Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[bigrebnc1775]

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]

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.

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

 

[Ernie S.]

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.]

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

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.

Thanks for the canard. Send me a bill.

That's BAD, Possum.

 

[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.

bingo. fuck the bitches

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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



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.

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....

OH so the op started a thread with lies.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Thanks for the canard. Send me a bill.

That's BAD, Possum.

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

? 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.

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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".

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]

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]

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]

We have to take guns, for THE CHILDREN!

 

[Pogo]

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

? 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.

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

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.]

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.

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

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]

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?

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".

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?

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]

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.

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

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

My bad, I clearly wasn't thinking.