Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Ernie S.]

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...

Again! I did not put words in your mouth. I expressed an opinion.

 

[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?

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're carrying jumper cables you're equipped to help somebody.
If you're carrying weapons you're equipped to kill somebody.

No brainer there.

 

[Sunshine]

How were the gun people 'not peaceful?'

Here, let me help. Just get your definition going there:

peace·ful
adjective \ˈpēs-fəl\

: quiet and calm : without noise, excitement, etc.

: not fighting a war

: not involving violence or force

Peaceful - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1. Were the gun people loud and aggressive, noisy, excited?

2. Were they fighting a war?

3. Did they use violence or force?

 

[peach174]

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.

No I'm not.
Read post # 709

 

[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.

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.

And nobody sees a comparison.

OCT didn't even go in to eat. Because that's not what they came for.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

So opt out.

But, regardless of your fine sensibilities, that is the world we live in, and I have the right to protect myself, and my children....and if my children are mandated to attend school, then the schools should be able to protect them from the people who target them BECAUSE they are vulnerable and unprotected.

So you opt out in any way you choose to. Take a pill, move away, hide in your hole, go the doctor assisted suicide route...but I have a right to carry a weapon. And if you don't like that, you can move.

 

[Pogo]

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.

How would you know what any sane person would see? Have you hired an assistant?

 

[idb]

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.

You give up too easily.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If fear isn't the issue, why the fuck do you keep bringing it up?

What the fuck are you babbling about now? Does the life force want you to pretend that everyone is going to follow your fake religion? If not, why the fuck even bring it up? Is this part of your expertise in fallacy?

 

[westwall]

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're carrying jumper cables you're equipped to help somebody.
If you're carrying weapons you're equipped to kill somebody.

No brainer there.

No, you're equipped to prevent lethal harm to you or to a other innocent bystander when an armed (or just plain big) bad guy wishes to do you or someone else harm. The vast majority of the time the weapon is presented and not fired to prevent a crime from occurring. Over 1.5 million times per year (in the US) in point of fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"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.

What did the civil rights advocates do, EXACTLY, that made the civil rights opponents fear their personal safety?

I was in our lobby an hour ago, and a man got in a 3/4 ton truck, with 500 horse power. He turned that massively powerful machine on, even though I was only feet away, and it was pointing at me.

Your position is idiocy, the mere presence of items that CAN do damage is not intimidation.

Like the civil rights opponents you advocate for, you have empty pockets.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

And nobody sees a comparison.

OCT didn't even go in to eat. Because that's not what they came for.

That's RIGHT. They were there to show that law abiding gun owners pose no threat to anyone....and are quite numerous. Not the fringe lunatics the four mothers would like everybody else to believe.

And they proved their point.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I believe it's right here:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

I kinda added emphasis so you might find it, but what follows also applies.

 

[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.

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.

I have said many times that the mothers intent was intimidation, and you keep agreeing with me, and then spouting nonsense about how it is wrong to respond to intimidation by fighting back. Are you finally going to stop, or is this another fallacy?

 

[Sunshine]

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.

And nobody sees a comparison.

OCT didn't even go in to eat. Because that's not what they came for.

It would seem to me they went to get their picture taken. Now, please answer my question: How were they 'not peaceful?'

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Read the OP, and then come back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Again with the non answers, what a surprise.

 

[Pogo]

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...

Reading my posting requires a certain poetic flexibility, which might disqualify you.
By "personal arms race" I refer to the gun culture; the idea that everybody should be walking around packing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Why does the threat have to be immediate?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

The pickup trucks they drove up in were far for capable of causing damage to people and property - so why were the civil rights opponents not intimidated by the sight of a pickup in public?

You see, you anti-liberty folk make no sense at all. You argue from emotion, I get that - but often the emotions are so jumbled and bat-shit crazy that it's hard to gauge just what you're aiming for.

I mean, ultimately you want to strip others of civil rights, I get that - but why?