Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

The only butt that should matter to you is the one you are sitting on.

 

[idb]

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.

You're a good Boy Scout then.

I have jumper leads.
I carry no weapons.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

The point is that, like the men in the restaurant parking lot, I was targeting no one. I intimidated or terrified nobody. I did not enter the place armed to make a point. I went there because I was hungry. What I did was 100% legal. No one called the cops nobody fainted.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 play in the arms race.

I am sure you think you have a point. The fact that no sane person can see it is, I am also sure, irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I must have missed that right in civics class. Does it come before, or after, the right not to be offended?

 

[koshergrl]

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 play in the arms race.

Oh look, another logical fallacy.

There is no arms race. Americans have always been armed...until recently. And gosh what a coincidence...when they are disarmed, crime starts to escalate, including violent GUN crime. Because when the people are unable to defend themselves, the criminals find out, and they capitalize on it.

And we have a nice huge criminal population, thanks to the progressive policies of the last 40 years...

 

[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.

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.

So, what was the specific point that you were making at that time, and who was it directed at?
Are you saying that you were you showing your weapon to these women to win an argument?

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Fear" isn't the issue. I mean, personal safety sure, but fear per se isn't at the base of this.

Not to get overly supernatural but the base is spiritual. To be part of a world where it's commonplace for anyone to be walking around with the capability of blowing someone away at a distance ---- regardless of their motive -- simply goes against the essence of the Life force. It requires a callous disregard for Life. It's not a healthy thing for the soul.

So if you want a psychobasis -- there it is. So thanks but no thanks; I have no desire to be any part of that. Regardless what's happening around me.

 

[peach174]

-- 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?

Do you put your seat belt on before you dive with the intention of getting into an accident?
NO.
You put it on to prevent yourself from going through a windshield. And most go through out their whole life without getting into any accident at all, yet they wear that seatbelt just in case.
Same thing with loaded guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

It isn't like this is the first time you "didn't see" a question. I have asked you questions before, and had to repeat them multiple times in order to get an answer. I have also watched others go through the same process with you. It is possible that we are all delusional, and that we manifest that delusion only with you, but I think Occam's Razor says that you just close your eyes a lot.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Thank you. One by one we get the concession that the object was indeed intimidation.

Thanks -that's honest.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, no, you didn't.

 

[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.

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

Thank you. One by one we get the concession that the object was indeed intimidation.

Thanks -that's honest.

What did they do that was not peaceful?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again Peach -- you're falling back on that comic book fantasy that every time you walk into a bank or a Starbuck's -- there's a robbery waiting to happen.

That's a comic book. That's not real life. If we lived in that comic book we would call it a war zone.

Want to live in a war zone?

Me neither.

 

[idb]

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.

Hah, sorry, I assumed that it was a rhetorical question.
The answer seemed so obvious.
They turned up to counter an unarmed group and openly displayed their weapons.
Their gathering and display of guns was directed at those women.
I'd call that intimidation.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The intent of the mothers gathering?

Explain.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

What should they have done? When someone threatens you you have two basic choices, fight or flight. Your problem is that they made the choice to fight rather than run away.

The only thing counter productive about that is that it defeats your intent to take away the rights of other people. Tough fucking shit.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again...

private property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You're a good Boy Scout then.

I have jumper leads.
I carry no weapons.

If you carry jumper leads you carry a weapon.

 

[idb]

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.

What was the immediate threat from those malicious mothers to those poor gun-owners that they needed to have weapons ready for use?