Open Carry Activists Bully, Harass and Threaten Texas Representative

nevarezWhile many people have heard of these bottom-feeding Open Carry activists, it’s really difficult to describe what it’s like to deal with these people face to face. I’ve had a couple of encounters with them and both times I walked away disgusted at the behavior of these people. I’m sure that not every single person who supports open carry laws acts like this, but too often I’ve seen nothing but immaturity and arrogance from many of their most vocal members.


Well, a video from the office of Texas state Rep. Poncho Nevarez perfectly showcases exactly what it’s like to deal with these people.

A group of around 20 of these gun nuts from Open Carry Tarrant County went into his office and bullied, harassed and threatened the state representative after he told them that he didn’t support a bill that would allow Texans to openly carry handguns.

After not giving the answer they wanted to hear, they called him a “tyrant to the Constitution” with one member telling him, “You won’t be here long, bro.”

Then when Rep. Nevarez got tired of entertaining these fools, politely asking them to leave, they basically refused to leave. One of them told a member of his staff who tried to escort them out, “Don’t touch me. This is the people’s office.” They then proceeded to “inform” him that he works for the people – which is true, but being that he’s a representative from a district that doesn’t include Tarrant County, technically they aren’t “the people” he’s working for. And I’m sure the people who did vote for him are well aware of his stance on openly carrying guns in Texas.

And even after Nevarez stood up and walked to the door, continuing to politely ask them to leave his office, they still resisted. Then, after he finally got the last one to leave, the idiot put his foot in the door to prevent it from closing, telling Nevarez, “What are you gonna do?”

Then even as these clowns exited the office they continued to harass and bother people standing in the hallways, telling one person, “What you gonna do, touch me or something?” followed a few seconds later by, “I’ll show you mean.”

The complete immaturity of these people is astounding. To have a state representative politely ask them to leave, then to have one of them stick their foot in the door to keep it from closing, telling him, “What are you gonna do?” is ridiculous. They act like petulant children throwing a hissy fit whenever they don’t get their way.


But this is what these people do. They go around harassing, bullying and basically flat-out threatening people they don’t like, hoping to get some sort of reaction out of them on video. I’ve seen them doing it to police officers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. These people aren’t just gun nuts, they’re radical anti-government activists. By the way, these are the people Cop Block strongly supports and endorses.

To be clear, the official Open Carry Texas group does not endorse Open Carry Tarrant County. In fact, the head of Open Carry Texas was irate over the actions of Open Carry Tarrant County:

I’ll be spending tomorrow cleaning up the horse manure Kory Watkins [leader of Open Carry Tarrant County] dropped throughout the Capitol today instead of building support for constitutional carry. If starting fires were up for a vote, he’d be a grand arsonist. Yes, I said it. Some of us actually want bills passed that repeal laws violating our fundamental rights instead of vying for the title of Jackass of the Year. I’m done playing softball. I’m still getting phone calls from representatives and media hours later.

And while I don’t endorse the “open carry movement,” I’m willing to give credit where credit is due – because Kory Watkins is a jackass.

But, like I said, this is what these people do. They’re a bunch of anti-government, pro-gun radicals who hate authority. They care as much about “their cause” as they do about getting attention. And while these idiots might shout “shall not be infringed” at state representatives, they’re also ignoring the entire part of our Second Amendment that addresses a well-regulated militia.

And someone should inform these walking sideshows that a bunch of anti-government jackasses trying to bully and harass people who disagree with them doesn’t constitute a well-regulated militia.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Eg Kbbs

    I don’t know Texas law (or apparently lack thereof) but most places have laws specifically addressing people trying to bully elected representatives or especially making threats to them.

    As much as I detest Texas politics and the stupidity of their politicians (all the way down to Gohmert and Cruz), even a Texas representative shouldn’t have to put up with that.

    • Charles Vincent

      Good money says Ted Cruz is smarter than you on many levels.

      • BPMM

        Good money says you live in a double wide now and ate paint chips off your crib when you were an infant.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well hello there you can make that money order payable to me chief. Additionally Cruz is smarter than you as well it seems.

      • Rob Bailey

        Teddy is smart. And evil. Great combination. Knows how to prey on morons, take their money, and meet his twisted goals.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s a really crappy argument and can just as easily be applied to Obama or Reid or Pelosi etcetera.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Ah, once again someone from the right can’t argue on a rational level and can only spout insults on a kindergarten level.

        Seems a consistent pattern.

      • Charles Vincent

        Once again you forgot I am an independent. Secondly the argument is rational and logical and can be proven. Therefore the fact still remains that Cruz is in all likelihood smarter than you. After all you dont graduate from Princeton and then attend and graduate from Harvard law with high honors without being intelligent like Mr. Cruz did. “He served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.” Without a good amount of intelligence Mr. Cruz wouldn’t have gotten that position.

        But keep wallowing in your own ignorance spanky.

      • Johnl.102

        I love that crap, I’m an “independent” but have the same word for word opinion as fox and every republican in DC.. Comedy gold…lol

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad lapidem wrapped in assumption.

      • Johnl.102

        Your argument is , you think someone is smarter then someone. How is that an argument on this issue at all? Trying to change the subjest is a ” tactic ” not an argument.

      • Charles Vincent

        “the stupidity of their politicians (all the way down to Gohmert and Cruz)”
        The person to whom I replied to posted this, and look there Ted Cruz is stupid so I guess my argument wasn’t changing the subject after all.

      • Mercy Me

        A fool and his money are soon parted.

      • Charles Vincent

        One question here do you know what Ted Cruz’s education actually is or are you just taking what the left tells you it is as gospel?

      • Mercy Me

        I have a Ph.D. and work at a university surrounded by Ph.D.s. I am not impressed by degrees. People can have doctorate degrees and be completely devoid of wisdom when it comes to real life. Ted Cruz is one such man. Ben Carson is another.

      • Cletus B Neckbeard

        PhD

      • Mercy Me

        The more correct form is Ph.D., just as you can write M.A. or MA.

      • Cletus B Neckbeard

        I’ll admit that makes more sense but I’ve never seen it that way.

      • Mercy Me

        On business cards it is usually written with the periods.

      • Charles Vincent

        An anonymous poster has a degree on the internet sureeee you do. Just like I have finished my dual degree as an MBA and BS in computer infosys.

        “Ted Cruz is one such man. Ben Carson is another.”
        Have you met and spoke with either of them personally? If not anything you say is opinion and ad lapidem nonsense.

        “People can have doctorate degrees and be completely devoid of wisdom when it comes to real life.”
        The irony contained in this statement of yours is absolutely astounding.

      • Mercy Me

        I honestly don’t care whether you believe I am a university professor or not. I know who gives me my paycheck. Besides, isn’t the usual right-wing rant that all us university professors are commie pinkos? Now you don’t believe a progressive is a professor?

        Ted Cruz and Ben Carson are in the media a lot. I don’t have to talk them personally to have an opinion about them

        Your last comment presumably is a jab at me. The jokes is on you because, a. you know nothing about me (see your middle paragraph), and b. you called my Ph.D. into doubt in the first place.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I don’t believe some anonymous poster on the internet.

        “Ted Cruz and Ben Carson are in the media a lot. I don’t have to talk them personally to have an opinion about them”
        This is exactly my point. You see I went to the extra work of actually looking up the education level of Mr. Cruz and the formulated that based on actual fact the he is probably smarter than the person I replied to. I used facts to arrive at a conclusion not opinions.

        I know what you posted here and that’s what I based my comments on. You have this vain assumption that what you said cant be applied to you this is factually untrue.

        “Besides, isn’t the usual right-wing rant that all us university
        professors are commie pinkos? Now you don’t believe a progressive is a
        professor?”
        This statement is obfuscatory nonsense wrapped in an assumption. Like you said “you know nothing about me”.

      • Mercy Me

        I don’t care what you think. You cannot possibly know the education level of anonymous posters, so you cannot fairly compare them to public personas. You are the one who made assumptions. I never once made a reference to what standards can be applied to me. College degrees do not equal wisdom.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Kind of convenient how Open Carry Texas, by spouting 2nd amendment and being confrontational throughout Texas, could well be the origin of Open Tarrant County. Yet now they try to walk away as if they weren’t the one who left their defecation on the sidewalk.

    Quite convenient. But also a persistent pattern with the Tea Party as well with the groups who trained and encouraged home-grown terrorists.

    • Jim Bean

      Also kind of interesting how no police cars got torched, no convenience stores vandalized, and no bridges shut down.

      • FD Brian

        you made us all dumber for posting that.

      • Johnl.102

        Well , I’m sure if it were a football game you just might have seen that.

      • Jim Bean

        That happens but those dudes get arrested.

      • Johnl.102

        So you don’t like the fact the some, not all , that never riot, don’t get arrested, really?

      • Jim Bean

        Yes, really. I like it that those who don’t never riot don’t get arrested.

      • Rob Bailey

        Sure, and if the idiots standing by Cliven Bundy were black? Lots of blood to clean up. These assclowns should be arrested.

      • Eg Kbbs

        Yeah, unlike Ohio after their recent football victory. Or apparently you think a riot after a football game is perfectly fine.

      • Jim Bean

        Difference is, those hooligans will get arrested. The Ferguson/NY ‘civil rights activists’ will get empathy instead.

      • Johnl.102

        Jim , what riots in NY? Being a protester is not a crime. You can’t be arrested for protesting. You’re trying to lump protesters in with looters and rioters. Just to make yourself feel better about an issue that normally , if were happing to people you did like or know , you would be pissed off about. Its called making excuses.

      • Jim Bean

        If you block access to a bridge you’ve committed a crime. If you didn’t get arrested, you probably aren’t white.

      • Johnl.102

        Hooligans???? Not ” thugs” lmao

  • Charles Vincent

    Not so funny when the shoe is on the other foot is it?

    • Jim Bean

      They don’t know what your talking about.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s the point. They are so full of hypocrisy, double standards and hot air that seeing anything other than their own agenda is impossible.

    • Mercy Me

      I don’t go around threatening and intimidating my fellow citizens. That shoe has never been anywhere near my feet.

      • Charles Vincent

        Goodie for you.?! You seem to have a guilty conscience though as I had the topic of the article in mind not you, whoever you are.

      • Mercy Me

        Your post was vague and accusatory. Your other posts are anti-left. It is clear who you meant.

      • Charles Vincent

        There is nothing vague or ambiguous about the op of mine you replied to. Sorry you took it personally
        You also seem to be hamstrung by confirmation bias. For instance I can Google anti-gunners and come up with many articles centering on the likes of people like Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg who do similar things yet not one person on the left cracks even a word about them being “But these thugs regularly harass ordinary citizens, usually women. They are barbaric louts.” as you so stated another place here on this thread.

        But lets delve in to this Vagary you spoke to shall we.

        A comparison if you will. See i post under my own name and use a picture of me as an avatar and make a habit of doing so where ever I post on the internet.

        You on the other hand post anonymously as is your right to do so, however you are a hypocrite here sir/ma’am.

      • Mercy Me

        The gun control groups are trying to change government policy through peaceful demonstrations. The gun yahoos are intimidating their fellow citizens with guns and other bullying tactics. If you cannot see the difference, you are the only one with confirmation bias.

      • Charles Vincent

        The 2a is the official policy here running your little antigun group in to a retail store and demanding they change policy is no different.

        http://bearingarms DOT com/moms-demand-action-get-caught-in-another-deceptive-claim-trying-to-bully-store-managers-into-challenging-corporate-policies/

        So now people that take personal responsibility for their own safety are “gun yahoos”?

        Are you truly intimidated by someone with a side arm? Police must scare the hell out of you it that’s the case. Sounds like you might need treatment for that hopolophobia.

      • Mercy Me

        Your first sentence is ungrammatical. I think you are suggesting pointing guns at people who are not threatening you and posting their addresses online so people will harass them is exactly the same as trying to garner support by talking to people. You would be wrong if that is what you meant.

        Open carry has as much to do with “taking personal responsibility for their own safety” as smoking has to do with preventing lung cancer. The open carry yahoos do not carry sidearms, They carry extravagant weaponry. There is a very good reason why so many businesses are preventing them from entering with those overly compensatory objects. They are bullying yahoos as I said originally.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT bing DOT com/images/search?q=open+carry+pictures&qpvt=open+carry+pictures&FORM=IGRE

        Hmmm I don’t see any of these open carriers pointing their firearm at any one….

        “Open carry has as much to do with “taking personal responsibility for
        their own safety” as smoking has to do with preventing lung cancer”

        False equivalency.

        In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:
        Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

      • Mercy Me

        I have work to do, so you are going to have to put your thickheadedness on hold after this. Please tell me you do not believe a single image or your failure to see something is proof of anything. There were multiple witnesses, including the restaurant manager and the police who were called. It happened.

        You are far more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke and far more likely to suffer gun injuries if you have a gun. It is an exact equivalency.

        Wordsmithing the second amendment is not going to change what it really means and is yet another example of your moving the goalpost.

        Have a good day. I am sure I will see you around.

      • Charles Vincent

        You haven’t provided a single picture or news article backing what you claim. I have provide them in stark contrast.

        “You are far more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke and far more likely to suffer gun injuries if you have a gun.”

        This is demonstrably false sorry there are ~300 million guns owned privately in this country and roughly 30,000 deaths by guns due to suicide accidental shootings and homicides roughly 100 million people own guns, if my math is correct that is .0003% of all people fire arms die from them.

        Contrast that with the CDC statistics for smoking deaths

        Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

        Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States. This is about one in five deaths.1,2,3

        Smoking causes more deaths each year than all of these combined:4

        Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

        Illegal drug use

        Alcohol use

        Motor vehicle injuries

        Firearm-related incidents

        More
        than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from
        cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United
        States during its history.1

        Smoking causes about 90% (or 9 out of 10) of all lung cancer deaths in men and women.1,2 More women die from lung cancer each year than from breast cancer.5

        About 80% (or 8 out of 10) of all deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are caused by smoking.1

        Cigarette smoking increases risk for death from all causes in men and women.1

        The risk of dying from cigarette smoking has increased over the last 50 years in men and women in the United States.1

        “Wordsmithing the second amendment is not going to change what it really means and is yet another example of your moving the goalpost.”

        It isn’t wordsmithing to provide the context and meaning of the words and it isn’t moving the goal posts either.

      • Mercy Me

        As to the rest of your silliness, your failure to acknowledge statistics on gun deaths is your problem, not mine. Bury your head in the sand for all I care. You are still wrong. You also have no idea what the second amendment was meant to be. And none of this excuses outlandish behavior on the part of open carry nuts.

      • Charles Vincent

        “As to the rest of your silliness, your failure to acknowledge statistics on gun deaths is your problem,”

        you missed this in my post;

        “This is demonstrably false sorry there are ~300 million guns owned privately in this country and roughly 30,000 deaths by guns due to suicide accidental shootings and homicides roughly”

        I would say that counts as acknowledging gun deaths.

        Furthermore cigarettes kill 1 in 4 Americans each year. That is a direct quote from the CDC.

        The rate of gun death as a percentage of gun owner is .0003% a numder that is statistically insignificant and no were near the 1 in 4 for cigarette deaths. probably more like 1 in 10,000.

      • Mercy Me

        Your guys are gross cretins. Just admit it. Even other gun groups have admitted it. It will make you look better if you acknowledge reality.

      • Charles Vincent

        blah blah blah Take your phony Ph.D. and your weak ass ad lapidem retorts and go home to your little bubble.

      • Mercy Me

        Was this an argument for or against something?

      • Mercy Me

        And your gun death statistics are bogus, but what the hell do I care? Gun nuts killing themselves and each other? Go for it!

      • Charles Vincent

        So the FBI and CDC are wrong when they report ~30,000 deaths due to suicide homicide and unintentional shootings?

        well here is a stat from the Law center to prevent gun violence who got there numbers from both the CDC and FBI.
        “In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.”

      • Mercy Me

        What makes you think others are ignorant enough to take your gross mistatements of what the CDC and FBI say verbatim?

      • Charles Vincent

        The fact that I provided the links directly to said pages for you to go and look at.

        FBI violent crime stats table 8 expanded homicide data

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08 DOT xls

        Law center to prevent gun Violence a left leaning one at that used FBI and CDC numbers;

        http://smartgunlaws DOT org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

        And this one from gun policy dot org notice if you mouse over the blue number next to the 2010 overall death results it tells you the got the number from the 2013 CDC WISQARS report.

        http://www DOT gunpolicy DOT org/firearms/region/united-states

      • Mercy Me

        The peer-reviewed studies take into account FBI statistics and conclude more guns equal more deaths and do nothing to stop crime. An NRA parrot randomly interpreting FBI statistics in a self-serving manner is not going to cut it. Write a paper and get it published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. Then you can play with the big boys.

      • Charles Vincent

        What studies? Again you make a claim and provide no proof.

        “An NRA parrot randomly interpreting FBI statistics in a self-serving manner is not going to cut it. Write a paper and get it published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. Then you can play with the big boys.”

        Now this is an example of moving the goal posts.
        Keep blowing hot air chief it seems to be all you’re good at.

      • Mercy Me

        Yadda, yadda, yadda, willful ignorance, repetition of gun myths, yadda, yadda, yadda…

      • Mercy Me

        Your guys are crass thugs who do not understand the Constitution. Deal with it.

      • Charles Vincent

        blah blah blah try reading the federalist papers sometime I did, and I can tell you they are a nice big neon sign telling us exactly what the constitution means and is meant to do.

      • Mercy Me

        Again, is this supposed to be an argument for or against something?

      • Charles Vincent

        No it’s me telling you where you can look to get a clue about the constitution and what it means. Also its me summarily dismissing your ad lapidem nonsense.

      • Mercy Me

        I do not look to self-serving NRA parrots to get a clue on the Constitution. I am a longtime ACLU member. Unlike the NRA, the ACLU actually knows what it is talking about.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is the deal chief I look to the foremost authority on the constitution the people that wrote it and their writings in both the federalist and anti federalist papers all of whom predate the NRA and ACLU.
        Moreover I look to the prominent people they drew upon ,people such as John Locke and Lord Blackstone to further understand what their intentions were and the meaning they ascribed to what they wrote. These people also predate the NRA and ACLU.

      • Mercy Me

        Yadda, yadda, yadda, misinterpretation of the constitution, yadda, yadda, yadda…

      • Charles Vincent

        WRT
        “You also have no idea what the second amendment was meant to be.”
        Actually I do, after in depth reading of Lord Blackstone and the writings of the people who wrote the constitution and every SCOTUS case in history regarding the 2A but here is a taste just so you understand how out of your depth you truly are.

        US v Cruikshank;
        The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful
        purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it
        in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
        second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as
        has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
        Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to
        restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to
        look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens
        of the rights it recognizes,”

        Presser v Illinois;

        In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252
        (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[61][169]
        At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.” This decision upheld the States’ authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[61]However the court said: “A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force.”

        District of Columbia v. Heller;

        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[179][180]

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.[179][180](b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.[179][180](c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.[179][180](d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.[179][180](e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and
        legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.[179][180](f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[179][180]

        Palmer v. District of Columbia;
        On Saturday afternoon, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled unconstitutional the District’s absolute prohibition on the carrying of handguns outside the home for lawful self-defense, in the case of Palmer v. District of Columbia.

      • Mercy Me

        No, you don’t. You are an NRA robot without a clue.

      • Charles Vincent

        HMM I am not nor have I ever been a member of the NRA.
        Moreover quoting SCOTUS cases on the meaning of the 2A doesnt make one a “NRA robot”.

      • Mercy Me

        You repeat NRA talking points verbatim but you are not an NRA robot? Right!

      • Charles Vincent

        Really when did they quote the federalist papers or Lord Blackstone, or SCOTUS cases. Pony up the proof chief.

      • Mercy Me

        Mr. Goalpost Mover is in no position to make demands on anyone. You are a parrot for the NRA.

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t make the claim you did the onus is on you to prove your claim.

      • Mercy Me

        I am under no obligation to overcome your barricade of willful ignorance. Only you can do that.

      • Charles Vincent

        Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of
        the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

        You made the claim chief not me, put up or shut up.

      • Mercy Me

        Your game is old and boring. Find a new hobby.

  • Jim Bean

    Civil disobedience from anti-police protestors – good. Civil disobedience from 2nd Amendment activists – treasonous. Liberalism – opposite of rationalism.

    • FD Brian

      one, there is nothing to protest, it’s all Alex Jones fear factor crap. 2nd there is not one ounce of nobility in anything these idiots say or do.

      • Jim Bean

        That’s based on your personal evaluation and premised on your own unwavering belief that you are wiser than those you are evaluating. You are not in possession of any credentials that would validate that.

        Your opinion is worth no more than the opposing one.

      • FD Brian

        my statements are facts, not opinions. But you folks on the right seem to have trouble with that.

      • Charles Vincent

        Pony up the proof then chief.

      • FD Brian

        you still have your guns, don’t you big boy.

      • Charles Vincent

        This statement assumes that they only try to do it all at once and that there have never been attempted bans and bans that were over turned or allowed to expire.

        “If I could get 51% in the house I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America turn in those guns.”
        Nancy Pelosi
        A video of this is available on youtube.

        Additionally states are blatantly violating federal law by instituting firearms registration programs. Futhermore the NFA is a direct infringement on the 2a according to all SCOTUS cases concerning firearms.

        GG you’ve managed to prove nothing.

        P.S.
        Still waiting on that proof.

      • FD Brian

        nope, go look in your closet or I hope gun safe, your guns are still there regardless of what anyone says and get this, SCOTUS has already defended gun rights.

      • Charles Vincent

        Then why is the NFA still in effect? It seems like you don’t think intent matters. You would be wrong empirically registration leads to confiscation 100% of the time through out history. further more “nope, go look in your closet or I hope gun safe, your guns are still there regardless of what anyone says” is nothing more than you denying the antecedent. Get real the lefts goal is to outright ban ownership of arms for civilians period, Pelosi is only 1 example.

        P.S.
        Still waiting on that proof.

      • FD Brian

        you could possibly be one of the dumbest people in the entire world of bunker making and ammo hoarding. Nobody is going to take your f’n guns, stop being a paranoid dip shit and enjoy your pathetic life. You still have them, you will always have them, nobody is coming for them. Stop listening to Alex Jones, he has not been right about anything in his entire life. You want proof, go get your gun, load your gun and shoot it in the air and then have a beer, climb down in your bunker and eat some dehydrated food.

      • Charles Vincent

        “you could possibly be one of the dumbest people in the entire world of bunker making and ammo hoarding. Nobody is going to take your f’n guns, stop being a paranoid dip shit and enjoy your pathetic life.”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Ad hominem^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        A tool for the intellectually weak and lazy when confronted with facts or reason.

        The rest of your post is ad lapidem nonsense. Please continue to wallow in ignorance and may your chains set lightly upon your neck.

        P.S.
        Still waiting on that proof.

      • FD Brian

        I give up, I’ve been told not have conversations with the right because they are unable to understand things.

      • Charles Vincent

        First thing here your assumptions are why you lose arguments. I am an independent and fall no where near the right or left on the political spectrum i have been for a long time. I understand all to well you seem to not get that the left consistently tries to subvert the 2A rights of our citizens and then claim intent doesn’t matter its the left that doesnt understand things because they judge policy and law by what they are told it does rather than the outcome it actually produces. The left is also the side that believes that inanimate objects are the source of the problems in this country.

        Get your head out bud and stop dealing in logical fallacy arguments and provide some actual proof, the proof you claimed to have.

      • FD Brian

        SCOTUS has continually defended the 2nd amendment and struck down anti gun laws on a consistent basis. you can google it yourself, guns will never be taken away, using this fear of losing your gun is a huge way to trick people into voting for republicans out of that fear. there will never be a constitutional amendment to change that, which will be the only way it could ever be done.

      • Charles Vincent

        Don’t need to i have every court brief dealing with the subject, and yet people and states still run roughshod over it the Massachusetts laws just enacted on gun registries for example. this law violates the 2 a and current federal law yet its being done.
        I don’t want people to vote for democrats or republicans they are two factions of the same party and they are only an illusion of choice presented to people that vote.

        WRT
        “there will never be a constitutional amendment to change that, which will be the only way it could ever be done”
        Our rights do not come from the constitution the are inherent to us as individuals give to us by our creator if you will;

        United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

    • Rob Bailey

      Hmmmm. Would Jeebus be considered a Con? Doubt it. If a white ammosexual voicing his 1st Amendment rights to voice support for a tax evader points his AR-15 at a Federal agent, does he get shot? Nope. Black 12 year-old with a BB gun? Bang bang. Ask questions later… Love to see a bunch of African Americans playing open-carry march through your neighborhood… You’d need a new case of Depends.

      • Jim Bean

        You really didn’t think that comment through did. You realize you accidentally made a grand display of your bigotry, do you not?

    • Mercy Me

      What exactly are they protesting? The existence of the people they harass?

      • Jim Bean

        According the article, they are protesting refusal of Rep. Nevarez to support legislation they wanted him to support.

      • Mercy Me

        Also according to the article they are not in his district. There is an established, civilized way for them to raise their concerns with their representative. But these thugs regularly harass ordinary citizens, usually women. They are barbaric louts.

      • Jim Bean

        Civilized – as in torching cops cars, looting shops, and blocking freeways?

      • Mercy Me

        You are conflating looters with protestors. Those were different people.

      • Charles Vincent

        ” But these thugs regularly harass ordinary citizens, usually women. They are barbaric louts.”
        Where is your proof of this assertion?

      • Mercy Me

        The links were detected as spam, so…

        “The sudden appearance of about 40 armed men outside a Dallas-area restaurant this weekend was the latest confrontation between an open-carry gun-rights group and a mothers group advocating gun control that was meeting inside. …’We were surrounded by armed men, including some openly carrying loaded semi-automatic rifles,’ Watts said. ‘Many of our moms had children with them. Unfortunately this is not a unique situation – it’s happened in many states, including Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan and now Texas. If open carry is allowed, our rallies are often attended by armed protesters.'”

        “A new tactic in the battle over ‘open carry’ of firearms has some gun safety advocates feeling intimidated and local police concerned. I regularly receive information in my inbox updating me on the latest public demonstrations by Open Carry Texas, but now it appears that some of their members are targeting those who report their activities to authorities by publishing their contact information.”

        “This is not the first time that armed men have counter-protested at Moms Demand Action events. In November of 2013, a group of Open Carry activists harassed and intimidated members at a Moms Demand Action planning meeting at a restaurant called the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Virginia.”

        “What happened to Longdon in Indianapolis is part of a disturbing pattern. Ever since the Sandy Hook massacre, a small but vocal faction of the gun rights movement has been targeting women who speak up on the issue—whether to propose tighter regulations, educate about the dangers to children, or simply to sell guns with innovative security features. The vicious and often sexually degrading attacks have evolved far beyond online trolling, culminating in severe bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, and physical aggression. Though vitriol flows from both sides in the gun debate, these menacing tactics have begun to alarm even some entrenched pro-gun conservatives.”

        There are many reports of such intimidation, usually targeting women.

      • Charles Vincent

        Pro tip of the day modify your links like so;
        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus DOT html?_r=0

        Furthermore that link and the following one are exactly why people carry.

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

        Moreover this is a reaction to the left pushing to limit a natural and constitutional right. You don’t like it don’t push gun control. Which is really just about controlling people not guns. Additionally having ia weapon in a holster or slung over the back isn’t intimidation, it’s more of a childish fear of an inanimate object. Sort of like being afraid of the dark IMHO.

        also how is that any different than those same people (Shannon Watts and her group) doing the same thing at retail stores?

        https://www DOT google DOT com/search?q=Shannon+Watts+pressures+retail+stores+to+enact+no+carry+policies+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

      • Mercy Me

        So people who are in favor of gun control must give up their first amendment rights because some misogynist yahoos want to take the second amendment to lengths it was never intended to go, being an open carry zealot is a get out of jail free card for bullying, and there is no material difference between rallying to change government policy and pointing guns at your fellow citizens exercising their first amendment rights? Got it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Argumentum absurdum. I never stated or implied that.
        I did say that we have a right to carry a weapon lawfully as per Heller and Palmer decisions and being scared doesn’t qualify here.

        Furthermore you are free to say anything you want you however are not free from the consequences of what you say.

      • Mercy Me

        And the consequences of holding a private meeting at a restaurant are to be met with people pointing guns at you in the parking lot? This conversation started being about whether or not the open carry nuts were misogynist louts. Since you keep moving the goalpost, I will take it as a stipulation on your part that indeed they are.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And the consequences of holding a private meeting at a restaurant are to
        be met with people pointing guns at you in the parking lot?”
        Being armed doesn’t equate to pointing the weapon.

        “This conversation started being about whether or not the open carry nuts
        were misogynist louts. Since you keep moving the goalpost,”
        Quoting your statement isn’t moving the goal posts sorry. The onus of proof is on you to prove your claim.
        Additionally you don’t know any of the people in question nor were you there when the event occurred so stop passing off opinion as fact.

        But Ad hominem arguments seem to be a favorite of yours.

      • Mercy Me

        There were photos of the open carry yahoos crouching behind vehicles and pointing their rifles at the women inside the restaurant. It was a huge PR disaster for the open carry bunch. If you really agree with them, you should tell them to stop these antics. They are making themselves look like maybe we should flag them so no one ever allows them to purchase another gun.

        Among the many things you don’t know about me is who I do or don’t know. Now you are saying that widely reported incidents that occurred with multiple witnesses (including some I know) are merely my opinion?

        Please learn what an ad hominem is. Saying the open carry jerks are jerks because of their documented behavior is not ad hominem. It is criticism of their demonstrated behaviors.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Now you are saying that widely reported incidents that occurred with multiple witnesses (including some I know) are merely my opinion?”

        You haven’t provided a single shred of actual credible evidence to support your assertion, so no I wont take your word for it.

        “Please learn what an ad hominem is. Saying the open carry jerks are jerks because of their documented behavior is not ad hominem. It is
        criticism of their demonstrated behaviors.

        Ad hominem Literally to the man.

        Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

        Furthermore you didn’t call them jerks you and i quote called them ” thugs regularly harass ordinary citizens, usually women. They are barbaric louts.”

        and

        “because some misogynist yahoos want to take the second amendment to lengths it was never intended to go, being an open carry zealot is a get
        out of jail free card for bullying,”

        Neither of them address the argument that open carry advocates have and furthermore they are personal attacks on people you don’t know which is the definition of ad hominem. in short you attacks them not their argument. in the future you should acquaint yourself with the various flavors ad hominem can be.

      • Tony

        “There were photos of the open carry yahoos crouching behind vehicles and
        pointing their rifles at the women inside the restaurant”. The ‘photos’ in question were a reverse angle photo of the activists posing for a picture. The Mad Mommies took the photo from the backside of the pose and said see they are crouching and trying to snipe our poor members. The backward progressives are shameful! http://talkingpointsmemo dot com/livewire/does-this-photo-vindicate-armed-pro-gun-protesters-in-texas

  • Kenneth Browning

    The comments here are getting fun. Jackass liberals vs. dipshit conservatives. I’ll be back. Going to make some popcorn.

    • Rob Bailey

      Hey, Kenny. What are you? I love me some Libertarians; make sure you vote. That’s one less for the cons.

    • Mercy Me

      When you prove your intellectual superiority, I will take opinion into account. Until then, nada.

  • Mercy Me

    Many (most?) gun nuts are rude and churlish.

    • Tony

      Many (most?) backward progressive intolerant left wing nuts are rude and churlish. Na na na na boo boo. Who is churlish?