Hillsboro man walks in front of school with shotgun

of course, because when you incite violence by getting a bunch of "panic-stricken" people freaking out to "make a statement" in front of his house, it's behind "protecting your kids!"

crandc, your penis fixation notwithstanding, I would've thought that you of all people would be behind someone's ability to legally and peacefully make a statement that wouldn't be popular with everyone.

Starbucks is losing customers because of the fickleness of the anti-gun lobby. Not anti-gun customers. They're still there. Starbucks wasn't losing customers when they announced in 2010 that they would respect the laws of all states, open carry or not. Now that the hyperbolic flames have been fanned, and they were to pressured by groups including "Moms Demand Action!" to make a public statement against their own policy, they started losing open-carry advocate customers. Until business sense stepped in.

It's a bit amusing to me that a business owner can't choose who he will and won't sell a cake (or flowers) to, based on their supposed sexuality--and yet, people want Starbucks to discriminate who they sell a cup of coffee to or not based on whether they're exercising the 2nd amendment or not.

That, or the hypocrisy of people celebrating MLK's "I have a dream" speech and March on Washington the same year that they advocate running over a guy or organizing a lynch mob in front of his house for just having the gall to walk outside a school. Man, if only we could've organized mobs to go "make a statement" outside the homes people who were trying to get their black kid into a school and the school "Freaked out". Or locked down a school every time a black man walked down the sidewalk. Do you even see what you're saying?

 

Hm. In the altercation between an armed man who seems to know exactly what his rights are, and a "freaked-out" parent who doesn't think guns should be legal but talks about causing people harm on the internet, I'm not sure what would happen.

But there's a term for what you and paxil and julius are advocating, and it kind of sickens me. Even if you're just joking, it's disgusting.

 

There's a term for people who carry guns near schools too.

 

there's a couple. "Citizen." "Legal."

 

a lot of things were "legal" but still wrong to do. Since you brought up MLK, at one time, "legal" and "citizen" could be used to describe the actions of someone who denied public schooling in their school to black children. Or denied them the right to vote because they were women. Or black. Or didn't own property.

They were doing something completely "legal" too.

I'm sorry that apparently you think it's perfectly ok for someone to walk near a school with a gun exposed, considering all of the events/shootings at schools (including in the state of Oregon). And let's be clear here, it's not like he was a dozen blocks from the school.

I'm sorry that you think it was a wise and logical way to make a political point by this guy (and others in Portland), instead of going about it without giving warning to anyone that that was their plan.

And no, it's not like marching for civil rights, or sitting in a counter that refuses to serve someone based on their skin color. People have the right to own guns, but it doesn't mean they have the right to carry them everywhere they want.

 

Which children were scared?! Did the children call 911? Was the guy even on school property? Was he waving his guns around? How scared were they when the police showed up, talked to him, and then left? Were they still scared then? Why? And what about the second time, and the third?

I don't believe you when you say you're not advocating any violence. You said you want to stage a protest outside his house with other like-minded freaked-out individuals. You want to threaten an armed man. Some want to run him over. FOR WALKING DOWN A SIDEWALK.
What's to be passive-aggressive about? Why not go ask the guy what he's doing yourself?

 

Define "this". "Being within 100'/1000'/1 mile of a school with a gun"? He wasn't on school property--he was on a public sidewalk. If we're banning them near schools, are we also going to make it illegal near day-care centers? Malls? Chuck E. Cheese's?

I know...make them illegal in an entire neighborhood. That stopped the Navy Yard shooter from killing...wait, no, it didn't. Having an entire building filled with unarmed sitting ducks in a zone where weapons were illegal in a city with strict gun-control laws didn't stop a bunch of people from being killed.

 

hehe, "walking down a sidewalk". As if that is the issue.

And please, stop acting like Chuck E Cheese is the same as a school.

 

Wait, he was "brandishing" it now? Really?

And I honestly don't mean this in a negative way, but why does he "need you on his side"? He's the one legally abiding his business. If you mean that his actions are pushing you over into being an advocate for taking away more guns, and restricting them even more, then that's one thing. Those people have a plethora of examples to look to for how banning weapons improved society. Like the Navy Yard. Or Fort Hood. Or the 1420http://www.heyjackass.com/ people shot and killed or wounded in gun-free Chicago so far in 2013. (That, by the way, is 10x more than the number of troops killed in Afghanistan so far this year, and 1/4 of the total troops killed in the entire decade-plus of war in Iraq and Afghanistan).

 

I bring it up because it's a place where my children have gone to play and be around a bunch of other children with similar adult-to-kid ratios. What's the difference?

 

you honestly don't see the difference between a school and CeC?

I'm not saying that a person walking down the street, in front of a CeC, with the barrel of his or her rifle being exposed wouldn't elicit a response. I'm just confused as to why you think it wouldn't? Or that doing it in front of CeC would be more OK or less OK than a school?

A school, where you can have anywhere from 100, to 3000 students. Why do you think the schools have been targeted and not places like CeC?

 

lockdown vs lockout.

Lockdown is where the schools are locked down, no one can enter or leave the classes but the main doors are left open for the police (iirc) the kids basically hide in their classes, can't talk or leave until the all clear is given.

lockout is where the schools lock the outer doors, but things proceed without any changes to the schedule, etc. However, the kids cannot go outside, and I don't think they can be picked up.

Of the two, the lockout is better.



To another point. What was the point this guy was trying to make? Why did he need to make the point?