Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

(for both the previous two posts)

--- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.

Tell me -- Does (b) sound familiar at all?

How do y'all like the Westboro Batshit Church doing that? Now imagine the WBC carring not only "God hates fags" signs but loaded guns too.

I rest my case.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes I have! And I wear a patch over my left eye to this day.

I like your style, Ernie!

That's a real picture too.

Look at the shadows.

Exactly! Here's a picture of my wife. It is obvious that it was take several hours later.

 

[martybegan]

(for both the previous two posts)

--- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.

Tell me -- Does (b) sound familiar at all?

How do y'all like the Westboro Batshit Church doing that? Now imagine the WBC carring not only "God hates fags" signs but loaded guns too.

I rest my case.

Bringing up the WBC is the modern eqivalent of Godwin's law, it means you have lost the arguement, and must resort to guilt by tenuous association.

What about all those protesters that brought thier kids with them during all the anti-bush protests during his time? There was always a chance of a riot breaking out, were those parents irresponsible?

Having a gun loaded near a child is not irresponsible in of itself, it it was we would need a 50ft buffer around every police officer to be made a no child area.

 

[koshergrl]

(for both the previous two posts)

--- whether an accident happened or not is not the point; the points are (a) the judgement in putting those children in a potential situation, and (b) their use of those children to make a political point -- while putting them in that environment no less.

Tell me -- Does (b) sound familiar at all?

How do y'all like the Westboro Batshit Church doing that? Now imagine the WBC carring not only "God hates fags" signs but loaded guns too.

I rest my case.

Using children to make a political point.....wait a minute, what was the name of the mothers' group again?

Nutwad. Your case was lost from the outset, with the first set of lies.

 

[koshergrl]

What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

 

[koshergrl]

Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...

Like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hill, movie theaters, Ft. Hood, etc...

 

[Pogo]

What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

It's called "analogy".

Perhaps it's also called "inconvenient".

 

[martybegan]

What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

It's called "analogy".

Perhaps it's also called "inconvenient".

Its called Godwin(ing) it because you have run out of steam.

 

[koshergrl]

It's called "false analogy". It's what losers do when they know they've lost.

 

[Ernie S.]

Hmmm. STILL waiting for a response from Lakeview. I dutifully sent requested PM and have not received a reply informing me of which people posing changed their hats. No further argument about shadow direction, either.
Seems like the boy has run off to hide.

 

[Pogo]

It's called "false analogy". It's what losers do when they know they've lost.

And that's called whining. It goes with "inconvenient".

See also Danth's Law.

 

[Pogo]

What the hell does the WBC have to do with this topic?

Oh, that's right. Nothing.

It's called "analogy".

Perhaps it's also called "inconvenient".

Its called Godwin(ing) it because you have run out of steam.

No... Godwin would need a Hitler. This part is about children, not Hitler.

 

[martybegan]

It's called "analogy".

Perhaps it's also called "inconvenient".

Its called Godwin(ing) it because you have run out of steam.

No... Godwin would need a Hitler. This part is about children, not Hitler.

The WBC is now in the ranks of Hitler on internet forums, any reference to them as a comparision is more often than not hyperbole.

 

[koshergrl]

There are false analogies, and there are legit analogies.

The analogy between the pro-abortion crowd and Nazi genocide supporters is legit.

The analogy between people who object to the removal of their right to bear arms, and the WBC funeral stake-outs is not. There are no parallels between the two groups. WBC is a tiny group of lunatics who have found a really offensive way to hog the limelight...

But those who support our right to bear arms come from all walks of life, all churches, and number in the tens of millions. In other words, they are the majority. The extremists are the anti-gun loons, who like to pretend they are the mainstream...which is just another lie they tell in order to further their agenda...the outcome of which is to disarm, and then diminish, the population.

 

[Pogo]

Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...

Like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hill, movie theaters, Ft. Hood, etc...

That's where the loaded part comes in I'm afraid.

Go to make a point with guns showing, take the kids to make cheap political points... that's one level.

Now make those guns loaded with the kids still there.

I understand guns can't go off accidentally (when the argument is that they can).
I also understand guns can go off acciedentally (when the argument is that a guy in Dearborn Heights shot a 19-year-old girl in the face).

I'm not sure how that's going to be resolved but it sure is convenient to have it both ways.

Secondly...
If the nutgroup is going to make a point visually (as they did) --- then why load the guns? You don't need them loaded to make the point.

If they loaded them because they thought they'd need to use them--- then why bring the children?

Having it both ways.... priceless.

Senseless too.

 

[Pogo]

Its called Godwin(ing) it because you have run out of steam.

No... Godwin would need a Hitler. This part is about children, not Hitler.

The WBC is now in the ranks of Hitler on internet forums, any reference to them as a comparision is more often than not hyperbole.

^^ Martybegan's Law?

Or did you just fuck up?

 

[koshergrl]

Again, the whole point of bearing arms is that they are effective when it comes to protecting one's children.

And anywhere that progressives are congregating, it's a good bet that children are in danger. Just saying.

 

[Pogo]

There are false analogies, and there are legit analogies.

Right... "mine" are legit and "yours" are false.

The analogy between the pro-abortion crowd and Nazi genocide supporters is legit.

If you can find a way to bridge them, more power to you, unfortunately neither is involved here.

The analogy between people who object to the removal of their right to bear arms, and the WBC funeral stake-outs is not. There are no parallels between the two groups. WBC is a tiny group of lunatics who have found a really offensive way to hog the limelight...

But those who support our right to bear arms come from all walks of life, all churches, and number in the tens of millions. In other words, they are the majority. The extremists are the anti-gun loons, who like to pretend they are the mainstream...which is just another lie they tell in order to further their agenda...the outcome of which is to disarm, and then diminish, the population.

Well then you're looking in the wrong place. The children analogy has nothing to do with any group's agenda--- it's the idea of using children as a political tool. WBC does it, and the nutters here did it too, except they took it to the escalation of putting the children in potential harm at the same time.

That ain't too bright. That's why I go with "nutgroup".

 

[koshergrl]

No, I don't do relativism.

There really is no comparison between people who defend our right to bear arms, and the dozen or so WBC nuts who go off on various and bizarre tangents.

And progressives just can't find a way to wrap their baby-killing minds around how to protect children, or why it is necessary. That's okay. Your desire to see harm come to children is proven every time you allow children to be slaughtered in the name of progress...whether in the abortion abbatoirs, or in the latest "NO GUNS ALLOWED" shooting gallery. Thank goodness, you're a tiny minority of the population, and everybody recognizes you as the disgusting death cultists you are.

 

[Ernie S.]

Children are typically quite a bit safer with armed protectors than they are at certain "no guns allowed" locations...

Like Virginia Tech, Sandy Hill, movie theaters, Ft. Hood, etc...

That's where the loaded part comes in I'm afraid.

Go to make a point with guns showing, take the kids to make cheap political points... that's one level.

Now make those guns loaded with the kids still there.

I understand guns can't go off accidentally (when the argument is that they can).
I also understand guns can go off acciedentally (when the argument is that a guy in Dearborn Heights shot a 19-year-old girl in the face).

I'm not sure how that's going to be resolved but it sure is convenient to have it both ways.

Secondly...
If the nutgroup is going to make a point visually (as they did) --- then why load the guns? You don't need them loaded to make the point.

If they loaded them because they thought they'd need to use them--- then why bring the children?

Having it both ways.... priceless.

Senseless too.

Loaded/ unloaded; who knows for sure? AND if you are exercising your right to be armed, why carry rather unwieldy clubs?

What is the point of carrying or displaying an unloaded weapon?