Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

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.

Within the present state of social conditioning, which includes an increasing fear of guns, the group of women seated in a restaurant would have cause to be alarmed at the arrival in their presence of twenty armed individuals. But if nothing at all unusual transpired, that is the twenty armed individuals calmly sat down, placed their orders, carried on as per usual, then left just as quietly, the next time the same thing happened the same twenty women would not have cause to be apprehensive.

Agreed. And that's ultimately what happened --- this time. But with the James Holmses and Adam Lanzas and Jared Loughners and their ilk ad infinitum walking around, that alarm is always justified. To not be alarmed at that would be insane.

So we aren't talking about armed citizens, per se, but rather ignorance of, and inculcated fear of, guns. And we can attribute this fear to a persistent progression of opportunistic political demagogues passing law upon law and attempting to the best of their ability to restrict firearms and undermine the intent of the Second Amendment. Thus the women in your hypothesis are reacting to an indoctrinated state of mind.

We are talking about a contemporary state of mind, yes. But to suggest this state of mind comes from political rhetoric is absurd. It comes from twenty schoolchildren and teachers lying dead in Connecticut, from a theater full of moviegoers being strafed in Colorado, from high school after high school terrorized by an endless stream of Harrises and Klebolds. Laws, whether proposed or actual, don't mow people down.

Addressing the situation through law is doomed to failure, but that's not at all what scares people. It's a wrongheaded knee-jerk approach to a problem that is much bigger than law can handle. Because what we have is not a law problem; it's a culture problem.

Please consider the possibility of a group of women seated in a restaurant when a group of twenty apparently ordinary individuals enters, is calmly seated, then rise, draw concealed automatic pistols from under their clothing, and begin shooting.

That's exactly what we just described and was obviously the source of their trepidation. It's all very easy to say after the fact that "well, nothing happened, nobody got shot". That doesn't address what's sitting in front of one's eyes at the moment. It's Monday morning quarterbacking.

The frightened women in your hypothesis have no established cause to be afraid. Their fear is the consequence of indoctrination.

As indoctrinated by
Tucson...
Aurora...
Sandy Hook...
DC...
Powell...
Oak Creek...
Webster...
Lancaster...
Kileen...
Binghamton...
San Diego...
Jacksonville...
Pittsburgh...
San Ysidro...
Edmond...
Stockton...
Virginia Tech...
Iowa City...
Olivehurst...
San Francisco...
Garden City...
Jonesboro...
Atlanta...
Fort Worth...
Honolulu...
Wakefield...
Santee...
Meridian...
Red Lake...
Salt Lake...
Omaha...
DeKalb...
Fort Hood...
Manchester...
Austin...
Seal Beach...
Oakland...
Minneapolis...
Brookfield...
Santa Monica...
DC (again)...
Columbine...

-- still want to pretend it's law that does the indoctrination then?

-- still want to pretend we don't have a culture problem?

 

[Pogo]

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Bull. Shit. Of course it is. That was the whole point. Without that there's no reason to show up.

 

[Ernie S.]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

I bring a gun lots of places. Rarely is anyone intimidated by it. From time to time, someone is protected by it.

Really! A dozen men with guns in a parking lot.... thousands of people camping in a park near NYC City Hall, doing drugs, raping, pissing on police cars? Which intimidates you more?

 

[rightwinger]

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?

 

[peach174]

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Bull. Shit. Of course it is. That was the whole point. Without that there's no reason to show up.

The point was to protest the Women's stand on banning the sale of guns an ammunition and open carry laws.

How can it be intimidation, when you are holding up USA Flags and you have your wives and children with you and the law of open carry says you can do that with your guns?
There was no intimidation.

 

[peach174]

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?

They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

 

[rightwinger]

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?

They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

Why carry a weapon?

We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?

 

[peach174]

Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?

They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

Why carry a weapon?

We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?

NO ON WAS AFRAID but the Women, who are afraid of all guns.
It's about Americans 2nd Amendment rights. That means guns.
It would be senseless to not bring guns, when the whole protest is about guns.
They were showing the Women, that not everyone who Carry's guns are bad people.
They are sick and tired of people who think that it is right to ban the sales of guns and ammo to law abiding Citizens.

 

[MikeK]

Bull. Shit. Of course it is. That was the whole point. Without that there's no reason to show up.

That is your perception. The reason for that demonstration of publicly armed citizens was to show that the mere sight of a gun, or guns, need not be menacing.

I can recall a time in America when guns were commonly seen in public (1950s). Back then more people owned guns, more people were armed in public, and the public was not afraid of that.

Today the sight of a gun has become an obscenity in the indoctrinated public mind. The number of citizens armed in public has vastly diminished -- which is why these screwball shooters can confidently go about their deadly business without interruption by other armed citizens.

The simple fact is the Second Amendment is alive and well. There are between 200 million and 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens. No one know for sure how many. So it's absurd to think it's possible to reduce the number of crazy shootings by passing restrictive gun laws, which are about as effective as drug laws. These laws do nothing but disarm the law-abiding citizen -- who happens to be the best possible defense against the occasional screwball shooter.

Guns are an imbedded component of the American culture. Where guns, and the occasional screwball shooting, along with the occasional accidental shooting, are concerned, the toothpaste is out of the tube -- as it is with the occasional massive highway pile-up and the average automobile accident. Americans have big, powerful cars, and they have guns. And the idea that anything can be done to eliminate the occasional problems which arise from those two realities without imposing Orwellian constraints is absurd.

 

[Pogo]

They did not intimidate anyone.
The Women themselves are being overly afraid of law abiding gun owners, they should be afraid of non law abiding people who use guns illegally. These Women are lumping the two together. The two groups are very different types of people. This is why the Women are wanting to ban guns from everyone and not the law breakers.
Just standing in a parking lot holding your gun in a non threating way, which is legal to do in that State, is not intimidation.

Most Americans are capable of making a point without brandishing a weapon. What are those gun nuts afraid of?

They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

Interesting that you cut off definition #2:
2. To display ostentatiously.

Deny what's in front of us all you like but the fact remains, bringing guns and making them visible was the whole point. Otherwise they're just twenty more people at the restaurant. Again they could have made their point in non-threatening ways, e.g. carrying signs. And that would have made the point far more clearly, because you can read a sign and know excactly what the point is.

But that's not what they were after, now was it?

 

[rightwinger]

They were not brandishing their weapons.
If they actually were brandishing them, then I also would be against that.
You go overboard with your words.
They had them on their shoulders with straps or was holding the guns in a downward position.
bran·dish (brandish)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.

Why carry a weapon?

We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?

NO ON WAS AFRAID but the Women, who are afraid of all guns.
It's about Americans 2nd Amendment rights. That means guns.
It would be senseless to not bring guns, when the whole protest is about guns.
They were showing the Women, that not everyone who Carry's guns are bad people.
They are sick and tired of people who think that it is right to ban the sales of guns and ammo to law abiding Citizens.

Afraid of guns?

Who would be afraid of guns? especially when they fill a parking lot to intimidate you

 

[Pogo]

Bull. Shit. Of course it is. That was the whole point. Without that there's no reason to show up.

That is your perception. The reason for that demonstration of publicly armed citizens was to show that the mere sight of a gun, or guns, need not be menacing.

Uh--- that's everybody's perception. Without that perception, neither this thread nor the story in the OP even exists, because it means no more than another leaf falling off the oak tree.

Regardless of our foggy memories of the '50s, we don't live in them; we're in 2013. Therefore we all behave in ways that address the sensibilities of 2013. If the purpose had been so innocuous, then the women, the restaurant manager, the passersby, all would have shrugged it off and ordered their dessert. And that would have made the venture of these twenty people pointless and therefore they wouldn't have bothered.

Sorry but the fact that they showed up brandishing weapons doesn't allow this kind of wiggle room. They had an emotional purpose, and they achieved it. And they achieved the backlash that came with it. Which, again, they knew would be coming. IOW they got exactly what they came for. To suggest "there was no intimidation" is not just blatant denialism, it suggests that the group failed at their objective. I don't think they failed at all. If they did nobody would be talking about it.

 

[MikeK]

[
Why carry a weapon?

We're they afraid of what those women may do to them?

No. They were simple demonstrating the fact that publicly armed citizens are not necessarily a threat. They came quietly and they left quietly.

 

[PredFan]

This thread is a total fail, why is it still going?

 

[Kondor3]

The Mothers Demanding Action group 'crashed' a gun-owner rally at the Alamo...

So the gun-owners club decided to return the favor and 'crashed' the Mom's meeting...

Goose... meet gander...

No big deal...

The police were not concerned, either...

A hollow inflatable dog, suffering from over-inflation by Liberal -leaning and Gun-Grabber elements in the Lamestream Media...

 

[Pogo]

(part 2)

The simple fact is the Second Amendment is alive and well. There are between 200 million and 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens. No one know for sure how many. So it's absurd to think it's possible to reduce the number of crazy shootings by passing restrictive gun laws, which are about as effective as drug laws.

Absolutely, agreed. If God Herself came down and said, "that's it, no more guns will be made, ever", we'd have more than enough to stock up everybody who wanted one. Or several.

These laws do nothing but disarm the law-abiding citizen -- who happens to be the best possible defense against the occasional screwball shooter.

That conclusion is highly specious. It depends on the maxim that the answer to guns is... more guns. Which is absurd; it's like trying to douse a fire with gasoline.

Guns are an imbedded component of the American culture. Where guns, and the occasional screwball shooting, along with the occasional accidental shooting, are concerned, the toothpaste is out of the tube -- as it is with the occasional massive highway pile-up and the average automobile accident. Americans have big, powerful cars, and they have guns. And the idea that anything can be done to eliminate the occasional problems which arise from those two realities without imposing Orwellian constraints is absurd.

Fatalistic. You're saying, "oh well, what can we do, let's just throw up our hands and give up".

 

[Pogo]

The Mothers Demanding Action group 'crashed' a gun-owner rally at the Alamo..

So the gun-owners club decided to return the favor and 'crashed' the Mom's meeting...

Goose... meet gander...

No big deal...

Were the moms packin'?

The police were not concerned, either...

Oh yes they were Big Bird. From the beginning of the thread, USA Today link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9biLK5Evg]Run in with Kennedale police. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MikeK]

Bull. Shit. Of course it is. That was the whole point. Without that there's no reason to show up.

That is your perception. The reason for that demonstration of publicly armed citizens was to show that the mere sight of a gun, or guns, need not be menacing.

Uh--- that's everybody's perception. Without that perception, neither this thread nor the story in the OP even exists, because it means no more than another leaf falling off the oak tree.

Regardless of our foggy memories of the '50s, we don't live in them; we're in 2013. Therefore we all behave in ways that address the sensibilities of 2013. If the purpose had been so innocuous, then the women, the restaurant manager, the passersby, all would have shrugged it off and ordered their dessert. And that would have made the venture of these twenty people pointless and therefore they wouldn't have bothered.

Sorry but the fact that they showed up brandishing weapons doesn't allow this kind of wiggle room. They had an emotional purpose, and they achieved it. And they achieved the backlash that came with it. Which, again, they knew would be coming. IOW they got exactly what they came for.

"Brandishing?"

bran·dish
transitive verb \ˈbran-dish\

: to wave or swing (something, such as a weapon) in a threatening or excited manner


Again, there is a problem with your perception. None of those armed demonstrators brandished their weapons.

And my recollection of the fifties is not at all "foggy." It's quite clear. What has happened since then has been an endless and aggressive progression of ignorantly conceived, consistently ineffective attempts to disarm the American public.

What have all these many hundreds of dumb gun laws achieved? The answer lies in your long list of screwball shootings -- which we didn't have before the laws started coming. So unless you are willing to accept a situation in which the police are able to stop your car and to knock on your door and demand entry to search for guns, please give some thought to the idea that maybe the armed citizen is the solution to a problem which the existing level of law-enforcement cannot solve.

 

[Pogo]

This thread is a total fail, why is it still going?

Does it not occur to you that if the first half of your post were true, the second half wouldn't be?

Guess not.

 

[KGB]

What were the gun nuts afraid of!

First off - they are not gun nuts.
They are law abiding citizen voters.
Second off - they are not afraid of anything.
Since when is protesting, whether it's left or right of opposing views, being afraid ?

If you feel it necessary to bring your gun to intimidate a bunch of women......you are a gun nut

if you act within the confines of the law & properly brandish your weapon, you are a citizen exercising your 2nd Amendment rights....