Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Lonestar_logic]

So, they turned up in response to this meeting of mums, carrying their guns to make a point, or intending to use them if necessary?
Were they there as props in their counter-protest or as fire-power?
Why not carry placards instead?

I don't understand why you can't see how counter-productive this sort of action might be.

They did not go to the meeting. They were a distance away. They spent ten minutes taking pictures then they left.

You protest how you want to and they will protest how they want to. No laws were violated.

Just a few liberal women let their emotions get the better of them.

Absolutely fine.
If that's how responsible, law-abiding, non-threatening family men and women that own guns want to present their case then...fine.

Glad you agree.

 

[koshergrl]

If that's as far as you can think it through, hey....

There's only so much you can say to those going

Yet another logical fallacy ^^^^

That's not a fallacy-- it's not even a rhetorical point.
It's a simple observation that Sunshine was ignoring the obvious point.

Yes, it is:

Master List of Logical Fallacies

 

[idb]

They're SUPPOSED to be loaded.

Cripes you people are stupid.

Guns are NO use if they are not loaded, what do you not understand about that?

So, they turned up in response to this meeting of mums, carrying their guns to make a point, or intending to use them if necessary?
Were they there as props in their counter-protest or as fire-power?
Why not carry placards instead?

I don't understand why you can't see how counter-productive this sort of action might be.

I don't see it as counter productive. I think everybody should go around armed. I think our country would be a much, much safer place.

What am I saying, I'm from rural Oregon, where people DO go around armed...and where one can live in safety amongst the poorest of the poor, with little to know police oversight. Go figure.

We don't even lock our doors. You city people cowering in fear over the thought that someone might defend your children from the wackos who target them make me sick.

We don't always lock our doors and I certainly don't cower in fear.
You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[Pogo]

An old lady was pulled over for speeding she handed the officer her DL, insurance and CHL.

The officer asked if she was carrying and she said yes she was. She said she had a .45 in her purse, a .40 in the glove box and a .38 in the console.

The officer ask her what she was afraid of and her reply was "not a damn thing".

We don't carry out of fear, we carry to protect ourselves and others.

Great.

Yes it is.

We live in a great country.

And we need to preserve it by kicking the liberals out of office.

With guns, like Loughner?

Or will a Kristallnacht do?

Liberals invented this country, Bub.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they didn't.

Revolutionaries invented this country, and they did it because they got sick of elitist assholes telling them what to buy and where to buy it...and because they were not afforded the rights of English citizens, though they paid excessive taxes.

And God-fearing Christians developed the framework.

Not liberals..certainly not your disgusting sort of progressive liberal.

 

[koshergrl]

And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Great.

Yes it is.

We live in a great country.

And we need to preserve it by kicking the liberals out of office.

With guns, like Loughner?

Or will a Kristallnacht do?

Liberals invented this country, Bub.

I wouldn't compare law abiding citizens to the mentally deranged. Though in your case I may make an exception.

This country was invented? Wow you liberals invent some amazing things, even your own facts.

 

[peach174]

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.

There was no confrontation the mothers were inside discussing how to disarm the populace and the gun owners were outside posing for a photo.
Nothing happened.
Saturday night, I actually went inside a restaurant armed. I confronted no one. No one was intimidated. I shot no one. I did not rob the place.
I have no idea what the group of women nearby was talking about, but we did exchange pleasantries.

And your gun never went off and killed anyone...I know.

You weren't there presenting your gun in a visually obvious manner as a direct response to another group of people with a pont of view that you disagree with.
It's not an equivalent situation.

Yes it is.
These women want to ban guns for law abiding citizens who want to walk into restaurants or stores like Staples.

They have chapters all across the nation and want to ban sales of guns on the internet, keep law abiding people from carrying their guns into restaurants & stores and want to stop open carry laws.
This will do nothing to stop people who break the laws. All it does do is take the rights away of law abiders.

 

[Pogo]

They did not go to the meeting. They were a distance away. They spent ten minutes taking pictures then they left.

You protest how you want to and they will protest how they want to. No laws were violated.

Just a few liberal women let their emotions get the better of them.

Absolutely fine.
If that's how responsible, law-abiding, non-threatening family men and women that own guns want to present their case then...fine.

Glad you agree.

^^ He doesn't get it. Right over his head.

I haz a sad.

 

[koshergrl]

Great.

Yes it is.

We live in a great country.

And we need to preserve it by kicking the liberals out of office.

With guns, like Loughner?

Or will a Kristallnacht do?

Liberals invented this country, Bub.

"Big Lie Technique (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question," only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that."

Master List of Logical Fallacies

 

[koshergrl]

"Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson's party."

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

Yet another logical fallacy ^^^^

That's not a fallacy-- it's not even a rhetorical point.
It's a simple observation that Sunshine was ignoring the obvious point.

Yes, it is:

Master List of Logical Fallacies

You're going to try to pinpoint a logical fallacy... by linking a link of ALL logical fallacies? Now you want to pretend I was saying "fallacies don't exist"?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

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.

If you follow linkbacks a ways, you will find the questions you have less than skillfully avoided.
Your knowledge of logical fallacy is legend, Pogo. No one will deny your skill there. But, you attempt to dismiss arguments as false when the chance is minuscule while employing red herrings, strawmen, Tu Quoque and hyperbole in the mistaken belief that we peons will not see what you're doing.

I put no words in your mouth, I only stated my opinion. I did not attribute the words to you.

I will not restate my questions. They are there, if you follow our conversation back a ways. To do so would be fruitless as you will avoid them as usual.

 

[koshergrl]

Fucking idiots.

"The Republicans, despite internal divisions, dominated the First Party System until partisanship itself withered away during the Era of Good Feelings after 1816.
The party selected its presidential candidates in a caucus of members of Congress. They included Thomas Jefferson (nominated 1796; elected 1800-1, 1804), James Madison (1808, 1812), James Monroe (1816, 1820). By 1824 the caucus system practically collapsed. After 1800, the party dominated Congress and most state governments outside New England. By 1824 the party was split 4 ways and lacked a center. One remnant followed Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren into the new Democratic Party by 1828. That party still exists. Another remnant led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay formed the National Republicans in 1828; It held its first convention in late 1831 in Baltimore. "

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find it amusing that you just blather garbage that you've picked up somewhere on television, and you honestly think you've got it right.

 

[idb]

There was no confrontation the mothers were inside discussing how to disarm the populace and the gun owners were outside posing for a photo.
Nothing happened.
Saturday night, I actually went inside a restaurant armed. I confronted no one. No one was intimidated. I shot no one. I did not rob the place.
I have no idea what the group of women nearby was talking about, but we did exchange pleasantries.

And your gun never went off and killed anyone...I know.

You weren't there presenting your gun in a visually obvious manner as a direct response to another group of people with a pont of view that you disagree with.
It's not an equivalent situation.

Yes it is.
These women want to ban guns for law abiding citizens who want to walk into restaurants or stores like Staples.

They have chapters all across the nation and want to ban sales of guns on the internet, keep law abiding people from carrying their guns into restaurants & stores and want to stop open carry laws.
This will do nothing to stop people who break the laws. All it does do is take the rights away of law abiders.

Sorry, I missed that in his analogy.
Who was he specifically targeting with his entry into the restaurant?
What was the grand point that he was making when he walked in there?

 

[Pogo]

No, they didn't.

Revolutionaries invented this country, and they did it because they got sick of elitist assholes telling them what to buy and where to buy it...and because they were not afforded the rights of English citizens, though they paid excessive taxes.

And God-fearing Christians developed the framework.

Not liberals..certainly not your disgusting sort of progressive liberal.

Number one, your Christians were largely Deists. Number two, the whole idea of this country is based on Liberalism -- which was a revolutionary idea, so I guess I'll give you point #1. Liberals were revolutionaries, by definition.

Not that I'd expect you to know what that is, but then it wasn't even your point, so maybe you should stick to losing your own.

 

[Pogo]

And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.

Yup. They even wrote it down. That's part of Liberalism -- minimalist government that gets out of the way.

We're off topic.

 

[koshergrl]

Shut up, you halfwit.

Meanwhile:

"Congressman James Madison started the party among Representatives in Philadelphia (the national capital) as the Republican party;[1] then he, Jefferson, and others reached out to include state and local leaders around the country, especially New York and the South.[2]"

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

And those visionaries were adamant that people be allowed to bear arms at will.

Yup. They even wrote it down. That's part of Liberalism -- minimalist government that gets out of the way.

We're off topic.

"Big Lie Technique (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. "

Master List of Logical Fallacies

 

[Ernie S.]

How the fuck do you get "superiority" out of that??

The poster posited a premise that was leading and inaccurate -- I corrected him.

What the fuck, I can't answer a simple question?? You'd prefer I sit down, shut up and offer no response to bullshit about me -- on a message board??



I desire a world without the fetish on guns and violence. That's no secret. I said so here, I said so throughout this website, and I've said it since the day I got here.
What the wide world of fuck is wrong with that?



I don't have any evidence that your strawman in part 2 is accurate, but in any case NO -- a discussion around a restaurant table is in no way comparable with twenty people with guns outside the window. NO.

As for the logic of intimidation, see, agan, 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...



Once again -- what's 'disingenuous' here? The group has been described as "nuts". I would say bringing children into a cache of weapons for no other reason than to make a political point, qualifies them as "nuts". As for the emotion, you tell me what you'd be posting right now if one of those kids had gotten shot accidentally in a situation they didn't have to be placed in. You tell me, Ernie.

First question: Had you included the whole quote, the answer would be apparent, even to you.

I'm not aware of having omitted anything...



That isn't even a question. You accused me of "superiority" because I corrected another posters suggestion. There's no explanation of how answering that poster amounts to "superiority" and in any case IT'S NOT A QUESTION.



Not straw men at all -- they really happened. And you know they happened, since I merely listed a list of locales and never said what they represent. I didn't have to; you already know.

But here's the strawman: all those mass shootings have nothing to do with the intent of OCT in showing up. They have to do with what it looks like when you look out your restaurant window and see strangers opening up guns.

Come on Ernie, don't play dumb. It's beneath you.

I was going to go on, but I don't see the point. You will continue to dismiss counter argument because you are certain you have all the answers.

So wtf is the point of asking a question if you're not going to permit an answer??
Here we're back to again. In any debate you're going to have to accept the fact that what comes back to your question might not be what you want to hear.

I sincerely hope you never have to defend yourself or a loved one from rape or robbery, Possum.
If you do, I hope the hell that there is a man with a gun close by to do for you what you refuse to do for those that depend upon you.

And I hope the hell that's not necessary, because if such desperate measures are ever needed I'm living in a world I want no part of. And rest assured, there's nothing I refuse to do for those that depend on me. That's dishonest as hell and you have no right to slur me with your preconceptions that I don't happen to agree with.

Again, you're going to have to accept the fact that not everybody shares your views and values. That's just the way it is.

Anything else?

You edited my quote. If you want to continue the discussion, you will need to address that first.