Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.

So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?

I'm all ears (whoops, this is an internet forum..I'm all EYES...because if I don't fix that then you'll come back with "you're an idiot, you can't hear me!") If you can show me that you were not implicating that the gun owners were UNETHICAL in their protest when you questioned their ETHICS, I'll buy you a new car.

So tell me how you question the ethics of the protest..but that questioning the ethics of the protest you in no way meant to imply they were UNETHICAL in the way they carried out the protest.

I keep asking you to elucidate, and you keep dodging.

You can't, because that is exactly what you implied, repeatedly.

 

[koshergrl]

You're the troll.

Tell me how we are supposed to discuss the ethics of the protesters without discussing whether or not they behaved unethically? Explain to me how bringing up ethics is not to introduce the topic of what is ethical? This is your chance to make me look foolish.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

With compensation impossible in a wheel gun. My experience is Casull, .44 mag .50 Action Express in that order, as far as recoil. Then it has been a while since I fired a .50. I did play with a couple Desert Eagles in the mid to late 80's before I acquired am armload of steel and titanium.

OK, I misunderstood. You are talking .500 S&W, the revolver cartridge. I was talking .50 AE as used in the Desert Eagle. I've never fired the .500 S&W, nor will I, with this arm.

It doesn't kick any harder than a full-power load in my Model 29. The Casull kicks a lot harder, in fact. Note that my wife's best friend has no trouble handling my Model 29: Tina is 4'5" tall and about 85lbs. (She hasn't fired the .500, because the grips are much too large for her hands.)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sure the NRA is digging it all....all we can hope for is a Sandyhook at the gunshow....

You can hope all you want. there will never be a mass shooting at a gun show.

Naw, the douchebags who shoot up innocents do their research and choose un-protected, un-armed targets.

Which is why libs like to broadcast "GUN FREE ZONES" and fight so hard to make sure everybody knows our kids aren't protected at schools.

It's more fun than abortion!

anti gunners are crazy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.

So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?

I'm all ears (whoops, this is an internet forum..I'm all EYES...because if I don't fix that then you'll come back with "you're an idiot, you can't hear me!") If you can show me that you were not implicating that the gun owners were UNETHICAL in their protest when you questioned their ETHICS, I'll buy you a new car.

So tell me how you question the ethics of the protest..but that questioning the ethics of the protest you in no way meant to imply they were UNETHICAL in the way they carried out the protest.

I keep asking you to elucidate, and you keep dodging.

You can't, because that is exactly what you implied, repeatedly.

the can't handle the truth reply

 

[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.

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.

I'm not, and never have.

 

[idb]

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?

A pro open carry group exercised their right to open carry in Texas, which applies only to long guns, not handguns. In other words, they exercised their constitutional within the parameters of state law, and you insist that means they intimidated other people, while simultaneously saying you don't understand how that can be possible.

Don't worry though, you can always fall back to saying I am stupid.

Explained already.
Intimidation is not the same as threatening constitutional rights.

Have I called you stupid?
I'm not sure that I did but thanks for offering it as a plan 'B'.

 

[idb]

Your mo is to post garbage, then to deny that you posted garbage, then to pretend someone else posted the garbage, then to fall back on refusing to acknowledge the garbage you posted.

So tell me...how do we discuss the *ethics* of protest, per idb?? What are your thoughts on the ethics of protest?

I'm all ears (whoops, this is an internet forum..I'm all EYES...because if I don't fix that then you'll come back with "you're an idiot, you can't hear me!") If you can show me that idb was not implicating that the gun owners were UNETHICAL in their protest when he questioned their ETHICS, I'll buy you a new car.

So tell me how you question the ethics of the protest..but that questioning the ethics of the protest in no way implies they were UNETHICAL in the way they carried out the protest.

I keep asking you to elucidate, and you keep dodging.

You can't, because that is exactly what was implied, repeatedly. I am not the one who, out of the blue, introduced ethics into the convo, as you stated.

You're welcome to post my quote where I use the word 'ethics'.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't think anybody suggested anything illegal.

There's more to rhetoric than the law yanno...

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.

It was Pogo. Sorry, I was initially addressing the ethics discussion towards him, but I got switched around.

Anyway, Pogo brought up ethics...then both popo and, I believe, idb, said I had brought up the discussion of ethics, and maintained that to discuss what is "unethical" has nothing to do with a discussion of "ethics"...which is what, according to Poopoo, the discussion is all about.

So. To recap..

Tell me how we are supposed to discuss the ethics of the protesters without discussing whether or not they behaved unethically? Explain to me how bringing up ethics is not to introduce the topic of what is ethical?

I shall standby and wait for directions. How do we discuss ethics without discussion of the unethical.

And no more pretending I brought it into the conversation, please. We have it all straightened out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

A pro open carry group exercised their right to open carry in Texas, which applies only to long guns, not handguns. In other words, they exercised their constitutional within the parameters of state law, and you insist that means they intimidated other people, while simultaneously saying you don't understand how that can be possible.

Don't worry though, you can always fall back to saying I am stupid.

Explained already.
Intimidation is not the same as threatening constitutional rights.

Have I called you stupid?
I'm not sure that I did but thanks for offering it as a plan 'B'.

Quite true, threatening constitutional rights is much worse than simple intimidation. One affects everyone, the other affects almost no one.

Just curious, do you think not calling other people out on their lack of understanding makes you smart? It doesn't even make you polite, it makes you part of the problem. Letting people hold on to erroneous ideas simply because you don't want to insult them is no better than feeding them stupidity directly. If you don't want people to tell you you are stupid, stop being stupid.

 

[idb]

A pro open carry group exercised their right to open carry in Texas, which applies only to long guns, not handguns. In other words, they exercised their constitutional within the parameters of state law, and you insist that means they intimidated other people, while simultaneously saying you don't understand how that can be possible.

Don't worry though, you can always fall back to saying I am stupid.

Explained already.
Intimidation is not the same as threatening constitutional rights.

Have I called you stupid?
I'm not sure that I did but thanks for offering it as a plan 'B'.

Quite true, threatening constitutional rights is much worse than simple intimidation. One affects everyone, the other affects almost no one.

Just curious, do you think not calling other people out on their lack of understanding makes you smart? It doesn't even make you polite, it makes you part of the problem. Letting people hold on to erroneous ideas simply because you don't want to insult them is no better than feeding them stupidity directly. If you don't want people to tell you you are stupid, stop being stupid.

My last dozen or so posts (I'm not going back and counting them) have been explanations of my position, I'm not sure how much more I can explain.

 

[idb]

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.

It was Pogo. Sorry, I was initially addressing the ethics discussion towards him, but I got switched around.

Anyway, Pogo brought up ethics...then both popo and, I believe, idb, said I had brought up the discussion of ethics, and maintained that to discuss what is "unethical" has nothing to do with a discussion of "ethics"...which is what, according to Poopoo, the discussion is all about.

So. To recap..

Tell me how we are supposed to discuss the ethics of the protesters without discussing whether or not they behaved unethically? Explain to me how bringing up ethics is not to introduce the topic of what is ethical?

I shall standby and wait for directions. How do we discuss ethics without discussion of the unethical.

And no more pretending I brought it into the conversation, please. We have it all straightened out.

Nope, I haven't been involved in your discussion with Pogo at all.
I just felt the need to clarify...

 

[Ernie S.]

Thank you for that! You have answered a question posed to someone else by explaining your desire to clarify. Clarify what? Why did you post? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explained already.
Intimidation is not the same as threatening constitutional rights.

Have I called you stupid?
I'm not sure that I did but thanks for offering it as a plan 'B'.

Quite true, threatening constitutional rights is much worse than simple intimidation. One affects everyone, the other affects almost no one.

Just curious, do you think not calling other people out on their lack of understanding makes you smart? It doesn't even make you polite, it makes you part of the problem. Letting people hold on to erroneous ideas simply because you don't want to insult them is no better than feeding them stupidity directly. If you don't want people to tell you you are stupid, stop being stupid.

My last dozen or so posts (I'm not going back and counting them) have been explanations of my position, I'm not sure how much more I can explain.

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

I'm not, and never have.

Then what the fuck ARE you trying to accomplish by putting your ass in a thread you have no business being in?

 

[Pogo]

Ironic how the same crowd that insists OCT wasn't "intimidating" --- spends all its energy trying to intimidate and browbeat everyone else out of the thread.

-- Even after they're already gone.

Courageous. And revealing.

"a thread you have no business being in" .... S M H ...

 

[Sunshine]

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.

[MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]

That's it. That's the extent of their abilities: "You're a racist," "America sucks," "You're mean." "Americans don't need guns." They perceive those statements from them to be the final authority and worthy of being accepted hands down. Once I spot them, I generally don't even read any more of their asinine posts.

What I notice about every last one of them is that they are so simple minded they can't carry on a discussion, let alone carry the argument. On anything. I have decided that having daddy socialism in your country makes you daft. It certainly robs you of any need or desire to think or act to preserve your own life, and therefore you lose the ability to think or act in a way to preserve your own life. I am also convinced that in those places there are people who are waiting for the tides of history to turn so they can take over and 'rule' once again. When that happens, those people you see posting here won't last as long as a June frost. They will be too simple minded to conceptualize a plan of any kind for their own survival, and they will be easy pickens for those who want to take over. WE see this. THEY do not see this. The person who is in survival mode, e.g. working, paying bills, managing his money, protecting and caring for self and family, etc., is the one who will ultimately survive. Not the lap dog who sits patiently waiting for his food bowl to be filled.

 

[idb]

Thank you for that! You have answered a question posed to someone else by explaining your desire to clarify. Clarify what? Why did you post? WTF are you talking about?

FFS, I was mentioned...but you just go ahead and read into it what you want to.
Just like the rest of your posts.

 

[idb]

Quite true, threatening constitutional rights is much worse than simple intimidation. One affects everyone, the other affects almost no one.

Just curious, do you think not calling other people out on their lack of understanding makes you smart? It doesn't even make you polite, it makes you part of the problem. Letting people hold on to erroneous ideas simply because you don't want to insult them is no better than feeding them stupidity directly. If you don't want people to tell you you are stupid, stop being stupid.

My last dozen or so posts (I'm not going back and counting them) have been explanations of my position, I'm not sure how much more I can explain.

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My last dozen or so posts (I'm not going back and counting them) have been explanations of my position, I'm not sure how much more I can explain.

I didn't say you didn't explain your position, I said your position is stupid. The fact that you cling to it despite the fact that refute everything you have said in defense of your position makes you stupid.

Don't like being called stupid, stop being stupid.

I might be offended by being called names by certain people...you ain't one of them.

The fact that you willfully continue to read into my posts whatever fits with your carved out position complies with the general strategy of the extremist.
Good boy.

Here is what happened.

• You questioned how anyone who simply exercises their constitutional rights can be intimidating to anyone else.
• You claimed that the men, who were simple exercising their constitutional rights to open carry, were intimidating.
• I pointed out that these statements contradict each other.
• You insisted that they make perfect sense because the men were scary, or something.

Please show the part where I willfully read something else into your statements.


Another option, admit you were wrong.


Failing at either of those will keep you in the acting stupid category even after challenged to define your position non stupidly.


That will make you stupid.