You posted the picture so we must assume you thought it was relevant.
Intimidation? Why was it intimidation. The intimidation was a group of women meeting to attempt to limit the rights of responsible gun owners. If anything, these men were responding to intimidation.
Logical argument? Well, as logical as yours, OK?
Yeah I'll accept that. Well, except for the degree, which is in no way comparable. But I'll accept that the argument itself is equally logical.
Ya see, you are arguing based on your perspective, as am I. I see any group that meets in order to limit my Constitutional rights as a threat. If I am threatened, I respond.
Your perspective is, of course, "These men came with guns."
Mine is "These women came to infringe my 2nd Amendment right."
So it boils down to intent. The women's intent was to cause real damage. The men's intent was to protest that. You would have an argument if their intent was to harm the women. It wasn't, so you HAVE no argument.
Sure I do. Here it is: I'm not looking from my perspective but from theirs (the mothers). They sit down in a restaurant and start talking, then suddenly up pull twenty people with guns. They don't know who the fuck they are. That's the folly of all these posts saying "well they're not thugs, they're law abiding citizens" -- you only know that in retrospect, so seeing a couple of carloads of gun-toting strangers is cause for alarm. Which was, let's be honest here, the intention. Otherwise what would be the point?
And this is what I mean by degree: on one hand a local group of women sitting in a restaurant discussing whatever they're discussing; on the other hand twenty people with loaded guns. The former might put a press release together or write a letter to the editor; the latter has the ability to blow one's head off immediately. That's a slight difference in intimidation potential.
Not to mention, the group's mission statement specifically states that they respect the Second Amendment, and further not to mention changing the Constitution would require ratification by at least two thirds of the fifty states, which is just a tad beyond the scope of a meeting in a restaurant. Unless the broiled scallops are really really good.
I'll tell ya what's "no argument" though-- telling someone they have no argument. I wouldn't presume to tell you "you have no argument" just because I might disagree with it.