Support NeoGAF

[starchild excalibur]

I appreciate what the guy was doing by filming them, but I do feel it's pretty one-sided here. Just as he had a right to film them in public, they had a right to film him. If he had entered his car or home and they were still trying to get after him, that'd be something else. They aren't infringing on his 1st amendment right by exercising it themselves.

And if it was the other way around and the ones with the guns were calling him names I feel like there'd be more outrage than there is.

I wanna hate the gun toting guys in the video, but I really can't.

 

[LostCaress]

There are so many misconceptions about what you can and can't film. If you appear anywhere outside on public property, you can be filmed. As long as you're on public property, a photographer can follow you.

That's what the paparazzi do all the time with celebrities. That's a dick move, sure, but it's also legitimate when you're following around a politician to see him or her visit a drug dealer.

A photographer can not follow a person into a restaurant or private residence, of course. However, they can wait on the sidewalk for that person to emerge.

That said, the only person I've ever had to approach on the street was a local college professor who had been fired for sending inappropriate texts and inviting his male students to go swimming.

That depends on the country/state/whatever.

In Portugal you are not allowed to make someone part of a specific movie without his permission, even in public, unless there's a specific public interest to that person (politician for example). If I'm filming a monument and someone walks by, I'm within my rights, but I cannot make a passerby the subject of my movie. I can take pictures of public places, but it would be illegal to take pictures specifically of hot woman just because I'm a pervert. You can't even take pictures of someone's house and print it in an article unless it's something unspecific (like "price of houses go up - here's a picture of a random house)

 

[Bellamin]

That depends on the country/state/whatever.

In Portugal you are not allowed to make someone part of a specific movie without his permission, even in public, unless there's a specific public interest to that person (politician for example). If I'm filming a monument and someone walks by, I'm within my rights, but I cannot make a passerby the subject of my movie. I can take pictures of public places, but it would be illegal to take pictures specifically of hot woman just because I'm a pervert. You can't even take pictures of someone's house and print it in an article unless it's something unspecific (like "price of houses go up - here's a picture of a random house)

U.S. is a little different. The idea is that once you start restricting what a person can film, you can keep adding restrictions (i.e. censorship). There's a reason why freedom of the press is coupled with freedom of speech in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Tapiozona]

That depends on the country/state/whatever.

In Portugal you are not allowed to make someone part of a specific movie without his permission, even in public, unless there's a specific public interest to that person (politician for example). If I'm filming a monument and someone walks by, I'm within my rights, but I cannot make a passerby the subject of my movie. I can take pictures of public places, but it would be illegal to take pictures specifically of hot woman just because I'm a pervert. You can't even take pictures of someone's house and print it in an article unless it's something unspecific (like "price of houses go up - here's a picture of a random house)

Its obvious that everyone is talking about the US, not Portugal. Not even sure how this applied.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

If he had entered his car or home and they were still trying to get after him, that'd be something else.

You think that by filming his family murals and license plate number (and saying they'd put it up on Facebook) they weren't threatening him?

 

[RS4-]

Talk about worthless people.

Goddamn.

 

[squidyj]

Was the "because Texas" necessary?

I'm not a gun owner myself, but I imagine that respectable gun owners would probably pissed that people like the ones in the vid paint them in a bad light.

then they should do something about it, or they're going to continue to be painted.

 

[starchild excalibur]

You think that by filming his family murals and license plate number (and saying they'd put it up on Facebook) they weren't threatening him?

They definitely were - I guess I was just responding to what was going on in the video. Any of the people who threatened him were a piece of shit. But those that just filmed him back weren't.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I just don't understand these nuts. What are they trying to prove by carrying rifles?

 

[Thequietone]

I just don't understand these nuts. What are they trying to prove by carrying rifles?

 

[Enron]

I just don't understand these nuts. What are they trying to prove by carrying rifles?

That people shouldn't carry rifles in public, apparently.

 

[JDSN]

"They're not assault rifles. We haven't assaulted anyone."

Uh huh.

Im surprised the "Its not full auto it doesnt count" crowd isnt using that argument, its brilliant.

 

[IISANDERII]

There are so many misconceptions about what you can and can't film. If you appear anywhere outside on public property, you can be filmed. As long as you're on public property, a photographer can follow you.

That's what the paparazzi do all the time with celebrities. That's a dick move, sure, but it's also legitimate when you're following around a politician to see him or her visit a drug dealer.

A photographer can not follow a person into a restaurant or private residence, of course. However, they can wait on the sidewalk for that person to emerge.

That said, the only person I've ever had to approach on the street was a local college professor who had been fired for sending inappropriate texts and inviting his male students to go swimming.

What's wrong with swimming?

 

[ab.aeterno]

Of course photography is not different from video in regard to the first amendment (it's literally many photos shown after one another), and the reasoning that allows for photographing people in public also applies to audio.

It's different insofar as it also includes audio, and that's the legally contentious point, I would imagine. Many states specifically have two party consent laws for audio recording. So the question is whether or not that applies to video recordings with audio in addition to taping phone or voice conversations.

Laws differ in the United States on how many parties must give their consent before a conversation may be recorded. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, conversations may be recorded if the person is party to the conversation, or if at least one of the people who are party to the conversation have given a third party consent to record the conversation. In California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington State, the consent of all parties must be obtained in order to record a conversation.

Source

 

[njean777]

Two guys clearly looking for an altercation get mad when an altercation occurs because of their actions. That is what this stunt boils down to. Cannot say I feel sorry for them.

 

[True Underdog]

They were protesting right next to a Chipotle. Was that the same DFW Chipotle 2 college age guys brought in their rifles?

I think it's a different one. Those gun nuts must just love Chipotle. I hope they stay away from the Chipotle by my apartment.

 

[BobTheFork]

Could you theoretically just shoot one of these guys and say you felt threatened when they pulled out a rifle in public? Given that loud music is being used as a threat is seems possible.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Im missing the context of the video.

Why is it ok to protest second amendment rights while simultaneously open carrying what could be constituted as an assault weapon?

It's not like Joe Blow would know the difference. Joe Blow sees a gun, calls the cops, then it becomes a tense situation.

There's exercising your rights and freedoms and then there's being a dick about it, IMO.

Then again, I'd shit myself if I ever saw someone who wasn't law enforcement open carrying in a city.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

Some times I wonder if people who buy guns are like really big CoD or Battlefield fans and just want to buy their favorite gun. Kinda like how Warcraft fans buy replica frostmournes and stuff.

Because the way these people treat guns makes me wonder if they realize they're not fucking toys.

 

[WanderingWind]

This is an amazing look into the minds of these people.

2nd Amendment? Must be protected at all costs!
1st Amendment? Only on our terms, let's harass and threaten somebody exercising that right!

Support the troops! If said troop says something we don't like, question his record and No True Scotsman until our noses bleed! Even if we, ourselves, only have a familiarity with the military through our militia WordPress.

Guns aren't scary and we want everybody to know about our right to carry! So, let's do that by posting up en masse outside of shopping centers! Nothing says non-threatening in the age of mass shootings like a bunch of people congregated with weapons in shopping centers! Also, we can't be too far away from the Chipolte, because of my cundishun.

 

[marrec]

Could you theoretically just shoot one of these guys and say you felt threatened when they pulled out a rifle in public? Given that loud music is being used as a threat is seems possible.

Only in Florida.

And if they're black.

 

[luxarific]

Saw this at the bottom of the original in the OP:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-open-carry-chilis-sonic-videos

What the flying fuck is wrong these people. They're taking their assult rifles to Sonic's and Chile's just b/c they can? I just don't get it, what is wrong with people.

Entitled Manchildren.

 

[Bodacious]

The open carry guys are morons, but it was the so-called 'victim' here (according to MotherJones) who decided to get in his SUV, load up his massive camera, and drive to this location and get in people's faces, film them for identification, etc.. Yes, it's 'legal' for him to do that, the same way it's 'legal' to open carry a long gun.

The guy claims to be an Army man (and conveniently with more years than the Marine) and yet, they don't even know why an Assault Rifle is classified as an Assault Rifle.

If you want to be a stickler on semantics, there were no assault rifles in that video. No semi-automatic is an 'assault rifle.'

Jackasses like this are what make people think gun owners are a bunch of lunatics. I am a former Marine, a gun owner, and a concealed carry license holder. And people like this can fuck right off.

Yep. The particular video in the OP just shows a meeting of assholes intent on antagonizing each other. But taking all the videos you can find out there of open carry protests, it's pretty clear the personality type you're dealing with, and yeah fuck 'em. I was glad to see the NRA issue a statement recently that pretty much told them they were dumb fucks for doing that, too.

.

 

[Enron]

Can't say I really feel bad for the Marine guy. He offered up no credentials other than "I was a Marine" and he instigated the whole thing and acted like a complete shitbag the entire time. He certainly met the rifle-toting jerkoffs on their level.

 

[kaching]

I'm not a gun owner myself, but I imagine that respectable gun owners would probably pissed that people like the ones in the vid paint them in a bad light.

Possibly, though I can't say I can tell if they're pissed or not based on the very one-sided nature of the conversation coming from gun owners these days.

 

[hwalker84]

As a responsible gun owner these guys just make me shake my head in shame. YOU AREN'T HELPING OUR IMAGE!!!!

 

[Zodzilla]

I put these open carry assault rifle people in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church people.

Just because they're able to exercise the ability to show their rights doesn't make them anything less than subhuman trash when they do.

By trying to "defend and publicize" their cause, they're doing more harm by flagrantly displaying their lack of human empathy.

 

[KHarvey16]

It's different insofar as it also includes audio, and that's the legally contentious point, I would imagine. Many states specifically have two party consent laws for audio recording. So the question is whether or not that applies to video recordings with audio in addition to taping phone or voice conversations.

Which have been interpreted mostly to apply to conversations where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, which does not exist in a public place.

 

[Neuromancer]

How do I properly convey my feeling that the pro gun dudes were embarrassing? A thumbs up or a thumbs down?

 

[Stinkles]

Can't say I really feel bad for the Marine guy. He offered up no credentials other than "I was a Marine" and he instigated the whole thing and acted like a complete shitbag the entire time. He certainly met the rifle-toting jerkoffs on their level.

I couldn't help but notice that the marine wasn't carrying a gun to deliberately provoke such reactions. You know, like the people who were provoking everyone around them.

 

[Bodacious]

Im missing the context of the video.

.

Maybe that's because you're watching a video shot by one of the open carry people, but edited by Mother Jones. I'd like to see the entire exchange.


.

 

[endre]

I watched a ten or so open carry videos. Just to be clear I am not U.S. American nor do I live in the states.

Here is my question. Why is there no law requiring from people who carry guns to show ID upon request from a cop?

From the reports the police gets about these people walking around there seems to be enough people to support this. Is it lobbying?

This kind of a fight for rights seems really stupid and counter productive. The bad guys are probably really happy about this.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I watched a ten or so open carry videos. Just to be clear I am not U.S. American nor do I live in the states.

Here is my question. Why is there no law requiring from people who carry guns to show ID upon request from a cop?

From the reports the police gets about these people walking around there seems to be enough people to support this. Is it lobbying?

This kind of a fight for rights seems really stupid and counter productive. The bad guys are probably really happy about this.

if hey're bad guys... or even if they're good guys and the cops merely *suspect* they are bad guys, the cops can just shoot them.

 

[Deified Data]

I may support his cause, but I'm not going to pretend that sticking a camera in someone's face isn't obnoxious as hell. I don't support it when YT pranksters do it and I don't support it now. I honestly can't decide which party is worse.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I may support his cause, but I'm not going to pretend that sticking a camera in someone's face isn't obnoxious as hell. I don't support it when YT pranksters do it and I don't support it now. I honestly can't decide which party is worse.

I support a camera being stuck in my face to someone brandishing weapons nearby.

 

[outunderthestars]

Why the hell does that fat clown have a round in the chamber? Deer attacks?

Asshole.

In case he gets into a fight with heart disease?

 

[Deified Data]

I support a camera being stuck in my face to someone brandishing weapons nearby.

I don't have to support either one.

 

[FunnyBunny]

It kind of depends on the state, but filming people in public isn't covered by the first amendment.

Yes it is.

Edit: Responded before I saw other replies clearing this issue up. Thanks, Free Speech GAF!

 

[phillipgessert]

Don't publicize my public demonstration, don't draw attention to my thing that needs attention in order to work! Pretty amusing. Get outta here with that because texas crap though.

 

[Syriel]

Was the "because Texas" necessary?

I'm not a gun owner myself, but I imagine that respectable gun owners would probably pissed that people like the ones in the vid paint them in a bad light.

The guys protesting (as noted in the OP) are from Open Carry Texas.

https://twitter.com/OpenCarryTexas

It was also a comment on the fact that most of the "guns in coffee shops" things seem to be in Texas. The only state in the union where citizens are afraid to purchase a cup of coffee from Starbucks or a burrito from Chipotle without a semi-auto strapped across their back.

Maybe you're allowed to refuse to be specifically filmed in public. When someone's filming a street and you pass by, tough luck, but they aren't allowed to follow you.

It's be clarified, but it's worth repeating. No such right exists in the US. If you're out in public, doing public things, anyone has the right to film you. What's public is public.

I appreciate what the guy was doing by filming them, but I do feel it's pretty one-sided here. Just as he had a right to film them in public, they had a right to film him. If he had entered his car or home and they were still trying to get after him, that'd be something else. They aren't infringing on his 1st amendment right by exercising it themselves.

And if it was the other way around and the ones with the guns were calling him names I feel like there'd be more outrage than there is.

I wanna hate the gun toting guys in the video, but I really can't.

Both sides should be free to film each other. But to try to intimidate someone for exercising a 1st Amendment right while you claim to be protesting in order to support the 2nd Amendment is...hypocritical at best. Especially when you figure in the online harassment that was also reported.

Either you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick your favorite parts and ignore the bits you don't like.

 

[Enron]

I couldn't help but notice that the marine wasn't carrying a gun to deliberately provoke such reactions. You know, like the people who were provoking everyone around them.

No, but he went right up to these guys and started shit. The gun-toting guys are complete shitheads for brandishing rifles in public and you can be mad at 'em for that but for everything else that went on in that video, that was completely of the cameraman's doing.

 

[GungHo]

I just don't understand these nuts. What are they trying to prove by carrying rifles?

They're trying to intimidate you into not being afraid.

Some times I wonder if people who buy guns are like really big CoD or Battlefield fans and just want to buy their favorite gun. Kinda like how Warcraft fans buy replica frostmournes and stuff.

Because the way these people treat guns makes me wonder if they realize they're not fucking toys.

The sales of Accuracy International Artic Warfare Magnums went from a couple of specialty sales in lots to specialist military units to them having massive backorders once Counterstrike hit. Same general thing happened to Desert Eagles after big movies like the Matrix, and I know several people who became "SIG Men" after Jack Bauer ran around with a two-tone 229 in the first season of 24.

They don't think they're toys necessarily, but there is a certain amount of them buying into a fantasy.

 

[stilgar]

They're trying to intimidate you into not being afraid.

Hilariously well put. Nice.


Also, if as a American citizen you find it weird, for us European it´s a different galaxy.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

Fuck, I hope every national restaurant/retail chain ban guns on the premises. Leave these shitheads with no where to go. This should be as restrictive if not more so than smoking indoors.

 

[Red]

This is gonna seem nuts on the surface but hear me out: it's a lot like terrorism, in the sense that they see themselves as rightful activists willing to go the distance, but in reality their actions only serve to entrench the opposition against them and draft new enemies against their cause.

I'm willing to bet many just want attention.

 

[$200]

Im surprised the "Its not full auto it doesnt count" crowd isnt using that argument, its brilliant.

Glad I'm not the only one here who finds that annoying.