Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?'
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.
The intent of that gathering was malicious.
The intent of the mothers gathering?
Explain.
Read the OP, and then come back.
Ummm, answered, in your link to my post.You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.
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?
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.
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?
No-- that's the opposite of what you said above. "they (the mothers) deserve to be intimidated". They're on the receiving end, which is correct. Now we're all going to pretend your sentence sitting there means the opposite of what it means?
I said nothing about wrong or right to respond to intimidation by fighting back. Once again, putting words in my mouth.
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.
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.
-- by killing someone or brandishing that threat.
Next...
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.
The intent of the mothers gathering?
Explain.
Read the OP, and then come back.
Idiot. It's your post, not the OP.
Can't answer? Paint yourself into a corner again?
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.
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.
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.
That document does not exist then?'
Or are you saying it's bullshit?
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.
