More Republicans against freedom!

[USFREEDOM911]

Someone dumb enough to get kicked out of the service is not got to get higher concepts!
Fuck the military are the dregs of society, and you couldn't keep up

And with your last sentence, you are now on IA and I suggest everyone else do the same; except for those that think the military are the dregs of society, which will now be revealed by who continues (after today) to converse with you.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

it's awesome that I can laugh at your bullshit.

I suggest putting him on IA and if enough people ignore him, maybe he'll go away.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Police Officers are PAID to PROTECT and SERVE.

and they are supposed to be expertly trained, but in your own projected cowardice, you exempt them from accountability because you're too afraid to be responsible for your own protection. and police are NOT paid to protect and serve. they are paid to enforce the law.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I suggest putting him on IA and if enough people ignore him, maybe he'll go away.

I usually don't respond to his methheaded idiocy anyway, but putting him on IA would keep me from reading my daily dose of ignorant leftist delusional rants.

 

[zappasguitar]

Speaking of 'education,' legally open carrying guns is not 'brandishing.'

And do kids learn ANYTHING about guns in school except that they are forbidden? Period? They cannot even draw pictures...kids have been disciplined for doing so....so how can they be taught ANYTHING? They are only taught that they are BAD.

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)


Sounds like I have the law on my side.

If those gun nuts had held their "demonstration" ANYWHERE else, they might have been able to claim their goal was something other than intimidation. They CHOSE to gather in the parking lot of the restaurant where those ladies were holding their meeting because they knew what kind of impression their guns would make and how uncomfortable their guns would make those women.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I usually don't respond to his methheaded idiocy anyway, but putting him on IA would keep me from reading my daily dose of ignorant leftist delusional rants.

Your choice; but I found his comment to be unworthy of being replied to, anymore.

 

[Lorca]

IA? I can control my Internet input myself thanks. No need for Nanny Net.

 

[zappasguitar]

And with your last sentence, you are now on IA and I suggest everyone else do the same; except for those that think the military are the dregs of society, which will now be revealed by who continues (after today) to converse with you.

Well, seeing as how you've been too chickenshit to converse with me directly for some time now, I guess I'll just have to ignore this latest "suggestion" from you as well.

 

[zappasguitar]

and they are supposed to be expertly trained, but in your own projected cowardice, you exempt them from accountability because you're too afraid to be responsible for your own protection. and police are NOT paid to protect and serve. they are paid to enforce the law.

And when police enforce the law they are PROTECTING citizens who obey the law and SERVING those selfsame law abiding citizens.

 

[Lorca]

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)


Sounds like I have the law on my side.

If those gun nuts had held their "demonstration" ANYWHERE else, they might have been able to claim their goal was something other than intimidation. They CHOSE to gather in the parking lot of the restaurant where those ladies were holding their meeting because they knew what kind of impression their guns would make and how uncomfortable their guns would make those women.

Sorry, you are not proving intimidation at all.

If they were protesting the women's meeting in that restaurant...how would demonstrating *somewhere else* have done anything?

 

[Lorca]

And when police enforce the law they are PROTECTING citizens who obey the law and SERVING those selfsame law abiding citizens.

I'd be scared for sure if I was around cops with their guns drawn. They dont have the best record on aim OR judgement. Not really proven to be any better than average citizens with arms either.

 

[zappasguitar]

Your choice; but I found his comment to be unworthy of being replied to, anymore.

Right..."unworthy of being replied to".

And yet here you are...three responses now, to the post you said you were going to ignore.

 

[zappasguitar]

Sorry, you are not proving intimidation at all.

If they were protesting the women's meeting in that restaurant...how would demonstrating *somewhere else* have done anything?

It's not up to me to "prove" intimidation at all.

If the women in the restaurant felt intimidated by a parking lot full of armed men, then that's all that is required.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Federal law defines brandished as, “with reference to a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) means that all or part of the weapon was displayed, or the presence of the weapon was otherwise made known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the weapon was directly visible to that person. Accordingly, although the dangerous weapon does not have to be directly visible, the weapon must be present.” (18 USCS Appx § 1B1.1)


Sounds like I have the law on my side.

If those gun nuts had held their "demonstration" ANYWHERE else, they might have been able to claim their goal was something other than intimidation. They CHOSE to gather in the parking lot of the restaurant where those ladies were holding their meeting because they knew what kind of impression their guns would make and how uncomfortable their guns would make those women.

no, you don't. numerous state and federal court decisions (including the ussc) have held that the simple exercise of a right cannot be converted in to a crime, thus making the holstered or peacably carried open firearm legal.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And when police enforce the law they are PROTECTING citizens who obey the law and SERVING those selfsame law abiding citizens.

like the lady newpaper deliverers in cali? or the 9 innocent bystanders in new york? sal culosi? sean bell? need i say more?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'd be scared for sure if I was around cops with their guns drawn. They dont have the best record on aim OR judgement. Not really proven to be any better than average citizens with arms either.

even less than the average citizen. in fact, police injure innocent bystanders 11% of the time when firing their weapons, as compared to the 2% of the average citizen.

 

[zappasguitar]

I'd be scared for sure if I was around cops with their guns drawn. They dont have the best record on aim OR judgement. Not really proven to be any better than average citizens with arms either.

But a group of rednecks assembled in a parking lot with their guns drawn isn't a reason to be scared...understood.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It's not up to me to "prove" intimidation at all.

If the women in the restaurant felt intimidated by a parking lot full of armed men, then that's all that is required.

this shows you know nothing about the law. if the women also felt intimidated by a parking lot full of women wearing red dresses, would THAT be all thats required to prove intimidation?

 

[Lorca]

It's not up to me to "prove" intimidation at all.

If the women in the restaurant felt intimidated by a parking lot full of armed men, then that's all that is required.

No, not at all. You dont understand the law. Otherwise open carry wouldnt even be legal because anyone (irrationally) can claim to feel intimidated by seeing a gun on someone.

 

[zappasguitar]

no, you don't. numerous state and federal court decisions (including the ussc) have held that the simple exercise of a right cannot be converted in to a crime, thus making the holstered or peacably carried open firearm legal.

That's nice, except we aren't discussing the legality of open carry...do try to keep up.

We ARE discussing whether my use of the term "brandishing" was correct or not.

I just supplied the definition to show I was correct.