Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No, the answer to guns is less fear, just like the answer to cars is less fear. You stopped being afraid of cars, you can stop being afraid of guns. Try it and see.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Those "peaceful" mothers are willing to use the power of the government to take away your rights, they deserve to be intimidated.

 

[peach174]

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 abider's.

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.

You are immediately assuming that law abiders who enter banks with guns would be there to rob the bank.
It's to stop bank robbers.

The reason Starbucks changed that rule was because of those who did not want them around. Very unreasonable, nothing had happened and the ones who did not like it was because they felt uncomfortable.
Never mind that they were much safer with them around.
These women want the feds as well as their States to ban it from all the public places.
So much for the freedom to choose for the businesses.

The States that have conceal permits are allowed to carry their guns into banks and bars.

 

[koshergrl]

Frodo appears to have only half a functioning brain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they're not being threatened.

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

Why with loaded weapons?

Gun safety 101, all weapons are loaded.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're wrong. People who are horrified of guns because they have never been exposed to them except in the context of criminal attack, need to see that the people who carry guns for protection are not their enemy. They are not the slobbering idiotic fools that the leftist douchebags pretend they are. They are family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent.

And there are a LOT of them. Gun-grabbing loons like to pretend they are the majority. But they really aren't.

Exactly.
So, how does it help your argument that gun-owners are 'family men and women, and they are responsible and intelligent' when they bring out their weapons, not for protection, but to confront a clearly unarmed and peaceful gathering of mothers?
Where's the need for protection there?

The intent of that gathering was malicious.

 

[idb]

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?'

Yep, they had the right to be there, no laws were broken but they appeared to be there for the express purpose of countering the concerned mothers' meeting.
It's hard not to draw the conclusion that by turning up with exposed loaded weapons their intention was to intimidate.
Intimidation is not a peaceful act.

 

[Pogo]

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?

In retrospect, they weren't. In the moment, there's no way to know.
But the moment is where we live, until the time machine is ready. All you can react to is the "now".

How could they know the future? You see people out the window pulling guns out. In the moment, that's all you know. By the way the restaurant management was equally concerned, and rightly so.

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?

Certainly not -- that would be an absolute, and we know where that leads
But to see unknown people outside the window where you're sitting getting guns out? In this country where we have yet another mass shooting every month or two? You'd be crazily irresponsible to NOT pay attention to what the fuck might be about to go down.

This is just one of the repercussions of having an open carry law, and that's for Texas to address or leave alone. But in the moment, with our record, it's impossible to pretend this is just part of the wallpaper.

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

I'm not putting words in anybody else's mouth, so I can't relate...

 

[Pogo]

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.

Nor does declining to participate in the personal arms race.

 

[idb]

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?

You go with that argument.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Well, you load your gun so it can shoot something. You can't shoot if it's not loaded.
They were loaded. What were they intending to shoot?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nor does declining to play in the arms race.

What was done to intimidate the anti-civil rights group?

Did someone point a weapon at them? Were threats made?

Or did the anti-civil rights group simply object to the civil rights advocates displaying the fact that they retain their rights?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Ya mean like the right to live one's life without gun violence?

 

[Sunshine]

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?'

Yep, they had the right to be there, no laws were broken but they appeared to be there for the express purpose of countering the concerned mothers' meeting.
It's hard not to draw the conclusion that by turning up with exposed loaded weapons their intention was to intimidate.
Intimidation is not a peaceful act.

You did not answer my question. In what way were the '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?

You go with that argument.

What argument?

You claim that the civil rights opponents were intimidated - by what action?

 

[Sunshine]

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?

You go with that argument.

That was not an 'argument.' It was a question.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Well it isn't even your question alleged to have gone missing but I invited him to ask again, then I went back and reposted the whole thing (finding nothing missing) and you're welcome to butt in as usual and explain where the unanswered question is.

I expect that will return the usual from you.... cue crickets...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Which is why no one had a problem with Starbucks allowing people to carry if they were in compliance with local law.

Wait, they did have a problem because the anti gun nuts don't want people to have the freedom to do what they think is best for them they want to tell them what to do.

 

[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!

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?

I'm arguing that their method of standing up for their rights is counter-productive to the general arguments in favour of gun ownership.

 

[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.

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.

That's the Paranoia World Comic Book (on stands now) that I never want to live in. Or maybe it's a movie. I never cared for either.

Nice fable and all but I've never seen it manifest in real life. Ever.