Oly rally: Smaller but energetic crowd at Capitol

[bnsaibum]

While I agree with much that you say here, proffering this

an act that is DESIGNED AND INTENDED to instill fear.

as a statement of fact or truth as you have is entirely incorrect. It is merely your opinion that it is designed and intended for the purpose of instilling fear.

That you are incorrect does not mean that the act won't instill fear, it often does. THAT is a fact, it is also an often unintended consequence. The act of openly carrying a long gun may be designed or intended to instill fear, but I rather think that its designed or intended purpose is to show that the carrier does not fear, whatever that may mean to the carrier.

The act does often have unintended consequences, as seen recently in the Texas and Washington State houses.

 

[Gunguy45]

While I agree with much that you say here, proffering this as a statement of fact or truth as you have is entirely incorrect. It is merely your opinion that it is designed and intended for the purpose of instilling fear.

That you are incorrect does not mean that the act won't instill fear, it often does. THAT is a fact, it is also an often unintended consequence. The act of openly carrying a long gun may be designed or intended to instill fear, but I rather think that its designed or intended purpose is to show that the carrier does not fear, whatever that may mean to the carrier.

The act does often have unintended consequences, as seen recently in the Texas and Washington State houses.

I simply disagree.

I think the INTENT was to infer fear into our legislators.
Add a whole lot of ignorance on the part of many of the the protestors.

What possible intent is conveyed y o/c of long-guns into a sitting body of legislators? How can this be communicated as anything BUT an armed attempt at intimidation. Over WHAT? The legislature never voted in 594.

This is precisely the kind of armed intimidation that people GENERALLY ON OUR SIDE will interpret as wackos who have nothing worthwhile to say. Where was Alan Gottlieb in this press coverage? NO WHERE.

No, what we got was the idiots with their long-gun O/C.

I rest my case. this is an issue over which VOTES MATTER. Our "friends" just cost us about a half a million that will be hard to ever win back. Good job idiots, you just cost us a year or more of re-educating voters due to your assinine actions. Thanks a whole bunch.

 

[bnsaibum]

No, what we got was the idiots with their long-gun O/C.

I rest my case. this is an issue over which VOTES MATTER. Our "friends" just cost us about a half a million that will be hard to ever win back. Good job idiots, you just cost us a year or more of re-educating voters due to your assinine actions. Thanks a whole bunch.

Don't discount the lack of forethought or even sheer stupidity as the reason for people's actions.

Whatever the intent of the people involved I agree with the rest of what you said and I hope that such idiots don't attend any Oregon gatherings.

 

[MarkAd]

I guess now I am glad I was unable to attend the rally. As a NRA RSO, local range Range Office, an NROI range officer I would had been asking, ok telling ppl to handle their firearms properly. While I do not think carrying long guns into the gallery is a good ideal simply because of space the ones doing it could have presented a stronger statement by demonstrating proper firearms handling.
Also did anyone thank the cops walking around. That is just good PR.

 

[Dave Workman]

You should all read this.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/01/molon-labian-bedwetters-agree-open.html

Presumably some of you are "molon labian bedwetters"

 

[usagi]

there is no question the intent of the OC'ers was to intimidate. otherwise why walk around at low ready muzzling people left and right, and repeatedly cycling their actions? and what's with derpy herp derp and his gas mask?

 

[bakersman345]

Intimidate or to act like a teen girl with daddy issues begging for the wrong kind of attention? Show your cheap azz AR off to your buddys that don't know squat and stop making us all out to look like small Johnson morons. You dont have a point to prove you want to act like a commando, please try to "express" your bad boy and childish antics somewhere else. Save your oc rifle day for YouTube.

 

[Hawaiian]

Whatever the intent of the people involved I agree with the rest of what you said and I hope that such idiots don't attend any Oregon gatherings.

Sorry, but I expect we will see the same Rambo wanabe's at the Oregon gathering 02/09. Their small minds are unable to comprehend the fact that they are causing great harm to our cause. More than Bloomberg could ever hope to cause. I often wonder if they are not actors sent by the anti's to make us look like a bunch of crazy gun nuts.

 

[44Brent]

You should all read this.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2015/01/molon-labian-bedwetters-agree-open.html

Presumably some of you are "molon labian bedwetters"

I did read the article and found the following part to be of great interest:

How is it, exactly, that you can "fix alleged problems" of 594? It is an unconstitutional infringement. AGAIN, YOU DON'T COMPROMISE ON ESSENTIAL LIBERTY -- YOU DEFEAT THOSE WHO TRY TO TAKE IT. Tell that to Gottlieb, Mr. Workman. There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE! And in the end, if he doesn't embrace the defeat of 594 instead of the "tweaking" of it

What does this mean in practical terms? Applying these statements literally with the most straightforward interpretation possible, I come up with:

1. Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue rulings to in the case of NORTHWEST SCHOOL OF SAFETY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. BOB FERGUSON, et al., Defendant(s).
2. In particular, Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue an injunction barring enforcement of I-594 as sought by the plaintiffs. Alan Gottlieb is one of the plaintiffs in this case.
3. Mike Vanderboegh considers any potential rulings by Judge Ben Settle barring enforcement of portions of I-594 to be a "deal".
4. Mike Vanderboegh is willing to "wreck" rulings using "armed civil disobedience".
5. Mike Vanderboegh is willing to use "armed civil disobedience" to stop rulings from being issued.

The next logical set of conclusions I draw is that:

1. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the Judge.
2. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the plaintiffs, and or defendants.
3. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use violence to storm the courtroom in order to halt rulings from being issued.

I participated at the I-594 "I will not comply rally" and even signed the document which I swore to not comply with the initiative.

I used to admire Mike Vanderbough -- but not anymore. As far as I can tell, Mike Vanderbough is completely unhinged, off his rocker, and may even have some anger management issues.

 

[chariot13]

I did read the article and found the following part to be of great interest:



What does this mean in practical terms? Applying these statements literally with the most straightforward interpretation possible, I come up with:

1. Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue rulings to in the case of NORTHWEST SCHOOL OF SAFETY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. BOB FERGUSON, et al., Defendant(s).
2. In particular, Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue an injunction barring enforcement of I-594 as sought by the plaintiffs. Alan Gottlieb is one of the plaintiffs in this case.
3. Mike Vanderboegh considers any potential rulings by Judge Ben Settle barring enforcement of portions of I-594 to be a "deal".
4. Mike Vanderboegh is willing to "wreck" rulings using "armed civil disobedience".
5. Mike Vanderboegh is willing to use "armed civil disobedience" to stop rulings from being issued.

The next logical set of conclusions I draw is that:

1. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the Judge.
2. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the plaintiffs, and or defendants.
3. Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use violence to storm the courtroom in order to halt rulings from being issued.

I participated at the I-594 "I will not comply rally" and even signed the document which I swore to not comply with the initiative.

I used to admire Mike Vanderbough -- but not anymore. As far as I can tell, Mike Vanderbough is completely unhinged, off his rocker, and may even have some anger management issues.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2013/02/wliiam-diamonds-drum-part-two-armed.html?m=1
You may want to look up the definition of 'armed civil disobedience'. You always remain civil yet protest/refuse to comply with whatever it is your protesting while retaining your arms. Exercising your right to bear arms while addressing your grievances with that government....

Its astounding how many anti gun people there are on here, pretending to support the 2nd

 

[44Brent]

What is the meaning of the following two sentences?

"There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"

In order to determine what this means, you have to look at the meaning of the individual words, and how they are combined.

First, "armed" means deadly weapons.

Second, "civil disobedience" means breaking of laws.

Third, "NONE" needs to be considered in full context of "civil disobedience". Therefore, it means there are no laws which Mike Vanderbough is not willing to break, if it supports his objective. The entire body of law include those governing murder, terrorism, and kidnapping, and "NONE" does include those laws.

In any type of movement there are people who have different strategies and tactics. For example, some protestors in Ferguson waived signs and blocked roads. Others looted stores and burned down buildings. The looters and arsonists probably accused the sign waivers to be "uncommitted" sell outs.

Well, I consider Mike Vanderbough to now be on par with the arsonists and looters. If nothing else he seeks to stop an injunction from being issued barring the enforcement of I-594, and that tells me that he is someone who deserves to be shunned by intelligent 2nd Amendment supporters. He also probably deserves close attention from the law enforcement authorities who are responsible for security in the U.S. District Court in which the I-594 lawsuit is being heard.

 

[chariot13]

What is the meaning of the following two sentences?

"There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"

In order to determine what this means, you have to look at the meaning of the individual words, and how they are combined.

First, "armed" means deadly weapons.

Second, "civil disobedience" means breaking of laws.

Third, "NONE" needs to be considered in full context of "civil disobedience". Therefore, it means there are no laws which Mike Vanderbough is not willing to break, if it supports his objective. The entire body of law include those governing murder, terrorism, and kidnapping, and "NONE" does include those laws.

In any type of movement there are people who have different strategies and tactics. For example, some protestors in Ferguson waived signs and blocked roads. Others looted stores and burned down buildings. The looters and arsonists probably accused the sign waivers to be "uncommitted" sell outs.

Well, I consider Mike Vanderbough to now be on par with the arsonists and looters. If nothing else he seeks to stop an injunction from being issued barring the enforcement of I-594, and that tells me that he is someone who deserves to be shunned by intelligent 2nd Amendment supporters. He also probably deserves close attention from the law enforcement authorities who are responsible for security in the U.S. District Court in which the I-594 lawsuit is being heard.

If you equate arms to "deadly weapons" then you sound exactly like the ceasefire guy from Eugene. Arms are inanimate objects that can do no harm by themselves. Any federal, state, or local law that infringes on the 2nd are to be ignored and are ignored by many... so what.

 

[bnsaibum]

What is the meaning of the following two sentences?

"There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"

In order to determine what this means, you have to look at the meaning of the individual words, and how they are combined.

First, "armed" means deadly weapons.

Second, "civil disobedience" means breaking of laws.

Third, "NONE" needs to be considered in full context of "civil disobedience". Therefore, it means there are no laws which Mike Vanderbough is not willing to break, if it supports his objective. The entire body of law include those governing murder, terrorism, and kidnapping, and "NONE" does include those laws.

In any type of movement there are people who have different strategies and tactics. For example, some protestors in Ferguson waived signs and blocked roads. Others looted stores and burned down buildings. The looters and arsonists probably accused the sign waivers to be "uncommitted" sell outs.

Well, I consider Mike Vanderbough to now be on par with the arsonists and looters. If nothing else he seeks to stop an injunction from being issued barring the enforcement of I-594, and that tells me that he is someone who deserves to be shunned by intelligent 2nd Amendment supporters. He also probably deserves close attention from the law enforcement authorities who are responsible for security in the U.S. District Court in which the I-594 lawsuit is being heard.

Baldr, I mean Jason, is that you?

 

[44Brent]

State House bars openly carried guns in public gallery

The House joines (sic) the Senate in barring openly carried guns from the chambers' public-viewing areas in Olympia.

<broken link removed>

 

[John H]

All those F-tards, who can't properly carry a rifle or a pistol need their azzes kicked.



Carrying in a ready to use manner , it is PISTOL, it need to be holstered. This guy could be shot .

People like this F-tard are far worst then the anti's.

 

[mjbskwim]

If this guy walked into my place like this,he would make 1 bad move and be done.
That move would be anything but going face down with palms up.
DEAD.
This guy gets my vote for the biggest dip shyte at pro gun rally ever.Or he is a plant by the antis

 

[John H]

This guy gets my vote for the biggest dip shyte at pro gun rally ever.Or he is a plant by the antis

I don't think so, you can tell there is too much inbred upriver in him.

 

[bakersman345]

Idk it looks like he shaved downstairs and glued it on his face.

Ether way he does look right out of deliverance and his firearm has too many rails to be a anti.

 

[Dave Workman]

House bans open carry in its gallery as SHOT Show opens in Las Vegas

The firearms world is focused on the annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, which opens Tuesday in Las Vegas, but not so much that it is entirely overlooking today's decision by the Washington State House of Representatives to ban the open carry of firearms in its visitor's gallery.

<broken link removed>

 

[Dave Workman]

What is the meaning of the following two sentences?

"There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"

In order to determine what this means, you have to look at the meaning of the individual words, and how they are combined.

First, "armed" means deadly weapons.

Second, "civil disobedience" means breaking of laws.

Third, "NONE" needs to be considered in full context of "civil disobedience". Therefore, it means there are no laws which Mike Vanderbough is not willing to break, if it supports his objective. The entire body of law include those governing murder, terrorism, and kidnapping, and "NONE" does include those laws.

In any type of movement there are people who have different strategies and tactics. For example, some protestors in Ferguson waived signs and blocked roads. Others looted stores and burned down buildings. The looters and arsonists probably accused the sign waivers to be "uncommitted" sell outs.

Well, I consider Mike Vanderbough to now be on par with the arsonists and looters. If nothing else he seeks to stop an injunction from being issued barring the enforcement of I-594, and that tells me that he is someone who deserves to be shunned by intelligent 2nd Amendment supporters. He also probably deserves close attention from the law enforcement authorities who are responsible for security in the U.S. District Court in which the I-594 lawsuit is being heard.

Brent, you may have cracked a code.