Better than a raving fool of a Rambo wannabe!
NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary'
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
Better than a raving fool of a Rambo wannabe!
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Or the quiet compliance of those afraid to stand up and be counted..
Link Removed
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Link Removed
Here's a thought for ya..
Why don't you and your liberal, compromising, no balls, low information and IQ as well, go start your own forum?
That way, you can come up with ideas on how to capitulate to the gun grabbers demands!
That way we can all get some peace and quiet for a while as y'all will be off whining about your compromised rights!
Oh and by the way...
God Bless you and may He shelter you from your own stupidity.
You may not believe in God but don't you worry!
God believes in you!!!!
Have a blessed day!
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Last edited:
Tell you what Mr. Morrison - I'll begin to believe your are sincere and not just a virtual loudmouth when you saunter down a street and into whatever business you choose carrying a fully automatic weapon of your choice. if you really believe all you have been saying then this should be no problem for you.
missoak
Member
Just because you THINK you're right doesn't make everyone else wrong.
And who in hell told you this was YOUR forum?
We're all here for the same reasons, maybe our principals are a bit
different, So we all should agree to disagree not lower or standards to
a " 'Yo Mama'" mentality. Can't see us getting anythng accomplished
by acting like that.
BC1
,
I take exception to your post. You need to be here longer than 12 posts to start labeling people who have a long history of good contributions. Already with the name calling? It's ignorant when you really don't know him. You're off to a great start.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
I get not appreciating the "That 70's Show" "dumb ass" reference and the strongly worded rest of Charles' post(s), but I have a question for you about your reply nonetheless. What would a weapon being fully automatic have to do with anything in a jurisdiction where OC is legal? In my state (just a little South of yours), there are no restrictions on the types of weapons one can purchase beyond federal restrictions, and if it's legal to own here, it's legal to carry, openly or concealed, with the caveat that if you carry it concealed, you must first acquire permission from the state. Not so if you carry it openly.
I happen to know that in Vermont, where Charles lives, you don't have to ask permission to carry openly or concealed, and assuming that VT is likewise as 2A-compliant as Alabama with not attempting to outlaw the carry of any weapon that's legal to own, he'd be as legal to OC a full-auto as a rifle, handgun, slingshot or pea-shooter.
With that in mind, what is the specific challenge to Charles? That he do something that's perfectly legal? Why would that be any kind of problem for him? Are you hoping that cops who might encounter him while carrying a full-auto around would break their oath to enforce the laws on the books, rather than the ones they might wish were on the books, but aren't, by harassing him and/or goading him into some threatening posture so they'll have an excuse to arrest/beat/maybe even shoot him?
Following logically on your challenge to Charles, the implications don't seem supportive at all of law-abiding citizens conducting themselves within their rights without government intrusion, many times abusing them for doing nothing illegal.
Charles' abrasive way of responding to what he perceives as your support for denial of his rights is not a valid excuse to further support the denial of his rights. Your challenge of him appears to me to be nothing less than that.
Blues
CharlesMorrison
Banned
I am sorry that my mouth runs without my brain attached sometimes(?) but I refuse to alter my carry habits for MDA.
We won't "win" anything as long as we compromise what "we" know is right.
The Second Amendment is here to stay. Only a Con Con can even get close to altering it or even erasing it.
Because that is the case, I don't care who likes or does not like my open carry of MY weapons.
Oh and Olimb(?), you might want to check out the state I live in before you cast stones....
It's a wonderful little place called Vermont.
No permits for open or concealed carry and TONS of business's have zero issue when I walk in with my XD.45 openly carried, for all of God and Country to see...
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
We won't "win" anything as long as we compromise what "we" know is right.
The Second Amendment is here to stay. Only a Con Con can even get close to altering it or even erasing it.
Because that is the case, I don't care who likes or does not like my open carry of MY weapons.
Oh and Olimb(?), you might want to check out the state I live in before you cast stones....
It's a wonderful little place called Vermont.
No permits for open or concealed carry and TONS of business's have zero issue when I walk in with my XD.45 openly carried, for all of God and Country to see...
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
vt_shooter
New member
An apology from the one who's brain is usually detached / MIA? Wow. I'll mark this one down on my calendar.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
To Blues and BC1,
Thanks for having my back but olimb(?) is right about the name calling.
I have noticed that my posts are becoming more aggressive and demeaning to those I reply to.
I am sorry for it but I am also so very tired of people who come here (or some who are ALREADY here) who push for "us" to "just give in a little more".
We are already loosing vast amounts of "ground" every time we hide our guns or disparage someone for exercising their rights.
We stand together or we will certainly hang separately!
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
Thanks for having my back but olimb(?) is right about the name calling.
I have noticed that my posts are becoming more aggressive and demeaning to those I reply to.
I am sorry for it but I am also so very tired of people who come here (or some who are ALREADY here) who push for "us" to "just give in a little more".
We are already loosing vast amounts of "ground" every time we hide our guns or disparage someone for exercising their rights.
We stand together or we will certainly hang separately!
Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
whodat2710
New member
I do not accept your apology. I think it was uncalled for and completely reprehensible to apologize for aggressively stating your opinion AGAIN after the anti-gun-lite people keep questioning the same opinion over and over after it has been explained seven ways from 12 people.
Axeanda45
Banned
From probably the MOST abrasive person on here (me) I understand where you are coming from, but no-one seems to listen to reason/soft spoken replies anymore that try to gently (most of the time) or maybe the word that fits it better would be eloquently? explain that ANY infringement is not a good thing, etc.... So I quit trying to be nice years ago.... I try to tell it as bluntly as I can.... makes for a shorter argument because they usually then resort to calling me names much sooner....
Why did I even write this? must be tired or something......
Why did I even write this? must be tired or something......
vt_shooter
New member
Axeanda45, if you believe no one to listens to reason/soft spoken replies anymore, you're either talking to the wrong people, or you're making the wrong arguments. Nearly everyone I know welcomes and responds best to calm reason. If whodat2710 won't accept CharlesMorrison's apology, maybe it's because whodat2710, like me, has been on the receiving end of CharlesMorrison's incredibly nasty vitriol before. CharlesMorrison is without a doubt the nastiest and most vicious person I've ever encountered anywhere on the Internet, and I would not accept an apology from him either.
telpinaro
New member
If you think CharlesMorrison is the most vicious person on the internet, you haven't been around long enough!
whodat2710
New member
And, as always, people post who don't bother to read. Do not include me in any of your posts unless you actually read what I say. If you didn't pick up through the slight humor and mild sarcasm, I didn't accept his apology because I thought his apology was unnecessary.
-
We all get fed up beating our heads against the progressive/liberal/anti-gun wall of the posters on here who claim to be otherwise, or actually have convinced themselves they support the Constitution. If you say you are pro-gun, but cannot successfully explain what "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" means, and argue with those who try to explain it, you might be a Liberal.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
You did not understand the point of whodat2710's post. You should read it again, and if you still don't get the gist of it and think it says the same thing you originally thought it did, you should go back to school to take a remedial reading comprehension class (or two or three).
Without going into any detail that neither Charles nor I care to rehash, or even recall at all quite frankly, if there's anybody on this site who would have a good reason not to accept an apology from Charles, it would be me, and only me as far as I've ever seen. However, a public apology was made and was publicly accepted (by him and by me respectively), and saying you can't or won't accept an apology, two of them now actually, just because of harsh, but non-threatening, words, exposes you as a rather childish, spoiled brat.
This is the exact result that the Mommies had wet dreams over when they formed their strategy of smearing law-abiding citizens with whom they disagree: gun-owners against gun-owners. CC'ers against OC'ers, riflemen against handgunners, slingers against holster-wearers, whatever.
I don't care if Charles sees my post as "having his back" or not, but that wasn't my intention. I did describe him as abrasive and tried to show understanding for how someone might not be able to get past it, but my point was about the challenge to Charles that Olinb laid down. It so clearly represented a misunderstanding of the law in various jurisdictions, and attempted to couch a perfectly legal action in many of them, as being universally illegal, and it just ain't. Ignorance is only cured by giving true and accurate information. If it's dismissed or disregarded, then it's willful ignorance, but it doesn't make the attempt to cure it any less gratifying. I'm gratified. I hope Olinb is willfully informed instead of ignorant, but it's there for him to do with whatever he wants.
Blues
Read the whole thread. I posted a reasoned explanation of my thoughts on the subject and Mr Morrison chose to label me as some sort of Anti-Gunner type. I dare say I have contributed as much or even more in time and funds to the pro 2nd amendment movement than anyone else on the forum. I have been a life member of the NRA and GOA for over 30 years. When some smartaleck cannot reply to my posts with intelligence but would rather start the name calling I will respond in kind.
Thank you Charles. I appreciate the opportunity to lower the volume so to speak. Anyway, I agree that carrying any type of gun anywhere as long as you are not some criminal or mental type is the desirable outcome we all want. How to get there is the argument we have been having. Almost every case in the media of people carrying Ar's into a business has resulted in said business banning ALL guns from their property along with the news stories of that happening. This just pushes more of the undecideds into the anti-gun crowd. All I am saying is we need to take it a little slower and a lot smarter. And I also distinguish between people legitimately protesting and the Rambo wannabes I mentioned who just want to make trouble for troubles sake. You know the type I am sure. Anyway, sorry for my role in the name calling too.
PS: I wrote my previous post before I saw the additional posts by Charles.
To blues: The challenge I issued was based on the statement I'll carry whatever I want wherever I want logic. If someone truly believes that, then carry a bazooka around or an RPG or a "fully auto weapon". That was my point.
Last edited:
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Open carrying hasn't caused the business to become anti gun, for instance chipotle gave permission to go into their restaurant, their own employee took the picture...so where is the trouble really coming from? MDA, every town, Bloomberg, etc. But instead of focusing all the energy onto them...gun owners focus their energy onto other gun owners. What a waste of time and effort.
The more you use the term Rambo wannabes, the stronger the term anti gunner lite becomes.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
