Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That is a seriously stupid and ignorant position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I thought you said you aren't afraid just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You claim they were afraid, and then insist this is not about fear. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you about how to conduct a discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Nobody said it was "ethical" or "unethical". Again you're inserting the argument you wish you had rather than what's on the page.

I said it was a discussion of ethics. That's not a value judgement.
You'll just have to accept that.

How is ethics not a value judgement? Does your barain even work?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They could still carry guns, as is their right, but they were making them obvious in a display against the mothers.

But, I'm more interested in why do you think I'm a 'gun-grabber'?

I really don't get the point you are trying to make here, could you clarify it? Is it OK to exercise your rights unless you do it with the intent of showing other people they are wrong? Does your prescription against showing things apply only to props, or does it include gestures? Is the real problem her e that you haven't really thought about your position, you just took the one that made you feel good?

 

[Pogo]

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.

You claim they were afraid, and then insist this is not about fear. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you about how to conduct a discussion.

Not that this is news but YOU are a fucking LIAR.

Who says so?

This guy:

I thought you said you aren't afraid just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?

Are you that level of moron that you don't know the difference between my fear and theirs?

Dumbass.

You can tell who's losing the argument by the level of desperation. And by which of the more intelligent minds make themselves scarce when the meltdown occurs so they won't have to call out their own side for the same dishonesty.

-- Right Ernie?

 

[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 same guy that wrote that said there were 40 armed thugs doing the intimidating. Since that is a lie, I would assume everything else he wrote is.

And you know what they say about "assume"...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're a fucking idiot.

Again..are you mentally ill?

You can't have a discussion of ETHICS without alluding to the UNETHICAL, nitwit.

He likes to pretend he doesn't mean what he said because he is desperate for approval.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I realize that logical fallacy is the closest you ever get to logic - but really, even you can do better than that....

 

[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.

If I were someone who called himself Captain Obvious I would point out that the mothers think the issue is the law. That would lead me to ask how you can simultaneously support the mothers and insist the law is not the issue.

Then again, you still think this isn't about a photograph.

And where do they say that, Liar?
Or are you hiding behind the conditional phrase like the abject coward you are?

 

[Pogo]

You're a fucking idiot.

Again..are you mentally ill?

You can't have a discussion of ETHICS without alluding to the UNETHICAL, nitwit.

He likes to pretend he doesn't mean what he said because he is desperate for approval.

Do you dispute the definitions?

Yes or no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent - Forbes

SMACK - that's going to leave a mark...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You claim they were afraid, and then insist this is not about fear. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you about how to conduct a discussion.

Not that this is news but YOU are a fucking LIAR.

Who says so?

This guy:

I thought you said you aren't afraid just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?

Are you that level of moron that you don't know the difference between my fear and theirs?

Dumbass.

You can tell who's losing the argument by the level of desperation. And by which of the more intelligent minds make themselves scarce when the meltdown occurs so they won't have to call out their own side for the same dishonesty.

-- Right Ernie?

Unless you are claiming to be idb's sock I don't get your point.

Then again, you probably don't have a point, you are just upset that I was able to follow your trail and show how stupid you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

-- what's the verb?

The same guy that wrote that said there were 40 armed thugs doing the intimidating. Since that is a lie, I would assume everything else he wrote is.

And you know what they say about "assume"...

Ask anybody, I am an ass.

 

[Pogo]

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.

That is a seriously stupid and ignorant position.

Because you can't figure it out?

 

[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.

Want to bet?

Hah, nope.
I'm not going back through that many posts.
You're welcome to prove me wrong and I'll concede gracefully.

 

[Pogo]

The same guy that wrote that said there were 40 armed thugs doing the intimidating. Since that is a lie, I would assume everything else he wrote is.

And you know what they say about "assume"...

Ask anybody, I am an ass.

Absolutely no argument there.

Thing is, you seem proud of it.

 

[Pogo]

"Gun advocates held an armed protest in the parking lot, and our mom members and restaurant customers were terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush. Sadly, these bullies feel they must use guns to intimidate moms and children and try to inhibit our constitutional right to free speech. But Moms Demand Action will not be deterred. The desperate actions of this vocal minority only fuels our determination to fight for gun reform in Texas and across the country. Change will come.”

Texas Gun Bullies Use Semi-Automatics To Terrorize Mothers Against Guns-NRA Remains Silent - Forbes

SMACK - that's going to leave a mark...

Yeah, quite the violent facepalm.

 

[Pogo]

You claim they were afraid, and then insist this is not about fear. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you about how to conduct a discussion.

Not that this is news but YOU are a fucking LIAR.

Who says so?

This guy:

I thought you said you aren't afraid just because they have guns, why do you sound like you want to hide behind an APC right now?

Are you that level of moron that you don't know the difference between my fear and theirs?

Dumbass.

You can tell who's losing the argument by the level of desperation. And by which of the more intelligent minds make themselves scarce when the meltdown occurs so they won't have to call out their own side for the same dishonesty.

-- Right Ernie?

Unless you are claiming to be idb's sock I don't get your point.

Then again, you probably don't have a point, you are just upset that I was able to follow your trail and show how stupid you are.

Trust me Baggo, you couldn't show "me" to Missouri.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If I were someone who called himself Captain Obvious I would point out that the mothers think the issue is the law. That would lead me to ask how you can simultaneously support the mothers and insist the law is not the issue.

Then again, you still think this isn't about a photograph.

And where do they say that, Liar?
Or are you hiding behind the conditional phrase like the abject coward you are?

On their website, dumbass.

1. Call

Call your representatives in Congress and demand that they support common-sense measures like background checks to curb gun violence. Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121
2. Tweet

Use our Fast-Tweet tool to quickly tweet gun violence facts to any member of Congress.

Take Action | Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Any more stupid questions?