Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[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.

"The Republican critique of Federalism became wrapped in the slogan of “Principles of 1798,” which became the hallmark of the party. The most important of these principles were states' rights, opposition to a strong national government, distrust of the federal courts, and opposition to the navy and the national Bank. The party saw itself as a champion of republicanism and denounced the Federalists as supporters of monarchy and aristocracy.[5]
The party itself originally coalesced around Jefferson, who diligently maintained extensive correspondence with like-minded republican leaders throughout the country. Washington frequently decried the growing sense of "party" emerging from the internal battles among Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Adams and others in his administration. "

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pogo]

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.

Stores and restaurants and other places of business are private property. Those businesses can and do make their own rules. I believe Starbucks and Peet's already have IIRC -- though I don't really keep up on that because when you don't walk around packing because you think you live in a comic book -- you don't need to.

For Idb -- this really does stretch credulity, this ideology-gone-wild; we actually had one poster here (calls himself "Second Amendment") who posted a thread whining that his BANK wouldn''t let him go in packing.

A BANK. That's how insane it is in this country.

 

[Pogo]

"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

? Why are you posting histories of political parties?

 

[Ernie S.]

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 did you go in brandishing, because you knew there was a gun violence group meeting?

I did not go in "brandishing". I went in to eat. As with the men outside the restaurant, there was no interaction between the armed and unarmed people present.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

No one engaged in violence. Neither the "mothers" who seek to end civil rights for others, nor the civil rights advocates.

The civil rights advocates possessed firearms in accordance with state laws, in a show of solidarity for their civil rights.

The only thing even slightly noteworthy in this scenario was some dishonest "reporting" by the hate site ThinkProgress.

 

[koshergrl]

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.



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.

He's a poorly read ding dong...he doesn't understand the form, AP style, nor is he capable of critical thinking or intelligent debate.

 

[Pogo]

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 did you go in brandishing, because you knew there was a gun violence group meeting?

I did not go in "brandishing". I went in to eat. As with the men outside the restaurant, there was no interaction between the armed and unarmed people present.

I know, that was my point -- you didn't go with the same agenda as the OCT nuts.
IDB already made my point of false equivalence.

Now I'm going back to find the post you claim I edited. I made no such edit intentionally.

 

[koshergrl]

I think he's a fakey sock.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If the mothers really wanted peace they would demand equality, and carry guns.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

In what way were they 'not peaceful?'

 

[Uncensored2008]

They want to use their weapons to intimidate a peaceful meeting of concerned mothers?

What action did they take - SPECIFICALLY - to intimidate the civil rights opponents?

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.

Similar words have been used about all civil rights advocates.

 

[idb]

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.

To be fair Pogo, maybe he does get it and genuinely believes that it's a winning strategy.
My personal view is different but - oh well.

 

[Ernie S.]

No, they're not being threatened.

And they were gathering in order to gain support to remove the rights of an unrepresented group.

So let's see if we have this straight...

The mothers are NOT threatened when a group of strangers shows up outside the window and opens up a bunch of guns...

But the gun nuts ARE threatened by four women talking in a kaffeklatch.

Thanks for clearing THAT one up.

How, exactly were the women inside of a restaurant threatened?
Do you assume every woman gets hysterical when within 100 yards of a firearm?
Or just these 4? Why would these particular women be in fear?

Could it be that they were in fear of an opposing position like you seem to be?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

The fact that you live in fear does not mean everyone else does. People carry all sorts of things with them in case they need them. For example, every car I have ever owned had jumper cables in it. That does not mean I lived in fear of a dead battery, it just means I am prepared to deal with it.

Same thing with guns and knives, the mere possession of either does not mean you are afraid.

 

[Pogo]

Ernie -- is this the post in question? Because I see nothing missing between this and my response...

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?

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

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.

I see no edit.

 

[Sunshine]

Why with loaded weapons?

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?

-- And what do guns do, when they're used?

They shoot.

So if this is a group of saintly good citizens going to a restaurant where they know Mothers Against Gun Violence is meeting........

............. WHAT are they intending to shoot?

Again, the questions that can't be answered....

Christ on a cracker. No one leaves the house with a gun 'intending' to shoot anything. Did any of these 'mothers' get shot?

 

[Pogo]

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.

If the mothers really wanted peace they would demand equality, and carry guns.

Riiiight. A group called "Mothers Against Gun Violence"... carrying guns.



Only on Bizarroplanet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

No, you are just arguing that they are stupid for exercising it.

Be honest now, how often do you find yourself thinking people that stand up for their rights are stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is amazing. Tell me something, is that because you just don't see the questions other people ask as a general rule, or do you see them, and then lose sight of them when they are inconvenient?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Of course it is. I was feet away from 4 women eating 5 Guy's burgers, carrying a very large revolver. There were perhaps 40 people in the building and I'd bet the farm that at least 3 of them were also armed. This is Alabama. 50% of us have CCP's Many carry open. It is not legal gun owners you should fear.
If 4 or 5 thugs in hoodies burst through the doors, fear them, and thank God for the 4 armed citizens who are about to save your life.