Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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]

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

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Is the 629 the new titanium-frame Model 29?

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

 

[Pogo]

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]

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.

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

Because this thread is a lie.

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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Because this thread is a lie.

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

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]

Because this thread is a lie.

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

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

Your edit came after my post, dumbass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

Your edit came after my post, dumbass.

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Your edit came after my post, dumbass.

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

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]

Your edit came after my post, dumbass.

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

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 be intimidation. That would be terrorism.

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.]

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)

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.]

Thanks for the canard. Send me a bill.

That's BAD, Possum.

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

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

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

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.]

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.

Going Liberal on me, are ya?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Is the 629 the new titanium-frame Model 29?

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]

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)

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

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.