Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

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.

Bullshit. Most prolific liar on the board, doing what you do best.

 

[koshergrl]

How's what working out for me?

I'm doing great in this thread, if that's what you're asking. And thanks for asking, btw! You're a sport!

Now I will sit back and watch you spiral into insensibility. I understand that it's a wee bit past happy hour, I see that the full force of your intellect has waxed, and now is waning...

 

[Ernie S.]

Dead horse? No law was broken. A few women were unjustifiably intimidated by men with scary black guns. The photo in the OP was designed to show a peaceful demonstration in a negative light.

There! Dead horse beaten, butchered and processed for dog food and fertilizer. Case closed.

 

[Pogo]

No, you're equipped to prevent lethal harm to you or to a other innocent bystander when an armed (or just plain big) bad guy wishes to do you or someone else harm. The vast majority of the time the weapon is presented and not fired to prevent a crime from occurring. Over 1.5 million times per year (in the US) in point of fact.

The fact remains, the power to kill somebody IS what enables you even in that noblest scenario. You have power over another's life, whether that's justified or not (and therefore "bad guys" has no place here). You're equipped to kill somebody, regardless how you sugar coat it. That's the whole reason for its existence.

Of course I'm equipped to kill someone when armed. Isn't that the point?
The difference is, 99% of the time, you will never know that I'm armed and 99.9% of the remainder of the time, I will not have to take a life.

YES. That is the point!

Thank you. Tell those yahoos backthread.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It's a strawman.

OK - how?

 

[Pogo]

Of course you don't. And that is why you cannot understand this issue.

I don't have the time to suss out his cute crypticism. I've got ten people piling on. You don't get more than a glance; if you can't make your point, I move on.

When will you make you point?

Probably a good five hundred posts ago. Not that it met a whole lot of receptivity.

 

[Pogo]

Better to stand by helplessly and watch her be raped, and perhaps killed.

Like a good progressive dope.

(more) Appeal to Emotion; ad hominem.

Next...

You REALLY don't understand logical fallacy, do you?

It's not ad hominem..you're the one who objects to protection of rape victims with force. I'm just responding to your (admitted) idiocy.

Which really gives you more credit than you deserve.

Great. Just as the answer to guns is .... MORE GUNS! .. the answer to ad hominem is.. MORE AD HOMINEM!

I bolded it for you. Duh.

 

[Pogo]

Dead horse? No law was broken. A few women were unjustifiably intimidated by men with scary black guns. The photo in the OP was designed to show a peaceful demonstration in a negative light.

There! Dead horse beaten, butchered and processed for dog food and fertilizer. Case closed.

The word "unjustifiably" is still breathing Ernie.

Actually its feeling much better.

I think it could pull through....

aaaand done! Caught up. Thanks all.

 

[Ernie S.]

Idiot. It's your post, not the OP.

Can't answer? Paint yourself into a corner again?

Do you need me to spell it out?

How is any intent to take away freedom not malicious?

How is four women sitting at a restaurant table in any way related to "taking away freedoms"?

Do you have any idea what the process for Constitutional amendment is? Hint: it does not involve four women sitting in a restaurant.

What they were doing -- discussing whatever-- could have been met with the same level of interaction, such as simply walking in to the restaurant and sitting down with the women and engaging in the discussion.

According to a link offered earlier, that is in fact what OCT is moving on to next. They should have done that from the beginnning. OCT figured it out; you and your ilk are still arguing over a dead horse.

The point is, not what they're capable of doing, but what they seek to do.
Their purpose was to figure out how to limit the rights of the citizens to enjoy their second amendment rights.
The purpose of the men outside was to show a unified front apposed to that agenda. No one outside advocated, supported or intended violence.
Their peaceful protest was photographed from an angle designed to make it look like an armed confrontation. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the anti gunners got exposed and it pisses you off. Sorry Pogo. You can't talk your way out of this one.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No it's the stainless or nickel plaited. Mine is the nickel with 6" barrel. It's a friggin cannon. I can't imagine firing a titanium framed .44. The kick must be incredible. Mine weighs 4 pounds loaded and since I had a plate and screws put in my right arm, I have to fire it with a weird grip that sends recoil to my left hand.

Other than the finish, yours sounds like mine: I also have a Model 29 with a 6" barrel, but in S&W's old (and now rather worn) milk-blue finish. Kick isn't too bad. IIRC, the titanium 29 weighs 18 ounces unloaded.

That must be quite a handful. A .44 needs some steel to help with the recoil
Mine is 38 oz empty, A bit more with the custom zebra wood grips I made for it. I had problems with it coming up and to the right on recoil. It made getting back on target a problem. I made the right side grip about 3/32 thicker that the left side, and it comes straight up.
6 rounds in a 6" circle in 4 seconds when I was shooting a lot.
Since I busted my right arm, it hurts too much to play with it.

Never fired one, though I doubt it's any worse than my uncle's Super Redhawk in .454 Casull or his .500 S&W.

 

[koshergrl]

(more) Appeal to Emotion; ad hominem.

Next...

You REALLY don't understand logical fallacy, do you?

It's not ad hominem..you're the one who objects to protection of rape victims with force. I'm just responding to your (admitted) idiocy.

Which really gives you more credit than you deserve.

Great. Just as the answer to guns is .... MORE GUNS! .. the answer to ad hominem is.. MORE AD HOMINEM!

I bolded it for you. Duh.

You and jake always steal my material. It's so irritating.

And yes, armed citizens are generally safe citizens. It's true. I'm not aware of any school shootings in the wild west...
when it was still *wild*, that is.

 

[Pogo]

Do you need me to spell it out?

How is any intent to take away freedom not malicious?

How is four women sitting at a restaurant table in any way related to "taking away freedoms"?

Do you have any idea what the process for Constitutional amendment is? Hint: it does not involve four women sitting in a restaurant.

What they were doing -- discussing whatever-- could have been met with the same level of interaction, such as simply walking in to the restaurant and sitting down with the women and engaging in the discussion.

According to a link offered earlier, that is in fact what OCT is moving on to next. They should have done that from the beginnning. OCT figured it out; you and your ilk are still arguing over a dead horse.

The point is, not what they're capable of doing, but what they seek to do.
Their purpose was to figure out how to limit the rights of the citizens to enjoy their second amendment rights.
The purpose of the men outside was to show a unified front apposed to that agenda. No one outside advocated, supported or intended violence.
Their peaceful protest was photographed from an angle designed to make it look like an armed confrontation. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the anti gunners got exposed and it pisses you off. Sorry Pogo. You can't talk your way out of this one.

Sorry Ernie, but "undeniably" got up from the operating table, walked out and went to the gym. In picture perfect health. Your post is carefully worded here but the fact remains, there's no reason to show up brandishing guns if your purpose is not to intimidate. That can't be refuted. You might say it's an inconvenient truth.

Ah, you might not...

I'm not really interested in the pictures (the video tells me a lot more) but since you bring it up, tell me this---
WHO took that picture from that angle?

 

[Ernie S.]

Other than the finish, yours sounds like mine: I also have a Model 29 with a 6" barrel, but in S&W's old (and now rather worn) milk-blue finish. Kick isn't too bad. IIRC, the titanium 29 weighs 18 ounces unloaded.

That must be quite a handful. A .44 needs some steel to help with the recoil
Mine is 38 oz empty, A bit more with the custom zebra wood grips I made for it. I had problems with it coming up and to the right on recoil. It made getting back on target a problem. I made the right side grip about 3/32 thicker that the left side, and it comes straight up.
6 rounds in a 6" circle in 4 seconds when I was shooting a lot.
Since I busted my right arm, it hurts too much to play with it.

Never fired one, though I doubt it's any worse than my uncle's Super Redhawk in .454 Casull or his .500 S&W.

I've fired the casull and the S&W. .50. The Casull is definitely a more powerful cartridge, but the gun is about 4 pounds plus so the recoil is similar, maybe a bit stronger. The .50 is maybe 2/3 the recoil of the .44 with its compensating vents and gas operated action.

 

[Ernie S.]

How is four women sitting at a restaurant table in any way related to "taking away freedoms"?

Do you have any idea what the process for Constitutional amendment is? Hint: it does not involve four women sitting in a restaurant.

What they were doing -- discussing whatever-- could have been met with the same level of interaction, such as simply walking in to the restaurant and sitting down with the women and engaging in the discussion.

According to a link offered earlier, that is in fact what OCT is moving on to next. They should have done that from the beginnning. OCT figured it out; you and your ilk are still arguing over a dead horse.

The point is, not what they're capable of doing, but what they seek to do.
Their purpose was to figure out how to limit the rights of the citizens to enjoy their second amendment rights.
The purpose of the men outside was to show a unified front apposed to that agenda. No one outside advocated, supported or intended violence.
Their peaceful protest was photographed from an angle designed to make it look like an armed confrontation. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the anti gunners got exposed and it pisses you off. Sorry Pogo. You can't talk your way out of this one.

Sorry Ernie, but "undeniably" got up from the operating table, walked out and went to the gym. In picture perfect health. Your post is carefully worded here but the fact remains, there's no reason to show up brandishing guns if your purpose is not to intimidate. That can't be refuted. You might say it's an inconvenient truth.

Ah, you might not...

I'm not really interested in the pictures (the video tells me a lot more) but since you bring it up, tell me this---
WHO took that picture from that angle?

What was the purpose of the women's meeting? It was to intimidate law abiding, freedom loving gun owners. Is not turn about fair play?

I suppose the men may have known that the women would feel intimidated. So what? Some people are intimidated by clowns. Is that the clowns' fault. Some are afraid of spiders. Is that a spider's purpose in life?
So, intimidation is in the eyes of the intimidated.
Feel free to come to my home armed. I will be 100% cool with that. Just don't ask me to come up on the roof with you. THAT intimidates the shit out of me.

 

[Spoonman]

if liberals are so against gun violence, why does liberal Hollywood glorify gun violence? Why does liberal Hollywood and the liberal music industry glorify the bad boy image and thug life? why do liberals vent all their anger at the NRA who promote gun safety and responsibility, yet they give the liberal industry that promotes it a free ride?

 

[koshergrl]

How is four women sitting at a restaurant table in any way related to "taking away freedoms"?

Do you have any idea what the process for Constitutional amendment is? Hint: it does not involve four women sitting in a restaurant.

What they were doing -- discussing whatever-- could have been met with the same level of interaction, such as simply walking in to the restaurant and sitting down with the women and engaging in the discussion.

According to a link offered earlier, that is in fact what OCT is moving on to next. They should have done that from the beginnning. OCT figured it out; you and your ilk are still arguing over a dead horse.

The point is, not what they're capable of doing, but what they seek to do.
Their purpose was to figure out how to limit the rights of the citizens to enjoy their second amendment rights.
The purpose of the men outside was to show a unified front apposed to that agenda. No one outside advocated, supported or intended violence.
Their peaceful protest was photographed from an angle designed to make it look like an armed confrontation. The dishonesty and hypocrisy of the anti gunners got exposed and it pisses you off. Sorry Pogo. You can't talk your way out of this one.

Sorry Ernie, but "undeniably" got up from the operating table, walked out and went to the gym. In picture perfect health. Your post is carefully worded here but the fact remains, there's no reason to show up brandishing guns if your purpose is not to intimidate. That can't be refuted. You might say it's an inconvenient truth.

Ah, you might not...

I'm not really interested in the pictures (the video tells me a lot more) but since you bring it up, tell me this---
WHO took that picture from that angle?

I don't find those people at all intimidating. Obviously, you've never had someone seriously try to intimidate you, or it would be apparent to you as well.

 

[westwall]

Personally, I carry my jumper cables to assist with a flat battery.

Personally, I carry a weapon because I have learned that it helps in extremely rare situations, just like jumper cables. Yet you insist it is about fear when I do it, but not when you carry the same weapon.

I only carry a gun when I'm hunting.
It's dismantled and locked away when I'm not.
I have no fear, concern or sense that I need a weapon of any sort for personal protection.

Of course not. You live in a country that is close to paradise. Where are you North Island? Auckland population 800,000 or there about. The rest of the island 500,000? Primarily Caucasian population with Maori and Polynesians tossed in. The San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles has the exact same population confined to an area the size of Auckland with the distance from city center to Papakura thrown in. Add to that the mélange of cultures and race and it is easy to see why Los Angeles is a fairly violent area. Too many rats in the cage.

You're trying to compare a mouse with an elephant. It don't compute dude.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Number one, I haven't been bringing up "fear". You did. See above.
Number two, you addressed this question to me individually and personally, so that's the way I answered.

Now you don't like the answer and want to redo the question... sigh...

I didn't ask a question, I mocked you.

By the way, if fear isn't the issue, and you don't keep bringing it up, why do you keep insisting the mothers were intimidated by the non fear inducing men with guns?

It would be an issue in that sense although it's not a word I've used (again = you did).
The point was, and has always been, intimidation as the OCT's objective. That's an active process. Fear is a reactive process. The thrust of what we have here is the action of the OCT -- not the reaction of their targets.

Nice try. That one actually needed more than ten seconds to answer.

You didn't use the word intimidation? Damn, that is sad. I bet I can find that word in a significant potion of your posts in this thread, want to see if I am right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact remains, the power to kill somebody IS what enables you even in that noblest scenario. You have power over another's life, whether that's justified or not (and therefore "bad guys" has no place here). You're equipped to kill somebody, regardless how you sugar coat it. That's the whole reason for its existence.

I could kill someone if I was stark naked. I guess that proves guns aren't the problem, nice to see you finally dropping the argument.

Thanks for that image but while you're dropping trou I haven't dropped squat.
And no, I guess that proves nothing and isn't related to any point I've made. We don't have a "naked culture".

Where's that list of fallacies, KG? Whizbag needs it.

We don't have a violent culture, or a gun culture, or any of the other kinds of cultures that scare the shit out of you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No-- that's the opposite of what you said above. "they (the mothers) deserve to be intimidated". They're on the receiving end, which is correct. Now we're all going to pretend your sentence sitting there means the opposite of what it means?

I said nothing about wrong or right to respond to intimidation by fighting back. Once again, putting words in my mouth.

They do deserve it, and I wish someone found a way to do it. The world would be better off if they stopped trying to take away other people's rights, even if the only reason they did it was out of fear. Unfortunately, no one scared them, even a little.

Trying to retreat from your one honest moment? Too late -- once it's quoted it's on the record. And it's quoted. Might as well own it.

Where did I retreat from the claim that they deserve to be intimidated?