Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

so what is really happening here is someone is taking issue with someone elses legal activity. that to me is even a bigger problem. because if it was an illegal activity, they should be arrested or penalized for it. but it wasn't. so this whiny ass anti gun group is now trying to impact someones legal activities. that is the issue. it's like me saying blacks in a large group scare me because they look frightening and intimidating. they shouldn't be allowed to congregate in groups. and we have to change the way they dress.

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

YOU think it's about psychological tactics.

However, that's not what the thread about, and that's not what anyone else on this thread is discussing.

Isn't it?
Thread title: "Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot"

-- what's the verb?

 

[koshergrl]

"Should the contingency ever arise when it would be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and duty"

Judge Thomas Cooley

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.

We have the right and the obligation to do that when our rights are threatened.

And that's what leftist gasbags don't get. When you attack the rights of Americans, they are going to protest to whatever degree necessary to protect those rights.

Our right to bear arms is one of those rights.

Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?

 

[koshergrl]

Spoon, you're not listening. You're still trying to make this into legal terms.

This is not a thread about what the law is or who broke it or didn't break it. It's about psychological tactics. The law is not at issue.

Nor did anyone say they "shouldn't be allowed to congregate". That would be law yet again. Leave all that behind. It's not a discussion of laws; more a discussion of ethics. That's why we have differences of opinion -- the law is clear, you either break it or you don't. In ethics it's not cast in stone. All we can do here is offer views.

YOU think it's about psychological tactics.

However, that's not what the thread about, and that's not what anyone else on this thread is discussing.

Isn't it?
Thread title: "Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot"

-- what's the verb?

The thread title was deliberately misleading.

What this thread is about is whether gun owners have the RIGHT to assemble in public. And THAT is not a 'psychological tactic' issue.

Just because the loon who started the thread used propaganda does not mean it's about propaganda.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, they do have the right..and it is perfectly *ethical*. They were protesting a congregation of nutters who seek to remove their right to bear arms. And they were perfectly appropriate and ethical in their decision to stage an armed protest. Since they were protesting against those who maintain they don't have the right to be armed, then it is appropriate that they show arms and establish their right to have them.

"...the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.["

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

Incidentally, they do have the right..and it is perfectly *ethical*. They were protesting a congregation of nutters who seek to remove their right to bear arms. And they were perfectly appropriate and ethical in their decision to stage an armed protest. Since they were protesting against those who maintain they don't have the right to be armed, then it is appropriate that they show arms and establish their right to have them.

"...the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.["

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still off on the wrong path koshergrl.
No-one has claimed that they didn't have the right to protest with their guns.

 

[koshergrl]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

 

[koshergrl]

Incidentally, they do have the right..and it is perfectly *ethical*. They were protesting a congregation of nutters who seek to remove their right to bear arms. And they were perfectly appropriate and ethical in their decision to stage an armed protest. Since they were protesting against those who maintain they don't have the right to be armed, then it is appropriate that they show arms and establish their right to have them.

"...the weight of serious scholarship supports the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual rights and to deter governmental tyranny. From the Federalist Papers to explanations when the Bill of Rights was introduced, it is clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect individual rights.["

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still off on the wrong path koshergrl.
No-one has claimed that they didn't have the right to protest with their guns.

No, they claimed it was "unethical", since they KNOW that it's a right.

But the women who gathered to lobby for stricter gun control...THEY claim that people don't have the right to carry. You keep forgetting about them.

You morons just maintain that since they're mothers who claim guns are *scary*, everybody should just abandon their right to carry...because to confront them while armed is *unethical*.

Stupid. And not true.

 

[Ernie S.]

There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.

We have the right and the obligation to do that when our rights are threatened.

And that's what leftist gasbags don't get. When you attack the rights of Americans, they are going to protest to whatever degree necessary to protect those rights.

Our right to bear arms is one of those rights.

Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?

No one has said that. Are you saying fathers don't have the right to keep and bear arms? To peacefully assemble?

 

[koshergrl]

If you seek to disarm people, you need to face the reality that they are going to have their arms on them, btw. Telling them they can't parlay with you unless they ditch their guns at the door is essentially forcing them to say "You're right, we shouldn't carry our weapons". And...it's not going to happen. Nobody is ever going to argue about the right to bear arms...without exercising their right to bear arms. It's a pretty fundamental right. As our founding fathers knew, and as the courts have asserted again...and again....and again....and again.

 

[Ernie S.]

And we're STILL waiting for Lakeview.....

 

[koshergrl]

It won't happen until you've lost interest. Then he'll try to sneak in and post something irrelevant and untrue, and claim victory.

It's the way progressive extremist weirdoes work. We have a whole contigency of them swishing around.

 

[idb]

The ridiculous assertion that in order to be *ethical*, protesters, though they are actually protesting their RIGHT to carry weapons, should leave their weapons at home when they go to confront the people who seek to remove them, is essentially an assertion that even though they have the right, it is unethical to actually exercise that right.

Of course that is not true. To maintain that is to maintain that the right itself is *unethical*. It isn't. Get over it. Ordinary, perfectly safe people carry arms. Just because there is a fringe loon element who get palpitations at the very thought does not oblige those citizens to give up that right.

If you read back, you'll see that my assertion was that, although perfectly legal, turning up to protest a small group of unarmed mothers having a meeting while openly carrying weapons could be counterproductive to the arguments put forward by gun-proponents that firearms are owned by responsible family people.

Suit yourself though, if you think that using guns to intimidate a group of mums who are also exercising their Constitutional rights is the sort of look you are happy to represent your views then - fine.

 

[koshergrl]

I know what you said.

And you're wrong. You're spouting extremist propaganda..there is absolutely no evidence that the women were "intimidated" or that the armed protesters were in any way "intimidating".

The fact that you insist on repeating the Big Lie (see my logical fallacy posts) despite your repeated and indignant assertion that you have never said a word against the *right* of the armed protesters to bring their arms, tells us that you are indeed opposed to citizens exercising this particular right. Therefore, you share the belief of the anti-constitutionalists that citizens cannot be trusted with guns, and should not assert their right to bear arms. You confirm this with your loony yammering about the horror of arriving not only armed, but with LOADED weapons...obviously, a person who agrees that citizens have the right to bear arms would not be appalled when they actually do bear arms....or protest that to do so is unethical or dangerous.

 

[idb]

There is absolutely nothing "unethical" about a group of armed citizens gathering in peaceful protest.

We have the right and the obligation to do that when our rights are threatened.

And that's what leftist gasbags don't get. When you attack the rights of Americans, they are going to protest to whatever degree necessary to protect those rights.

Our right to bear arms is one of those rights.

Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?

No one has said that. Are you saying fathers don't have the right to keep and bear arms? To peacefully assemble?

I've never said that.
I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

 

[idb]

I know what you said.

And you're wrong. You're spouting extremist propaganda..there is absolutely no evidence that the women were "intimidated" or that the armed protesters were in any way "intimidating".

They only turned up because those mothers were there.
They turned up in an openly armed group with their focus on those unarmed women.
That is intimidation.
Why didn't they just carry signs?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?

Are you saying that children should be cooked over an open fire on a spit?


See, you're really not all that clever...

 

[idb]

Are you saying that the mothers didn't have the right to gather and discuss their concerns?

Are you saying that children should be cooked over an open fire on a spit?


See, you're really not all that clever...

Try and keep up.
I know that holding more than one point in your head at one time is difficult but it's a useful skill when debating.

 

[Pogo]

YOU think it's about psychological tactics.

However, that's not what the thread about, and that's not what anyone else on this thread is discussing.

Isn't it?
Thread title: "Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot"

-- what's the verb?

The thread title was deliberately misleading.

What this thread is about is whether gun owners have the RIGHT to assemble in public. And THAT is not a 'psychological tactic' issue.

Just because the loon who started the thread used propaganda does not mean it's about propaganda.

If the thread title is misleading, then you post to make that point.
Just as the other view posts theirs to the contrary.

Works both ways, baby. That's what discussion of opinion IS.

The fact remains, the verb is "intimidate". Therein lieth the discussion: is it or isn't it.
That's all there is to it.

 

[koshergrl]

I know what you said.

And you're wrong. You're spouting extremist propaganda..there is absolutely no evidence that the women were "intimidated" or that the armed protesters were in any way "intimidating".

They only turned up because those mothers were there.
They turned up in an openly armed group with their focus on those unarmed women.
That is intimidation.
Why didn't they just carry signs?

Because to just carry signs is to admit that they can't be trusted with guns, and is a concession to the anti-constitutional gun grabbing nuts, like you.