Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Vandalshandle]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[Politico]

Misleading thread title. What a shocker.

 

[lakeview]

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



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



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.

These images were not taken at the same time.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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.

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

They look like a bunch of retards.

 

[martybegan]

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.

These images were not taken at the same time.

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]

OH so the op started a thread with lies.

These images were not taken at the same time.

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.

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]

These images were not taken at the same time.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.

"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?