Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Kondor3]

"...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]

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]

"...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.

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]

"...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.

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.

Or scare the hell out of four women. Thugs.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

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.

Or scare the hell out of four women. Thugs.

 

[Kondor3]

"...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]

"...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.

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]

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

Didn't say that nor even imply it.

They used their entirely functional guns as demonstration props.

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

 

[Vandalshandle]

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

Didn't say that nor even imply it.

They used their entirely functional guns as demonstration props.

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

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

 

[KGB]

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?

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.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

... I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.

Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Is that country-specific enough for ya?

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]

"...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.

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"."

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]

Didn't say that nor even imply it.

They used their entirely functional guns as demonstration props.


Pure Gun-Grabber partisan hyperbole.

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"."

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people

Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

... I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.

Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture? Discuss.

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

Is that country-specific enough for ya?

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....

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]

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"."

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.

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.

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]

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."

Did you scare them mommy?

 

[Kondor3]

"...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.

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"."

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]

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?



Is that country-specific enough for ya?

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....

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.

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]

"...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]

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."

Did you scare them mommy?

"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."