if it was done as a protest, he certainly made his message heard. Just look at the discussions here.

Suppose one day I decide to carry a gun on my back while going grocery shopping. Just because I can. I have no intention of shooting anyone, or making any point, and the gun might as well be an article of clothing for all I intend to do with it. Am I irrational for doing that, and if so, how?

In most places you would be well within your right to do so, but you when you go out you know that some people are going to freak out over it.
Even in places like where open carry is completely legal most people don't simply because of the disturbance it causes.

CC > OC, same ability to defend oneself with out all the stupid people having a cow.

 

[Throckmorton]

Note the use of the word, "and". By your own definition, intimidation alone is not terrorism, and there was no violence. Ergo this is not terrorism.

Really? So if a person goes into a grocery store with explosives strapped to his chest but doesn't detonate them, he's not a terrorist?

 

[sigurros81]

Really? So if a person goes into a grocery store with explosives strapped to his chest but doesn't detonate them, he's not a terrorist?

NO, and you shouldn't be afraid of him either mkay? Because you'd be labeled a coward.

 

[Cerb]

Really? So if a person goes into a grocery store with explosives strapped to his chest but doesn't detonate them, he's not a terrorist?

Unrelated. Explosives strapped to your chest are useful only for suicide bombing. A gun has the distinct ability to be used on a single target, that is usually not one's self. If you carry the means to kill yourself as well as others with the same action, such as explosives attached to your person, you have proven yourself crazy, and worthy of being considered a threat.

 

[xj0hnx]

No,

xjohn is.

We have a thread thousands of pages long in which john & his pals sole arguments hinge on a man's imagination believing he's in imminent danger when in fact he's not.

And he gives your statement a +1 meaning xjohnx is a fucking hypocrite. Not you bud.

You don't, and no one knows exactly what happened that night, to me, the evidence supports Zimmerman's story, and you, nor anyone else has proven otherwise. Keep spouting your nonsense, and we will keep laughing at you.