Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[koshergrl]

he doesn't know. he contradicts himself with almost every post. Frodo does too. i think of them interchangeably....

 

[idb]

Are you saying they weren't intimidating anyone?

No.

Then what the fuck ARE you saying?

I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.

 

[koshergrl]

But that was not their intent.

See this is what leftist whack jobs don't get...it's not the responsibility of free people to make sure that other people aren't scared or upset. If you are offended by sidewalk preaching, avoid the sidewalk. If you are scared of armed citizens, then move to a country where they aren't armed.

But it isn't the FAULT of law abiding citizens that there are nuts who piss their pants at the sight of a gun. There are huge stretches of country outside of the cities where people carry their weapons, and nobody is scared! Yes, it's true! Just because YOU were raised in an atmosphere where the only time anyone saw a gun was when some lunatic started mowing down unarmed children doesn't mean everybody who legally owns a gun and carries it is a threat.

Get the fuck over it. Women who are trying to take away the rights of people to carry guns need to face the fact that the people who are going to protest are armed. And it's hogwash to maintain that because the women who want to take the guns are afraid, then the people who are exercising their rights should set their rights aside...which is an admission that there is something inherently *scary* about people exercising their rights.

And there isn't. The scary people are the ones who try to take away our rights, and who pretend to be afraid of free people in order to gain an advantage over them.

 

[koshergrl]

And I'll tell you something...people who attempt to disarm a free people should be afraid.

Because what they are doing is wrong, and because an armed people will fight to keep their freedom.

 

[Spoonman]

Does anyone ever stop to thing why the founding fathers included the language "shall not be infringed upon" in this right? they realized how critical this right was to a free nation. they understood the treachery a government is capable of imposing on the people. they lived it. they experienced it. they fought and died to prevent it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No.

Then what the fuck ARE you saying?

I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

 

[idb]

Then what the fuck ARE you saying?

I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

True.

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not.

It’s this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.

 

[idb]

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

So you see no difference between walking onto a shooting range carrying a rifle or walking into a kindergarten carrying the same weapon?

 

[idb]

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

True.

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not.

It’s this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.

The immediate knee-jerk reaction of rabid Second Amendment proponents is to defend any action by a fellow gun owner, no matter how egregious or ill-considered.
Look at how the Zimmerman case instantly became a rallying point for gun-rights advocates.

 

[Pogo]

In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

If that's your logic it's a frank confession. He didn't say the guns make people afraid, but rather the people behind them.

But either way by your eternal logic of "everybody but me is a stupid idiot", those little kids in Newtown and those Amish girls in Pennsylvania and those movie patrons in Aurora, they must be real morons. And the survivors who watched it all go down, they must be even stupider.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

So you see no difference between walking onto a shooting range carrying a rifle or walking into a kindergarten carrying the same weapon?

Am I supposed to assume that you are actually being sensible?

Do you think cops shouldn't be able to carry guns in schools?

If cops can do carry a gun in both places, I see no reason everyone else cannot. If, on the other hand, you want separate laws for police and everyone else, I have to point out that violates the premise of the US being a nation of laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

True.

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not.

It’s this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.

The immediate knee-jerk reaction of rabid Second Amendment proponents is to defend any action by a fellow gun owner, no matter how egregious or ill-considered.
Look at how the Zimmerman case instantly became a rallying point for gun-rights advocates.

I still haven't seen any evidence that they intended to intimidate anyone.

Funny thing is, neither did the police who were called to the scene. If they had, those people would have gone to jail, because it is illegal to carry a gun in a way that is meant to intimidate others. Since these men were not arrested I can be 100% sure that they did not display their weapons in a manner meant to intimidate.

Want to try and make a case that the police ignored the law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

If that's your logic it's a frank confession. He didn't say the guns make people afraid, but rather the people behind them.

But either way by your eternal logic of "everybody but me is a stupid idiot", those little kids in Newtown and those Amish girls in Pennsylvania and those movie patrons in Aurora, they must be real morons. And the survivors who watched it all go down, they must be even stupider.

You already said they didn't break a law. Since they didn't break the law, and intimidating people with a gun is illegal in Texas, they didn't intimidate anyone.

That means you think guns are scary, and are willing to lie to make political points.

 

[thanatos144]

Facts are we have a right to a gun if you do not like that move the hell out of the country.

tapatalk post

 

[Pogo]

That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.

If that's your logic it's a frank confession. He didn't say the guns make people afraid, but rather the people behind them.

But either way by your eternal logic of "everybody but me is a stupid idiot", those little kids in Newtown and those Amish girls in Pennsylvania and those movie patrons in Aurora, they must be real morons. And the survivors who watched it all go down, they must be even stupider.

You already said they didn't break a law. Since they didn't break the law, and intimidating people with a gun is illegal in Texas, they didn't intimidate anyone.

That means you think guns are scary, and are willing to lie to make political points.

Uh ---- no. I wasn't there, ergo there's no element for me to be scared of. Secondly, I did not say they didn't break "a" law. As for lying to make political points, I wouldn't dream of taking your job. (Like you just did -- I can't compete with that.)

Fourth, as for "they didn't intimidate anyone", see the intervening post between yours and this one for yet another admission that that's exactly what they did. See also the police in the video specifically moving the OCT away.

Failure on all fpur points. 0 for 4 with four strikeouts. I believe that's called the "golden sombrero".

 

[Esmeralda]

Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.

True.

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not.

It’s this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.

The immediate knee-jerk reaction of rabid Second Amendment proponents is to defend any action by a fellow gun owner, no matter how egregious or ill-considered.
Look at how the Zimmerman case instantly became a rallying point for gun-rights advocates.

Absolutely, they do. Either they support whatever any gun nut does, or they say, as in the deaths of all those children in Newtown, that it is just collateral damage: no big deal, the numbers just aren't big enough to make it important enough to consider serious gun control. I wonder what any of them would think if it was their child killed in a school rampage. No, we don't need to wonder. They'd want more guns. They'd want teachers to be armed. Their solution for the gun problem is more guns. Pour more gasoline on the fire.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that's your logic it's a frank confession. He didn't say the guns make people afraid, but rather the people behind them.

But either way by your eternal logic of "everybody but me is a stupid idiot", those little kids in Newtown and those Amish girls in Pennsylvania and those movie patrons in Aurora, they must be real morons. And the survivors who watched it all go down, they must be even stupider.

You already said they didn't break a law. Since they didn't break the law, and intimidating people with a gun is illegal in Texas, they didn't intimidate anyone.

That means you think guns are scary, and are willing to lie to make political points.

Uh ---- no. I wasn't there, ergo there's no element for me to be scared of. Secondly, I did not say they didn't break "a" law. As for lying to make political points, I wouldn't dream of taking your job. (Like you just did -- I can't compete with that.)

Fourth, as for "they didn't intimidate anyone", see the intervening post between yours and this one for yet another admission that that's exactly what they did. See also the police in the video specifically moving the OCT away.

Failure on all fpur points. 0 for 4 with four strikeouts. I believe that's called the "golden sombrero".

People that weren't there were scared, but you weren't, so that proves they were there to intimidate people, even though that would break the law, and they didn't break the law.

Does that accurately reflect your position?

 

[koshergrl]

True.

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not.

It’s this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.

The immediate knee-jerk reaction of rabid Second Amendment proponents is to defend any action by a fellow gun owner, no matter how egregious or ill-considered.
Look at how the Zimmerman case instantly became a rallying point for gun-rights advocates.

Absolutely, they do. Either they support whatever any gun nut does, or they say, as in the deaths of all those children in Newtown, that it is just collateral damage: no big deal, the numbers just aren't big enough to make it important enough to consider serious gun control. I wonder what any of them would think if it was their child killed in a school rampage. No, we don't need to wonder. They'd want more guns. They'd want teachers to be armed. Their solution for the gun problem is more guns. Pour more gasoline on the fire.

Who said this? Please quote and link. Because I haven't heard anybody say that unprotected kids being slaughtered in schools is acceptable collateral damage...

Other than the gun grabbers, that is.