Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Quantum Windbag]

I've just shown that the whole basis of your insults to me has been wrong and now you're just thrashing about trying to salvage something.

I don't see how simply bringing guns to an anti-gun meeting threatens the rights of the anti-gun people.
If that's your contention you might have to explain it to me since I'm irredeemably stupid.

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

It made you look dumber than you did before they did it. That might not have been their goal, but it is still a change.

 

[idb]

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

I might agree that it was a stupid position if it was my position...but it isn't and never has been.
You do know that you're arguing with yourself at this point don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

I might agree that it was a stupid position if it was my position...but it isn't and never has been.
You do know that you're arguing with yourself at this point don't you?

Are you trying to be as stupid as Pogo?

 

[Pogo]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

I might agree that it was a stupid position if it was my position...but it isn't and never has been.
You do know that you're arguing with yourself at this point don't you?

That's all he's ever done. 47,000 posts consisting of "you're stupid". He believes in "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit". Over, and over, and over...

 

[idb]

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

I might agree that it was a stupid position if it was my position...but it isn't and never has been.
You do know that you're arguing with yourself at this point don't you?

That's all he's ever done. 47,000 posts consisting of "you're stupid". He believes in "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit". Over, and over, and over...

I hope for his sake that he's just being a troll.
It doesn't say good things about him if he really can't understand.

 

[Pogo]

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

The simple fact still stands, you question the idea that exercising ones constitutional rights can, in any way, threaten the rights of others, yet insist that the fact that these men exercised their constitutional rights somehow intimidated the women who were exercising theirs.

I, on the other hand, insist that it is entirely possible to threaten another persons rights within the confines of exercising your constituional rights, and insist that gives me the right to fight back, even if it scares the other guy.

Honestly, which position makes more sense?

Funny, I wasn't aware that insults need a basis.

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

So he's saying, they weren't being intimidated, but they deserve to beintimidated.

In this country we call that "pussyfooting".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sure, then why does the OP claim that these guys were threatening these mothers while exercising their rights? Apparently the author made the link to gun rights and intimidation, not Quantum here.

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it.

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."

References to gun rights in the thread address the fact that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue, as no government entity is seeking to restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. That Texas residents are allowed to openly carry long guns pursuant to State law and the Constitution does not give gun owners license to brandish firearms in a threatening manner.

The point of the thread, therefore, was to bring attention to individuals likely using firearms to intimidate those they incorrectly perceived to be ‘hostile’ to gun rights.

And it’s idiocy to maintain that MDA members should have ‘been prepared for such an occurrence,’ as they were not ‘protesting against gun rights,’ where the response by OCT members was unwarranted, irresponsible, and served only to cast gun owners in a negative light – once again.

 

[Ernie S.]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it.

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."

References to gun rights in the thread address the fact that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue, as no government entity is seeking to restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. That Texas residents are allowed to openly carry long guns pursuant to State law and the Constitution does not give gun owners license to brandish firearms in a threatening manner.

The point of the thread, therefore, was to bring attention to individuals likely using firearms to intimidate those they incorrectly perceived to be ‘hostile’ to gun rights.

And it’s idiocy to maintain that MDA members should have ‘been prepared for such an occurrence,’ as they were not ‘protesting against gun rights,’ where the response by OCT members was unwarranted, irresponsible, and served only to cast gun owners in a negative light – once again.

Shut up, Clayton.

You haven't the slightest inkling as to what you are talking about. You're mangling the issue, spinning it to vilify gun owners, picking sides and saying "Oh those poor women! Those gun wielding men should be arrested for intimidating them!" Was there a shot fired? If there was I could understand, but there wasn't. These people ironically were exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights in the parking lot, not standing over them in the building like some group of bandits. As for these men "incorrectly perceiving hostility to gun rights": If you do a little investigating, say reading the OP, you'll find out that their goal was "changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny, I wasn't aware that I'd claimed that they do.

Do you honestly not see the difference between your statements in the next two paragraphs?
In the first you are talking about the women being intimidated while exercising their rights.

In the second you refer to actually threatening a persons rights.

They are not the same thing at all.

I was never talking about the women being intimidated because I never claimed that the intent of the men was to intimidate anyone. That was Pogo and the others, like you, who claimed the men were wrong. What I said is that the women deserve to be intimidated because they wanted to take away people's rights, and I still say that. That has always been, and always will be, my position.

Want to try again, and stop confusing my position with your attempt to defend your stupid position that it is impossible to be intimidating while exercising your rights?

So he's saying, they weren't being intimidated, but they deserve to beintimidated.

In this country we call that "pussyfooting".

Where I am from we call that honesty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it.

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."

References to gun rights in the thread address the fact that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue, as no government entity is seeking to restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. That Texas residents are allowed to openly carry long guns pursuant to State law and the Constitution does not give gun owners license to brandish firearms in a threatening manner.

The point of the thread, therefore, was to bring attention to individuals likely using firearms to intimidate those they incorrectly perceived to be ‘hostile’ to gun rights.

And it’s idiocy to maintain that MDA members should have ‘been prepared for such an occurrence,’ as they were not ‘protesting against gun rights,’ where the response by OCT members was unwarranted, irresponsible, and served only to cast gun owners in a negative light – once again.

No one brandished a weapon in a threatening manner, if they had, that would have violated state law, and they would have been arrested.

The rest of your post exhibits your normal understanding of legal issues, and shows why you barely qualify to be a janitor in a law firm. Frankly, if they knew you posted drivel like this, they would probably have you committed.

 

[idb]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

 

[Spoonman]

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

when rights are challenged they have to be stood up for. otherwise things will change.

nothing change by the group protesting gun rights either. to your argument, perhaps they should just stfu and stay home too.

There is no "rights challenge" in four women talking in a restaurant. That's not going to change.

Both are true: the women have a right to meet and talk, the OCT has a right to demonstrate. Neither of those rights is in question. Or threatened.

But feel free to explain why "perhaps they should just stfu and stay home" isn't intimidation mirroring what OCT did.

Shhheeeeeeeeeeesh.

so now a moms demand action meeting, a group that activly protests gun rights is just four women talking in a restaurant?

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no "link to gun rights". It's not part of this story.

OCT came (they say) to exercise those gun rights as defined in Texas. That doesn't make them exist; they already did exist. Nothing changed by them showing up.

Pogo, there have been numerous references to gun rights in this thread. Unless my reading comprehension is suddenly gone, that's what I got from it.

So now suddenly we are the arbiters of a person's rights? So, what's the point of this thread then? If nothing changed, why would the author insinuate that they were somehow "intimidating" these women by exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

MDA later released a statement calling OCT “gun bullies” who “disagree[d] with our goal of changing America’s gun laws and policies to protect our children and families.” The statement added that the members and restaurant customers were “terrified by what appeared to be an armed ambush.” A member of OCT responded by tweeting, “I guess I’m a #gunbullies #Comeandtakeit.”

Naturally there will be a counter protest. These women should have been prepared for such an occurrence. Common sense tells you that if you're going to protest against gun rights/violence, that there will be a protest against it. This is Newton's law of action and reaction at work. "For every action there will be an equal and/or opposite reaction."

References to gun rights in the thread address the fact that this isn’t a Second Amendment issue, as no government entity is seeking to restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. That Texas residents are allowed to openly carry long guns pursuant to State law and the Constitution does not give gun owners license to brandish firearms in a threatening manner.

The point of the thread, therefore, was to bring attention to individuals likely using firearms to intimidate those they incorrectly perceived to be ‘hostile’ to gun rights.

And it’s idiocy to maintain that MDA members should have ‘been prepared for such an occurrence,’ as they were not ‘protesting against gun rights,’ where the response by OCT members was unwarranted, irresponsible, and served only to cast gun owners in a negative light – once again.

The mothers were advocating against gun rights, idiot. Your post contradicts itself.

 

[Ernie S.]

gun ownership is a constitutional right in this country. if you are intimidated by that there are always other options. like the uk, or austraiia, or any other country you claim doesn't allow guns.

The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What IS your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?

 

[Sunshine]

The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What IS your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?

It is comparable to penis envy. He wants to be an American but can't be.

 

[idb]

The doofus lives in New Zealand. He has no standing to even join a discussion of US Constitutional rights. He's another fucking busy body foreigner who considers himself better qualified to argue US policy, custom and law than actual citizens. I understand how Sunshine got EU. This behavior is typical European elitist socialists.

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What IS your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?

No it isn't.
You might be trying to change it into that.

That makes you either an ignorant ass or..................nope, that's it.

 

[idb]

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What IS your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?

It is comparable to penis envy. He wants to be an American but can't be.

Haha!
Hell no.
Look how dysfunctional you lot are!

 

[Ernie S.]

Please feel free to quote me commenting on US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns.

Then WTF are you doing in the discussion about "US domestic policy, Constitutional rights, the right to own or carry guns, the right to protest or the right to protest while carrying guns."?

What IS your point?

You are either a troll or an irrelevant ass. Which is it?

No it isn't.
You might be trying to change it into that.

That makes you either an ignorant ass or..................nope, that's it.

Go away, asshole. Isn't there anyone in who's affairs you can meddle in in New Zealand, or have they told you to shut the fuck up there, too?