# Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html



> I was terrified, said the woman who helped coordinate the meeting and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she said she feared for her safety. They didnt want to talk. They wanted to display force.
> 
> The armed group of men, women and children was made up of members of a gun rights organization called Open Carry Texas, and they stayed in the parking lot about 10 or 15 minutes to protest the Moms Demand Action meeting and then left.



40 Armed Gun Advocates Intimidate Mothers Against Gun Violence In A Restaurant Parking Lot | ThinkProgress



> According to a spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action (MDA), the moms were inside the Blue Mesa Grill when members of Open Carry Texas (OCT)  an open carry advocacy group  pull[ed] up in the parking lot and start[ed] getting guns out of their trunks. The group then waited in the parking lot for the four MDA members to come out. The spokeswoman said that the restaurant manager did not want to call 911, for fear of inciting a riot and waited for the gun advocates to leave. The group moved to a nearby Hooters after approximately two hours.
> 
> MDA later released a statement calling OCT gun bullies who disagree[d] with our goal of changing Americas gun laws and policies to protect our children and families. The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. A member of OCT responded by tweeting, I guess Im a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.



Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com







Armed protesters rattle Texas moms' gun-control meeting



> Police monitored the incident at the Blue Mesa Grill in Arlington, Texas, but took no action because it is legal to carry long guns openly in Texas.
> 
> "We are aware that a group did gather in a shopping area in Arlington Saturday," Tiara Ellis Richard of the Arlington Police office of communication said in an e-mail to USA TODAY. "Officers were notified and arrived at the location. There were no issues that we are aware of, and no arrests occurred."



A ticking time bomb.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

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



> According to the MDA statement&#8212;
> 
> &#8220;Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America gathered for a membership meeting today at Blue Mesa Grill restaurant. We were confronted soon after by gun advocates who disagree with our goal of changing America&#8217;s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families. 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.&#8221;


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 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.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Impressive you've managed to infuse your usual stupidity and faux outrage with strawman argument and even the race card.

You're still dumber than a bag of hammers.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2013)

I would petition that Duddley is actually dumber than a box of hammers, as opposed to a  bag.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The picture in question was taken from the side, to make it look like the gun owners were lying in wait.

Here is the real picture, which they were posing for. 

"Think" "Progress" on guns: Lying, lazy, or both? | The Daily Caller

and yet no one was shot, with 40 gun owners there. according to kellerman the 43 times number should have applied here....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can see why they were terrified, they are hysterical women who think guns are scary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Tell me something Luddly, why didn't you post this gun story? It has everything you hate, they took the law into their own hands, broke into a house they didn't own, and killed an innocent man who was simply teaching his ex proper manners.

It is even on PuffHo, so it will be really easy for you to find.



> On Friday, as police and family members alike searched near Thomas'  abandoned car, along with areas near his hometown, witnesses gave the  family members a tip about a vacant house in a nearby field where the  car was located.
> Daily Advertiser photographer Leslie Westbrook, who spent much of the  day with the family as they searched, was there to capture the intense  scenes that soon played out.
> A neighborhood resident and another man, along with almost half a  dozen members of Arceneaux's family, took off on four-wheelers toward  the house.
> As they got closer, family members said they heard the screams of their missing relative begging for help.
> ...


Bethany Arceneaux, Kidnapping Victim, Rescued By Family Members Who Killed Her Captor: Cops

Tell you what, every time you post a stupid story about how bad you think guns are, I will post this one. Which of us do you think will get more reps? I bet even the people that think guns should be regulated like my story more.


----------



## GHook93 (Nov 12, 2013)

The left is so dishonest!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

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.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




They are not a gang nor are they thugs.

These are gangs and thugs, not law abiding Citizens who are fed up with losing their 2nd amendment rights.

Gun-toting gang members jailed after being 'named and shamed' on Facebook | Mail Online

L.A Gang members
http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/robert-yager-cholo-la-gang-gun-12.png?w=700

http://theselvedgeyard.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/robert-yager-cholo-la-gang-tattoo.jpg?w=700

If you can't see the difference between the photo of the people in the parking lot and the photos of actual law breakers who are thugs and members of gangs, you are really brain washed.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2013)

You fail again, Duddley. As usual. You're a dishonest turd. That's all. But thanks for posting teh story so someone could show you what a good little propaganda repeater you are.

congrats.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tell me something Luddly, why didn't you post this gun story? It has everything you hate, they took the law into their own hands, broke into a house they didn't own, and killed an innocent man who was simply teaching his ex proper manners.
> 
> It is even on PuffHo, so it will be really easy for you to find.
> 
> ...



I hadn't' seen it. But, there are many gazillions of articles I don't post and even more that I don't see. Post it all you want. I always ignore trolls.


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> I have no problem with people spreading their message, I do have a problem with people trying to disrupt the beliefs of others while they are doing so.



I'm sure [MENTION=45779]lakeview[/MENTION] will be along eventually to condemn Open Carry Texas for disrupting MDA's attempt to spread their message.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



Looks like they came armed this time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?

The nutters will lie but most people would not want to park in that lot. 

No matter what your pov is, yours aren't the only rights in question.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



It isn't an armed gang you brain dead moron. It a group of citizens posing for a picture.

You got your stupid hat handed to you and you need to just admit it.

Dumbass.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Wait, one of the women looks a little swarthy... and those kids look mixed race to me!!

Uh oh! all us gun rights supporters will now immidately withdraw our support for this group!!!!

/sarcasm.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> 
> The nutters will lie but most people would not want to park in that lot.
> 
> No matter what your pov is, yours aren't the only rights in question.



because of course, a gang intent on committing crimes is going to pose for a group picture in the parking lot.

You fell for a photo trick, and you just can't admit it. Man up or shut up you pussy.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
I'd say that parking lot was about the safest place in the nation from armed gang attack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



The police were there, and were kind enough not to ticket the hysterical women for a false 911 call. What more do you want?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> 
> The nutters will lie but most people would not want to park in that lot.
> 
> No matter what your pov is, yours aren't the only rights in question.



I might pull in and shake their hands, and ask them if they were staying long enough so that I could eat lunch in the sure knowledge that no one would be shooting up that restaurant.

Any other questions?


----------



## hjmick (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Exactly how was their safety "compromised?" The police were monitering the situation, no one was threatened verbally or physically, everyone on both sides of the issue were exercising their rights under the law. 

Nothing in the picture, either this one chosen because it appears menacing or the other more benign photo, indicates these people are thugs, as you continuously refer to them...






Just because you don't like what they are doing doesn't make them "thugs."

As for your assertion that if they were Black...

I couldn't care less the color of their skin, just as long as they are legally able to own a firearm...


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

Most of the time, Luddleys idiotic rankings are swiftly exposed, none so quickly and thoroughly as this one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 12, 2013)

They are against Constitutional rights and should have expected to be confronted.   If they were protesting illegal immigration, there would be thousands of illegal aliens packing the place in opposition.  If the anti gun nuts didn't want to be confronted, they should not have been there.


----------



## KevinWestern (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seriously Luddy, are you on a paid anti-gun rights campaign? you must start about 6 threads a day on this topic!


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2013)

If it wasn't MEANT to intimidate this group of mothers as you all are saying, and just set up for a photo op. of gun toting owners, then why did this group of gun owners do it there in the restaurant parking lot, during the assembly of these mothers?

I have no problem with open carry, it's legal here in Maine and we have no real issues.

I do have a problem with this group of armed citizens trying to intimidate this group of women's meeting....I see this as trampling on their rights by this PLANNED LOADED GUN INTIMIDATION.....BY this open carry group....

May not be against the law, but armed intimidation NONE THE LESS....and that's just not right, in my book.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 12, 2013)

Just because you're scared of firearms doesn't mean someone was trying to intimidate you. But, throw in ANOTHER CAPS WORD to drive the point home.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

They weren't trying to intimidate them, any more than the *mothers* were attempting to intimidate anyone. They were gathering to show that there are a lot of respectable citizens who carry their weapons safely, and who will continue to carry their weapons safely, as is their right.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

I completely support the right of citizens to show their arms whenever they feel their constitutional rights are threatened.

That is, after all, why we have the right to bear arms.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> 
> The nutters will lie but most people would not want to park in that lot.
> 
> No matter what your pov is, yours aren't the only rights in question.



  In Texas?? ...I wouldnt think anything of it. 
Water doesnt run down my leg at the sight of a gun. Or anyone else's in Texas for that matter...unless they're yankee transplants.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> They weren't trying to intimidate them, any more than the *mothers* were attempting to intimidate anyone. They were gathering to show that there are a lot of respectable citizens who carry their weapons safely, and who will continue to carry their weapons safely, as is their right.


Then maybe the open carry group of supporters could have told these mothers exactly that, but they didn't, did they?  How hard would it have been to explain their 'benevolent' plans in a note to these women ....leaving it with the restaurant owner?

Your made up  ''story'' of what they were doing holds no water imo KG....


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Unless it's a thug in a bandana brandishing a weapon at the counter, I feel infinitely safer when I know there's someone legally packing in my vicinity.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They weren't trying to intimidate them, any more than the *mothers* were attempting to intimidate anyone. They were gathering to show that there are a lot of respectable citizens who carry their weapons safely, and who will continue to carry their weapons safely, as is their right.
> ...


 
Yeah, because protesters always send polite little notes to the people they're protesting against.

Lol. Grow up, loon.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They weren't trying to intimidate them, any more than the *mothers* were attempting to intimidate anyone. They were gathering to show that there are a lot of respectable citizens who carry their weapons safely, and who will continue to carry their weapons safely, as is their right.
> ...



Yes, because all groups that are there soley to intimidate people line up for a group photograph.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Marty, you're a smart guy....

What purpose did this armed group gathering there serve?  Are you seriously saying that they gathered in this specific parking lot for merely a photo op session?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> If it wasn't MEANT to intimidate this group of mothers as you all are saying, and just set up for a photo op. of gun toting owners, then why did this group of gun owners do it there in the restaurant parking lot, during the assembly of these mothers?
> 
> I have no problem with open carry, it's legal here in Maine and we have no real issues.
> 
> ...



They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.

They did not point said weapons in the direction of the meeting, they did not brandish the weapons in a threatening manner. They took a group photo and showed that people can be armed and the wild west will not break out. 

According to gun control activists, someone should have been shot, or some violence should have broken out, because, you know, guns are eeeeevuuulll.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

What purpose did the anti-self defense mothers serve?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



See my post below. If gun control people keep spouting off that guns are dangerous no matter what, why shouldnt people who support gun rights show them this is not the case?


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

Come on marty, they were being assholes, plain and simple.

Just because something is within one's rights doesn't make it right.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Why not?  Why not tell them that they are not there to intimidate the mothers, but to show the mothers that people like them, who are open carry advocates are just law abiding, benevolent citizens?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Because it's ridiculous. They weren't intimidating anybody, the mothers were taking pics of them.

There's nothing more nauseating than women who use their children to score political points, and who pretend to be frightened in order to get their way.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Even more laughable...most likely every one of these "mothers"...and Care as well..are staunch advocates for no-questions asked abortion/infanticide for all. Funny how the only children you are interested in "protecting" are the ones that are already being protected..an the way you want to *protect* them is to remove that protection from them.

Makes it easier to euthanise at will, I suppose.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> Come on marty, they were being assholes, plain and simple.
> 
> Just because something is within one's rights doesn't make it right.



So now exercising your right to prove a point in public is being an asshole?

and trying to remove my rights is not being an asshole?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



They did.
They were holding up U.S. Flags and they had their children there and the guns were pointed down.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Care wants all armed people put in jail.

That's the only way she'll feel safe.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 12, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Even more laughable...most likely every one of these "mothers"...and Care as well..are staunch advocates for no-questions asked abortion/infanticide for all. Funny how the only children you are interested in "protecting" are the ones that are already being protected..an the way you want to *protect* them is to remove that protection from them.
> 
> Makes it easier to euthanise at will, I suppose.


keep on subject girl!

You are a crazy loon!  Or have you been hitting the bottle already????


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> So now exercising your right to prove a point in public is being an asshole?



It depends. In this case yes.



martybegan said:


> and trying to remove my rights is not being an asshole?



I support 2nd amendment rights just as much as you do, but I'm also honest enough to call a spade a spade. This was a completely assholish stunt. Wipe the bias from your eyes and maybe you'll let a little truth shine through.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

KevinWestern said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



Ya know, lying doesn't really help your agenda.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So now exercising your right to prove a point in public is being an asshole?
> ...



The crux of the gun control debate for those hard core grabbers is that regular citizens cannot be trusted to posses firearms in public, or even in private. They keep claiming that there is a risk to non government agents being armed, and that things like this only result in gun fights and death and violence all over the place.

Doing this shows the hyperbole of the controller position. I wish more people would do this. There was not a single threatening move made by these people towards the group having the meeting, unless a person is so scared of guns that the mere presence of one puts them into fits, but in that case shoulnt the police also scare these people?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > So now exercising your right to prove a point in public is being an asshole?
> ...



As was pointed out in one of the links, they refused to meet and talk with the mothers. All they wanted was to scare people. And, in view of the daily gun death news articles, I'm sure they succeeded. 

There are better ways of getting your point across. Better than appearing in a peaceful place and hauling out rifles. 

BTW, this was in Texasss.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> You fail again, Duddley. As usual. You're a dishonest turd. That's all. But thanks for posting teh story so someone could show you what a good little propaganda repeater you are.
> 
> congrats.



He's just spewing ThinkProgress - which lies pretty much 100% of the time.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 12, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> They are against Constitutional rights and should have expected to be confronted.   If they were protesting illegal immigration, there would be thousands of illegal aliens packing the place in opposition.  If the anti gun nuts didn't want to be confronted, they should not have been there.



Here's that name you demanded and have since, very studiously, ignored. 

Muhammad Nabil Mustaqim Rodzake

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...uld-transgender-people-use-2.html#post8135496


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



yeah, where does it state that?

 From one of the articles, however, there is this:



> The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of gun sense (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.
> 
> We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesnt feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to cj@opencarrytexas.org. The ball is in your court, the group wrote



Just keep lying luddy.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> If it wasn't MEANT to intimidate this group of mothers as you all are saying, and just set up for a photo op. of gun toting owners, then why did this group of gun owners do it there in the restaurant parking lot, during the assembly of these mothers?
> 
> I have no problem with open carry, it's legal here in Maine and we have no real issues.
> 
> ...



How are you any different from Southern Women in the 30's who were intimidated by the mere presence of black men?

Your irrational fear does not equate to intimidation.


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I get it. You support their cause so you give their assholery a pass.

That doesn't make you special, it makes you like most people.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I completely support the right of citizens to show their arms whenever they feel their constitutional rights are threatened.
> 
> That is, after all, why we have the right to bear arms.



I support their right to show their bare legs too! Particularly if they are women with nice legs....


----------



## Spiderman (Nov 12, 2013)

Law abiding citizens peacefully exercising their rights are not "threatening".

Those that are "threatened" by law abiding people peacefully exercising their rights are the ones to be concerned about as they will want to take away your rights rather than allow you to exercise them.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



If they would have done anything even remotely intimidating, they would be assholes, but showing up with thier firearms legally and lawfully, not entering the business in question, and posing for a picture is not being assholes.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't MEANT to intimidate this group of mothers as you all are saying, and just set up for a photo op. of gun toting owners, then why did this group of gun owners do it there in the restaurant parking lot, during the assembly of these mothers?
> ...



Wow, thats a pretty good one actually.


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Agree to disagree. 

But I still support their right to be complete assholes, nevertheless.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Care wants all armed people put in jail.
> 
> That's the only way she'll feel safe.



And black men too - they are just so intimidating....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Agree to agree to disagree.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 
Naw, protest is the American way.

So is packing heat.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> I get it. You support their cause so you give their assholery a pass.
> 
> That doesn't make you special, it makes you like most people.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?



While acknowledging your expertise at being an asshole, no one accepts your definition of "assholery" here.


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > I get it. You support their cause so you give their assholery a pass.
> ...



While acknowledging your ability to speak ignorantly for yourself, I do not accept that you speak for anyone else.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Lefty logic;

THIS is "assholery"








But posting a fraudulent side angle is legitimate journalism....


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Oh Gawd........of course the most pronounced limpwrister on the whole board is going to post up this stupid thread.


s0n.....guns aren't going anywhere!!


God bless America!!!


----------



## manifold (Nov 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...







Talk about fraudulent misrepresentation.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)




----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Nov 12, 2013)

I want to make this crystal clear.  I am a gun owner.  I have always owned guns and I will ALWAYS own guns.  I also have a concealed carry license which, in the state of Oklahoma, allows me to open carry in public as well.  I ALWAYS carry a weapon in what ever vehicle I am driving and it is usually one of the several automatic handguns that I own.  Should you catch me in my truck, you will find a .308 Winchester with a bull-barrel and a 10X Leopold scope, a .223 M-4 with a 4X scope and tactical light, a 12-gauge Remington tactical with light and a 45 caliber Colt Double Eagle.  I should tell you that there is also several hundred rounds of ammunition and a knife with a 5 inch blade that was custom made for me by a man in Arkansas.

The last time I used one of those weapons, I had a calf that was being chased down by six dogs.  Those dogs were dropped off near my ranch by some body who didn't want them anymore.  They get into a pack and chase calves down to eat them.  That Winchester .308 makes short work of a stray German Shepherd or Labrador.  I used the M-4 several months ago when a car full of meth heads thought my driveway would be a good place to stop and smoke.  They were all nicely laid out on the ground when the sheriff got there 44 minutes AFTER I called them.

You can piss and moan all day long and scream to your messiah from Washington that these guns need to be outlawed.  But I have said it before and I will say it again, you aren't going to take squat away from me.  I don't care what happens in Washington, what laws you pass or how loud you screech and whine.  Some of us WILL NOT COMPLY.

Oh, by the way.  Wannemacher's gun show (the largest in the world) just occurred here in Tulsa last week end.  There were over 4,500 exhibitors from around the world.  The attendance was the most ever.  It was a great event and I went both days.  I went with two Federal Marshal's who come out to the ranch to hunt.  They traded some weapons there and bought some ammunition.

Get a freakin life.  Your thread premise was a complete and total lie and your arguements don't wash.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Nov 12, 2013)

TakeAStepBack said:


> I would petition that Duddley is actually dumber than a box of hammers, as opposed to a  bag.



Duddley is as useful as a 25 pound bag of smashed assholes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> If it wasn't MEANT to intimidate this group of mothers as you all are saying, and just set up for a photo op. of gun toting owners, then why did this group of gun owners do it there in the restaurant parking lot, during the assembly of these mothers?
> 
> I have no problem with open carry, it's legal here in Maine and we have no real issues.
> 
> ...



If the mothers weren't there to intimidate the gun owners, why did they hold their meeting in the same place that the gun owners gathered to get a group photograph?

It may not be illegal, but intimidation is intimidation, and it is just not right, in my book.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > They weren't trying to intimidate them, any more than the *mothers* were attempting to intimidate anyone. They were gathering to show that there are a lot of respectable citizens who carry their weapons safely, and who will continue to carry their weapons safely, as is their right.
> ...



They did explain it, after the mothers escalated the situation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> Come on marty, they were being assholes, plain and simple.
> 
> Just because something is within one's rights doesn't make it right.



It actually does.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I see I forgot how to count, again. Even if I count the kids I only get 20 people out there. Maybe I need new glasses.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 12, 2013)

manifold said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with people spreading their message, I do have a problem with people trying to disrupt the beliefs of others while they are doing so.
> ...



Thanks for the mention, I probably wouldn't have bothered to read this thread otherwise.




manifold said:


> Come on marty, they were being assholes, plain and simple.
> 
> Just because something is within one's rights doesn't make it right.



I agree with you 100%. The only reason the Open Carry folks showed up where they did when they did was to screw with another groups meeting.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

I maintain they were educating the nitwit mothers, that what they have heard from their commie hippie friends, regarding people who carry, is complete fabrication.

I'm not sure I used enough commas in that. I can go back and add more, if needed.


----------



## Vox (Nov 12, 2013)

And what is your problem?

It is legal to open carry long guns in Texas it is also legal to protest peacefully.

or it is only legal to protest for the leftard groups?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

They're supposed to send the moms advance warning of their presence, so the moms won't be alarmed by the sight of weapons.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

If the moms are that touchy, I wonder if maybe a ptsd group wouldn't be more fulfilling to them that a protest group.


----------



## Warrior102 (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So?


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You just can't admit that you have been shown to be an utter fool. You should quit digging a bigger hole for yourself idiot.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



The moron keeps getting owned but is too stupid to know it.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

The biggest assholes are the people who try to take away the rights of others. There are no bigger assholes than that. Period.


----------



## birddog (Nov 12, 2013)

Warrior102 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



The honey in your avatar would be far more dangerous for me!!


----------



## Vox (Nov 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> How are you any different from Southern Women in the 30's who were intimidated by the mere presence of black men?
> 
> Your irrational fear does not equate to intimidation.





perfect example


----------



## PredFan (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



That's typical closed minded liberal non-thinking. The reason they showed up was to counter what the MDA was doing. You are a liberal a d not too bright so let me help you. Counter protests are commonplace, commonplace and completely legal. You lefties do it all the time.

No charge for the education.


----------



## Vox (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Point taken but that does not change the fact that *people have the right to being safe f*rom armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.
> 
> I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.
> 
> ...



they were safe.

If they have irrational anxiety attacks maybe they should see a psychiatrist?


----------



## lakeview (Nov 12, 2013)

PredFan said:


> That's typical closed minded liberal non-thinking. The reason they showed up was to counter what the MDA was doing. You are a liberal a d not too bright so let me help you. Counter protests are commonplace, commonplace and completely legal. You lefties do it all the time.
> 
> No charge for the education.



If you, the Open Carry folks, or anyone else thinks that those mothers are a threat to firearms ownership or to carry of any kind in Texas then you are deluded. I know counter-protests are common but that doesn't make them good form and in this case I don't for a second believe that anyone was defending their right to carry because that right isn't in any danger.


----------



## Yurt (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



did they actually threaten anyone?  

good lord you are beyond stupid and dishonest.  i don't ever want to hear how you are not anti gun.


----------



## Vox (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> If you, the Open Carry folks, or anyone else thinks that those mothers are a threat to firearms ownership or to carry of any kind in Texas then you are deluded. I know counter-protests are common but that doesn't make them good form and in this case I don't for a second believe that anyone was defending their right to carry because that right isn't in any danger.



neither were the moms in any danger as well.

what's the problem?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > That's typical closed minded liberal non-thinking. The reason they showed up was to counter what the MDA was doing. You are a liberal a d not too bright so let me help you. Counter protests are commonplace, commonplace and completely legal. You lefties do it all the time.
> ...


 
Of course they're a threat. They lobby for restrictions on our constitutional right to bear arms. They are a direct threat to our right to do so. So of course it's reasonable to let them know that we don't agree with them, and to show solidarity..because trust me, they are busy misrepresenting the shit out of us, and using their particular status as "moms" and "moms of dead children" to do it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> If you, the Open Carry folks, or anyone else thinks that those mothers are a threat to firearms ownership or to carry of any kind in Texas then you are deluded. I know counter-protests are common but that doesn't make them good form and in this case I don't for a second believe that anyone was defending their right to carry because that right isn't in any danger.



Those women were there for the express purpose of stripping civil rights from others.

Whether they were likely to be successful at that very moment is irrelevant. The shameful democrats have launched a full scale war on civil rights, and must be confronted at every offense.

The American seeks to revoke the bill of rights - yes, that makes them bad people.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > That's typical closed minded liberal non-thinking. The reason they showed up was to counter what the MDA was doing. You are a liberal a d not too bright so let me help you. Counter protests are commonplace, commonplace and completely legal. You lefties do it all the time.
> ...



Yes they are.
Those Mom's want to Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
They want to forbid anyone who walks into stores or coffee shops from open carry.
They want to  ban online sales of guns and ammunition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 12, 2013)

lakeview said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > That's typical closed minded liberal non-thinking. The reason they showed up was to counter what the MDA was doing. You are a liberal a d not too bright so let me help you. Counter protests are commonplace, commonplace and completely legal. You lefties do it all the time.
> ...



Did they hurt your feewings?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 12, 2013)

You know, if you have a problem with someone else's Constitutional right to bear arms, that's just too bad.


----------



## WinterBorn (Nov 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Did they brandish they guns in a threatening manner or point them at anyone?

Or is the mere presence of firearms now considered threatening?  These citizens can lawfully own and carry firearms.  They were not there to rob or harm anyone.  The threat is in the minds of the fearful, and not the problem of those who are not afraid of  armed citizens.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Your terror of inanimate objects is between you and your shrink.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 13, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 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.



Piss off. They were scared. They have a right to protest, and you gun nutters shouldn't be intimidating them into staying quiet.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> 
> The nutters will lie but most people would not want to park in that lot.
> 
> No matter what your pov is, yours aren't the only rights in question.



I would probably wave as I went by.  Wouldn't park there, but only because I don't want to screw up the photographer's shot.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 13, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> ...



Hey, not ALL of us are terrified of guns!  Nobody bats an eye at a dude open carrying in New Hampshire, either.  (Well, in warm weather, anyway.)


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 13, 2013)

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



They aren't being quiet, and they aren't intimidated. Like most progressive nutbags, they're dishonest douches who use the deaths of their own children to try to bully the majority into surrendering their Constitutional rights.


----------



## KGB (Nov 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



This group wasn't an "armed gang", they were Texas residents & American citizens enjoying their Constitutional right to free assembly.  Plus, Texas has a long legal tradition of open carry.  Sorry if that offended your sensibilities.  

With that group there, that area was probably the safest place to be.  They didn't disrupt the Mothers Group.  They didn't point their weapons at them.  And the police were there monitoring the situation.  Personally, if I were a member of the group, I would have called the restaurant ahead of time & given them a heads up, but no laws were broken.


----------



## hjmick (Nov 13, 2013)

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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 don't you piss off little miss know-it-all?

The gun owners were exercising their rights as well. Nobody threatened anybody. If they were "scared" it was of their own doing, in their tiny little minds.

Tiny little mind... Something with which I am sure you are familiar...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 13, 2013)

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



They were not protesting, they were holding a meeting aimed at restricting the rights of individuals they disagree with. Frankly, if they were scared, something I doubt, they got what they deserve. People should be terrified whenever one group wants to take away the rights of anyone.


----------



## Vox (Nov 13, 2013)

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



if they are irrationally scared they should consult a psychiatrist and get the anti-anxiety medications


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

KGB said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



And that was obvious in the moment, since as we all know the bad guys always wear black hats so we know who's who.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

martybegan said:


> They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.



Actually they're undermining it but close enough.

Damn right though -- where's the "threat"?  Nobody's breaking the law.

Here's another group of law abiding citizens not breaking the law, engaged in the act of not-intimidation:








Armed guards not-intimidating potential trespassers:








A sign posted to not-intimidate potential burglars:




​

Basic psychology of not-intimidation.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 15, 2013)

hjmick said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yes, their 'right' to be intimidating freaks, like most gun nuts.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

martybegan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Come on marty, they were being assholes, plain and simple.
> ...



Exactly how does a group of mothers meeting in a restaurant impact the Constitution?




koshergrl said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > If you, the Open Carry folks, or anyone else thinks that those mothers are a threat to firearms ownership or to carry of any kind in Texas then you are deluded. I know counter-protests are common but that doesn't make them good form and in this case I don't for a second believe that anyone was defending their right to carry because that right isn't in any danger.
> ...



And any change to the Constitution is done through a process.  What the mothers were doing was talking.

So you're threatened by mothers *talking*.  In a restaurant.  That's your "threat".

Actually --- that figures.  The same is true on this board.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



They held a meeting in a public parking lot where they knew their opponents were. Why not a march in the street?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > And, if "you" were driving to that restaurant and saw that point of view from the street?
> ...


 
Umm... you're not exactly making the case you think you're making.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



A "false 911 call"?

What was "false" about it?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. Conflicting values. No one got shot. Police were monitoring, but made no arrests. Non issue. Dismissed!


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Noomi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Don't the gun owners enjoy the same right to protest? Or do you only assign rights to those you agree with?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Do cops with guns scare you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.
> ...



Those are not armed guards, but thanks for proving you are stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Because the "Brave mothers" are just as scared of cars as they are guns?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



What was legitimate about it?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.
> ...



Really a Klan photo from 1928? Yeah that shit goes on all the time here in the South, NOT!
But the Klan still has the right to march. Those women have the right to meet in a restaurant and the group of gun owners has a right to assemble outside. Tough shit!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



Yes.  With good reason.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Noomi said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Does Australia have anything similar to a Bill of Rights? Perhaps your time would be better spent protecting your own rights than advocating restricting the rights of people 8,000 miles away.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh no you don't.  _*You*_ claimed a "false 911 call".  YOU substantiate it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



When the picture's taken or how often it happens, these are both irrelevant.
For that matter the right to march is irrelevant for this point.  The point is intimidation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Was there a crime in progress?

Was there a fire?

Was someone injured and in need of medical care?

What was legitimate about it, asshole?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I guess that makes the fact that Democrats like to pretend that they didn't start the KKK is irrelevant?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's your point, *asshole*, not mine.  Wassamatta?  Can't back it up as usual?

You pathetic sack of shit.  Put your foot in your mouth and it becomes *my* fault.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



You are truly a Quantum Ignoramusbag.  The KKK was founded by a small band of ex-rebel soldiers around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865.  

And like the date of the photo, the point has nothing to do with political parties anyway.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.

Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.

Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 15, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Yeah I'll accept that.  Well, except for the degree, which is in no way comparable.  But I'll accept that the argument itself is equally logical.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 15, 2013)

The point which those armed citizens clearly made is their appearance should not in itself be intimidating.  Guns, by virtue of the U.S. Constitution, are an indelible component of American culture.  

I don't know what these anti-gun groups hope to achieve but they should understand that restrictive gun laws affect only the law-abiding.  The only way to eliminate occasional outbursts of gun violence by the imposition of restrictive laws would be to declare martial law and conduct house-by-house searches in addition to randomly searching citizens on the streets and in their cars.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 15, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Ya see, you are arguing based on your perspective, as am I. I see any group that meets in order to limit my Constitutional rights as a threat. If I am threatened, I respond.
Your perspective is, of course, "These men came with guns."
Mine is "These women came to  infringe my 2nd Amendment right."

So it boils down to intent. The women's intent was to cause real damage. The men's intent was to protest that. You would have an argument if their intent was to harm the women. It wasn't, so you HAVE no argument.


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



and as we have seen, most criminals don't brandish their weapons out in the open either.  They are cowards by nature & sneak up on unsuspecting people.  This group of law abiding citizens followed the open carry law & exercised their freedom of assembly.  They wanted to be seen, they didn't hide their identity.  I swear you gun grabbers have no common sense what so ever....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



My point was that the police didn't give them a ticket. 

Your point, on the other hand, seems to be that you are a whiny bitch.


----------



## westwall (Nov 16, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me something Luddly, why didn't you post this gun story? It has everything you hate, they took the law into their own hands, broke into a house they didn't own, and killed an innocent man who was simply teaching his ex proper manners.
> ...








How do you ignore yourself?  That sounds interesting, unlike the tripe you usually post...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Aww, did I hurt your feelings?

Grow up.

I would like you to explain how an organization that served as the opposition to the radical elements of the Republican Party had nothing to with politics, but I doubt you would be able to explain your position in a way that makes sense to anyone outside your head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




You are 100% right, those men would need to show up with the combined power of the governments of Russia and China in order to be on an equal footing with those mothers.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Sure I do.  Here it is: I'm not looking from _my_ perspective but from theirs (the mothers).  They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns.  They don't know who the fuck they are.  That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers *is* cause for alarm.  Which was, let's be honest here, the intention.  Otherwise what would be the point?

And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns.  The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately.   That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.

Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by _at least_ two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant.  Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.

I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument.  I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



"You gun grabbers"?  Who the fuck is "you gun grabbers"?


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And once again, most criminals don't load up in a car & carry their weapons out in the open.  And once again, Texas has an open carry law & we as Americans have freedom of assembly.  As soon as you can point out where a law was broken, then there is nothing really to discuss here....


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It's pretty clear what side you fall on in this debate....


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



So you're gonna live on ass-umptions then.  Both this post and the last one.  What a sad fate to box oneself into a world of black and white.

Thanks for playin'.  We have your number, we'll call you when we need you. 
While you're waiting feel free to collect my posts calling for "gun grabbing".


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



As long as you can point out where anyone claimed a law was broken, we'll go ahead and do that.  But what you're doing here is trying to deflect from the actual point, which is, for you slow readers, i n t i m i d a t i o n.

If this is your A game, you're just not ready.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 16, 2013)

gun grabbing is gay


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...





Gun grabbers spend each day of their life waiting for a house to fall out of the sky onto their head. These people cant get past it......they live in their horrible and hideously scary world and cant rest until every single solitary "threat" is removed.


This vid is instructive.......if you want to get an idea of what level of k00k we are dealing with in the gun grabber community, take 5 minutes and check out this vid.......these people are highly fucked.......

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257]Debating A Gun Control Fanatic - YouTube[/ame]





That old, "Who would you like to have in a foxhole with you?" question gets pretty fucked up if there are gun grabbing assholes around for the discussion.......but for me, pretty damn hysterical.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

What were the gun nuts afraid of!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 16, 2013)

LOL.....how hysterical is this?




Americans 34 Times More Interested In Buying Guns Than Obamacare | Zero Hedge


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 16, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> lol.....how hysterical is this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



--lol


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You are the one implying that a law was broken because someone felt scared of another group that assembled peacefully & exercised a right.  Contrary to your belief, but people have a right to oppose a view point even if it "scares" other people.  Hell, I have no problem if these mothers want to meet & talk about what they want.  They are free to do so under the freedoms of this country.  But to turn around & be critical of another group who disagrees with them & yell intimidation when that group is also exercising its freedom demonstrates clearly the hypocrisy of the Left.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> What were the gun nuts afraid of!



First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > What were the gun nuts afraid of!
> ...



If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



So we're backing away from "gun grabbers" and hoping no one notices.  Check.

_There is no law in question here_.  The question was intimidation, which is an emotional dynamic.  And that's what I posted on.

It's pointless to argue that the gun nuts were NOT there to intimidate, because if that's not their point, there's no point in them showing up with guns.  They could have shown up with signs, but they chose a show of force.   A sign says "here's my position".  A gun says "I can blow your head off right now".  Just a tiny shade of difference there.   They also could have walked into the restaurant like normal people and invited themselves to join in the discussion.  But they clearly weren't interested in dialogue; they wanted confrontation.  Their point was to polarize.  You could say it goes with the whole wild west mentality: don't like something, just blow it away.

As for your pretend-hypocrisy, this just in: you can intimidate people while staying within the law.  ALL of those photos I posted were doing just that.  Duh.

Now if you want to discuss what Texas law is, that's another thread.  I don't live in Texas anyway, so you're on your own there.  What I'm looking at is rhetorical/emotional dynamics.  And that means _how_ this group is making their point -- not how "legal" it is.  I'm not interested in the legal process.  I'm interested in the intellectual process.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 16, 2013)

How do all the limpwristers find their way into this site??


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Within the present state of social conditioning, which includes an increasing fear of guns, the group of women seated in a restaurant would have cause to be alarmed at the arrival in their presence of twenty armed individuals.  But if nothing at all unusual transpired, that is the twenty armed individuals calmly sat down, placed their orders, carried on as per usual, then left just as quietly, the next time the same thing happened the same twenty women would not have cause to be apprehensive.  

So we aren't talking about armed citizens, per se, but rather ignorance of, and inculcated fear of, guns.  And we can attribute this fear to a persistent progression of opportunistic political demagogues passing law upon law and attempting to the best of their ability to restrict firearms and undermine the intent of the Second Amendment.  Thus the women in your hypothesis are reacting to an indoctrinated state of mind.  

Please consider the possibility of a group of women seated in a restaurant when a group of twenty apparently ordinary individuals enters, is calmly seated, then rise, draw concealed automatic pistols from under their clothing, and begin shooting.  

The frightened women in your hypothesis have no established cause to be afraid.  Their fear is the consequence of indoctrination.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.


----------



## novasteve (Nov 16, 2013)

Who kills more people? These gun nuts or women who use abortion as a form of birth control?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




Agreed.  And that's ultimately what happened --- this time.  But with the James Holmses and Adam Lanzas and Jared Loughners and their ilk ad infinitum walking around, that alarm is _always _justified.  To *not* be alarmed at that would be insane.



MikeK said:


> So we aren't talking about armed citizens, per se, but rather ignorance of, and inculcated fear of, guns.  And we can attribute this fear to a persistent progression of opportunistic political demagogues passing law upon law and attempting to the best of their ability to restrict firearms and undermine the intent of the Second Amendment.  Thus the women in your hypothesis are reacting to an indoctrinated state of mind.



We _*are *_talking about a contemporary state of mind, yes.  But to suggest this state of mind comes from political rhetoric is absurd.  It comes from twenty schoolchildren and teachers lying dead in Connecticut, from a theater full of moviegoers being strafed in Colorado, from high school after high school terrorized by an endless stream of Harrises and Klebolds.  Laws, whether proposed or actual, don't mow people down.

Addressing the situation through law is doomed to failure, but that's not at all what scares people.  It's a wrongheaded knee-jerk approach to a problem that is much bigger than law can handle.  Because what we have is not a law problem; it's a *culture *problem.




MikeK said:


> Please consider the possibility of a group of women seated in a restaurant when a group of twenty apparently ordinary individuals enters, is calmly seated, then rise, draw concealed automatic pistols from under their clothing, and begin shooting.



That's exactly what we just described and was obviously the source of their trepidation.  It's all very easy to say after the fact that "well, nothing happened, nobody got shot".  That doesn't address what's sitting in front of one's eyes at the moment.  It's Monday morning quarterbacking.



MikeK said:


> The frightened women in your hypothesis have no established cause to be afraid.  Their fear is the consequence of indoctrination.



As indoctrinated by
Tucson...
Aurora...
Sandy Hook...
DC...
Powell...
Oak Creek...
Webster... 
Lancaster...
Kileen...
Binghamton...
San Diego...
Jacksonville...
Pittsburgh... 
San Ysidro... 
Edmond... 
Stockton... 
Virginia Tech... 
Iowa City... 
Olivehurst... 
San Francisco... 
Garden City... 
Jonesboro... 
Atlanta... 
Fort Worth... 
Honolulu... 
Wakefield... 
Santee... 
Meridian...  
Red Lake... 
Salt Lake... 
Omaha... 
DeKalb... 
Fort Hood... 
Manchester... 
Austin... 
Seal Beach... 
Oakland... 
Minneapolis... 
Brookfield... 
Santa Monica... 
DC (again)... 
Columbine... 

-- still want to pretend it's law that does the indoctrination then?

-- still want to pretend we don't have a culture problem?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Bull. Shit.  Of course it is.  That was the whole *point*.  Without that there's no reason to show up.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I bring a gun lots of places. Rarely is anyone intimidated by it. From time to time, someone is protected by it.

Really! A dozen men with guns in a parking lot.... thousands of people camping in a park near NYC City Hall, doing drugs, raping, pissing on police cars? Which intimidates you more?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




The point was to protest the Women's stand on banning the sale of guns an ammunition and open carry laws.

How can it be intimidation, when you are holding up USA Flags and you have your wives and children with you and the law of open carry says you can do that with your guns?
There was no intimidation.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish  (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es 
1.  To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Why carry a weapon?

We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



NO ON WAS AFRAID but the Women, who are afraid of all guns.
It's about Americans 2nd Amendment rights. That means guns.
It would be senseless to not bring guns, when the whole protest is about guns.
They were showing the Women, that not everyone who Carry's guns are bad people.
They are sick and tired of people who think that it is right to ban the sales of guns and ammo to law abiding Citizens.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Bull. Shit.  Of course it is.  That was the whole *point*.  Without that there's no reason to show up.


That is your perception.  The reason for that demonstration of publicly armed citizens was to show that the mere sight of a gun, or guns, need not be menacing.  

I can recall a time in America when guns were commonly seen in public (1950s).  Back then more people owned guns, more people were armed in public, and the public was not afraid of that.  

Today the sight of a gun has become an obscenity in the indoctrinated public mind.  The number of citizens armed in public has vastly diminished -- which is why these screwball shooters can confidently go about their deadly business without interruption by other armed citizens.  

The simple fact is the Second Amendment is alive and well.  There are between 200 million and 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens.  No one know for sure how many.  So it's absurd to think it's possible to reduce the number of crazy shootings by passing restrictive gun laws, which are about as effective as drug laws.  These laws do nothing but disarm the law-abiding citizen -- who happens to be the best possible defense against the occasional screwball shooter.

Guns are an imbedded component of the American culture.  Where guns, and the occasional screwball shooting, along with the occasional accidental shooting, are concerned, the toothpaste is out of the tube -- as it is with the occasional massive highway pile-up and the average automobile accident.  Americans have big, powerful cars, and they have guns.  And the idea that anything can be done to eliminate the occasional problems which arise from those two realities without imposing Orwellian constraints is absurd.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Interesting that you cut off definition #2:
*2. To display ostentatiously.*

Deny what's in front of us all you like but the fact remains, bringing guns and making them visible *was the whole point*.  Otherwise they're just twenty more people at the restaurant.  Again they could have made their point in non-threatening ways, e.g. carrying signs.  And that would have made the point far more clearly, because you can read a sign and know excactly what the point is.

But that's not what they were after, now was it?


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Afraid of guns?

Who would be afraid of guns?  especially when they fill a parking lot to intimidate you


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Bull. Shit.  Of course it is.  That was the whole *point*.  Without that there's no reason to show up.
> ...



Uh--- that's _everybody's_ perception.  Without that perception, neither this thread nor the story in the OP even *exists*, because it means no more than another leaf falling off the oak tree.

Regardless of our foggy memories of the '50s, we don't live in them; we're in 2013.  Therefore we all behave in ways that address the sensibilities of 2013.  If the purpose had been so innocuous, then the women, the restaurant manager, the passersby, all would have shrugged it off and ordered their dessert.  _And that would have made the venture of these twenty people pointless_ and therefore they wouldn't have bothered.

Sorry but the fact that they showed up brandishing weapons doesn't allow this kind of wiggle room.  They had an emotional purpose, and they achieved it.  And they achieved the backlash that came with it.  Which, again, they knew would be coming.  IOW they got exactly what they came for.  To suggest "there was no intimidation"  is not just blatant denialism, it suggests that the group failed at their objective.  I don't think they failed at all.  If they did nobody would be talking about it.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> [
> Why carry a weapon?
> 
> We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?


No.  They were simple demonstrating the fact that publicly armed citizens are not necessarily a threat.  They came quietly and they left quietly.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 16, 2013)

This thread is a total fail, why is it still going?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

The Mothers Demanding Action group 'crashed' a gun-owner rally at the Alamo...

So the gun-owners club decided to return the favor and 'crashed' the Mom's meeting...

Goose... meet gander...

No big deal...

The police were not concerned, either...

A hollow inflatable dog, suffering from over-inflation by Liberal -leaning and Gun-Grabber elements in the Lamestream Media...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

(part 2)


MikeK said:


> The simple fact is the Second Amendment is alive and well.  There are between 200 million and 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens.  No one know for sure how many.  So it's absurd to think it's possible to reduce the number of crazy shootings by passing restrictive gun laws, which are about as effective as drug laws.



Absolutely, agreed.  If God Herself came down and said, "that's it, no more guns will be made, ever", we'd have more than enough to stock up everybody who wanted one.  Or several.  



MikeK said:


> These laws do nothing but disarm the law-abiding citizen -- who happens to be the best possible defense against the occasional screwball shooter.



That conclusion is highly specious.  It depends on the maxim that the answer to guns is... more guns.  Which is absurd; it's like trying to douse a fire with gasoline.






MikeK said:


> Guns are an imbedded component of the American culture.  Where guns, and the occasional screwball shooting, along with the occasional accidental shooting, are concerned, the toothpaste is out of the tube -- as it is with the occasional massive highway pile-up and the average automobile accident.  Americans have big, powerful cars, and they have guns.  And the idea that anything can be done to eliminate the occasional problems which arise from those two realities without imposing Orwellian constraints is absurd.



Fatalistic.  You're saying,  "oh well, what can we do, let's just throw up our hands and give up".


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> The Mothers Demanding Action group 'crashed' a gun-owner rally at the Alamo..
> 
> So the gun-owners club decided to return the favor and 'crashed' the Mom's meeting...
> 
> ...




Were the moms packin'?  




Kondor3 said:


> The police were not concerned, either...



Oh yes they were Big Bird.  From the beginning of the thread, USA Today link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9biLK5Evg]Run in with Kennedale police. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


"Brandishing?"

bran·dish
 transitive verb \&#712;bran-dish\

: to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner


Again, there is a problem with your perception.  None of those armed demonstrators _brandished_ their weapons.  

And my recollection of the fifties is not at all "foggy."  It's quite clear.  What has happened since then has been an endless and aggressive progression of ignorantly conceived, consistently ineffective attempts to disarm the American public.  

What have all these many hundreds of dumb gun laws achieved?  The answer lies in your long list of screwball shootings -- which we didn't have before the laws started coming.  So unless you are willing to accept a situation in which the police are able to stop your car and to knock on your door and demand entry to search for guns, please give some thought to the idea that maybe the armed citizen is the solution to a problem which the existing level of law-enforcement cannot solve.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

PredFan said:


> This thread is a total fail, why is it still going?



Does it not occur to you that if the first half of your post were true, the second half wouldn't be?

Guess not.


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



if you act within the confines of the law & properly brandish your weapon, you are a citizen exercising your 2nd Amendment rights....


----------



## peach174 (Nov 16, 2013)

People who live in open carry States do not have a problem with law abiding Citizens who carry their guns in public.
We who are exposed to it and see them around all the time, feel safer with them around.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

Well, in looking at the picture, it looks to me like a normal day in New Orleans. I used to live in Arlington,Texas and it wasn't really a terrible place to live, but if they want to make it look and feel more like New Orleans, I guess I don't care, since I no longer live in either place.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Uh-- we just did this ten posts ago.  She left out the inconvenient second definition in the same entry:

*2. To display ostentatiously.*

So yes, they did.  That was their whole point. 



MikeK said:


> What have all these many hundreds of dumb gun laws achieved?  The answer lies in your long list of screwball shootings -- which we didn't have before the laws started coming.  So unless you are willing to accept a situation in which the police are able to stop your car and to knock on your door and demand entry to search for guns, please give some thought to the idea that maybe the armed citizen is the solution to a problem which the existing level of law-enforcement cannot solve.



No shit.  That's what I've been saying.

The law isn't the only instrument of change.  Think outside the box.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Fatalistic.  You're saying,  "oh well, what can we do, let's just throw up our hands and give up".


No.  What I'm saying is what we've been doing, which is passing a lot of clearly ineffective laws which attempt to attack the problem from every possible angle, isn't working.  So it's obvious we need to try something else.

What do you suggest?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

peach174 said:


> People who live in open carry States do not have a problem with law abiding Citizens who carry their guns in public.
> We who are exposed to it and see them around all the time, feel safer with them around.



The trouble with that is -- the observer doesn't know which is which --- between the law abider and the thug, between the stable citizen and the nut job.  The only thing the observer can be certain of is "I see a gun and I know what it's capable of".  You'd have to be either insane or in complete denial to not know that by now.  And with an open carry law, the thug/nutjob has no incentive to hide his piece because he becomes part of the background.

That probably is more of a point on the wisdom of open carry laws though.


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Oh, so now we are required to be sensitive to other people's feelings before we can properly exercise our God-given rights.  This also is a typical gun-grabber trait or at the very least, a liberal trait.  Play on the emotion of fear of an inanimate object.  I don't know if you are against the 2nd Amendment or for it, but nothing these law abiding citizens did was against the law.  They are within their rights to display their weapons openly in the state of Texas.  And that my friend is what is relative here.  You can be involved in the rhetorical/emotional aspect all you want, the point is, everyone acted accordingly & were all within their rights.  Any attempt to spin it differently (like the NY Times did) is shameful....


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > People who live in open carry States do not have a problem with law abiding Citizens who carry their guns in public.
> ...



and now you are finally getting it.  The observer shouldn't know the difference.  More to the point, neither should the criminal which is at the heart of open carry.  If a thug sees someone with a weapon, they know two things:

1) This isn't a soft target to exploit.

2) This isn't worth it.

See, a crime does not happen.  That's the whole point.  People who take the 2nd Amendment to heart understand the world is full of evil.  A gun by itself doesn't drive away that evil completely, but it levels of the playing field.


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> No shit.  That's what I've been saying.
> 
> The law isn't the only instrument of change.  Think outside the box.


Then please enlighten us.  Help me to think outside the box.  What do you recommend?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

I live in a open carry state (Arizona). I find it ironic that virtually every place of business in California has a "No smoking" sign out front, while virtually every place of business in AZ has a "No firearms allowed" sign out front...   I'm watching macho guys everywhere taking their guns off and putting them in their glove boxes before they go into stores. It's kind of amusing watching them put them back on after they return to their car, just in case they get ambused on the way from the 7/11 store to where they pick up junior from school.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Fatalistic.  You're saying,  "oh well, what can we do, let's just throw up our hands and give up".
> ...



I agree about the laws.  We should have remembered this from Prohibition.

As you noted already we have a deeply embedded gun culture; I would extend that to say a culture of violence generally.  Without getting too deeply tangential, we take the attitude that the way to address any obstacle is to blow it up, shoot it, eliminate it.  I call it the Lobotomy Mentality.

What we see in the endless torrent of gun violence is the fruition of that underlying drive, and the firearm is the instrument that makes it easy for Everyman to be the next Loughner, just as the automobile made it easy for Everyman to travel.  But underneath is the culture of violence and the gun fetish that it centres on.  Without that particular set of values, gun violence just doesn't happen.

*That's* what needs to change.  We once had, for instance, a culture of slavery.  To rationalize that we told ourselves there was a class of species not quite human.  We got over ourselves on that.  We had (recalling your incarnation of the 1950s) a culture of cigarettes.  It was fashionable, cool, desirable.  Doctors smoked.  We got over our delusions on that too.

Bob Costas had it exactly right on his Monday Night Football commentary almost a year ago.  I spent a day on a sports message board refuting the whizbangs who were posting all day about Costas'  "gun control rant", pointing out that that wasn't his point and he never mentioned gun control or laws at all.  That's a case of meme propaganda being pushed and parroted without anyone bothering to stop and see if it holds water.  Anyway I had no desire to stay on a sports message board and that's when I came here, to make the same point.

We DO have a gun culture, and it's a detriment, and it's costing us just as cigarettes did.  It's glorified and trivialized every hour of every day in movies, TV cop shows, video games, even child's toys.  Again, that doesn't mean reacting through law-- it doesn't mean censoring movies or banning video games.  That doesn't work anyway -- Japan is a noted example where violent video games are at least as popular as here, yet that country has a tiny fraction of our gun violence.  Or take the case of punitive drug laws-- does it diminish the use of cannabis to call it a "narcotic" and toss users in jail?  Not at all.  You don't change behaviour by banning things.  It's been tried, and it fails because human nature doesn't work that way.

What needs to disappear is the *drive*, the desire, the lust for the detrimental factor, whether it be a drug or a cigarette or a firearm mentality.   It requires not a legal solution but a _social/spiritual_ one.  It requires that we stop and examine our values as they are and assess which ones are working against us.  We didn't need to ban tobacco for its use to plummet; we used a _social _pressure.  That can be far more effective for a problem than throwing laws at it.  And in this case, far more effective.  The problem isn't the firearm; it's the mentality.  It's the value we attach to it; a value of destruction.

It won't happen overnight or this year or this decade.  But the longest journey begins with a single step.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KGB said:
> ...



You're back to babbling about "law" again.

_Fuck_ the law.  _Still_ not the point here.  Never was.




KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Riiiight.  Because the answer to guns is.... MORE GUNS!


----------



## MikeK (Nov 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I live in a open carry state (Arizona). I find it ironic that virtually every place of business in California has a "No smoking" sign out front, while virtually every place of business in AZ has a "No firearms allowed" sign out front...   I'm watching macho guys everywhere taking their guns off and putting them in their glove boxes before they go into stores. It's kind of amusing watching them put them back on after they return to their car, just in case they get ambused on the way from the 7/11 store to where they pick up junior from school.


While I strongly support the "No Smoking" policy of the California stores, what purpose do you feel is served by the "No Firearms Allowed" policy in the Arizona stores? 

Smoking is offensive.  It is physically harmful and to a non-smoker it *stinks*!  But I find nothing offensive about someone strapped with a handgun, or for that matter an M-1 Garand slung on his shoulder.  I might consider it unusual, or redundant, but it would neither offend me nor frighten me.  That is mainly because I know how easy it would be for a screwball with mayhem in mind to have a fifteen-shot automatic pistol concealed under his shirt or jacket.  So essentially I am more concerned with what I can't see than that which is open to view.  

If you don't mind the extra weight and discomfort imposed by being _strapped,_ that's your business.  The upside to it is you possibly could be my salvation if some screwball decides to start shooting up the place.   Because it seems that an outstanding problem in every example of a screwball shooting is there are no armed citizens nearby to take the shooter out.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is a total fail, why is it still going?
> ...



His post is, of course, entirely true.  Ample evidence is provided by your own post: every thread you pollute with your presence is, by definition, a total fail.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



... then why are you reading it, let alone posting in it?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I live in a open carry state (Arizona). I find it ironic that virtually every place of business in California has a "No smoking" sign out front, while virtually every place of business in AZ has a "No firearms allowed" sign out front...   I'm watching macho guys everywhere taking their guns off and putting them in their glove boxes before they go into stores. It's kind of amusing watching them put them back on after they return to their car, just in case they get ambused on the way from the 7/11 store to where they pick up junior from school.
> ...




Well, since I don't own a place of business in AZ, I guess that I can't speak for those that object to people packing heat into their establisments. I will say, however, that my bank is one of those places that object to it....and the post office.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The overwhelming perception of the people in this thread is that there was no intimidation on the part of the gun owners. I guess that makes you an asshole, again, and wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > People who live in open carry States do not have a problem with law abiding Citizens who carry their guns in public.
> ...



Does that means we need to treat people like criminals and lock everybody up? That would solve the problem of no one but cops having guns, but it would totally destroy your precept that you are pro freedom.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



The overwhelming perception of humans was once that the earth was flat.  I guess that means we're all descended from assholes.
Where do you see this poll by the way?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I live in a open carry state (Arizona). I find it ironic that virtually every place of business in California has a "No smoking" sign out front, while virtually every place of business in AZ has a "No firearms allowed" sign out front...   I'm watching macho guys everywhere taking their guns off and putting them in their glove boxes before they go into stores. It's kind of amusing watching them put them back on after they return to their car, just in case they get ambused on the way from the 7/11 store to where they pick up junior from school.



You must live in a big city, if they tried that in the small towns they would go out of business.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



We do not have a culture of violence, only a drooling idiot would even attempt to argue that we do.

Your fear does not control me, so keep it to yourself.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



It doesn't mean we "should" do anything.  It's an answer to the thread it was an answer to.  This cigar is just a cigar.  No need to make it into a penis.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

MikeK said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I live in a open carry state (Arizona). I find it ironic that virtually every place of business in California has a "No smoking" sign out front, while virtually every place of business in AZ has a "No firearms allowed" sign out front...   I'm watching macho guys everywhere taking their guns off and putting them in their glove boxes before they go into stores. It's kind of amusing watching them put them back on after they return to their car, just in case they get ambused on the way from the 7/11 store to where they pick up junior from school.
> ...



He is actually lying, most business don't signs. The ones that do cater to the artsy crowd that most sane people avoid anyway.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



Of course we don't.  Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) and Columbine were all accidents.  The gun misfired.

Yeah, that's it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Seriously dude, you are making dog shit look like Einstein and Hawking's love child.

The only people that thought the world was flat were the people that make rabid dogs look intelligent. Anyone that has ever traveled can plainly see that the Earth is round, and they even figured out a way to measure the diameter. Then again, you think reading a book makes you an expert, so I doubt you have even looked at the horizon to see the curvature of the Earth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Are you saying that you lied when you argued that the fact that no one can tell criminals from good guys is proof of something?

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Even if every school in the country had a shooting on a daily basis you wouldn't be able to argue that we live in a culture of violence. Since we don't even have one a month you have about as much chance of making that argument stick as you do of convincing me you don't have your head up your ass.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why are you not honest?



Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



_*That's*_ all you can think of?  

Where's the poll?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





If I said the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, you would argue with it, so whatever dood.  I post for those open to ponderation, not for some dullard contrarian to dismiss the point out of hand and get his time on the contrarian exercise bike.


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



and here we go folks, another liberal paradise facade.  How about you get back into the real world?  You are talking about a force that has been with us since Cain & Abel were strolling around.  I can substitute any platform you want, gun, knife, car, hands, the evil remains.  Yes, you are right, we have to change it.  But the difference is, people who defend to the 2nd Amendment, understand it can't be changed.  Why?  It's not in our nature to do so.  As a species, we are hard wired for violence.  We are an aggressive lot & it will take a miracle to change it.  Until that day comes, those of us who live in the real world will arm & defend ourselves from the scum of society that would prey on us.  I suggest you look at the world for how it is, not what you want it to be....


----------



## KGB (Nov 16, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



we do have a culture of violence, but that is humanity as a whole....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I wouldn't argue, I would laugh, and point out that it has rose in the East for as long as man has walked the Earth.

But, please, feel free to point out how stupid I am for not agreeing with you.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...



And I suggest you live in a comic book full of "evildoers" and superheroes in spandex.  I mean, your avatar alone tells me that.
Not for me, thanks.

This is just reverting back to the fatalist throw-up-our-hands-and-give-up mentality.  Yet strangely enough in the middle of the same post you agreed: "Yes, you are right, we have to change it".  Let me know which of you wins.

By the way this is not a "liberal" (or political) idea; it's a _sociological _one.  The liberal part is where we agree that throwing laws at the problem doesn't fix it.  And that's exactly why we move to another solution.

As noted, we got over tobacco, we can get over this.

And no it's not a "human nature" default; it is specific to this country.
Even though you gave no evidence for your position, you want evidence of mine?



Pogo said:


> I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.
> 
> Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.
> 
> ...



Is that country-specific enough for ya?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

Well, I saw the poll, and I told them that I agree with the immortal words of Walt Kelley, when he said:

"As Maine go o so Pogo go Key Largo, 
Otsego to Frisco go to Fargo, 
Okeefenokee playin' Possum on a Pogo 
Stick around and see the show go over 

Landalive a band o' Jive will blow go Pogo 
I go you go who go to go Polly voo go, 
From Caravan Diego, Waco and Oswego, 
Tweedle de he go she go we go me go Pogo. 

Atascadero Wheeler Barrow, Some place in Mexico 
Delaware Ohio and you Don't need the text to go. 
Wheeling, West Virginia With ev'rything that's in ya. 
Down the line You'll see the shine 
From Oregon to Caroline, 

Oh, eenie meenie minie Kokomo go Pogo. 
Tishimingo, sing those lingo, whistling go. 
Shamokin to Hoboken Chenango to Chicango 
It's golly, I go goo goo goin' go go Pogo.

(solo) 

Atascadero Wheeler Barrow, Some place in Mexico 
Delaware Ohio and you Don't need the text to go. 
Wheeling, West Virginia With ev'rything that's in ya. 
Down the line You'll see the shine 
From Oregon to Caroline,

Oh, eenie meenie minie Kokomo go Pogo. 
Tishimingo, sing those lingo, whistling go. 
Shamokin to Hoboken Chenango to Chicango 
It's golly, I go goo goo goin' go go Pogo! "

(don't let QW get you down. Personally, I find that I like him a lot better since he has been invisable!)


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Walt Kelley lyrics.  I am humbled at the musings of my muse.

I wouldn't want Windbag invisible.  He's such a handy tool.  I think of him like a Dremel, only more masochistic.


----------



## Zona (Nov 16, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



But the point is, if things were different and they were armed black guys, things would have been different.  remember when the Black Panthers tried to play that ...its my right thing...






Do you need a history lesson on when they tried this?  

Shut the fuck up with this "its my right" crap.  these fucking idiots tried to scare those women and everyone else who is asking for common sense gun control.  

Bunch of thugs.  Screw them, they are cowards.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 16, 2013)

Mommy?

Are those men going to shoot us?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mommy?
> 
> Are those men going to shoot us?


 "_No, dear, they're here to crash our meeting, 'cause Mommy was a stupid cow, and pissed them off by crashing their meeting last month._"


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mommy?
> ...



Mommy -- did you take guns?

And by the way Mommy, how come you never bring a fuckin' link?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


_"No, dear, because we are against guns.

But we stupid enough to piss-off people who belong to a gun-carrying club, and were arrogant enough to think we could harass them at-will without there ever being any consequences to worry about."
_


Pogo said:


> And by the way Mommy, how come you never bring a fuckin' link?



*"...At a gun rights rally at the Alamo in San Antonio last month, Moms Demand Action held a counterrally nearby and, gun advocates said, sent their supporters into the crowd to take pictures. &#8220;They crashed our Alamo event,&#8221; Mr. Grisham said. &#8220;Let&#8217;s crash their event...&#8221;
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/us/a-face-off-outside-dallas-in-the-escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html?_r=0

...embedded within the OP itself, actually.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



So what you're saying is "might makes right", huh Mommy?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> "..._So what you're saying is "might makes right", huh Mommy?_"


No, dear, I'm saying that if you are stupid enough to piss-off a gun-carry club when they are demonstrating on behalf of their Constitutional rights, you should not be surprised when those same victims of your stupidity and arrogance, in turn, resent your intrusion and decide that turnabout is fair play and proceed to show up on your own turf, to demonstrate their rights in the same manner - props and all.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 16, 2013)

It doesn't look to me like the event in San Antonio was crashed by anyone:

Rally makes a gun point - San Antonio Express-News



> *Blocks away*, a much different scene unfolded as *about two dozen *advocates for more strict gun laws, such as universal background checks and a ban on militarized weapons, gathered at the Line in the Sandbox rally organized by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.



And then there's this:



> *In violation of a city ordinance *they called unconstitutional, hundreds of gun-rights activists set off from the Alamo on Saturday afternoon, displaying their firearms as they marched through downtown to Travis Park.



Law abiding my ass.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > "..._So what you're saying is "might makes right", huh Mommy?_"
> ...



Oh. They were just PROP guns. 

Well, that's different....

I do agree with you on another thing as well. One should never piss off gun nuts. That would be stupid. They might kill you for it.


----------



## Zona (Nov 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Or scare the hell out of four women.  Thugs.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

Zona said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> "_...Oh. They were just PROP guns..._"


Didn't say that nor even imply it.

They used their entirely functional guns as demonstration props.



> "..._I do agree with you on another thing as well. One should never piss off gun nuts. That would be stupid. They might kill you for it._"


Pure Gun-Grabber partisan hyperbole.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "_...Oh. They were just PROP guns..._"
> ...



That's useful information! Next time I visit my brother in Texas, I can carry my 9 MM in my pocket. If an officer stops me, I will tell him:

"No, officer, I am not carrying a sidearm in my pocket without a license. I am carrying a demostration prop"."


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > "_...Oh. They were just PROP guns..._"
> ...



The cops who came to see them were told those props were loaded.  It was the first question the officer asked.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised if the gun nuts were, too....


----------



## KGB (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> And I suggest you live in a comic book full of "evildoers" and superheroes in spandex.  I mean, your avatar alone tells me that.
> Not for me, thanks.
> 
> This is just reverting back to the fatalist throw-up-our-hands-and-give-up mentality.  Yet strangely enough in the middle of the same post you agreed: "Yes, you are right, we have to change it".  Let me know which of you wins.
> ...



Ah yes, the USA ....root of all evil in the world.  Typical left response.  Let me throw the following at you:  Srebrenica massacre, Hutu vs Tutsi, Holocaust, World War 1 & 2, Thirty Years War, Russian Revolution, Romans vs Spartans, Romans vs Carthaginians , etc.  

Global & historical enough for you?

Violence is hard wired into us as a species.  It is a human nature default no matter how hard you want to spin it.  Because these atrocities & many others have been ongoing since the start of humanity.  And yet you claim to have an answer to that....


----------



## westwall (Nov 17, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...










Ummmmm, yeah, no.  You don't own a 9mm.  Can't comment on whether you have a brother in Texas or not, but you clearly are not a firearm owner.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Clearly, someone so anti gun wouldn't own a gun. Or admit he had a gun even when he tries to have laws passed that restrict or ban them. Vandal doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.


----------



## theHawk (Nov 17, 2013)

LOL, yet another epic fail Luddy thread.

You just help our side the more you post this kind of shit.

Keep it up, Corky.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

KGB said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > And I suggest you live in a comic book full of "evildoers" and superheroes in spandex.  I mean, your avatar alone tells me that.
> ...



You had all night and that's all you came up with?

Not that there would have been more but dood -- you just loaded up my RDA of fallacies here.  Number one, I made no value judgement on "USA ...root of all evil" in anything.  You projected that strawman.  Number two, you bring in red herrings; events in war history have nothing to do with a side-by-side comparison of everyday life in two adjacent cities demographically similar except for their historical culture.  Comparing those cultures is the point.  You failed to address this at all.

If you can think of a point that actually addresses the theory, bring something a bit more thoughtful than "war exists", because you're shooting blanks here.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Then you have a number of possible (and likely) conclusions about your own premise:

One, he's not "anti gun"...
Two, he's not trying to pass such laws;
Three, both One and Two.

Declaring the poster doesn't own such a gun on the basis of nothing, or that he doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground, are ipse dixit speculations and therefore, irrelevant.  So your own premise is flawed.  Hope this helps.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 17, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mommy?
> ...



Did you scare them mommy?


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 17, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


As long as you're licensed to carry in Texas, then you can do whatever the hell you want to with your 9MM, within the framework of the law, including bringing it along as a prop for whatever purposes your little heart desires.


----------



## KGB (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KGB said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And no it's not a "human nature" default; it is specific to this country.
Even though you gave no evidence for your position, you want evidence of mine?

these are your words, not mine.  Plus, the events I pointed out largely bleed between real life & war.  In other words, there is no difference.  A lot of times especially throughout history, wars were fought because it was a societal norm.  This is the trend you wish to ignore in your "sociological study" which is actually quite sloppy methodology.  So don't cherry pick some stats from Detroit & then point your finger saying "see, see, see!" all the while completely ignoring historical trends over the lifetime of humanity.    In other words, you wrote it, you own it....


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> "..._The cops who came to see them were told those props were loaded. It was the first question the officer asked_..."


If their behavior was within the law, then... no problem.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 17, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


"No, dear, we just pissed them off.

Our stupidity lay in pissing off people who could, in turn, scare US, just by showing-up outside our own meetings, carrying those same firearms they had when we so stupidly and arrogantly crashed their own party last month without any thought to the possible consequences.

Mind you, they manifested no particular threatening behaviors, and it is in our own best PR interests to try to spin this as us being in-terror because of their armed presence, but we were safe-and-sound inside a restaurant, and they were obviously not coming inside, and any sane person would readily understand that they were not going to USE those weapons in broad daylight and in full public view, even if we had any probable cause to suspect such abberative behaviors - which we did not. We knew it was just pay-back counter-demonstrating.

But that won't stop us from spin-doctoring and playing this one to the hilt and trying to leverage it as a godsend/windfall Public Relations Event that could be spun in favor of our own agenda. Always remember, dear, that when you lie, you must do it with style, and from a plausible angle, leveraging as best you can for the sympathies of the simple-minded and semi-sentient."


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



One, his views indicate he's anti-gun, Two, his views indicate he would support or vote for referendums suggesting such. You fail to understand that I am overly perceptive people's posting tendencies. Three, both one and two are evidenced by any and all opinions expressed by Vandalshandle on the subject. It is therefore viable to conclude that he A) Owns a gun but is anti gun and wishes to ban guns while keeping his own gun or B) does not own a gun, and wants to ban guns.

In further stating, Pogo, it is safe to deduce that he could have been lying about owning a gun. Although the possibility exists that he does, I doubt it. If he does, it makes him a hypocrite. I find it strange that instead of debating the cogent point I made, you spent time speculating on what the actual meaning of my premise was, which you got wrong incidentally.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > "..._The cops who came to see them were told those props were loaded. It was the first question the officer asked_..."
> ...



Maybe. 

But they're still loaded.

Diga me -- if you're just taking props, why load them?  Do not these props look exactly the same unloaded?  Would the same point not have been made?

_Loaded_.  Think about it.

Several wags including the nuts themselves have claimed the firearms are there as a visual prop to make a point.  That's one thing.
Your task now, should you choose to accept it, is to make the case for loading those props if your purported intent does not involve shooting anybody.
--- With *children *in tow no less.

And keep in mind, your story is that you're not there to intimidate.  Yet you're brandishing guns, and they're *loaded*.  How's that story holding out about now?
And note: this is not a "within the law" question but a logic question.


I don't blame you if you choose not to accept.  I wouldn't either.



This demonstration will self-destuct in ten seconds.  Matter of fact it already self-destructed onsite.
(/end Mission Impossible references)


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Mommy?

Are you sure you know what the word "obviously" means?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

Useless props is something leftards are fond of.

The rest of us are a little more reality-based.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



When the premise does not lead to the conclusion -- one of them is wrong.

And the fact remains that being on an anonymous message board, you have no way to judge whether he really owns a gun or not, and therefore no basis.  All you're left with is speculation, which paired with $2.25 will buy you a Starbucks coffee provided you find a really cheap store.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Nov 17, 2013)

I don't carry my AR's around without 1 in the chamber. The time it takes to charge the rifle could be a matter of life and death. Pistols, not so much.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.



Fascinating.

So they were expecting this group of anti-gun moms to start shooting?
Or do you mean the moms were meeting in a restaurant so dangerous that carrying loaded weapons would be advisable?  And keep in mind, there's *twenty *people, so we're talking an area so dangerous it requires a posse of twenty.

Because up until now the story has been that they were props to make a point.
Fascinating how quickly that turns on a dime.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

Nope. People carry guns to protect themselves from random people who want to do them harm.

"Here  are some examples you may not have heard about: Pearl High School in  Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian  School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.;  Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama;  Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado;  Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); Mayan Palace  Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






"There's  a reason that you never heard much about the places on the second list.  The number of innocent people killed was much smaller &#8212; sometimes,  none. In each of them, the "active shooter" or potential shooter was  confronted by an armed defender who happened to be at the scene when the  attack commenced; the bad guy wasn't able to just keep going about his  deadly business, as at Sandy Hook."


The armed bystanders who stopped the massacres - Los Angeles Times


"Sometimes the hero was an armed school guard (Sullivan Central High).  Sometimes it was an off-duty police officer or mall security guard  (Trolley Square, Mayan Theater, Clackamas Mall and the Appalachian Law  School, where two law students, one of them a police officer and the  other a former sheriff's deputy, had guns in their cars). Or a  restaurant owner (Edinboro). Or a church volunteer guard with a  concealed carry permit (Colorado). Or a diner with a concealed carry  permit (Alabama and Nevada). At Pearl High School, it was the vice  principal who had a gun in his car and stopped a 16-year-old, who had  killed his mother and two students, before he could drive away, perhaps  headed for the junior high.


"The experience of armed resistance  shows the value of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre's call  for armed security guards in every school. It was perhaps not a  coincidence that in calling for school guards, LaPierre was endorsing an  idea that has a higher level of public support, in post-Newtown polls,  than any other proposed solution to school violence.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Had a Texas trooper pull me over near Amarillo one evening. He saw my gunbelt lying on the floor of the cab and asked, Is it loaded?"

I replied, Of course it is loaded, it doesn't even make a decent club without bullets.

We got to talking about guns and he climbed up in the cab to shoot the shit. I showed him the Smith and Wesson model 629 and he got this green with envy look on his face.
 I told him, "Go ahead. I know you want to shoot it. He rolled down the window and was about to fire out into a field when I shouted for him to get out of the truck. He would have blasted out all the windows and deafened us both if he fired from the truck.

He was suitably impressed.


----------



## Gracie (Nov 17, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Personally speaking, I wouldn't have been afraid to walk out there after a meeting of any kind. So what if they have guns?  This is a case of for and against. I don't intimidate very easily. I would rather walk away but if bullied and in my face, there will be a problem. Those people with the guns were not in faces. They were just standing there with their guns.
I am FOR the right to bear arms. And no mealy mouthed chickenshits afraid to walk outside and make a mountain out of a molehill will stop me from wanting my rights. Their rights are to have their meeting, eat, stfu and go home or wherever they wanna go. The other folks rights are to sit peacefully with their guns and look at the blue sky or talk amongst themselves or just sit and people watch. Then they, too, can stfu and go home or wherever. But that didn't happen, did it? The wussies started wringing their hands and called attention to TWO peaceful demonstrations on rights.

So...my vote is for the "gun nuts". I would rather be with them than with some wimpy folks afraid of their own shadows.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Nope. People carry guns to protect themselves from random people who want to do them harm.
> 
> "Here  are some examples you may not have heard about: Pearl High School in  Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian  School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.;  Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama;  Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado;  Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); Mayan Palace  Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).
> 
> ...



Yeah I know about those incidents -- I posted them earlier.

So you're going with Theory A: they were anticipating this anti-gun group of moms to start shooting at them from the restaurant.  Four women against twenty.  From inside a restaurant.  A restaurant at which they didn't need to be in the first place.

OK then.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
> ...



Don't forget the cops. The Arlington P.D. was there too.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

No, they were protesting, and showing that people with guns have a right to pack, and pose no threat...unless someone decided to try to kill them.

They were successful.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Gracie said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Gracie....

Loaded props.  With children.


Nobody wants to answer that.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

Why should anyone answer to weird stances you've assigned to them?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, they were protesting, and showing that people with guns have a right to pack, and pose no threat...unless someone decided to try to kill them.
> 
> They were successful.



Yes, they _*were *_successful.

That's what I keep telling these wags who try to say they weren't there to intimidate.

When you and I agree on something it should be case closed.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Why should anyone answer to weird stances you've assigned to them?



It's not a "stance"; it's a question.

Loaded props.  With children.

But not "nuts".


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Can he be positive? Hell no, but a minuscule chance that he is wrong, does not make him wrong.
Do you play poker, Possum?

Suppose you are playing 5 card draw and you have a king high straight flush. Do you positively have a winning hand? There are 3 possible hands that could beat you, but 99.9538% of the time, you have a winner.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2013)

No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.

Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Sorry to say I do not, Ernie.  I get your drift though.
What I'm telling TK there is simply that he can't make a flat statement and declare it fact, when all it is is speculation (technically all it is is snark).  For that matter you can't legitimately call the chance that he's wrong "minuscule" for the same lack of evidence.

However you do get points for spelling _minuscule_ correctly


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
> 
> Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.



No, it's not "false".  The props _were_ loaded, according to the nuts theyselves.  It's in the video with the police officer who arrived at the scene.  That's in the USA Today link in the OP as well as posted upthread.

So it's an entirely valid question.  "Loaded-- with children".  Could be a TV sitcom if there were anything funny about it.

Anyone else?  Kondor?


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 17, 2013)

Sounds to me that this mother hates freedoms 

tapatalk post


----------



## lakeview (Nov 17, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
> 
> Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.



I think Pogo is justified in asking this because the reason Open Carry gave for their presence outside of the diner has been debunked. They claimed that this was a tit-for-tat for the disruption of their meeting in San Antonio but their meeting hadn't been disrupted so that leaves some of us to ask...if it wasn't payback then what was it?


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 17, 2013)

lakeview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
> ...



It is called showing the country that these mothers full of shit

tapatalk post


----------



## freedombecki (Nov 17, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 Well, what's worse?

Losing a Bill of Rights privilege?

Taking guns away from registered users?

Ensuring that only bad guys keep and bear arms?

There are more than  two sides to this argument.

I personally reserve the right not to own a gun, but I support my neighbor's right to have his 250-gun museum gracing his walls that go back to colonial times. I support my daughter's right to have her CCW permit met when she is off duty.

Owning a gun is an American right and privilege. It makes the bad guys think twice before they take a random life in a Convenience Store stickup in an armed robbery.

The system works. If it isn't broke, why should it be fixed?

If you take guns away, people just resort to killing by other methods including killing someone with the bare hands. 

Killing is done by people who intend to kill, and they do it one way or another, unless someone who has a permit to carry stops them by surprise. Often, it saves a lot of lives, as in the case of a gunman who carried a gun into a church in Colorado a few years back and unloaded until a woman who was an armed security guard stopped the bloodbath with a bullet of her own.

She saved many, many innocent lives.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
> ...



Just how do you know that the guns were loaded? Because the linked article said they were?

Go back to the OP. Follow the links and post a picture od one gun there that was unquestionably loaded. You are the one who is fond of pointing out the fallacy  of uncertainty when the odds are so great in favor of the obvious. Now it's your turn. 

*Which gun is positively loaded?*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



There is a word for an unloaded gun, club.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Prove they were loaded!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



He said he was going to stick his "9 MM" in his  pocket. Leaving aside the fact that no one who owns a gun ever capitalizes mm,  that putting a gun in your pocket makes it useless, and that he is dumber than dog shit about how guns work, you are entirely wrong.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



That's been brought up, and it raises the larger question, which is: why is a gunman carrying this gun into a church in the first place?  Why for that matter are the Loughners and the Holmeses and the Lanzas and the (etc etc etc you know their names) going on these shooting rampages in the first place? As well, how did these interveners happen to be carrying themselves?

For that I refer you back to post 190 (and its followup 212).

Oh no, nobody wants to talk about _that_.  Too hard.  Far lazier for us to all pretend this is about laws.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I'm a poker player. Poker is all about odds. It boils down to ducks. If it walks like one, quacks like one, for all intents and purposes, it's a duck. Is it always a duck? Hell no! It may be a parrot in disguise. But I'm betting *a lot* that it's a duck.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> Sounds to me that this mother hates freedoms
> 
> tapatalk post



Pogo? Pogo is a guy. Oh! I get you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
> ...




Posse? At least 10% of the people in that parking lot were under 12. Do unarmed children really scare you that much?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



Damn Ernie-- we did this.  I posted this before and just now said where to find it.  Now here we'll embed the video yet again - you'lll have to watch for a total of one second to get to it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9biLK5Evg]Run in with Kennedale police. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Thanks for the canard.  Send me a bill.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



?  Scares me?
When did this thread become about what scares _me_?

So you're suggesting that if some of this posse got picked off by mothers-with-mausers, the kids (two -- ten percent of 20 is two, just say it) would have had no idea how to pick up a firearm and use it because their parents haven't trained them?

That's even _more_ dangerous.  Everyone knows the attitudes of mothers on children.  They'd be dead meat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Answer what? Want to see pictures of children holding lethal weapons? Here is a little girl, and a little biy, holding a weapon that has actually been banned on some college campuses.






I bet you think I am exaggerating the danger.



> But Johnson said the police have the latitude to make decisions about those    things that would *affect the safety and security* of the situation,    including banning signs.



FULL VERSION: Sinclair students sue over protest sign ban | www.daytondailynews.com

Scared yet?






Still here?


----------



## lakeview (Nov 17, 2013)

thanatos144 said:


> It is called showing the country that these mothers full of shit
> 
> tapatalk post



So just to be clear on this, your position is that the guy who lied about his reason for being in the parking lot was there to show that someone else was full of shit? Did I get that wrong?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they were protesting, and showing that people with guns have a right to pack, and pose no threat...unless someone decided to try to kill them.
> ...



It seems like you are the only person that is afraid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

PredFan said:


> 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.



bingo. fuck the bitches


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I'd stay in even if the other guy told me he had 4 aces and I knew he never bluffed.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Are those guns loaded?
Yes they are.

Is not proof that *all* the guns were loaded, is it? Again. Grab a photo of the protesters and put a red arrow pointing to all the guns you are certain are loaded.

Then, hunt down a photo of the women in the restaurant and put a yellow arrow pointing to every woman in the group you are certain is *NOT* armed.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



That's BAD, Possum.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



At least these two ^^ can be honest about what was going on.  That's a start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



OH so the op started a thread with lies.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Are those guns loaded?
> Yes they are.
> 
> Is not proof that *all* the guns were loaded, is it? Again. Grab a photo of the protesters and put a red arrow pointing to all the guns you are certain are loaded.
> ...



Two flaws here: one, I didn't say "all" nor any number.  All we know is plural.  The pronoun "they" is all we have to go on.  And two, there's no picture (AFAIK) of the four women, so we have nothing to use.

But seeing as how they were part of a group called _Mothers Against Gun Violence_, it might be a good time to apply the 'walks like a duck' poker face.

 (and no, I'm not about to suggest those who oppose them are in favor of gun violence, that comes later)


----------



## Gracie (Nov 17, 2013)

The women in the restaurant had their own agenda, looks to me. They had a hissy and brought attention to it.

Pretty sure the ones with the guns were making a statement as well, hence the guns. And the kids. Personally speaking, I wouldn't have taken my kid to make extra points. Unless they are old enough to carry. Little kids? Tacky. Still...I have no sympathy for the 4 wimps in the restaurant.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




I could make it _*so*_ much worse.  You know I could


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Why would anyone carry a gun in church? Because it helps prevent stupid shit like this.

Current New York City Administrative Code Regarding Knives : American Knife and Tool Institute

Any other questions, or do you need me to explain the connection?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



When you said that guns scare you, even if the cops you think are above the law have them.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



I need you to read the rest of the post where I already answered my own question far better than you did if I do say so myself, and I do.

You stopped in mid-post; for once in your life since high school it's time to "go all the way".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



George Tillman might be alive if he carried a gun to church, but thanks for making your point so well.

Wait, that wasn't your point, was it?


----------



## Gracie (Nov 17, 2013)

Daddy said: Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

Daddy was a wise man. The pics above showing BOTH ANGLES of the the pro gunners is far different than the truth, ain't it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Gracie said:


> The women in the restaurant had their own agenda, looks to me. They had a hissy and brought attention to it.
> 
> Pretty sure the ones with the guns were making a statement as well, hence the guns. And the kids. Personally speaking, I wouldn't have taken my kid to make extra points. Unless they are old enough to carry. Little kids? Tacky. Still...I have no sympathy for the 4 wimps in the restaurant.



Yes the ones with the firearms were making a statement that isn't illegal at least for now.
But I must ask why does anyone care?


----------



## Iceman (Nov 17, 2013)

We have to take guns, for THE CHILDREN!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



There you go with that lying thing again.  No, I didn't.

The inadequacies of this board's search feature prevent me from finding the post (but if you have it bring it on) -- what you asked me as I recall was "do cops with guns scare you" and I replied "yes, with good reason".

The subject in that question is _cops_ -- not _guns_.  Specifically, armed cops.  And that's what I affirmed and I'd be glad to wax loquacious on why in the proper thread in case you missed it the first several times.

Maybe you haven't heard this but guns don't shoot themselves.  It's not the gun I'm concerned about -- it's the cop.

Not sure if your problem is ignorance of reading English or compulsive lying.  I'm inclined to the latter.  That of course is based on prior experience observing the duck walk.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Straight flush beats hell out of 4 aces. It beats any poker hand.
There are 36 ways to get a straight flush and 2.6 million possible hands the odds are 72,222:1 against a straight flush and 4,164 : 1 against any 4 of a kind or 54,132:1 against 4 aces


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Nope.  It was much the opposite.  The Cliff's Notes, since you're unable to click and read, is that George Tillman shouldn't _have to_ carry a gun to church.  Not because he's George Tillman -- *because no one should*.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



My bad, I clearly wasn't thinking.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No one should ever need a smoke detector, does that mean we should outlaw them?

Please, keep making your point, you are doing such a great job.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

When will this thread be moved to the Conspiracy Theories board?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



Is the 629 the new titanium-frame Model 29?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Comparing smoke detectors with police brutality.  Yeah they're the same thing 

Certainly better than your apology for reading comprehension.  Apparently you can't even read a poker post.

Actually here's a conclusion: no one should have to explain simple fucking English to you, therefore _you _should be outlawed.  How 'bout that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Poor baby, you don't have to be scared.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When will this thread be moved to the Conspiracy Theories board?



Why would they do that?  The OP mentions "intimidation" -- and you yourself just confirmed it.

And thanks for your honesty -- several others tried to pussyfoot their way around it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > When will this thread be moved to the Conspiracy Theories board?
> ...



Because this thread is a lie. I thought they were being intimidating until that other photo came along the true photo


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So ... you're calling yourself a liar?



bigrebnc1775 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I have no part of this thread stop flaming read my edited comment  dumb ass.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You _*do*_ know that other photo is put out by the gun nuts, right?  Including the caption?

Doesn't matter; the fact remains, and we established this several pages back, intimidation was the whole point.  If you don't go out with guns for the purpose of intimidation, then you have no point being there.  That's what they were going for, and that's what they got -- they *succeeded*.  If they hadn't succeeded neither this thread and this story would exist.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Your edit came after my post, dumbass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



That's why I said it was edited dumb ass 
I edited the same time you posted dumb ass.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Maybe you should have posted it right the first time then dumbass.
Actually you did post it right the first time, dumbass.  Now you're just trying to assume the same spin everybody else is in to avoid the topic, dumbass.

Still doesn't matter; the fact remains, your initial read was correct: intimidation was the whole point of this action.  If you don't show up at this restaurant with your guns for the purpose of intimidation, then you have no point being there.  That's what they were going for, and that's what they got -- they *succeeded*.  If they hadn't succeeded neither this thread and this story would exist.  They wanted an issue; they got one.

Now, since we've also established that they showed up not only with guns but with _loaded _guns, you _could _make the case that they really showed up to start shooting at the women. And that wouldn't just be intimidation.  That would be terrorism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Whether or not they were their to intimidate is irrelevant now because the picture is a lie therefore this thread is a lie


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Are those guns loaded?
> ...



Again with the fucking fallacies! Give it up, Pogo. You said they were loaded. A reasonable person would take that to mean that the guns pictured were loaded. I asked you repeatedly to prove they were loaded and now, at the 3rd request, suddenly you claim that loaded guns might not have bullets in them.

On to the mothers.... You and your Liberal buddies are rather quick to point out what you imagine to be hypocrisy on the right, so why is it unreasonable for me to assume one or more of the women at the meeting was packing but advocating everyone else be disarmed, you know, kind of like anti-gun wacko Rosie O'Donnell who advocated disarming the public but sent her adopted children to school with armed bodyguards?

You see, I find that Liberals make laws for those they feel are less enlightened and less entitled i.e. those that aren't going to vote for their crapola any way.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yes I do. To paraphrase, We have met the bad punster, and he is you


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



While you are correct that no one *should* have to carry a weapon, in today's society, we must guard ourselves against those that do for nefarious reasons. I choose to be armed.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Going Liberal on me, are ya?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 17, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Huh?

I embedded the video; it's in the OP article; I referred to that article in another post; and I had already embedded the video yesterday.  Shall we go for five?

No I said nothing about guns not having bullets.  I referred you to the video of the police officer showing up and her fist question is "they aren't loaded are they?" to which the answer came "yes ma'am they are".  I'm not sure how you can contort that into "guns without bullets' 

Wouldn't do any good to post the video yet again if you're just going to deny it's sitting there.



Ernie S. said:


> On to the mothers.... You and your Liberal buddies are rather quick to point out what you imagine to be hypocrisy on the right



WHOA, Jack.  I work alone.  Remember that.  I've never sat down with anyone from USMB to plot out strategy, neither literally nor virtually.  Damn I hate that.



Ernie S. said:


> ... so why is it unreasonable for me to assume one or more of the women at the meeting was packing but advocating everyone else be disarmed, you know, kind of like anti-gun wacko Rosie O'Donnell who advocated disarming the public but sent her adopted children to school with armed bodyguards?



It's not unreasonable.  Who said it was?  I said it was impossible to tell since we have no photo.  And then I said since these four women represent some group called Mothers Against Gun Violence, you could do the duck walk calculation.  I was hoping you could give me the odds in five decimal places.

But this is posted right above; why do we need to repeat it?

As for Rosie O'Donnell, I have no clue what you're talking about.  I don't believe she's part of this story. I'm not even sure who she is.



Ernie S. said:


> You see, I find that Liberals make laws for those they feel are less enlightened and less entitled i.e. those that aren't going to vote for their crapola any way.



 Whatever.  I'm not here to make any laws.  I've said that from the beginning and I've said it since I joined this website.  And as above, I don't appreciate being blanket lumped into little boxes all made out of ticky tacky that all look just the same, thank you very much.

But generally speaking, Liberals don't make laws for the less enlightened.  Lefties and righties do that.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...




Wrong my friend. I own a 9mm Kel-Tec pistol, a 38 Special Colt revolver, A 22 Ruger Semiautomatic rifle, A Mosan-Nagant Russian rifle, and a Mosan-Nagant Chinese carbine, all of which where purchased from Bud's Guns online (except the 38, which I have owned for 40 years).
Feel free to look at their site. The Mosan-Nagants are going for less than $120.   http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/index.php

Any more totally false assumptions you want to make? 

Be aware that being a gun owner does not automatically make one a NRA nut who is convinced that the paranoids are trying to hunt them down.

And while we are at it, I am aware that the Extreme Right has a new HOTWORD, that they use; "gun-grabber". It is sort of like the other "new-speak" that they have developed, like "Job-killers", and "lame stream media". I would invite you to cite a SINGLE case of a person, who is not a law enforcement agent or a criminal,  EVER grabbing a gun from a law abiding citizen...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 18, 2013)

Funny, he tries to justify a gun control  agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet  you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.

Owning guns and pushing a gun control agenda is hypocritical. And while he loves to take the vernacular that Republicans use literally, the term 'gun-grabber' is a phrase used for politicians and government officials who want to pass stricter gun laws. It pays to educate oneself about others before you make unfounded assumptions about people.


----------



## idb (Nov 18, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Funny, he tries to justify a gun control  agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet  you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.
> 
> Owning guns and pushing a gun control agenda is hypocritical. And while he loves to take the vernacular that Republicans use literally, the term 'gun-grabber' is a phrase used for politicians and government officials who want to pass stricter gun laws. It pays to educate oneself about others before you make unfounded assumptions about people.





> Owning guns and pushing a gun control agenda is hypocritical.


Huh?
Everything's either black or white in your world isn't it?
It must make life so much easier.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 18, 2013)

idb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, he tries to justify a gun control  agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet  you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.
> ...



Funny, liberals see a black and white world too. Black good, white bad. 

Have a seat. It'd make my life easier for you to keep quiet.


----------



## idb (Nov 18, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



I wasn't talking about Liberals or Conservatives...I was talking about you.
Stop whining..."Oo, oo...Liberals do it too..."
Pathetic.
Try making one cogent point in your life.


----------



## Gracie (Nov 18, 2013)

Well, I am FOR gun control...but only for felons who misused their weapons in some form or another. I am also FOR better backgrounch checks that someone on mental meds cannot own a firearm. I am FOR parents being responsible in keeping their weapons out of the reach of kids. Otherwise, Carrying a loaded weapon with no intent to harm anyone unless some schmuck pulls his own gun and threatens you or your family..or even a knife, then yes. It is our right have guns. So..I own guns. Two. One for me, one for hubby. The only time they would ever be used is someone breaking into our home and threatening us with bodily harm. And neither one of us are felons or fruitloops.


----------



## idb (Nov 18, 2013)

Gracie said:


> Well, I am FOR gun control...but only for felons who misused their weapons in some form or another. I am also FOR better backgrounch checks that someone on mental meds cannot own a firearm. I am FOR parents being responsible in keeping their weapons out of the reach of kids. Otherwise, Carrying a loaded weapon with no intent to harm anyone unless some schmuck pulls his own gun and threatens you or your family..or even a knife, then yes. It is our right have guns. So..I own guns. Two. One for me, one for hubby. The only time they would ever be used is someone breaking into our home and threatening us with bodily harm. And neither one of us are felons or fruitloops.



Then, Gracie, I'm sorry to say that apparently you're a hypocrite.
I bet that stings!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 18, 2013)

idb said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Irony is that you? yes it is. hello Irony how have you been?


----------



## Politico (Nov 18, 2013)

Misleading thread title. What a shocker.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



These images were not taken at the same time.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Nov 18, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



They look like a bunch of retards.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Do you mean at the same second? Because the people are in the same pose with only some minor changes in head angle. So it may be a few seconds off, but the people are in the same pose, its just a 90 degree shift.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No. I mean two of them changed their hats and the angle of the shadows is different. These two pictures were not taken at even close to the same time. Whoever put this little display together in order to call other people liars is in fact themself a liar.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



The same people are standing next to each other, the guy in the foreground is holding his rifle the exact same way. These pictures were taken within seconds of each other.

What does not change is the first makes it look like these people were standing there lying in wait for the poor poor gun grabbing mommies to come out, when in fact they were posing for a photograph.

if you have to quibble about a matter of seconds, you are conceeding the point.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



There were not taken within seconds of each other and I've already told you why. You refuse to even address my comment about different hats and angle of the sun so I guess it's pretty obvious who has conceded the point.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



So the people who are posed EXACTLY the same don't count? The spacing of the people, the order they are standing in, the relative positions of the people determined by shirt color, dont matter?

You are basing it on shadowing and hat angles?

The hat angles can be explained by a PERSON MOVING THIER HEAD in the few seconds between photographs. As for the shadowing, you are sounding a bit like a 9/11 troofer.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Not based on hat angles, based on entirely different hats. Texas must have some extremely fashion conscious gun enthusiasts for them to bother changing hats within the few seconds it took to take the two pictures (allegedly). 

If you have to resort to comparing me to a truther even though the evidence is here in the thread for all to see then by all means please continue, I'm getting a kick out of watching you melt down. Details, who needs 'em, am I right?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



how can you tell they are different hats, and not just different looking?

You can't. Like a troofer you also ignore the most obvious indications that the pictures were taken around the same time, the gun angle of the guy in red, the relative position of the dude with the black shirt and the gun with the muzzle down, and the relative position of the guy in the yellow shirt. 

But keep being a troofer with your hats and sun angles....

Negged for being an idiot.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Funny, he tries to justify a gun control  agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet  you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.
> 
> Owning guns and pushing a gun control agenda is hypocritical. And while he loves to take the vernacular that Republicans use literally, the term 'gun-grabber' is a phrase used for politicians and government officials who want to pass stricter gun laws. It pays to educate oneself about others before you make unfounded assumptions about people.



Oh really????

I just had Kiefer Sutherland up there (whatever his name is) declare *me* a "gun grabber" too.  I challenged him to come up with any evidence and he ran away.  That's what happens when you *ass*-ume, and he found out the hard way.

And number B, before you pat yourself on the back, you're spinning your own original positoin.  Point still remains you were running on ass-umptions just like Kefer was, and that's always illegitimate.  And by the way I don't think Vandalshandle is the same thing as "Feinstein".  _Dump the labeling already._


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



"It would be so... _convenient _if other people would just not challenge me and shut up so I don't have to reassess -- it's just SO much easier to stay where I am."



Why are you on a message board then?


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Are you retarded? Seriously, I have to ask at this point if you're retarded.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



Point out the "different hats"

and be specifc.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Gracie said:


> Well, I am FOR gun control...but only for felons who misused their weapons in some form or another. I am also FOR better backgrounch checks that someone on mental meds cannot own a firearm. I am FOR parents being responsible in keeping their weapons out of the reach of kids. Otherwise, Carrying a loaded weapon with no intent to harm anyone unless some schmuck pulls his own gun and threatens you or your family..or even a knife, then yes. It is our right have guns. So..I own guns. Two. One for me, one for hubby. The only time they would ever be used is someone breaking into our home and threatening us with bodily harm. And neither one of us are felons or fruitloops.



I'm sure you're not.  But then you don't go to a meeting of Mothers Against Gun Violence and start brandishing firearms in the parking lot.  Loaded firearms.  With kids.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Obviously not. 
Wonder who wrote the caption.  Some impartial third party I'm sure.

(/sarc)


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Now you want the different hats? You acted like a douche for three responses and went so far as to neg me but now you want me to point out the two hats for you? I see no reason to. I will however point out to anyone who PM's me and thinks these gun "enthusiasts" are a bunch of morons where the differences are, then we can all have a good laugh at your expense. 

You must really suck at finding Waldo.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



It's Texas.  They blend.



​


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



So you know you have nothing, and thus run away with your tails between your legs.

Also, how long does it take to put on, take off a hat?

You again ignore the multitudes of evidence that point to these photographs being taken around the same time, and quibble on a few minor details, that you dont even explain.

That makes you just as bad as the 9/11 troofers.


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.

The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



He's desperate to deflect the topic.

The photos don't even matter.  At either angle the nutgroup is toting guns to brandish in front of four women meeting out of concern for gun violence.  _*Loaded *_guns.  With children.  That's all established, photo or no photo.

I keep coming back to that not just because they put the kids in danger but when a Sandy Hook happens we keep hearing this bullshit about "using children as agenda tools".  And here it is in print.

What kind of spin would they be trying to put on this if one of those kids had gotten shot because they carried loaded guns and children out to make a political point?

Selfish assholes.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.
> 
> The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.



So if there are photographers in the shade they dont use flashes? and the flash effect doesnt change depending on the angle you take the photograph from?

You still didnt answer all the other things that are exactly the same.

Troofer.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And yet no children were shot, the gun grabbers had thier meeting, they were not molested in any way. No firearm was misued, and no laws were broken. 

The photo from the side makes it look like they were lying in wait for those poor poor gun grabbers, when all these people were doing were posing for a photograph. The side photo is a lie, pure and simple. and all your troofer related quibbling doesnt change that. 

I realize most libs are giant pussies, but you take it to another level. Do you cower in the basement every time a subeam shines on you?

You and lakeview should practice jumping at shadows together.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



-- from that bastion of courage who negs a poster for a difference of opinion.

SMH...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 18, 2013)

i dont see any big differences between the two 

other then the natural movements between photos


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.
> ...



Nothing is exactly the same in those pictures as you yourself pointed out earlier when you tried to claim there were only a few seconds between them. But now you say that much is identical? 

***PRO TIP***  in order for things to be identical we'd have to be talking about the same moment in time  ***

You've already destroyed your first argument, and acted like a dick while doing so by the way, and now you're well on your way to destroying your second argument. I don't even need to do anything.

There's nothing I love more than watching the blind-partisan self-destruct sequence.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



* children*

by looking at the little kid on the right 

with the outstretched arms 

you can see the pictures are almost instantaneously take  

in the photo from the front you can see her clearly 

in the side view you can see her pants 

and one of her outstretched arms passing behind the knee of the guy to her right

that kid has not even moved yet


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, he tries to justify a gun control  agenda by claiming there will be no instances of forced seizure of firearms. Yet  you have Feinstein wanting to ban guns left right and sideways. And [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], what did I tell you about Vandal? Although I originally asserted that he might be lying, my assumptions about him were right on the money. I suspected he could have a gun, but his obfuscatory responses were not helping his case at that point in time.
> ...



Thanks for your defence, Pogo. It would have been hipocracy for me to reply to Templar, since he knows he is on my ignore list....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



The differences are consistent with people moving a little bit between shots, nothing more. 

The biggest indicators are the ones you ignore, while the ones you bring up do not have any relevance to the big indicators.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Within seconds. Every single person that can be identified is in the same relative position and posed the same way. No way you get a group that large to stay still for more that 2 or 3 seconds.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You guys are making shit up, that is not a difference of opinion. and kudos for being a white knight on a message board, real tough guy you are.

You still jump at shadows you coward.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



No laws were broken.

What's the problem?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Ah, he just needs a little guidance.  Believe it or not he's got a good heart.

I just bristle at blanket statements and assumptions based on nothing.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The major similarities:

The guy in red, front right (facing) gun position and overall stance. 
The guy in the cowboy hat and the guy in yellow's positions.
The stance of the fat guy and his gun positon, standing to the right of the flag
The leg position of the kneeling guy next to red shirt guy, his head has moved, but his leg is in the same position
The guy on the extreme left, with his sideways pose you can see his back shoulder and arm the same way in the side picture.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I don't think the premise of the story was that "laws were broken".... 
There's more to life and politics than laws yanno.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And what are "we guys" making up then?

"Coward"?  "Die in a fire and bleed fuckwad"?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Again, if I am going to neg someone, I at least go through the courtesy of trying to make it creative and unique. 

FOAD is so passe, it needed some sprucing up.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Then what's the problem?

You spent two pages whining about the damn photo as if has any bearing on the topic.

Fact is you moron no laws were broken. These people were exercising their constitutional rights and you left wing retards can't handle it.

Stop being such a pussy!


----------



## lakeview (Nov 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Look at the hats and look at the shadows. Unless you're just not interested, then don't bother. Hell, it took marty over half an hour to finally break down and look but once he did he decided to start trying to defend the "quick-change" that a couple of the guys did. 

How hard is it to look at a photo and stage people in basically the same spots? Not hard at all, especially when we don't have the original front view photo that they were obviously posing for when the side view shot was taken for comparison. They did forget to pay attention to the shadows though so maybe it is hard for some people.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



and yet they got the crouches, the gun angles, the relative arm positions, and the standing positions on the left side exactly the same?????

Again, troofer tactics, ignore the real evidence, and come up with made up crap.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



 OK well I'll give you that.

It's just that fire and bleeding is kind of a dry-wet contrast.  I think of charred flesh as being dry, I dunno.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



What does it matter at this point??

Neither photo is intimidating. 

BTW the shadows are the same in each photo.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I spent no pages on the photos.  Can you read?

The photos are a tangent some want to go on.  I think they're irrelevant.  As I actually *did* say, we know enough without any photos at all.

And once again, the point is not whether laws were broken.  Fuck the laws.  Not part of this thread.

Duuuhh.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



fine, bleed first, THEN die in a fire. Jesus you people really are sticklers for this crap.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...


Who changed hats? One man with a hat has his head tilted differently, the little girl is posed differently in every picture I've seen. BUT the shadows are exactly the same, just 90 degrees off from the first (facing) perspective. All the people are in the exact same position relative to each other. Any longer than a few seconds, and that would be impossible without referring to the first photo to position each member which would take several minutes to analyze.

You're wrong. Now be a good boy and admit it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No the point of this thread is that you pussy ass liberals are a scared bunch of pathetic little pukes that let your emotions control you.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well think about it -- wouldn't the blood evaporate if it came out at all?
See, there's your problem; you don't think things through.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



As opposed to, say, that post ^^ which is obviously controlled by no emotions at all. 

So you've gone from assigning me two pages of photo whining to whether laws were borken to 'scared bunch of pathetic little pukes".  The lazy susan of logical bases.

Lonestar logic...


----------



## regent (Nov 18, 2013)

peach174 said:


> 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!
> ...



If the mothers were smart they would not have had that meeting. If mothers want to meet to talk about guns, it should be done quietly in a safe place. And above all what they discuss should not be made public.
It is just another form of a clash of rights and if those with guns do not prevail of what value are the guns?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

regent said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many in this nation are brain washed into thinking that law abiding gun owners are not responsible people with using their firearms.
> ...




And that's exactly what the nuts were going for.  Thank you.

I think they already _were _meeting quietly in a safe place.  Or at least that was the intention.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



Show us specifically which hats are different and why the shadows which point 90 degrees off in a picture taken from a position 90 degrees from the first, don't work.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No as opposed to common sense. Something you retards lack.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.
> ...



The shadows are exactly the same.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...


And if we look at the shadows, note that in the side view, the shadow of yellow shirt guy points directly towards the left foot of the fat guy in the white tee-shirt.
Switch to the front view. The shadow angle of the guy on the extreme left (brown or OD shirt) points in *exactly* the same direction.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 18, 2013)

Well, I don't really blame them for having a whole arsenal of loaded guns at the event. Have you ever had a gang of angry mothers and children riot and pelt you with chocolate chip cookies and and home made bannana nut bread?  You can put out an eye with those projectiles.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



You still refuse to point out which hats have changed. Why don't you open up photoshop and give us a red circle on each changed hat, OK?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Again, the leftist tools continue to assign intentions that never existed, and to pretend something other than what took place happened.

They weren't there to intimidate anyone. The leftist liars like to pretend that ANYONE with a gun is a threat, up to and including our own soldiers and guards of our children...and of course including any law abiding citizen who happens to carry a firearm in public. 

In other words, anti-gun nuts find American citizens *threatening* and they are going to pretend that they pose a threat in order to illegally subdue them, and to remove their rights.

Carry on, lying leftist douches. We have your number, and we'll continue to protest.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, I don't really blame them for having a whole arsenal of loaded guns at the event. Have you ever had a gang of angry mothers and children riot and pelt you with chocolate chip cookies and and home made bannana nut bread?  You can put out an eye with those projectiles.



Yes I have! And I wear a patch over my left eye to this day.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

And think of the REASON leftist douches find armed citizens so alarming...

Armed citizens are really difficult to kill. So they are going to demonize them.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...


PM sent. Show me the different hats.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Shall I take your lack of response as a concession?


----------



## 71sportstourer (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> And think of the REASON leftist douches find armed citizens so alarming...



The douches in the gun debate clearly are the ones who continue to think the US can afford to piss away millions in security measures for schools (like guards, more of whom they suggest be hired at schools, and metal detectors...not to mention the hundreds of millions we spend each year mopping up after gun violence) when those we're now competing with economically, like China, are putting a greater percentage of their available resources directly into educating their kids. While your NRA rhetoric is not unlike it was 20 years ago, the economic realities of this country have changed more in the past 15 years than they did in the prior 50. It's the 21st Century. Get a freaking clue.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

You get a freaking clue.

It is only people like you, who place no value on life (particularly young life) who think protection of children is quite low on the priority list.

Our school has volunteers who patrol the grounds. They cost $0.00.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Brave Sir Lakeview ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head, 
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Lakeview turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Lakeview!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 18, 2013)

71sportstourer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And think of the REASON leftist douches find armed citizens so alarming...
> ...



Let teachers arm themselves and you wouldn't need armed guards at schools.

How much is spent each year mopping up after vehicle accidents?

Mortality

All injury deaths
Number of deaths: 180,811
Deaths per 100,000 population: 58.6

All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 31,672 
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3


Source


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I don't really blame them for having a whole arsenal of loaded guns at the event. Have you ever had a gang of angry mothers and children riot and pelt you with chocolate chip cookies and and home made bannana nut bread?  You can put out an eye with those projectiles.
> ...





I like your style, Ernie!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Again, the leftist tools continue to assign intentions that never existed, and to pretend something other than what took place happened.
> 
> They weren't there to intimidate anyone. The leftist liars like to pretend that ANYONE with a gun is a threat, up to and including our own soldiers and guards of our children...and of course including any law abiding citizen who happens to carry a firearm in public.
> 
> ...



Umm... you and I already agreed (in a surreal moment) that the nutgroup succeeded in what they went to do.

What can the purpose possibly be of brandishing weapons at the mothers, if *not* intimidation then?

Further, stipulating for the moment that the nutgroup agrees with you that said mothers "like to pretend that ANYONE with a gun is a threat" --- if that's true, or more to the point if they believe it's true... then showing up with guns would be designed to produce _*exactly*_ that effect. 

.... Would it not?

So I still agree with you --- they succeeded.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



That's a real picture too. 

Look at the shadows.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Ya know, you can't take this shit too seriously. It could make you Liberal.

Oh shit! You really should take some time off


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You get a freaking clue.
> 
> It is only people like you, who place no value on life (particularly young life) who think protection of children is quite low on the priority list.
> 
> Our school has volunteers who patrol the grounds. They cost $0.00.



Ironic you should mention children in a story where a nutgroup brings both loaded weapons and children to the same place -- to make a political point.

The potential consequences of which are too often preceded by the announcement, 
"Hey y'all --- watch this!!"


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You get a freaking clue.
> ...



and yet that didnt happen. According to you hopolophobes, those guns should have just went and shot those kids just because they were within 5 feet of them.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You get a freaking clue.
> ...



How often, Possum? How often does a child get injured while posing for a group portrait with a group of law abiding gun owners?

Please be specific. I want to know all the risks before bring a camera with me to my gun range up in the back of my property.

Really Pogo! How many children in that photo were in danger?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

(for both the previous two posts)

--- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.

Tell me -- Does (b) sound familiar at all? 

How do y'all like the Westboro Batshit Church doing that?  Now imagine the WBC carring not only "God hates fags" signs but loaded guns too.

I rest my case.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Exactly! Here's a picture of my wife. It is obvious that it was take several hours later.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> (for both the previous two posts)
> 
> --- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.
> 
> ...



Bringing up the WBC is the modern eqivalent of Godwin's law, it means you have lost the arguement, and must resort to guilt by tenuous association. 

What about all those protesters that brought thier kids with them during all the anti-bush protests during his time? There was always a chance of a riot breaking out, were those parents irresponsible?

Having a gun loaded near a child is not irresponsible in of itself, it it was we would need a 50ft buffer around every police officer to be made a no child area.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> (for both the previous two posts)
> 
> --- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.
> 
> ...


 
Using children to make a political point.....wait a minute, what was the name of the mothers' group again?

Nutwad. Your case was lost from the outset, with the first set of lies.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...

Like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hill, movie theaters, Ft. Hood, etc...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?
> 
> Oh, that's right. Nothing.



It's called "analogy".

Perhaps it's also called "inconvenient".


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?
> ...



Its called Godwin(ing) it because you have run out of steam.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

It's called "false analogy". It's what losers do when they know they've lost.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Hmmm. STILL waiting for a response from Lakeview. I dutifully sent requested PM and have not received a reply informing me of which people posing changed their hats. No further argument about shadow direction, either.
Seems like the boy has run off to hide.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> It's called "false analogy". It's what losers do when they know they've lost.



And that's called whining.  It goes with "inconvenient".

See also Danth's Law.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No... Godwin would need a Hitler.  This part is about children, not Hitler.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The WBC is now in the ranks of Hitler on internet forums, any reference to them as a comparision is more often than not hyperbole.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

There are false analogies, and there are legit analogies.

The analogy between the pro-abortion crowd and Nazi genocide supporters is legit.

The analogy between people who object to the removal of their right to bear arms, and the WBC funeral stake-outs is not. There are no parallels between the two groups. WBC is a tiny group of lunatics who have found a really offensive way to hog the limelight...

But those who support our right to bear arms come from all walks of life, all churches, and number in the tens of millions. In other words, they are the majority. The extremists are the anti-gun loons, who like to pretend they are the mainstream...which is just another lie they tell in order to further their agenda...the outcome of which is to disarm, and then diminish, the population.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...
> 
> Like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hill, movie theaters, Ft. Hood, etc...



That's where the *loaded *part comes in I'm afraid.

Go to make a point with guns showing, take the kids to make cheap political points... that's one level.

Now make those guns *loaded *with the kids still there.

I understand guns can't go off accidentally (when the argument is that they can).
I also understand guns _*can *_go off acciedentally (when the argument is that a guy in Dearborn Heights shot a 19-year-old girl _in the face_).

I'm not sure how that's going to be resolved but it sure is convenient to have it both ways.

Secondly...
If the nutgroup is going to make a point visually (as they did) --- then *why *load the guns?  You don't need them loaded to make the point.

If they loaded them because they thought they'd need to use them--- _*then why bring the children*_?

Having it both ways.... priceless.

Senseless too.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



^^ Martybegan's Law?

Or did you just fuck up?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Again, the whole point of bearing arms is that they are effective when it comes to protecting one's children.

And anywhere that progressives are congregating, it's a good bet that children are in danger. Just saying.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> There are false analogies, and there are legit analogies.



Right... "mine" are legit and "yours" are false.  



koshergrl said:


> The analogy between the pro-abortion crowd and Nazi genocide supporters is legit.



If you can find a way to bridge them, more power to you, unfortunately neither is involved here.



koshergrl said:


> The analogy between people who object to the removal of their right to bear arms, and the WBC funeral stake-outs is not. There are no parallels between the two groups. WBC is a tiny group of lunatics who have found a really offensive way to hog the limelight...
> 
> But those who support our right to bear arms come from all walks of life, all churches, and number in the tens of millions. In other words, they are the majority. The extremists are the anti-gun loons, who like to pretend they are the mainstream...which is just another lie they tell in order to further their agenda...the outcome of which is to disarm, and then diminish, the population.



Well then you're looking in the wrong place.  The children analogy has nothing to do with any group's agenda--- it's the idea of using children as a political tool.  WBC does it, and the nutters here did it too, except they took it to the escalation of putting the children in potential harm at the same time.

That ain't too bright.  That's why I go with "nutgroup".


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

No, I don't do relativism.

There really is no comparison between people who defend our right to bear arms, and the dozen or so WBC nuts who go off on various and bizarre tangents.

And progressives just can't find a way to wrap their baby-killing minds around how to protect children, or why it is necessary. That's okay. Your desire to see harm come to children is proven every time you allow children to be slaughtered in the name of progress...whether in the abortion abbatoirs, or in the latest "NO GUNS ALLOWED" shooting gallery.  Thank goodness, you're a tiny minority of the population, and everybody recognizes you as the disgusting death cultists you are.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...
> ...


Loaded/ unloaded; who knows for sure? AND if you are exercising your right to be armed, why carry rather unwieldy clubs?

What is the point of carrying or displaying an unloaded weapon?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Godwin's law at is base is the devolving of an argument to a nazi comparison, once a person has run out of original arguments. The WBC is so reviled that they are the 21st centuries new addition to the Nazis as the most evil people on the planet. Hence the godwin's law comparison.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo doesn't understand why we are committed to protecting children.

He thinks civilized people recognize that children should be sacrificed at the altar of "progress"...via mass slaughter...in abortion assembly lines, or in school rooms. It's all the same...reduction of the population is GOOD and children are less valuable than, say, him.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Nope, just the logical evolution of Godwin's Law.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Again, the whole point of bearing arms is that they are effective when it comes to protecting one's children.
> 
> And anywhere that progressives are congregating, it's a good bet that children are in danger. Just saying.



-- because a group of four Mothers Against Gun Violence is going to start lobbing grenades from inside the restaurant.

This is the part of the message board that's so satisfying .... the squirming and stretching.  It's like yoga in words.



martybegan said:


> Godwin's law at is base is the devolving of an argument to a nazi comparison, once a person has run out of original arguments. The WBC is so reviled that they are the 21st centuries new addition to the Nazis as the most evil people on the planet. Hence the godwin's law comparison.



-- in STEREO! 

Namaste.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Progressives pose a danger to children. It's true.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Progressives pose a danger to children. It's true.



Progressives kill over 2,000 children every day. 56,830,000 in the last 40 years.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 18, 2013)

Can't wait to see what these assholes would do at a Mothers against drunk driving meeting


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

And that's just American progressives.

Go worldwide, and further back, and the numbers are even more impressive.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Can't wait to see what these assholes would do at a Mothers against drunk driving meeting


 

Again, the disconnect.

Drunk driving is not a constitutional right, and nobody ever saved a child by driving drunk.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Can't wait to see what these assholes would do at a Mothers against drunk driving meeting
> ...



Actually that's prolly not true at all.  Think about it.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Again with the minutiae. I've no interest in getting into a discussion over whether, at some point in the history of mankind, a child has been rescued from some situation by a drunk driver.

Because that would be pointless and stupid..like most of your posts. And I certainly don't want to imitate you.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Again with the minutiae. I've no interest in getting into a discussion over whether, at some point in the history of mankind, a child has been rescued from some situation by a drunk driver.
> 
> Because that would be pointless and stupid..like most of your posts. And I certainly don't want to imitate you.



Then maybe you shouldn't traffic in absolutes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



I think you are about as qualified to analyze photographs as Obama is.

That, in case you missed it, means not at all.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.
> 
> The angle of the sun is a minor detail? You are hilarious! KUTGW.



I looked at every hat in both pictures, no one changed their hats.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take your comment about the changing of the hats as proof that you have reviewed the pictures and now know that I was correct.
> ...



But they're all tinfoil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



Take it up with the guy that insists they changed.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 18, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Again with the minutiae. I've no interest in getting into a discussion over whether, at some point in the history of mankind, a child has been rescued from some situation by a drunk driver.
> ...


 
I imagine you think you've made a point there.

But you haven't. The only point you've made is that you cannot argue the real issue intelligently, without seizing on minutiae and diverting attention from the substance of the discussion.

If you are so easily distracted then you aren't up to snuff anyway.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 18, 2013)

gun grabbing is gay


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257]Debating A Gun Control Fanatic - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Nov 18, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



It must suck to lose the argument over and over and over. 






::at pat:::


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 18, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 18, 2013)

lakeview said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > lakeview said:
> ...



I just looked, so did my wife: nobody's hat changed.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Again with the minutiae. I've no interest in getting into a discussion over whether, at some point in the history of mankind, a child has been rescued from some situation by a drunk driver.
> ...



OK then. Suppose some child HAS been saved by a drunk driver. Could the same result been obtained if the driver was sober? Yes. Of course. Now How many unarmed citizens have shot and killed a would be child killer?

You see, in one case, the gun is relevant and in the other, the alcohol is not. Poor analogy.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He ran from me too. He promised to reveal which men had changed their hats if someone sent him a PM. All I got was... well, I got nothing.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You would know.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



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.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I guess  you can explain it to he how it actually feels.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Not necessary.  I showed her.
Not that it's anything new...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.


----------



## Borillar (Nov 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



A couple black guys with nightsticks is intimidating, but a platoon of open carry militia nuts is fine and dandy.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.



Were they there as a counter-protest to the Mums?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Borillar said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Actually it depends on their intention. The thugs were intending to stop certain people from voting. The group was supporting the Constitution


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.
> ...



irrelevant this thread is based on a lie.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Why they were there is "irrelevant"?

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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > borillar said:
> ...



horse shit group of hunter back from the  hunt decide to stop and get a bite to eat. Some whacked out bitches group is their who knew right?


----------



## Gracie (Nov 19, 2013)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Gracie said:


>


----------



## Noomi (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.



I don't believe anything I read on anti abortion websites either but I am willing to bet that you do.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 19, 2013)

Gracie said:


>



People with guns kill people.


----------



## Gracie (Nov 19, 2013)

People with spoons...and worse..FORKS..are dangerous too.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 19, 2013)

Cry me a fucking river...

Try defending your krusty assed panties without a gun...

Not that anyone cares about yo krusty, stinky, and  assed up panties...

But krusty, stinky panties is krusty, stinky pantries...

Just sayin...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.
> ...



you don't believe it because it goes beyond your education


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 19, 2013)

Gracie said:


> People with spoons...and worse..FORKS..are dangerous too.



I knew how to use chopsticks when I was four and I didn't even smoke crack! ...

... Boom!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



of course you would throw the baby out and keep the dirty bath water.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 19, 2013)

I also learnededed how to spot false composite _and cheap_ photoshopping from the legit shit...

Good eyes don't need guns...


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2013)

Kroyd said:


> I also learnededed how to spot false composite _and cheap_ photoshopping from the legit shit...
> 
> Good eyes don't need guns...





FaIl...........


according to Harvard University we need *MORE GUNS*



In April of 2013, the Harvard University Journal of Law and Public Policy released their study, which concluded >>>>>


*more guns = less crimes*



*Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime.  However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally.  In other words, the more guns the less crime.  The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not.  In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.  *



Here is the full paper from the journal >>>  http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf





gun grabbing is gay.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > People with guns kill people.
> ...



Much like throwing the kids into an armed confrontation?

Isn't it weird how guns don't shoot by themselves... until they do?
When the deflection is to the gun, we hear this "loaded guns aren't dangerous; they don't fire themselves" line; when a 19-year-old girl gets shot in the face, it's "oh, the gun went off accidentally".

Having it both ways: priceless.


----------



## Beaconoftruth (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> People with guns kill people.



Here's a question:

If every gun in the world vanished, would there be less violent crime, or at least successful violent crime?

If you answer anything other than yes, please get an examination.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Beaconoftruth said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > People with guns kill people.
> ...



no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others. 

guns keep the bad people away, and protect the weak people.


----------



## freshpyle (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo as in stick? Or Pogo you have met the enemy and he is you?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No force or threat was used, the weapons were not brandished, which implies showing in a threatening manner. no weapon was aimed at a person. 

The only powder keg created was in the wussy minds of people like you, who are scared of your fellow citizens, unless of course they are dressed as government actors, then you can't wait to get on your knees and start slurping to thier "authority"

Bed wetters, all of you. Kindly go into your home, cower in the corner and stay there so the rest of us dont have to deal with your incessant mewling.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

freshpyle said:


> Pogo as in stick? Or Pogo you have met the enemy and he is you?



Bwaaa HaHa!  How ya doin' fresh one?  Snuck in without tellin' me eh?

Hey everybody ... I know this guy.  He's cool.  You're gonna like him. 

This will be a lot of backreading in this particular thread, but I'll go look for your intro thread and meet you in PM-land.  

Welcome in.  

"Fresh Pyle"   -- one of my better puns I guess.  You know this means I get 50% of your content...


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 19, 2013)

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 Bitch Kitty, can't they?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like.  As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's _intent_.  And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up.  Case closed.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> 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 Bitch 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.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot. 

they were open carrying, which is perfectly legal. they were assembling to air grievences, which is perfectly legal. they did not threaten or confront anyone, in any way. 

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?


----------



## Beaconoftruth (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others.
> 
> guns keep the bad people away, and protect the weak people.



Your assumption is based on the fact that there is no social contract. People have morals. People have laws. Without firearms, even bad people would join groups.

Atomic bombs keep bad countries away and protect the weak countries.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



-- luckily.  But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, _which is what they're actually doing there_, *hello*)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns *props*.  OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded.  Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need _loaded _props, especially with children standing in front of you?  Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded.  And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... _*then why do you bring the children*_?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled.  Ergo: nutgroup.



martybegan said:


> they were open carrying, which is perfectly legal. they were assembling to air grievences, which is perfectly legal. they did not threaten or confront anyone, in any way.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue.  The threatening/confrontation is.  Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right?  Because that's not how the world works.  And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message.  A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate".  A gun says "I can blow your head off right now".  That's not intimidation?  BULLSHIT.  It's the whole *point*.



martybegan said:


> They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.



That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above.  Thank you.  Got a link btw?



martybegan said:


> Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?



Again you're off to psychobabble.  That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done *all* of these arguments upthread.  Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Beaconoftruth said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others.
> ...



and without atomic bombs we probably would have had far more conventional wars between superpowers due to the scope of said wars being more manageable.

If you remove firearms you remove the overwhelming force that governments currently have over the rest of the people, both thier own, and others seeking what they want. It is no suprise that the decline of the ravaging hordes such as the mongols happened with the widespread use of firearms. No longer was physical might and mobility the main controller of force and ruling. 

Without firearms the biggest and strongest would rule, starting locally, and working its way up.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



luck had nothing to do with responsible people carrying firearms responsibly. you keep going with the mantra that firearms are just death and destruction waiting to happen. 

So you assume that every cop you pass by open carrying is going to blow your head away?

paranoid idiot. 



> The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of gun sense (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.
> 
> We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesnt feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to cj@opencarrytexas.org. The ball is in your court, the group wrote



Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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...
> 
> ...



So to be straight on this, you support armed intimidation of voters at the polls, as long as those intimidated are white?

Nothing changes with democrats, just the color of your victims.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 

What ridiculous claptrap you spout. You are the one who rehashes the same tired and nonsensical arguments. Your retarded "prop" garbage is just that. It is completely irrelevant to this conversation. Please continue with that idiotic mantra inside your own head, only, and stop boring the rest of us with it.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> People with guns kill people.



As do people with knives, clubs, cars, and as Britney Murphy found out, rat poison....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Damn you really are hooked on the Kool-Aid!

These people with the guns stayed for about ten minutes took a picture then left. There were not close to the restaurant.



> Police officers arrived at the location, but made no arrests. There were no issues that we are aware of, said an Arlington Police Department spokeswoman, Tiara Ellis Richard. Texas law does not prohibit the carrying of long guns.



You have no idea if the weapons were in fact loaded, although I would assume they would be since an unloaded gun is nothing but a club at that point. 

The fact of this story is that the women were terrified that Theyre walking around with killing machines strapped to their backs in a suburban area,.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 19, 2013)

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights.   they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do.  if that intimidates you, thats your problem.  but stop whining about it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yeah actually it does once you consider that their presence as they manifested it was entirely elective; they didn't _have to_ go do that.  That's where your word "responsible" morphs to "reprehensible".  Loaded props..with children. 



martybegan said:


> So you assume that every cop you pass by open carrying is going to blow your head away?



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.



martybegan said:


> paranoid idiot.



Glad to meet ya.  I'm Pogo.  Say weren't you going to kill me in a fire?



martybegan said:


> > &#8220;The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of &#8216;gun sense&#8217; (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.
> >
> > &#8220;We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesn&#8217;t feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to cj@opencarrytexas.org. The ball is in your court,&#8221; the group wrote
> 
> ...



Why couldn't they just do that in the first place?  Meet one's adversary on the same level rather than standing outside the building intimidating and polarizing?

I mean..... *duh*.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Since I've had my concealed handgun license I've been pulled over several times for minor traffic violations, mostly speeding ( I got a lead foot) and the officer would ask if I was carrying I would always answer with an affirmative and not once did they ask to see the weapon or if the weapon was loaded or what my plans were. Since acquiring my CHL I haven't received not one single traffic ticket, only warnings some written others verbal.


----------



## 007 (Nov 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html



Hey Piddly Bedatnight, why don't you turn your rep back on so we can see what people here really think of the pathetic leftard garbage you post, you fucking PUSSY.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



No they don't.
Law abiding people use their guns to stop people who do kill with guns.
The idea is that you use your gun to stop the killer or thief without killing them.
Law abiding citizens do not want to kill anyone, but will if it becomes absolutely necessary, it's the last resort though, if you think it comes down to your life or the law breakers life.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think that's bullshit.  You watch too much Fox Noise.
> ...



To be straight on this I don't believe any such thing happened.  Fox Noise Fables.

And stop pretending I'm a "Democrat", Pothead.  Ain't nobody buying except the illiterate.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Since I've had my concealed handgun license I've been pulled over several times for minor traffic violations, mostly speeding ( I got a lead foot) and the officer would ask if I was carrying I would always answer with an affirmative and not once did they ask to see the weapon or if the weapon was loaded or what my plans were. Since acquiring my CHL I haven't received not one single traffic ticket, only warnings some written others verbal.



What's your point?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Uh-- yeah, we do.  We all know that.  OCT people said it themselves in the video.  That's established in the first TWO SECONDS in the conversation with the police officer.  Hellllooooo....

And why would you need a "club" (or a gun) if your purpose is a demonstration?
Think about it -- you're suggesting the purpose is peaceful and lawful, and at the same time you want them armed with either firepower or "clubs".  WTF dood?  Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights.   they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do.  if that intimidates you, thats your problem.  but stop whining about it.



Sure.  That's why I keep saying, they could have brought signs instead of something deadly.  Or, and I think this is a better idea, just show up as normal people, go in the restaurant and sit down with the four women to join the discussion.  Actually according to Marty's link that's what they're going for now.  Should have thought of that _before_.  Because all they've done is dug the hole of the gun-nut image deeper.  They did their own cause a disservice, and now they're backtracking.

Nothing wrong with demonstration.  It's American.  Intimidation is another level.  You don't change or retain a Constitution by threat of force; you do it through dialogue.  That's (supposed to be) American too.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
They weren't intimidating.

And lobbying to remove constitutional rights from fellow Americans is a polarizing action. If you don't like confrontation, then don't try to remove the rights of others.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



*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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> To be straight on this I don't believe any such thing happened.  Fox Noise Fables.



ROFL

Yes, ignore the man behind the curtain, the Youtube videos are fake.

{Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[2][3][4] Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[5] including phrases such as "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."[6] }

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> And stop pretending I'm a "Democrat", Pothead.  Ain't nobody buying except the illiterate.



Whatever you are, you serve the party....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights.   they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do.  if that intimidates you, thats your problem.  but stop whining about it.
> ...



When the very right to own firearms is being threatened by these people under the guise that they are too dangerous for ANYONE to to own, then showing that it is not the case is the best form of protest. 

And you see intimidation by the government at protests all the time by your logic, by the armed police that often surround them. But i guess thats OK because the government gets to have rights we have to give up according to you. 

They are not backtracking, they plan on further demonstrations. Its also in Texas, where the gun rights people get more support then the nanny statists.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



That's your problem you see armed citizens as a threat. I don't.

I'm all for open carry in Texas whether it's long guns or handguns and for those that don't like it there is always other states to move to.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Apparently your position is so weak you have to bolster it with bullshit --- this group says right in their mission statement that they support the Second Amendment, so climb down from the emotional roller coaster there, Martha.  And again, you debate Constitutional issues -- if that's what you have, or legislative issues if it's a smaller scale-- with debate, not with intimidation.  They seem to have learned that lesson.  This message board persists without them.



martybegan said:


> And you see intimidation by the government at protests all the time by your logic, by the armed police that often surround them. But i guess thats OK because the government gets to have rights we have to give up according to you.



Did you miss everything I posted about police while you were having your emotional moment?



martybegan said:


> They are not backtracking, they plan on further demonstrations. Its also in Texas, where the gun rights people get more support then the nanny statists.



It's certainly a backtrack from showing up unannounced brandishing guns.  It's the approach they should have taken from the start.

When a person or people arrive brandishing guns in this country, god damn right it's cause for concern.  This shouldn't have to be spelled out yet again.... Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine and other events tell us that. 

I mean, again... Duh?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

"...
If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church&#8217;s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot &#8212; but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

Similar stories are available from across the country. They include shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; at a mall in Salt Lake City, or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.

The ban against nonpolice carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.



Read more: Concealed weapons save lives - NY Daily News


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Borillar said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> "...
> If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
> In that assault, the church&#8217;s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot &#8212; but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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.



The anti-liberty group was specifically attacking the right of Americans to bear arms; the act of bearing arms in protest is the exact response that should be and was given.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "...
> ...


 
Uh, yes, I think it is a good thing when killers are stopped before they can rack up numbers, and I think it's a good thing when people are law abiding.

"After the May 1974 Ma'alot school massacre in Israel, that government decided on an armed presence in all schools and school buses, usually with more than one armed adult. Some armed guards are police or military, but most are selected and trained civilians, parents and grandparents who are volunteers. There has been no successful mass shooting attack on an Israeli school and only one on a school bus since that policy was instituted. "

Armed guards


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Protection against idiots like yourself and them that seek to strip away their Constitutional right to bear arms.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



*BINGO*.  Give that man a lone star.

Armed posse of 18 (plus two kids) to debate a Constitutional issue.  That's *exactly* what we mean by intimidation.  In a democratic society you do that through debate and voting.  In a thugocracy you do it with threats.

Thank you.  That was like pulling teeth.

And btw your thuggeristic fantasy is working entirely on a fallacy anyway-- neither I nor this MAGV group stands against the right to bear arms.   Put the strawman down, nice and slow...


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights.   they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do.  if that intimidates you, thats your problem.  but stop whining about it.
> ...



did they use something deadly?  no.  its their right to carry them. there is nothing wrong with what they did.  you can't start putting limits on how people protest when they aren't violating laws.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > 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??
> ...



Newsflash Pothead: four women meeting in a restaurant don't exactly have the authority to change the Constitution.  I'm pretty sure the process is a bit more complex, but check me on that.  Maybe you have a point.

Then again since MAGV's own mission statement specifically states support of the Second Amendment, they would have also had to contradict their own raison d'être.

Logical life in Bizarroworld...


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > And you think that kind of scene is a _good_ thing...
> ...



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.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"

Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > why do you bring the children[/B][/I]?
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



So you're saying, if they're against the Second Amendment, they're wrong and I will fight them, and if they're not against the Second Amendment, they're wrong because they're against the Second Amendment.

This is where your logic falls to the ground in a hail of logical bullets.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Newsflash Pothead: four women meeting in a restaurant don't exactly have the authority to change the Constitution.



Who cares?

If 4 Klansmen met in a restaurant in Watts, I'd expect a counter-protest.

These 4 women were there expressly to demand that civil rights be stripped from other Americans.



> I'm pretty sure the process is a bit more complex, but check me on that.  Maybe you have a point.



Who cares?

The anti-liberty women were there for publicity - the counter-protest was perfectly measured and entirely appropriate to the subject.

This only became an issue when the little Goebbels over at ThinkProgess ran distortions in an attempt to libel the civil rights activists.



> Then again since MAGV's own mission statement specifically states support of the Second Amendment, they would have also had to contradict their own raison d'être.
> 
> Logical life in Bizarroworld...



They support that which they wish revoked....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Actions speak louder than words. If they want to restrict law abiding people in thier ability to own and carry firearms, they are against the 2nd amendment. 

Current events have shown us that some parties and groups just flat out lie, know they ar lying, but justify it by telling themselves its for the greater good. Just look at the Obamacare rollout as an example of this.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

martybegan said:


> People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"
> 
> Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.



The anti-liberty advocates have a different interpretatation of "rights." Many claim that the 2nd only applies if you are in the military or national guard, this is not support for civil rights, but an attempt to fool the ignorant.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Beaconoftruth said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > People with guns kill people.
> ...



Why would there be any less violent crime? There have been mass murders committed with knives, axes, swords, bombs, poisons and broken whiskey bottles. Guns simply are more efficient, but if there were no guns, an archer would be nearly invincible.
It boils down to people and their motives. Figure out how to fix that and we wouldn't need guns for self protection.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Idiots like you and them would be intimidated whether the guns were loaded or not. Their intent was not to intimidate but to exercise their rights under the law.

I saw the photo I don't think they were all armed. 

If your not against the second amendment then what are you whining about exactly?

They have every right to bear arms and they did so and it doesn't matter when or where as long as it wasn't in what's been designated as a "gun free zone".


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I think you're full of shit!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Borillar said:
> ...



Funny thing, if there were armed cops were outside the exact same polling place everyone would be screaming about voter intimidation, yet you claim it isn't simply because they are black, while arguing that white people with guns are intimidating people by holding a peaceful public meeting without once asking anyone why they were taking pictures.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



Of course they did. It wasn't as blatant, but their intention was to disarm law abiding citizens.. The men came to the place they met only to show solidarity, but there was no threat to harm the women OR to infringe on their rights.

Bottom line: The women's objective was to do harm to an ideologically opposed group. The gun owners had no intention of harming their opponents.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



People without guns kill more people than people with guns. The common denominator in that seems to be people, not guns, yet you insist on blaming the guns.

Tell me something, given the fact that automobiles kill thousands of people every year why aren't you demanding more automobile control? They actually kill more people in Australia than guns ever did, yet people can still buy them. People who have used automobiles to commit murder can buy a car without a background check, and you don't even blink an eye.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...



You can't "harm" with speech Ernie, certainly not with a kaffeklatch at a restaurant table.  You might get food poisoining, that's about it.  Twenty people with guns on the other hand... well, you do the math.

You don't need to drive to a restaurant you found out about on Nosebook in order to "exercise a right".  Number one, you've already got the right; it doesn't need exercise; number two, you've already founded a group (OCT) to make that statement.  So when you show up at the restaurant your target is only the women.  And of course the publicity, which is what we're chowing down on now.

Food poisoning and all...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...



And as soon as we mention arguing for no other purpose than to argue, look who shows up. 

Specious beaten-to-death car accident analogy in hand no less. 

Standard flaw: automobiles are designed for transportation, not violence.  Duh.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Beaconoftruth said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > People with guns kill people.
> ...



No.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

DC's gun crime quadrupled when they increased gun restrictions.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


If their purpose was to intimidate, why didn't they intimidate anyone?

They held guns. Big deal. If they held pumpkins, hell they could have smashed car windows, but the point was not a Constitutional right to bear pumpkins, was it?

*Who was intimidated?*


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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.


 
What you think is irrelevant, and as has been shown repeatedly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Yes, I lurk in the shadows simply to jump in whenever you mention me.

I was responding to a specific poster who harps about gun violence in the US because her country banned guns. Since my point is that guns are no more responsible for violence than cars, I guess you agree with me that gun control is just as stupid as demanding background checks before buying a car.

On the other hand, since you like to pretend that you didn't actually say what you said whenever someone pins your idiocy down, perhaps you were talking about yourself when you mentioned people arguing only to argue.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



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. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


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 (Nov 19, 2013)

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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Standby for the standby...

"specious"

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


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What the FUCK???? 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 fucking disingenuous can you possibly be?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

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


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> 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 (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> 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!
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> 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.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > 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.'
> ...



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


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > 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.'
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?



Ernie S. said:


> 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.



None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant.  What you describe there is _defensive_, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns.  In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine and the like.  It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Which is the purpose of a show of force.  We didn't use weapons but when we wanted someone in the psych hospital to settle down, we did a show of force by having staff come from other units and stand with us while we corrected the person's behavior or gave an injection.  What went down in that pic of those people just being there with guns wasn't even a show of force.  It was a show of RIGHTS!


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



How many penises does he have?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Pogo has just the one protruding from his neck.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



How the fuck do you get "superiority" out of that?? 

The poster posited a premise that was leading and inaccurate -- I corrected him.

What the fuck, I can't answer a simple question??  You'd prefer I sit down, shut up and offer no response to bullshit about me -- on a message board??



I desire a world without the fetish on guns and violence.  That's no secret.  I said so here, I said so throughout this website, and I've said it since the day I got here.
What the wide world of fuck is wrong with that?



Ernie S. said:


> 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?



I don't have any evidence that your strawman in part 2 is accurate, but in any case NO -- a discussion around a restaurant table is in no way comparable with twenty people with guns outside the window.  NO.

As for the logic of intimidation, see, agan,  Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine...



Ernie S. said:


> YOU keep bringing up "children" and "loaded" for no purpose at all except to sway emotional opinion to your side.
> How fucking disingenuous can you possibly be?



Once again -- what's 'disingenuous' here?  The group has been described as "nuts".  I would say bringing children into a cache of weapons for no other reason than to make a political point, qualifies them as "nuts".  As for the emotion, you tell me what you'd be posting right now if one of those kids had gotten shot accidentally in a situation they didn't have to be placed in.  You tell me, Ernie.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



A face lift will do that to you.  And that hole in his forehead is his belly button~!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many in this nation are brain washed into thinking that law abiding gun owners are not responsible people with using their firearms.
> ...



No Elian González was one story I ignored completely, sorry.  Hyped up stories about what happens to one person have never held any interest for me, so ... 

Show of force versus use-- Sure there's a difference, and it corresponds to the difference between being intimidated by firepower and being physically wounded by it.  You exercise caution when faced with the first so you can try to avoid the second.  That's what the four women did.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



"Concession" to what?

Sunshine's here so that's _nine _posters I'm answering.  Just saying there's only one of me so I can only do so much.

But I am observing that I'm getting nothing but the same old rehashed arguments with their questions unanswered and a lot of empty ad hominem about penises and face lifts, so that tells me something about who's armed with what. 

I can't say I'm not flattered that it takes nine of you though...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Poor frodo.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

You realize that makes you the extremist, right?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



O poor baby!  Out classed by a sick old lady!  Don'tcha just luv it!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You realize that makes you the extremist, right?



 Yeah I guess it does.  And proud of it baby.

Hey, whatever it takes to speak up for what's right, doesn't matter what the numbers are.

OK I'm going back to work.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

It isn't right to disarm the people. Ever. And it never has been.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

But there will always be extremists who clamor for it...

And there will always be armed Americans, and lots of them, who will refuse to disarm.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?



Doesn't matter.  If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.


----------



## regent (Nov 19, 2013)

When I was a kid about eight years old  we used our hand pretending it was a gun, and as we we rode our make believe horses, we shot anything that moved, great fun. The children in the picture look like they have real guns and, in fact, some of those children looked kinda old. How old were those children in the picture?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?
> ...



It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Indeed.  It plays right into the mothers' agenda. 



regent said:


> When I was a kid about eight years old  we used our hand pretending it was a gun, and as we we rode our make believe horses, we shot anything that moved, great fun. The children in the picture look like they have real guns and, in fact, some of those children looked kinda old. How old were those children in the picture?



Don't know if they say, but I remember those daze, and you can add cap guns, dart guns, even water pistols, and when you were done playing outside you came in and watched cowboys shoot up Indians and then later your parents watched cops shoot up robbers.  And then you got more gun toys to emulate the cowboys and the cops.

There's no _pattern_ there though....


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

regent said:


> When I was a kid about eight years old  we used our hand pretending it was a gun, and as we we rode our make believe horses, we shot anything that moved, great fun. The children in the picture look like they have real guns and, in fact, some of those children looked kinda old. How old were those children in the picture?



I see only two children in the front and neither one is holding a gun.
The girl is holding her feet and the boy is sitting with his hands in his lap.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
Not "a meeting of mothers" having tea.

A meeting of mothers seeking to disarm a peacful populace. Whole different thing.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



So you can't answer my questions. I point out that your argument is an emotional one and you accuse me of emotionalism, like you did KG.

I thought your strong point in debates was fallacies. You sure are weak there in your own arguments.

Man up! Answer my questions. Please avoid hyperbole and Tu Quoque. Red herrings left in the sun smell real bad after a few hours.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

If he says his strong point in debate is fallacies, then it stands to reason that it is his weak point...as he has shown here and in the other threads he's floundering in.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



A peaceful populace represented by a gun-toting crowd confronting a meeting of concerned mothers?
Fine...that really plays well for the gun-rights advocates.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I'm glad you cleared that one up!  LMAO


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That is really stupid.  The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had.  You seriously need a life.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I don't see any unanswered questions here except my own, Ernie.  I'm being patient with those because I don't expect there _are _answers.  But if I missed something here of yours, feel free to restate.

And don't put words in my mouth; I never said "my strong point in debates is fallacies".  You did.  But thank you.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



My doctor noticed that I have five penises.
He asked me how my trousers fit and I replied "Like a glove".


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




I read and tried not to have to embarrass you about what you said.  But if you insist:  There is no law that says you have to check in and register your 'intent' before going out with your gun in public view.  Gun owners DO want to intimidate people.  Gun owners want to intimidate people into not perpetrating crimes against them.  DUH!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns.  The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun. 

Not hard to see where that leads.  And where it already has.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I know some women who have WAY more than that.  Which one(s) get used are a matter of choice.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



So, I should let your guy with a gun just go ahead and kill me.  Groovy.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

You don't understand, sunshine. The whole focus of the leftwad extremists is that people who disturb their peace of mind, who make them uncomfortable, who annoy them, or who don't behave in a way they maintain they SHOULD behave, must be criminalized! They are a threat!


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


 
And they want to have the capability of defending themselves.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



They want to use their weapons to intimidate a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers?
That's fine, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't gel with an image of peaceful, responsible gun owners whose only wish is to be able to protect their families or go hunting.
But, it's their right, so go with that.
I wouldn't want them representing me.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




Well I say they are influenced by the media and those who are for banning guns. They have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Listen their talking points, brandishing, drawing guns and intimidation. Vilifying the protesters as if they are the bad people and to make them the problem, not people who are the real villains, who brake the law by using guns.
All of these words are used to evoke emotion and sways your thinking into everyone who owns a gun has the potential of being a killer. When that is far from the truth.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If that's as far as you can think it through, hey.... 

There's only so much you can say to those going


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

And continually saying they're threatening "mothers" who are innocently gathering...completely untrue.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I really only need one to keep me happy.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Yet another logical fallacy ^^^^


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



You're saying everyone who owns (or has in his hand) a gun does _*not *_have the potential of being a killer?

How about someone with a knife?  Bomb?  Poison?

A lot of dead bodies are going to be really surprised at this...


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



First question: Had you included the whole quote, the answer would be apparent, even to you.
Next point. No. It is plain to all involved in this discussion (save you) that you either cannot answer a direct question, or that you feel such questions are beneath you. Again, your imagined superiority is showing. Perhaps a different hair style?

As to the sites of mass shootings you mention: Straw men, all. In no case was the intent of the shooters a protest against a group seeking to infringe their Constitutional rights.

I was going to go on, but I don't see the point. You will continue to dismiss counter argument because you are certain you have all the answers.

I sincerely hope you never have to defend yourself or a loved one from rape or robbery, Possum.
If you do, I hope the hell that there is a man with a gun close by to do for you what you refuse to do for those that depend upon you.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> And continually saying they're threatening "mothers" who are innocently gathering...completely untrue.



They're not mothers?

Hmmm.... this changes everything.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

I was going to say it's really annoying when people pretend to be stupid in order to move goalposts and divert attention from the actual discussion...

then I realized...dodo isn't pretending. This really is the best he can do.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Not his belly button. More likely the end of his vas deferens.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



All sides in an argument use hyperbole and emotion to make their point.

Only one side of this argument is carrying weapons.
Whether you think it's fair or not, that means that they have to be more careful about how they present their case.
I'm suggesting that presenting their weapons in response to a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers is counter-productive and is fodder for the other side's case.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



It's one bad guy with a gun who wants to kill or harm many.
Against many law abiders who each have a gun.
If a bad guy sees 10 guns or more pointed at him, he is pretty much going to be influenced into to setting that gun down peacefully.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What you fail to realize is that you are NOT winning. You are not defending yourself effectively other than in your own mind.
You are deflecting, tap dancing and acting all quite superior, but the truth is, you know you've fallen on your face but are either to proud or too stupid to admit it.
I happen to know that you are not stupid.

Man up. Time to get honest here, sir.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, they're not being threatened.
> 
> And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.



Why with loaded weapons?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent. 

And there are a LOT of them. Gun-grabbing loons like to pretend they are the majority. But they really aren't.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they're not being threatened.
> ...


 
They're SUPPOSED to be loaded.

Cripes you people are stupid.

Guns are NO use if they are not loaded, what do you not understand about that?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I'm not aware of having omitted anything... 



Ernie S. said:


> Next point. No. It is plain to all involved in this discussion (save you) that you either cannot answer a direct question, or that you feel such questions are beneath you. Again, your imagined superiority is showing. Perhaps a different hair style?



That isn't even a question.  You accused me of "superiority" because I corrected another posters suggestion.  There's no explanation of how answering that poster amounts to "superiority" and in any case IT'S NOT A QUESTION.



Ernie S. said:


> As to the sites of mass shootings you mention: Straw men, all. In no case was the intent of the shooters a protest against a group seeking to infringe their Constitutional rights.



Not straw men at all -- they really happened.  And you know they happened, since I merely listed a list of locales and never said what they represent.  I didn't have to; you already know.

But here's the strawman: all those mass shootings have nothing to do with the intent of OCT in showing up.  _*They have to do with what it looks like when you look out your restaurant window and see strangers opening up guns*_.

Come on Ernie, don't play dumb.  It's beneath you.



Ernie S. said:


> I was going to go on, but I don't see the point. You will continue to dismiss counter argument because you are certain you have all the answers.



So wtf is the point of asking a question if you're not going to permit an answer??
Here we're back to  again.  In any debate you're going to have to accept the fact that what comes back to your question might not be what you want to hear.



Ernie S. said:


> I sincerely hope you never have to defend yourself or a loved one from rape or robbery, Possum.
> If you do, I hope the hell that there is a man with a gun close by to do for you what you refuse to do for those that depend upon you.



And I hope the hell that's not necessary, because if such desperate measures are ever needed I'm living in a world I want no part of.  And rest assured, there's *nothing *I refuse to do for those that depend on me.  That's dishonest as hell and you have no right to slur me with your preconceptions that I don't happen to agree with.

Again, you're going to have to accept the fact that not everybody shares your views and values.  That's just the way it is.  

Anything else?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.
> 
> And there are a LOT of them. Gun-grabbing loons like to pretend they are the majority. But they really aren't.



Exactly.
So, how does it help your argument that gun-owners are 'family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent' when they bring out their weapons, not for protection, but to confront a clearly unarmed and peaceful gathering of mothers?
Where's the need for protection there?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



-- And what do guns do, when they're used?

They shoot.

So if this is a group of saintly good citizens going to a restaurant where they know Mothers Against Gun Violence is meeting........

............. WHAT are they intending to shoot?

Again, the questions that can't be answered....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



An old lady was pulled over for speeding she handed the officer her DL, insurance and CHL. 

The officer asked if she was carrying and she said yes she was. She said she had a .45 in her purse, a .40 in the glove box and a .38 in the console. 

The officer ask her what she was afraid of and her reply was "not a damn thing".

We don't carry out of fear, we carry to protect ourselves and others.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



There was no confrontation the mothers were inside discussing how to disarm the populace and the gun owners were outside posing for a photo.
Nothing happened.
Saturday night, I actually went *inside* a restaurant armed. I confronted no one. No one was intimidated. I shot no one. I did not rob the place.
I have no idea what the group of women nearby was talking about, but we did exchange pleasantries.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



So when someone is being robbed at gun point they shouldn't call a cop (another guy with a gun) to stop them?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I never said I was "winning" --- again that's your plug-in.  I said I was trying to answer nine posters.  Why do you have to make shit up, man?.

Same with "superior".  That's yours too.

Danth's Law noted.  Again.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And did you go in brandishing, because you knew there was a gun violence group meeting?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



So, they turned up in response to this meeting of mums, carrying their guns to make a point, or intending to use them if necessary?
Were they there as props in their counter-protest or as fire-power?
Why not carry placards instead?

I don't understand why you can't see how counter-productive this sort of action might be.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Nobody went into the facility brandishing.

They gathered outside, peaceably. As they have every right to do.

People who are frightened by law abiding American citizens practicing their constitutional rights to gather peaceably should probably stay home.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



That's not a fallacy-- it's not even a rhetorical _point_.
It's a simple observation that Sunshine was ignoring the obvious point.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Great.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



They can.  They're just obsessed with argument for its own sake.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



They did not go to the meeting. They were a distance away. They spent ten minutes taking pictures then they left.

You protest how you want to and they will protest how they want to. No laws were violated. 

Just a few liberal women let their emotions get the better of them.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
I don't see it as counter productive. I think everybody should go around armed. I think our country would be a much, much safer place.

What am I saying, I'm from rural Oregon, where people DO go around armed...and where one can live in safety amongst the poorest of the poor, with little to know police oversight. Go figure. 

We don't even lock our doors. You city people cowering in fear over the thought that someone might defend your children from the wackos who target them make me sick.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yes it is. 

We live in a great country. 

And we need to preserve it by kicking the liberals out of office.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, they're not being threatened.
> 
> And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.



So let's see if we have this straight...

The mothers are NOT threatened when a group of strangers shows up outside the window and opens up a bunch of guns...

But the gun nuts ARE threatened by four women talking in a kaffeklatch.

Thanks for clearing THAT one up.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And your gun never went off and killed anyone...I know.

You weren't there presenting your gun in a visually obvious manner as a direct response to another group of people with a pont of view that you disagree with.
It's not an equivalent situation.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.



Right.  And you can tell that in the moment out the restaurant window... how again?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they're not being threatened.
> ...



No they weren't threatened. And there is no evidence that there were even the police didn't see any threatening situation.

But they _felt_ threatened. And that's all it takes for you wussy liberals to get all lathered up.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Carrying... brandishing.

Know the difference.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Absolutely fine.
If that's how responsible, law-abiding, non-threatening family men and women that own guns want to present their case then...fine.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I do know the difference and brandishing has nothing to do with my post dumbass!!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



As the NRA would put it, "An armed society is a polite society", right? 








koshergrl said:


> What am I saying, I'm from rural Oregon, where people DO go around armed...and where one can live in safety amongst the poorest of the poor, with little to know police oversight. Go figure.
> 
> We don't even lock our doors. You city people cowering in fear over the thought that someone might defend your children from the wackos who target them make me sick.



We don't lock our doors here either.  But that's got squat to do with guns.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Glad you agree.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Yes, it is:

Master List of Logical Fallacies


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



We don't always lock our doors and I certainly don't cower in fear.
You must have me confused with someone else.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



With guns, like Loughner?

Or will a Kristallnacht do?

Liberals _invented_ this country, Bub.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

No, they didn't.

Revolutionaries invented this country, and they did it because they got sick of elitist assholes telling them what to buy and where to buy it...and because they were not afforded the rights of English citizens, though they paid excessive taxes.

And God-fearing Christians developed the framework.

Not liberals..certainly not your disgusting sort of progressive liberal.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I wouldn't compare law abiding citizens to the mentally deranged. Though in your case I may make an exception.

This country was invented? Wow you liberals invent some amazing things, even your own facts.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yes it is.
These women want to ban guns for law abiding citizens who want to walk into restaurants or stores like Staples.

They have chapters all across the nation and want to ban sales of guns on the internet, keep law abiding people from carrying their guns into restaurants & stores and want to stop open carry laws.
This will do nothing to stop people who break the laws. All it does do is take the rights away of law abiders.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



^^ He doesn't get it.  Right over his head.

I haz a sad.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 

"*Big Lie Technique* (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question," only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that."

Master List of Logical Fallacies


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

"Most contemporaries called it the *Republican Party*. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the *Jeffersonian Republicans*, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party."

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You're going to try to pinpoint a logical fallacy... by linking a link of ALL logical fallacies?  Now you want to pretend I was saying "fallacies don't exist"?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


If you follow linkbacks a ways, you will find the questions you have less than skillfully avoided.
Your knowledge of logical fallacy is legend, Pogo. No one will deny your skill there. But, you attempt to dismiss arguments as false when the chance is minuscule while employing red herrings, strawmen, Tu Quoque and hyperbole in the mistaken belief that we peons will not see what you're doing.

I put no words in your mouth, I only stated my opinion. I did not attribute the words to you. 

I will not restate my questions. They are there, if you follow our conversation back a ways. To do so would be fruitless as you will avoid them as usual.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Fucking idiots.

"The Republicans, despite internal divisions, dominated the First Party System until partisanship itself withered away during the Era of Good Feelings after 1816.
The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824 the caucus system practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824 the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; It held its first convention in late 1831 in Baltimore. "

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it amusing that you just blather garbage that you've picked up somewhere on television, and you honestly think you've got it right.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Sorry, I missed that in his analogy.
Who was he specifically targeting with his entry into the restaurant?
What was the grand point that he was making when he walked in there?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, they didn't.
> 
> Revolutionaries invented this country, and they did it because they got sick of elitist assholes telling them what to buy and where to buy it...and because they were not afforded the rights of English citizens, though they paid excessive taxes.
> 
> ...



Number one, your Christians were largely Deists.  Number two, the whole idea of this country is based on Liberalism -- which was a revolutionary idea, so I guess I'll give you point #1.  Liberals were revolutionaries, by definition.

Not that I'd expect you to know what that is, but then it wasn't even your point, so maybe you should stick to losing your own.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.



Yup.  They even wrote it down.  That's part of Liberalism -- minimalist government that gets out of the way.

We're off topic.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Shut up, you halfwit.

Meanwhile:

"Congressman James Madison started the party among Representatives in Philadelphia (the national capital) as the _Republican party_;[1] then he, Jefferson, and others reached out to include state and local leaders around the country, especially New York and the South.[2]"

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.
> ...


 
"*Big Lie Technique* (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. "

Master List of Logical Fallacies


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You edited my quote. If you want to continue the discussion, you will need to address that first.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.
> ...


 

"The Republican critique of Federalism became wrapped in the slogan of Principles of 1798, which became the hallmark of the party. The most important of these principles were states' rights, opposition to a strong national government, distrust of the federal courts, and opposition to the navy and the national Bank. The party saw itself as a champion of republicanism and denounced the Federalists as supporters of monarchy and aristocracy.[5]
The party itself originally coalesced around Jefferson, who diligently maintained extensive correspondence with like-minded republican leaders throughout the country. Washington frequently decried the growing sense of "party" emerging from the internal battles among Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and others in his administration. "

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Stores and restaurants and other places of business are private property.  Those businesses can and do make their own rules.  I believe Starbucks and Peet's already have IIRC -- though I don't really keep up on that because when you don't walk around packing because you think you live in a comic book -- you don't need to.

For Idb -- this really does stretch credulity, this ideology-gone-wild; we actually had one poster here (calls himself "Second Amendment") who posted a thread whining that his BANK wouldn''t let him go in packing.

A BANK.  That's how insane it is in this country.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> "Most contemporaries called it the *Republican Party*. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the *Jeffersonian Republicans*, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party."
> 
> Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



?  Why are you posting histories of political parties?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I did not go in "brandishing". I went in to eat. As with the men outside the restaurant, there was no interaction between the armed and unarmed people present.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> A peaceful populace represented by a gun-toting crowd confronting a meeting of concerned mothers?
> Fine...that really plays well for the gun-rights advocates.



No one engaged in violence. Neither the "mothers" who seek to end civil rights for others, nor the civil rights advocates.

The civil rights advocates possessed firearms in accordance with state laws, in a show of solidarity for their civil rights.

The only thing even slightly noteworthy in this scenario was some dishonest "reporting" by the hate site _ThinkProgress._


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 
He's a poorly read ding dong...he doesn't understand the form, AP style, nor is he capable of critical thinking or intelligent debate.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I know, that was my point -- you didn't go with the same agenda as the OCT nuts.
IDB already made my point of false equivalence.

Now I'm going back to find the post you claim I edited.  I made no such edit intentionally.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

I think he's a fakey sock.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If the mothers really wanted peace they would demand equality, and carry guns.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



In what way were they 'not peaceful?'


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> They want to use their weapons to intimidate a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers?



What action did they take - SPECIFICALLY - to intimidate the civil rights opponents?



> That's fine, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't gel with an image of peaceful, responsible gun owners whose only wish is to be able to protect their families or go hunting.
> But, it's their right, so go with that.
> I wouldn't want them representing me.



Similar words have been used about all civil rights advocates.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



To be fair Pogo, maybe he does get it and genuinely believes that it's a winning strategy.
My personal view is different but - oh well.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they're not being threatened.
> ...



How, exactly were the women inside of a restaurant threatened?
Do you assume every woman gets hysterical when within 100 yards of a firearm?
Or just these 4? Why would these particular women be in fear?

Could it be that they were in fear of an opposing position like you seem to be?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



The fact that you live in fear does not mean everyone else does. People carry all sorts of things with them in case they need them. For example, every car I have ever owned had jumper cables in it. That does not mean I lived in fear of a dead battery, it just means I am prepared to deal with it.

Same thing with guns and knives, the mere possession of either does not mean you are afraid.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie -- is this the post in question?  Because I see nothing missing between this and my response...



Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I see no edit.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Christ on a cracker.  No one leaves the house with a gun 'intending' to shoot anything.  Did any of these 'mothers' get shot?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Riiiight.  A group called "Mothers Against *Gun *Violence"... carrying guns.



Only on Bizarroplanet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



That is amazing. Tell me something, is that because you just don't see the questions other people ask as a general rule, or do you see them, and then lose sight of them when they are inconvenient?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Of course it is. I was feet away from 4 women eating 5 Guy's burgers, carrying a very large revolver. There were perhaps 40 people in the building and I'd bet the farm that at least 3 of them were also armed. This is Alabama. 50% of us have CCP's Many carry open. It is not legal gun owners you should fear.
If 4 or 5 thugs in hoodies burst through the doors, fear them, and thank God for the 4 armed citizens who are about to save your life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



No, the answer to guns is less fear, just like the answer to cars is less fear. You stopped being afraid of cars, you can stop being afraid of guns. Try it and see.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Those "peaceful" mothers are willing to use the power of the government to take away your rights, they deserve to be intimidated.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You are immediately assuming that law abiders who enter banks with guns would be there to rob the bank.
It's to stop bank robbers.

The reason Starbucks changed that rule was because of those who did not want them around. Very unreasonable, nothing had happened and the ones who did not like it was because they *felt* uncomfortable.
Never mind that they were much safer with them around.
These women want the feds as well as their States to ban it from all the public places.
So much for the freedom to choose for the businesses.

The States that have conceal permits are allowed to carry their guns into banks and bars.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Frodo appears to have only half a functioning brain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they're not being threatened.
> ...



Gun safety 101, all weapons are loaded.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.
> ...



The intent of that gathering was malicious.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



In retrospect, they weren't.  In the moment, there's no way to know.
But the moment is where we live, until the time machine is ready.  All you can react to is the "now".

How could they know the future?  You see people out the window pulling guns out. In the moment, that's all you know.  By the way the restaurant management was equally concerned, and rightly so.




Ernie S. said:


> Do you assume every woman gets hysterical when within 100 yards of a firearm?
> Or just these 4? Why would these particular women be in fear?



Certainly not -- that would be an absolute, and we know where that leads 
But to see unknown people outside the window where you're sitting getting guns out?  In this country where we have yet another mass shooting every month or two?  You'd be crazily irresponsible to NOT pay attention to what the fuck might be about to go down.  

This is just one of the repercussions of having an open carry law, and that's for Texas to address or leave alone.  But in the moment, with our record, it's impossible to pretend this is just part of the wallpaper.



Ernie S. said:


> Could it be that they were in fear of an opposing position like you seem to be?



I'm not putting words in anybody else's mouth, so I can't relate...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Nor does declining to participate in the personal arms race.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > They want to use their weapons to intimidate a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers?
> ...



You go with that argument.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Well, you load your gun so it can shoot something.  You can't shoot if it's not loaded.
They _were_ loaded.  *What were they intending to shoot?*


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Nor does declining to play in the arms race.



What was done to intimidate the anti-civil rights group? 

Did someone point a weapon at them? Were threats made? 

Or did the anti-civil rights group simply object to the civil rights advocates displaying the fact that they retain their rights?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You did not answer my question.  In what way were the 'not peaceful?'


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What argument?

You claim that the civil rights opponents were intimidated - by what action?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That was not an 'argument.'  It was a question.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Well it isn't even your question alleged to have gone missing but I invited him to ask again, then I went back and reposted the whole thing (finding nothing missing) and you're welcome to butt in as usual and explain where the unanswered question is.

I expect that will return the usual from you.... cue crickets...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Which is why no one had a problem with Starbucks allowing people to carry if they were in compliance with local law.

Wait, they did have a problem because the anti gun nuts don't want people to have the freedom to do what they think is best for them they want to tell them what to do.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I'm arguing that their *method* of standing up for their rights is counter-productive to the general arguments in favour of gun ownership.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



That's the Paranoia World Comic Book (on stands now) that I never want to live in.  Or maybe it's a movie.  I never cared for either.

Nice fable and all but I've never seen it manifest in real life.  Ever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



The only butt that should matter to you is the one you are sitting on.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You're a good Boy Scout then.

I have jumper leads.
I carry no weapons.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



The point is that, like the men in the restaurant parking lot, I was targeting no one. I intimidated or terrified nobody. I did not enter the place armed to make a point. I went there because I was hungry. What I did was 100% legal. No one called the cops nobody fainted.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I am sure you think you have a point. The fact that no sane person can see it is, I am also sure, irrelevant.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
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...


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



So, what was the specific point that you were making at that time, and who was it directed at?
Are you saying that you were you showing your weapon to these women to win an argument?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



"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.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It isn't like this is the first time you "didn't see" a question. I have asked you questions before, and had to repeat them multiple times in order to get an answer. I have also watched others go through the same process with you. It is possible that we are all delusional, and that we manifest that delusion only with you, but I think Occam's Razor says that you just close your eyes a lot.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Thank you. One by one we get the concession that the object was indeed intimidation.

Thanks -that's honest.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Actually, no, you didn't.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What did they do that was not peaceful?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Again Peach -- you're falling back on that comic book fantasy that every time you walk into a bank or a Starbuck's -- there's a robbery waiting to happen.

That's a comic book.  That's not real life.  If we lived in that comic book we would call it a war zone.

Want to live in a war zone?

Me neither.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Hah, sorry, I assumed that it was a rhetorical question.
The answer seemed so obvious.
They turned up to counter an unarmed group and openly displayed their weapons.
Their gathering and display of guns was directed at those women.
I'd call that intimidation.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



The intent of the mothers gathering?

Explain.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What should they have done? When someone threatens you you have two basic choices, fight or flight. Your problem is that they made the choice to fight rather than run away. 

The only thing counter productive about that is that it defeats your intent to take away the rights of other people. Tough fucking shit.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Again...

private property.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If you carry jumper leads you carry a weapon.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


What was the immediate threat from those malicious mothers to those poor gun-owners that they needed to have weapons ready for use?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Again! I did not put words in your mouth. I expressed an opinion.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If you're carrying jumper cables you're equipped to help somebody.
If you're carrying weapons you're equipped to kill somebody.

No brainer there.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

How were the gun people 'not peaceful?'

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







> peace·ful
> adjective \&#712;p&#275;s-f&#601;l\
> 
> : quiet and calm : without noise, excitement, etc.
> ...



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?


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No I'm not.
Read post # 709


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...




And nobody sees a comparison.

OCT didn't even go in to eat.  Because that's not what they came for.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



How would you know what any sane person would see?  Have you hired an assistant?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



You give up too easily.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



If fear isn't the issue, why the fuck do you keep bringing it up?

What the fuck are you babbling about now? Does the life force want you to pretend that everyone is going to follow your fake religion? If not, why the fuck even bring it up? Is this part of your expertise in fallacy?


----------



## westwall (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...









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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> "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.



What did the civil rights advocates do, EXACTLY, that made the civil rights opponents fear their personal safety?

I was in our lobby an hour ago, and a man got in a 3/4 ton truck, with 500 horse power. He turned that massively powerful machine on, even though I was only feet away, and it was pointing at me.

Your position is idiocy, the mere presence of items that CAN do damage is not intimidation.

Like the civil rights opponents you advocate for, you have empty pockets.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
That's RIGHT. They were there to show that law abiding gun owners pose no threat to anyone....and are quite numerous. Not the fringe lunatics the four mothers would like everybody else to believe.

And they proved their point.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I have said many times that the mothers intent was intimidation, and you keep agreeing with me, and then spouting nonsense about how it is wrong to respond to intimidation by fighting back. Are you finally going to stop, or is this another fallacy?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It would seem to me they went to get their picture taken.  Now, please answer my question:  How were they 'not peaceful?'


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Read the OP, and then come back.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Again with the non answers, what a surprise.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Why does the threat have to be immediate?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Hah, sorry, I assumed that it was a rhetorical question.
> The answer seemed so obvious.
> They turned up to counter an unarmed group and openly displayed their weapons.
> Their gathering and display of guns was directed at those women.
> I'd call that intimidation.



The pickup trucks they drove up in were far for capable of causing damage to people and property - so why were the civil rights opponents not intimidated by the sight of a pickup in public?

You see, you anti-liberty folk make no sense at all. You argue from emotion, I get that - but often the emotions are so jumbled and bat-shit crazy that it's hard to gauge just what you're aiming for.

I mean, ultimately you want to strip others of civil rights, I get that - but why?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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

Sometimes a seat belt is just a cigar.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If I have jumper cables I am equipped to kill someone.

If I carry a gun I am equipped to save a woman from a rapist.

I would get into the no brainier part, but we already established that your brain was misplaced.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't see the errant question showing, so I take it that's a circumlocution for those crickets I was expecting.

Right on time too.

It must be really easy to just declare that something exists and never have to deliver.
-- Isn't it?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Hah, sorry, I assumed that it was a rhetorical question.
> ...



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?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
I know what you meant, and I addressed it eruditely, ding dong. 

If I have to explain everything to you twice, conversing with you is going to become even more tedious than it already is.

It's funny.. you maintain that "poetic flexibility" is required to understand your own writing, but you seem incapable of grasping the finer nuances of others' writing, yourself... What's that all about?

Oh, I know. We're back to the thing where you accuse others of your own failings. Got it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You believe a lot of things that are not true.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Who got killed?  Please answer my other question.  I helped you out with definition and everything.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> 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...


----------



## westwall (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...









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.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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



idb said:


> 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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Of course.  And here's the test:

If that quartet of Mothers Against Gun Violence is _not _meeting there at the time -- does OCT show up?

OK then.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh-- they didn't "run away"; they did the exact opposite.

What was "threatening" them?  Four Mothers Against Gun Violence in a restaurant ready to aim bazookas?

OK then.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
"
*Big Lie Technique* (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question," only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that. "

Master List of Logical Fallacies

"This propaganda technique is called &#8220;The Big Lie,&#8221; and it was named, oddly enough, by one Adolf Hitler, writing in _Mein Kamp_. He described it as &#8220;a lie so &#8216;colossal&#8217; that no one would believe that someone &#8220;could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously&#8221;.

Fallacies: The Big Lie | Wickersham's Conscience

"
*Big Lie Technique:* Repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over until people believe it without further proof or evidence. "
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/b-list-fallacies


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



How are jumper cables a "weapon"?

What are you gonna do, clamp one end to someone's genitals and the other to your coil while they hold still?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Oh that's been happening all day.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Want tot ell me again how smart you are? Or is this another example of not seeing things that get in your way?



> Your problem is that they made the choice to *fight rather than run away. *


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the vehicle/gun false-equivalency!
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.  Voilà ^^


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...


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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Au contraire!


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Bump



Pogo said:


> 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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



How are they not a weapon? 

Man uses car jumper cables to hang himself at concert | Deseret News


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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.



Sunshine said:


> How were the gun people 'not peaceful?'
> 
> Here, let me help.  Just get your definition going there:
> 
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Of course.  And here's the test:
> 
> If that quartet of Mothers Against Gun Violence is _not _meeting there at the time -- does OCT show up?
> 
> OK then.



So then, ALL protests are acts of intimidation, sporky?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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...


----------



## peach174 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

It's sort of like death cultists maintain that they're really pro-life when they defend the *right* of women to kill their babies at any stage in their pregnancy, for any cause, in abbatoirs that operate under zero oversight.

What you say, and what reality is, are probably two completely different things.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


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



Ah, a straw man.

I understand your need to distract from the topic.

I assume this means you cannot point to any act that directly intimidated the civil rights opponents, then?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Strawman! There was no gun violence in this circumstance.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



The gun owners weren't wrong to protest...that's their right.


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Fear is an emotion.  And in the study of psychology, one learns that we are all responsible for our own emotions.  The group getting their picture taken with the guns were not loud, aggressive, or threatening.  The women in the group manufactured their own fear and then reacted to it as if someone else were responsible for it.

http://www.selfcreation.com/how-to-be-happy/who-controls-your-emotions.htm


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


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



I don't know why you keep going to civil rights issues Pothead.  When you figure out what the topic is here, send me a PM and I'll start reading again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
Good for you!
Since a dismantled gun would do you exactly zero good if you needed protection from someone, it's just as well that you live in blissful ignorance of any outside threat.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I have. Then, I don't fear life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.

FYI, I carry a knife with me every where I go. I don't walk out of the house without it, and it is not because I am afraid that someone might attack me. 

But, please, keep putting thoughts inside my head, and telling me how brave you are.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Your question was at IDB, not me.  That's why I keep passing it.

Moving on...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Pedantry is all you have left?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



-- by killing someone or brandishing that threat.

Next...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



But you are claiming 4 women not even in close proximity to several firearms that may or may not have been loaded, were threatened by weapons. Certainly, a very large revolver 6 feet from you is more dangerous than a .223 100 yards away.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


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

Like a good progressive dope.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Do you need me to spell it out?

How is any intent to take away freedom not malicious?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Again -- wrong poster.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I would think something is wrong if you thought their method was productive. 

This is the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. Not some two bit second rate country like your's


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Another deliberate derailment attempt...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



He's got some kinky uses for jumper cables.

Can't say it surprises me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
It has everything to do with the point made.

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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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

Is it the voices again?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Why? Do you not want to answer the question?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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

This is four times now...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

And he's still ignoring it.

Put a fork in him, dodo's done.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...





"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 (Nov 19, 2013)

peach174 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



You are correct, Peach.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


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


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It's a strawman.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Ah, the lament of the extremist.

"I can't be bothered to make sense, you're picking on me!"


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Then you haven't been following the discussion.
> ...



Strawman?
Do you know what that means?
I answered your assertion 





idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



When will you make you point?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm brave if I don't carry a weapon?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I've not been to the restaurant; I don't know what the distances are.  But the women, the restaurant management and the police all figured that they were close enough.

Regardless, it's the vision of what's going on outside the window and what _*might *_happen in the moment.  And that includes the fact that those people are able-bodied and capable of walking forward; they're not rooted to the ground.

I don't know why you keep beating this dead horse; yes they were within the law, no nobody got shot -- but in the moment when they show up, they merit attention.  And they got it.  To pretend such an event DOES NOT merit attention and checking out would be insane.  But that's the stretch y'all insist on making here.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



(more) Appeal to Emotion; ad hominem.

Next...


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm sorry, I misread you.
You carry jumper leads for personal protection.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



"second rate"?

What do you know about New Zealand then?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Not your question.  Zip it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Run away! Run away!


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 

You're high, aren't you...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Because I don't speak for others' points.

How's it working out for you?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

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. (Nov 19, 2013)

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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



YES. That is the point!

Thank you.  Tell those yahoos backthread.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



OK - how?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> 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. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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. (Nov 19, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...




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. (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...









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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > They are proving the point that there is no threat from a bunch of law abiding citizens openly armed, despite the position of said gun control group.
> ...


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I wouldn't claim paradise status...we have our issues - racial included - like everywhere.
I'm in the South Island - population 1 million, land area the size of Illinois.

Of course the comparison isn't fair...I was trying to win an argument!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Are you retreating from your claim that the only reason to carry a weapon is if you are afraid?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



They all figured that? When? Are you privy to top secret information that no one else on the planet has seen again?


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't remember making that claim.

Hmmm...so, if you think I'm brave for not carrying a weapon, does that make someone that does carry one the opposite of brave?


----------



## Zona (Nov 19, 2013)

Freaking armed THUGS.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




How is Henry wondering aloud about turbulent priest a death sentence for Thomas Becket?

How is the KKK discussing dealing with uppity blacks a license to kill?

Want to try again?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No. It makes them dangerous. To criminals.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 19, 2013)

Zona said:


> Freaking armed THUGS.



Dammit, Zona, say something useful for once in your life.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


I get it now, you are playing stupid.


----------



## idb (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Try as I might, I can't seem to match your rate of descent.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Not buying it.  Got a copy of their meeting agenda?
Strawman...



Ernie S. said:


> Is not turn about fair play?



Turnabout is always fair play.  That's why I kept saying, why didn't they just walk into the restaurant and meet the women face to face in the same idiom they were using -- _talking_?  That would have been fair turnabout, even if they were uninvited.  Now if you can show me where Mothers Against Gun Violence parked their cars outside OCT's meeting and brandished weapons, then everybody drinks and goes home.



Ernie S. said:


> I suppose the men may have known that the women would feel intimidated.



Thank you.  Again, like pulling teeth around here 



Ernie S. said:


> 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.



Ernie, I'll put my acrophobia up against yours any day, pard.  I can barely even climb a ladder.  I stay on terra firma.  Just like I do in here 

We may yet get that chance yanno -- I'm starting to make my travel plans, probably coming down on the weekend and running the flip-flop after Turkey day if you're around...

Have a good night, Bud.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> 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?



I don't know what's "liberal" about Hollywood.  Far as I'm concerned that's part of the problem.  As far as why they glorify gun violence -- Hollyweird is just opportunistic.  LCD drama sells.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 19, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I read this post from the bottom, not seeing whose name was on it.  From the sheer trollistic inanity I figured Unkotare.  But no, it's Bag-o-Wind.

Ah, same difference.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


I believe the restaurant manager declined to call the police. I'm willing to bet that either the women did, or the lying sack of shit photographer who chose to snap a shot from the side to falsely show them in a confrontational stance.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 20, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Freaking armed THUGS.
> ...



You would need to supply him with a definition of useful then assume you would understand any original thought he attempted to express.


----------



## bayoubill (Nov 20, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yep... ticking time bomb indeed...

been my experience that pissed-off moms can go off at any moment...with disasterous consequences...


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Their agenda is to limit a civil right. Would you feel intimidated if your local police chief said he wanted to do away with search warrants and have the right to enter your home at will? Same concept, different right, only this one, you would miss, if it 4 women were plotting to take it from you.

Why should they come in and talk to the women? What makes you think 4 women would be less intimidated by 18 men in close proximity armed or not? Who are you to judge the most effective way for the open carry folks to make their point?
The fact that you are afraid of scary black guns is irrelevant, nor does anyone involved give a shit what you think may be the best "non-confrontational"way for these men to act.

Let me know when plans firm up.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I STILL have _*no*_ evidence at all that this is the case.  Nor do I believe that any such action can happen from a restaurant table.  To single out such a meeting as "intimidating a civil right" is ludicrous.  Whatever they discussed at the table might have been exactly the same conversation over the phone.  Meeting with one's associates, regardless who does it, produces no action.  It can't.



Ernie S. said:


> Why should they come in and talk to the women? What makes you think 4 women would be less intimidated by 18 men in close proximity armed or not? Who are you to judge the most effective way for the open carry folks to make their point?


 

It isn't for us to say what they "should" do -- I'm saying that had they taken that course, _that _would have been meeting on equal footing.  That's just for the purpose of comparing apples to apples to make the phrase "turnabout is fair play" function.  Talk-to-talk would be fair turnabout.  Talk-to-guns isn't.




Ernie S. said:


> The fact that you are afraid of scary black guns is irrelevant, nor does anyone involved give a shit what you think may be the best "non-confrontational"way for these men to act.



Why do you keep bringing up what color the guns were?  I didn't even notice.  Is black significant in some way?

_My_ fears are irrelevant; I wasn't there to be afeared.  As to whether anyone involved "gives a shit", well we're not talking to them, we're talking among ourselves.  But I can tell you without doubt, if some yahoo appeared out my window with a gun right now I would drop this post and go check it out.



Ernie S. said:


> Let me know when plans firm up.



Aye, as noted before it's a bit off my route but not to say I can't divert.  More likely on the way back from NOLA, as that would be daytime rather than night.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Exactly who _*did *_snap that picture?  Do we know?

The captioned photo that was posted several times always says the two photos were taken "at the same time", which seems to indicate some kind of cooperative shoot, and would seem to indicate the OCT group was aware of both (they certainly posed for the frontal shot).  If that's true, why would they deliberately pose for what would be later called a deceiving angle?

Just another case of not thinking things through?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Shall I take that as an admission that you lied?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 20, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A ticking time bomb that you anti gunners have created in your own mind. Here's a suggest anti gunners meet pro gunners for a duel last one standing wins.


----------



## idb (Nov 20, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



Oh, you rascally Hell Raiser you!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> I don't know why you keep going to civil rights issues Pothead.



It's a civil rights issue, sporky. The group you are trolling on behalf of seeks to revoke the civil rights of others.



> When you figure out what the topic is here, send me a PM and I'll start reading again.



Rich irony.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.
> 
> FYI, I carry a knife with me every where I go. I don't walk out of the house without it, and it is not because I am afraid that someone might attack me.
> 
> But, please, keep putting thoughts inside my head, and telling me how brave you are.



I have a little Kershaw switchblade that I always have with me. I open boxes and packages all the time. A knife is as vital as a pen.


Amazon.com: kershaw assisted opening


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Better to stand by helplessly and watch her be raped, and perhaps killed.
> 
> Like a good progressive dope.



Now, now...


Most progressives wouldn't stand by and watch...


They'd get out their iPhone and post it on YouTube...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Probably a good five hundred posts ago.



Yep, then you got your ass handed to you, and started throwing a tantrum..



> Not that it met a whole lot of receptivity.



Once you lost, we were content to poke you with a sharp stick.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> 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.



I don't think so.

I think that the intent of the civil rights opponents was a photo-op. Those seeking to revoke civil rights are a tiny minority. They depend on the corrupt media to hype their message. Four women demanding that civil rights be stripped are going to be ignored by the public at large, but not by the media. They were there to pose for the cameras and act as background while media hacks spun tales of woe and sorrow that only the revocation of the Bill of Rights can possibly set right.

The response of the civil rights activists was exactly correct - this was a media show, a staged event. Showing up with arms demonstrated that armed people are peaceful and that those in favor of civil rights dwarf those seeking to revoke them. The hate site ThinkProgress tried to salvage the staged event, but that sort of blew up on them when they got caught manipulating the photos...

This is just the typical sleaze and demagoguery from the anti-liberty left.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Zona said:


> Freaking armed THUGS.



Now you KNOW Pogo has conceded defeat...

The second string is taking over.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



How and why does it indicate cooperation. They were out in the open, in plain view of anyone who walked by. Temporal proximity.... is there a name for *that* fallacy?

One shot is a posed group photo. The second is taken from an unflattering perspective. This is more an indication of competition than collusion. Then there is the matter of just one photo being used against the group.

ETA: Not one person in the side view is looking at the camera. Logic dictates that at least one person would be aware that they are to be shot from a side view as well if it was a cooperative effort.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Freaking armed THUGS.
> ...



This call to the bullpen is sponsored by Rolaids, need relief? Get Rolaids!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You can take that as an admission that your pointless pedantry is indistinguishable from that of Unkotare.

Which, I'll freely admit, amounts to ad hominem.  And that's worth the price of admission.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Freaking armed THUGS.
> ...



From the brave soul who comes out when the coast is clear to talk about knives and civil rights and declare victory in a skirmish he watched from the sidelines.  Please.  Yeah, always "concede defeat when you're ahead 146 to 2.  Danth working the scoreboard.  





Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



You don't look at the camera if what you _*intend *_is a side shot.  Side profiles have been going on as long as there's been photography.

To me they both look posed.  Yeah I think they're aware.  Looks to me like the photos are taken seconds apart -- slight variations in the positions but basically the same, IOW  just enough time for the same photographer to snap one, move to another angle and snap another.

Looks to me like they were going for the "oh yeah we bad" angle here, on the same basis as brandishing their shit outside the window, and like bringing loaded props, not the most well-thought-out idea since it kinda blew up in their faces. 

Or, it could be a second photographer, snapping a picture from the side just as the first one was snapping from the front and the angle just happened to work out to look more threatening.  That's unlikely though.  Would take a good deal of foreknowledge.

Of the two, the first seems far more likely.  Especially considering their judgement in other area.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Error on the throw.  Run scores.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> From the brave soul who comes out when the coast is clear to talk about knives and civil rights and declare victory in a skirmish he watched from the sidelines.  Please.  Yeah, always "concede defeat when you're ahead 146 to 2.  Danth working the scoreboard.



How many times have I told you to lay off the GOLD spray paint, Pogo? It's rotting out your last couple of brain cells....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The proper reply would be the pitcher waves off the manager, and continues to pitch.


God, you cant even get your analogies right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

martybegan said:


> The proper reply would be the pitcher waves off the manager, and continues to pitch.
> 
> 
> God, you cant even get your analogies right.



Pogo's more into catching, than pitching....


I'm just sayin....


----------



## martybegan (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Now you are really grasping at straws. Of course the front shot is posed, they are grouped together and holding an american flag, and looking into the cameras. Someone else in the same few seconds was at the side and took the shot. Thinkprogress probably had a few to choose from, and since they dont like these people, chose the one that looked like the guy in red with the rifle was lying in wait for those poor civil right destroying mummies to come out of the resturant.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > The proper reply would be the pitcher waves off the manager, and continues to pitch.
> ...



  OK you get a point for that one, Pothead.

146 to 3 now.  Tightening up.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.
> ...



Small enough to carry easily.  Large enough to get the job done.  Push button automatic.

Boker Kalashnikov Automatic Knife Grey Handle (3.3" Black Serr) KALS74B - Blade HQ

I have carried a knife since I was six years old.   One of the reasons my European friends call me a barbarian.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

martybegan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



I'm not interested in who used which photo.  I'm interested in who shot it and how it got done.

You're trying to tell me some second photographer was so prescient that he knew they'd be posing for a frontal and all he'd have to do would be to snap from the side at the same time.  Except it isn't the same time; it's off by a few seconds.

Yeah, OK.   More desperate stretches than this have certainly been employed in this self-delusional rhetorical yoga posture thread.



And by the way about that "lying in wait for them to come out of the restaurant" -- apparently OCT was lying out there for two hours.  Make what we will of that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> OK you get a point for that one, Pothead.
> 
> 146 to 3 now.  Tightening up.



If I get the point, how come you put it on your side???


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Marty and Pothead -- it just now occurred to me why y'all are babbling on about making this into "civil rights" ....

You think you can equate yourselves with oppressed minorities  

No, seriously, is that it?  You think you're honorary Negroes now? 

It made no sense yesterday, it just dawned on me now.  Tell me if I'm on target here.  Because that would be some hilarious shit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.
> ...



I have a Buck that I got for my birthday years ago. I get weird looks from friends when I pull it out the first time, they never know I have it. I actually got hassled by a cop once because I was carrying it, he tried to tell me I could only have it if I was going to, or from, work. Fortunately, I actually know the laws in California, and was able to show him it was legal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I got my first knife when I was 7, a old Bowie that belonged to my father. I rarely carried it anywhere, mostly because it was big enough to scare armed men, but I loved it. I got a folding Buck when I was in 5th grade, and never had a problem carrying it, even when I went to school with it. Funny thing, even though it went to school with me for years, it never once stabbed anyone. 

I did get a new toy though, I like it because, unlike most of their products, the main blades are accessible without opening the tool. My guess is the people who hate my Buck won't be any happier about it.

Sidekick - Leatherman Multi-Tools


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No, he is saying that, with the almost universal presence of cell phones, there are cameras everywhere. Since the shot was posed, and took time to set up, that gave an unknown number of people an opportunity to shoot the group from different angles. I would have been surprised if the shot they were going for was the only one around.

Then again, I have a brain.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Marty and Pothead -- it just now occurred to me why y'all are babbling on about making this into "civil rights" ....
> 
> You think you can equate yourselves with oppressed minorities
> 
> ...



Nah, but i equate those who seek to strip the rights of others with the KKK...

Know anyone like that, sporky?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Small enough to carry easily.  Large enough to get the job done.  Push button automatic.
> 
> Boker Kalashnikov Automatic Knife Grey Handle (3.3" Black Serr) KALS74B - Blade HQ
> 
> I have carried a knife since I was six years old.   One of the reasons my European friends call me a barbarian.



Here in California, switchblades are only legal if they DON'T have a push button. It's really stupid. Spring loaded with a side latch is fine, but spring loaded with a button is not...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Where do you put it when you come here then?

No shit it's not the only one.  Few photos are.  But the two we have look pretty similar in their qualities.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marty and Pothead -- it just now occurred to me why y'all are babbling on about making this into "civil rights" ....
> ...



Sure don't, Pot.  See a lot of Mothers Against Gun Violence burning crosses do ya?

Speaking of terrible analogies -- KKK, in a thread where you're trying to _deny_ intimidation?  Put your own side in the way of "friendly fire" there, Eisnstein...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Because they were taken at about the same time, with the same group of people, and all wearing the same hats.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What is your obsession with ancient Scottish symbolism got to do with modern photography?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



What is [sic] any of the above got to do with photography?  
Seriously, do you write these posts with your screen turned off?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Not what I mean -- I mean picture quality, as in resolution, as in the same camera.  No it sure doesn't look like one guy with a camera and another with a cell phone.  It _does _however look like snap one from the side, walk around to the front and snap another.

Splitting hairs at this point; I still say the video tells more even though they're not in it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Did you suddenly forget that this thread is all about a photograph?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

Gads, he's an idiot.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marty and Pothead -- it just now occurred to me why y'all are babbling on about making this into "civil rights" ....
> ...



a violation of rights is a violation of rights.  whether those rights are civil or constitutional.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Umm, what? Are you imagining new heights of analytical ability now?

The picture that was taken from the back, and posted in the OP, is 605 x 440, and has 39.32 KB of data in it. The one from the front, which I posted, is 650 x 387 and has 107.96 KB of data. Maybe you should stop pretending you know how to pretend to know something.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



This thread has never been about "a photograph".


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Technically.  I just find it interesting from a _psychological _angle that Pothead wants to dress up as a poor oppressed minority.

But that's his kind of spin.  I think he was born under the sign of Vertigo.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 20, 2013)

did these armed protestors break the law?

did they shoot anyone?

did they actually threaten to shoot anyone? 

did they demonstrate that someone can be heavily armed in public and no one dies? 

Can someone explain what they did that was wrong?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Nov 20, 2013)

Did I read that right? Is someone now bragging about carrying a switchblad knife?

I find that amusing as hell! I was given a summons to court when I was 16 for haveing an illlegal concealed weapon in my glove box. It was a fish scaling knife with a blade that was over 2 inches long, and it wasn't even a switchblade!

Anyway, not to be outdone, I carry a blackjack and martial arts throwing star every time I leave the house. I won't even go to the 7/11 without them. I will admit that the star has ruined a whole lot of pockets of my jeans, though....


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

Good grief, just stop.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> a violation of rights is a violation of rights.  whether those rights are civil or constitutional.



All Constitutional rights are civil rights.

Not all civil rights are Constitutional rights, though.

In this case, they are attacking a Constitutionally protected civil right.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Did I read that right? Is someone now bragging about carrying a switchblad knife?
> 
> I find that amusing as hell! I was given a summons to court when I was 16 for haveing an illlegal concealed weapon in my glove box. It was a fish scaling knife with a blade that was over 2 inches long, and it wasn't even a switchblade!
> 
> Anyway, not to be outdone, I carry a blackjack and martial arts throwing star every time I leave the house. I won't even go to the 7/11 without them. I will admit that the star has ruined a whole lot of pockets of my jeans, though....



Yer not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag, are you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



If we didn't have a photograph  you would have been screaming about the mothers being outnumbered 10
to 1 by gun toting thugs.

The photograph proved that was a lie, didn't it. 

You might not like it, but this thread has always been about that photograph because it proved the OP was a lie from the beginning. That left you scrambling to find a way to defend the lie that the men intended to scare the mothers, and they used kids to accomplish that purpose.

Did I ever ask you why mothers are afraid of other people's children?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > a violation of rights is a violation of rights.  whether those rights are civil or constitutional.
> ...



And contrary to appearances, you're actually smart enough to know the nuances of common vernacular.

As I said, an interesting psychological study introducing this idea.  In a hilarious way.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually five to one for those of us familiar with how numbers work, but unimportant.

Pictures don't tell a story.  Stories tell a story.  That's what the thread's about, like it or lump it.
I understand the dimmer set like to look at the pictures on the Peter Principle.  Me, I read the actual story.  Different strokes.

By the way, an opinion can't be a "lie", Einstein.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Did I read that right? Is someone now bragging about carrying a switchblad knife?
> 
> I find that amusing as hell! I was given a summons to court when I was 16 for haveing an illlegal concealed weapon in my glove box. It was a fish scaling knife with a blade that was over 2 inches long, and it wasn't even a switchblade!
> 
> Anyway, not to be outdone, I carry a blackjack and martial arts throwing star every time I leave the house. I won't even go to the 7/11 without them. I will admit that the star has ruined a whole lot of pockets of my jeans, though....



I hate to disappoint you, but "switchblade" knives are perfectly legal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The OP claimed that there were 40 armed men outside the restaurant, which of us has a problem with numbers again? 

My story is that the OP is a lie. It still is, and the picture agrees with me. There is no story you can get from that picture that makes the OP not a lie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I hate to disappoint you, but "switchblade" knives are perfectly legal.



I bought this one at Big 5.

A switchblade is useful because I often have my hand occupied and need to cut a tape seal, zip tie, or something of the sort, and want a knife that I can open with one hand.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 
I find that Poto's posts seem to address some other topic other than the one that is being discussed in the here and now. He hovers around the outer edges of the conversation in any thread he participates in, jumping on minutiae, posting distracting commentary about things that have no relevance, and attributing false stances to posters, then carrying on a conversation as if those false stances exist anywhere outside his own mind.

I'm thinking about putting him on ignore, because I have yet to find any post of his, anywhere, that actually contributes anything to the discussion. When he is asked questions, he quips "Wrong poster" or "That is not the precise color of tea in the Hebrides" as if those comments actually mean something, or make a point..any point...about the topic that is being discussed. He claimed to not attach false stances to posters...then made a comment about my "theory" and when asked to identify what my theory was, skipped off to some new inanity..and this is what he does in every thread.

He's impossible to engage...and his commentary has no value except to drag the conversation down into the mire. His statements are dishonest and vague, yet he postures as someone who is fully engaged and in control of the conversation, and the victor of the debate. His style hovers somewhere between bad faith, and Parkinson's law of triviality...except he doesn't provide enough substance even to be certainly identified.

In all, highly annoying, pretty distracting, completely without any substance or value as a poster. Verrry reminiscent of fake...think I'm going to pop him onto ignore. If he can get my attention after that, I'll just take to negging him every time I have break through...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Actually, an opinion can be a lie, if it's just a lie posed as an "opinion". It happens all the time, pedanto.

"
*ped·ant·ry*


noun, plural ped·ant·ries. 1. the character, qualities, practices, etc., of a pedant, especially undue display of learning. 

2. slavish attention to rules, details, etc. 

3. an instance of being pedantic: the pedantries of modern criticism. "

Pedantry | Define Pedantry at Dictionary.com


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

"the habit or an instance of being a pedant, esp in the display of useless knowledge or minute observance of petty rules or details "

Pedantry | Define Pedantry at Dictionary.com


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

*pedant*

&#8250; a person who is too interested in formal rules and small details that are not important

pedant noun - definition in the British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online (US)


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 20, 2013)

"I was often, when a boy, wonderfully concerned to see, in the Italian farces, a pedant always brought in for the fool of the play.."

"But whence it should come to pass, that a mind enriched with the knowledge of so many things should not become more quick and sprightly, and that a gross and vulgar understanding should lodge within it, without correcting and improving itself, all the discourses and judgments of the greatest minds the world ever had, I am yet to seek."

"Of pedantry" by Michel de Montaigne

So popo.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 20, 2013)

Want a real good laugh........check out this vid.........you cant make it up!! These gun grabbers are beyond fucked.........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNb34vPqrN0#at=257]Debating A Gun Control Fanatic - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



^^ entire post that contributes nothing to the topic.  Irony alert.

Do you need help finding the Ignore feature?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 20, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I think we all counted 20 in the picture, but if you want 40 then there are 20 more people whose actions we can't see, so have it your way... 

The actual point is that the OP declares "intimidation".  That's an opinion about their motivations.  Can't be proven to be accurate or not.  Therefore neither can it be a "lie".

Yours,
 Captain Obvious


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It is my fault that Luddly posted that there were people? How does that work, exactly?


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Nov 21, 2013)

So where's the intimidation found in your own links? and quotes? They saw people with guns?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 21, 2013)

If the bitches feel intimidated I suggest they stay home.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm still trying to get an understanding of what they did that was illegal


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> I'm still trying to get an understanding of what they did that was illegal



Don't think anybody suggested anything illegal.

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


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Don't think anybody suggested anything illegal.
> 
> There's more to rhetoric than the law yanno...



You DO realize that what you are engaging in is termed "demagoguery," not "rhetoric," right?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
^^ entire post that contributes nothing to the topic. Irony alert.

I haven't started ignoring you yet. I prefer to point and laugh, at this time.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

So where is lakeview? He was going to point out which men had changed hats between photos.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Let's take one guy with a hat at random and see if he has changed hats.

Example #1 there is a shorter guy in a red watch cap standing behind the flage in the posed shot. Is it not the same guy we see in the same relative position wearing the black hoody, in the side view? Is his hat different?
Anyone else? Lakeview? Where are you?


----------



## KevinWestern (Nov 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> 
> 
> A ticking time bomb.




You know what's REALLY nutty (Luddly)?

Is that the left is seemingly willing to give up a very important Constitutional right in a futile attempt to reduce (in a marginal way) the 2,000 gun related (non-gang) homicides that occur each year in the US. 

ONLY 2k non-gang gun homicides in a country of 300,000,000. We've got bigger fish to fry, lol. MUCH bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still trying to get an understanding of what they did that was illegal
> ...



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.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 21, 2013)

KevinWestern said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html
> ...



when you consider that only .000036 of every gun in the USA ever kills anyone each year, it really is a very small percentage.  then when you figure the gun is only the tool used to act on a much bigger problem, we really need to start focusing our efforts elsewhere.  like maybe on the real problem


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Ah, the criminals.

Sounds like a plan.

Except every time someone stands up to them, they're charged with a crime and portrayed as racists.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> So where is lakeview? He was going to point out which men had changed hats between photos.



He gets electroshock therapy on Thursdays. One volt per IQ point...


So a 9-volt battery does the trick...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

So, it's ethical to have a meeting to plot strategy for limiting the constitutional rights of citizens, but unethical to engage in counter protest? OK I got you now.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > So where is lakeview? He was going to point out which men had changed hats between photos.
> ...



I'm thinking a 6 volt car battery. More than enough volts, but with enough amperage to get both brain cells to fire.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> So, it's ethical to have a meeting to plot strategy for limiting the constitutional rights of citizens, but unethical to engage in counter protest? OK I got you now.



Don't know about that, but it's unethical to spin that fast I'm pretty sure.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.

We have the right and the obligation to do that when our rights are threatened.

And that's what leftist gasbags don't get. When you attack the rights of Americans, they are going to protest to whatever degree necessary to protect those rights.

Our right to bear arms is one of those rights.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



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

-- what's the verb?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

"Should the contingency ever arise when it would be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and duty"

Judge Thomas Cooley

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


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.
> 
> We have the right and the obligation to do that when our rights are threatened.
> 
> ...



Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

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


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


 
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. You keep forgetting about them. 

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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.
> ...


No one has said that. Are you saying fathers don't have the right to keep and bear arms? To peacefully assemble?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

If you seek to disarm people, you need to face the reality that they are going to have their arms on them, btw. Telling them they can't parlay with you unless they ditch their guns at the door is essentially forcing them to say "You're right, we shouldn't carry our weapons". And...it's not going to happen. Nobody is ever going to argue about the right to bear arms...without exercising their right to bear arms. It's a pretty fundamental right. As our founding fathers knew, and as the courts have asserted again...and again....and again....and again.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

And we're STILL waiting for Lakeview.....


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

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.

It's the way progressive extremist weirdoes work. We have a whole contigency of them swishing around.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I've never said that.
I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?



Are you saying that children should be cooked over an open fire on a spit?


See, you're really not all that clever...


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?
> ...



Try and keep up.
I know that holding more than one point in your head at one time is difficult but it's a useful skill when debating.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you said.
> ...


 
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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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?




koshergrl said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


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


 
"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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



We just did this.  Please see 955.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



?

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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
^^^^^ 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 (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 

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 (Nov 21, 2013)

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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



_Ethics_... _Unethical_ ... know the difference.

*eth·ics*
&#712;eTHiks/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*
&#716;&#601;n&#712;eTHik&#601;l/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 (Nov 21, 2013)

You're a fucking idiot.

Again..are you mentally ill?

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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Want to bet?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That is a seriously stupid and ignorant position.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you said.
> ...



I thought you said you aren't afraid just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You claim they were afraid, and then insist this is not about fear. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you about how to conduct a discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



How is ethics not a value judgement? Does your barain even work?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I really don't get the point you are trying to make here, could you clarify it? Is it OK to exercise your rights unless you do it with the intent of showing other people they are wrong? Does your prescription against showing things apply only to props, or does it include gestures? Is the real problem her e that you haven't really thought about your position, you just took the one that made you feel good?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Not that this is news but YOU are a fucking LIAR.

Who says so?

This guy:


Quantum Windbag said:


> I thought you said *you aren't afraid* just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?



Are you that level of moron that you don't know the difference between _*my*_ fear and _*theirs*_?

Dumbass.

You can tell who's losing the argument by the level of desperation.  And by which of the more intelligent minds make themselves scarce when the meltdown occurs so they won't have to call out their own side for the same dishonesty.

-- Right Ernie?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And you know what they say about "assume"...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> Again..are you mentally ill?
> 
> You can't have a discussion of ETHICS without alluding to the UNETHICAL, nitwit.



He likes to pretend he doesn't mean what he said because he is desperate for approval.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Try and keep up.
> I know that holding more than one point in your head at one time is difficult but it's a useful skill when debating.



I realize that logical fallacy is the closest you ever get to logic - but really, even you can do better than that....


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



And where do they say _that_, Liar?
Or are you hiding behind the conditional phrase like the abject coward you are?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fucking idiot.
> ...



Do you dispute the definitions?

Yes or no?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> "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



SMACK - that's going to leave a mark...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Unless you are claiming to be idb's sock I don't get your point.

Then again, you probably don't have a point, you are just upset that I was able to follow your trail and show how stupid you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Ask anybody, I am an ass.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Because you can't figure it out?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Hah, nope.
I'm not going back through that many posts.
You're welcome to prove me wrong and I'll concede gracefully.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Absolutely no argument there. 

Thing is, you seem proud of it.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "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.
> ...



Yeah, quite the violent facepalm.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Trust me Baggo, you couldn't show "me" to Missouri.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



On their website, dumbass.



> *1. Call*
> 
> Call your representatives in Congress and demand that they support  common-sense measures like background checks to curb gun violence. Call  the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121
> *2. Tweet*
> ...



Take Action | Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Any more stupid questions?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No, because it is seriously stupid and ignorant.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. ​


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Is their website at the restaurant?  No.  Then this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW.

But speaking of attempts to twist reality into weasel words, why are you not answering this-- 

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITIONS OF _ETHICS_ and _UNETHICAL_?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



How so?
The contention several times in this thread is that the mothers were threatening the constitutional rights of gun owners .
It was also suggested that this meant that they deserved to face intimidation.

I'm just unsure how these people exercising their constitutional rights could possible be threatening the rights of the pro-gunners.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Actually, I am just intelligent enough not to base my self worth on other people. I know you don't get that, but that is not my problem.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's when they came for the brains?

"Brains... must .... eat ... brains... "


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



He'll just weasel and run away.  Like he's doing with the definitions.
It's how he (t)rolls.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



This thread is about the unethical attempt to use the law to restrict people from exercising their rights.

There, I used your words to refute your position, care to tell me I got the definitions wrong? 

And, no, I did not dispute any definition, I asked you a direct question, to whit, how the fuck is ethics not a value judgement? So far you haven't answered, and I don't expect you to ever answer.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "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.
> ...


 
Na, polo isn't smart enough to even know when he's been pwned. His response to that was "d-d-d-duh, when did Forbes start posting here?"


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
Nope, it's protest in support of the right to bear arms.

The fact that you don't make the distinction shows your innate bias against private gun owners. And your insistence that to disagree with women who are lobbying aggressively to increase gun restrictions is "intimidation" shows your innate dishonesty.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Is your mommy who reads you the big words not available? 

Once again the pertinent definition:

eth·ics
&#712;eTHiks/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.

Where the FUCK do you see a value judgement in there?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What in the blue fuck is an "APC"?

I've got an APC UPS here but it ain't big enough to hide behind.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



"dishonesty" -- from the wag who intentionally conflates _ethics _and _unethical_... SMH


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I've made my point pretty clear.
This group turned up to make a point.
They made it using intimidation.
If the image they were trying to project was one that gun-owners respond to people they disagree with by a show of force then, I suppose, mission accomplished.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Questioning the *ethics* of a protest is a request for a value judgement.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Because you, obviously, don't believe it. If you did you would have pointed out that the men who were showed up legally and exercised their rights were not intimidating anybody. Since you didn't do that, and you actually argued that it was counterproductive, your position is seriously stupid and ignorant.

Not to mention that I can show you hundreds of examples of people exercising their rights in a way that intimidates other people.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That's pretty much why they reversed course and are now opening dialogue, methinks.
Which, to sound like the proverbial broken record, is what they should have done in the first place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yet you also said, "I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses (sic) rights."

Mind boggling, isn't it?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Try and keep up.
> ...



I understand that "The Big Encyclopaedia Of Clever Terms" is your favourite possession but you really should read the definitions as well.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why would he make a point he doesn't believe?  You actually want your adversary to make your point for you?

I mean, granted it would vastly raise the level of competence...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




(sic) [sic] 

brackets, not parentheses there, Shakespeare.

From the same guy who posted "to whit".  Wasn't gonna say anything buuut.....


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Did you even read the words you emphasized?

Are they easier to see now that I made them red?

How the fuck is ethics not about a judgement in values?

By the way, thanks for conclusively proving you are stupid.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

They are threatening the rights of the "pro-gunners" by lobbying for stricter gun control.

Are you really this dense?

Never mind, I know the answer.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



HEY STOOPID:

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles

  



As I said ... the more abjectly one side is losing the argument, the more desperate is its suspension of reality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Are you agreing with me that he was incredibly stupid and ignorant to argue that exercising your rights is not intimidating when he clearly doesn't believe that?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


It shows nothing of the sort...I own guns.

If we're going to disagree on what is and isn't intimidation then that's where the converstation ends.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It's beyond that -- they're actually disputing what our own words mean.

The tactic is to post greater and greater absurdities until reasonable people give up on them, then declare victory.

Basically the mentality of a five-year-old.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




Either is acceptable unless you are following a specific style guide. Since I am Shakespeare, and famous for inventing my own words, as well as writing in a common vernacular, I prefer to write informally. 

Any other attempts to criticize me?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't believe what?

I agree that the gun-owners had a right to be there...I disagree that it wasn't for the purpose of intimidation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Are you trying to tell me that moral principles aren't a value judgement? What are they, laws of nature?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You are the one that posted the definition of ethics, which proves it si about values, and then insisted it isn't. Care to tell me how that makes me wrong?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Q.E.D.

Like trying to debate Pee Wee Herman.

 Be proud.  Fucking hack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You said:



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



Now you are saying that they were intimidating, even though they were exercising their constitutional right to keep, and bear, arms.

You are lying about something. If you can't figure it out I will be forced to conclude that you are simply crazy.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest. 

Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.

We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
Good for you.

Now prove that it was their purpose. Otherwise, stop with the boring rhetoric.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
> 
> Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.
> 
> We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.



No -
When you have to put words in other people's mouths, you specifically and emphatically DON'T get it.

What's incredible is that you're actually willing to look this silly.

Especially Jizzbag there, who's so wacked out he's makiing you look almost halfway reasonable.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

I haven't put words into anyone's mouth. You've made comments, which then you deny, and attempt to assign to me. So actually, it's YOU who is putting words into other people's mouths.

And trust me, you are the one who looks stupid. Not just in this thread, but across the board.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)




----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Lol..and again. You brought up the topic, einstein....


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 21, 2013)

Talking about banning guns is so stupid. Its never going to happen ( not without another civil war) and anyway, the researched facts are that *more guns - less crime*!!

Harvard University just completed a study in April of 2013. The gun grabber assholes are pwned.


*Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?*

Apr 09, 2013

Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime.  However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally.  In other words, the more guns the less crime.  *The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not.*  In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate. 








Here is the complete paper published in the Harvard  Journal of Law and Public Policy


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

















I love this forum!!!


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Gosh, try reading for comprehension.
How on earth does one statement contradict the other?


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



OK, I'll spell it out for you.
Intimidating someone, and threatening someone's rights are two different things entirely.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

No, they're the same thing.

"...to make timid or fearful *:* frighten; _especially_ *:* to compel or deter by or as if by threats"

What are they allegedly INTIMIDATING, in this case?

They are allegedly INTIMIDATING (or threatening) the women who have gathered, and who regularly gather, to discuss methods to remove the rights of gun owners. 

So if they are INTIMIDATING (i.e., THREATENING) the women, the threat is that the women will be harmed or killed by the guns...which is a violation of their *rights*.

If you maintain that the gun owners are "intimidating" these women, then they are threatening their right to assemble. The purpose of intimidation is to keep them from pursuing their goal...

Seriously. Talking to you guys is like being stuck in a tar pit.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
> 
> Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.
> 
> We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.



When did I say it was wrong, illegal, unethical to own guns or assemble lawfully as a protest with guns?
You must have me confused with someone else.

Regarding the end of the conversation - it only takes one person in a two-person conversation to end it.
Our conversation about whether there was intimidation in this instance has ended.

Furthermore, I don't lobby against gun ownership, again you must have me confused with someone else.
I'm not American - I have no right to, nor direct interest in lobbying against guns.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary.  And putting words in others' mouths.

"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of _is_ is".  

Pathetic.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, they're the same thing.
> 
> "...to make timid or fearful *:* frighten; _especially_ *:* to compel or deter by or as if by threats"
> 
> ...



I gave you the benefit of the doubt by actually engaging you in discussion, now I see that you're just stupid.
My mistake...it'll never happen again.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.
> 
> "Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of _is_ is".
> 
> Pathetic.


 
Hey pluto, who brought up ETHICS in this convo?

Me, or you?

Oh, that's right. You. Liar. You haven't been truthful or correct in anything you've posted....and you aren't being truthful now. It has already been ascertained, by posters more qualified than yourself, that you don't have a CLUE what this, or any other, conversation is about. You speak to a totally different conversation, that takes place in your head, and your head alone.

Embrace that. We have.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Talking about banning guns is so stupid.



Nobody's been talking about "banning guns".

Nothing like post-bombing in a thread you haven't bothered to read.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Actually, the whole purpose of the women who were lobbying for members is to grab guns.

So, you're wrong again. Apparently you don't know what the thread is about, or what those women represent.

Lol...like that's news.


----------



## regent (Nov 21, 2013)

I saw child-like creatures posing with guns. Did they bring their guns because they felt threatened by the mothers or for some other purpose, if so, what purpose? Maybe with gun permits there should be other tests administered and a mental age restriction required as well as the usual police reports? Child-like creatures.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > No, they're the same thing.
> ...



As we noted yesterday, the rule with present company is:

"Don't tell me what you think!  *I* will tell you what you think!!"

control freaks...


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.
> 
> I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.



OK then, I'll go another one.
You've just said;


> I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners.



But a mere page back you said;


> But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms,



You might have to explain the difference to me.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 21, 2013)

72 pages, and the civil liberties opponents have yet to offer a cogent argument...


But whatchagunnado?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

Nice diversionary tactic!

When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.
> ...


 
Oh look, a partial quote, out of context, without a link.

You missed "IF". Apparently, it is another word you don't understand.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Nice diversionary tactic!
> 
> When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.



If you're addressing me, it was directly relevant to your post...so the diversionary tactic is yours.
Come on...go again!!!!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Nice diversionary tactic!
> 
> When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.



This again?









"Dammit Jim, I'm a writer, not a painter!"


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Aaah, pedantry...you're on the slide.
'If' clearly implied that that's what I was doing.

You next.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

No, when you start posting silly comments about side conversations, then you are creating a diversion.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 


Partial quote, out of context, no link. Even taken at face value, doesn't support your weak and quavering point, because it doesn't say what you think it does.

Edit is your friend. Please take the first step. Start editing your posts.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.
> ...



Are you disputing the definitions of _ethics _and _unethical_?

_*Still *_trying to sell that canard that they're the same thing?

How's that working out?  Anybody buying?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

No, I was never trying to sell that they are the same thing.

You are the one who brought up the ETHICS of the protest..though you pretended you did not.

And yes, everybody bought. Except you and the other remaining loon.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



What the fuck is the point, if you're going to deny that _is_ means is?

Might as well post "table drowns red bowling pin".  You're just going to morph it into what you want to hear anyway.





Flame Zone time.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 21, 2013)

Liberals hate guns because they know they are not smart or mature enough to handle one

tapatalk post


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

I didn't deny what "is" is, loon.

Meanwhile, I like this thread. I'm racking up points...




Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 02:26 PM



Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 01:45 PM 



Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 11:21 AM



Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 11:04 AM



Gun nuts intimidate... 11-19-2013 03:03 PM

And I flagged it from the beginning and asked the mods to put it in the flame zone. That's EXACTLY where it belongs.


----------



## idb (Nov 21, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Aannndd...down the plughole.
I have to dash, it's been fun.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

How sad.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Well, there ya go. The game ends in a tie.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 21, 2013)

No, you won. If he maintains a group of people exercising their rights necessarily can't be threatening the rights of another group, then the legal protest of the gun owners wasn't threatening, and therefore wasn't intimidating.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you said.
> ...



Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Don't be ASS U ming anything about me absence. There is a whole world out there when you log off USMB, possum.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Err...the S&W .500 is just shy of 50% MORE powerful than the Casull.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
> ...



I can hardly wait to get up to the end of this! The Possum is starting to lose it. Careful guys, He may play dead for a while, but the teeth are sharp.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Very good point.

I'm just complimenting you on your... what is the word.... _timing_.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
> ...


 I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.





> Furthermore, I don't lobby against gun ownership, again you must have me confused with someone else.
> *I'm not American - I have no right to, nor direct interest in lobbying against guns.*



Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?

WTF??? I swear! I grow *weary* of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...








I never knew you could shoot people with black leather.  Let alone baseball bats.

Hm - baseball just got a lot more interesting.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary.  *And putting words in others' mouths.*
> 
> "Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of _is_ is".
> 
> Pathetic.



Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



He wasn't.

He was arguing the *topic*.  Which is, once again, *intimidation*.  The verb in the title.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary.  *And putting words in others' mouths.*
> ...



Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you.  Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical".  Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing.  Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.

That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.

Actually it's not too late... 


Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...



Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't insert any words into your mouth, moron. You keep saying stuff, then denying you said it, or claiming that I said it.
> ...








 No please, go ahead... spin that one.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Jarlaxle said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...



With compensation impossible in a wheel gun. My experience is Casull, .44 mag .50 Action Express in that order, as far as recoil. Then it has been a while since I fired a .50. I did play with a couple Desert Eagles in the mid to late 80's before I acquired am armload of steel and titanium.

OK, I misunderstood. You are talking .500 S&W, the revolver cartridge. I was talking .50 AE as used in the Desert Eagle. I've never fired the .500 S&W, nor will I, with this arm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is _unethical_... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.
> ...



Is that like me asking you a question means I challenge definitions of words? Or does the rule about putting words into people's mouths only apply to other people?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



A pro open carry group exercised their right to open carry in Texas, which applies only to long guns, not handguns. In other words, they exercised their constitutional within the parameters of state law, and you insist that means they intimidated other people, while simultaneously saying you don't understand how that can be possible.

Don't worry though, you can always fall back to saying I am stupid.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I'm a biker. You probably wouldn't understand the looks you get from people when a couple guys in leather pull up next to a car on the road. Doors get locked, eyes straight ahead. The kids turn to look and dad tells them to look away... I know about unfair perceptions. These guys showed up with guns. BFD Guns and motorcycles are no more than pieces of metal. If they intimidate you, you really should seek help. Perhaps anti-anxiety medication would work for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



How, exactly, are they different? I find the threat of losing my rights very intimidating.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary.  And putting words in others' mouths.
> 
> "Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of _is_ is".
> 
> Pathetic.



Irony doesn't begin to cover it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Talking about banning guns is so stupid.
> ...



No one is talking about that, other than the groups that want ban guns.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I wasn't talking to you. Stop putting words in his mouth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Pogo is ignorant, is anyone surprised?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIAAVXVcVDA]Oxygen and Hairspray Baseball Bat Cannon of Death - YouTube[/ame]

Why do you keep posting?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

doubledipsoon said:


> I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....



That shit won't play well here, pal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



He also said that he wonders how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can intimidate anyone. Funny how you both insist that he is still making sense, and hasn't contradicted himself.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



She said she didn't. And then she said she would. No hypocrisy there, that I see. You on the other hand, have been writing for others for the last 3 days and aren't near as honest about it.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 21, 2013)

doubledipsoon said:


> I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....



ah yes, a liberal douchebag would hope for something like that


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Au contraire.  I DO know those looks and those reactions.

But the fact remains, leather doesn't shoot people.  A baseball bat _could _be used as a weapon -- but not from a distance.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Let him be the judge of that.  Don't put words in his mouth about putting words in his mouth.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Amazing.  When I said "go ahead, spin that" it was rhetorical snark.  I didn't mean for you to actually try it. 

I don't want to alarm you but you're getting into Windbag territory now...


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Be careful or you'll intimate mothers _somewhere_...


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> doubledipsoon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....
> ...



Nice broad brush, Spoon.

NOBODY would hope for something like that.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Kroyd said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Oh, I've been intimate with mothers... not half bad actually


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...





> 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.



OK, this should finish the thread.  There is NO law against what they did.  They did not threaten, they were peaceful.  All they did was show up and get their pictures taken.

And YOU are Mammy from Gone with the Wind spouting from the upstairs window, _*'It ain't fittin', it ain't fittin', it ain't fittin.'  *_

Carry on Mammy.  This argument of yours isn't an argument, it's an ultimatum.  It's juvenile.  AND it's boring.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kroyd said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Here we go with that whistle again.  What is that, some sort of _happy_ thing?

*XXXX*


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I'm afraid you'll get nowhere with me with movie references - I have no idea what that might mean ... 

Anyway--
*Yes* this should finish the thread (it was finished long ago)...
*No* there is no law, that was never in question here...
Whether they "threatened", well you've morphed the word used, which was _intimidate_.. notable how you guys keep having to change the content to get it to work...
Whether they intimidated IS the question here and always was...
Nothing in that discussion can be defined as "ultimatum".  Does not apply.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

I would like to know what I did exactly to receive this little gem...


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Nov 21, 2013)

Intense is going to burn in hellfire.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Intense is going to burn in hellfire.



Tell it to Kimmel...


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Nov 21, 2013)

Intense is burning.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Intense is burning.



_I'd_ contact a doctor...


----------



## BecauseIKnow (Nov 21, 2013)

Intense doesn't uphold the first amendment.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


And a gun is just a hunk of steel, By itself, it is no more dangerous than cow feathers.
If you could prove the men came with an intent to cause harm, THEN you might have a case, but in this instance, no matter how you feel about guns, showing up armed was no more or no less intimidating than four women with the opposite point of view regarding firearms. No more and no less ethical or no more or no less unsettling. It is what it is.

The controversy here is how the protests were presented in the OP. The OP was spin; a lie to paint 18 people (not 40) in an unflattering light with false rhetoric and a misleading photo where not a single person changed hats.
 [MENTION=45779]lakeview[/MENTION]


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

BecauseIKnow said:


> Intense doesn't uphold the first amendment.



[youtube]cqWzdPxjTwU[/youtube]

Cut and paste baby!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I don't need to "prove" squat; it's a matter of opinion.  There is no right or wrong.  We go by the appearances we have and make our judgements.  I make mine, you make yours, etc.  We explain how we got to our positions to the other, and nobody budges.  Just another day.

Sigh...


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Phat kids don't need no guns to get the candy!


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Reread what she said. She said she hadn't put words in your mouth. You made the unsubstantiated claim which still hangs there on your to do list. THEN she said that she was at least as capable of mis stating your position as you seem to be with hers. It was very plain language, no spin at all.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > doubledipsoon said:
> ...



Don't be so sure. Another school shooting would gain some support for doubledipsoon's agenda. You know, Never let a crisis go to waste.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Drop it Ernie.  I've had it with this shit.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kroyd said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to know what I did exactly to receive this little gem...
> ...



BTW, i don't recall my ever calling anyone an "Asshole" so if your pucker is loose I'd prolly get it checked.  Otherwise, leave this to the adults, _M'kay_?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Kroyd said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And you are impersonating a moderator.
Yes what he did was wrong, but you report it, don't assume you have authority and post in all red.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Kroyd said:
> ...



Maybe I'm naive but I still don't understand the actual implication???

_My best guess is that someone is monetarily cranky???_


----------



## Pogo (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Kroyd said:
> ...



*BULLSHIT.*

You see the color choice up there??  You see how one of them is red?

Don't BULLSHIT me Ernie.  I'm not having it.  NOWHERE did I impersonate a fucking moderator.

Fuck, he's not here long enough to know moderators post in red.  He hasn't even read the goddam site rules.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Kroyd said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


And you are proof that assholes don't need more than 3 functioning brain cells to post nonsense here.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What you meant to say was I fucked up so I'll go on the offense.

Why don't you tell me to drop it in red next time, OK?


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



My best guess is that both these bitches are twin accounts that carryover their losing ire from other forums

[youtube]rsCAy9ErdKY[/youtube]


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Kroyd said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You brought family into the discussion. It is one of the few Cardinal rules here. You just plain don't insult family. AT ALL! Understand?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I would PM a moderator and ask, but I believe posting in all red is taboo.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Kroyd said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Quote it man! I'll retract if I actually did!  But I have yet to see/smell/hear/feel or intellect any threat I made to anyone?   My guess is this is yet another losing strategy by the ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicalshttp://

You know this plan only goes so far _don't you?_


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Just because you are paranoid and delusional doesn't mean you have the right to take away the rights of others.

There is nothing wrong about carrying a gun. And there is absolutely nothing terrifying about people with guns posing for pictures.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

Go back a ways. The comment was replaced by 4 red X's, but survives as a subsequent quote. You insulted Pogo's mother.
That shit doesn't fly here. You have probably been notified by Connery who edited your post. I'd bet you have a couple private messages and a few rep notifications. Check the extreme upper right of the page.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Go back a ways. The comment was replaced by 4 red X's, but survives as a subsequent quote. You insulted Pogo's mother.
> That shit doesn't fly here. You have probably been notified by Connery who edited your post. I'd bet you have a couple private messages and a few rep notifications. Check the extreme upper right of the page.



News to me twat! What kind of game do you "guys" have running here exactly?

Sounds like a _stacked house_ affair to me.  I think you may just be a little _too_ successful in your game though...

Maybe if I helped a bit the game might actually survive.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 21, 2013)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...te-mothers-in-parking-lot-57.html#post8186765

There's a link to the surviving post.


----------



## Kroyd (Nov 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...te-mothers-in-parking-lot-57.html#post8186765
> 
> There's a link to the surviving post.



Really? This is your last surviving breath...







[YOUTUBE]rsCAy9ErdKY[/YOUTUBE]

Fucking losers!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 22, 2013)

doubledipsoon said:


> I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....



You can hope all you want. there will never be a mass shooting at a  gun show.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 
Yes, you questioned the ETHICS of protesters who legally protested with their legal arms. The implication that you made, repeatedly, was that although it was LEGAL to protest with weapons, it was UNETHICAL, based on your QUESTIONING of the ethics of the protesters.

I love that not only do we have to explain and re-explain our own posts to you...over and over again when you repeatedly attempt to assign false stances to us..but we also have to repeatedly remind you of what YOU have said, and explain it to you.




It's a mental illness thing. Poor mite.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> doubledipsoon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....
> ...


 
Naw, the douchebags who shoot up innocents do their research and choose un-protected, un-armed targets.

Which is why libs like to broadcast "GUN FREE ZONES" and fight so hard to make sure everybody knows our kids aren't protected at schools.

It's more fun than abortion!


----------



## Pogo (Nov 22, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



*YOU *are a known and quanifiable *LIAR*.

*Here's what I actually posted, which is why a fucking liar like you doesn't dare quote it*:



Pogo said:


> 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.*




eth·ics&#712;eTHiks/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
&#716;&#601;n&#712;eTHik&#601;l/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

*DUH.*

You claim, laughngly, to be a "writer" yet you find a way to utterly flummox yourself on the distinction between the study of ethics and the judgement of "unethical".  These aren't obscure terms, yet you're willing to appear this fucking stupid on their disctinction.

Not to mention the latter of which, as a matter of opinion if rendered, is something we all have a right to, like it or lump it, sweetfart.

Let's illustrate the difference: "Ethics" is a study of principles.  There's no judgement rendered in the fact that the process of study exists.  It does.
"Unethical" is a judgement.  See the _synonyms_ _unscrupulous_, _dishonorable_, _dishonest _etc above.  It describes, say, the practice of morphing other people's words into something you _wish _they had said, so you can knock down strawmen, because you're too much of a lying _*pissant *_to deal with the point directly.

Hope this helps.

So crawl back into whatever hate infested worm hole you oozed out of.  Nobody in the world buys your extraneous bullshit.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

So when you question the ETHICS of protest, you are questioning whether protesting is ETHICAL, or UNETHICAL...right? So when you said it was a question of ETHICS, the implication is that it's UNETHICAL, not ILLEGAL, to protest.

That's what you assert.

Fucking retard. I tutored know-nothings like you in college, at the behest of the English dept. head, because people like you so enraged her...she gave me the loons who couldn't/wouldn't learn, and I was their last hope before she booted them from the class.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 22, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> So when you question the ETHICS of protest, you are questioning whether protesting is ETHICAL, or UNETHICAL...right? So when you said it was a question of ETHICS, the implication is that it's UNETHICAL, not ILLEGAL, to protest.
> 
> That's what you assert.
> 
> Fucking retard. I tutored know-nothings like you in college, at the behest of the English dept. head, because people like you so enraged her...she gave me the loons who couldn't/wouldn't learn, and I was their last hope before she booted them from the class.



Then I pity them.

But at the same time I have faith that kids are resilient enough to get over amateur hacks like you.

Let's face it, as far as simple reading comprehension all that can be advised is.. don't quit the day job. Unless this is it, which it appears to be.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

And my advice to them, as to you, is #1, don't use words you don't use,  and #2, don't make assertions you can't back up.

You can't launch a discussion about ETHICS, then claim that you had no intention of referencing the UNETHICAL. Well, you can...but then you would be branded a pedant and a fool...which you have been branded as.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

Don't pity them, they passed because of me. And they learned how to write like scholars, instead of like 2nd graders.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 22, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Don't pity them, they passed because of me. And they learned how to write like scholars, instead of like 2nd graders.



So you kept the latter for yourself.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.

So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest, per idb?? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?

I'm all ears (whoops, this is an internet forum..I'm all EYES...because if I don't fix that then you'll come back with "you're an idiot, you can't hear me!") If you can show me that idb was not implicating that the gun owners were UNETHICAL in their protest when he questioned their ETHICS, I'll buy you a new car.

So tell me how you question the ethics of the protest..but that questioning the ethics of the protest in no way implies they were UNETHICAL in the way they carried out the protest.

I keep asking you to elucidate, and you keep dodging.

You can't, because that is exactly what was implied, repeatedly. I am not the one who, out of the blue, introduced ethics into the convo, as you stated.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 22, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.
> 
> So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?
> 
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 22, 2013)

You're the troll. 

Tell me how we are supposed to discuss the ethics of the protesters without discussing whether or not they behaved unethically? Explain to me how bringing up ethics is not to introduce the topic of what is ethical?  This is your chance to make me look foolish.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Nov 23, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



It doesn't kick any harder than a full-power load in my Model 29.  The Casull kicks a lot harder, in fact.  Note that my wife's best friend has no trouble handling my Model 29: Tina is 4'5" tall and about 85lbs.  (She hasn't fired the .500, because the grips are much too large for her hands.)


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > doubledipsoon said:
> ...



anti gunners are crazy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 23, 2013)

Pogo said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.
> ...



the can't handle the truth reply


----------



## idb (Nov 23, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm not, and never have.


----------



## idb (Nov 23, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Explained already.
Intimidation is not the same as threatening constitutional rights.

Have I called you stupid?
I'm not sure that I did but thanks for offering it as a plan 'B'.


----------



## idb (Nov 23, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.
> 
> So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest, per idb?? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?
> 
> ...



You're welcome to post my quote where I use the word 'ethics'.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 23, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It was Pogo. Sorry, I was initially addressing the ethics discussion towards him, but I got switched around.

Anyway, Pogo brought up ethics...then both popo and, I believe, idb, said I had brought up the discussion of ethics, and maintained that to discuss what is "unethical" has nothing to do with a discussion of "ethics"...which is what, according to Poopoo, the discussion is all about.

So. To recap..

Tell me how we are supposed to discuss the ethics of the protesters  without discussing whether or not they behaved unethically? Explain to  me how bringing up ethics is not to introduce the topic of what is  ethical? 

I shall standby and wait for directions. How do we discuss ethics without discussion of the unethical.

And no more pretending I brought it into the conversation, please. We have it all straightened out.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 23, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Quite true, threatening constitutional rights is much worse than simple intimidation. One affects everyone, the other affects almost no one.

Just curious, do you think not calling other people out on their lack of understanding makes you smart? It doesn't even make you polite, it makes you part of the problem. Letting people hold on to erroneous ideas simply because you don't want to insult them is no better than feeding them stupidity directly. If you don't want people to tell you you are stupid, stop being stupid.


----------



## idb (Nov 23, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



My last dozen or so posts (I'm not going back and counting them) have been explanations of my position, I'm not sure how much more I can explain.


----------



## idb (Nov 23, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Nope, I haven't been involved in your discussion with Pogo at all.
I just felt the need to clarify...


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 23, 2013)

Thank you for that! You have answered a question posed to someone else by explaining your desire to clarify. Clarify what? Why did you post? WTF are you talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 23, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Then what the fuck ARE you trying to accomplish by putting your ass in a thread you have no business being in?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Ironic how the same crowd that insists OCT wasn't "intimidating"  --- spends all its energy trying to intimidate and browbeat everyone else out of the thread.

-- Even after they're already gone.

Courageous.  And revealing.

"a thread you have no business being in" ....  S M H ...


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 24, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



   [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]

That's it.  That's the extent of their abilities:  "You're a racist,"  "America sucks," "You're mean."  "Americans don't need guns."  They perceive those statements from them to be the final authority and worthy of being accepted hands down.  Once I spot them, I generally don't even read any more of their asinine posts.

What I notice about every last one of them is that they are so simple minded they can't carry on a discussion, let alone carry the argument.   On anything.  I have decided that having daddy socialism in your country makes you daft.  It certainly robs you of any need or desire to think or act to preserve your own life, and therefore you lose the _ability _to think or act in a way to preserve your own life.  I am also convinced that in those places there are people who are waiting for the tides of history to turn so they can take over and 'rule' once again.  When that happens, those people you see posting here won't last as long as a June frost.  They will be too simple minded to conceptualize a plan of any kind for their own survival, and they will be easy pickens for those who want to take over.  WE see this.  THEY do not see this.  The person who is in survival mode, e.g. working, paying bills, managing his money, protecting and caring for self and family, etc., is the one who will ultimately survive.  Not the lap dog who sits patiently waiting for his food bowl to be filled.


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Thank you for that! You have answered a question posed to someone else by explaining your desire to clarify. Clarify what? Why did you post? WTF are you talking about?



FFS, I was mentioned...but you just go ahead and read into it what you want to.
Just like the rest of your posts.


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

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


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



I can't remember posting either of those things.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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 _*fucking synonymous*_.

Intimidate Synonyms, Intimidate Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 24, 2013)

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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Intimidate means threaten, how the fuck 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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> 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 (Nov 24, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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 (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Zona (Nov 24, 2013)

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

They are thugs.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 24, 2013)

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


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



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


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



C'mon Pogo...you must know how important it is to get the last word in so that you can claim victory.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What is your point? You don't think it is possible to threaten people rights constitutionally? Or do you not recognize the concept of rights? Doesn't bring guns to an anti gun meeting threaten the constitutional rights of the anti gun people?

Either your position is stupid, and you refuse to admit it, which makes you stupid, or you are just stupid. Either way, you are stupid.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I bet you thought you had a clever strawman.  Wave bye bye, there she goes on the  bus.

By the way, "something illegal going on" isn't the only reason to call the law, Quantum False Equivalenceist.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Indeed - Forty seven thousand posts, count 'em, based around the concept, "you're stupid".

Deep, devastating argument.  My head swims.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> *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.



No one has argued otherwise. 

And the love it or leave it meme is both childish and inane. 

The issue has nothing to do with the exercising of a Constitutional right, but the incorrect position held by some that our rights are absolute, and not subject to reasonable restrictions, when in fact they are. And reasonable restrictions can be legislative, judicial, or societal, as in this case.


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2013)

I thought you were arguing that bringing guns DID threaten the gun grabbers? That it was intimidating..


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2013)

Are you sure you know what you have said, and what you mean to say? Because it looks to me like you don't...


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I thought you were arguing that bringing guns DID threaten the gun grabbers? That it was intimidating..



Yep, I did.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > 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 that is the topic.  the gun owners were acting within the law.  we have already agreed they did nothing illegal.  yet the antigun owners are claiming the actions within the law the gun owners took was intimidating.  it is their attempt to get the law changed.  and by changing the law, violating rights.   it's like me complaining blacks in a group pose a threat and should not be allowed.  on of two scenarios can be expected. one is a group of blacks just hanging out together.  the other a flashmob or game of knock out is about to occur.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I never said that the only reason to call the police was if something illegal is going on. You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.

Good luck.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis. 

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy. 

Honestly, which position makes more sense?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Didn't you?  Let's rerun from above, just the relevant phrase...



> *called the police even though nothing illegal was occurring*


-- which of course you equated to "irresponsible".



Quantum Windbag said:


> You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.
> 
> Good luck.



Funny, that's not what the cop in the video said, now is it? 

Is that... inconvenient?


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





> Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.


Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated _while exercising their rights_.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



There is no "link to gun rights".  It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas.  That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist.  Nothing changed by them showing up.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



when rights are challenged they have to be stood up for.  otherwise things will change.

nothing change by the group protesting gun rights either.  to your argument, perhaps they should just stfu and stay home too.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



There is no "rights challenge" in four women talking in a restaurant.  That's not going to change.

*Both* are true: the women have a right to meet and talk, the OCT has a right to demonstrate. Neither of those rights is in question.  Or threatened.

But feel free to explain why "perhaps they should just stfu and stay home" isn't intimidation mirroring what OCT did.

Shhheeeeeeeeeeesh.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it. 

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?



> MDA later released a statement calling OCT &#8220;gun bullies&#8221; who &#8220;disagree[d] with our goal of changing America&#8217;s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.&#8221; The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were &#8220;terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.&#8221; A member of OCT responded by tweeting, &#8220;I guess I&#8217;m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.&#8221;



Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Damn, you are no better at proving other people said something they  didn't than you are at proving you didn't say something you did.

What a surprise.

It is irresponsible to call people that randomly shoot dogs and unarmed people simply because you are afraid of a gun that is hidden in plain sight.



Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You can call them to harass and intimidate people, as a practical joke, or even because you didn't get good service at the store. The problem is, the police don't think they should be answering calls like that. Frankly, neither do I. That leaves you to come up with a legitimate reason to call the police on a peaceful protest.
> ...



Was there a video somewhere? I didn't watch it, I leave videos for the people that can't, or won't, read. Which category are you in?



Pogo said:


> Is that... inconvenient?



Not for me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



It made you look dumber than you did before they did it. That might not have been their goal, but it is still a change.


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I might agree that it was a stupid position if it was my position...but it isn't and never has been.
You do know that you're arguing with yourself at this point don't you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Are you trying to be as stupid as Pogo?


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That's all he's ever done.  47,000 posts consisting of "you're stupid".  He believes in "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit".  Over, and over, and over...


----------



## idb (Nov 24, 2013)

Pogo said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I hope for his sake that he's just being a troll.
It doesn't say good things about him if he really can't understand.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 24, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So he's saying, they weren't _being _intimidated, but they deserve _to be_intimidated.

In this country we call that "pussyfooting".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 24, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



References to gun rights in the thread address the fact that this isnt a Second Amendment issue, as no government entity is seeking to restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. That Texas residents are allowed to openly carry long guns pursuant to State law and the Constitution does not give gun owners license to brandish firearms in a threatening manner.   

The point of the thread, therefore, was to bring attention to individuals likely using firearms to intimidate those they incorrectly perceived to be hostile to gun rights. 

And its idiocy to maintain that MDA members should have been prepared for such an occurrence, as they were not protesting against gun rights, where the response by OCT members was unwarranted, irresponsible, and served only to cast gun owners in a negative light  once again.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> 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.



The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 25, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Shut up, Clayton. 

You haven't the slightest inkling as to what you are talking about. You're mangling the issue, spinning it to vilify gun owners, picking sides and saying "Oh those poor women! Those gun wielding men should be arrested for intimidating them!" Was there a shot fired? If there was I could understand, but there wasn't. These people ironically were exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in the parking lot, not standing over them in the building like some group of bandits. As for these men "incorrectly perceiving hostility to gun rights": If you do a little investigating, say reading the OP, you'll find out that their goal was "changing America&#8217;s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Where I am from we call that honesty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No one brandished a weapon in a threatening manner, if they had, that would have violated state law, and they would have been arrested. 

The rest of your post exhibits your normal understanding of legal issues, and shows why you barely qualify to be a janitor in a law firm. Frankly, if they knew you posted drivel like this, they would probably have you committed.


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 25, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



so now a moms demand action meeting, a group that activly protests gun rights is just four women talking in a restaurant?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The mothers were advocating against gun rights, idiot. Your post contradicts itself.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What *IS* your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?


----------



## Sunshine (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



It is comparable to penis envy.  He wants to be an American but can't be.


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



No it isn't.
You might be trying to change it into that.

That makes you either an ignorant ass or..................nope, that's it.


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Haha!
Hell no.
Look how dysfunctional you lot are!


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Go away, asshole. Isn't there anyone in who's affairs you can meddle in in New Zealand, or have they told you to shut the fuck up there, too?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Look how irrelevant you are. You remind me of Starkey.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Remember that, when the Chinese Navy is sitting off your shores.


----------



## bucs90 (Nov 25, 2013)

This is scary. That GANG of idiots with rifles are the early stages of stuff that we see in the Middle East. "Insurgent" groups. If, and when, a law they hate passes, they will take to violence. They OBVIOUSLY showed up with those weapons- instead of signs or paper handouts to layout their side of the issue- for a purpose. Intimidation by implying a threat of armed gang violence.

I support the right to own and carry a gun. I don't support STUPID people from doing so. Every single person in the picture is a fudging idiot.

How about instead of displaying your rifle girlfriend, set up tables with literature and fliers and signs showing why your side is right? That may require some intelligent.......oh, wait. Nevermind. Go back to yer gun!


----------



## bucs90 (Nov 25, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



That's why we have a military. And if they beat OUR military? We're screwed anyway.

But, the US will never be invaded. Too many people with scoped hunting rifles. 100,000,000 snipers would be hard to beat.

But no one is trying to ban scoped hunting guns.


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Kondor3 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Sunshine said:
> ...



Will do but we might even invite them over for a cuppa.


> China and New Zealand on Tuesday agreed to strengthen military ties and promote the two militaries' relations to a higher level.


China, New Zealand agree to strengthen military ties - People's Daily Online


----------



## Vox (Nov 25, 2013)

you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Vox said:


> you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er



That stings.
I can read...and I've got feelings you know......


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 25, 2013)

Vox said:


> you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er



You're right!

I pay zero attention to him, which is still too much...


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

bucs90 said:


> This is scary. That GANG of idiots with rifles are the early stages of stuff that we see in the Middle East. "Insurgent" groups. If, and when, a law they hate passes, they will take to violence. They OBVIOUSLY showed up with those weapons- instead of signs or paper handouts to layout their side of the issue- for a purpose. Intimidation by implying a threat of armed gang violence.
> 
> I support the right to own and carry a gun. I don't support STUPID people from doing so. Every single person in the picture is a fudging idiot.
> 
> How about instead of displaying your rifle girlfriend, set up tables with literature and fliers and signs showing why your side is right? That may require some intelligent.......oh, wait. Nevermind. Go back to yer gun!



In case you didn't realize it, the photo in the OP is a fraud. It was taken at 90 degrees to a posed group shot.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

Vox said:


> you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er



Who?


----------



## Vox (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er
> ...



idb


----------



## Vox (Nov 25, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er
> ...



I just scroll down. Seriously - who cares what anybody from any other country thinks about our Constitutional rights?


----------



## Vox (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er
> ...



yeah, I know.

But it does not matter for you and it does not affect you.
Neither does your opinion affects us


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



It is a symptom of his delusion that he understands more than anyone else.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Fuck off you freaking kiwi.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er
> ...



Then feel your way out of here.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

Vox said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



IDB, who?

Does it really matter?


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



That's all lower case thanks.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 25, 2013)

bucs90 said:


> This is scary. That GANG of idiots with rifles are the early stages of stuff that we see in the Middle East. "Insurgent" groups. If, and when, a law they hate passes, they will take to violence. They OBVIOUSLY showed up with those weapons- instead of signs or paper handouts to layout their side of the issue- for a purpose. Intimidation by implying a threat of armed gang violence.
> 
> I support the right to own and carry a gun. I don't support STUPID people from doing so. Every single person in the picture is a fudging idiot.
> 
> How about instead of displaying your rifle girlfriend, set up tables with literature and fliers and signs showing why your side is right? That may require some intelligent.......oh, wait. Nevermind. Go back to yer gun!



well you know, that is kind of he whole point of the 2nd amendment.   The right to own firearms shall not be infringed.   laws infringe.  the right to bear arms is in place so the government can not infringe.  that's the beauty of our freedoms.  all of them.  to protect us from the government.  to protect us from a return to tyranny.  in case you missed it, the government works for us. we don't report to and serve them.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



My, my, sensitive aren't we?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > you, guys, pay way too much attention to irrelevant New Zealand-er
> ...



What makes you think your feelings matter to anyone who is not you? Are you operating under some sort of delusion that other people are responsible for your feelings? Or that they are required to take them into account before expressing themselves? You have no right not to be offended, get over it.


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Why should I care?


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Yep, really smarting now...


----------



## idb (Nov 25, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



What makes you think that I think that my feelings...etc, etc...?
In any case it's a free country and I have every right to be offended...are you oppressing me?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 26, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



If you carried a weapon I wouldn't be able to oppress you.

But that would make you a bully.


----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's a conundrum alright!


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 26, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
Preventing oppression doesn't make one a bully.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 26, 2013)

idb said:


> That's all lower case thanks.



We just figured that was due to ignorance.. You're from New Zealand after all; whilst no doubt fluent in sheep, education would not be a feature...

You see, an acronym for "I DON'T BELONG" would be IDB, not idb...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 26, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No, but idb thinks carrying a weapon makes you one.


----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > That's all lower case thanks.
> ...



Or maybe "I Dispense Brilliance" or "I Dismiss Bullshit" or "In Defence of Badgers"...


----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's easy to win an argument that you've invented, isn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 26, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Are you saying they weren't intimidating anyone?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 26, 2013)

idb said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I'm thinking your username is an acronym for I disseminate bullshit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



What does IDB mean? - IDB Definition - Meaning of IDB - InternetSlang.com


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Hey hey, I'm famous!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 27, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



You should be in the troll home of fame


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 27, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



THAT explains a lot!


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 27, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Then what the fuck ARE you saying?


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 27, 2013)

And why!


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 27, 2013)

he doesn't know. he contradicts himself with almost every post. Frodo does too. i think of them interchangeably....


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm saying that they were intimidating someone.
Pretty clear I thought.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 27, 2013)

But that was not their intent.

See this is what leftist whack jobs don't get...it's not the responsibility of free people to make sure that other people aren't scared or upset. If you are offended by sidewalk preaching, avoid the sidewalk. If you are scared of armed citizens, then move to a country where they aren't armed. 

But it isn't the FAULT of law abiding citizens that there are nuts who piss their pants at the sight of a gun. There are huge stretches of country outside of the cities where people carry their weapons, and nobody is scared! Yes, it's true! Just because YOU were raised in an atmosphere where the only time anyone saw a gun was when some lunatic started mowing down unarmed children doesn't mean everybody who legally owns a gun and carries it is a threat. 

Get the fuck over it. Women who are trying to take away the rights of people to carry guns need to face the fact that the people who are going to protest are armed. And it's hogwash to maintain that because the women who want to take the guns are afraid, then the people who are exercising their rights should set their rights aside...which is an admission that there is something inherently *scary* about people exercising their rights.

And there isn't. The scary people are the ones who try to take away our rights, and who pretend to be afraid of free people in order to gain an advantage over them.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 27, 2013)

And I'll tell you something...people who attempt to disarm a free people should be afraid.

Because what they are doing is wrong, and because an armed people will fight to keep their freedom.


----------



## Spoonman (Nov 27, 2013)

Does anyone ever stop to thing why the founding fathers included the language "shall not be infringed upon" in this right?  they realized how critical this right was to a free nation.  they understood the treachery a government is capable of imposing on the people.   they lived it. they experienced it.  they fought and died to prevent it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2013)

idb said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



In other words, they were bullies, even though they weren't doing anything illegal or immoral. Logically, you must believe that carrying a weapon makes people afraid.


----------



## idb (Nov 28, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Your logic is illogical.
The situation and context is important.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 28, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



That isn't my logic, it is the logic of the people who think guns are scary. My logic is that only idiots are afraid of guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 28, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



True. 

Again, the gun owners were irresponsible, the open carrying of the firearms was intended to intimidate, and not a good faith expression of Second Amendment rights, whether legal or not. 

Its this type of behavior that gives those of us who own guns and advocate for Second Amendment rights a bad name.


----------



## idb (Nov 28, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So you see no difference between walking onto a shooting range carrying a rifle or walking into a kindergarten carrying the same weapon?


----------



## idb (Nov 28, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The immediate knee-jerk reaction of rabid Second Amendment proponents is to defend *any* action by a fellow gun owner, no matter how egregious or ill-considered.
Look at how the Zimmerman case instantly became a rallying point for gun-rights advocates.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 28, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If that's your logic it's a frank confession.  He didn't say the guns make people afraid, but rather the people behind them.

But either way by your eternal logic of "everybody but me is a stupid idiot", those little kids in Newtown and those Amish girls in Pennsylvania and those movie patrons in Aurora, they must be real morons.  And the survivors who watched it all go down, they must be even stupider.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 28, 2013)

idb said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Am I supposed to assume that you are actually being sensible? 

Do you think cops shouldn't be able to carry guns in schools? 

If cops can do carry a gun in both places, I see no reason everyone else cannot. If, on the other hand, you want separate laws for police and everyone else, I have to point out that violates the premise of the US being a nation of laws.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 28, 2013)

idb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I still haven't seen any evidence that they intended to intimidate anyone. 

Funny thing is, neither did the police who were called to the scene. If they had, those people would have gone to jail, because it is illegal to carry a gun in a way that is meant to intimidate others. Since these men were not arrested I can be 100% sure that they did not display their weapons in a manner meant to intimidate. 

Want to try and make a case that the police ignored the law?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 28, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You already said they didn't break a law. Since they didn't break the law, and intimidating people with a gun is illegal in Texas, they didn't intimidate anyone. 

That means you think guns are scary, and are willing to lie to make political points.


----------



## thanatos144 (Nov 28, 2013)

Facts are we have a right to a gun if you do not like that move the hell out of the country.

tapatalk post


----------



## Pogo (Nov 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh ---- no.  I wasn't there, ergo there's no element for me to be scared of.  Secondly, I did not say they didn't break "a" law.  As for lying to make political points, I wouldn't dream of taking your job.  (Like you just did -- I can't compete with that.)

Fourth, as for "they didn't intimidate anyone", see the intervening post between yours and this one for yet another admission that that's exactly what they did.  See also the police in the video specifically moving the OCT away.

Failure on all fpur points.  0 for 4 with four strikeouts.  I believe that's called the "golden sombrero".


----------



## Esmeralda (Nov 29, 2013)

idb said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Absolutely, they do. Either they support whatever any gun nut does, or they say, as in the deaths of all those children in Newtown, that it is just collateral damage: no big deal, the numbers just aren't big enough to make it important enough to consider serious gun control.  I wonder what any of them would think if it was their child killed in a school rampage. No, we don't need to wonder. They'd want more guns. They'd want teachers to be armed. Their solution for the gun problem is more guns.  Pour more gasoline on the fire.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



People that weren't there were scared, but you weren't, so that proves they were there to intimidate people, even though that would break the law, and they didn't break the law.

Does that accurately reflect your position?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


 
Who said this? Please quote and link. Because I haven't heard anybody say that unprotected kids being slaughtered in schools is acceptable collateral damage...

Other than the gun grabbers, that is.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

PS..I would not send my children to a school that advertised itself as a "no guns allowed" school. I would not send them to a college that advertised itself as such, nor would I allow them to go to a theater that advertised as such.

Because those advertisements are the dinner bell for the loons and criminals who want to take a lot of innocents out, quickly.

And those are not the people who showed up at the parking lot and didn't break any laws with their legal weapons. THOSE people are the ones who prevent massacres.

"Officers said their investigation revealed people at the party had begun arguing. The 27-year-old man was asked to leave but returned a short time later with a rifle and began firing shots outside the home, according to Glendale police Officer Tracey Breeden.

"At some point, witnesses said the man pointed the rifle at partygoers and the 39-year-old partygoer took out a gun and shot the the 27-year-old. The suspected shooter cooperated with detectives. He was later released."

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...=ibaf&q=massacre+prevented+by+concealed+carry

"
According to the _San Antonio News-Express_, witnesses reported that numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex, which set off a scramble to safety as cops and emergency medical personnel responded.

Detective Louis Antu, a spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, said the shooting began near the theater, at a China Garden restaurant. At one point the suspect even took a few shots at a San Antonio Police cruiser, Antu said.

"He was shooting at a marked unit," Antu said. "He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder."

Once the suspect reached the theater, however, an female off-duty Bexar County Sheriff deputy who happened to be working at the theater (and was obviously armed), shot back and struck him.

"She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said.

"Witness Tara Grace, who was buying a drink from the concession stand when the shooting began, ran into a nearby bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other moviegoers to get out of the way. "We thought we were going to die," she said.

"But she didn't - because _an armed citizen protected her and the other patrons_."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038584_media_blackout_armed_citizens_saving_lives.html##ixzz2mLKH8TVI​


----------



## lakeview (Dec 3, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I've already explained to you how there was dishonesty here. We have two groups of people who are dishonest and juvenile. The difference between you and me is that I know that both sides are dishonest...you want to believe that only one side is. Believe what you want but your guys aren't any better than the mothers.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 4, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> lakeview said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



So, Lakeview has returned but still refuses to prove his claim that people have changed hats and shadows fall at different angles after taking into account the relative positions from which the photos were taken.


----------

