Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[idb]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

But again, why make the topic into something it isn't? Nobody has claimed to be intimidated by the right to own guns, or any other right. Those are concepts. Nobody was intimidated here by a concept... but by the real, tangible view of a group of gunslingers arming themselves in plain sight of a public place, in a country where gun rampages in public places have become sadly commonplace.

Upon seeing that, one of two scenaria can be expected: one, it's a group of gun enthusiasts making a point; or two, a mass conflagration is about to take place. Only one of those is an immediate threat. You don't need to protect yourself against a non-threat; you prepare for the one that is. It's not rocket surgery.



Seriously y'all, are we reopening this thing after all the points have been made? For what? Just to rehash them all over again?

C'mon Pogo...you must know how important it is to get the last word in so that you can claim victory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what I said.
No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are fucking synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

I said threatening their 'rights', not threatening their person....that's what I would call 'intimidation'.
It's really not that hard.

What is your point? You don't think it is possible to threaten people rights constitutionally? Or do you not recognize the concept of rights? Doesn't bring guns to an anti gun meeting threaten the constitutional rights of the anti gun people?

Either your position is stupid, and you refuse to admit it, which makes you stupid, or you are just stupid. Either way, you are stupid.

 

[Pogo]

Ah-- no, actually they're not. Intimidate implies coercion. You can be threatened without coercion.

All this is irrelevant tangent. What you're doing is presenting a false equivalence, then getting all hung up on two synonyms to take the spotlight off that false equivalence. To wit, these two concepts:
"a group of people exercising their rights" and
"threatening someone elses '[sic] rights"

The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other.
See the Klan march photo posted about a million posts back.

As usual your point is built on a foundation of dishonesty.
Which of course makes your adversary "stupid".

Please.

True.

At least he’s consistent at being dishonest.

Otherwise, with rights come responsibilities, as no right is absolute. That one has the right to do something also means he has the responsibility to know when he’s crossing the line. We also have a right to free speech, but one can also cross the line where speech can be intimidating and coercive.

Moreover, that private citizens are critical of how other private citizens exercise their civil liberties, where there is a consensus that a line has been crossed, in no way constitutes an ‘infringement’ upon those seeking to exercise a civil liberty, as the Bill of Rights pertain only to government. The Second Amendment is not a license for gun owners to engage in inappropriate public behavior, whether their actions are technically legal or not.

Last, members of the gun organization clearly exercised poor judgment, consequently posing a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

I think the only irresponsible people in this story were the ones that called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring, that diverted them from dealing with real problems.

Wait, you were trying to argue that it was irresponsible to exercise constitutional rights. I guess that means Rosa Parks was irresponsible.

I bet you thought you had a clever point.

I bet you thought you had a clever strawman. Wave bye bye, there she goes on the bus.

By the way, "something illegal going on" isn't the only reason to call the law, Quantum False Equivalenceist.

 

[Pogo]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

But again, why make the topic into something it isn't? Nobody has claimed to be intimidated by the right to own guns, or any other right. Those are concepts. Nobody was intimidated here by a concept... but by the real, tangible view of a group of gunslingers arming themselves in plain sight of a public place, in a country where gun rampages in public places have become sadly commonplace.

Upon seeing that, one of two scenaria can be expected: one, it's a group of gun enthusiasts making a point; or two, a mass conflagration is about to take place. Only one of those is an immediate threat. You don't need to protect yourself against a non-threat; you prepare for the one that is. It's not rocket surgery.



Seriously y'all, are we reopening this thing after all the points have been made? For what? Just to rehash them all over again?

C'mon Pogo...you must know how important it is to get the last word in so that you can claim victory.

Indeed - Forty seven thousand posts, count 'em, based around the concept, "you're stupid".

Deep, devastating argument. My head swims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

No one has argued otherwise.

And the ‘love it or leave it’ meme is both childish and inane.

The issue has nothing to do with the exercising of a Constitutional right, but the incorrect position held by some that our rights are absolute, and not subject to reasonable restrictions, when in fact they are. And reasonable restrictions can be legislative, judicial, or societal, as in this case.

 

[idb]

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are fucking synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

I said threatening their 'rights', not threatening their person....that's what I would call 'intimidation'.
It's really not that hard.

What is your point? You don't think it is possible to threaten people rights constitutionally? Or do you not recognize the concept of rights? Doesn't bring guns to an anti gun meeting threaten the constitutional rights of the anti gun people?

Either your position is stupid, and you refuse to admit it, which makes you stupid, or you are just stupid. Either way, you are stupid.

I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

I thought you were arguing that bringing guns DID threaten the gun grabbers? That it was intimidating..

 

[koshergrl]

Are you sure you know what you have said, and what you mean to say? Because it looks to me like you don't...

 

[idb]

I thought you were arguing that bringing guns DID threaten the gun grabbers? That it was intimidating..

Yep, I did.

 

[Spoonman]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

But again, why make the topic into something it isn't? Nobody has claimed to be intimidated by the right to own guns, or any other right. Those are concepts. Nobody was intimidated here by a concept... but by the real, tangible view of a group of gunslingers arming themselves in plain sight of a public place, in a country where gun rampages in public places have become sadly commonplace.

Upon seeing that, one of two scenaria can be expected: one, it's a group of gun enthusiasts making a point; or two, a mass conflagration is about to take place. Only one of those is an immediate threat. You don't need to protect yourself against a non-threat; you prepare for the one that is. It's not rocket surgery.



Seriously y'all, are we reopening this thing after all the points have been made? For what? Just to rehash them all over again?

but that is the topic. the gun owners were acting within the law. we have already agreed they did nothing illegal. yet the antigun owners are claiming the actions within the law the gun owners took was intimidating. it is their attempt to get the law changed. and by changing the law, violating rights. it's like me complaining blacks in a group pose a threat and should not be allowed. on of two scenarios can be expected. one is a group of blacks just hanging out together. the other a flashmob or game of knock out is about to occur.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

True.

At least he’s consistent at being dishonest.

Otherwise, with rights come responsibilities, as no right is absolute. That one has the right to do something also means he has the responsibility to know when he’s crossing the line. We also have a right to free speech, but one can also cross the line where speech can be intimidating and coercive.

Moreover, that private citizens are critical of how other private citizens exercise their civil liberties, where there is a consensus that a line has been crossed, in no way constitutes an ‘infringement’ upon those seeking to exercise a civil liberty, as the Bill of Rights pertain only to government. The Second Amendment is not a license for gun owners to engage in inappropriate public behavior, whether their actions are technically legal or not.

Last, members of the gun organization clearly exercised poor judgment, consequently posing a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

I think the only irresponsible people in this story were the ones that called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring, that diverted them from dealing with real problems.

Wait, you were trying to argue that it was irresponsible to exercise constitutional rights. I guess that means Rosa Parks was irresponsible.

I bet you thought you had a clever point.

I bet you thought you had a clever strawman. Wave bye bye, there she goes on the bus.

By the way, "something illegal going on" isn't the only reason to call the law, Quantum False Equivalenceist.

I never said that the only reason to call the police was if something illegal is going on. You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.

Good luck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said threatening their 'rights', not threatening their person....that's what I would call 'intimidation'.
It's really not that hard.

What is your point? You don't think it is possible to threaten people rights constitutionally? Or do you not recognize the concept of rights? Doesn't bring guns to an anti gun meeting threaten the constitutional rights of the anti gun people?

Either your position is stupid, and you refuse to admit it, which makes you stupid, or you are just stupid. Either way, you are stupid.

I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

 

[Pogo]

I think the only irresponsible people in this story were the ones that called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring, that diverted them from dealing with real problems.

Wait, you were trying to argue that it was irresponsible to exercise constitutional rights. I guess that means Rosa Parks was irresponsible.

I bet you thought you had a clever point.

I bet you thought you had a clever strawman. Wave bye bye, there she goes on the bus.

By the way, "something illegal going on" isn't the only reason to call the law, Quantum False Equivalenceist.

I never said that the only reason to call the police was if something illegal is going on.

Didn't you? Let's rerun from above, just the relevant phrase...

called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring

-- which of course you equated to "irresponsible".

You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.

Good luck.

Funny, that's not what the cop in the video said, now is it?

Is that... inconvenient?

 

[idb]

What is your point? You don't think it is possible to threaten people rights constitutionally? Or do you not recognize the concept of rights? Doesn't bring guns to an anti gun meeting threaten the constitutional rights of the anti gun people?

Either your position is stupid, and you refuse to admit it, which makes you stupid, or you are just stupid. Either way, you are stupid.

I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

 

[Spoonman]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

when rights are challenged they have to be stood up for. otherwise things will change.

nothing change by the group protesting gun rights either. to your argument, perhaps they should just stfu and stay home too.

 

[Pogo]

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

when rights are challenged they have to be stood up for. otherwise things will change.

nothing change by the group protesting gun rights either. to your argument, perhaps they should just stfu and stay home too.

There is no "rights challenge" in four women talking in a restaurant. That's not going to change.

Both are true: the women have a right to meet and talk, the OCT has a right to demonstrate. Neither of those rights is in question. Or threatened.

But feel free to explain why "perhaps they should just stfu and stay home" isn't intimidation mirroring what OCT did.

Shhheeeeeeeeeeesh.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it.

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I bet you thought you had a clever strawman. Wave bye bye, there she goes on the bus.

By the way, "something illegal going on" isn't the only reason to call the law, Quantum False Equivalenceist.

I never said that the only reason to call the police was if something illegal is going on.

Didn't you? Let's rerun from above, just the relevant phrase...

called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring

-- which of course you equated to "irresponsible".

Damn, you are no better at proving other people said something they didn't than you are at proving you didn't say something you did.

What a surprise.

It is irresponsible to call people that randomly shoot dogs and unarmed people simply because you are afraid of a gun that is hidden in plain sight.

You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.

Good luck.

Funny, that's not what the cop in the video said, now is it?

Was there a video somewhere? I didn't watch it, I leave videos for the people that can't, or won't, read. Which category are you in?

Is that... inconvenient?

Not for me.