Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Want tot ell me again how smart you are? Or is this another example of not seeing things that get in your way?

Your problem is that they made the choice to fight rather than run away.

 

[idb]

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...

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

 

[Pogo]

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.

I haven't said squat about your right to carry a weapon except to support it -- even if it does make me wonder about psychological standards in background checks.

There you go Ernie - speaking of putting words in another's mouth. Voilà ^^

 

[idb]

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.

Ummm, answered, in your link to my post.
I'm really not sure that I can make it any plainer.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Au contraire!

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Bump

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.

Yes, you disputed that they were peaceful. I just posted it and you ignored my question yet again.

How were they 'not peaceful?'

Please answer the question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How are they not a weapon?

Man uses car jumper cables to hang himself at concert | Deseret News

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Ummm, answered, in your link to my post.
I'm really not sure that I can make it any plainer.

And I posted the definition of peaceful. You did NOT address that definition and explain how they were 'not peaceful.' You wrote your own definition. That is not an answer.

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?

 

[koshergrl]

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...

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You haven't put forth that guns be banned...you have, however, put forth that daring to assemble with loaded weapons is intimidation, rather than reasonable assemblage.

And that rather implies you find legally armed people threatening.

You also question the reason and motives of those who legally pack loaded weapons...which begs the question....if you don't want guns banned, then why on earth do you think that people who arm themselves should only use empty weapons?

In other words, I suspect a rat. You're dishonest. I think you are playing with words...that you will not admit to the desire to seeing guns *banned*...but you will submit that access to weapons should be carefully monitored and restricted by the state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

So then, ALL protests are acts of intimidation, sporky?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Number one, I haven't been bringing up "fear". You did. See above.
Number two, you addressed this question to me individually and personally, so that's the way I answered.

Now you don't like the answer and want to redo the question... sigh...

 

[peach174]

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.

Sounds like you don't like being forced to wear a seat belt.

 

[koshergrl]

It's sort of like death cultists maintain that they're really pro-life when they defend the *right* of women to kill their babies at any stage in their pregnancy, for any cause, in abbatoirs that operate under zero oversight.

What you say, and what reality is, are probably two completely different things.

 

[idb]

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.

I only carry a gun when I'm hunting.
It's dismantled and locked away when I'm not.
I have no fear, concern or sense that I need a weapon of any sort for personal protection.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

Ah, a straw man.

I understand your need to distract from the topic.

I assume this means you cannot point to any act that directly intimidated the civil rights opponents, then?

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Strawman! There was no gun violence in this circumstance.

 

[Pogo]

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.

The fact remains, the power to kill somebody IS what enables you even in that noblest scenario. You have power over another's life, whether that's justified or not (and therefore "bad guys" has no place here). You're equipped to kill somebody, regardless how you sugar coat it. That's the whole reason for its existence.

 

[idb]

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?

The gun owners weren't wrong to protest...that's their right.

 

[Sunshine]

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

Then you haven't been following the discussion.
Where have I said that possession or carrying of guns should be banned?

You haven't put forth that guns be banned...you have, however, put forth that daring to assemble with loaded weapons is intimidation, rather than reasonable assemblage.

And that rather implies you find legally armed people threatening.

You also question the reason and motives of those who legally pack loaded weapons...which begs the question....if you don't want guns banned, then why on earth do you think that people who arm themselves should only use empty weapons?

In other words, I suspect a rat. You're dishonest. I think you are playing with words...that you will not admit to the desire to seeing guns *banned*...but you will submit that access to weapons should be carefully monitored and restricted by the state.

Fear is an emotion. And in the study of psychology, one learns that we are all responsible for our own emotions. The group getting their picture taken with the guns were not loud, aggressive, or threatening. The women in the group manufactured their own fear and then reacted to it as if someone else were responsible for it.

http://www.selfcreation.com/how-to-be-happy/who-controls-your-emotions.htm

 

[Pogo]

"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.

I don't know why you keep going to civil rights issues Pothead. When you figure out what the topic is here, send me a PM and I'll start reading again.