Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[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.

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?

Gosh, try reading for comprehension.
How on earth does one statement contradict the other?

 

[idb]

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.

OK, I'll spell it out for you.
Intimidating someone, and threatening someone's rights are two different things entirely.

 

[koshergrl]

No, they're the same thing.

"...to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats"

What are they allegedly INTIMIDATING, in this case?

They are allegedly INTIMIDATING (or threatening) the women who have gathered, and who regularly gather, to discuss methods to remove the rights of gun owners.

So if they are INTIMIDATING (i.e., THREATENING) the women, the threat is that the women will be harmed or killed by the guns...which is a violation of their *rights*.

If you maintain that the gun owners are "intimidating" these women, then they are threatening their right to assemble. The purpose of intimidation is to keep them from pursuing their goal...

Seriously. Talking to you guys is like being stuck in a tar pit.

 

[idb]

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.

When did I say it was wrong, illegal, unethical to own guns or assemble lawfully as a protest with guns?
You must have me confused with someone else.

Regarding the end of the conversation - it only takes one person in a two-person conversation to end it.
Our conversation about whether there was intimidation in this instance has ended.

Furthermore, I don't lobby against gun ownership, again you must have me confused with someone else.
I'm not American - I have no right to, nor direct interest in lobbying against guns.

 

[Pogo]

They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.

"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of is is".

Pathetic.

 

[idb]

No, they're the same thing.

"...to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats"

What are they allegedly INTIMIDATING, in this case?

They are allegedly INTIMIDATING (or threatening) the women who have gathered, and who regularly gather, to discuss methods to remove the rights of gun owners.

So if they are INTIMIDATING (i.e., THREATENING) the women, the threat is that the women will be harmed or killed by the guns...which is a violation of their *rights*.

If you maintain that the gun owners are "intimidating" these women, then they are threatening their right to assemble. The purpose of intimidation is to keep them from pursuing their goal...

Seriously. Talking to you guys is like being stuck in a tar pit.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by actually engaging you in discussion, now I see that you're just stupid.
My mistake...it'll never happen again.

 

[koshergrl]

You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.

 

[koshergrl]

They've long since been reduced to arguing with the dictionary. And putting words in others' mouths.

"Here's my argument: it depends on what the meaning of is is".

Pathetic.

Hey pluto, who brought up ETHICS in this convo?

Me, or you?

Oh, that's right. You. Liar. You haven't been truthful or correct in anything you've posted....and you aren't being truthful now. It has already been ascertained, by posters more qualified than yourself, that you don't have a CLUE what this, or any other, conversation is about. You speak to a totally different conversation, that takes place in your head, and your head alone.

Embrace that. We have.

 

[Pogo]

Talking about banning guns is so stupid.

Nobody's been talking about "banning guns".

Nothing like post-bombing in a thread you haven't bothered to read.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, the whole purpose of the women who were lobbying for members is to grab guns.

So, you're wrong again. Apparently you don't know what the thread is about, or what those women represent.

Lol...like that's news.

 

[regent]

I saw child-like creatures posing with guns. Did they bring their guns because they felt threatened by the mothers or for some other purpose, if so, what purpose? Maybe with gun permits there should be other tests administered and a mental age restriction required as well as the usual police reports? Child-like creatures.

 

[Pogo]

No, they're the same thing.

"...to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats"

What are they allegedly INTIMIDATING, in this case?

They are allegedly INTIMIDATING (or threatening) the women who have gathered, and who regularly gather, to discuss methods to remove the rights of gun owners.

So if they are INTIMIDATING (i.e., THREATENING) the women, the threat is that the women will be harmed or killed by the guns...which is a violation of their *rights*.

If you maintain that the gun owners are "intimidating" these women, then they are threatening their right to assemble. The purpose of intimidation is to keep them from pursuing their goal...

Seriously. Talking to you guys is like being stuck in a tar pit.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt by actually engaging you in discussion, now I see that you're just stupid.
My mistake...it'll never happen again.

As we noted yesterday, the rule with present company is:

"Don't tell me what you think! I will tell you what you think!!"

control freaks...

 

[idb]

You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.

OK then, I'll go another one.
You've just said;

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners.

But a mere page back you said;

But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms,

You might have to explain the difference to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

72 pages, and the civil liberties opponents have yet to offer a cogent argument...


But whatchagunnado?

 

[koshergrl]

Nice diversionary tactic!

When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.

 

[koshergrl]

You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.

OK then, I'll go another one.
You've just said;

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners.

But a mere page back you said;

But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms,

You might have to explain the difference to me.

Oh look, a partial quote, out of context, without a link.

You missed "IF". Apparently, it is another word you don't understand.

 

[idb]

Nice diversionary tactic!

When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.

If you're addressing me, it was directly relevant to your post...so the diversionary tactic is yours.
Come on...go again!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Nice diversionary tactic!

When faced with your lies and your own shortcomings, start another convo, referencing a previous "inside" discussion, to distract the crowd.

This again?

"Dammit Jim, I'm a writer, not a painter!"

 

[idb]

You are lobbying against gun owners here, in this thread. Every time you maintain that a lawful, peaceful protest of gun owners, who have their arms with them, is "intimidating" or "threatening", you maintain that people who lawfully and peacefully assemble with their legal weapons are menacing.

I didn't say you lobbied against gun ownership. I said you were lobbying against gun owners. Learn to read or get an interpreter.

OK then, I'll go another one.
You've just said;


But a mere page back you said;

But if you are going to lobby against gun owners, with the ultimate goal of removing their right to bear arms,

You might have to explain the difference to me.

Oh look, a partial quote, out of context, without a link.

You missed "IF". Apparently, it is another word you don't understand.

Aaah, pedantry...you're on the slide.
'If' clearly implied that that's what I was doing.

You next.

 

[koshergrl]

No, when you start posting silly comments about side conversations, then you are creating a diversion.