Exceptional video log of a tension-filled city council meeting touching on gun ownership
- Thread starter Plot Device
- Start date
See, bringing a bunch of lethal weapons to a political meeting strikes me as considerably more than just bringing your voice and a picket sign.
It's a sword-in, it's a bomb-in.
If you're doing a sit-in, the presumption is that you do it unarmed - that those who are going to kick you out are going to do so that the ones sitting in not able to do much about it, other than make those kicking them out look bad. The fact that they are bringing in their guns. . . doesn't help their case.
If you're doing a sit-in, the presumption is that you do it unarmed - that those who are going to kick you out are going to do so that the ones sitting in not able to do much about it, other than make those kicking them out look bad. The fact that they are bringing in their guns. . . doesn't help their case.
Well guys, I haven't actually read the news article yet, but I am going to assume that the people who walked in there with concealed weapons are fully licensed CCW permit holders. And I am further going to assume that the people who walked in with their weapons strapped on and in full view are fully licensed open-carry permit holders. (Again I have't read the article, nor do I even know if Washington State allows open carry).
But -- if my assumptions are correct, then that means every last person who walked in with a weapon (either concealed or open) was perfectly within the limits of the law. And THAT would be the exact point of comparison to a classic 1960's sit-in, or possibly even a 1960's "White's Only" lunch counter protest. The point is that the law says they can do it. So ... they did.
The universal message of those 1960's protests was "I am doing nothing illegal. You cannot arrest me in the name of the law and yet simultaneously claim you are acting within the law." And so my calling it a "gun-in" is a play on words meant to invoke the same spirit of testing the law.
::ETA::
And Xelebes, as for the "sword-in / bomb-in" play on words, I'm pretty sure that carrying a bomb anywhere is certainly not within the law. (Don't know about a sword, though. Probably not allowed either.) But carrying a gun is, just so long as you have the appropriate permit.
Last edited:
I know this, and I still don't care. It's my legal right to have an abortion, but I'm only going to have one if I feel I need one. I'm not going to do it just to make a point.
I agree on your right to choose. But I don't think your statement of why and when and how you choose to control your reproduction is a statement which in any way negates the validity of the sit-in/gun-in analogy I am making.
It's also within the limit of the law to drive past a man you hate, glare at him, pull out a knife and lick it slowly and menacingly, before driving away.
Doesn't make it any less...thuggish.
It's like this...I know what they're doing is legal. That doesn't mean I have to respect what they're doing, and consider it a valid reason to do it. I know people have the right to own and carry guns. The reason they should, IMO, is because they feel they need them. Not to make a point.
Rosa Parks would have had an easier time of it if she didn't make a point about individual rights either. She didn't need to sit in the front of the bus, the back was going to the same place.
Sometimes a point needs to be made.
I...just...
How would you feel if people ran around trying to force YOUR opinions to change with guns?
Because that's what this looks like to me.
They could always...you know, use their words, and explain why their views are reasonable and should be listened too. But instead, they showed up at the city hall with guns! Which, I hasten to remind you, are designed to kill people, whether you use it defensively or offensively.
To turn your Rosa Park reference back on itself, I'm pretty sure people showed up at voting booths where black people would go...with guns. They wouldn't have to USE the guns to make their point.
How would you feel if people ran around trying to force YOUR opinions to change with guns?
Because that's what this looks like to me.
They could always...you know, use their words, and explain why their views are reasonable and should be listened too. But instead, they showed up at the city hall with guns! Which, I hasten to remind you, are designed to kill people, whether you use it defensively or offensively.
To turn your Rosa Park reference back on itself, I'm pretty sure people showed up at voting booths where black people would go...with guns. They wouldn't have to USE the guns to make their point.
I have a question about that City Hall demonstration.
Did any of those who showed up WEARING a gun actually DRAW their gun? Or did the guns all remain in their respective holsters?
Wearing a gun when you have a permit to wear it (either concealed or open) is ....... legal.
DRAWING the gun is a threat.
The statement being made by all those people was: "We do this thing callled 'carrying' every single day. We wear these guns every single day." (like the contact lenses that I was berated about last week). "We who carry are far more numerous than many people are aware of. We do it every day, under your noses, and we are in no way a disruption or a threat to anyone. Here we are. We are within the law. Deal with it."
If anyone drew their gun during that demonstration, then that person is an ass. And I will gladly say so to his or her face.
Did any of those who showed up WEARING a gun actually DRAW their gun? Or did the guns all remain in their respective holsters?
Wearing a gun when you have a permit to wear it (either concealed or open) is ....... legal.
DRAWING the gun is a threat.
The statement being made by all those people was: "We do this thing callled 'carrying' every single day. We wear these guns every single day." (like the contact lenses that I was berated about last week). "We who carry are far more numerous than many people are aware of. We do it every day, under your noses, and we are in no way a disruption or a threat to anyone. Here we are. We are within the law. Deal with it."
If anyone drew their gun during that demonstration, then that person is an ass. And I will gladly say so to his or her face.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2011
- Messages
- 7,212
- Reaction score
- 974
- Location
- Massachusetts, USA
- Website
- www.facebook.com
Especially since, if anyone tried to make trouble with them, they could shoot them. Rosa Parks couldn't because she stood up to her oppressors unarmed. Frankly, I find the comparison between non-violent protest and armed protest kind of offensive in this context.
How come in many states, it's legal to carry a gun with a permit, but it's illegal to carry a sword, and there don't appear to be any bureaucratic routes by which to obtain a permit to legally carry a sword?
Will gun supporters rally behind my cause to legalize the open carry of swords?
Why can't I openly carry a sword in Texas (Section 46.01)? Isn't that a violation of the 2nd amendment?
If gun supporters really care about the 2nd amendment, they're focusing on the wrong area. After all, they're allowed to carry their guns with the proper licenses. But I can't legally carry a sword, or obtain a license to do so. Where is the outrage? Where is the justice? Where are the ninjas?
Where is Bruce Willis at the Town Hall with the katana?
Will gun supporters rally behind my cause to legalize the open carry of swords?
Why can't I openly carry a sword in Texas (Section 46.01)? Isn't that a violation of the 2nd amendment?
If gun supporters really care about the 2nd amendment, they're focusing on the wrong area. After all, they're allowed to carry their guns with the proper licenses. But I can't legally carry a sword, or obtain a license to do so. Where is the outrage? Where is the justice? Where are the ninjas?
Where is Bruce Willis at the Town Hall with the katana?
Last edited:
*Plot Device holds up a digital recorder*
*Plot Device hits "play"*
*A voice on the digital recorder speaks*
"The law says you can carry if you have a permit."
I think everyone is aware of the law. They are just offering their personal opinions on how it feels to them when a group of armed people all sharing the same view show up.
To me it would be very intimidating to know that the person I am disagreeing with is carrying a deadly weapon, let alone being in a room with a few hundred of their equally armed friends.
To me it would be very intimidating to know that the person I am disagreeing with is carrying a deadly weapon, let alone being in a room with a few hundred of their equally armed friends.
PD, we all know this. We heard you the first time, and we knew it before you even said it. We still don't think it's cool. They are within their rights to carry a gun with a permit, and other are within their rights to not want to be around them if they do.
Regardless, there are always people who will feel threatened by someone carrying a gun. From what I could tell in the article, this was done as a big "fuck you" to a councilman who left a meeting because he DID feel threatened by a man carrying a gun. He never said it was illegal, he just didn't feel comfortable, so he left.
Speaking as someone who is not comfortable around guns, this is NOT the way to teach us that you aren't threatening.
Sometimes, yes. But I notice they brandish them less and less, now that they resort to using the other tools on them more often than they use their gun.
Also, yes, I am a bit uncomfortable about police officers with guns.
And tasers.
And police officers in general. No offense, but I always get paranoid that I'm breaking the law somehow.