Okay, people, take a deep breath and let's come to a consensus...

[derby378]

If you're a DUer, especially a long-time DUer, you support the First Amendment, and that means you support freedom of speech. Sound good to you? Sounds good to me.

Freedom of speech means that occasionally you're going to hear or see something that you're not used to, something that's not part of your worldview, even something that you strongly disagree with. We're all still agreed, right? Okay, bear with me for a little bit longer...

Sometimes, if you study one of these new ideas out of curiosity, you might find yourself in agreement with this newfangled concept, and wind up incorporating it into you own worldview. Maybe this concept came to you from a sibling, a friend, or your spouse. But this happens. It's part of growing up and becoming an adult who is able to make decisions on your own. Are you with me so far?

And then there are some ideas that you've considered that don't fit into your worldview because you honestly believe they won't work or they're counterproductive or they limit human freedom and dignity or some other reason, and you find yourself continuing to disagree with such ideas. I see this on DU on a fairly regular basis, don't you? Okey-dokey, Obi-Wan Kenobi...

So can we all agree on, if nothing else, that intimidating fellow human beings who are exercising their First Amendment rights would make you, by definition, an asshole?

I'm not talking about counter-protesting. I'm all for that. I think it can be done with a certain respect and civility.

But showing up with rifles and shotguns in your hand to counter-protest four unarmed gun-control advocates at an Arlington, TX restaurant doesn't strike me as counter-protesting. It looks a Hell of a lot like intimidation.

Which would make you, ergo, an asshole.

Can we all agree on at least that much without shouting at each other?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Yes.

Actually, I can't imagine how those thugs think they're doing their cause any good with such a display.

[derby378]

3. It's beyond counterproductive

It's like all of those "open-carry" demonstrations at Starbucks locations all throughout America. Maybe you could understand the first couple of protests, but all the others that followed afterwards just seemed gratuitous, and they managed to force the CEO's position from a neutral stance to "Okay, now I'm not feeling so good about this."

Any doctor will tell you that if you use a defibrillator to restart a patient's heart, you typically use it only three times. The fourth shock and onwards fall under the rule of diminishing returns - just call the time of death and be done with it instead of expending all that energy in hopes of something that can never happen.

[etherealtruth]

2. Showing up to a peaceful protest with implements of death and destruction

...make you more than an ass hole. i think if any group , other than (largely) white males did this they would be called "terrorists" (imagine a group of people with Arabic names counter protesting while holding weapons) .... how about a group of black men ... ? what would they be called.

one question always comes to my mind ... why don't these 'gun activists" ever protest in the City of Chicago? ... Detroit? (we have had a super violent week (gun violence) ... Why do they always seem to "protest'/"counter-protest" in safe suburban communities?

[derby378]

4. Black Panthers?

If it's a period of civil unrest and you can't trust the cops, I'm more understanding of that, but in a civilized society, the goal is to restore that trust and gentility so that you can lay down the gun and get on with other aspects of your life.

Chicago, last I heard, still has some pretty severe gun laws, and their police have a bit of a reputation, too. I do know of one gun-control activist in the Chicago area who threatened the life of a gun shop owner, but that still seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Major Nikon]

11. They were protesting against an establishment who also had guns

Not to mention an establishment that was anything but peaceful, not unarmed mothers who are fed up with gun violence. I'm not endorsing what the Black Panthers did, but it certainly wasn't within a cab ride of this level of assholery.

[MissMarple]

12. And these ladies were have a lunch meeting.

This looks less like a counter protest than a stalking with guns situation. They should be arrested.

[etherealtruth]

18. I am with you!

Those that love guns seem to go the intimidation route ... I suppose that goes hand in hand with the love of guns*

*I am not talking about folk with a gun for hunting or a gun for target practice ... (I may not understand or agree, but do not think they are deranged)

[cry baby]

5. Agreed! nt

[ancianita]

6. Evolution shows that the threatening gesture is a common move by the dominant. It's uncivilized

behavior at the human rung of the evolutionary ladder. But all the same, it's everywhere. All threatening gestures -- from street stare to a parent's arch tone and stance to any group assemblage with symbols, motorcycles, clubs, guns, etc. -- can be seen as "might makes right" messages, and that's always the "shot over the bow" message that recipients are exposed to constantly, which says:

"We're assholes. Like it or lump it, you'll get used to it."

That's why I say that defensive force is not violence.

[derby378]

8. There is a certain analogy from TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE that comes to mind...

...but reprinting it here could get me in a pickle with the admins, so I'll refrain.

But the speech had something to do with certain people being assholes and what their effect was on the rest of humanity.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Agreed.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. It's also one step away from an "accident."

[alfie]

10. Agree 100%

They were completely out of line. An accident just waiting to happen.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Um...

The First Amendment only protects your from government intrusion on your free speech.

I am not the government. Thus, I can tell you or anyone else to shut the fuck up, and the First Amendment will remain unmolested.

Constitution 101.

Just sayin'.

[derby378]

15. True, but when you tell me to STFU, are you doing it while waving a Glock at my head?

I'm wagering that you're not, and thus your First Amendment right to tell me to shut the fuck up stands unchallenged, whether or not I take offense.

But when we start pointing pistols at each other in order to get the other guy to back down, that breaches the peace and threatens the general welfare, yes?

What if it's just one side holding the pistol to the other guy's head?

Granted, I don't think any of the counter-protesters aimed guns at the Moms Demand Action folks. But they intended for a message to be sent by carrying their guns in public that seemed to go beyond "Come and take them."

[LoisB]

14. Absolutely.

[petronius]

16. I agree: people should have the right and opportunity to express their ideas, thoughts,

and opinions - or just have lunch - without fear for their physical safety and without undue suppression from governmental and or non-governmental actors. Disruptive, intimidating, or interfering behavior from others (while perhaps also covered by that right) deserves criticism.

The open-carry stunt was anti-productive and extraordinarily assaholic, IMO...

[trof]

17. Agree & K&R