Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[martybegan]

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...

People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"

Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I *am* threatened by police officers. I think we all are, but that's my perception.

up to #2 - I didn't consider drawing on them; I'm saying that if I had been (I wasn't but if I had been) one of the posters as in this thread who believes in personal protection (read: gun escalation) and had been carrying at the time, I might have drawn that weapon on these two guys who pulled up in a plain unmarked Oldsmobile and jumped out with guns drawn -- no uniforms, no identifying themselves, nothing.

What was I doing? I was walking home late at night after a long day at work, having missed my trolley stop while lost in thought about that work. As I walked back the extra block to my street, I got apprehended, handcuffed and taken away. I only figured out later that they were cops, but in the moment all I saw was two guys I didn't know, on a deserted street, pulling guns on me. I had no other clue who they were.

Much like if you're sitting in a restaurant and a few cars pull up and unload people with guns. You don't know who they are, but you take notice.


And again, the general point: if I subscribed to the gun-escalation mentality of more and more guns, I wouldn't have survived that encounter.

 

[Pogo]

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...

People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"

Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.

So you're saying, if they're against the Second Amendment, they're wrong and I will fight them, and if they're not against the Second Amendment, they're wrong because they're against the Second Amendment.

This is where your logic falls to the ground in a hail of logical bullets.

 

[Pogo]

Marty; Ernie; Spoonman; Lonestar; BigReb; Pothead; Koshergrrr; Peach.. I count eight posters I'm trying to keep up with (good thing I'm a fast typist) but I think the points have been addressed. Important as the issue is, I've got other things to attend to, and I'm well aware that posters here will argue not because they believe in a position but just to argue (e.g. see the Thanksgiving thread where the poll runs 94 to 6 and yet they yammer on), so thank you all for interesting discussion, your points and your passion. It's all good.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Newsflash Pothead: four women meeting in a restaurant don't exactly have the authority to change the Constitution.

Who cares?

If 4 Klansmen met in a restaurant in Watts, I'd expect a counter-protest.

These 4 women were there expressly to demand that civil rights be stripped from other Americans.

I'm pretty sure the process is a bit more complex, but check me on that. Maybe you have a point.

Who cares?

The anti-liberty women were there for publicity - the counter-protest was perfectly measured and entirely appropriate to the subject.

This only became an issue when the little Goebbels over at ThinkProgess ran distortions in an attempt to libel the civil rights activists.

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...

They support that which they wish revoked....

 

[martybegan]

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...

People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"

Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.

So you're saying, if they're against the Second Amendment, they're wrong and I will fight them, and if they're not against the Second Amendment, they're wrong because they're against the Second Amendment.

This is where your logic falls to the ground in a hail of logical bullets.

Actions speak louder than words. If they want to restrict law abiding people in thier ability to own and carry firearms, they are against the 2nd amendment.

Current events have shown us that some parties and groups just flat out lie, know they ar lying, but justify it by telling themselves its for the greater good. Just look at the Obamacare rollout as an example of this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People can state anything they want, kind of like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"

Doesnt make it true, and considering grabbers have paid lip service to the 2nd amendment for decades thier word doesnt travel farther than i can spit.

The anti-liberty advocates have a different interpretatation of "rights." Many claim that the 2nd only applies if you are in the military or national guard, this is not support for civil rights, but an attempt to fool the ignorant.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Why would there be any less violent crime? There have been mass murders committed with knives, axes, swords, bombs, poisons and broken whiskey bottles. Guns simply are more efficient, but if there were no guns, an archer would be nearly invincible.
It boils down to people and their motives. Figure out how to fix that and we wouldn't need guns for self protection.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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...

Idiots like you and them would be intimidated whether the guns were loaded or not. Their intent was not to intimidate but to exercise their rights under the law.

I saw the photo I don't think they were all armed.

If your not against the second amendment then what are you whining about exactly?

They have every right to bear arms and they did so and it doesn't matter when or where as long as it wasn't in what's been designated as a "gun free zone".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

I *am* threatened by police officers. I think we all are, but that's my perception.

up to #2 - I didn't consider drawing on them; I'm saying that if I had been (I wasn't but if I had been) one of the posters as in this thread who believes in personal protection (read: gun escalation) and had been carrying at the time, I might have drawn that weapon on these two guys who pulled up in a plain unmarked Oldsmobile and jumped out with guns drawn -- no uniforms, no identifying themselves, nothing.

What was I doing? I was walking home late at night after a long day at work, having missed my trolley stop while lost in thought about that work. As I walked back the extra block to my street, I got apprehended, handcuffed and taken away. I only figured out later that they were cops, but in the moment all I saw was two guys I didn't know, on a deserted street, pulling guns on me. I had no other clue who they were.

Much like if you're sitting in a restaurant and a few cars pull up and unload people with guns. You don't know who they are, but you take notice.


And again, the general point: if I subscribed to the gun-escalation mentality of more and more guns, I wouldn't have survived that encounter.

I think you're full of shit!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Funny thing, if there were armed cops were outside the exact same polling place everyone would be screaming about voter intimidation, yet you claim it isn't simply because they are black, while arguing that white people with guns are intimidating people by holding a peaceful public meeting without once asking anyone why they were taking pictures.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Of course they did. It wasn't as blatant, but their intention was to disarm law abiding citizens.. The men came to the place they met only to show solidarity, but there was no threat to harm the women OR to infringe on their rights.

Bottom line: The women's objective was to do harm to an ideologically opposed group. The gun owners had no intention of harming their opponents.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People with guns kill people.

People without guns kill more people than people with guns. The common denominator in that seems to be people, not guns, yet you insist on blaming the guns.

Tell me something, given the fact that automobiles kill thousands of people every year why aren't you demanding more automobile control? They actually kill more people in Australia than guns ever did, yet people can still buy them. People who have used automobiles to commit murder can buy a car without a background check, and you don't even blink an eye.

 

[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.

Of course they did. It wasn't as blatant, but their intention was to disarm law abiding citizens.. The men came to the place they met only to show solidarity, but there was no threat to harm the women OR to infringe on their rights.

Bottom line: The women's objective was to do harm to an ideologically opposed group. The gun owners had no intention of harming their opponents.

You can't "harm" with speech Ernie, certainly not with a kaffeklatch at a restaurant table. You might get food poisoining, that's about it. Twenty people with guns on the other hand... well, you do the math.

You don't need to drive to a restaurant you found out about on Nosebook in order to "exercise a right". Number one, you've already got the right; it doesn't need exercise; number two, you've already founded a group (OCT) to make that statement. So when you show up at the restaurant your target is only the women. And of course the publicity, which is what we're chowing down on now.

Food poisoning and all...

 

[Pogo]

People with guns kill people.

People without guns kill more people than people with guns. The common denominator in that seems to be people, not guns, yet you insist on blaming the guns.

Tell me something, given the fact that automobiles kill thousands of people every year why aren't you demanding more automobile control? They actually kill more people in Australia than guns ever did, yet people can still buy them. People who have used automobiles to commit murder can buy a car without a background check, and you don't even blink an eye.

And as soon as we mention arguing for no other purpose than to argue, look who shows up.

Specious beaten-to-death car accident analogy in hand no less.

Standard flaw: automobiles are designed for transportation, not violence. Duh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

 

[koshergrl]

DC's gun crime quadrupled when they increased gun restrictions.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

If their purpose was to intimidate, why didn't they intimidate anyone?

They held guns. Big deal. If they held pumpkins, hell they could have smashed car windows, but the point was not a Constitutional right to bear pumpkins, was it?

Who was intimidated?

 

[koshergrl]

Marty; Ernie; Spoonman; Lonestar; BigReb; Pothead; Koshergrrr; Peach.. I count eight posters I'm trying to keep up with (good thing I'm a fast typist) but I think the points have been addressed. Important as the issue is, I've got other things to attend to, and I'm well aware that posters here will argue not because they believe in a position but just to argue (e.g. see the Thanksgiving thread where the poll runs 94 to 6 and yet they yammer on), so thank you all for interesting discussion, your points and your passion. It's all good.

What you think is irrelevant, and as has been shown repeatedly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People with guns kill people.

People without guns kill more people than people with guns. The common denominator in that seems to be people, not guns, yet you insist on blaming the guns.

Tell me something, given the fact that automobiles kill thousands of people every year why aren't you demanding more automobile control? They actually kill more people in Australia than guns ever did, yet people can still buy them. People who have used automobiles to commit murder can buy a car without a background check, and you don't even blink an eye.

And as soon as we mention arguing for no other purpose than to argue, look who shows up.

Specious beaten-to-death car accident analogy in hand no less.

Standard flaw: automobiles are designed for transportation, not violence. Duh.

Yes, I lurk in the shadows simply to jump in whenever you mention me.

I was responding to a specific poster who harps about gun violence in the US because her country banned guns. Since my point is that guns are no more responsible for violence than cars, I guess you agree with me that gun control is just as stupid as demanding background checks before buying a car.

On the other hand, since you like to pretend that you didn't actually say what you said whenever someone pins your idiocy down, perhaps you were talking about yourself when you mentioned people arguing only to argue.