03Lightningrocks wrote:I never once said to shoot a person simply for the way they look. I said to shoot that guy...that look.
I would love for you to explain the logical difference between the first sentence and the second. If you are going to shoot "that guy" for "that look" you are advocating shooting a person for the way they look, which places you squarely among the ranks of those who want to outlaw guns for the way they look.
Suppose, for instance, that guy just happens to be a LEO coming into the mall to warn of an active shooter situation going on in the parking lot and everyone is to stay inside? And you just shot him in the face?
03Lightningrocks wrote:From what you just posted, it is probably wise for you to hunker down and wait for the cavalry. It sounds like you have trouble discerning a real weapon from a fake one. It appears your situational awareness is possibly lacking. Funny thing, many people in a theater in Colorado said they thought that shooter was a gimmick. Some even said they thought he was firing blanks. Too bad the first person to spot him coming through the door dressed for battle did not put him down before he could murder innocents. Thanks for the moral judgements just the same. Meanwhile, back at the ranch....
Sorry, it seems to me that your own situational awareness is lacking. You are NOT a LEO (that I know of) and as a CHL you are NOT supposed to be making such snap judgements, and even if you are a LEO, you still need to determine what is going on before using deadly force. Time for you to hunker down yourself.
---------------------------------------------------
Back on topic, the "demonstration" outside the meeting was totally peaceful, nobody was "brandishing" (a favorite term of the antis these days) and the only reason anyone got into the positions they are in for the picture was for the picture. Unfortunately the meeting participants decided to bring in to play their fearful nature by getting cooperative media to make a big deal out of their feeling threatened by the mere presence of firearms and the bad guys carrying them.
That tactic fits squarely in their strategy by exploiting their own alarmist attitudes to inflame passion in the media and the minority who agree with them.
The OCers' tactic fits squarely within their strategy of letting people know that OC (of long guns) is legal and non-threatening, and taken by itself without the histrionics of the opposing group would probably pass unnoticed. If they even staged their rally a couple of blocks away there probably would have been no notice, which is the reason they staged it where they did.
In the end the OCers' tactic was a net loss for them because they did nothing to change public perception and they lost points with "us" who would normally be their allies, and the meeting participants' tactic was a net win because the initial media frenzy was pretty much all in their favor and because the follow up articles that told something closer to the true story, rather then the knee jerk pictures, showed up on different pages of the paper.
I suppose you would have liked my post better had I said I almost drew on a suspicious looking guy walking up to me at the gas station.