Question: 2nd amendment and reactions

[xj0hnx]

I think we need a little clarity here. 1. what's the intention ? 2. what message is being sent ? 3. how does a particular person see the message ?

By asking which is threatening you're asking how each of us as individuals perceive things. I don't think that's terribly interesting, some people are afraid of coconuts.

No, not at all, there are objective facts in both scenarios that need to be taken into account.

 

[irishScott]

Anyone who believes it is acceptable or desirable in a civilized society for citizens to shop in a department store with an assault rifle slung across their back is bat shit crazy.

That is all.

Judging by what you've posted thus far, I'll take that as a compliment. It's like being called crazy by Fidel Castro.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Judging by what you've posted thus far, I'll take that as a compliment. It's like being called crazy by Fidel Castro.

Ahh yes, only communists, and every other western country, would have a problem with citizens shopping with assault rifles. It almost boggles my mind that it's even up for debate whether the actions of that shopper are appropriate.

 

[sigurros81]

Asinine. How many people are killed in fires, should people freak out and run for their lives when someone lights a cigarettes?

So a lighter is just like an AR15, according to you?

 

[Pens1566]

They were arrested and charged with voter intimidation.

The case is well known and you can go fuck yourself as well. Eric Holder, a black panther himself, had the obvious rock solid case of federal voter intimidation dropped.

They weren't arrested. One of the 2 was asked to leave by Philly police. The other was a registered poll worker. DoJ investigated, and declined to press criminal charges. If by Holder you mean the Bush administration, you're correct. Case was dropped before inauguration day.

You're a moron and a racist.

 

[spidey07]

They weren't arrested. One of the 2 was asked to leave by Philly police. The other was a registered poll worker. DoJ investigated, and declined to press criminal charges. You're a moron and a racist.

The case is well known, I suggest you go fuck yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case#Legal_precedents

 

[irishScott]

These are entirely legitimate points.

Where I part ways from this post is the your position that people should not be concerned when they see a civilian walking around a grocery store or department store with a loaded AR-15. To the contrary, I think it would be foolish not to heighten one's guard in that situation. On the other hand, I do not see any reason for people to be similarly wary of someone driving at a safe and appropriate speed in the store's parking lot.

The reality is that because seeing the gun is a much rarer event, and unlike the car, the mere fact that someone is openly carrying it suggests (in my view, though I imagine not in yours) that the bearer is at a minimum a little wacky, and potentially an aspiring spree killer.

Moreover, the mere fact that it is legal to exercise one's rights in a particular way doesn't mean it isn't obnoxious. To me the guy carrying an AR-15 in JC Penney is analogous to (though probably more innocuous than) the God Hates Fags people - using their legal and Constitutionally-protected rights in a provocative and disruptive way.

An important difference being that the WBC are intentionally setting out to disturb the peace. They get all up in your face, as close as they legally can, determined to make sure you hear them whether you want to or not.

Someone carrying a rifle in JC Penney is not adversarial if done right. He's just there, going about his business, and some people are freaking themselves out over a falsely perceived threat. The knowledge that people will freak out in this manner doesn't make it his responsibility.

For an analogous example, say I walk into Harlem, at night, wearing a KKK costume. I correspondingly get assaulted. Now one can argue that it was incredibly stupid for me to walk into Harlem wearing a KKK costume, but that does not make me responsible for the assault. That fault lies with the assailants.

Likewise it's not his fault that people are freaking out over his rifle, it's theirs. They could choose to ignore it, or notice it and then continue going about their business, but the mere fact that there's someone who visibly could threaten them freaks them out.

That's the crux of the issue as I see it. People want to feel safe and secure by whatever means. If you visibly violate that security, they freak out. This is despite the fact there are numerous ways to invisibly violate that security, ways many people encounter on a daily basis, but don't care about; because they aren't visible. At its core, freaking out over a slung rifle seems to me to be a simple matter of human irrationality, and irrational behavior should not be encouraged.

 

[Pens1566]

The case is well known, I suggest you go fuck yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case#Legal_precedents

I suggest you actually read what you just quoted. Then go back and edit all your inaccuracies so you don't look like an even bigger idiot than the forum already thinks you are.

 

[spidey07]

I suggest you actually read what you just quoted. Then go back and edit all your inaccuracies so you don't look like an even bigger idiot than the forum already thinks you are.

They were charged with voter intimidation, a federal crime.

They have a weapon in/near a polling place, a state crime.

Because this racist administration dropped charges, doesn't mean the crimes didn't indeed take place.

Only the mind of the liberal will support voter intimidation.

 

[Pens1566]

They were charged with voter intimidation, a federal crime.

They have a weapon in/near a polling place, a state crime.

Still can't read, huh? I'd return the favor and tell you to "go fuck yourself" as you have done to others in this thread. But it seems as if you're already fucked.

 

[sigurros81]

An important difference being that the WBC are intentionally setting out to disturb the peace. They get all up in your face, as close as they legally can, determined to make sure you hear them whether you want to or not.

Someone carrying a rifle in JC Penney is not adversarial if done right. He's just there, going about his business, and some people are freaking themselves out over a falsely perceived threat. The knowledge that people will freak out in this manner doesn't make it his responsibility.

For an analogous example, say I walk into Harlem, at night, wearing a KKK costume. I correspondingly get assaulted. Now one can argue that it was incredibly stupid for me to walk into Harlem wearing a KKK costume, but that does not make me responsible for the assault. That fault lies with the assailants.

Likewise it's not his fault that people are freaking out over his rifle, it's theirs. They could choose to ignore it, or notice it and then continue going about their business, but the mere fact that there's someone who visibly could threaten them freaks them out.

That's the crux of the issue as I see it. People want to feel safe and secure by whatever means. If you visibly violate that security, they freak out. This is despite the fact there are numerous ways to invisibly violate that security, ways many people encounter on a daily basis, but don't care about; because they aren't visible. At its core, freaking out over a slung rifle seems to me to be a simple matter of human irrationality, and irrational behavior should not be encouraged.

Not exactly sure why it's needed to compare the two scenarios, because they're both entirely different. The only common thread is that they're all assholes.

 

[spidey07]

Still can't read, huh? I'd return the favor and tell you to "go fuck yourself" as you have done to others in this thread. But it seems as if you're already fucked.

Go fuck yourself and all your lies.

 

[xj0hnx]

So a lighter is just like an AR15, according to you?

Don't obtuse, and try to put words in my mouth. Billy clubs, AR-15's and fire all have something in common, a human has to use them to hurt someone, but according to you people should flee in panic at the mere sight of a weapon.

 

[sigurros81]

Go fuck yourself and all your lies.

I see we are making progress in civility. Good job.

 

[sigurros81]

Don't obtuse, and try to put words in my mouth. Billy clubs, AR-15's and fire all have something in common, a human has to use them to hurt someone, but according to you people should flee in panic at the mere sight of a weapon.

Where did I say people should flee in panic?

Again, why did you say this, if you're not comparing an AR15 to a lighter, what are you trying to say?

"Asinine. How many people are killed in fires, should people freak out and run for their lives when someone lights a cigarettes?"

So a person walking around in public with a lighter has about 100 different uses for it, that I can probably think of, ohhh, say light a cigarette. A person walking around in public with an AR15, has maybe a handful of uses, one of which, and I'm sure on the top of a lot of people's minds, is that he can potentially use it to open fire on a crowd. Now who's being obtuse with your silly comparison.

 

[Pens1566]

Go fuck yourself and all your lies.

Excellent retort.

 

[spidey07]

I see we are making progress in civility. Good job.

I'm done being civil. Any more insults or attacks are going to be met with hostility.

 

[xj0hnx]

Where did I say people should flee in panic?

Again, why did you say this, if you're not comparing an AR15 to a lighter, what are you trying to say?

"Asinine. How many people are killed in fires, should people freak out and run for their lives when someone lights a cigarettes?"

Maybe you need to revisit 3rd grade, your reading comprehension seems to be lacking.

 

[irishScott]

Not exactly sure why it's needed to compare the two scenarios, because they're both entirely different. The only common thread is that they're all assholes.

I was making the point that in the case of non-adversarial displays it is the responsibility of the audience to determine their reaction. If the audience reacts negatively, it is not the fault of the display or the display-er. Nor is a negative reaction justification for removing the display, at least in the context of public property.

 

[sourn]

Crazy mass shooters that are black? How many of them are there? And what about the numbers of crazy mass shooters that are white?

How many people have died from billy clubs vs how many people have died from a semi-auto rifle? Gee, now I wonder who are the irrational people here, who are going to be intimidated by a couple of dumbass looking dudes holding billy clubs outside a polling station.

You may want to you know actually check stats out before you say something so retarded.

If you said handguns you may have a point, but you said assault rifles. Thus you're nothing but a fucking moron that obviously been drinking the media kool aid.

 

[sigurros81]

I was making the point that in the case of non-adversarial displays it is the responsibility of the audience to determine their reaction. If the audience reacts negatively, it is not the fault of the display or the display-er. Nor is a negative reaction justification for removing the display, at least in the context of public property.

So you're saying people who feel uncomfortable at the sight of some redneck idiot walking around a department store with an AR15 should not feel that way and just grow some balls?

 

[sigurros81]

You may want to you know actually check stats out before you say something so retarded.

If you said handguns you may have a point, but you said assault rifles. Thus you're nothing but a fucking moron that obviously been drinking the media kool aid.

You got anything to bring to the table? Because this thread is a troll baiting post with comparison photos of black panther dudes holding clubs versus a white cracker prancing around with an AR15. Pay some attention and use that little brain of yours before going all vitriolic with your shit.

 

[Pens1566]

I'm done being civil. Any more insults or attacks are going to be met with hostility.

And by "insults or attacks" you mean pointing out your errors, correct?

 

[irishScott]

So you're saying people who feel uncomfortable at the sight of some redneck idiot walking around a department store with an AR15 should not feel that way and just grow some balls?

Uncomfortable is one thing. Panic and attempts to needlessly restrict such behavior, out of nothing more than fear, are another. There is no "right to feel comfortable" in public.

 

[sigurros81]

Uncomfortable is one thing. Panic and attempts to needlessly restrict such behavior, out of nothing more than fear, are another. There is no "right to feel comfortable" in public.

Who here is attempting to restrict such behavior? Or do you just like to be dramatic?