Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

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.

No, I put it on because I'll get a ticket if I don't.

Sometimes a seat belt is just a cigar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If I have jumper cables I am equipped to kill someone.

If I carry a gun I am equipped to save a woman from a rapist.

I would get into the no brainier part, but we already established that your brain was misplaced.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I don't see the errant question showing, so I take it that's a circumlocution for those crickets I was expecting.

Right on time too.

It must be really easy to just declare that something exists and never have to deliver.
-- Isn't it?

 

[idb]

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?

Back to the vehicle/gun false-equivalency!
How tired.

I have no problem with people openly carrying guns if it's legal...why do you think that I do?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I know what you meant, and I addressed it eruditely, ding dong.

If I have to explain everything to you twice, conversing with you is going to become even more tedious than it already is.

It's funny.. you maintain that "poetic flexibility" is required to understand your own writing, but you seem incapable of grasping the finer nuances of others' writing, yourself... What's that all about?

Oh, I know. We're back to the thing where you accuse others of your own failings. Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You believe a lot of things that are not true.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Who got killed? Please answer my other question. I helped you out with definition and everything.

 

[idb]

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.

If I have jumper cables I am equipped to kill someone.

If I carry a gun I am equipped to save a woman from a rapist.

I would get into the no brainier part, but we already established that your brain was misplaced.

Personally, I carry my jumper cables to assist with a flat battery.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Back to the vehicle/gun false-equivalency!
How tired.

I have no problem with people openly carrying guns if it's legal...why do you think that I do?

Because you're in this thread, arguing...

 

[westwall]

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.

So, if Jeff Dahmer is getting ready to kill yet another victim I am supposed to not kill him to prevent that? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that the life of a criminal is worth more than the life of a child?

You're pretty stupid.

 

[Sunshine]

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?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.

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]

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.

Of course. And here's the test:

If that quartet of Mothers Against Gun Violence is not meeting there at the time -- does OCT show up?

OK then.

 

[peach174]

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.

No one has ever said that everybody should be walking around packing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

If the premise of the thread is that the mothers were trying to force their viewpoint on everyone else, why do you keep arguing that the gun owners were wrong?

 

[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?

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.

Uh-- they didn't "run away"; they did the exact opposite.

What was "threatening" them? Four Mothers Against Gun Violence in a restaurant ready to aim bazookas?

OK then.

 

[koshergrl]

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?

I'm not disputing that they were peaceful or not -- I'm thanking him for conceding the point that the OCT objective was intimidation. That's what this whole thread's premise is.

"
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

"This propaganda technique is called “The Big Lie,” and it was named, oddly enough, by one Adolf Hitler, writing in Mein Kamp. He described it as “a lie so ‘colossal’ that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

Fallacies: The Big Lie | Wickersham's Conscience

"
Big Lie Technique: Repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over until people believe it without further proof or evidence. "
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/b-list-fallacies

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If I have jumper cables I am equipped to kill someone.

If I carry a gun I am equipped to save a woman from a rapist.

I would get into the no brainier part, but we already established that your brain was misplaced.

Personally, I carry my jumper cables to assist with a flat battery.

Personally, I carry a weapon because I have learned that it helps in extremely rare situations, just like jumper cables. Yet you insist it is about fear when I do it, but not when you carry the same weapon.

 

[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.

You're a good Boy Scout then.

I have jumper leads.
I carry no weapons.

If you carry jumper leads you carry a weapon.

How are jumper cables a "weapon"?

What are you gonna do, clamp one end to someone's genitals and the other to your coil while they hold still?

 

[Pogo]

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.




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.

Oh that's been happening all day.