Intimidation

ter·ror·ism
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

This is a photo of “pro-gun protestors” inside the Oregon state capital carrying their fully-loaded assault rifles right outside the House of Representatives. And they would tell you that they’re just “exercising their rights” or practicing gun safety, or some other non-sequitur meant to legitimize what amounts to intimidation and, from my perspective, a threat of violence meant to coerce the state legislature.

I won’t go as far as to say these men are terrorists (at least not yet) but I can’t imagine members of the legislature would feel quite as comfortable carrying out their duty to protect ordinary citizens from gun fetishists knowing there is a pack of armed fetishists right outside their office.

And why else you do this if not to coerce the legislature with your gun? There are plenty of other locations where you could flaunt your penis replacement weapon that don’t involve the creation of laws.

More photos here.

This entry was posted in Gun Fetishists, WTF and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Ipecac

    One would think that anyone would see this as visible evidence that someone could easily walk into the state house and kill dozens of legislators in a few moments. This should serve as a grim and haunting warning of the dangers of open carry. But these numbnuts won’t, for some reason.

    • Nefercat

      Of course one would think that. But to these numbnuts, that serves as a “grim and haunting” warning of the justification to open carry. We are to be afraid of these dickless wonders, and legislate under fear of death. Not quite what the founders intended.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    My first thought when I saw this photo was, “wait….that’s gotta be a state legislative building, why is that civilian there….” then I thought about the lawmakers inside. If I was in that room, I would have an itch on my back and I would be royally pissed that as I’m trying to work some f*cker is out there trying to intimidate me. Angry would not even begin to describe my feelings on the subject.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    “I won’t go as far as to say these men are terrorist”

    I will.

    As far as I’m concerned, civilians who parade around in public settings (and are not hunting game in the woods) carrying freaking assault rifles, are most certainly terrorists! After all, I know that I would feel terrorized if confronted with these idiots, and I think most people would.

    Fuck these creeps and their penis issues!!

    • MrDHalen

      This!!!

      I don’t have enough up-votes to give here.

  • trgahan

    Yeah, that “protest” is in no way meant to intimidate anyone.
    I could only imagine the weaponry these scared children would need if all the threats they claim justifies their ownerhip were, you know, actually real.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    I was thinking about this, in the wake of one of my recent back-and-forths (or is it backs-and-forth?) with gun strokers on the issue of exactly how one uses a gun to prevent “tyranny,” and how gun registration could “lead to confiscation” when all you have to do is shoot “the government” when it comes to your house to confiscate your guns (i.e., knowing you have a gun would keep “the government” away, because it knows you will shoot it).

    Since no one can answer or resolve this, the more cogent answers I got were along the lines of, “We don’t want to actually shoot anyone. We just want the government to know that the people are armed, so that it will behave itself accordingly.” They want the government to be afraid of them.

    Hmmm…. OK, so the government will “behave itself” if it knows that the people are armed, meaning by implication that the government knows that the people will shoot it if it doesn’t behave itself. Otherwise, how exactly does that work? Why would knowing that the people are armed motivate the government to behave itself, or prevent it from misbehaving, unless it thinks the people will shoot it if it steps out of line?

    So, what we’re left with is the idea that we will keep the government in line, make sure it does what we want and doesn’t overstep its bounds, by making sure it knows that we can and will shoot it if it displeases us. Coercing a political body to obey your wishes, under threat of violence, is terrorism.

    • MrDHalen

      These are the same people who sit in their Lazy Boy chairs screaming “AMERICA”, while watching some movie featuring U.S. Navy Seals surgically removing a national security threat.

      Their America, capable of wiping entire countries off the map, is going to be kept in line by them and their idiot buddies with AR-15s in one hand and beers in the other.

      If tyranny comes to our shores, it will come with a grand applause or after nuclear fallout.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        Well, you know, if you’re really worried that “the government” is going to “take over” and “impose tyranny,” the first thing you should be trying to do is de-fund the military. After all, how else can the government “take over” and “impose tyranny” except by using the military to subjugate the population?

        In other words, why not turn the tables on gun-control advocates, who supposedly want to take away the instrumentality of all this gun violence; why not take away the government’s instrumentality for imposing tyranny? De-fund the military, and you proverbially take the gun out of the government’s hands.

        • MrDHalen

          Oh Graf, there you go using “logic” and “reason” again, but my “Gut” tells me that when the Govment comes wit the tyranny, they’ll come using educated kids, the poor, and senior citizens to enforce it. And that, is why I support the GOP!!!

  • Victor_the_Crab

    Yeah, these bullies feel real tough carrying their penis extenders around. But I seriously doubt any one of them would have the guts to use them on the people they intend to intimidate.

    Let’s see what happens to these pig fuckers if they tried to pull their act on someone like Gabrielle Giffords. How tough would they be in handling all the fury headed their way?

  • muselet

    I’m torn. Are these loons terrorists or just adult children playing at soldiers?

    Not that it matters, either way there’s no way they should be trusted with firearms.

    –alopecia

  • D_C_Wilson

    Why were armed men even allowed inside the capital building? When I went into my county courthouse, I had a penknife that was attached to my keychain which I had to leave with security at the front entrance.

    I work in a state government building and there would be no way in hell that security would let me through the front door if I were carrying an AR slung over my shoulder.

    WTF, Oregon?

  • GOVCHRIS1988

    And this is a BLUE state. Holy shit, I don’t want to speculate on the future in that legislature, but this picture doesn’t bode well for it at all.