Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Noomi]

People with guns kill people.

 

[Gracie]

People with spoons...and worse..FORKS..are dangerous too.

 

[Kroyd]

Cry me a fucking river...

Try defending your krusty assed panties without a gun...

Not that anyone cares about yo krusty, stinky, and assed up panties...

But krusty, stinky panties is krusty, stinky pantries...

Just sayin...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just to let everybody in this discussion know what they are arguing about.

I don't believe anything I read on anti abortion websites either but I am willing to bet that you do.

you don't believe it because it goes beyond your education

 

[Kroyd]

People with spoons...and worse..FORKS..are dangerous too.

I knew how to use chopsticks when I was four and I didn't even smoke crack! ...

... Boom!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People with guns kill people.

of course you would throw the baby out and keep the dirty bath water.

 

[Kroyd]

I also learnededed how to spot false composite and cheap photoshopping from the legit shit...

Good eyes don't need guns...

 

[skookerasbil]

I also learnededed how to spot false composite and cheap photoshopping from the legit shit...

Good eyes don't need guns...

FaIl...........


according to Harvard University we need MORE GUNS



In April of 2013, the Harvard University Journal of Law and Public Policy released their study, which concluded >>>>>


more guns = less crimes



Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.



Here is the full paper from the journal >>> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf





gun grabbing is gay.

 

[Pogo]

irrelevant this thread is based on a lie.

Why they were there is "irrelevant"?

Do they know that? Must feel pretty silly...

Pretty silly as the lie this thread is.
the thread is based on the photo the photo was and is a lie.,
THE END.

You'd like that to be true. Wouldn't it be convenient if it was "just a photo".

Unfortunately we have a story, and a video, and the fact remains this nutgroup came out brandishing weapons in a show of intimidation -- but more than that, as they admitted themselves, their "props" were loaded... with children in tow.

Hard to get past that level of nutworthiness.

As somebody said way upthread, these yahoos created a powder keg waiting to blow. Luckily the escalation they invited didn't happen. And this pissant argument that they're there for some kind of Constitutional show of force is bullshit. You change the Constitution through legislation and debate and ratification votes, not by force and threat.

 

[Pogo]

People with guns kill people.

of course you would throw the baby out and keep the dirty bath water.

Much like throwing the kids into an armed confrontation?

Isn't it weird how guns don't shoot by themselves... until they do?
When the deflection is to the gun, we hear this "loaded guns aren't dangerous; they don't fire themselves" line; when a 19-year-old girl gets shot in the face, it's "oh, the gun went off accidentally".

Having it both ways: priceless.

 

[Beaconoftruth]

People with guns kill people.

Here's a question:

If every gun in the world vanished, would there be less violent crime, or at least successful violent crime?

If you answer anything other than yes, please get an examination.

 

[martybegan]

People with guns kill people.

Here's a question:

If every gun in the world vanished, would there be less violent crime, or at least successful violent crime?

If you answer anything other than yes, please get an examination.

no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others.

guns keep the bad people away, and protect the weak people.

 

[freshpyle]

Pogo as in stick? Or Pogo you have met the enemy and he is you?

 

[martybegan]

Why they were there is "irrelevant"?

Do they know that? Must feel pretty silly...

Pretty silly as the lie this thread is.
the thread is based on the photo the photo was and is a lie.,
THE END.

You'd like that to be true. Wouldn't it be convenient if it was "just a photo".

Unfortunately we have a story, and a video, and the fact remains this nutgroup came out brandishing weapons in a show of intimidation -- but more than that, as they admitted themselves, their "props" were loaded... with children in tow.

Hard to get past that level of nutworthiness.

As somebody said way upthread, these yahoos created a powder keg waiting to blow. Luckily the escalation they invited didn't happen. And this pissant argument that they're there for some kind of Constitutional show of force is bullshit. You change the Constitution through legislation and debate and ratification votes, not by force and threat.

No force or threat was used, the weapons were not brandished, which implies showing in a threatening manner. no weapon was aimed at a person.

The only powder keg created was in the wussy minds of people like you, who are scared of your fellow citizens, unless of course they are dressed as government actors, then you can't wait to get on your knees and start slurping to thier "authority"

Bed wetters, all of you. Kindly go into your home, cower in the corner and stay there so the rest of us dont have to deal with your incessant mewling.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo as in stick? Or Pogo you have met the enemy and he is you?

Bwaaa HaHa! How ya doin' fresh one? Snuck in without tellin' me eh?

Hey everybody ... I know this guy. He's cool. You're gonna like him.

This will be a lot of backreading in this particular thread, but I'll go look for your intro thread and meet you in PM-land.

Welcome in.

"Fresh Pyle" -- one of my better puns I guess. You know this means I get 50% of your content...

 

[Kondor3]

So, have we figured-out yet, that those whiney-biotch mothers were on the receiving end of righteous payback for initiating animosity between the two groups some weeks earlier?

It's no fair, when you take a metaphorical swing at somebody, and they actually take a poke back at you, is it, ladies?

Accountability and Consequences - they CAN be a genuine, bona fide, Grade A, USDA prime-cut Bitch Kitty, can't they?

 

[Pogo]

Pretty silly as the lie this thread is.
the thread is based on the photo the photo was and is a lie.,
THE END.

You'd like that to be true. Wouldn't it be convenient if it was "just a photo".

Unfortunately we have a story, and a video, and the fact remains this nutgroup came out brandishing weapons in a show of intimidation -- but more than that, as they admitted themselves, their "props" were loaded... with children in tow.

Hard to get past that level of nutworthiness.

As somebody said way upthread, these yahoos created a powder keg waiting to blow. Luckily the escalation they invited didn't happen. And this pissant argument that they're there for some kind of Constitutional show of force is bullshit. You change the Constitution through legislation and debate and ratification votes, not by force and threat.

No force or threat was used, the weapons were not brandished, which implies showing in a threatening manner. no weapon was aimed at a person.

The only powder keg created was in the wussy minds of people like you, who are scared of your fellow citizens, unless of course they are dressed as government actors, then you can't wait to get on your knees and start slurping to thier "authority"

Bed wetters, all of you. Kindly go into your home, cower in the corner and stay there so the rest of us dont have to deal with your incessant mewling.

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

 

[Pogo]

So, have we figured-out yet, that those whiney-biotch mothers were on the receiving end of righteous payback for initiating animosity between the two groups some weeks earlier?

It's no fair, when you take a metaphorical swing at somebody, and they actually take a poke back at you, is it, ladies?

Accountability and Consequences - they CAN be a genuine, bona fide, Grade A, USDA prime-cut Bitch Kitty, can't they?

No, we haven't, because that would be conflating political discussion with political intimidation. I'm pretty sure the Moms, whatever they did in San Antopio (or according to some links, didn't do in San Antonio) didn't threaten the nutgroup with the very dynamic their own group is founded to oppose. That's crazy talk.

By the way Kondor-- I want to introduce you to FreshPyle. A veteran of another board I was on where we've had many a worthy discussion; fair-minded, rational and intelligent. He's a lot like you. Except for that enlarged font you seem enamored of.

 

[martybegan]

You'd like that to be true. Wouldn't it be convenient if it was "just a photo".

Unfortunately we have a story, and a video, and the fact remains this nutgroup came out brandishing weapons in a show of intimidation -- but more than that, as they admitted themselves, their "props" were loaded... with children in tow.

Hard to get past that level of nutworthiness.

As somebody said way upthread, these yahoos created a powder keg waiting to blow. Luckily the escalation they invited didn't happen. And this pissant argument that they're there for some kind of Constitutional show of force is bullshit. You change the Constitution through legislation and debate and ratification votes, not by force and threat.

No force or threat was used, the weapons were not brandished, which implies showing in a threatening manner. no weapon was aimed at a person.

The only powder keg created was in the wussy minds of people like you, who are scared of your fellow citizens, unless of course they are dressed as government actors, then you can't wait to get on your knees and start slurping to thier "authority"

Bed wetters, all of you. Kindly go into your home, cower in the corner and stay there so the rest of us dont have to deal with your incessant mewling.

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

they were open carrying, which is perfectly legal. they were assembling to air grievences, which is perfectly legal. they did not threaten or confront anyone, in any way.

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?

 

[Beaconoftruth]

no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others.

guns keep the bad people away, and protect the weak people.

Your assumption is based on the fact that there is no social contract. People have morals. People have laws. Without firearms, even bad people would join groups.

Atomic bombs keep bad countries away and protect the weak countries.