Why did so many #GunBullies need assault weapons to protest a lunch mtg of 4 @MomsDemand members in

[Playinghardball]

Dallas today?

Moms Demand Action @MomsDemand
Follow
Why did so many #GunBullies need assault weapons to protest a lunch mtg of 4 @MomsDemand members in Dallas today?

6:48 PM - 9 Nov 2013

http://theobamadiary.com/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Because they're assholes? Hell, they ended up at a Hooters two hours later.

What does that tell you?

Idjits!

[hobbit709]

2. It's called Teeny Weeny Syndrome.

[Dawson Leery]

3. Jim Carrey got it right.

[backscatter712]

27. Helps to post the video...

[gopiscrap]

4. cause most gun owners are assholes

[ileus]

5. I don't think they can OC sidearms in Texas.

That only leaves long guns...

[Joker22Sierra]

6. Perspective

Opposing rallies are a commonplace among differing groups. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to protest at Military funerals, and so are the Patriot Guard which serves to barricade the family from having to see the degrading and hateful signs. What should not be forgotten is that those people all had the right to be there, as much as MDA had the right to be there.

MDA and other anti-gun groups like to throw around numbers that are not only incorrect, but misrepresented in order to lobby their point. However, most of the pro-gun groups are using the real numbers, and the main reason there is so much feuding is that the numbers confirm their standpoint. Another main difference is that many people who want to actually sit down and talk about sensible solutions are overshadowed by the extremists of each group, compromising hope for accomplishing any objective. Similarly, when arguments are based in emotion rather than logic and factual analysis, people become disheartened when trying to debate an issue.

Frankly, if MDA or any other coalition wishes to talk seriously about the issues, they need to stop using their current tactics. On their Facebook pages, people who are pro-gun try to debate using logical arguments and get banned from posting. That isn't helping the public image at all. Also, using one perspective of a group shot that is contrary to the actual perspective that it was intended for is classic misdirection and makes the group here look like they are "waiting in ambush" as some people have called it. However, the real picture is a group photo, with a first row that is kneeling while the back row stands. Nothing threatening or bully-ish about it. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, they should stop posting using emotional verbiage, and start using rational arguments with factual information. Because lets face it, there are bullies on every side.

[uponit7771]

8. 2nd amendment is a whites only law and being a bully with a gun is 100% different from being a

... bully with words or fist.

The fact that 2A is a whites only law allows the for others to be bullied by a narrow band of assholes...

[hack89]

10. So non-whites can't legally own guns?

Learn something every day.

[uponit7771]

18. Yes, that's about it... brandish them in public?!!?!!?!? hell naw.

[Lasher]

31. You mean like these guys?

[derby378]

35. I think someone just got pwn3d

With a "p."

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Which is why it clearly states it applies only to Caucasians.

Oh, wait...

[uponit7771]

19. Yeap, and slavery ended on day 1 of end of civil war... oh wait... :rolleyes: I like the abtuse...

... like behavior of 2a's

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. Nice non-sequitur.

Glad you like the "abtuse behavior." For my part, I like completely historically-indefensible claims about the Bill of Rights. So we're even...

[uponit7771]

28. very relevant, unenforced or unequally applied laws among racial lines applies here. You know dog on

...well if that was a group of Hispanics or blacks in "urban" attire we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

2as can deflect all they want... the 2nd A is a whites only law...

regadrs

[clffrdjk]

36. So wait

Your trying to use the fact that anti-gun groups have traditionally targeted minorities, as an argument against pro gun groups yea that's not racist at all.

[uponit7771]

48. no

[clffrdjk]

51. No what?

No, you didn't say what you did?
No, removing gun rights from minorities only is not racist?
No, blaming gun supporters for the removal of minority gun rights makes perfect sense?

What exactly are you trying to say?

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. No deflection necessary: your assertion is absurd on its face.

If you want to refine it so that it's made about the specific sort of scenario you cite (armed "urban" looking minorities gathering), then you'd have a valid point. The sweeping generalization you instead elected to make is obvious nonsense, given the millions of gun-owning minorities. Know any? I do...

[uponit7771]

49. that if black or Hispanics dressed in "urban" wear were to do the same they'd be left to do such in

... the open?

Black Panthers?!

Ronald RayGun!?!?!

Seriously, we're having this discussion?!

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. RIF

You're still not getting the point (that your sweeping generalization is clearly false). You might want to try re-reading my previous reply...but no more enabling on my part. You're just flailing now. Have fun...but you'll be doing it solo from this point onward.

[Eleanors38]

82. Google Robert Sherrill Gun Control. Gun control IS about disarming blacks.

The race card is extremely popular in DU. But you're playing it backwards, and no re-creation of history by controller/banners can change that.

[uponit7771]

89. cause the 2a is about arming blacks?! History doesn't support that, regards

[Eleanors38]

103. You are wrong. 2A was & is like all the BO Rights:

Blacks shared in few of its protections until the latter half of the 20th Century when the Civil Rights Era strengthened those rights for all minorities. The lone counter trend has been the persistent (and unsuccessful) attempts to restrict African-Americans from the RKBA, as per Sherrill's contention (you read it, I hope). The Jim Crow legacy has neen beaten back. For ALL rights.

[uponit7771]

104. What the!?!? Blacks shared in the protections of the BOR!?!?!?! WHERE? Blacks don't have full

...protection of Bill of rights NOW!!!

are you claiming 2 generations ago those protections were better!?!?

Bottom line, have a bunch of blacks or Hispanics open ... I know damn well most likely the outcome will be negative

[tblue37]

105. She said blacks shared in FEW of the BoR protections--she agrees with you. nt

[Eleanors38]

106. You're fantasizing. In case you need reminding, the

Civil Rights Era -- brought to you by minority leaders and Liberal Democrats - - passed the open acommodations and voting rights acts, passed many social programs, and brought cases before the fed courts ending de jure segregation. Things improved a lot, including the end of Jim Crow laws. No one claims perfection, but to deny these positive changes is to slap down what the Democratic Party fought for.

In earlier OC demonstrations, minorities have participated. You are hung up in your own fears, and must speculate in the worst "outcomes." Sheesh.

[uponit7771]

107. lol "speculate" as if there isn't plenty of historical evidence?! I live in the US

[Eleanors38]

108. You should visit Georgiacarry.org, and read their

brief submitted to the SCOTUS in Heller, which sums up the racist roots of gun control.

Imagine. A group of (largely) Crackers having to own up to its own history so that 2A could experience the same expansion as the other rights during the Civil Rights Era. Ironic, isn't it? More ironic is the imposition of controls similar to those in the ante-bellum, Jim Crow, and 20th century South, only this time in NE cities & states, D.C., Chicago and California.

One final note: NYC's Sullivan Laws were imposed in the early (19) teens on a wave of anti-Italian sentiment. Guess the banners had to update their prejudices.

[uponit7771]

109. Ok, I'll do that sounds like an interesting perspective but in this day and time it doesn't fit...

... cause right now only whites can go out in public with crowds of people and brandish guns with relatively little negative response.

I don't doubt for a second if 200 blacks and Latinos dressed in urban wear were to stand withing 200 miles of Bush that the outcome would be negative... not a second

[riderinthestorm]

9. That large group of openly carrying gun owners was there to intimidate. Period.

4 women meeting in a restaurant is not some kind of "rally" that needed a "counter protest".

The restaurant manager felt so threatened by the group he called 911!

[uponit7771]

20. +1

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Agreed.

That was pure douchebaggery.

[B Calm]

11. 1 post to your credit and you post right wing talking points?

Looking at your profile: Hello all, I am a liberal libertarian. Generally, I tend to be fiscally conservative, save for needed social programs and the desire to see a few more instituted. Otherwise, I am a fairly strict Constitutionalist. Not a huge fan of big government, simply because of the gross misuse and misappropriation/allocation of resources. But my moral codes place me clearly within the liberal category.

[99Forever]

12. 1 post and it's pure NRA garbage?

Who precisely is it you think you are kidding?

[gopiscrap]

13. welcome to DU

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. "Nothing threatening or bully-ish about it."

Well, except, you know--walking around in a public shopping center parking lot with semi-automatic rifles, the kind seen in the hands of James Holmes and Adam Lanza.

Nope, that's not threatening at all.

I mean, what at all could be threatening walking around in public strapped with an AR-15? That' s just crazy talk.

[EOTE]

15. Really? Pro gun groups use real numbers while anti-gun groups don't?

86%, is that a real number? That's the percentage of the public who wanted stronger background checks for gun purchases and who wanted to close the internet/gun show loophole. The assholes at the NRA made sure that those 86% were ignored. I would think that whatever tactics the NRA are using are absolutely unconscionable and are in no way associated with anything resembling common decency. Perhaps those creepy, evil fucks can hold their little protest elsewhere and lament their small dicks while they're at it?

[clffrdjk]

40. Take a close look at that poll.

The size, area, and questions asked yea look into that and see how laughable your assertion is. Hell look at the last year. Do you really think 14% of the country stopped the other 86% from doing anything quit lying to yourself.

As for the quip about penises well that's typical of your side when you run out of facts.

[EOTE]

41. Are you suggesting that democracy rules in this country?

Show me ONE poll after Newtown that suggests the majority of people were not in favor of expanded background checks and closing the gunshow loophole. A vocal minority is capable of overruling the majority VERY frequently, especially when they're lead by evil fucks like the NRA. I've got LOADS more facts and none of them paint the NRA and their toadies in a very good light.

[clffrdjk]

42. No, but there is not a politician alive that wouldn't vote with 86% of the population

Here how about 2, the recall of the senators from Colorado.

Yea a vocal minority can overcome the majority but not when the majority is ahead by 72% as you claim.

Let me know when you start posting those facts.

[EOTE]

44. So, you CAN'T find a poll that backs up your assertion?

Why am I not surprised. Gun nutters always talk about the will of the people, but are entirely silent when they realize that the public passed them a LONG time ago. The public has been repeatedly asking to close the gunshow loophole, by you not even attempting to provide a poll in the contrary, you tacitly admit this. The NRA and their gun nut toadies are a bunch of evil, cowardly fucks. The next time we experience another gun tragedy, the NRA and folks like you will be screaming that we need to remain calm and not look at what is actually causing these fucked up tragedies. And they'll scream about democracy even as they continue to ignore the wants of the public like the cowardly little shits that they are.

[clffrdjk]

45. Did you not read my post at all?

Democrats have been recalled because of how wrong you are. If you don't consider a recall election a poll well then shit you have no hope.

Also still waiting on those facts of yours

[EOTE]

47. Christ, you need to make up your mind.

Yes, I read your sad drivel. What is utterly inconsistent is whether or not you believe the public is to be trusted. So, you think that Colorado is an indication of how we should trust the public, right? Then you would be an ungodly hypocrite if you didn't think that national opinion on guns should be driving gun control legislation. You can't have a piecemeal answer to the gunshow loophole, it just needs to go. Public opinion has been against the NRA and their psychopath, toady followers for a good long time, yet the idiots don't give one damn about that:

The two new polls were also in-line with past surveys by indicating no partisan divide on the question, with the vast majority of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans supporting increased background checks. The ABC/Washington Post survey also indicated that 86% of gun owning households supported the proposal.

The bill was backed by President Barack Obama, who's made gun control a signature issue since December's horrific shootings by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 young students and 6 adults dead. The president's been a vocal advocate for passing gun control legislation, and he's touted public opinion as he pushed Congress to act.

"The American people are trying to figure out: How can something have 90% support and yet not happen?" said the president in comments made at the Rose Garden in the White House, an hour after the vote in the Senate.

"All in all this was a pretty shameful day in Washington," added Obama, who was flanked by victims of gun violence.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/17/public-opinion-gets-trumped-in-gun-control-defeat/


It's unconscionable, disgusting, idiotic and just plain evil. But you know gun nutters, don't you?

[clffrdjk]

50. Try to keep up

You post numbers from a bullshit poll

I tell you to look into the actual poll because if it was anywhere near accurate policies would have been changed on a national level

You toss some insults and tell me to post a poll countering yours

I post 2 elections that prove your poll is bullshit

You claim I didn't post anything

I tell you to look again

And now your back to trying to claim that your original poll is accurate and that I am denying national opinion.

Which leads us back to the beginning. If that poll was anywhere near accurate policies would have been changed on a national level. Either the minority somehow overcame a 72% support gap or the poll was wrong now which is more likely? Oh wait now it's a 80% support gap. You might want to check your facts.

[EOTE]

54. Ahhh it's bullshit because you say it is.

The polls that say what you want them to are the REAL one, the President is just talking out of his ass. If the public wants something, congress gives it to them. That's why congress' approval is 90%. Oh wait, it's at 5% and you're full of shit. I wonder why I even respond to such stupidity.

[clffrdjk]

56. Holy hell

You really are attached to that poll so tell me just how did the 14 or is it now 10% convince the senate to vote against the 86 or 90%? That just doesn't sound like a wise decision for someone who depends on votes to be elected. Hell the voters just might be angry enough to start a recall, kind of like the 2 in Colorado. Oh wait those 2 supported a gun control bill and were recalled because of it. Well shit do you have any thoughts on how the poll coud be accurate and the gun bill failed how could such a thing happen?

[EOTE]

57. So that's your argument, it has to be inaccurate because a vocal minority never gets what it wants?

Do you see the front page of DU right now? It shows that 76% of Americans support an increase in the minimum wage. How is that possible? How is it that 24% of the population is convincing congress not to act on this? Your argument is stupid and beyond hilarious. You act as if congressional inaction is something rare and that congress is known for being proactive. Another hilarious assumption on your part considering congress' single digit approval rating. God this shit is tiring.

[clffrdjk]

59. It's the easy argument to make

I could point out that the poll asked 3000 people in one highly antigun county of one antigun state if they supported background checks or not (not universal background checks, not a specific bill, not ending private sales) but then I would have to waste my time digging up a link that you wouldn't bother to follow, and then you would just call me an evil lier anyways. I tried my best to get you to do the footwork but you obviously have zero interest in checking your facts. So yes I will take the easy road and point out the obvious flaws in your logic. So still no answer on how or why the senate would go against your claimed 86% or how those recalls could possibly have happened if 86% of everybody agreed with their support of a gun bill. But hey in your reality it all makes perfect sense.

[EOTE]

60. Ah, so you WOULD provide me evidence, but you're too lazy.

Where as I've already provided a good deal of evidence that you haven't even attempted to refute. To answer your question (which I've already answered more than once) the senate is KNOWN for its inaction. For them to not do something that the public wants is par for the course. Again, the idiocy of your arguments cannot be overstated. They would be hilarious but for the thought that there are quite a few others like you. I fear that we're heading toward the dystopia of "Idiocracy" sooner rather than later.

[clffrdjk]

61. Lol you're not worth the effort

You haven't provided any evidence supporting the poll, none. Your best answer to how or why the senate didn't do what you claim 86% of voters wanted is well "that is normal" yet the voters have recalled politicians over this very issue and you ignore it. If ignoring the will of 86% is normal then tell me what the fuck is the point of voting why should anyone ever vote again? Start the revolution what we had is over. Or your poll is wrong. Why is that poll so important to you, you're as bad as the religious nuts claiming the world 6000 years old it says so right there on this piece of paper, never mind the rest of the world and what's actually going on.

[EOTE]

63. Thanks for proving just how much gun nutters hate reality.

I'd be glad to provide the scientific methodology of the poll if you'd agree to admit how incredibly wrong you are if I did. But we all know nutters are completely unable to face reality. Whatever you can do to justify the continued tragedies, huh? Dear god gun nutters are some sick motherfuckers. I understand you need your guns to make you feel a little less like cowards, but it really must suck living your lives in constant fear. I mean, needing a gun as both a substitute for masculinity and a security blanket? I sure am glad I don't piss myself every time I leave my house without a gun. So, would you agree to such terms? Your ignorance of the political system again would be hilarious if you nutters weren't so dangerous. Go on, keep on asserting: "But congress does whatever the majority wants!" Such ignorance isn't cute. Ignorance is actually way too kind, thinking like that is well beyond stupidity. Welcome to Idiocracy. Your kind has brought stupidity to this country I never thought possible in a first world.

[clffrdjk]

69. Don't move the goal posts you have to prove the poll is accurate.

I'd be glad to provide the scientific methodology of the poll if you'd agree to admit how incredibly wrong you are if I did.
Just how would posting the scientific methodology prove me wrong? Here you go find some outside supporting evidence that 86% of the country supports you then we can talk. But my bet you can't otherwise you would have already.

So, would you agree to such terms?
No, It is the accuracy of your poll that is in question you posting a link showing how it was carried out will not prove that it is accurate.
Your ignorance of the political system again would be hilarious if you nutters weren't so dangerous. Go on, keep on asserting: "But congress does whatever the majority wants!"
You wont find that quotation in any of my posts. And this never was about a simple majority this is about your claimed 72% lead. do you understand what that means? It means that if I could some how triple the number of people on my side, and remember I have to take them form your side, I would still be short of the majority by 8%. Now if we had the power to overcome that kind of opposition well there would be a lot fewer gun laws. But hey admitting your wrong hurts too much I understand you hang on to that 86% as long as you feel the need to.

But we all know nutters are completely unable to face reality. Whatever you can do to justify the continued tragedies, huh? Dear god gun nutters are some sick motherfuckers. I understand you need your guns to make you feel a little less like cowards, but it really must suck living your lives in constant fear. I mean, needing a gun as both a substitute for masculinity and a security blanket? I sure am glad I don't piss myself every time I leave my house without a gun. Such ignorance isn't cute. Ignorance is actually way too kind, thinking like that is well beyond stupidity. Welcome to Idiocracy.Your kind has brought stupidity to this country I never thought possible in a first world.

Is that your wealth "facts" talking? Or did an angry middle schooler get a hold of your computer? You post more insults than anything else maybe it is time to grow up.

[EOTE]

70. So again, there is nothing that would convince the nutter's feeble mind.

There is literally nothing that would convince you as you need your guns and you need to deny the horror of your ilk contributing to countless national tragedies, so you have your outcome already. You just need to convince your little mind that your outcome is the correct one. It doesn't matter how much evidence I provide, you're just going to say "Nuh uh!!! The NRA tells me that poll is bunk, I'm just too lazy and or dim to provide you with the link the NRA sent me in my email!" Christ gun nutters are some sick, ignorant folk.

[clffrdjk]

73. What again? you haven't posted one thing to support your assertion.

There is literally nothing that would convince you as you need your guns and you need to deny the horror of your ilk contributing to countless national tragedies, so you have your outcome already. You just need to convince your little mind that your outcome is the correct one. The NRA tells me that poll is bunk, I'm just too lazy and or dim to provide you with the link the NRA sent me in my email!" Christ gun nutters are some sick, ignorant folk.

Did I strike a nerve? Your projection is becoming more and more obvious.

It doesn't matter how much evidence I provide, you're just going to say "Nuh uh!!!

Well you could start by posting some evidence. Or not, stick with the insults, you might be the first person in history to prove your point with name calling.

[EOTE]

75. I've posted many things to support my assertion. You reply with "Nuh uh!"

Of course myriad spelling and grammatical errors as well, but that's to be expected. You've even said that you have evidence which shows that the polls I've provided are inaccurate, but you haven't even attempted to provide them. That's because gun nutters are sick little puppies who believe whatever the fuck they want to believe, facts be damned. Nutters are sad, pathetic, sick little people. You're more than welcome to provide this evidence that you've said you had dozens of times now. I can't imagine wasting my time providing you any more when you're simply going to say it's bullshit while providing not even an inkling of evidence to support your assertion. Sad, pathetic little people those gun nuts are.

[clffrdjk]

79. lol prove it

Of course myriad spelling and grammatical errors as well, but that's to be expected. Well yea it's the internet, but do try and stay on topic.

You've even said that you have evidence which shows that the polls I've provided are inaccurate, but you haven't even attempted to provide them. Oh you mean when I mentioned the failure of the the Senate gun control bill, and the Colorado recall elections? Is that what your referring to? Because I am pretty certain that I mentioned those. Yep up a few posts they are there.

That's because gun nutters are sick little puppies who believe whatever the fuck they want to believe back to name calling again eh?

facts be damned What facts? You have posted one poll and refused to try and prove that it is accurate.

Nutters are sad, pathetic, sick little people. Insults awesome a nice change of pace.

You're more than welcome to provide this evidence that you've said you had dozens of times now. Um, maybe you should reread the thread I am clffrdjk and you are EOTE.

I can't imagine wasting my time providing you any more when you're simply going to say it's bullshit while providing not even an inkling of evidence to support your assertion. Sad, pathetic little people those gun nuts are. Any more, you haven't provided any evidence. My assertion is that your poll is inaccurate I have provided evidence supporting that assertion and reason supporting my evidence. You haven't provided anything but the poll in question.

[EOTE]

80. Let me explain this in a matter that even the dimmest nutter can understand.

In order to gauge public opinion in the modern day and age, we use these things called polls. They are conducted using a variety of methodologies, but when they are considered to be invalid, especially when a major institution provides them, they are peer reviewed and determined to be so so that the public knows that they can safely discount them. I've provided the poll, what you've provided is ridiculously stupid braying about how you're sure that the poll is inaccurate, but you're too lazy and/or stupid to tell me why. So, until you provide even a modicum of evidence as to why the poll is invalid, you're just going to come off looking like even more of an idiot. So, is that what you intend to do?

[clffrdjk]

83. Everybody wave as we come around for the 3rd lap

Polls are a gauge of public opinion that is a fact. So can you finally tell me why or how with public opinion swayed in your favor by 72% nothing got done on the national scale? Just how did the Colorado recalls happen? If the NRA has the power to overcome a 72% lead why haven't more of their goals/demands been met? Or is it more likely that the poll is wrong? Do you have any evidence supporting your poll?

[EOTE]

84. So again, your insanely dim-witted argument is that congress always does what the public wants.

That's so insanely stupid it doesn't deserve a response, yet I've done so a good 5 times. It's not my fault that your brain is incapable of deciphering such incredibly simple things. Just well beyond daft at this point. Why don't we have an increase in the minimum wage, champ? After all, the public always gets what it wants. Just mind-numbing stupidity.

[clffrdjk]

87. I have you beat on both sides here.

Side one, once again this is no simple majority you are claiming, this is 86% support vs at most 14% I can't think of any other thing that has overcome such a large opposition in such short time. I don't care how much bribe money you have that is one hell of a mountain to climb. But yet it was done, how?

Side two, if the NRA and other pro gunners have the power to overcome that kind of mountain why do we have so many anti-gun laws, why haven't their goals been met?

Your poll is wrong, you have nothing to support it with, it is time to admit that.

[EOTE]

90. Christ you are piss poor at logic.

I'll ask you this. What could I provide to you that would make you believe that poll (aside, of course, legislation that our oh-so-proactive congress passed in response to it). I'm sure you'll be ever so forthcoming with that information. Christ gun nuts are dumb. If one thing is comforting, it's knowing that if most gun nuts are like you (and I have a feeling they are), they'll surely die off in a few generations due to inbreeding and their own fucking stupidity.

[clffrdjk]

92. Are those more of those facts and stats that you said you had so many of?

nope just more insults and dodging. Are your facts so weak that you need me to supply supporting evidence for your arguments? Thanks for playing, come back when you can support an argument.

[EOTE]

93. So you've got nothing? Make that less than nothing.

Not only will you not acknowledge facts presented in front of your very face, but you won't even provide the terms for which you'd believe something contrary to what you currently believe. There are words for people who won't change their beliefs even though all rationality and evidence suggests they should. Zealot is one. Insane is another, idiot is another. There are no good words to describe someone who completely refuses to acknowledge reality.

So again I ask you, is there ANY evidence I could provide that would make you believe this poll is legitimate.

[clffrdjk]

94. spin spin spin, but does he know the procedure to get out, I fear it is too late.

You have dismissed everything I have posted without even trying to refute a thing.
The basis of every single one of your posts has been nothing but insults.
You have not provided a single shred of evidence supporting the poll and its claims.
And now you demand that I help you prove your assertions?
The only help you will get from me is that you should know what supporting evidence is when and if you find it.

[EOTE]

95. You've posted NOTHING of substance.

Did you provide a single link or reference to someone other than yourself? No. All you've done is said "Well, that can't be right because congress ALWAYS does what the public wants." A child is a good deal brighter than that. I'm not asking you to prove my assertions, I'm asking you to tell me what I (read that, I) can provide you that would make you change your mind. Schizophrenics and psychos take the view that they can never be wrong regardless of the facts presented to them. But then again, we're talking about gun nuts here. I'm more than happy to say that if you provided me with some peer-reviewed study which negated the CNN poll I'd be happy to say that it's invalid. You on the other hand have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that will sway your mind. NONE. You don't need to be a genius to see that it's worthless debating such idiocy. A child could recognize that. Hell, I'd have thought that even YOU could recognize that. But then again, the depths of your ignorance always give me a chuckle.

[clffrdjk]

97. surly you can support your poll without lying about what I have said?

Did you provide a single link or reference to someone other than yourself? No. So once again you are ignoring real world events and my references to them.

All you've done is said "Well, that can't be right because congress ALWAYS does what the public wants." You are lying never once have I said that.

A child is a good deal brighter than that. Back to your old standby eh.

I'm not asking you to prove my assertions, I'm asking you to tell me what I (read that, I) can provide you that would make you change your mind. Your asking me to help you find evidence to support your "facts" when you haven't even tried to support them yourself. I am not eliminating anything from your list of possibilities, surly as such a supporter of this poll you have done a little digging and found something that supports it.

Schizophrenics and psychos take the view that they can never be wrong regardless of the facts presented to them. But then again, we're talking about gun nuts here. I have admitted being wrong in the past and will do so again in the future but you are going to have to prove me wrong first.

I'm more than happy to say that if you provided me with some peer-reviewed study which negated the CNN poll I'd be happy to say that it's invalid. I have given you multiple events that I can assure you have been looked at very closely by all sides and have been found to have actually happened.

You on the other hand have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that will sway your mind. NONE. You are lying again, never once have I said that.

You don't need to be a genius to see that it's worthless debating such idiocy. A child could recognize that. Hell, I'd have thought that even YOU could recognize that. But then again, the depths of your ignorance always give me a chuckle. You really are trying to be the first person in history to prove your point through insults. Good luck with that.

[clffrdjk]

99. I won't report you I prefer you exposed.

I didn't say I wouldn't look at it. I said that showing how it was done would not prove that it was/is accurate. That would take supporting evidence.

[rustydog]

16. Why did they have to bring their guns!

Why are they so fucking scared (In Texas in this case) that they feel they have to carry a firearm wherever they go?
Why did they have to protest against unarmed people by carrying assault rifles??????

Gutless cowards every single one.

[napkinz]

22. re "people who are pro-gun try to debate using logical arguments"

One post and this is how you begin?

Get lost MORAN!

[Katashi_itto]

23. Enjoy your stay, however brief

[upaloopa]

33. For some reason I find these well reasoned

posts annoying. I can't get through the whole thing.
If women want to work towards lowering gun violence it is their right under the same constitution you say protects your gun rights. You might say theirs is 1A.
The need to intimidate people with guns hurts your cause.
People are afraid of these guys with guns.
It is an anti social self serving thing.
So I can't get through a rant that says we should protect you rights while you tell someone else they should stop exercising theirs.

[geek tragedy]

37. Would love to see the jury results on this one, 2-4 voted to keep this troll post around nt

[MrScorpio]

46. I'm surprised that you didn't toss in a "yahoo" and a "yippee" here and there.

Welcome to DU!

[Skip Intro]

58. I gotta say, that is one awesome first post.

Reason, logic and facts over insincere emotional propaganda.

I like it.

[otohara]

71. Open Carry TX Facebook Is CLOSED Group

BS on your debate claim... same old talking points about cars and pools, spoons and forks is nothing new. Threatening posts, nothing new...vile posts, nothing new.

[Rex]

72. 4 unarmed women sitting in a restaurant caused dozens of scared little people

to grab their guns and go stand outside in protest. Says all I need to know about scared little people and their need to act insecure in front of tourists...I don't know if it is sad or funny. I think it is pathetic that anyone would feel that insecure about their belief system. But the proof is in the picture.

But get on with your bad self!

[calimary]

74. Welcome to DU, Joker22Sierra.

Good that you're here. You talk about throwing around numbers. "However, most of the pro-gun groups are using the real numbers, and the main reason there is so much feuding is that the numbers confirm their standpoint." That would be a reasonable argument provided there were studies that were allowed to be funded and conducted, hell, even allowed to be SPOKEN ABOUT or brought up in conversation at the statehouse, or in the nation's capitol. The NRA and other gun supporters and supporting groups have - pardon the pun - shot down EVERY attempt to study gun violence fully and comprehensively. We're not even allowed to bring it up. So whatever numbers the gun-lovers' side claims to have then must be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Rock of Gibraltar.

We don't HAVE all the numbers. Because we're not allowed to mount studies and well-funded investigations. Every time something's proposed, gun advocates start screaming about the Second Amendment - and how it always somehow seems to trump the First Amendment at the end. But we do have enough crime statistics that plainly show how large the murder rate by gunfire is in this country, compared to other countries where gun ownership is nowhere near so free and unrestricted.

[uponit7771]

7. Had 15 Hispanics or blacks meet with assault weapons to take a pic police would swarm that area

... so fast everyones head would spin

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Insecure, wannabee badasses who never grew up.

[Lint Head]

26. Because cowards need a blanky. They have no courage so a totem is their courage.

The bigger the gun the smaller the... well you know.

[Iggo]

29. Fear.

[PrefersaPension]

30. ...to intimidate, but it won't work...

They are there to intimidate the Moms but it won't work. I've seen some interviews and this is one tough group of ladies! They are a great cause against American ass holes. It's time the John Wayne wanna bee's get on board for sensible gun regulation.

[gopiscrap]

55. welcome to DU

[PrefersaPension]

67. Thanks!

[gopiscrap]

68. you're welcome..hope we can learn from each other

and have some laughs in the process.

[Aristus]

32. Because they're dickless cowards, that's why...

n/t

[napkinz]

34. let's call them what they are ...

[HijackedLabel]

39. If I were a prosecutor,

I'd go after them for terroristic threatening and drag them through court to bankrupt them, if not to successfully jail them.

[Ranchemp.]

66. No Texas prosecutor is going to do that,

the law in TX is quite clear, nothing illegal was done by these bunch of moronic assholes.
And when they were done suing the city, I suspect there would be a prosecutor looking for a job.

[derby378]

43. ...

[mwrguy]

52. They should be in jail, but

the cops of course did nothing to their fellow gunbullies.

[Rex]

53. Scared little children. Fearful of their toys being banned.

They felt small and insecure, so gathering in a large number with their killing sticks makes them feel secure and confident. Lemmings probably feel the same way rushing off a cliff with the pack.

[Paladin]

64. If you have to resort to open carry, if training-enforced concealed carry isn't enough for you.....

.....then you shouldn't be trusted with firearms possession. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned. Open carry activists aren't interested in establishing any sort of dialog on guns; they're interested in shutting up any such exchanges, and they're taking a schoolyard bully's pleasure in doing so. Study the facial expressions and overall appearance of this group in the Texas parking lot, and then try telling me I'm wrong about this. The only thing these people are lacking at this point are the armbands: red ones for themselves, and yellow ones for those portions of society they'd like to see disappear. "An armed society is a polite society"? In a pig's ass, it is.....

[calimary]

76. Good one!

These lovely people meant deliberately and expressly to intimidate the women inside. I did a report on this years ago in one of my jobs, and interviewed several gun shop and shooting range owners, one of whom told me it was not a gun he was holding in his hand. Rather, it was "an attitude-adjustment device." That is both good AND bad. That's what these vigilantes were trying to do, as I see it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. Great post.

Open carry as a political statement is counterproductive and in many ways undemocratic (I just posted on that point elsewhere in the thread, so I won't repeat myself). It's most certainly a bad idea in any kind of counter-protest, as it's going to constitute intimidation, regardless of intent.

I carry concealed. My weapon will never see the light of day in public unless it's genuinely needed. If I want to protest something, I'll carry a sign, not a gun.

[Paladin]

91. Well said. (nt)

[Ranchemp.]

100. Great post.

I support concealed carry with comprehensive training and mandatory annual refresher course to keep your license valid.
What I don't support is open carry, it's rude, it intimidates people and it's assholish, it should be outlawed nationwide except in cases like hunting or carrying on your own property.

[Paladin]

102. +1.

Open carry is a deservedly controversial issue---even among the Gun Enthusiasts.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

65. But....but....but....the camera angle!

They were actually just there to help clean up litter in the parking lot.

With their AR-15s.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

77. A classic example of...

...they ain't got no penis!"

[rrneck]

78. They got suckered.

The "Mommies" announce a "meeting" about gun control. The geniuses on the other side of the debate show up with their guns for a counter protest only to find out there was no real group there to begin with. They take a group photo and go to Hooters for lunch. The mommies get some images of the geniuses and publish the most unflattering of the lot to milk it for PR juice. Score one for anti gun astroturf org.

How many people allowed themselves to get played by this PR stunt? How many sent in checks?

[eqfan592]

88. A lot it would seem. nt

[HooptieWagon]

81. Those idiots don't represent all gun owners.

This one, for example:
http://www.maddowfans.com/?p=4189

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. They certainly don't represent ME.

As I said in one of the other threads on this incident, their actions are intimidating to the people they're protesting (whether that was their intent or not). And THAT is not just douchebaggery, it's disrespectful to the very Constitution I have no doubt they'd claim to revere. Inhibiting the free expression of opinions on all sides of a matter is profoundly undemocratic and flies right in the face of the spirit of the First Amendment.

[Ranchemp.]

101. Those idiots don't represent most gun owners in the country.

They certainly don't represent me.

[UTUSN]

96. R#16 for, it's their nature/bullies, look at the a-hole running against Wendy DAVIS in TX:

Hypocrisy is in wingnut DNA. He's in a wheel chair because a tree fell on him while he was jogging years ago and he filed a lawsuit back then, and only in the past few months did the big pay-day come through. In the meantime, he touts as one of his biggest accomplishments that he pushed through a cap on lawsuit liability for disabilities.

********QUOTE*****

Greg AbbottVerified account‏@GregAbbott_TX 12m
THIS is what I call wheelchair accessible. @NRA #tcot @TexasGOP #guns #txgop pic.twitter.com/axgF1kI2Sh



*******UNQUOTE*****