Teabaggers swarm WA State Capitol armed with assault rifles

[Bjorn Against]

The Washington State Legislature is considering around 30 bills to reduce gun deaths and gun violence in that state and TEApublican gun-nuts are so mad they could shoot someone!

The Gun Safety bills being considered by the legislature include such affronts to freedom as:

Universal Background Checks
Making it a crime of reckless endangerment to leave a loaded gun where it can be accessed by children
Allow city governments to decide whether guns are allowed at their parks or recreational areas.
Prohibiting guns on school campuses.

Tyranny.

So about 200 whacko Tea Party-types descended on the Capitol, brandishing firearms – because if kids, crooks, and dangerous people don’t have access to guns, then we’re living in a Socialist Marxist Communist Nazi wasteland.

http://aattp.org/armed-gun-nutstake-over-washington-state-capitol-video/

Does any sane person think it is a good idea to have teabaggers armed with assault rifles in a place where they can open fire on entire groups of state legislators? These people are proof that gun control is badly needed.

[Flashmann]

1. good idea to have teabaggers armed with assault rifles

No......HELL NO!!

These dimwits can't grasp that these displays of idiocy can and might lead to an even louder outcry of their very worst fear..That their penile extensions........errr guns actually be taken from them....Causing their own,at the moment idiotic,prophesy to be fulfilled...

Like when one commits a felony to further his cause thereby disqualifying himself from the right to own a gun.....Their stubborn ignorance is hillarious...

[Bjorn Against]

3. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous

Any one of those assholes could open fire at any time and potentially kill dozens of state legislators, and even if they don't open fire some of the legislators no doubt feel intimidated when they have to walk by a group of their political opponents who are holding assault rifles. The fact that it is legal for them to do this is absolutely ridiculous, it is inviting terrorism.

[Flashmann]

18. You're right,of course,it IS dangerous

Yet at the same time I just can't help but point and laugh at them for being so demonstrably STUPID and their insistence on remaining so....

Any one of those assholes could open fire at any time and potentially kill dozens of state legislators

That's the very sort of thing I was talking about...It's horrible to even consider the possibility and I hope to God it never happens....None the less,I think it's only a matter of time before one of the more clever ones,one with IQ numbers soaring to the upper 70s,acts on such a notion....

[formercia]

68. Intimidation is the whole point

That's why the crazies are there.

[groundloop]

79. Yeah boy, that's a good way to get others to agree with you.....

Wave weapons in their face 'till they see your point of view. That's certainly gonna' help their cause.

[bowens43]

2. you never have a drone when you need one......

[tblue]

39. Perfect time for the Rapture too. nt

[Bennyboy]

4. i'D LIKE TO SEE 20 ARMED BLACK MEN

come to just one of these things. The reaction would be much different from everyone.

[Bjorn Against]

5. It would be the same reaction from me, I don't support anyone bringing guns to the Capitol

You do have a good point however because I am pretty certain that if the Black Panthers were to make a comeback and start toting assault rifles to intimidate Republican legislators as they walked into the Capitol the Tea Party hypocrites would not be talking about their second amendment rights, they would be calling them terrorists.

[Paul E Ester]

7. it happened in the 1967

No one was killed but a lot of white people were freaked out,

[Lochloosa]

8. Imagine that today...walking in there with a loaded

burning cigarette.

[Bennyboy]

19. Ha haha

Worse than the guns!

[gordianot]

16. The Black Panthers were the first real second amendment advocates.

Modern tea baggers, militia movements, Conservatives should acknowledge their inspiration from the Black Panthers.

Martin Luther King came much closer to winning the day with non violence and served as a model for others in overturning old fashioned Colonial Authoritarian Cold War Communism.


We live in a bizarre world.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Not quite...

The Deacons were on the scene first by a year or two, but certainly both groups stood up for the true purpose behind the 2nd A.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/29/956910/-RKBA-Deacons-for-Defense

History is lost on the Teahadists.

[Mnpaul]

46. And Reagan outlawed it

quite quickly

I get a kick out of the nut in the OP video stating no law has ever stopped a crime. I guess we should repeal them all.

[olddots]

50. I miss those days

things happened then , now we stagnate because tea bagger dung beetles and fundi knuckle draggers are good press with a media that love to polarize a nation for ratings .

[DollarBillHines]

29. Or Middle Easterners. nt

[tblue]

40. So right.

Egad. These gunners are out of control.

[rainy]

56. Just imagine if it were occupy people

They would be shot on the spot. But Occupy people show up peacefully an get their heads banged in. Funny how authority treats teabag and Occupy so differently.

[WCGreen]

83. Excellent point

[zbdent]

9. To be fair, they were concerned about entering an "urban" area ...

and were concerned that they might meet up with an "urban" person ... you know how it is in "urban" areas ...

edited to add:

Better add , in case someone freaks out thinking that I'm condoning handing (possibly intoxicated) 'baggers an excuse to shoot some(one)thing ...

[grandpamike1]

10. Maybe the wrong venue

Should have been in Washington DC, not the state of Washington

[Bjorn Against]

13. I sure as hell don't want armed teabaggers in DC either

Of course if they tried this in DC they would get arrested before they got anywhere near the Capitol doors and face serious prison time along with loss of their right to own a gun ever again, so there is an upside to that idea.

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. Please elaborate.

[OldDem2012]

103. Your post has rung a very loud alarm bell. What exactly are you advocating? nt.

[Marr]

11. We'd get tougher gun control laws in a week if liberal activists did that.

Of course, I expect a lot of us would be shot by law enforcement because of the 'implicit threat', but there you go.

[klyon]

12. we can't have no more gun deaths lets go kill some people with guns

that'll show 'em
bunch of a-holes

[on point]

14. This kind of open carry should be banned. It is pure intimidation and threat with a deadly weapon.

[freshwest]

20. Agreed. Like forcing one's religion on others. They've conflated the 2nd with the 1st amendment...

[lastlib]

47. ^ ^ K & R This! ^ ^

Intimidation of a legislator should be a felony, punishable by loss of the right to own a weapon (and a little time in the slammer).

[davidpdx]

101. +1,000,000

Forcing one's religion on people is one of the things that really pisses me off. The kind of crap these people did in Washington (and in Oregon awhile back) is just pure intimidation.

[Apophis]

91. I totally agree.

[tblue37]

106. Remember the armed Teabaggers at Obama's rallies? nt

[Coolest Ranger]

15. Keep doing that tea freaks

your giving us more of a reason to vote you out of office.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. We don't have many (any?) in WA.

Our legislature is shot through with Republicans somehow, which has always been weird with the state as 'blue' as it is, but they keep a toehold.

Teabaggers, not so much.

[Coolest Ranger]

51. So they doing this just to throw a temper tantrum????

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Some of the bills under consideration touch on measures that are unpalatable to any gun owner

regardless of political stripe.

I suppose these folks are just more 'enthusiastic' (to borrow a word from the pit bull thread) about their opposition.

[HiPointDem]

97. sure we do.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_ALEC_Politicians

[AtheistCrusader]

109. ALEC != Tea Party.

Common Dreams did a survey and 47% of the Republican Party opposes the tea party folks. And the 'tea party' isn't a single monolithic group. There's tea party express, tea party patriots, Tea party nation, and all sorts of vying assholes for control, like Dick Armey/Freedomworks, Fox/Palin/Beck, etc. AND republicans that are not tea party members take money and influence from ALEC, so showing ALEC influence in WA state doesn't necessarily show there are any 'official' tea party members of any sect.

You'll note your list (which is concerning) includes Gary Locke, and he's by no means a tea party member. I can outright eliminate several people on that list by name for actual party affiliation, or looking at who ran against them in the last primary. Couple of them got savaged by tea party candidates that openly identify so, and as far as I am aware, all the tea party folks lost.

I looked for self-identified tea party reps in our state legislature, and didn't find any yet. Clint Didier tried it, going for senate in 2010, lost, going again for public lands commissioner in 2012, lost his ass. Jay Rodne? Tea Party ran Heidi Munson against him. That got ugly. Rodne won. A republican, so that's bad, but could be worse. Munson was way worse.


I did a random spot check of 8 of the people who identified as Republicans on that list, and find little support for them from any official state Tea Party sects, like Tea Party patriots, and in some cases, found active opposition, because the Republican candidate (ALEC affiliated, true) isn't conservative enough for these people.


If any of these people in this ALEC list are also tea party members, unless I missed an obvious one that I don't recognize the name of, they are pretty closeted about being tea party members. Which I will grant, is a possibility.

[alfredo]

17. Using the threat of violence is so unAmerican.

[Initech]

21. Armed dangerous paranoid gun nuts scare me far more than any terrorist threat ever could.

And they're certainly not helping the case against gun control.

[Bjorn Against]

27. They actually truly are a terrorist threat

If anyone were to actually open fire on the state legislators in that building it would be an act of terrorism. The Washington State Capitol bans people from holding protest signs in the building, but allows them to hold assault rifles. That is truly insane.

[Initech]

45. Insane indeed.

I truly fear that this insanity over guns is going to ignite a second civil war. That's how divisive this issue is. Or am I being too paranoid?

[Bjorn Against]

48. I don't think you are being paranoid

I don't think it will ignite an actual civil war, but I do think it will result in serious acts of terrorism. I have no doubt that eventually one of these gun nuts is going to open fire on elected officials.

[Initech]

55. It already happened in Arizona.

And it will happen again. This is terrorism in it's purest form. If we're serious about the war on terror let's start by making sure another Tucson or Sandy Hook doesn't happen again.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

126. Just wait until they start firing, so you can be sure you aren't a civil rights violator

Until a congressperson, some children and a few elderly people get blown away, they could be just "peacefully exercising their rights".

[Initech]

128. The only civil right they care about is the right to shoot first and ask questions later.

[JoePhilly]

22. So they'll open carry, but they don't want their names on a list of gun owners ...

Irony bomb deployed ... detonation in 3, 2, 1 ...

[cascadiance]

23. They did the same thing here in Oregon a few weeks ago...

No doubt the "gunsters" in Washington were watching what was happening here in Oregon to replicate what they were doing here.

I know that local legislators here in Oregon who have just been talking about this the least week or so who just got majorities now in both parties are working on at least one special law to restrict gun possession in the state capitol buiding in Salem so that tour groups from schools, etc. will feel less threatened in taking their kids to Salem to see a session at the state capitol, so that they and other groups feel more encouraged to be a part of the civic democratic process that should happen there.

[hack89]

24. The Washington state constitution strongly supports the individual right to bear arms

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men

Many people lose sight of the fact that while states cannot restrict your constitutional rights, they can grant you more expansive rights. There will be no magic federal law that will institute uniform gun control across the land.

That being said, this was a particularly stupid stunt - it is nothing more than intimidation.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Screwing with state pre-emption is a mega-bad idea.

But the rest of that stuff is fine, and doesn't run afoul of the federal 2nd Amendment, nor the State's constitution, section 24.

I think the 'armed demonstration' could backfire politically.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

30. Well, okay, that makes it all better.

[hack89]

32. Please don't put words in my mouth

I am merely pointing out politically reality. States have sovereign rights - if you are unable to figure out how to work within that constraint then you will fail.

[freshwest]

64. WA state also restricts those who are adjudicated to be dangerous and incompetent from owning.

It's reasonable. But we also have some are trying to remove Constitutional protections on other matters by means of bills instead of amending the Constituion. Not on firearms AFAIK, but other things that are important to some citizens. Strange mixture.

[Bjorn Against]

31. There is no Constitutional right to stand in the state capitol with a gun

Just as there is no Constitutional right to carry an assault rifle with you when you tour the White House.

[hack89]

33. But it is not illegal in Washington state - idiotic but perfectly legal.

I was addressing the "more gun control" comment. Just pointing out a legal wrinkle that many people over look when talking about uniform national gun control. That's all.

[Bjorn Against]

34. But it is idiotic to allow such a thing which is why gun control is needed.

The fact that it is legal is proof the gun laws are inadequate and more restrictions are needed.

[hack89]

35. I am sure the voters of Washington state can figure it out.

it they don't like it then I am sure it will be illegal soon.

[Bjorn Against]

38. I suspect these insane gun nuts are going to influence lots of gun control legislation

The more idiotic the gun nuts show themselves to be the more people will support gun control, it is becoming clear to most people that the NRA supporters are completely insane and dangerous stunts like this only make it more clear. The teabaggers are making a very strong case for gun control.

[hack89]

41. Time will tell. nt

[Ikonoklast]

54. Morons like that will almost certainly move sane gun rights activists away from them.

After all, if you see the need to visit your state leglature armed with a semi-automatic weapon to get a POLITICAL point across, you've already lost the argument.

The implication is violence will be used if their political aims aren't met.

The vast majority of firearm owners in this nation would disagree with that position.

[hack89]

60. That still doesn't mean sane gun rights activists will change their views on gun control

they will simply refuse to associate with the morons. It won't change their votes.

Stupidity like this is more likely to influence independents and moderates who don't see guns through a partisan political prism. But history shows us time and time again that a high percentage of pro-gun voters turn out to vote while gun control doesn't seem to spark such voter passion. And that is the bottom line - who votes.

[freshwest]

140. Neither was beastiality covered until that case in eastern WA. Idiotic, not covered.

The legislators never imagined that anyone would do anything that dangerous.

There will always be a percentage of folks in every population who will say when things go tragically wrong, 'But it seemed like such a good idea at the time.'

Wondering how the armed security at the capitol felt about the event in the article.

[Kolesar]

80. Imagine that, America's best legal minds are prowling DU around the clock

...Waiting for the right thread and the moment to poke at the Democrats.

[hack89]

85. How is this a poke at Democrats?

Oh that's right - real democrats don't own guns.

[Kolesar]

86. Dude, the site is named Democrat...something...eom

[hack89]

87. Which is why I am here.

you really can't wrap your mind around Democrats being pro-gun, can you?

[freshwest]

139. Democrats are pro-gun and pro-gun control at the same time. It requires an expansive personality.

Democrats believe in regulating to protect the rights of all differing sides. Not hard to understand.

It's RWNJs who've made gun ownership into a sacrament when it is no such thing. They are irrational, never take into consideration 'live and let live.' All 'my way or the highway.'

Never works in personal or political life. Democrats are about what works, not just soundbites aka Fox Newz.

[freshwest]

110. I'd heard that there is an offficial state militia. I stumbled on this, but I'm a bit doubtful:

http://washingtonstatemilitia.ning.com/

It seems to be legal and part of the WA state emergency government from banners on the page. This may be bagger stuff and another one, I am sure is wingnut. I don't care for it at all:

http://www.washingtonstatemiliita.com/

But these are official WA State pages:

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/Opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8338

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinions.aspx?section=topic&topic=MILITIA

Why would we need them when we have state and local police - and a lot of people on military bases, as well?

[sarisataka]

111. I think this is what you are looking for

the Washington State Guard- separate from the WA National Guard
http://washingtonguard.org/wsg/

[freshwest]

115. Thanks, this is what people told me about in person. Retired military guys.

Those '.com' outfits sound bogus to me. The link you provided is a 'well-regulated' militia. Their purpose is to help in natural and other emergencies and there's nothing objectionable.

I don't care for the wingnuts who can't qualify for this, running around pretending to be empowered to do whatever. The language of those '.com' websites is objectionable. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

As far as armed people showing up at the state capitol, it's intimidating to see people who are not so empowered by law going around like this. We have tons of military and these guys are playing soldier without a chain of command - more likely they are listening to voices in their heads like Beck, Rush or Infowars. Got a lot of those.

Although I've been to the capitol and at times the people meeting with lawmakers and each other is less than cordial or in order with shoving and shouting.

I didn't care for the wingnuts protesting Gregoire trying to calm arguments over holiday decorations, FFS, at the state capitol, which were egged on by O'Reilly and hate radio, resulting in death threats.

The WA state Constitution gives more rights to citizens than the US Constitution, but people are trying to take those away by passing bills, without amending. It's a constant struggle.

[sarisataka]

116. Without conceding the point

people=individuals, I believe this type organization is closest to what the framers envisioned by a well regulated militia.

I wish every state had such an organization, but it is just a handful. If there were more of them, it would open many more avenues of what is and is not permitted to be privately owned.

The .com militias (now that is a visual) are... um independent and I agree their motives are questionable at best.

Far too often people think that best way to negotiate is conflict and intimidation, showing that do not actually want to negotiate.

[patrice]

36. SOVEREIGNTY at the point of a gun. NO! KINGS!!!

[Maineman]

37. I think they are coming close to the legal definition of assault.

They are making a (visual) threat.

[marlakay]

42. I am not surprised

Around here, WA state mountain area, even most dems have guns.

I don't have never shot one in my life, but I guess it's more about wild animals, not much crime to be afraid of. A lot of hunters too.

[Hekate]

43. First ironic thought: What a great set of photos to show other nations how stable our gov't is

That thought immediately followed the wave of nausea I felt on reading your header.

Can we suppress these terrorists NOW?

[KansDem]

44. Don't think I'd want to set off a firecracker...

...in that crowd!

[JoePhilly]

57. ... but what if one just happened to go off??

[matt819]

49. Actually

Yes, these people are proof that gun control is badly needed.

They're also proof that birth control was badly needed.

[lastlib]

52. Mao Zedong said that political power flows from the barrel of a gun......

So what we have here is an armed mob of Maoists. Grounds for an arrest?

[cartach]

53. And just what in the hell

is law enforcement doing about it? Or are their hands tied by laws now in existence in that jurisdiction?

[Bjorn Against]

59. They can't do anything because the gun laws are too damn weak

For some stupid reason it is illegal to carry a protest sign in to the Washington State Capitol, but it is perfectly legal to carry an assault rifle. The Teabaggers are making a strong case for further gun control however so I don't know how much longer this will be legal.

[Bjorn Against]

65. There is nothing peaceful about using an assault rifle to intimidate

You are right that it is legal and that is why more gun control is needed because this type of intimidation tactic should be a felony.

[Bjorn Against]

70. Well that makes it all better doesn't it?

I don't really give a shit whether they are called assault weapons or semi auto rifles with detachable mags, anyone who would carry them to the state capitol to intimidate law makers is a thug and the law should be changed to make them felons.

[Bjorn Against]

73. Which is why the law needs to be changed

Because any sane person would think this should be a criminal act.

[Recursion]

122. What *should* law enforcement do about a bunch of people who aren't breaking any law?

[donnasgirl]

61. News Flash

It's not only the tea baggers that will be there,they will be joined by plenty of democratic gun owners also.

[Bjorn Against]

63. If Democratic gun owners pull this sort of shit they should be shunned from the party

We need to make it clear that we want nothing to do with people who would carry an assault rifle to the state capitol to intimidate law makers.

[donnasgirl]

78. Look i agree

My point was that there are Democratic gun owners as well as Republican gun owners,there are independent gun owners as well.I might be wrong but in my opinion,but them carrying the weapons are for show not to intimidate they are to prove a point,whether anybody likes it or not there are 100 million gun owners who are pissed off at they are being lumped in with the mentally ill,and i do not blame them.

[Bjorn Against]

82. If they are open carrying assault weapons in public they are intimidating

There is no reason anyone needs to carry an assault weapon to the Capitol for show, they are intimidating people and it should be a felony to do what they are doing. I would agree that the type of scum that would do this sort of shit should not be lumped with the mentally ill, that would be an insult to the mentally ill. Most mentally ill people are truly decent people, assholes who carry assault weapons in public are not decent people they are pond scum. I don't care if they call themselves teabaggers or Democrats, anyone who would pull a stunt like these assholes pulled should be shunned.

[MindPilot]

93. the mentally ill are prettry pissed off about being lumped in with

gun owners. We may be crazy but at least we know where reality ends and fantasy begins.

[Erose999]

100. Here here. Fuck those assholes. The tent is not big enough for that kind of shit.

[jwirr]

66. IF anything would make me pass these bills if I were in that possition it would be the sight of

these idiots carring their playthings.

[Kolesar]

81. Republican congressmen have received death threats before

And even these legislators have to be aware of how things are getting out of control.

[shenmue]

67. WTF?!

What is wrong with people?

[Blue Palasky]

71. why

do these motherfuckers want to act like we live in Afghanistan? Keep your guns at home, pussies.

[iamthebandfanman]

74. what does this prove again?

that people can legally run up on anyone anywhere with a weapon and hooray for our right to do so ??

if anything, it makes other sides case stronger.. if ya ask me..

that kind of erratic and self righteous behavior is exactly why not everyone should own a fire arm.

[progressoid]

77. *sigh*

[Kolesar]

84. Olympia needs a smoke-in to take the edge off these crazy white guys...eom

[Aerows]

88. I'll bite

Please, enumerate for me, the names of CEOs and executive officers of gun manufacturers that actively support the Democratic Party and/or Democratic candidates.

Please list these people for us all, so that we can all see that not all gun manufacturer heads are Republicans. I think it will be an interesting exercise. And I don't mean those that give to both sides, but give overwhelmingly more to the GOP - I mean those that donate the bulk of their support to the Democratic party and Democratic candidates.

[Bjorn Against]

89. Was this post intended for me?

Because I don't know of any, I am well aware the gun lobby is overwhelmingly right-wing.

[Aerows]

90. No, just in general, my friend

I'm waiting to see if anyone can come up with a list so that we can all change our minds and sing the praises of everyone and anyone openly carrying to their hearts' content with absolutely no restrictions .

[Arkansas Granny]

92. So what happens if one of these fools accidentally discharges his weapon?

Do they all open up and start firing in order to stop the "bad guy" that has attacked them? Talk about a ciruclar firing squad.

I'm presuming, of course, that they are carrying loaded weapons.

[ManiacJoe]

98. The state police arrest him and take him to jail.

More than likely, it would be a negligent discharge, not an accidental one.

[indepat]

94. Domestic right-wing extremists brandishing assault weapons and spewing

hatred, sedition, and rebellion. Oh, the joys of living in a right-wing soused society wherein government basically allows these extremists to roam freely while harassing, assaulting, pepper-spraying, and arresting left-wing groups peacefully protesting massive Wall Street fraud and abuse. Now someone please tell me this is not a right-wing soused society.

[Flashmann]

95. Now someone please tell me this is not a right-wing soused society

Well OK.....If you insist...But I'll be lying through my teeth..

[grasswire]

96. from The Oregonian re: intimidation of legislators

A campaign of intimidation is being waged against legislators who might be considering common sense gun restrictions:

"There is no question in my mind that this is intimidating to legislators," Greenlick said. "And consequently, I don't think anything involving guns is going through the Legislature. People are thoroughly warned off.

"I don't think they're afraid they'll get shot. They're afraid they're going to get flooded. They're afraid of having people campaign against them. And they don't want to deal with the bother. This is a hell of a bother."

Greenlick sent along several emails, the worst of which he shared with Oregon State Police.

One refers to Greenlick as a "disgusting jew parasite." Another features, in two compact paragraphs, three anti-Semitic slurs and five of the seven words George Carlin once claimed you could never say on television.

A third warns Greenlick, "You have made a grave error" in sponsoring House Bill 3200, and suggests he withdraw his support: "Good choices are the foundation for long and healthy life."

"This does draw attention," said Lt. Gregg Hastings at OSP. "There's an assessment on whether anyone has committed a crime. (But) we generally don't talk about security issues."

Greenlick admits he was also unnerved by an email from Gary Weis of Monmouth, who asked whether the 77-year-old Democrat still lived at a Northwest Portland address, noting, "I was thinking of picketing at your house and was wondering if you would give me directions."

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2013/03/steve_duin_intimidation_tactic.html

[Kolesar]

99. Let's see the gungeoneers disavow these death threats.

"It's clear that intimidation works," Representative Burdick said. "This is the extremist, highly motivated fringe. The strategy is to make life so miserable for people that they don't want to discuss the issue.

"I'm hoping that after Sandy Hook and Clackamas, legislators will overcome it. When someone can mow down a classroom of kids and nothing is done, we all have culpability at that point."

Yet Greenlick has concluded that most legislators would rather live with that infamy than confront the vitriolic fringe.

A majority of Oregonians, he argues, "would vote in favor of slowing the spread of assault weapons. I believe they would vote for background checks. They already did.

[Paladin]

104. Don't Hold Your Breath, Waiting For That To Happen.

There are a few of our resident Gun Enthusiasts who condemn open carry/death threat types as being bad for their side of the argument, but they are a very small minority.....

[SQUEE]

107. Reporting for duty.

I STRONGLY disagree with this type of protest, I abhor and decry the implicit threat involved in showing up on the capitol grounds.
To say this is not a threat is disingenuous at the very least.
The message is that we will use these, and if you do not do as we say, we will use them on you and your proxies.
I believe there is an alarming percentage of the gun community that wants a Civil War part deux, and to push the "reset button".

[sarisataka]

112. If I do that, will you disavow these?

you never have a drone when you need one......

Should've been rounded up and put in cattle cars.

Wonder what that could refer to?
We'll skip over the latent racist posts and I don't even care about all of the post about guns being the one and only litmus test to be a true Democrat...


For the record the actions of these people and immature and dangerous. Just because you may have the right to do something it does not mean to you should do it or it is wise to do it. People such as this, and the infamous NRA exec VP, who actually promote GC arguments by representing all gun owners as fringe lunatics. Most gun owners do favor gun control for the safety of themselves and the public at large. It does not mean most gun owners will back the pie-in-the-sky control levels that more extreme gun control proponents. If a dialogue would ever actually happen, it is my opinion that a compromise would be met that most people would accept, if not be entirely happy with. A logical series of laws could be passed which respect rights, define responsibilities and function to reduce the number of weapons available to criminals and other disqualified persons.

[hack89]

113. I emphatically disavow them

I also think these morons in Washington state are wrong and should not be adding weapons to a political discussion.

[cascadiance]

125. A new bill is going through Oregon Senate (HB 699) to regulate weapons in public buildings...

... like the Capitol building here, as a result of those actions taken by the gunsters last month...

http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/sb0600.dir/sb0699.intro.pdf

I really think that the state of Washington and Oregon legislators should join forces to put together good legislation to do this since they are both being affected now. Perhaps the result can serve as a model for other states before they have the same actions happen and a horrible accident happens in the future.

I'm actually going to a local meeting in Oregon where this might be one of the topics discussed here tonight, so if others have ideas they'd like to share with me on this topic, please PM me.

I think there are a number of us here in Oregon are concerned that at times we need more refinement of these bills, as another bill, House bill 3200, has the right idea, but has too many flaws and goes too far to get enough support to get passed. It also perhaps hurts other more well meaning gun control legislation that might get lumped with it. It's too bad that CeaseFire Oregon didn't see that when they've been speaking to local groups. I do like a lot what they said when I heard them, but I think they have to be more careful not to go too far for what is practical today. I heard from others who talked about this bill that there are even hidden restrictions on those who own shotguns primarily used for hunting.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/02/oregon_gun_control_bill_attrac.html

Thanks.

[davidpdx]

102. This happened in Oregon last month

Maybe California should prepare for the worst. I kind of see a trend starting here. Attack and threaten the legislatures in the liberal states.

[tblue37]

105. If the legislators have any brains they will take this

as evidence if the need for serious gun control measures!

[dtom67]

108. this pisses me off...

at the "right-to-work" protest in Lansing, we were warned not to bring anything that might be taken as a weapon. And we caught a ton of crap for that "Crowder" incident. But these yahoos can just storm the Capitol waiving guns? We would have had pandemonium , not to mention plenty of tear gas and probably rubber bullets.

Makes me think it was just a PR stunt. I mean, I had a young cop ready to "baton " my thick skull just for standing in the wrong spot. the young ones were the worst; they were afraid, which made them more dangerous , in my view. Of course, I'm sure the experienced ones woulda kicked my head in too, if given a real reason.....

[Locrian]

118. me too

This really burns me. As another poster pointed out, if it was a bunch of Occupy persons they would have been arrested or worse on the spot.

It sickens me to see the over the top behavior of the 2nd amendment folks getting a pass in contrast to the 1st amendment getting trampled.

[SQUEE]

120. And that is because the PTB aren't afraid of peaceful protesters.

The OWS people were restrained and even when attacked after obvious provocateurs created a "reason" for the police to use force, did not meet that force with violence.
Sadly those in charge, the 1% and their proxies, they only recognize force or posture of force.

They control the narrative that the public sees
they control the message
they control the means of production
they control the modern militarized police state
They control the MIC and all it's wonderful toys.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

114. They had originally hoped for 2000 to show up.

But fell way below expectations.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

117. I would tackle a person carrying an assault weapon into a public building

I would assume they were there to kill people, and I would tackle them and disable them from doing any harm.

[SQUEE]

119. and thereby commit assault?

.. brilliant, that is also a point these idiots are trying to make, that YOU, are irrational, and want to take there guns away by force.. which you just stated you would. In my state, they would also be justified in shooting you.
Again a small, but dangerous minority of those people want a Boston Massacre, a spark to ignite a wildfire. They want a Crispus Attucks, but not actually be one.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

121. So you would have allowed Jared Loughner to take the first shot?

I guess that's the line between hero and idiot, eh?

[SQUEE]

129. Jared Loughner =/= Gun protester.

And if it were Jared, you would either be first of 27, or more likely, done nothing.
You would only commit your little assault fantasy on a person you knew would not be shooting at you.
There seem to be as many keyboard commandos on the left as right these days.
I have absolutely no doubt you would do nothing were you at the capital the other day.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

130. Good for you

I have absolutely no doubt you truly believe that.

[SQUEE]

131. just a law abiding gun grabber, til you weren't...yup

You just said you would assault a person for doing something legal?
I have stated I disagree with what they are doing, and implying but as long as it is legal.. We can't do shit about it.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

132. I'll take my chances

I don't want to get shot, nor do I want to witness anyone get shot. That's the funny thing about me. I put my personal safety above some teabagging thug's desire to look like the complete fucking asshole they are in public. I'd feel pretty fucking guilty if I had to tell the police "Well, officer, I didn't know he was going to shoot that legislator, as well as mow down the school group and their teacher visiting the state house....he just looked like he was "exermiscising his riiiiiiiots". Let's all blow Yankee Doodle Dandy out our assholes while jerking off to a reading of Amendment number 2".

These fucks only respect people who draw guns on them, I guess punching them dead on in the face would be crossing the line for such cowards.

[SQUEE]

133. disturbing post.

I have seen lots of protests in the news.. yet no reports of any physical assaults, you just bidding your time?
Again pure hyperbole and drama, we all know these events though full of implications, in and of themselves are no threat at the moment.
Unless on the other hand, you are serious. You have issues and believe violence is an answer to .. political posturing? You need to stay away from firearms, and sharp objects. I hope you seek help before you hurt someone, or are hurt by others. Mayhap you are projecting your bloodliust and violent nature on others?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

134. I'm not advocating showing up for one of these rallies and tackling these people

I'm saying that if I was there minding my business and saw someone openly walking into a public building like a state house dressed in camo with an assault rifle with no prior knowledge of yet another public circle jerk of the gun nut teabagger nation (they promote them so well....either that or they just hold them every day because they don't have fucking jobs)....I'd assume they were there to do harm to someone and yes, I would do whatever was needed (without a gun) to subdue them.

The part of my post you should be disturbed about is the image of innocent blood being shed because one of these fuckers will go nuts eventually, or some other asshole will use it as cover....and people like you will say as they walk up the front stairs..."Oh, that's just one of those crazy gun people, oh ha ha ha, we have to live with this because it's their right, and......<bang>....Oh, shit....".

[SQUEE]

135. Again i am honestly worried about you

Do you always have such lurid and bloody daydreams.
I deplore these idiots and the antics they get up to, but you are really fixated on bloodshed.
I am truly more worried about you having a gun, and losing your shit than Bobby Fudd on the courthouse steps. no sarcasm.
I think I am done with your violence and macabre fascination with murder and assault.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

136. I use your own words sir, in post 99

"I abhor and decry the implicit threat involved in showing up on the capitol grounds."

"To say this is not a threat is disingenuous at the very least."

So you admit, at the very least, that a person conducting business or visiting the state house, and let's stipulate, with no prior knowledge of any right-wing teabagging masturbatory gun hootenanny at the Capitol building that day, any day, or in the past or future, should indeed feel threatened by someone openly displaying a weapon? Correct?



It's OK if you're still "done with me", I'd tap out too at this point. And I have no fucking interest in owning a gun, thanks.

[Recursion]

123. Why would you assume that when 200 people just did 0 harm?

Seems like a strange conclusion to draw. Mass shooters generally don't operate in large groups, or let people see their weapons beforehand.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

124. They expected 2000 to show up.

They got 200.

If they only got 1 lone wolf to show up I guess I would have to wait to get shot then to see if he was one of those pesky "irresponsible" gun owners.

[cascadiance]

137. Think of how many kids won't get to see government in action when their trips are canceled...

... to see the capitol with the prospect of someone going "Newtown" with all of those guns that people are carrying around there. Not to mention a lot of people that are lobbying the government on controversial issues that might want to avoid going to the Capitol if they feel threatened by groups like these. And even politicians like Ginny Burdick here in Oregon who's been trying to lead Oregon's legislature in passing some meaningful and practical gun regulation legislation the last month or so have felt many direct threats recently from "gun rights advocates" that seem to be so "harmless" here.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2013/03/ginny-burdick-only-tool-have-intimidation/

When she spoke to us the other day, she mentioned that the district she lives in is largely populated by those who hunt and own guns, and yet they support her because they aren't part of this fringe set of crazies that don't want any rules they have to abide by.

[Recursion]

138. I support banning open carry in public, personally. I just also don't see it as intimidation

Then again I've spent a lot of my life in situations where there were a lot of guns around, and that's not common.

I think it's just like playing your music in your car really loud; it's a "look at me" kind of thing.

[Aristus]

127. Quit polluting my beautiful state with your teabagger bullshit, gun crazies.

You are why Idaho was created. Get lost...