Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe it's right here:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I kinda added emphasis so you might find it, but what follows also applies.

You believe a lot of things that are not true.

That document does not exist then?'
Or are you saying it's bullshit?

Yep that is what I said. Go with that, it should help you pretend you won.

 

[Pogo]

I must have missed that right in civics class. Does it come before, or after, the right not to be offended?

I believe it's right here:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I kinda added emphasis so you might find it, but what follows also applies.

So, if Jeff Dahmer is getting ready to kill yet another victim I am supposed to not kill him to prevent that? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that the life of a criminal is worth more than the life of a child?

You're pretty stupid.

You're pretty dishonest. That dopey scenario has zero to do with the point made. Eat it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why they were there is "irrelevant"?

Do they know that? Must feel pretty silly...

Pretty silly as the lie this thread is.
the thread is based on the photo the photo was and is a lie.,
THE END.

You'd like that to be true. Wouldn't it be convenient if it was "just a photo".

Unfortunately we have a story, and a video, and the fact remains this nutgroup came out brandishing weapons in a show of intimidation -- but more than that, as they admitted themselves, their "props" were loaded... with children in tow.

Hard to get past that level of nutworthiness.

As somebody said way upthread, these yahoos created a powder keg waiting to blow. Luckily the escalation they invited didn't happen. And this pissant argument that they're there for some kind of Constitutional show of force is bullshit. You change the Constitution through legislation and debate and ratification votes, not by force and threat.

You don't have jack shit.
Except some whinny ass bitches scared of the big black guns .Hell I think they'er racist.

 

[Pogo]

What did they do that was not peaceful?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.

Yep, they had the right to be there, no laws were broken but they appeared to be there for the express purpose of countering the concerned mothers' meeting.
It's hard not to draw the conclusion that by turning up with exposed loaded weapons their intention was to intimidate.
Intimidation is not a peaceful act.

For the third time, you're asking me someone else's question.
Just stop.

 

[Pogo]

Oh look, another logical fallacy.

There is no arms race. Americans have always been armed...until recently. And gosh what a coincidence...when they are disarmed, crime starts to escalate, including violent GUN crime. Because when the people are unable to defend themselves, the criminals find out, and they capitalize on it.

And we have a nice huge criminal population, thanks to the progressive policies of the last 40 years...

Reading my posting requires a certain poetic flexibility, which might disqualify you.
By "personal arms race" I refer to the gun culture; the idea that everybody should be walking around packing.

No one has ever said that everybody should be walking around packing.

Actually I think that's exactly the message here.
Now if you want to retreat from that -- be my guest.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, have we figured-out yet, that those whiney-biotch mothers were on the receiving end of righteous payback for initiating animosity between the two groups some weeks earlier?

It's no fair, when you take a metaphorical swing at somebody, and they actually take a poke back at you, is it, ladies?

Accountability and Consequences - they CAN be a genuine, bona fide, Grade A, USDA prime-cut ***** Kitty, can't they?

No, we haven't, because that would be conflating political discussion with political intimidation. I'm pretty sure the Moms, whatever they did in San Antopio (or according to some links, didn't do in San Antonio) didn't threaten the nutgroup with the very dynamic their own group is founded to oppose. That's crazy talk.

By the way Kondor-- I want to introduce you to FreshPyle. A veteran of another board I was on where we've had many a worthy discussion; fair-minded, rational and intelligent. He's a lot like you. Except for that enlarged font you seem enamored of.

The picture is a lie if the bitches are scared I suggest they keep their asses at home.

 

[koshergrl]

I believe it's right here:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I kinda added emphasis so you might find it, but what follows also applies.

So, if Jeff Dahmer is getting ready to kill yet another victim I am supposed to not kill him to prevent that? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that the life of a criminal is worth more than the life of a child?

You're pretty stupid.

You're pretty dishonest. That dopey scenario has zero to do with the point made. Eat it.

It has everything to do with the point made.

You lose. Your posts are becoming even less coherent than before.

 

[Pogo]

What did they do that was not peaceful?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

If the premise of the thread is that the mothers were trying to force their viewpoint on everyone else, why do you keep arguing that the gun owners were wrong?

Neither the premise nor the question is valid. Has nothing to do with anything here.

Is it the voices again?

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.

Yep, they had the right to be there, no laws were broken but they appeared to be there for the express purpose of countering the concerned mothers' meeting.
It's hard not to draw the conclusion that by turning up with exposed loaded weapons their intention was to intimidate.
Intimidation is not a peaceful act.

For the third time, you're asking me someone else's question.
Just stop.

Why? Do you not want to answer the question?

 

[Pogo]

Back to the vehicle/gun false-equivalency!
How tired.

I have no problem with people openly carrying guns if it's legal...why do you think that I do?

Because you're in this thread, arguing...

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You don't have to. They make it up. I understand it's even free.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.

Bump

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

Yes, you disputed that they were peaceful. I just posted it and you ignored my question yet again.

How were they 'not peaceful?'

Please answer the question.

Please learn to read. It's not my point. It never was.

This is four times now...

 

[koshergrl]

And he's still ignoring it.

Put a fork in him, dodo's done.

 

[Pogo]

You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.

Ummm, answered, in your link to my post.
I'm really not sure that I can make it any plainer.

And I posted the definition of peaceful. You did NOT address that definition and explain how they were 'not peaceful.' You wrote your own definition. That is not an answer.

How were the gun people 'not peaceful?'

Here, let me help. Just get your definition going there:

peace·ful
adjective \ˈpēs-fəl\

: quiet and calm : without noise, excitement, etc.

: not fighting a war

: not involving violence or force

Peaceful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Were the gun people loud and aggressive, noisy, excited?

2. Were they fighting a war?

3. Did they use violence or force?

See?? Now you're back to the poster whose question it actually WAS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

If the premise of the thread is that the mothers were trying to force their viewpoint on everyone else, why do you keep arguing that the gun owners were wrong?

Neither the premise nor the question is valid. Has nothing to do with anything here.

Is it the voices again?

You are the one that claimed that was the premise of the thread, not me.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Fear" isn't the issue. I mean, personal safety sure, but fear per se isn't at the base of this.

Not to get overly supernatural but the base is spiritual. To be part of a world where it's commonplace for anyone to be walking around with the capability of blowing someone away at a distance ---- regardless of their motive -- simply goes against the essence of the Life force. It requires a callous disregard for Life. It's not a healthy thing for the soul.

So if you want a psychobasis -- there it is. So thanks but no thanks; I have no desire to be any part of that. Regardless what's happening around me.

So opt out.

But, regardless of your fine sensibilities, that is the world we live in, and I have the right to protect myself, and my children....and if my children are mandated to attend school, then the schools should be able to protect them from the people who target them BECAUSE they are vulnerable and unprotected.

So you opt out in any way you choose to. Take a pill, move away, hide in your hole, go the doctor assisted suicide route...but I have a right to carry a weapon. And if you don't like that, you can move.

I haven't said squat about your right to carry a weapon except to support it -- even if it does make me wonder about psychological standards in background checks.

There you go Ernie - speaking of putting words in another's mouth. Voilã ^^

I see no one putting words in your mouth, Possum.

 

[Pogo]

Because you're in this thread, arguing...

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You haven't put forth that guns be banned...you have, however, put forth that daring to assemble with loaded weapons is intimidation, rather than reasonable assemblage.

And that rather implies you find legally armed people threatening.

You also question the reason and motives of those who legally pack loaded weapons...which begs the question....if you don't want guns banned, then why on earth do you think that people who arm themselves should only use empty weapons?

In other words, I suspect a rat. You're dishonest. I think you are playing with words...that you will not admit to the desire to seeing guns *banned*...but you will submit that access to weapons should be carefully monitored and restricted by the state.

"Don't tell me what you think! I'll tell you what you think!"

I'm afraid this is typical of these dishonest hacks. I get it every day.

 

[Pogo]

Do you put your seat belt on before you dive with the intention of getting into an accident?
NO.
You put it on to prevent yourself from going through a windshield. And most go through out their whole life without getting into any accident at all, yet they wear that seatbelt just in case.
Same thing with loaded guns.

No, I put it on because I'll get a ticket if I don't.

Sometimes a seat belt is just a cigar.

Sounds like you don't like being forced to wear a seat belt.

You are correct, Peach.

 

[koshergrl]

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You haven't put forth that guns be banned...you have, however, put forth that daring to assemble with loaded weapons is intimidation, rather than reasonable assemblage.

And that rather implies you find legally armed people threatening.

You also question the reason and motives of those who legally pack loaded weapons...which begs the question....if you don't want guns banned, then why on earth do you think that people who arm themselves should only use empty weapons?

In other words, I suspect a rat. You're dishonest. I think you are playing with words...that you will not admit to the desire to seeing guns *banned*...but you will submit that access to weapons should be carefully monitored and restricted by the state.

"Don't tell me what you think! I'll tell you what you think!"

I'm afraid this is typical of these dishonest hacks. I get it every day.

You just recycle the same trite, tired comebacks over and over and over and over and over...don'tcha?

 

[idb]

Because you're in this thread, arguing...

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You haven't put forth that guns be banned...you have, however, put forth that daring to assemble with loaded weapons is intimidation, rather than reasonable assemblage.

And that rather implies you find legally armed people threatening.

You also question the reason and motives of those who legally pack loaded weapons...which begs the question....if you don't want guns banned, then why on earth do you think that people who arm themselves should only use empty weapons?

In other words, I suspect a rat. You're dishonest. I think you are playing with words...that you will not admit to the desire to seeing guns *banned*...but you will submit that access to weapons should be carefully monitored and restricted by the state.

I put forth that gathering and presenting weapons for the express purpose of intimidating a group of unarmed women that are arguing for sensible gun laws (to be fair, I have no idea what their policies are) is counter-productive to their own argument.

A protest is intended to be seen and present a visual argument.
Their visual argument (I would contend) is counter to the usual gun-advocates' case that guns are necessary for self-defence by law-abiding, responsible mums and dads.
I don't think that the use of your guns to intimidate an unarmed group of mothers that hold a different set of views to yourself falls within the gun-advocates' would fall within the usual gun-rights arguments.
Basically, it's a bad look.


As far as questioning reasons and motives...I'm not sure where I've done that.
If you're referring to my comments on this particular group outside the restaurant then yes, it appears that intimidation was their motive...even QW agrees.

As far as access to guns and their control by the state is concerned - there's no rat to be suspected.
I believe that an examination of gun laws would be sensible.
I've said it many times.
I've never advocated for a ban on guns - I own guns.
However I disagree with people that won't allow any discussion whatsoever on gun laws that relate back to a 250 year old document.
On the other hand, as I'm outside the borders of the US I will never say what you "should" do.

There, is that plain enough?
Do you think it's fair enough?

 

[Pogo]

No, you are just arguing that they are stupid for exercising it.

Be honest now, how often do you find yourself thinking people that stand up for their rights are stupid?

Ya mean like the right to live one's life without gun violence?

Strawman! There was no gun violence in this circumstance.

It's not a reference to this incident. It's a reference to the Mothers group and what they stand for, in answer to the "standing up for rights" bit above.