Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Ernie S.]

I know. It wasn't my analogy, although I thought it superficially clever at first read, though wasn't to be taken seriously.

But then, that's not what I was posting on. Koshergrrrrr made a rash specious absolute statement, I called her on it, and she lost. Again.
You'd think she'd figure her own pattern out by now. You'd think.

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Nor was I aware I had lost anything.

Again, we see that the activity going on inside Dodo's head is at loggerheads with, and irrelevant to, the actual discussion that is happening here.

You didn't lose at all. The mere fact that Pogo claims victory because you are only 99.99% correct is meaningless.

 

[koshergrl]

He likes the word "specious". And, as in the case of fakey, it goes far to shine a light on his own arguments.

Typically yahoos accuse others of the very thing they know themselves to be guilty of. They think that by accusing others of it, nobody will notice it as it applies to them.

And they are always wrong.

But they never get it.

 

[Pogo]

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Nor was I aware I had lost anything.

Again, we see that the activity going on inside Dodo's head is at loggerheads with, and irrelevant to, the actual discussion that is happening here.

You didn't lose at all. The mere fact that Pogo claims victory because you are only 99.99% correct is meaningless.

Absolutes are absolutes, Ernie.

-- Or are they not?

You'll go to any lengths to avoid conceding that the point was erroneous. Both of you.

 

[Ernie S.]

I know. It wasn't my analogy, although I thought it superficially clever at first read, though wasn't to be taken seriously.

But then, that's not what I was posting on. Koshergrrrrr made a rash specious absolute statement, I called her on it, and she lost. Again.
You'd think she'd figure her own pattern out by now. You'd think.

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Absolutes are absolutes, Ernie. She made an absolute statement, and I simply noted that it isn't. And she conceded. Get OVER it already.

You are correct, but you are still wrong.
5 gallons of black paint with one drop of white paint mixed in, is not gray.

 

[007]

Constitution hating, libtard, gun hating, scaredy cat, ***** logic...

 

[koshergrl]

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

For the 47th time, for protection.

We have the right to protect ourselves, and the right to protest in defense of that right. Get over it, for the 47th time. You seem incapable of following the thread of the discussion.

For the 48th time, protection against what? An army of four women making up Mothers Against Gun Violence taking foxhole positions from inside a restaurant?

This is why you keep losing. You're willing to make absurd stretches to make your theory work.

Protection against thugs and murderers, which can and have popped up in any unprotected location.

Why don't you tell me what my *theory* is?

 

[Ernie S.]

No, I think that's bullshit. You watch too much Fox Noise.

Let's see, that was around the same time... what was the pattern they were doing to make news stories out of nothing...

"New Black Panthers"... Henry Louis Gates... Shirley Sherrod... ACORN... Jeremiah Wright... Van Jones... nope, no pattern there, sure don't see one.

The Constitution doesn't need "support" -- it passed two centuries ago. What are the guns for? And why are they loaded?

Why are you so hung up on are they loaded? I can load an AR-15 in about a second and a half. Loaded/unloaded seems to be your whole argument against a group demonstrating in support of a Constitutional right.
1. Do they have a legal right to carry their weapons in this situation?
2. Is that right in any way changed by the fact that said weapons [may be] loaded?
Emotions, minutiae, political bents and religious beliefs are NOT a part of this discussion.

Because loading the guns means you're expecting to fire at something. And that doesn't sync with the idea of a "demonstration". If demonstration is your quest, you can do it with unloaded guns or even fake guns. It's not reasonable to presume that a mothers group founded specifically against gun violence is unaware that their own state has an open carry law, so that's' a non starter.

In a way it is about emotions, since that IS the tool the OCT was using. And again, that show of force would not have the impact without the very history that founded the mothers (some listed above) -- without that environment of gun violence, their appearance makes no particular impression -- they become the lawful citizens y'all fantasize about here. And it's equally unreasonable to presume that OCT is unaware of Aurora and Sandy Hook etc etc ad infinitum. So they know exactly what they're doing, and what the impression will be. Ergo -- intimidation. That was their objective, and they succeeded. Maybe they're now seeing a backlash. That's a good thing. It seems to be driving them to the dialogue they should have gone with in the first place.

The fact that the guns are loaded lends another dimension to the nutworthiness, because you're either (a) expecting to use them against the mothers (which is unlikely), (b) the restaurant is in an area that's so dangerous it requires a posse of 18 people for protection (equally unlikely for a meeting place for MAGV) or (c) you're just damn stupid. (a) and (b) are further unlikely since they have their own kids with them. So what's left?

Bullshit! Does filling your car with gasoline indicate that you are about to mow down a bunch of people at a busy intersection?.

I have carried weapons for more hours than some people on this board have been breathing. Except for hunting weapons, my weapon has been loaded 100.0000000000% of the time. It has never taken a life or even been fired in response to a threat. The only time, in fact, it has ever left it's holster has been in response to the request of a police officer.
I have in that time, prevented a rape against my first wife and a robbery at knife point against myself. In each case, the mere sight of a nickel plated .44 magnum was enough to discourage the would be assailant.
Yes, they both were intimidated, but they had good reason to be.
These women had no reason to fear for their lives. They were intimidated by a car with a full tank of gas.

 

[koshergrl]

Standby for the standby...

"specious"

And then a rant about something completely unrelated to the discussion.

 

[Ernie S.]

And you think that kind of scene is a good thing...

You would have preferred more innocent people died?

The gunman was stopped, that IS a good thing, among the sane.

I would have preferred a society where the presence of an armed citizen putting a killer down isn't necessary. Pick up after your emotional dog droppings.

What the ****???? Can't you answer a question without the constant air of superiority bullshit?

YOU are the one dropping the turds of emotion here, possum. You are arguing that the motive of these men was to intimidate, but the women who seek to limit their constitutional rights are, what? completely logical in claiming to be intimidated?
YOU keep bringing up "children" and "loaded" for no purpose at all except to sway emotional opinion to your side.
How ******* disingenuous can you possibly be?

 

[Ernie S.]

why do you bring the children[/B][/I]?
snipped all to hell (sorry, Marty)
I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

#1, there was no such dramatic confrontation here. There was a female officer that did approach the men, but none of the men felt the need to leave any bodies in the street.
#2, I'm confused here, Possum. You were confronted by 2 officers with guns drawn. Why? And why did you consider drawing down on them? Were you engaged in activity so unlawful that your freedom was in jeopardy?
Or did you consider that the officers posed no threat and you complied with their demands?

Why are you, then, not threatened by police officers, but are threatened bu a group carrying semiautomatic rifles engaged in a peaceful protest?
Could it be purely idealogical?

I *am* threatened by police officers. I think we all are, but that's my perception.

up to #2 - I didn't consider drawing on them; I'm saying that if I had been (I wasn't but if I had been) one of the posters as in this thread who believes in personal protection (read: gun escalation) and had been carrying at the time, I might have drawn that weapon on these two guys who pulled up in a plain unmarked Oldsmobile and jumped out with guns drawn -- no uniforms, no identifying themselves, nothing.

What was I doing? I was walking home late at night after a long day at work, having missed my trolley stop while lost in thought about that work. As I walked back the extra block to my street, I got apprehended, handcuffed and taken away. I only figured out later that they were cops, but in the moment all I saw was two guys I didn't know, on a deserted street, pulling guns on me. I had no other clue who they were.

Much like if you're sitting in a restaurant and a few cars pull up and unload people with guns. You don't know who they are, but you take notice.


And again, the general point: if I subscribed to the gun-escalation mentality of more and more guns, I wouldn't have survived that encounter.

I believe in personal protection, but "gun escalation"? I read every situation. 99% of the time, perceived threats require nothing but vigilance. In .99% of cases, all one need do is let the threat know that you pose a greater threat to him than he does to you.
BUT! in that .01% of cases where you must act, drawing your weapon and shooting the threat dead is the only option. It is not, "gun escalation", my friend. It is deescalation. Threat gone, danger? Zip zero nada.

 

[Sunshine]

Good. Their intimidation was met with a higher level of intimidation. That's excellent. I'll intimidate anyone who tries to restrict my Constitutional rights.

Why do you fools insist on saying stupid crap like this?

This gang of heavily armed thugs in a parking lot outside a restaurant restricts other people's right to safety. Look at that photo.

The people who want to eat there as well as the owners of the restaurant and any passersby have the right to be safe from gangs of armed thugs.

OTOH, at least they have the gumption to open carry so people can choose to get to a safer place.

What's funny to me is that if they were all black, you hypocritical nutters would be screeching a different tune.

Thugs? I don't see any hoodies! If open carry is legal in that state there is no 'gumption' required. Damn. 37 pages. I thought this was going to be one of those first post/last post threads. ~sigh~

 

[koshergrl]

Gun escalation is a fantasy dreamed up by cowardly anti-constitutionalist nuts.

 

[Ernie S.]

Marty; Ernie; Spoonman; Lonestar; BigReb; Pothead; Koshergrrr; Peach.. I count eight posters I'm trying to keep up with (good thing I'm a fast typist) but I think the points have been addressed. Important as the issue is, I've got other things to attend to, and I'm well aware that posters here will argue not because they believe in a position but just to argue (e.g. see the Thanksgiving thread where the poll runs 94 to 6 and yet they yammer on), so thank you all for interesting discussion, your points and your passion. It's all good.

A concession! It's about time!

Qualified with a compliment to himself, of course.

 

[Sunshine]

Too many in this nation are brain washed into thinking that law abiding gun owners are not responsible people with using their firearms.
Where is the terror or threats in that picture?
Are they holding their guns in a threating way? NO!
Do they have the guns aimed at the protesters in the restaurant? NO!
Was there any arrests? NO!

People in this Country need to start using their heads about guns and not believe the anti gun people, who have talked the majority of this nation into believing that all guns are bad and anyone who has one is bad.

If the Women had used their heads and not their feelings, they would not have been so frightened or intimidated.

People of this Nation need to get it through their heads that Law abiding Citizens have the right to carry
their guns in the open.

How is showing your gun Bullying?
They are not even standing in a threating manor.
Now if they had pointed the guns, or would have stood in a threating manor, that would have been bullying and terrorizing.

There is a difference in a 'show of force' and a 'use of force.' Do you recall this picture of the Elian Gonzalez affair? Notice how the officers is pointing the gun, but finger is not on the trigger. The finger rests above on the stock or whatever that part of the gun is called. That is a 'show of force.' Not a 'use of force.'

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunshine]

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.

How were they not 'safe.' Did someone take a shot at them?

 

[Ernie S.]

Nor was I aware I had lost anything.

Again, we see that the activity going on inside Dodo's head is at loggerheads with, and irrelevant to, the actual discussion that is happening here.

You didn't lose at all. The mere fact that Pogo claims victory because you are only 99.99% correct is meaningless.

Absolutes are absolutes, Ernie.

-- Or are they not?

You'll go to any lengths to avoid conceding that the point was erroneous. Both of you.

Absolutes ARE absolutes but when you are 99.99% sure you have the best hand, bet the shit out of it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is a difference in a 'show of force' and a 'use of force.' Do you recall this picture of the Elian Gonzalez affair? Notice how the officers is pointing the gun, but finger is not on the trigger. The finger rests above on the stock or whatever that part of the gun is called. That is a 'show of force.' Not a 'use of force.'

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it was that picture that made me determined that a cop entering my house uninvited, will die - regardless of whether it costs me my life.

 

[Pogo]

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Absolutes are absolutes, Ernie. She made an absolute statement, and I simply noted that it isn't. And she conceded. Get OVER it already.

You are correct, but you are still wrong.
5 gallons of black paint with one drop of white paint mixed in, is not gray.

I did not, and would not, say that that paint was gray. At the same time I would not post that "no child has ever been saved by a drunk driver". SHE did, and I simply noted "actually that's probably not true-- think about it". And you're reaming my ass for saying that while simultaneously admitting I am "correct".

Exactly how fucked up is that? Would it stop the freaking world from turning to just admit I had it right and she had it wrong? DAMN.

 

[Sunshine]

There is a difference in a 'show of force' and a 'use of force.' Do you recall this picture of the Elian Gonzalez affair? Notice how the officers is pointing the gun, but finger is not on the trigger. The finger rests above on the stock or whatever that part of the gun is called. That is a 'show of force.' Not a 'use of force.'

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it was that picture that made me determined that a cop entering my house uninvited, will die - regardless of whether it costs me my life.

Not saying I agree with it. It was just to illustrate a point.

 

[Ernie S.]

There is a difference in a 'show of force' and a 'use of force.' Do you recall this picture of the Elian Gonzalez affair? Notice how the officers is pointing the gun, but finger is not on the trigger. The finger rests above on the stock or whatever that part of the gun is called. That is a 'show of force.' Not a 'use of force.'

Elián González affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, it was that picture that made me determined that a cop entering my house uninvited, will die - regardless of whether it costs me my life.

Note to Pogo: That picture is what we call intimidation. 18 men and 2 children posing for a picture? Not so much.