Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No, because it is seriously stupid and ignorant.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

 

[Pogo]

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?

Is their website at the restaurant? No. Then this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW.

But speaking of attempts to twist reality into weasel words, why are you not answering this--

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS and UNETHICAL?

 

[idb]

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.

How so?
The contention several times in this thread is that the mothers were threatening the constitutional rights of gun owners .
It was also suggested that this meant that they deserved to face intimidation.

I'm just unsure how these people exercising their constitutional rights could possible be threatening the rights of the pro-gunners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Actually, I am just intelligent enough not to base my self worth on other people. I know you don't get that, but that is not my problem.

 

[Pogo]

That is a seriously stupid and ignorant position.

Because you can't figure it out?

No, because it is seriously stupid and ignorant.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
​

That's when they came for the brains?

"Brains... must .... eat ... brains... "

 

[Pogo]

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.

How so?
The contention several times in this thread is that the mothers were threatening the constitutional rights of gun owners .
It was also suggested that this meant that they deserved to face intimidation.

I'm just unsure how these people exercising their constitutional rights could possible be threatening the rights of the pro-gunners.

He'll just weasel and run away. Like he's doing with the definitions.
It's how he (t)rolls.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Is their website at the restaurant? No. Then this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW.

But speaking of attempts to twist reality into weasel words, why are you not answering this--

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS and UNETHICAL?

This thread is about the unethical attempt to use the law to restrict people from exercising their rights.

There, I used your words to refute your position, care to tell me I got the definitions wrong?

And, no, I did not dispute any definition, I asked you a direct question, to whit, how the fuck is ethics not a value judgement? So far you haven't answered, and I don't expect you to ever answer.

 

[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?

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?

A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.

 

[koshergrl]

"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...

Na, polo isn't smart enough to even know when he's been pwned. His response to that was "d-d-d-duh, when did Forbes start posting here?"

 

[koshergrl]

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?

A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.

Nope, it's protest in support of the right to bear arms.

The fact that you don't make the distinction shows your innate bias against private gun owners. And your insistence that to disagree with women who are lobbying aggressively to increase gun restrictions is "intimidation" shows your innate dishonesty.

 

[Pogo]

On their website, dumbass.

Take Action | Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America

Any more stupid questions?

Is their website at the restaurant? No. Then this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW.

But speaking of attempts to twist reality into weasel words, why are you not answering this--

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS and UNETHICAL?

This thread is about the unethical attempt to use the law to restrict people from exercising their rights.

There, I used your words to refute your position, care to tell me I got the definitions wrong?

And, no, I did not dispute any definition, I asked you a direct question, to whit, how the fuck is ethics not a value judgement? So far you haven't answered, and I don't expect you to ever answer.

Is your mommy who reads you the big words not available?

Once again the pertinent definition:

eth·ics
ˈeTHiks/Submit
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience More
the moral correctness of specified conduct.
"the ethics of euthanasia"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Where the FUCK do you see a value judgement in there?

 

[Pogo]

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?

A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.

What in the blue fuck is an "APC"?

I've got an APC UPS here but it ain't big enough to hide behind.

 

[Pogo]

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?

A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.

Nope, it's protest in support of the right to bear arms.

The fact that you don't make the distinction shows your innate bias against private gun owners. And your insistence that to disagree with women who are lobbying aggressively to increase gun restrictions is "intimidation" shows your innate dishonesty.

"dishonesty" -- from the wag who intentionally conflates ethics and unethical... SMH

 

[idb]

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?

I've made my point pretty clear.
This group turned up to make a point.
They made it using intimidation.
If the image they were trying to project was one that gun-owners respond to people they disagree with by a show of force then, I suppose, mission accomplished.

 

[koshergrl]

Is their website at the restaurant? No. Then this thread IS NOT ABOUT THE LAW.

But speaking of attempts to twist reality into weasel words, why are you not answering this--

DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS and UNETHICAL?

This thread is about the unethical attempt to use the law to restrict people from exercising their rights.

There, I used your words to refute your position, care to tell me I got the definitions wrong?

And, no, I did not dispute any definition, I asked you a direct question, to whit, how the fuck is ethics not a value judgement? So far you haven't answered, and I don't expect you to ever answer.

Is your mommy who reads you the big words not available?

Once again the pertinent definition:

eth·ics
ˈeTHiks/Submit
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
"Judeo-Christian ethics"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience More
the moral correctness of specified conduct.
"the ethics of euthanasia"
2.
the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.

Where the FUCK do you see a value judgement in there?

Questioning the *ethics* of a protest is a request for a value judgement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

How so?
The contention several times in this thread is that the mothers were threatening the constitutional rights of gun owners .
It was also suggested that this meant that they deserved to face intimidation.

I'm just unsure how these people exercising their constitutional rights could possible be threatening the rights of the pro-gunners.

Because you, obviously, don't believe it. If you did you would have pointed out that the men who were showed up legally and exercised their rights were not intimidating anybody. Since you didn't do that, and you actually argued that it was counterproductive, your position is seriously stupid and ignorant.

Not to mention that I can show you hundreds of examples of people exercising their rights in a way that intimidates other people.

 

[Pogo]

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?

I've made my point pretty clear.
This group turned up to make a point.
They made it using intimidation.
If the image they were trying to project was one that gun-owners respond to people they disagree with by a show of force then, I suppose, mission accomplished.

That's pretty much why they reversed course and are now opening dialogue, methinks.
Which, to sound like the proverbial broken record, is what they should have done in the first place.

 

[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?

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?

A group turned up with their openly exposed weapons for the purpose of focussing on these women.
That's intimidation.
It isn't the same as walking past a random person in the street carrying a gun.
I know you know this.

Yet you also said, "I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses (sic) rights."

Mind boggling, isn't it?

 

[idb]

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....

I understand that "The Big Encyclopaedia Of Clever Terms" is your favourite possession but you really should read the definitions as well.

 

[Pogo]

That is a seriously stupid and ignorant position.

How so?
The contention several times in this thread is that the mothers were threatening the constitutional rights of gun owners .
It was also suggested that this meant that they deserved to face intimidation.

I'm just unsure how these people exercising their constitutional rights could possible be threatening the rights of the pro-gunners.

Because you, obviously, don't believe it. If you did you would have pointed out that the men who were showed up legally and exercised their rights were not intimidating anybody. Since you didn't do that, and you actually argued that it was counterproductive, your position is seriously stupid and ignorant.

Not to mention that I can show you hundreds of examples of people exercising their rights in a way that intimidates other people.

Why would he make a point he doesn't believe? You actually want your adversary to make your point for you?

I mean, granted it would vastly raise the level of competence...