Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

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.

Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.

 

[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.

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....

"You gun grabbers"? Who the fuck is "you gun grabbers"?

 

[KGB]

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.

Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.

And once again, most criminals don't load up in a car & carry their weapons out in the open. And once again, Texas has an open carry law & we as Americans have freedom of assembly. As soon as you can point out where a law was broken, then there is nothing really to discuss here....

 

[KGB]

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....

"You gun grabbers"? Who the fuck is "you gun grabbers"?

It's pretty clear what side you fall on in this debate....

 

[Pogo]

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....

"You gun grabbers"? Who the fuck is "you gun grabbers"?

It's pretty clear what side you fall on in this debate....

So you're gonna live on ass-umptions then. Both this post and the last one. What a sad fate to box oneself into a world of black and white.

Thanks for playin'. We have your number, we'll call you when we need you.
While you're waiting feel free to collect my posts calling for "gun grabbing".

 

[Pogo]

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.

Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.

And once again, most criminals don't load up in a car & carry their weapons out in the open. And once again, Texas has an open carry law & we as Americans have freedom of assembly. As soon as you can point out where a law was broken, then there is nothing really to discuss here....

As long as you can point out where anyone claimed a law was broken, we'll go ahead and do that. But what you're doing here is trying to deflect from the actual point, which is, for you slow readers, i n t i m i d a t i o n.

If this is your A game, you're just not ready.

 

[skookerasbil]

gun grabbing is gay

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

Gun grabbers spend each day of their life waiting for a house to fall out of the sky onto their head. These people cant get past it......they live in their horrible and hideously scary world and cant rest until every single solitary "threat" is removed.


This vid is instructive.......if you want to get an idea of what level of k00k we are dealing with in the gun grabber community, take 5 minutes and check out this vid.......these people are highly fucked.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257]Debating A Gun Control Fanatic - YouTube[/ame]





That old, "Who would you like to have in a foxhole with you?" question gets pretty fucked up if there are gun grabbing assholes around for the discussion.......but for me, pretty damn hysterical.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[rightwinger]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....how hysterical is this?




Americans 34 Times More Interested In Buying Guns Than Obamacare | Zero Hedge

 

[jon_berzerk]

lol.....how hysterical is this?




americans 34 times more interested in buying guns than obamacare | zero hedge

--lol

 

[KGB]

Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.

And once again, most criminals don't load up in a car & carry their weapons out in the open. And once again, Texas has an open carry law & we as Americans have freedom of assembly. As soon as you can point out where a law was broken, then there is nothing really to discuss here....

As long as you can point out where anyone claimed a law was broken, we'll go ahead and do that. But what you're doing here is trying to deflect from the actual point, which is, for you slow readers, i n t i m i d a t i o n.

If this is your A game, you're just not ready.

You are the one implying that a law was broken because someone felt scared of another group that assembled peacefully & exercised a right. Contrary to your belief, but people have a right to oppose a view point even if it "scares" other people. Hell, I have no problem if these mothers want to meet & talk about what they want. They are free to do so under the freedoms of this country. But to turn around & be critical of another group who disagrees with them & yell intimidation when that group is also exercising its freedom demonstrates clearly the hypocrisy of the Left.

 

[peach174]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

 

[rightwinger]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

 

[Pogo]

And once again, most criminals don't load up in a car & carry their weapons out in the open. And once again, Texas has an open carry law & we as Americans have freedom of assembly. As soon as you can point out where a law was broken, then there is nothing really to discuss here....

As long as you can point out where anyone claimed a law was broken, we'll go ahead and do that. But what you're doing here is trying to deflect from the actual point, which is, for you slow readers, i n t i m i d a t i o n.

If this is your A game, you're just not ready.

You are the one implying that a law was broken because someone felt scared of another group that assembled peacefully & exercised a right. Contrary to your belief, but people have a right to oppose a view point even if it "scares" other people. Hell, I have no problem if these mothers want to meet & talk about what they want. They are free to do so under the freedoms of this country. But to turn around & be critical of another group who disagrees with them & yell intimidation when that group is also exercising its freedom demonstrates clearly the hypocrisy of the Left.

So we're backing away from "gun grabbers" and hoping no one notices. Check.

There is no law in question here. The question was intimidation, which is an emotional dynamic. And that's what I posted on.

It's pointless to argue that the gun nuts were NOT there to intimidate, because if that's not their point, there's no point in them showing up with guns. They could have shown up with signs, but they chose a show of force. A sign says "here's my position". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". Just a tiny shade of difference there. They also could have walked into the restaurant like normal people and invited themselves to join in the discussion. But they clearly weren't interested in dialogue; they wanted confrontation. Their point was to polarize. You could say it goes with the whole wild west mentality: don't like something, just blow it away.

As for your pretend-hypocrisy, this just in: you can intimidate people while staying within the law. ALL of those photos I posted were doing just that. Duh.

Now if you want to discuss what Texas law is, that's another thread. I don't live in Texas anyway, so you're on your own there. What I'm looking at is rhetorical/emotional dynamics. And that means how this group is making their point -- not how "legal" it is. I'm not interested in the legal process. I'm interested in the intellectual process.

 

[skookerasbil]

How do all the limpwristers find their way into this site??

 

[MikeK]

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.

Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.

Within the present state of social conditioning, which includes an increasing fear of guns, the group of women seated in a restaurant would have cause to be alarmed at the arrival in their presence of twenty armed individuals. But if nothing at all unusual transpired, that is the twenty armed individuals calmly sat down, placed their orders, carried on as per usual, then left just as quietly, the next time the same thing happened the same twenty women would not have cause to be apprehensive.

So we aren't talking about armed citizens, per se, but rather ignorance of, and inculcated fear of, guns. And we can attribute this fear to a persistent progression of opportunistic political demagogues passing law upon law and attempting to the best of their ability to restrict firearms and undermine the intent of the Second Amendment. Thus the women in your hypothesis are reacting to an indoctrinated state of mind.

Please consider the possibility of a group of women seated in a restaurant when a group of twenty apparently ordinary individuals enters, is calmly seated, then rise, draw concealed automatic pistols from under their clothing, and begin shooting.

The frightened women in your hypothesis have no established cause to be afraid. Their fear is the consequence of indoctrination.

 

[peach174]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

 

[novasteve]

Who kills more people? These gun nuts or women who use abortion as a form of birth control?