Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[koshergrl]

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


But a mere page back you said;


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.

Partial quote, out of context, no link. Even taken at face value, doesn't support your weak and quavering point, because it doesn't say what you think it does.

Edit is your friend. Please take the first step. Start editing your posts.

 

[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.

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.

Are you disputing the definitions of ethics and unethical?

Still trying to sell that canard that they're the same thing?

How's that working out? Anybody buying?

 

[koshergrl]

No, I was never trying to sell that they are the same thing.

You are the one who brought up the ETHICS of the protest..though you pretended you did not.

And yes, everybody bought. Except you and the other remaining loon.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Partial quote, out of context, no link. Even taken at face value, doesn't support your weak and quavering point, because it doesn't say what you think it does.

Edit is your friend. Please take the first step. Start editing your posts.

What the fuck is the point, if you're going to deny that is means is?

Might as well post "table drowns red bowling pin". You're just going to morph it into what you want to hear anyway.

Flame Zone time.

 

[thanatos144]

Liberals hate guns because they know they are not smart or mature enough to handle one

tapatalk post

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't deny what "is" is, loon.

Meanwhile, I like this thread. I'm racking up points...

Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 02:26 PM

Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 01:45 PM

Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 11:21 AM

Gun nuts intimidate... 11-21-2013 11:04 AM

Gun nuts intimidate... 11-19-2013 03:03 PM

And I flagged it from the beginning and asked the mods to put it in the flame zone. That's EXACTLY where it belongs.

 

[idb]

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.

Partial quote, out of context, no link. Even taken at face value, doesn't support your weak and quavering point, because it doesn't say what you think it does.

Edit is your friend. Please take the first step. Start editing your posts.

Aannndd...down the plughole.
I have to dash, it's been fun.

 

[koshergrl]

How sad.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Well, there ya go. The game ends in a tie.

 

[koshergrl]

No, you won. If he maintains a group of people exercising their rights necessarily can't be threatening the rights of another group, then the legal protest of the gun owners wasn't threatening, and therefore wasn't intimidating.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.

 

[Ernie S.]

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?

Don't be ASS U ming anything about me absence. There is a whole world out there when you log off USMB, possum.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That must be quite a handful. A .44 needs some steel to help with the recoil
Mine is 38 oz empty, A bit more with the custom zebra wood grips I made for it. I had problems with it coming up and to the right on recoil. It made getting back on target a problem. I made the right side grip about 3/32 thicker that the left side, and it comes straight up.
6 rounds in a 6" circle in 4 seconds when I was shooting a lot.
Since I busted my right arm, it hurts too much to play with it.

Never fired one, though I doubt it's any worse than my uncle's Super Redhawk in .454 Casull or his .500 S&W.

I've fired the casull and the S&W. .50. The Casull is definitely a more powerful cartridge, but the gun is about 4 pounds plus so the recoil is similar, maybe a bit stronger. The .50 is maybe 2/3 the recoil of the .44 with its compensating vents and gas operated action.

Err...the S&W .500 is just shy of 50% MORE powerful than the Casull.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I can hardly wait to get up to the end of this! The Possum is starting to lose it. Careful guys, He may play dead for a while, but the teeth are sharp.

 

[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?

Don't be ASS U ming anything about me absence. There is a whole world out there when you log off USMB, possum.

Very good point.

I'm just complimenting you on your... what is the word.... timing.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.

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.

Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?

WTF??? I swear! I grow weary of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Why do the patriot riders show up in black leather on motorcycles when those nuts demonstrate at a servicman's funeral? Is that a form of intimidation?
But I'd bet you aren't against that, so it all depends on who's being "intimidated", right?.
In any case, the men showed up WITH guns because they were going there in support of their GUN rights, much like baseball players show up at the park with baseball bats. That's what they do.

I never knew you could shoot people with black leather. Let alone baseball bats.

Hm - baseball just got a lot more interesting.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?

 

[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.

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.

I get it. You said the men were there for the express purpose of intimidation. Case closed. Thank you God for clearing that up for us.

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.

Then what the fuck are you doing here arguing with American citizens about our (US) Constitutional rights and our methods of protecting them? Isn't there an NZMessage board or some board where ever you are where your opinion would be fucking relevant?

WTF??? I swear! I grow weary of Libs from Australia, New Zealand and Canada injecting themselves into the Constitutional debates among US Citizens.

He wasn't.

He was arguing the topic. Which is, once again, intimidation. The verb in the title.

 

[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.

Aren't you the one who decided I abandoned this discussion? Glass houses/rocks?

Ernie, that's in no way a reference to you. Earlier I told Spoonman how this thread isn't about a question of laws but about ethics, which Koshergrrrrrr morphed into "unethical". Then even after I post the definitions for both, she continues to pretend they're the same thing. Windbag tried that too, but then that's Windbag.

That's when I needed you here, Ernie -- to tell them both they're full of shit.

Actually it's not too late...


Lemme show you what went down at the same time elsewhere...

I didn't insert any words into your mouth, moron. You keep saying stuff, then denying you said it, or claiming that I said it.

you're a nitwit.

Word fascist...HAHAHAHAH...Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often, and I'll continue to make you look like an idiot when I do.

"I didn't insert any words into your mouth" followed immediately by "Yes, I will rewrite you. I'll do it often"
:

No please, go ahead... spin that one.