Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[TemplarKormac]

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.

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]

"...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.

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]

"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."

Mommy?

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

 

[koshergrl]

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]

Useless props is something leftards are fond of.

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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 was lying about owning a gun. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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 — 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.]

"...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.

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)

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]

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.

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]

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 — 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.

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]

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.

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

 

[koshergrl]

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]

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.

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.

Gracie....

Loaded props. With children.


Nobody wants to answer that.

 

[koshergrl]

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

 

[Pogo]

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]

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.]

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.

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 was lying about owning a gun. 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.

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.

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]

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.