Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[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.

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?

(sic) [sic]

brackets, not parentheses there, Shakespeare.

From the same guy who posted "to whit". Wasn't gonna say anything buuut.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Did you even read the words you emphasized?

Are they easier to see now that I made them red?

How the fuck is ethics not about a judgement in values?

By the way, thanks for conclusively proving you are stupid.

 

[koshergrl]

They are threatening the rights of the "pro-gunners" by lobbying for stricter gun control.

Are you really this dense?

Never mind, I know the answer.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Did you even read the words you emphasized?

Are they easier to see now that I made them red?

How the fuck is ethics not about a judgement in values?

By the way, thanks for conclusively proving you are stupid.

HEY STOOPID:

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles





As I said ... the more abjectly one side is losing the argument, the more desperate is its suspension of reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

Are you agreing with me that he was incredibly stupid and ignorant to argue that exercising your rights is not intimidating when he clearly doesn't believe that?

 

[idb]

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.

It shows nothing of the sort...I own guns.

If we're going to disagree on what is and isn't intimidation then that's where the converstation ends.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It shows nothing of the sort...I own guns.

If we're going to disagree on what is and isn't intimidation then that's where the converstation ends.

It's beyond that -- they're actually disputing what our own words mean.

The tactic is to post greater and greater absurdities until reasonable people give up on them, then declare victory.

Basically the mentality of a five-year-old.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

(sic) [sic]

brackets, not parentheses there, Shakespeare.

From the same guy who posted "to whit". Wasn't gonna say anything buuut.....

Either is acceptable unless you are following a specific style guide. Since I am Shakespeare, and famous for inventing my own words, as well as writing in a common vernacular, I prefer to write informally.

Any other attempts to criticize me?

 

[idb]

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.

I don't believe what?

I agree that the gun-owners had a right to be there...I disagree that it wasn't for the purpose of intimidation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Did you even read the words you emphasized?

Are they easier to see now that I made them red?

How the fuck is ethics not about a judgement in values?

By the way, thanks for conclusively proving you are stupid.

HEY STOOPID:

the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles





As I said ... the more abjectly one side is losing the argument, the more desperate is its suspension of reality.

Are you trying to tell me that moral principles aren't a value judgement? What are they, laws of nature?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It shows nothing of the sort...I own guns.

If we're going to disagree on what is and isn't intimidation then that's where the converstation ends.

It's beyond that -- they're actually disputing what our own words mean.

The tactic is to post greater and greater absurdities until reasonable people give up on them, then declare victory.

Basically the mentality of a five-year-old.

You are the one that posted the definition of ethics, which proves it si about values, and then insisted it isn't. Care to tell me how that makes me wrong?

 

[Pogo]

Q.E.D.

Like trying to debate Pee Wee Herman.

Be proud. Fucking hack.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I don't believe what?

I agree that the gun-owners had a right to be there...I disagree that it wasn't for the purpose of intimidation.

You said:

I'm just wondering how a group of people exercising their rights can be threatening someone elses rights.

Now you are saying that they were intimidating, even though they were exercising their constitutional right to keep, and bear, arms.

You are lying about something. If you can't figure it out I will be forced to conclude that you are simply crazy.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is unethical... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.

Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.

We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

I don't believe what?

I agree that the gun-owners had a right to be there...I disagree that it wasn't for the purpose of intimidation.

Good for you.

Now prove that it was their purpose. Otherwise, stop with the boring rhetoric.

 

[Pogo]

I don't care if you own guns. You already bored us all with that bit of irrelevant trivia. You can own guns for yourself, in any country, and still maintain that Americans don't have the right...or that it is unethical... to bring their legal weapons to a lawful protest.

Regarding the end of the conversation, I really wish you would stop. You don't dictate when the conversation begins, what it's about, or when it ends. You and podo have consistently posted garbage and lies, and have done your very best to make the case that although it's not illegal, it's just plain WRONG for people to protest against gun grabbers while armed.

We get it. You find guns terrifying, which is why you dismantle yours at home. But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms, then you are going to have to accept the fact that they are going to protest...and they will probably be armed. Because we have that right.

No -
When you have to put words in other people's mouths, you specifically and emphatically DON'T get it.

What's incredible is that you're actually willing to look this silly.

Especially Jizzbag there, who's so wacked out he's makiing you look almost halfway reasonable.

 

[koshergrl]

I haven't put words into anyone's mouth. You've made comments, which then you deny, and attempt to assign to me. So actually, it's YOU who is putting words into other people's mouths.

And trust me, you are the one who looks stupid. Not just in this thread, but across the board.

 

[Pogo]

 

[koshergrl]

Lol..and again. You brought up the topic, einstein....

 

[skookerasbil]

Talking about banning guns is so stupid. Its never going to happen ( not without another civil war) and anyway, the researched facts are that more guns - less crime!!

Harvard University just completed a study in April of 2013. The gun grabber assholes are pwned.


Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?

Apr 09, 2013

Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.








Here is the complete paper published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy


http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf















I love this forum!!!