Tuesday, November 12, 2013 • 2:09 PM Comments (9)

Showdown at the Blue Mesa Grill: Guns and Lunch

posted by James Heflin

Hard to know quite how to feel about the tempest that resulted when four members of the organization Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense got together for a lunchtime chat at Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas (a few miles from my own home turf, as it happens).

Members of the group Open Carry Texas showed up in a larger group of 15 or 20, carrying their assault rifles. It's not illegal to carry "long guns" there, but it certainly raises a few questions of propriety and intent.

In purely practical terms, in an age of regular mass shootings and attempted mass shootings, showing up somewhere armed unavoidably raises the question, at least in NRA terms, is the person openly carrying a gun a "good guy" or a "bad guy?" Of course, this underlines the fact that even the perpetrators of mass shootings are "good guys" until they squeeze the trigger trying to hurt someone. If you see someone walk into a shopping mall with an assault rifle, should you congratulate them on exercising their Second Amendment rights, run away, or try to stop them?

"Protesting" by carrying a gun seems like a good way to cause or experience problems. The furor surrounding the incident seems to focus mostly on whether these folks were "intimidating" the Moms having their meeting. It seems self-evident that carrying a gun in public is intimidating in our era and culture, which is certainly a key to the psychology of wanting to do so. Arguing that it isn't is a point that works on paper, but not so much in practice. We simply are no longer a culture in which people regularly carry. There was simply little reason to after the frontiers closed and hunting for food ceased to be necessity, and people have grown used to living in an unarmed world (discounting, of course, concealed weapons). We just aren't used to it, outside of those in uniform. These folks seem disingenuous at best in arguing that intimidation wasn't part of the equation.

Clearly, they were operating within the law. No one can fault them there. But is this kind of protest a decent thing to do, regardless of its legality? Hard to say--rather a gray zone, to say the least.

One thing's for sure--the group released a photo in response to another that showed them in a less smiley and patriotic light. But even that photo, smiles and all, shows members of the group posing with finger near or on the trigger. That seems like an unambiguous nod in the direction of intimidation, not to mention bad judgment in the safety department.

ADDITIONAL: An interesting point amidst the sound and fury--saith our friend k: "Are you implying that mass shooters are former good-guys who carried guns in public until a point which they decided it would be a good idea to shoot a bunch of people? The facts don't back that up."

However, that is what our legal system demands--innocent until proven guilty. Until someone breaks a law, their legal status is unquestionably innocent, i.e. "a good guy." Maybe they carry a gun publicly, maybe they don't. Immaterial. They aren't even a "bad guy" once they decide "it would be a good idea to shoot a bunch of people." Action is necessary to become "bad," unless you prefer Minority Report approaches. Only once the trigger gets pulled in a shooting incident is that "good guy" a "bad guy."

The perpetrator might show signs beforehand, but also might not. Even if they do, they haven't done anything. They are law-abiding citizens.

Our legal system doesn't allow for it to be any other way. So yes, the facts, the Constitution, and the legal system most assuredly and unavoidably do back that up.

Though personally, I think showing up in a public space with a rifle over your shoulder would make a heck of a lot of people, gun owners/carriers or no, extremely nervous. Even if it's technically legal. Because no one knows your plans, and guns are notorious for being used to send projectiles out their barrels.

Comments (9)
Post a Comment

Dammit, I had 30 days on over/under for blog posts.

Couldn't wait three days, could you?

Posted by Ugh on 11.13.13 at 6:24

Holy cow, what a whiner. Indimidation? One group wants to fundamentally change our constitution.... the other group protested by LEGALLY carrying firearms. You are inferring that the "moms" should have feared for their life. It's an insulting and dishonest accusation.

But you know what didn't happen at the event? A mass shooting. Ya know, because there were people there who could have stopped it. And don't ya know, pretty much every mass shooting over the last 20 years took place in a "gun free" zone. Oh.... and don't ya know?..... There is no data showing that open carry or conceal carry states & areas increase gun violence. Prove me wrong.

But whoa whoa whoa... let's not let facts and logic get in the way of emotion...

Guns are scary.

"It seems self-evident that carrying a gun in public is intimidating in our era and culture, which is certainly a key to the psychology of wanting to do so."

This statement has no connection to reality. If it were self evident, there wouldn't be backlash every time liberals try for a gun-grab. Are you implying that mass shooters are former good-guys who carried guns in public until a point which they decided it would be a good idea to shoot a bunch of people? The facts don't back that up.

The facts say that mass shootings don't happen in open carry areas for obvious reasons. The facts support the practice of mass shooters targeting gun-free zones. The facts don't support you and your ilk's idea that adding guns to an equation adds danger. The FACTS show that mass shooters don't like their odds in zones where they will face opposition. The FACTS show that mass shooters usually quit and/or kill themselves at the first sign of resistance. Seems like the facts suggest shortening that time to first resistance rather than lengthening it.

All that being said, guns are scurry.... and LOUD! OMG!

Posted by k on 11.13.13 at 7:16

While k addresses the Second Amendment angle, let me hold forth on the First Amendment. The simple truth is that the political Left HATES freedom of speech. Hates it.

Here are a group of men legally carrying firearms - even Heflin agrees that is true - for the purpose of exercising both their First and Second Amendment rights. But, golly, it may have made some people uncomfortable. As George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don't want to hear."

But the Professional Left hates pro-life protesters near abortion clinics, they want to imprison people who don't believe in the global warming hoax, and they shout down every conservative speaker at college gatherings.

Old and busted: "I may disagree with you but I'll defend your right to say it."

New and shiny: "I'm a-scared and/or offended so shut up."

Posted by First Amendment forever on 11.13.13 at 10:08

If freedom of speech is irretrievably compromised in the presence of a gun, should we disarm the police/bailiffs serving in courtrooms? Surely a suspect would confess to anything if he lives in fear he'll be shot by a cop. Because he's extremely nervous and nobody know the cop's plans.

Posted by Cop Rock on 11.22.13 at 7:08

I've heard of reaching before, but that's Stretch Armstrong material. You need another hobby.

Posted by SDudgens on 11.22.13 at 15:17

Oh well played. Next time just say "shut up doodie-head" since it's about the same level of retort.

Posted by Gander on 11.22.13 at 20:47

Per usual, lib sheep can't succefully refute fact and logic based arguments. Nothing new here.

Posted by k on 11.23.13 at 9:13

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/marvell-weaver-knockout-shot_n_4323723.html

"A Michigan teenager who assaulted a man with a stun gun was shot twice when the victim defended himself with a legally concealed pistol."

Score another one for the bitter clingers.

Posted by k on 11.23.13 at 9:24

The same disparity goes for Ryan Winkles and Josh Aaron McCabe as her two sons, the sweet, scrupulous rule-player vs. the savage swashbuckler. And Brooke Parks, who’s also playing the sharp-tongued Princess in S&Co’s current Love’s Labour’s Lost, is affectingly silent here as the mute daughter Kattrin. the venus factor pdf

Posted by JHFHGVJH on 8.2.14 at 0:07
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
« Most Recent Post
« Permalink
Print Email RSS feed

Photo Galleries
Archives
NOVEMBER 2013
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Bad, Broken
A Big Bad Bollock
Copyright © 2014 by The Valley Advocate.