Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
I don't believe government is always the answer, I just reject the notion it's an inherently evil institution....

Government cannot be inherently good. At best is can be inherently neutral, yet it is not neutral. So, not being good or neutral there is only one option remaining...evil. The degree of evil you experience from government colors your view of government.

The only reason the constitution exists is because The Founding Fathers knew that government is evil.....unless, of course, you are a Loyalist.

WalkingWolf · Jul 7, 2014

You are mostly right, but there are some yankees that are just confused and do not have the hate for the south they were taught in school. I have fornicated quite a few of them, seems the yankee women like my southern ways. My wife and I had for a few years a yankee girl friend originally from Long Island. She was a great girl though full of liberal ideals, but unlike some she was willing to listen and learn. More recently my wife had a girl friend from NY, who became a CCer, until her BF screwed her over and she returned to NY.

()pen(arry · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
First, the comparison between gun rights and segregation did not come from me

Reading comprehension, please. Nowhere did I accept or reject any of the analogies you identify. What I objected to was your sophomoric dismissal of segregation as being the result of government action, rather than the government action being the codification of what was already occurring in thought and deed throughout the South.

EMNofSeattle said:
A correct comparison to Jim Crow would be if seattle passed an ordinance requiring businesses to ban guns in their stores because the majority of seattlites hate guns. This should be easy to follow.

You should try harder not to disprove your own arguments. That would, indeed, be an apppropriate analogy. Many Seattle businesses are already banning guns in their stores, without a statutory mandate, just as businesses with and without public accommodation were segregating facilities before Jim Crow laws. Way to argue against yourself.

()pen(arry · Jul 7, 2014

solus said:
so pray tell who did round up the dissidents in the USSR

This rambling, incoherent diatribe certainly doesn't result from reading or understanding what I actually wrote. You're one of those insufferable people who replies to emails after reading just the first couple sentences, aren't you?

countryclubjoe · Jul 7, 2014

This tread is seriously going off topic.

Does anyone actually care about WW sex life?

If a business establishes a policy that you as a customer do not approve thereof, then you have a right to simply take you're business else where.

The personal mud slinging going back and forth on this thread is disappointing to say the least. The term " divide and conquer" comes to mind.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

()pen(arry · Jul 7, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
If a business establishes a policy that you as a customer do not approve thereof, then you have a right to simply take you're business else where.

Agreed. There should be no statutory restrictions on discrimination of any kind by non-governmental entities. There should be no permissible discrimination of any kind by governmental entities.

tombrewster421 · Jul 7, 2014

EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

He thinks that the state is the only entity subject to the words in the constitution. That an individual or corporation can't violate a person's rights. If government is the only entity that can, then why would the founders create a government with the stated purpose of securing the rights that only it can violate? Wouldn't it make more sense to not create that which can violate a persons rights? It's plain to see that ANYONE can violate a persons rights. Rape is in fact a 4A violation, right to be secure in your person. Why should the 2A be treated any differently?

We have rights. We have them everywhere. Even in prison you still have some rights.

WalkingWolf · Jul 7, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
This tread is seriously going off topic.

Does anyone actually care about WW sex life?

If a business establishes a policy that you as a customer do not approve thereof, then you have a right to simply take you're business else where.

The personal mud slinging going back and forth on this thread is disappointing to say the least. The term " divide and conquer" comes to mind.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

My wife and I do, along with a few attractive women, that is enough for me. If you don't like the post, don't read it. I didn't sling any mud in that post, but your first statement may be a half hearten attempt to do so.

WalkingWolf · Jul 7, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

He thinks that the state is the only entity subject to the words in the constitution. That an individual or corporation can't violate a person's rights. If government is the only entity that can, then why would the founders create a government with the stated purpose of securing the rights that only it can violate? Wouldn't it make more sense to not create that which can violate a persons rights? It's plain to see that ANYONE can violate a persons rights. Rape is in fact a 4A violation, right to be secure in your person. Why should the 2A be treated any differently?

We have rights. We have them everywhere. Even in prison you still have some rights.

Spot on!

countryclubjoe · Jul 7, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
My wife and I do, along with a few attractive women, that is enough for me. If you don't like the post, don't read it. I didn't sling any mud in that post, but your first statement may be a half hearten attempt to do so.

CITE please.

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. ...

The first "back-handed" reference to segregation.

EMNofSeattle said:
Sheer ignorance, so you deny that segregation in the south was mandated by the state governments? ...

The first direct reference to segregation.

countryclubjoe said:
This tread is seriously going off topic. ...J

Uh, the OP derailed his own thread. I am of the mind that the OP can derail his own thread if he so chooses.

The OP is bent cuz a Texan or two has ruined, or will ruin, his chance to shop at ______ (insert store name here) et al. This is a selfish position, a childish position. The OP is not as liberty centric as he proclaims himself to be.

Oh, his signing the Texas secession petiton is nothing but an attempt to banish OCT and their adherents so as to mitigate any chance that their acts, LGOC, will impact his ability to OC in ______ (insert store name here) et al.

EMNofSeattle · Jul 7, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

[\QUOTE]

Pointing out foolish things other people do is not throwing others under the bus! throwing someone under the bus is taking people you've previously used for support and then disavowing any connection to them once it becomes inconvienent see: Obama and Rev wright. I have no disagreement philosophically with openly carrying a rifle, I fail to see how walking around with ARs advances a gun rights cause. Some of the worst offenders I've seen on youtube even go as far as to wear load bearing vests or vest rigs, which is really stupid since mass shooters in several wel publicized events have carried such weapons and dressed in "tactical" clothing. You're fixing to get yourself shot by a fellow LAC.....

So CJ Grisham, the president of open carry texas, said in a recent newspaper article that OCT now recommends leaving rifles at home and carrying antique/black powder pistols as opposed to AR-15s and AKs, is he throwing people under the bus?

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
CITE please.

He just did.

Now, requiring photographic evidence, such as is recorded during our daily comings and goings while we OC...that is a different matter all together.

countryclubjoe · Jul 7, 2014

tombrewster421 said:
EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

He thinks that the state is the only entity subject to the words in the constitution. That an individual or corporation can't violate a person's rights. If government is the only entity that can, then why would the founders create a government with the stated purpose of securing the rights that only it can violate? Wouldn't it make more sense to not create that which can violate a persons rights? It's plain to see that ANYONE can violate a persons rights. Rape is in fact a 4A violation, right to be secure in your person. Why should the 2A be treated any differently?

We have rights. We have them everywhere. Even in prison you still have some rights.

Hi tombrewester421

EMN is entitled to his opinions you are entitled to you're opinions, I am entitled to my opinions hell even WW and all his so stated sexual partners are entitled to their opinions. That is the beauty of this country and the 1st A.

Now if in you're humble opinion, you wish to compare the heinous crime of Rape, to a simple procedure called a change of policy, then in my humble opinion, you're opinion is the opinion of a fool.
Regarding your opinion that prisoners have rights, Yes, you are correct, indeed they do have rights, however they can't walk around the prison wearing a three piece suit and sporting some fancy jewelry, they, as prisoners,, must wear the outfit designated unto them by the prison authority, whereas, a free person/shopper can pick an chose to shop where ever they please.

A company changing its policy is simply business, rape on the other hand is a violation against the natural rule of law, and any comparison of such,is idiotic.

Tom, please entertain a more intelligent comparison for future discussion.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
tombrewster421 said:

...

So CJ Grisham, the president of open carry texas, said in a recent newspaper article that OCT now recommends leaving rifles at home and carrying antique/black powder pistols as opposed to AR-15s and AKs, is he throwing people under the bus?

Click to expand...

Yes, OCT is asking...requesting that their members to purchase BP pistols (if they don't have one) if they wish to OC in support of their cause, instead of alread owned LGs. Essentially OCT is asking folks to "pay to play."

I don't own a BP pistol or rifle. This may change in the future, but 150 buck goes to ammo for guns I have now and not to a whole new weapons system.

Your fixated on Texans screwing you over in WA. How about talking to your favorite Target store and explain that you are not one of those nutty Texans who goes around scaring folks with a evil black rifle.

EMNofSeattle · Jul 7, 2014

OC for ME said:
The first "back-handed" reference to segregation.

The first direct reference to segregation.

Uh, the OP derailed his own thread. I am of the mind that the OP can derail his own thread if he so chooses.

Go back a few more posts

The OP is bent cuz a Texan or two has ruined, or will ruin, his chance to shop at ______ (insert store name here) et al. This is a selfish position, a childish position. The OP is not as liberty centric as he proclaims himself to be.

Not really, never shopped at target, the point is, the tactics of this organization are bringing up bans that would never have been considered earlier, and that there needs to be a change in focus, even CJ Grisham agrees, if you read his most recent news interview. LGOC is un nessecarily making enemies, and giving credence to MDA. And yes I'd prefer guns rights as an issue be focused on the laws that need to be repealed and not emotional responses to seeing people kitted for war in the grocery store, if you see 4 police officers with AR-15s just walking around do you assume all is well?

Oh, his signing the Texas secession petiton is nothing but an attempt to banish OCT and their adherents so as to mitigate any chance that their acts, LGOC, will impact his ability to OC in ______ (insert store name here) et al.

There's things texas's state government does that I don't like, I actually did sign their secession petition with the comment that their family code is unconstitutional and outdated, they literally act like bedroom police down there..... I made a joke based off the fact I had signed it.. OCT didn't even exist at the time..... Although I really don't mind OCT..... But some of the splinter groups are nuts,,,

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
... So CJ Grisham, the president of open carry texas, said in a recent newspaper article that OCT now recommends leaving rifles at home and carrying antique/black powder pistols as opposed to AR-15s and AKs, is he throwing people under the bus?

Uh, this is better.

Yes, OCT is asking...requesting that their members to purchase BP pistols (if they don't have one) if they wish to OC in support of their cause, instead of alread owned LGs. Essentially OCT is asking folks to "pay to play."

I don't own a BP pistol or rifle. This may change in the future, but 150 buck goes to ammo for guns I have now and not to a whole new weapons system.

Your fixated on Texans screwing you over in WA. How about talking to your favorite Target store and explain that you are not one of those nutty Texans who goes around scaring folks with a evil black rifle.[/QUOTE]

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Go back a few more posts

I'll give you that one. But, you kept on going after that, as did I...and others. So, I blame Dave_pro2A.

EMNofSeattle said:
Not really, never shopped at target, the point is, the tactics of this organization are bringing up bans that would never have been considered earlier, and that there needs to be a change in focus, even CJ Grisham agrees, if you read his most recent news interview. LGOC is un nessecarily making enemies, and giving credence to MDA. And yes I'd prefer guns rights as an issue be focused on the laws that need to be repealed and not emotional responses to seeing people kitted for war in the grocery store, if you see 4 police officers with AR-15s just walking around do you assume all is well?

There are many folks that give the cause a bad name, but they (the Texas dudes) are exercising their right under the law.

EMNofSeattle said:
...But some of the splinter groups are nuts,,,

Read my sig line please.

tombrewster421 · Jul 7, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
tombrewster421 said:

EMN is really good at deflecting, dismissing the point being made, and changing the subject. He fails to see the point of my analogies. He refuses to see that he is blaming a group of people for a decision that the had no part in making. He is alienating gun owners who are attempting to further gun rights, thereby dividing the community. That is not a winning tactic. He would be willing to throw any of us under the bus and shun us just because we may fight for rights in a way he disagrees with.

[\QUOTE]

Pointing out foolish things other people do is not throwing others under the bus! throwing someone under the bus is taking people you've previously used for support and then disavowing any connection to them once it becomes inconvienent see: Obama and Rev wright. I have no disagreement philosophically with openly carrying a rifle, I fail to see how walking around with ARs advances a gun rights cause. Some of the worst offenders I've seen on youtube even go as far as to wear load bearing vests or vest rigs, which is really stupid since mass shooters in several wel publicized events have carried such weapons and dressed in "tactical" clothing. You're fixing to get yourself shot by a fellow LAC.....

So CJ Grisham, the president of open carry texas, said in a recent newspaper article that OCT now recommends leaving rifles at home and carrying antique/black powder pistols as opposed to AR-15s and AKs, is he throwing people under the bus?

Click to expand...

So you think it's ok to bash a group of gun owners and violate a forum rule because in your opinion their actions of fighting for their rights is foolish? Bottom line is that the very title of this thread is bashing a group of gun owners and you still fail to see that you should be supporting whatever efforts are being done to try and further individual rights. You even admit that the reason your bashing them has no bearing on you because you didn't shop at target anyway.

tombrewster421 · Jul 7, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Hi tombrewester421

EMN is entitled to his opinions you are entitled to you're opinions, I am entitled to my opinions hell even WW and all his so stated sexual partners are entitled to their opinions. That is the beauty of this country and the 1st A.

Now if in you're humble opinion, you wish to compare the heinous crime of Rape, to a simple procedure called a change of policy, then in my humble opinion, you're opinion is the opinion of a fool.
Regarding your opinion that prisoners have rights, Yes, you are correct, indeed they do have rights, however they can't walk around the prison wearing a three piece suit and sporting some fancy jewelry, they, as prisoners,, must wear the outfit designated unto them by the prison authority, whereas, a free person/shopper can pick an chose to shop where ever they please.

A company changing its policy is simply business, rape on the other hand is a violation against the natural rule of law, and any comparison of such,is idiotic.

Tom, please entertain a more intelligent comparison for future discussion.

My .02

Regards

CCJ

There you go missing the point. I never compared rape to a policy change. Comprehend what I'm saying now.

I compared BLAMING a rape victim for the decision a rapist made to BLAMING an OCer for the decision to change policy that affects their natural right to bear arms.

In both cases a persons natural right is affected. In both cases the subject had nothing to do with the decision that was made. Why the hell do so many gun owners feel that it's ok if one right is trampled as opposed to another. There's quite a few here who just give up their 4a just to play nice.

Yes prisoners lose quite a few rights when in prison. That's because they violated the rights of another and went through due process of law to have those rights suspended. If a person on death row is killed by another prisoner it's still murder even though he's technically dead already.

Another Open Carry Texas success story ruins it for Washingtonians.....

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member