Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[koshergrl]

I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

Not "a meeting of mothers" having tea.

A meeting of mothers seeking to disarm a peacful populace. Whole different thing.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Bullshit! Does filling your car with gasoline indicate that you are about to mow down a bunch of people at a busy intersection?.

Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?

I have carried weapons for more hours than some people on this board have been breathing. Except for hunting weapons, my weapon has been loaded 100.0000000000% of the time. It has never taken a life or even been fired in response to a threat. The only time, in fact, it has ever left it's holster has been in response to the request of a police officer.
I have in that time, prevented a rape against my first wife and a robbery at knife point against myself. In each case, the mere sight of a nickel plated .44 magnum was enough to discourage the would be assailant.
Yes, they both were intimidated, but they had good reason to be.
These women had no reason to fear for their lives. They were intimidated by a car with a full tank of gas.

None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant. What you describe there is defensive, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns. In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is 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 the like. It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?

So you can't answer my questions. I point out that your argument is an emotional one and you accuse me of emotionalism, like you did KG.

I thought your strong point in debates was fallacies. You sure are weak there in your own arguments.

Man up! Answer my questions. Please avoid hyperbole and Tu Quoque. Red herrings left in the sun smell real bad after a few hours.

 

[peach174]

I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.

 

[koshergrl]

If he says his strong point in debate is fallacies, then it stands to reason that it is his weak point...as he has shown here and in the other threads he's floundering in.

 

[Ernie S.]

Bullshit! Does filling your car with gasoline indicate that you are about to mow down a bunch of people at a busy intersection?.

Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?

I have carried weapons for more hours than some people on this board have been breathing. Except for hunting weapons, my weapon has been loaded 100.0000000000% of the time. It has never taken a life or even been fired in response to a threat. The only time, in fact, it has ever left it's holster has been in response to the request of a police officer.
I have in that time, prevented a rape against my first wife and a robbery at knife point against myself. In each case, the mere sight of a nickel plated .44 magnum was enough to discourage the would be assailant.
Yes, they both were intimidated, but they had good reason to be.
These women had no reason to fear for their lives. They were intimidated by a car with a full tank of gas.

None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant. What you describe there is defensive, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns. In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is 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 the like. It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?

How many penises does he have?

I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.

 

[idb]

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

Not "a meeting of mothers" having tea.

A meeting of mothers seeking to disarm a peacful populace. Whole different thing.

A peaceful populace represented by a gun-toting crowd confronting a meeting of concerned mothers?
Fine...that really plays well for the gun-rights advocates.

 

[Sunshine]

Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?



None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant. What you describe there is defensive, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns. In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is 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 the like. It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?

How many penises does he have?

I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.

I'm glad you cleared that one up! LMAO

 

[Sunshine]

I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

 

[idb]

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.

Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?

 

[idb]

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit! Does filling your car with gasoline indicate that you are about to mow down a bunch of people at a busy intersection?.

Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?

I have carried weapons for more hours than some people on this board have been breathing. Except for hunting weapons, my weapon has been loaded 100.0000000000% of the time. It has never taken a life or even been fired in response to a threat. The only time, in fact, it has ever left it's holster has been in response to the request of a police officer.
I have in that time, prevented a rape against my first wife and a robbery at knife point against myself. In each case, the mere sight of a nickel plated .44 magnum was enough to discourage the would be assailant.
Yes, they both were intimidated, but they had good reason to be.
These women had no reason to fear for their lives. They were intimidated by a car with a full tank of gas.

None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant. What you describe there is defensive, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns. In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is 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 the like. It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?

So you can't answer my questions. I point out that your argument is an emotional one and you accuse me of emotionalism, like you did KG.

I thought your strong point in debates was fallacies. You sure are weak there in your own arguments.

Man up! Answer my questions. Please avoid hyperbole and Tu Quoque. Red herrings left in the sun smell real bad after a few hours.

I don't see any unanswered questions here except my own, Ernie. I'm being patient with those because I don't expect there are answers. But if I missed something here of yours, feel free to restate.

And don't put words in my mouth; I never said "my strong point in debates is fallacies". You did. But thank you.

 

[idb]

Thought you said I was the one being emotional...?



None of those compare to showing up with 19 other people pulling your penises... sorry, I mean guns out to show the women in the restaurant. What you describe there is defensive, not offensive.

Again, what they see from the restaurant window is a bunch of people arrive in the parking lot and start drawing guns. In a state where a sniper in Austin killed 17 and wounded 32, a state where 23 were killed in Killeen, your first thought in the moment isn't what's in the Constitution; your first thought is 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 the like. It's survival.

Or did those events simply not happen?

How many penises does he have?

I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.

My doctor noticed that I have five penises.
He asked me how my trousers fit and I replied "Like a glove".

 

[Sunshine]

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!

I read and tried not to have to embarrass you about what you said. But if you insist: There is no law that says you have to check in and register your 'intent' before going out with your gun in public view. Gun owners DO want to intimidate people. Gun owners want to intimidate people into not perpetrating crimes against them. DUH!

 

[Pogo]

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.

Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?

Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns. The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun.

Not hard to see where that leads. And where it already has.

 

[Sunshine]

How many penises does he have?

I'm a real hit at parties.
I have lost count. I'm guessing more than 8 and less that 20.

My doctor noticed that I have five penises.
He asked me how my trousers fit and I replied "Like a glove".

I know some women who have WAY more than that. Which one(s) get used are a matter of choice. Just sayin'.

 

[Sunshine]

More Exposure to guns is what they needed.
When people are never around guns and know nothing about them they have unreasonable fears of guns.

Hardly an unreasonable fear.
There are plenty of tragedies to cite showing their danger in the wrong hands.

Presumably the reason that people carry guns in public is because they have a fear of other peoples' guns...is that an unreasonable fear of guns as well?

Because again, the answer to guns is ... MORE guns. The only way to stop your guy with a gun is my guy with a gun.

Not hard to see where that leads. And where it already has.

So, I should let your guy with a gun just go ahead and kill me. Groovy.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't understand, sunshine. The whole focus of the leftwad extremists is that people who disturb their peace of mind, who make them uncomfortable, who annoy them, or who don't behave in a way they maintain they SHOULD behave, must be criminalized! They are a threat!

 

[koshergrl]

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!

I read and tried not to have to embarrass you about what you said. But if you insist: There is no law that says you have to check in and register your 'intent' before going out with your gun in public view. Gun owners DO want to intimidate people. Gun owners want to intimidate people into not perpetrating crimes against them. DUH!

And they want to have the capability of defending themselves.

 

[idb]

That is really stupid. The gun owners had as much right to gather as those opposed had. You seriously need a life.

Read what I said before you get all steamy.
I'm not arguing with you that they had a legal right.
Sheesh!

I read and tried not to have to embarrass you about what you said. But if you insist: There is no law that says you have to check in and register your 'intent' before going out with your gun in public view. Gun owners DO want to intimidate people. Gun owners want to intimidate people into not perpetrating crimes against them. DUH!

They want to use their weapons to intimidate a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers?
That's fine, all I'm suggesting is that it doesn't gel with an image of peaceful, responsible gun owners whose only wish is to be able to protect their families or go hunting.
But, it's their right, so go with that.
I wouldn't want them representing me.

 

[peach174]

I'm just wondering, were those people there as a response to the meeting of the mothers or was it all a coincidence?

Doesn't matter. If open carry is legal in that state, they violated no law.

It does really.
OK that it's legal but if the intent was to intimidate then that's bound to be a polarising action.
It doesn't present a good image for their cause and their (presumed) argument that they represent law-abiding, reasonable, non-threatening families when their response is to turn up to a meeting of mothers with loaded weapons.

I suggest that there would be plenty of law-abiding, reasonable gun owners that would face-palm when they saw that.

Well I say they are influenced by the media and those who are for banning guns. They have bought into it hook line and sinker.

Listen their talking points, brandishing, drawing guns and intimidation. Vilifying the protesters as if they are the bad people and to make them the problem, not people who are the real villains, who brake the law by using guns.
All of these words are used to evoke emotion and sways your thinking into everyone who owns a gun has the potential of being a killer. When that is far from the truth.