Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

Nobody said it was "ethical" or "unethical". Again you're inserting the argument you wish you had rather than what's on the page.

I said it was a discussion of ethics. That's not a value judgement.
You'll just have to accept that.

 

[koshergrl]

Isn't it?
Thread title: "Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot"

-- what's the verb?

The thread title was deliberately misleading.

What this thread is about is whether gun owners have the RIGHT to assemble in public. And THAT is not a 'psychological tactic' issue.

Just because the loon who started the thread used propaganda does not mean it's about propaganda.

If the thread title is misleading, then you post to make that point.
Just as the other view posts theirs to the contrary.

Works both ways, baby. That's what discussion of opinion IS.

The fact remains, the verb is "intimidate". Therein lieth the discussion: is it or isn't it.
That's all there is to it.

The first three sentences of this ^^ post are nonsensical. Try again.

The protesters never intimidated. The discussion isn't about "psychological tactics". Trust me, luddly is not intelligent enough to even conceive of such a subject.

The discussion is over whether or not gun owners are justified in protesting, armed, when other people are lobbying to remove their arms.

And the answer is yes, they are.

The sub discussion is...how dishonest IS the OP?

And the answer was...extremely. As are the loons who continue to try to make the discussion about how right and good it is to protest without arms...or better yet...not to protest at all.

 

[Pogo]

No, they claimed it was "unethical", since they KNOW that it's a right.

But the women who gathered to lobby for stricter gun control...THEY claim that people don't have the right to carry.

And where do they claim this?

You morons just maintain that since they're mothers who claim guns are *scary*, everybody should just abandon their right to carry...because to confront them while armed is *unethical*.

Stupid. And not true.

Not true indeed. Where did these mothers say "scary"? Where did anyone say "abandon your right to carry?"

And who said "unethical"?

Answer to all three: you did.

 

[idb]

I know what you said.

And you're wrong. You're spouting extremist propaganda..there is absolutely no evidence that the women were "intimidated" or that the armed protesters were in any way "intimidating".

They only turned up because those mothers were there.
They turned up in an openly armed group with their focus on those unarmed women.
That is intimidation.
Why didn't they just carry signs?

Because to just carry signs is to admit that they can't be trusted with guns, and is a concession to the anti-constitutional gun grabbing nuts, like you.

They could still carry guns, as is their right, but they were making them obvious in a display against the mothers.

But, I'm more interested in why do you think I'm a 'gun-grabber'?

 

[Pogo]

It won't happen until you've lost interest. Then he'll try to sneak in and post something irrelevant and untrue, and claim victory.

-- like you just did with "unethical"?

 

[Pogo]

I know what you said.

And you're wrong. You're spouting extremist propaganda..there is absolutely no evidence that the women were "intimidated" or that the armed protesters were in any way "intimidating".

The fact that you insist on repeating the Big Lie (see my logical fallacy posts) despite your repeated and indignant assertion that you have never said a word against the *right* of the armed protesters to bring their arms, tells us that you are indeed opposed to citizens exercising this particular right. Therefore, you share the belief of the anti-constitutionalists that citizens cannot be trusted with guns, and should not assert their right to bear arms. You confirm this with your loony yammering about the horror of arriving not only armed, but with LOADED weapons...obviously, a person who agrees that citizens have the right to bear arms would not be appalled when they actually do bear arms....or protest that to do so is unethical or dangerous.

Actually that's me that makes the point about them being loaded. Try to keep up.

Still didn't say "unethical" though...

 

[Sunshine]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

Nobody said it was "ethical" or "unethical". Again you're inserting the argument you wish you had rather than what's on the page.

I said it was a discussion of ethics. That's not a value judgement.
You'll just have to accept that.

Please cite the law that says gun owners cannot gather in the manner they did.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they claimed it was "unethical", since they KNOW that it's a right.

But the women who gathered to lobby for stricter gun control...THEY claim that people don't have the right to carry.

And where do they claim this?

You morons just maintain that since they're mothers who claim guns are *scary*, everybody should just abandon their right to carry...because to confront them while armed is *unethical*.

Stupid. And not true.

Not true indeed. Where did these mothers say "scary"? Where did anyone say "abandon your right to carry?"

And who said "unethical"?

Answer to all three: you did.

"Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent - Forbes

 

[Pogo]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

Nobody said it was "ethical" or "unethical". Again you're inserting the argument you wish you had rather than what's on the page.

I said it was a discussion of ethics. That's not a value judgement.
You'll just have to accept that.

Please cite the law that says gun owners cannot gather in the manner they did.

We just did this. Please see 955.

 

[Pogo]

No, they claimed it was "unethical", since they KNOW that it's a right.

But the women who gathered to lobby for stricter gun control...THEY claim that people don't have the right to carry.

And where do they claim this?

You morons just maintain that since they're mothers who claim guns are *scary*, everybody should just abandon their right to carry...because to confront them while armed is *unethical*.

Stupid. And not true.

Not true indeed. Where did these mothers say "scary"? Where did anyone say "abandon your right to carry?"

And who said "unethical"?

Answer to all three: you did.

"Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent - Forbes

?

When did Forbes Magazine start posting here?

Go do a search -- "unethical", "scary" and "abandon your right to carry" are your strawmen. Own them.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't think anybody suggested anything illegal.

There's more to rhetoric than the law yanno...

so what is really happening here is someone is taking issue with someone elses legal activity. that to me is even a bigger problem. because if it was an illegal activity, they should be arrested or penalized for it. but it wasn't. so this whiny ass anti gun group is now trying to impact someones legal activities. that is the issue. it's like me saying blacks in a large group scare me because they look frightening and intimidating. they shouldn't be allowed to congregate in groups. and we have to change the way they dress.

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

^^^^^ ethics of protest.

Note the author. Popo, who is now pretending I brought ethics into the discussion.

Once again exposed as a leftwing, extremist propaganda tool.

And a liar besides.

 

[koshergrl]

And where do they claim this?




Not true indeed. Where did these mothers say "scary"? Where did anyone say "abandon your right to carry?"

And who said "unethical"?

Answer to all three: you did.

"Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent - Forbes

?

When did Forbes Magazine start posting here?

Go do a search -- "unethical", "scary" and "abandon your right to carry" are your strawmen. Own them.

So we have established that, despite your lies, you actually brought the ethics of armed protest into the conversation, and we have further established the women who are lobbying to remove the rights of gun owners did in fact release a hysterical statement about how *terrified* they were.....which statement also contained their determination to continue to lobby that these rights be removed.

Do you have any other lies you want to tell? I do like straight up liars..they're so easy to nail.

 

[koshergrl]

Regarding the Forbes article, you moron, Forbes is not posting in this thread. That is what's known as "supporting evidence". You are pretending that the discussion is about something other than what it is actually about, and you are challenging the points made to the real issues...you are first introducing topics, then you're discarding them (when you are forced to) and then you are actually attributing those ridiculous topics to other posters (me) and pretending you didn't bring the topic (ethics) up in the first place.

Are you mentally ill?

 

[Pogo]

so what is really happening here is someone is taking issue with someone elses legal activity. that to me is even a bigger problem. because if it was an illegal activity, they should be arrested or penalized for it. but it wasn't. so this whiny ass anti gun group is now trying to impact someones legal activities. that is the issue. it's like me saying blacks in a large group scare me because they look frightening and intimidating. they shouldn't be allowed to congregate in groups. and we have to change the way they dress.

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

^^^^^ ethics of protest.

Note the author. Popo, who is now pretending I brought ethics into the discussion.

Once again exposed as a leftwing, extremist propaganda tool.

And a liar besides.

Ethics... Unethical ... know the difference.

eth·ics
ˈeTHiks/Submit
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience More
the moral correctness of specified conduct.
"the ethics of euthanasia"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

un·eth·i·cal
ˌənˈeTHikəl/Submit
adjective
1.
not morally correct.
"it is unethical to torment any creature for entertainment"
synonyms: immoral, amoral, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, wrong, deceitful, unconscionable, unfair, fraudulent, underhanded, wicked, evil, sneaky, corrupt


-- who's the liar now Butch?

 

[koshergrl]

You're a ******* idiot.

Again..are you mentally ill?

You can't have a discussion of ETHICS without alluding to the UNETHICAL, nitwit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't think anybody suggested anything illegal.

There's more to rhetoric than the law yanno...

so what is really happening here is someone is taking issue with someone elses legal activity. that to me is even a bigger problem. because if it was an illegal activity, they should be arrested or penalized for it. but it wasn't. so this whiny ass anti gun group is now trying to impact someones legal activities. that is the issue. it's like me saying blacks in a large group scare me because they look frightening and intimidating. they shouldn't be allowed to congregate in groups. and we have to change the way they dress.

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

If I were someone who called himself Captain Obvious I would point out that the mothers think the issue is the law. That would lead me to ask how you can simultaneously support the mothers and insist the law is not the issue.

Then again, you still think this isn't about a photograph.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so what is really happening here is someone is taking issue with someone elses legal activity. that to me is even a bigger problem. because if it was an illegal activity, they should be arrested or penalized for it. but it wasn't. so this whiny ass anti gun group is now trying to impact someones legal activities. that is the issue. it's like me saying blacks in a large group scare me because they look frightening and intimidating. they shouldn't be allowed to congregate in groups. and we have to change the way they dress.

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

YOU think it's about psychological tactics.

However, that's not what the thread about, and that's not what anyone else on this thread is discussing.

The neat thing is that, even though he insists this is about psychological tactics, he also insists it isn't about fear.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

YOU think it's about psychological tactics.

However, that's not what the thread about, and that's not what anyone else on this thread is discussing.

Isn't it?
Thread title: "Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot"

-- what's the verb?

The same guy that wrote that said there were 40 armed thugs doing the intimidating. Since that is a lie, I would assume everything else he wrote is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incidentally, they do have the right..and it is perfectly *ethical*. They were protesting a congregation of nutters who seek to remove their right to bear arms. And they were perfectly appropriate and ethical in their decision to stage an armed protest. Since they were protesting against those who maintain they don't have the right to be armed, then it is appropriate that they show arms and establish their right to have them.

"...the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.["

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still off on the wrong path koshergrl.
No-one has claimed that they didn't have the right to protest with their guns.

Want to bet?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

If you read back, you'll see that my assertion was that, although perfectly legal, turning up to protest a small group of unarmed mothers having a meeting while openly carrying weapons could be counterproductive to the arguments put forward by gun-proponents that firearms are owned by responsible family people.

Suit yourself though, if you think that using guns to intimidate a group of mums who are also exercising their Constitutional rights is the sort of look you are happy to represent your views then - fine.

If you read the thread you might notice you aren't the only person posting in it.