I'm sorry but this really bothers me

Johnny Dollar said:

So basically when someone says you open carry (at least a long gun) to intimidate people

Click to expand...

anyone who claims to carry a firearm to intimidate others is a fool and a law breaker. guns should never be a tool for intimidation it should only be a tool for self defense and used only if a life is threatened by another

apvbguy said:

anyone who claims to carry a firearm to intimidate others is a fool and a law breaker. guns should never be a tool for intimidation it should only be a tool for self defense and used only if a life is threatened by another

Click to expand...

See, we do have common ground

Johnny Dollar said:

See, we do have common ground

Click to expand...

no we really don't have anything in common.
that said anyone with normal thought processes would agree that anyone who claims that they want to carry a firearm to be used as a tool of intimidation is the person who should not be permitted to carry a firearm because they are mentally ill and most states will prohibit the mentally ill from possessing a firearm

apvbguy said:

no we really don't have anything in common.
that said anyone with normal thought processes would agree that anyone who claims that they want to carry a firearm to be used as a tool of intimidation is the person who should not be permitted to carry a firearm because they are mentally ill and most states will prohibit the mentally ill from possessing a firearm

Click to expand...

You mean like this?

Bikenut said:

One other positive is that it pisses off the anti gunners by showing them right there "in their faces" that they are not important enough to be in control of how the right to bear arms is exercised. Actually I kinda like this one since I find it humorous to watch an anti gunner get all red in the face and self importantly puff all up (or try to ridicule/insult on the internet) when faced with the undeniable proof... right there "in their faces".... they just are not as important as they think they are... and there are people who know just how unimportant that anti gunner really is. Kinda hurts their ego.

Click to expand...

Johnny Dollar said:

Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
no we really don't have anything in common.
that said anyone with normal thought processes would agree that anyone who claims that they want to carry a firearm to be used as a tool of intimidation is the person who should not be permitted to carry a firearm because they are mentally ill and most states will prohibit the mentally ill from possessing a firearm

Click to expand...

You mean like this?

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
One other positive is that it pisses off the anti gunners by showing them right there "in their faces" that they are not important enough to be in control of how the right to bear arms is exercised. Actually I kinda like this one since I find it humorous to watch an anti gunner get all red in the face and self importantly puff all up (or try to ridicule/insult on the internet) when faced with the undeniable proof... right there "in their faces".... they just are not as important as they think they are... and there are people who know just how unimportant that anti gunner really is. Kinda hurts their ego.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ok... now show me exactly where I said the open carrier, or open carry itself, is done intentionally to intimidate the anti gunner? Or are you projecting your being offended by that "in your face" part that is what gets anti gunners all red faced and puffed up regardless of the intent of the open carrier? It's not the fault of the open carrier that the anti gunner is offended to be shown by open carry right there "in his face" that he is not important enough to control how the right to bear arms is exercised by other people.

And I do like how open carry has the positive unintended consequence of offending anti gunners by showing them just how impotent (yes .. I used the correct word impotent) they are in controlling how other people exercise their rights... both in the real world and online. Seems to be working quite well right here in this discussion.

apvbguy said:

anyone with normal thought processes would agree that anyone who claims that they want to carry a firearm to be used as a tool of intimidation is the person who should not be permitted to carry a firearm because they are mentally ill and most states will prohibit the mentally ill from possessing a firearm

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like this guy?

Link Removed

Johnny Dollar said:

You mean like this?

Click to expand...

just like a typical libturd

he speaks for himself and I speak for myself, don't try to put anyone's words into my mouth

GlassWolf said:

Oh, you mean like this guy?

Link Removed

Click to expand...

just because an ahole who is in a position of authority makes an idiotic statement it doesn't mean that anyone has to pay heed to the statement of give it any credence

that was sort of my point.