Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

Piss off. They were scared. They have a right to protest, and you gun nutters shouldn't be intimidating them into staying quiet.

They were not protesting, they were holding a meeting aimed at restricting the rights of individuals they disagree with. Frankly, if they were scared, something I doubt, they got what they deserve. People should be terrified whenever one group wants to take away the rights of anyone.

They held a meeting in a public parking lot where they knew their opponents were. Why not a march in the street?

Because the "Brave mothers" are just as scared of cars as they are guns?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Point taken but that does not change the fact that people have the right to being safe from armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.

I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.

But, just like the rw hysteria over which bathroom transgender people are using, its very likely that I have been in restaurants where people were armed and did not know it.

As usual, the nutters want to protect their own rights at the expense of other people's rights.

The police were there, and were kind enough not to ticket the hysterical women for a false 911 call. What more do you want?

A "false 911 call"?

What was "false" about it?

What was legitimate about it?

 

[Ernie S.]

They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.

Actually they're undermining it but close enough.

Damn right though -- where's the "threat"? Nobody's breaking the law.

Here's another group of law abiding citizens not breaking the law, engaged in the act of not-intimidation:

Armed guards not-intimidating potential trespassers:

A sign posted to not-intimidate potential burglars:

​

Basic psychology of not-intimidation.

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

 

[Pogo]

This group wasn't an "armed gang", they were Texas residents & American citizens enjoying their Constitutional right to free assembly.

And that was obvious in the moment, since as we all know the bad guys always wear black hats so we know who's who.

Do cops with guns scare you?

Yes. With good reason.

 

[Ernie S.]

Piss off. They were scared. They have a right to protest, and you gun nutters shouldn't be intimidating them into staying quiet.

Why don't you piss off little miss know-it-all?

The gun owners were exercising their rights as well. Nobody threatened anybody. If they were "scared" it was of their own doing, in their tiny little minds.

Tiny little mind... Something with which I am sure you are familiar...

Yes, their 'right' to be intimidating freaks, like most gun nuts.

Does Australia have anything similar to a Bill of Rights? Perhaps your time would be better spent protecting your own rights than advocating restricting the rights of people 8,000 miles away.

 

[Pogo]

The police were there, and were kind enough not to ticket the hysterical women for a false 911 call. What more do you want?

A "false 911 call"?

What was "false" about it?

What was legitimate about it?

Oh no you don't. You claimed a "false 911 call". YOU substantiate it.

 

[Pogo]

They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.

Actually they're undermining it but close enough.

Damn right though -- where's the "threat"? Nobody's breaking the law.

Here's another group of law abiding citizens not breaking the law, engaged in the act of not-intimidation:

Armed guards not-intimidating potential trespassers:

A sign posted to not-intimidate potential burglars:

​

Basic psychology of not-intimidation.

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A "false 911 call"?

What was "false" about it?

What was legitimate about it?

Oh no you don't. You claimed a "false 911 call". YOU substantiate it.

Was there a crime in progress?

Was there a fire?

Was someone injured and in need of medical care?

What was legitimate about it, asshole?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually they're undermining it but close enough.

Damn right though -- where's the "threat"? Nobody's breaking the law.

Here's another group of law abiding citizens not breaking the law, engaged in the act of not-intimidation:

Armed guards not-intimidating potential trespassers:

A sign posted to not-intimidate potential burglars:

​

Basic psychology of not-intimidation.

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

I guess that makes the fact that Democrats like to pretend that they didn't start the KKK is irrelevant?

 

[Pogo]

What was legitimate about it?

Oh no you don't. You claimed a "false 911 call". YOU substantiate it.

Was there a crime in progress?

Was there a fire?

Was someone injured and in need of medical care?

What was legitimate about it, asshole?

It's your point, asshole, not mine. Wassamatta? Can't back it up as usual?

You pathetic sack of shit. Put your foot in your mouth and it becomes my fault.

 

[Pogo]

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

I guess that makes the fact that Democrats like to pretend that they didn't start the KKK is irrelevant?

You are truly a Quantum Ignoramusbag. The KKK was founded by a small band of ex-rebel soldiers around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865.

And like the date of the photo, the point has nothing to do with political parties anyway.

 

[Ernie S.]

Actually they're undermining it but close enough.

Damn right though -- where's the "threat"? Nobody's breaking the law.

Here's another group of law abiding citizens not breaking the law, engaged in the act of not-intimidation:

Armed guards not-intimidating potential trespassers:

A sign posted to not-intimidate potential burglars:

​

Basic psychology of not-intimidation.

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.

Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.

Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?

 

[Pogo]

Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.

Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.

Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?

Yeah I'll accept that. Well, except for the degree, which is in no way comparable. But I'll accept that the argument itself is equally logical.

 

[MikeK]

The point which those armed citizens clearly made is their appearance should not in itself be intimidating. Guns, by virtue of the U.S. Constitution, are an indelible component of American culture.

I don't know what these anti-gun groups hope to achieve but they should understand that restrictive gun laws affect only the law-abiding. The only way to eliminate occasional outbursts of gun violence by the imposition of restrictive laws would be to declare martial law and conduct house-by-house searches in addition to randomly searching citizens on the streets and in their cars.

 

[Ernie S.]

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.

Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.

Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?

Yeah I'll accept that. Well, except for the degree, which is in no way comparable. But I'll accept that the argument itself is equally logical.

Ya see, you are arguing based on your perspective, as am I. I see any group that meets in order to limit my Constitutional rights as a threat. If I am threatened, I respond.
Your perspective is, of course, "These men came with guns."
Mine is "These women came to infringe my 2nd Amendment right."

So it boils down to intent. The women's intent was to cause real damage. The men's intent was to protest that. You would have an argument if their intent was to harm the women. It wasn't, so you HAVE no argument.

 

[KGB]

Point taken but that does not change the fact that people have the right to being safe from armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.

I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.

But, just like the rw hysteria over which bathroom transgender people are using, its very likely that I have been in restaurants where people were armed and did not know it.

As usual, the nutters want to protect their own rights at the expense of other people's rights.

This group wasn't an "armed gang", they were Texas residents & American citizens enjoying their Constitutional right to free assembly.

And that was obvious in the moment, since as we all know the bad guys always wear black hats so we know who's who.

and as we have seen, most criminals don't brandish their weapons out in the open either. They are cowards by nature & sneak up on unsuspecting people. This group of law abiding citizens followed the open carry law & exercised their freedom of assembly. They wanted to be seen, they didn't hide their identity. I swear you gun grabbers have no common sense what so ever....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh no you don't. You claimed a "false 911 call". YOU substantiate it.

Was there a crime in progress?

Was there a fire?

Was someone injured and in need of medical care?

What was legitimate about it, asshole?

It's your point, asshole, not mine. Wassamatta? Can't back it up as usual?

You pathetic sack of shit. Put your foot in your mouth and it becomes my fault.

My point was that the police didn't give them a ticket.

Your point, on the other hand, seems to be that you are a whiny bitch.

 

[westwall]

Tell me something Luddly, why didn't you post this gun story? It has everything you hate, they took the law into their own hands, broke into a house they didn't own, and killed an innocent man who was simply teaching his ex proper manners.

It is even on PuffHo, so it will be really easy for you to find.

On Friday, as police and family members alike searched near Thomas' abandoned car, along with areas near his hometown, witnesses gave the family members a tip about a vacant house in a nearby field where the car was located.
Daily Advertiser photographer Leslie Westbrook, who spent much of the day with the family as they searched, was there to capture the intense scenes that soon played out.
A neighborhood resident and another man, along with almost half a dozen members of Arceneaux's family, took off on four-wheelers toward the house.
As they got closer, family members said they heard the screams of their missing relative begging for help.
The family converged on the house, kicking down the door as Thomas allegedly began stabbing Arceneaux multiple times, according to KLFY, a local news station.
This was not the first time Thomas allegedly abused Arceneaux, but it would be the last.
An armed family member shot Thomas three times, killing him, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Capt. Kip Judice said.

Bethany Arceneaux, Kidnapping Victim, Rescued By Family Members Who Killed Her Captor: Cops

Tell you what, every time you post a stupid story about how bad you think guns are, I will post this one. Which of us do you think will get more reps? I bet even the people that think guns should be regulated like my story more.

I hadn't' seen it. But, there are many gazillions of articles I don't post and even more that I don't see. Post it all you want. I always ignore trolls.

How do you ignore yourself? That sounds interesting, unlike the tripe you usually post...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

I guess that makes the fact that Democrats like to pretend that they didn't start the KKK is irrelevant?

You are truly a Quantum Ignoramusbag. The KKK was founded by a small band of ex-rebel soldiers around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865.

And like the date of the photo, the point has nothing to do with political parties anyway.

Aww, did I hurt your feelings?

Grow up.

I would like you to explain how an organization that served as the opposition to the radical elements of the Republican Party had nothing to with politics, but I doubt you would be able to explain your position in a way that makes sense to anyone outside your head.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point. The point is intimidation.

You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.

Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.

Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?

Yeah I'll accept that. Well, except for the degree, which is in no way comparable. But I'll accept that the argument itself is equally logical.

You are 100% right, those men would need to show up with the combined power of the governments of Russia and China in order to be on an equal footing with those mothers.