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.
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...
I didn't ask a question, I mocked you.
By the way, if fear isn't the issue, and you don't keep bringing it up, why do you keep insisting the mothers were intimidated by the non fear inducing men with guns?
Of course I'm equipped to kill someone when armed. Isn't that the point?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.
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.
Of course you don't. And that is why you cannot understand this issue.
Ya mean like the right to live one's life without gun violence?
Strawman! There was no gun violence in this circumstance.
It's not a reference to this incident. It's a reference to the Mothers group and what they stand for, in answer to the "standing up for rights" bit above.
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?
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?
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.
I could kill someone if I was stark naked. I guess that proves guns aren't the problem, nice to see you finally dropping the argument.
but while you're dropping trou I haven't dropped squat.
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.
Of course you don't. And that is why you cannot understand this issue.
I don't have the time to suss out his cute crypticism. I've got ten people piling on. You don't get more than a glance; if you can't make your point, I move on.
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.
They do deserve it, and I wish someone found a way to do it. The world would be better off if they stopped trying to take away other people's rights, even if the only reason they did it was out of fear. Unfortunately, no one scared them, even a little.
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.
Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.
FYI, I carry a knife with me every where I go. I don't walk out of the house without it, and it is not because I am afraid that someone might attack me.
But, please, keep putting thoughts inside my head, and telling me how brave you are.
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.
But you are claiming 4 women not even in close proximity to several firearms that may or may not have been loaded, were threatened by weapons. Certainly, a very large revolver 6 feet from you is more dangerous than a .223 100 yards away.
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...
Better to stand by helplessly and watch her be raped, and perhaps killed.
Like a good progressive dope.
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.
Strange, I don't remember saying a thing about personal protection.
FYI, I carry a knife with me every where I go. I don't walk out of the house without it, and it is not because I am afraid that someone might attack me.
But, please, keep putting thoughts inside my head, and telling me how brave you are.
Read the OP, and then come back.
Idiot. It's your post, not the OP.
Can't answer? Paint yourself into a corner again?
Do you need me to spell it out?
How is any intent to take away freedom not malicious?
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 would think something is wrong if you thought their method was productive.
This is the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. Not some two bit second rate country like your's
-- by killing someone or brandishing that threat.
Next...
Better to stand by helplessly and watch her be raped, and perhaps killed.
Like a good progressive dope.
(more) Appeal to Emotion; ad hominem.
Next...
You believe a lot of things that are not true.
That document does not exist then?'
Or are you saying it's bullshit?
Another deliberate derailment attempt...
You believe a lot of things that are not true.
That document does not exist then?'
Or are you saying it's bullshit?
Yep that is what I said. Go with that, it should help you pretend you won.
That document does not exist then?'
Or are you saying it's bullshit?
Another deliberate derailment attempt...
Not your question. Zip it.
You have stated repeatedly that they were not peaceful. Now please explain how they were 'not peaceful.' I even gave you the definition.
For the third time, you're asking me someone else's question.
Just stop.
Why? Do you not want to answer the question?
