Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

luck had nothing to do with responsible people carrying firearms responsibly. you keep going with the mantra that firearms are just death and destruction waiting to happen.

Yeah actually it does once you consider that their presence as they manifested it was entirely elective; they didn't have to go do that. That's where your word "responsible" morphs to "reprehensible". Loaded props..with children.



I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.



Glad to meet ya. I'm Pogo. Say weren't you going to kill me in a fire?

Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com

Why couldn't they just do that in the first place? Meet one's adversary on the same level rather than standing outside the building intimidating and polarizing?

I mean..... duh.

They weren't intimidating.

And lobbying to remove constitutional rights from fellow Americans is a polarizing action. If you don't like confrontation, then don't try to remove the rights of others.

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

 

[koshergrl]

OK then. Suppose some child HAS been saved by a drunk driver. Could the same result been obtained if the driver was sober? Yes. Of course. Now How many unarmed citizens have shot and killed a would be child killer?

You see, in one case, the gun is relevant and in the other, the alcohol is not. Poor analogy.

I know. It wasn't my analogy, although I thought it superficially clever at first read, though wasn't to be taken seriously.

But then, that's not what I was posting on. Koshergrrrrr made a rash specious absolute statement, I called her on it, and she lost. Again.
You'd think she'd figure her own pattern out by now. You'd think.

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Nor was I aware I had lost anything.

Again, we see that the activity going on inside Dodo's head is at loggerheads with, and irrelevant to, the actual discussion that is happening here.

 

[Pogo]

OK then. Suppose some child HAS been saved by a drunk driver. Could the same result been obtained if the driver was sober? Yes. Of course. Now How many unarmed citizens have shot and killed a would be child killer?

You see, in one case, the gun is relevant and in the other, the alcohol is not. Poor analogy.

I know. It wasn't my analogy, although I thought it superficially clever at first read, though wasn't to be taken seriously.

But then, that's not what I was posting on. Koshergrrrrr made a rash specious absolute statement, I called her on it, and she lost. Again.
You'd think she'd figure her own pattern out by now. You'd think.

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

Absolutes are absolutes, Ernie. She made an absolute statement, and I simply noted that it isn't. And she conceded. Get OVER it already.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah actually it does once you consider that their presence as they manifested it was entirely elective; they didn't have to go do that. That's where your word "responsible" morphs to "reprehensible". Loaded props..with children.



I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.



Glad to meet ya. I'm Pogo. Say weren't you going to kill me in a fire?



Why couldn't they just do that in the first place? Meet one's adversary on the same level rather than standing outside the building intimidating and polarizing?

I mean..... duh.

They weren't intimidating.

And lobbying to remove constitutional rights from fellow Americans is a polarizing action. If you don't like confrontation, then don't try to remove the rights of others.

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

For the 47th time, for protection.

We have the right to protect ourselves, and the right to protest in defense of that right. Get over it, for the 47th time. You seem incapable of following the thread of the discussion.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns props. OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded. Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled. Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.



That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above. Thank you. Got a link btw?



Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

Damn you really are hooked on the Kool-Aid!

These people with the guns stayed for about ten minutes took a picture then left. There were not close to the restaurant.

Police officers arrived at the location, but made no arrests. “There were no issues that we are aware of,” said an Arlington Police Department spokeswoman, Tiara Ellis Richard. “Texas law does not prohibit the carrying of long guns.”

You have no idea if the weapons were in fact loaded, although I would assume they would be since an unloaded gun is nothing but a club at that point.

The fact of this story is that the women were terrified that “They’re walking around with killing machines strapped to their backs in a suburban area,”.

Uh-- yeah, we do. We all know that. OCT people said it themselves in the video. That's established in the first TWO SECONDS in the conversation with the police officer. Hellllooooo....

And why would you need a "club" (or a gun) if your purpose is a demonstration?
Think about it -- you're suggesting the purpose is peaceful and lawful, and at the same time you want them armed with either firepower or "clubs". WTF dood? Can't have it both ways.

That's your problem you see armed citizens as a threat. I don't.

I'm all for open carry in Texas whether it's long guns or handguns and for those that don't like it there is always other states to move to.

 

[Pogo]

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights. they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do. if that intimidates you, thats your problem. but stop whining about it.

Sure. That's why I keep saying, they could have brought signs instead of something deadly. Or, and I think this is a better idea, just show up as normal people, go in the restaurant and sit down with the four women to join the discussion. Actually according to Marty's link that's what they're going for now. Should have thought of that before. Because all they've done is dug the hole of the gun-nut image deeper. They did their own cause a disservice, and now they're backtracking.

Nothing wrong with demonstration. It's American. Intimidation is another level. You don't change or retain a Constitution by threat of force; you do it through dialogue. That's (supposed to be) American too.

When the very right to own firearms is being threatened by these people under the guise that they are too dangerous for ANYONE to to own, then showing that it is not the case is the best form of protest.

Apparently your position is so weak you have to bolster it with bullshit --- this group says right in their mission statement that they support the Second Amendment, so climb down from the emotional roller coaster there, Martha. And again, you debate Constitutional issues -- if that's what you have, or legislative issues if it's a smaller scale-- with debate, not with intimidation. They seem to have learned that lesson. This message board persists without them.

And you see intimidation by the government at protests all the time by your logic, by the armed police that often surround them. But i guess thats OK because the government gets to have rights we have to give up according to you.

Did you miss everything I posted about police while you were having your emotional moment?

They are not backtracking, they plan on further demonstrations. Its also in Texas, where the gun rights people get more support then the nanny statists.

It's certainly a backtrack from showing up unannounced brandishing guns. It's the approach they should have taken from the start.

When a person or people arrive brandishing guns in this country, god damn right it's cause for concern. This shouldn't have to be spelled out yet again.... Aurora, Sandy Hook, DC, Powell, Oak Creek, Webster, Lancaster, Kileen, Binghamton, San Diego, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Ysidro, Edmond, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Iowa City, Olivehurst, San Francisco, Garden City, Jonesboro. Atlanta, Fort Worth, Honolulu, Wakefield, Santee, Meridian, Red Lake, Salt Lake, Omaha, DeKalb, Fort Hood, Manchester, Austin, Seal Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Brookfield, Santa Monica, DC (again) Columbine and other events tell us that.

I mean, again... Duh?

 

[koshergrl]

"...
If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

Similar stories are available from across the country. They include shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; at a mall in Salt Lake City, or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.

The ban against nonpolice carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.



Read more: Concealed weapons save lives - NY Daily News

 

[Pogo]

They weren't intimidating.

And lobbying to remove constitutional rights from fellow Americans is a polarizing action. If you don't like confrontation, then don't try to remove the rights of others.

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

For the 47th time, for protection.

We have the right to protect ourselves, and the right to protest in defense of that right. Get over it, for the 47th time. You seem incapable of following the thread of the discussion.

For the 48th time, protection against what? An army of four women making up Mothers Against Gun Violence taking foxhole positions from inside a restaurant?

This is why you keep losing. You're willing to make absurd stretches to make your theory work.

 

[Ernie S.]

A couple black guys with nightsticks is intimidating, but a platoon of open carry militia nuts is fine and dandy.

Actually it depends on their intention. The thugs were intending to stop certain people from voting. The group was supporting the Constitution

No, I think that's bullshit. You watch too much Fox Noise.

Let's see, that was around the same time... what was the pattern they were doing to make news stories out of nothing...

"New Black Panthers"... Henry Louis Gates... Shirley Sherrod... ACORN... Jeremiah Wright... Van Jones... nope, no pattern there, sure don't see one.

The Constitution doesn't need "support" -- it passed two centuries ago. What are the guns for? And why are they loaded?

Why are you so hung up on are they loaded? I can load an AR-15 in about a second and a half. Loaded/unloaded seems to be your whole argument against a group demonstrating in support of a Constitutional right.
1. Do they have a legal right to carry their weapons in this situation?
2. Is that right in any way changed by the fact that said weapons [may be] loaded?
Emotions, minutiae, political bents and religious beliefs are NOT a part of this discussion.

 

[Pogo]

"...
If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

Similar stories are available from across the country. They include shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; at a mall in Salt Lake City, or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.

The ban against nonpolice carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.



Read more: Concealed weapons save lives - NY Daily News

And you think that kind of scene is a good thing...

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

The anti-liberty group was specifically attacking the right of Americans to bear arms; the act of bearing arms in protest is the exact response that should be and was given.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And you think that kind of scene is a good thing...

You would have preferred more innocent people died?

The gunman was stopped, that IS a good thing, among the sane.

 

[koshergrl]

"...
If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.
In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

Similar stories are available from across the country. They include shootings at schools that were stopped before police arrived in such places as Pearl, Miss., and Edinboro, Pa., and at colleges like the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Or attacks in busy downtowns such as Memphis; at a mall in Salt Lake City, or at an apartment building in Oklahoma.

The ban against nonpolice carrying guns usually rests on the false notion that almost anyone can suddenly go crazy and start misusing their weapon or that any crossfire with a killer would be worse than the crime itself. But in state after state, permit holders are extremely law-abiding. They can lose their permits for any type of firearms-related violation.

Nor have I found a single example on record of a multiple-victim public shooting in which a permit holder accidentally shot a bystander.



Read more: Concealed weapons save lives - NY Daily News

And you think that kind of scene is a good thing...

Uh, yes, I think it is a good thing when killers are stopped before they can rack up numbers, and I think it's a good thing when people are law abiding.

"After the May 1974 Ma'alot school massacre in Israel, that government decided on an armed presence in all schools and school buses, usually with more than one armed adult. Some armed guards are police or military, but most are selected and trained civilians, parents and grandparents who are volunteers. There has been no successful mass shooting attack on an Israeli school and only one on a school bus since that policy was instituted. "

Armed guards

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

For the 47th time, for protection.

We have the right to protect ourselves, and the right to protest in defense of that right. Get over it, for the 47th time. You seem incapable of following the thread of the discussion.

For the 48th time, protection against what? An army of four women making up Mothers Against Gun Violence taking foxhole positions from inside a restaurant?

This is why you keep losing. You're willing to make absurd stretches to make your theory work.

Protection against idiots like yourself and them that seek to strip away their Constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it depends on their intention. The thugs were intending to stop certain people from voting. The group was supporting the Constitution

No, I think that's bullshit. You watch too much Fox Noise.

Let's see, that was around the same time... what was the pattern they were doing to make news stories out of nothing...

"New Black Panthers"... Henry Louis Gates... Shirley Sherrod... ACORN... Jeremiah Wright... Van Jones... nope, no pattern there, sure don't see one.

The Constitution doesn't need "support" -- it passed two centuries ago. What are the guns for? And why are they loaded?

Why are you so hung up on are they loaded? I can load an AR-15 in about a second and a half. Loaded/unloaded seems to be your whole argument against a group demonstrating in support of a Constitutional right.
1. Do they have a legal right to carry their weapons in this situation?
2. Is that right in any way changed by the fact that said weapons [may be] loaded?
Emotions, minutiae, political bents and religious beliefs are NOT a part of this discussion.

Because loading the guns means you're expecting to fire at something. And that doesn't sync with the idea of a "demonstration". If demonstration is your quest, you can do it with unloaded guns or even fake guns. It's not reasonable to presume that a mothers group founded specifically against gun violence is unaware that their own state has an open carry law, so that's' a non starter.

In a way it is about emotions, since that IS the tool the OCT was using. And again, that show of force would not have the impact without the very history that founded the mothers (some listed above) -- without that environment of gun violence, their appearance makes no particular impression -- they become the lawful citizens y'all fantasize about here. And it's equally unreasonable to presume that OCT is unaware of Aurora and Sandy Hook etc etc ad infinitum. So they know exactly what they're doing, and what the impression will be. Ergo -- intimidation. That was their objective, and they succeeded. Maybe they're now seeing a backlash. That's a good thing. It seems to be driving them to the dialogue they should have gone with in the first place.

The fact that the guns are loaded lends another dimension to the nutworthiness, because you're either (a) expecting to use them against the mothers (which is unlikely), (b) the restaurant is in an area that's so dangerous it requires a posse of 18 people for protection (equally unlikely for a meeting place for MAGV) or (c) you're just damn stupid. (a) and (b) are further unlikely since they have their own kids with them. So what's left?

 

[Pogo]

For the 47th time, for protection.

We have the right to protect ourselves, and the right to protest in defense of that right. Get over it, for the 47th time. You seem incapable of following the thread of the discussion.

For the 48th time, protection against what? An army of four women making up Mothers Against Gun Violence taking foxhole positions from inside a restaurant?

This is why you keep losing. You're willing to make absurd stretches to make your theory work.

Protection against idiots like yourself and them that seek to strip away their Constitutional right to bear arms.

BINGO. Give that man a lone star.

Armed posse of 18 (plus two kids) to debate a Constitutional issue. That's exactly what we mean by intimidation. In a democratic society you do that through debate and voting. In a thugocracy you do it with threats.

Thank you. That was like pulling teeth.

And btw your thuggeristic fantasy is working entirely on a fallacy anyway-- neither I nor this MAGV group stands against the right to bear arms. Put the strawman down, nice and slow...

 

[Spoonman]

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights. they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do. if that intimidates you, thats your problem. but stop whining about it.

Sure. That's why I keep saying, they could have brought signs instead of something deadly. Or, and I think this is a better idea, just show up as normal people, go in the restaurant and sit down with the four women to join the discussion. Actually according to Marty's link that's what they're going for now. Should have thought of that before. Because all they've done is dug the hole of the gun-nut image deeper. They did their own cause a disservice, and now they're backtracking.

Nothing wrong with demonstration. It's American. Intimidation is another level. You don't change or retain a Constitution by threat of force; you do it through dialogue. That's (supposed to be) American too.

did they use something deadly? no. its their right to carry them. there is nothing wrong with what they did. you can't start putting limits on how people protest when they aren't violating laws.

 

[Pogo]

For the 47th time, if your purpose in brandishing guns is not to intimidate, what can the purpose be? To show people what guns look like? In Texas??

No, they had a purpose in mind, and as you and I already agreed, they succeeded. Again, also for the 47th time, if they hadn't succeeded with that psychological ploy, this thread and this story would not exist.

The anti-liberty group was specifically attacking the right of Americans to bear arms; the act of bearing arms in protest is the exact response that should be and was given.

Newsflash Pothead: four women meeting in a restaurant don't exactly have the authority to change the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the process is a bit more complex, but check me on that. Maybe you have a point.

Then again since MAGV's own mission statement specifically states support of the Second Amendment, they would have also had to contradict their own raison d'être.

Logical life in Bizarroworld...

 

[Ernie S.]

why do you bring the children[/B][/I]?
snipped all to hell (sorry, Marty)
I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

#1, there was no such dramatic confrontation here. There was a female officer that did approach the men, but none of the men felt the need to leave any bodies in the street.
#2, I'm confused here, Possum. You were confronted by 2 officers with guns drawn. Why? And why did you consider drawing down on them? Were you engaged in activity so unlawful that your freedom was in jeopardy?
Or did you consider that the officers posed no threat and you complied with their demands?

Why are you, then, not threatened by police officers, but are threatened bu a group carrying semiautomatic rifles engaged in a peaceful protest?
Could it be purely idealogical?

 

[Pogo]

And you think that kind of scene is a good thing...

You would have preferred more innocent people died?

The gunman was stopped, that IS a good thing, among the sane.

I would have preferred a society where the presence of an armed citizen putting a killer down isn't necessary. Pick up after your emotional dog droppings.