Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.

Another option, admit you were wrong.

Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.

That will make you stupid.

 

[Sunshine]

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

He is from the EU. Everyone is scary to him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.

Another option, admit you were wrong.

Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.

That will make you stupid.

I keep telling you, you aren't worth my time.

 

[Pogo]

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

He is from the EU. Everyone is scary to him.

This just in: New Zealand isn't part of the EU. Actually it could hardly be farther away.

The entire argument from that side seems to be a melange of deliberate obfuscation of what's been posted, ad hominem, intimidation and just plain making shit up.

I like the intimidation part best. The irony is delicious.

 

[Pogo]

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.

Another option, admit you were wrong.

Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.

That will make you stupid.

I keep telling you, you aren't worth my time.

Um... that sign isn't for you. Believe it or not, not everything is condemned to be a planet around your glowing solar rays.

 

[Sunshine]

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

He is from the EU. Everyone is scary to him.

This just in: New Zealand isn't part of the EU. Actually it could hardly be farther away.

The entire argument from that side seems to be a melange of deliberate obfuscation of what's been posted, ad hominem, intimidation and just plain making shit up.

I like the intimidation part best. The irony is delicious.

Oh, excuse me. I thought he posted somewhere he was from the EU. Well, he did post he lives under socialism. So the point remains. He is afraid of everyone.

 

[Pogo]

Ah, thank you. I forgot to add "poisoning the well".

 

[idb]

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

Here's what I said.

I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

 

[idb]

He is from the EU. Everyone is scary to him.

This just in: New Zealand isn't part of the EU. Actually it could hardly be farther away.

The entire argument from that side seems to be a melange of deliberate obfuscation of what's been posted, ad hominem, intimidation and just plain making shit up.

I like the intimidation part best. The irony is delicious.

Oh, excuse me. I thought he posted somewhere he was from the EU. Well, he did post he lives under socialism. So the point remains. He is afraid of everyone.

I can't remember posting either of those things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

Here's what I said.

I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

 

[Spoonman]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

 

[Pogo]

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

Here's what I said.

I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Ah-- no, actually they're not. Intimidate implies coercion. You can be threatened without coercion.

All this is irrelevant tangent. What you're doing is presenting a false equivalence, then getting all hung up on two synonyms to take the spotlight off that false equivalence. To wit, these two concepts:
"a group of people exercising their rights" and
"threatening someone elses '[sic] rights"

The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other.
See the Klan march photo posted about a million posts back.

As usual your point is built on a foundation of dishonesty.
Which of course makes your adversary "stupid".

Please.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what I said.
No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Ah-- no, actually they're not. Intimidate implies coercion. You can be threatened without coercion.

All this is irrelevant tangent. What you're doing is presenting a false equivalence, then getting all hung up on two synonyms to take the spotlight off that false equivalence. To wit, these two concepts:
"a group of people exercising their rights" and
"threatening someone elses '[sic] rights"

The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other.
See the Klan march photo posted about a million posts back.

As usual your point is built on a foundation of dishonesty.
Which of course makes your adversary "stupid".

Please.

Intimidate means threaten, how the **** are they not synonyms?

Wait, I forgot, I can't use a real dictionary, the only one that is real is the one you can't show anyone. Funny how the Catholic church used to say the same thing, which made it possible for them to say anything about the Bible, and never be wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's what I said.
No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Ah-- no, actually they're not. Intimidate implies coercion. You can be threatened without coercion.

All this is irrelevant tangent. What you're doing is presenting a false equivalence, then getting all hung up on two synonyms to take the spotlight off that false equivalence. To wit, these two concepts:
"a group of people exercising their rights" and
"threatening someone elses '[sic] rights"

The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other.
See the Klan march photo posted about a million posts back.

As usual your point is built on a foundation of dishonesty.
Which of course makes your adversary "stupid".

Please.

True.

At least he’s consistent at being dishonest.

Otherwise, with rights come responsibilities, as no right is absolute. That one has the right to do something also means he has the responsibility to know when he’s crossing the line. We also have a right to free speech, but one can also cross the line where speech can be intimidating and coercive.

Moreover, that private citizens are critical of how other private citizens exercise their civil liberties, where there is a consensus that a line has been crossed, in no way constitutes an ‘infringement’ upon those seeking to exercise a civil liberty, as the Bill of Rights pertain only to government. The Second Amendment is not a license for gun owners to engage in inappropriate public behavior, whether their actions are technically legal or not.

Last, members of the gun organization clearly exercised poor judgment, consequently posing a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

 

[Pogo]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

But again, why make the topic into something it isn't? Nobody has claimed to be intimidated by the right to own guns, or any other right. Those are concepts. Nobody was intimidated here by a concept... but by the real, tangible view of a group of gunslingers arming themselves in plain sight of a public place, in a country where gun rampages in public places have become sadly commonplace.

Upon seeing that, one of two scenaria can be expected: one, it's a group of gun enthusiasts making a point; or two, a mass conflagration is about to take place. Only one of those is an immediate threat. You don't need to protect yourself against a non-threat; you prepare for the one that is. It's not rocket surgery.



Seriously y'all, are we reopening this thing after all the points have been made? For what? Just to rehash them all over again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Ah-- no, actually they're not. Intimidate implies coercion. You can be threatened without coercion.

All this is irrelevant tangent. What you're doing is presenting a false equivalence, then getting all hung up on two synonyms to take the spotlight off that false equivalence. To wit, these two concepts:
"a group of people exercising their rights" and
"threatening someone elses '[sic] rights"

The two are not in any way mutually exclusive. One does not preclude the other.
See the Klan march photo posted about a million posts back.

As usual your point is built on a foundation of dishonesty.
Which of course makes your adversary "stupid".

Please.

True.

At least he’s consistent at being dishonest.

Otherwise, with rights come responsibilities, as no right is absolute. That one has the right to do something also means he has the responsibility to know when he’s crossing the line. We also have a right to free speech, but one can also cross the line where speech can be intimidating and coercive.

Moreover, that private citizens are critical of how other private citizens exercise their civil liberties, where there is a consensus that a line has been crossed, in no way constitutes an ‘infringement’ upon those seeking to exercise a civil liberty, as the Bill of Rights pertain only to government. The Second Amendment is not a license for gun owners to engage in inappropriate public behavior, whether their actions are technically legal or not.

Last, members of the gun organization clearly exercised poor judgment, consequently posing a greater threat to our rights enshrined in the Second Amendment than any ‘gun grabber.’

I think the only irresponsible people in this story were the ones that called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring, that diverted them from dealing with real problems.

Wait, you were trying to argue that it was irresponsible to exercise constitutional rights. I guess that means Rosa Parks was irresponsible.

I bet you thought you had a clever point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

But again, why make the topic into something it isn't? Nobody has claimed to be intimidated by the right to own guns, or any other right. Those are concepts. Nobody was intimidated here by a concept... but by the real, tangible view of a group of gunslingers arming themselves in plain sight of a public place, in a country where gun rampages in public places have become sadly commonplace.

Upon seeing that, one of two scenaria can be expected: one, it's a group of gun enthusiasts making a point; or two, a mass conflagration is about to take place. Only one of those is an immediate threat. You don't need to protect yourself against a non-threat; you prepare for the one that is. It's not rocket surgery.



Seriously y'all, are we reopening this thing after all the points have been made? For what? Just to rehash them all over again?

This is the guy that just accused me of being dishonest because I said intimidate means threaten.

 

[Zona]

These guys went there to intimidate women who were gathered to discuss responsible gun ownerships.

They are thugs.

 

[Kondor3]

Good grief... is this friggin' thread still on its feet?

 

[idb]

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.

Here's what I said.

I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

No mention of intimidation.
You even quoted me and pointed out my punctuation crime.

Is that a willful misrepresentation on your part?
I don't know...there could be another reason I suppose.

I know what you said, I quoted it multiple times to point it out to you. If someone who is exercising their constitutional rights is not threatening, they cannot be intimidating because the two words are ******* synonymous.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

I said threatening their 'rights', not threatening their person....that's what I would call 'intimidation'.
It's really not that hard.