What to say to an open carry visitor at church?

[Firefighterchen]

ENOUGH!

Is "Cypher" also "Treo"?

I want to know the actual factual truth. Because...

If a poster will use a fake name to present controversial postings hoping to protect their other name from being associated with that controversy... then... that person is being less than honest and very much less than honorable. Which also casts that persons postings (from both user names!) in a less than honorable and less than honest light.

So... Cypher.. this is directed specifically at you...

Are you and Treo one and the same person/poster on USACarry?

I thought treo got banned...not sure there is a need to protect his other name if they are the same person.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

Treo claims he can see New Life Church from his home. He states knowledge of at least parking lot security and of Jeanne Assam's work-status at the church on the day she engaged the shooter there. (All public knowledge, but he cites only his own knowledge, not the news or the web or whatever.)

Cypher claims in this thread that he is a member of New Life Church, says he is a Church Elder, says "we were actually in the news because of a shooting that happened on our campus a few years back that was stopped by an armed parishioner" implying that he was there (slightly different story than Treo simply saying he could see the church from his window), and also says that, "...I could put a different plainclothes volunteer right behind your seat every time and you’d never know that’s what I did," suggesting that he has direct security responsibilities at the church.

Treo claims knowledge of specific details of the shooting at New Life Church and of Jeanne Assam's subsequent (and false) claim of having killed the shooter.

Cypher cites his access to "security incident reports" to open one of the (now) three threads on OC'ers that either started or morphed into New Life Church-centric threads.

Treo demands Scriptural cites to "back up" something someone said:

That's fine please cite the Scripture that you're using to back this up I'd like to check it out for myself.

Cypher demands Scriptural cites to "back up" something someone said:

This sounds more like Muslim theology than Christian but you are certainly welcome to back this statement up with Scripture.

I am not questioning the validity of asking for cites/links/documentation on any subject within any serious discussion. I'm just comparing the language, syntax, context, even the consistent punctuation errors evident in "both" posters' way of writing.

A casual comparison side-by-side of these "two" posters' writing style, and the content they are "both" interested in writing about will reveal WAY too many "coincidences" to ignore as even being within the realm of possibility that they are, indeed, coincidences.

As of this writing, Link Removed, as he was busy baiting me and I refused to take the bait by putting him on ignore.

Cypher joined on 8/19/2013, and one of his first posts, if not his first, was stating his opinion that both I and "Treo" should be banned. Unfortunately, that thread got deleted. I didn't understand it at the time, but later found out that calling for "Treo" to be banned was to set himself up to discredit anyone (like me) when they recognized his unmistakable syntax and spelling and punctuation errors and called him on it.

They "both" carry a S&W 6906. Cypher saying so:

...I carry a S&W 6906 the majority of the time

And Treo saying so:

For instance I have a S&W 6906 compact that I carry....

They "both" chose cartoon characters for their avatars.

They "both" have references to either my name or something I said to "them" in their "respective" headers when "they" post. (I said Treo was a "pusillanimous poltroon more than a year ago, which he has held a grudge about and brought up incessantly ever since.) Cypher thinks he's in my head because I figured out the blatantly obvious truth and said it out loud.

I asked Cypher to answer the same question you did Bikenut. Nearly the same words in fact. I believe he used an obfuscatory trick to put the word "no" where it wasn't in relation to the question I asked. I can't find it right now, maybe it got deleted too, but if he lowers himself enough to answer you at all Bikenut, I suggest you scrutinize it carefully. He's a freakin' master of obfuscation, and always has been, whether going by the nick "Treo" or "Cypher."

All I can say is that if anyone can accept all the "coincidences" that exist between these "two" posters, they can accept that God made two people so much alike that they are indistinguishable if there weren't names attached to their posts.

Would anyone here not recognize my posts if I changed nothing in the way I write but my name? How about Bikenut's or Ringo's or Firefighterchen's or buckey's or gunnerbob's or Stengun's or tricolordad's or the list goes on and on and on? Of course not. It's all right there. You don't need "Cypher's" "confession." You just need to compare and use what God gave you to recognize the Truth when it's right in front of you; your power of reasoning. Treo is Cypher, Cypher is Treo, no matter how "he" answers your question, if at all.

You have completely demonstrated the inability to look at the situation objectively.

How does one go about being objective between the truth and a lie?

Yes, militant OC'ers consider OC'ing THE most important thing, and attempt to deflect/redirect in any way possible in a vain attempt to support their point.

"Militant" you say? Point out where anyone has spoken any kind of "fighting" words regarding exercising their preference to OC rather than CC. When you can't find it, you can add that to the list of dishonesty your side of the argument has engaged in in this thread.

Okay, the more reasonable of us have that figuringed out. The point has been made. The anti-gunners march on, while factions of the pro gunners eat each other. For this reason, I'm done with this.

Finally, you have said something honest; you consider your side "reasonable" and "pro-gun" while OC'ers are helping the anti-gun side with their "unreasonableness." IOW, you are better than OC'ers. That's a perfect epilogue to your participation in this thread. Buh-Bye now.

I thought treo got banned...not sure there is a need to protect his other name if they are the same person.

Treo did not get banned, he just chose this new persona to escape the mountains of proof I had that he was a serial liar.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

You have completely demonstrated the inability to look at the situation objectively. Yes, militant OC'ers consider OC'ing THE most important thing, and attempt to deflect/redirect in any way possible in a vain attempt to support their point. Okay, the more reasonable of us have that figuringed out. The point has been made. The anti-gunners march on, while factions of the pro gunners eat each other. For this reason, I'm done with this.

I'm sorry, there is no sound reasoning in your church's logic whatsoever. Which brings me to believe there is nothing reasonable coming from the anti open carry duo.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

You are tooooo much! Cypher has posted his thoughts and his church's policies in straightforward, understandable ways, only to be met by spitting and snarling dersion, attempts to justify and/or divert - much like your above post - and failure to respond to the most simple question (Where do you OC'ers go to church?)

The one thing I've learned about militant OC'ers is that they will sacrifice EVERYTHING in an attempt to justify their position.

Again with the expectation that a person must first attend a church before being able to comment on the hypocritical policies of a church. You do understand that what you are really saying is that unless I am "one of you"... then I, and my comments, have no merit simply because I am not "one of you"?

I personally have stated that I do not attend any building with a congregation commonly called a "church" because of the kinds of hypocrisy evident in a policy that bans OC but condones CC in the name of "security" and "preventing disturbances". And I've stated that my contention with that policy isn't about open carry or concealed carry but is about the hypocrisy of the policy itself and how that hypocrisy taints the veracity of the entire church.

I have presented my perspective on how a policy of an open carry ban while allowing unfettered concealed carry in the name of "security" and/or "preventing disturbances" is hypocritical because banning open carry while allowing unfettered concealed carry certainly doesn't make the church more secure since anyone wanting to cause problems would bring their gun in concealed in order to have that magical "element of surprise" upon the congregation. Not to mention that if open carry is a disturbance then so would a concealed gun that was accidentally exposed be a disturbance.

Now kindly explain how my presentation of my perspective is not straightforward and understandable?

 

[Cypher]

I'm almost afraid to say it but the strife in this thread is borderline demonic. I'm done with it

 

[maestromsv]

While this has been a long and lengthy discussion, I have yet to see an OC at church. (excluding LEO), but a rash of burglaries to worshipers cars had prompted CC in parking lot security (deacons).

Sent from my Milestone X using Tapatalk 2

 

[Firefighterchen]

While this has been a long and lengthy discussion, I have yet to see an OC at church. (excluding LEO), but a rash of burglaries to worshipers cars had prompted CC in parking lot security (deacons).

Sent from my Milestone X using Tapatalk 2

I wouldn't recommend confronting criminals if you have a choice. Did you call the police and request officers stay in the vicinity of your church during service? A call to 911 and a shout that police were called will most likely scare off the criminals...if it doesn't I know I wouldn't want to be the one to confront such a person, gun or not.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[wolf_fire]

So in summation regardless of what church and all other considerations aside not allowing open carry is a deal breaker?

Can you see where that might lead someone to surmise that the ability to open carry is THE MOST IMPORTANT DECIDING FACTOR in you choosing a church?

Do you read???? He said that open carry not being allowed, while allowing CC is hypocritical, no matter how you present it.

 

[maestromsv]

Those working the parking lot were in pairs, and the church is located 4 blocks from the police station. The parking lot is very long and when those big ac units kick on, you can't hear yourself talk.
Everything you said is on the money, the BG just getting brave or more stupid.

Sent from my Milestone X using Tapatalk 2

 

[iKarith]

Just like any business no shirt no shoes no service. It is the owners right. You have the right to go where you choose. Ain't American great!

You can do whatever you want on your property. That goes for churches too. That doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it not hypocrisy, and it doesn't make it right.

I don't OC. I just don't—in my case, it WOULD create a disturbance because of my disability. But I would not choose to attend a church that was so hostile to my brothers and sisters in Christ. Because OC is so important? No, because welcoming my brothers and sisters is so important. It trumps all, actually.

And yes, I actually did once leave a church because it institutionalized its hostility toward certain Christians. Guns were not involved.

 

[iKarith]

I'm almost afraid to say it but the strife in this thread is borderline demonic. I'm done with it

Read: "Yes, I am Treo and I cannot escape answering that question any longer."

Now I do offer judgment of your behavior: If this thread is inhabited by demons, then it is you, the liar, the hypocrite, the false witness, and the accuser who have brought them. How dare you! HOW DARE YOU! You are disgusting and, since it is now clear that you are this Treo who was banned, it is clear that you were banned for just cause! You deserved a ban, and you deserve to be banned again! And if saying so as a genuine newcomer gets me banned, then I would not want to be part of this forum anyway!

Crawl back into your hole, snake!

 

[BluesStringer]

Read: "Yes, I am Treo and I cannot escape answering that question any longer."

Now I do offer judgment of your behavior: If this thread is inhabited by demons, then it is you, the liar, the hypocrite, the false witness, and the accuser who have brought them. How dare you! HOW DARE YOU! You are disgusting and, since it is now clear that you are this Treo who was banned, it is clear that you were banned for just cause! You deserved a ban, and you deserve to be banned again! And if saying so as a genuine newcomer gets me banned, then I would not want to be part of this forum anyway!

Crawl back into your hole, snake!

Maybe your vision problems prevented you from seeing it, but I said a few posts back that Treo was not banned, though I wholeheartedly agree, he should have been. Not my call though. I just call 'em as I see 'em and hope that refraining from going nuclear with name-calling and such is enough for the owner of the site to allow me to make those calls. So far, so good, and I thank Luke for that.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Step back and take a look at the tone of the posts in this thread - IF you can. Which ones sound shrill and which ones don't??? Hm-m-m???

To answer your question of which sound shrill and which doesn't may I direct you to my quote of this post?

I'm almost afraid to say it but the strife in this thread is borderline demonic. I'm done with it

Now... how could a discussion about the hypocrisy of a church policy that bans OC, and discriminates against those who would OC by telling them to either conceal their gun or don't come back, while welcoming CC with open arms... and trying to justify that policy by saying it makes the church more "secure" and "prevents disturbances"... be

"demonic"?

unless the argument that said policy actually makes the church more "secure".. and actually prevents "disturbances" has been shown to be nothing less than a fear based discriminatory and hypocritical policy that has no basis in merit?

Using the term "demonic"... Now there is the embodiment of an attempt to diminish/redirect/obfuscate/diminish/demean/and ridicule any and all arguments in opposition to a church's hypocritical policy of banning OC while welcoming CC all in the name of "security" and "preventing disturbances".

I only wish the pastor and elders of the New Life Church were reading this discussion. I would be greatly interested in their perspective.

 

[iKarith]

Maybe your vision problems prevented you from seeing it, but I said a few posts back that Treo was not banned, though I wholeheartedly agree, he should have been. Not my call though. I just call 'em as I see 'em and hope that refraining from going nuclear with name-calling and such is enough for the owner of the site to allow me to make those calls. So far, so good, and I thank Luke for that.

Your message is insulting and crass. I have been reading this thread for approaching 300 messages, like everyone else here. If I missed one message out of those, then might it be because of anything else? Do you mean to defend "Cypher" in his accusation that those of us who oppose rejecting Christians because they own guns is "demonic"?

If you've got a problem with me being here, and you've got the power to do it, then have me banned. And I will shake the dust off of my feet as I walk away. I wouldn't want to be on a forum where some leftist prick can go around calling people demonic for defending gun rights, but I would be banned for calling him out on it anyway.

 

[BluesStringer]

Your message is insulting and crass. I have been reading this thread for approaching 300 messages, like everyone else here. If I missed one message out of those, then might it be because of anything else? Do you mean to defend "Cypher" in his accusation that those of us who oppose rejecting Christians because they own guns is "demonic"?

If you've got a problem with me being here, and you've got the power to do it, then have me banned. And I will shake the dust off of my feet as I walk away. I wouldn't want to be on a forum where some leftist prick can go around calling people demonic for defending gun rights, but I would be banned for calling him out on it anyway.

Dang man, cool your jets. I simply read in some thread somewhere that your vision isn't so good. If you have to ask if I mean to defend "Cypher," then your vision is definitely in rough shape. No biggie at all, I certainly don't mean to be "crass" or "insulting," it's just that I am the only one who has been trying to get everyone else to recognize that "Cypher" used to post here as Treo, and you mistook that to mean that Treo has been banned. He hasn't. He could still come in here as "Treo" anytime he wants to, but he seems to prefer this new "stealth" persona for some reason.

Also to keep the record straight, only one other regular poster here has agreed out-loud with me that Treo/Cypher is the same person, so it's a (slight) possibility that I'm wrong about it. It's also a possibility that I will get spanked or banned for saying it without concrete proof. If I were new here, and I wanted to stick around for any significant period of time, I probably wouldn't stake my ability to post here on old arguments between two long-time members without having first decided for myself who seems to be more honest in articulating their side(s) of things.

Of course, I do understand that going straight from a petty disagreement about open carry and/or a specific church's policy to saying it was "demonic" to engage in such trivial arguments, may be all the proof someone might need, so have at it if that's where you're coming from.

Honestly, I meant no insult towards you at all. Just trying to keep the record straight. And no, I don't have the power to ban anyone. I'm not a huge fan of bans, or of forum moderation other than enforcing the rules that people signed up being made aware of (if they did their due diligence and read the ToS, that is). Because I believe to the bottom of my soul that Treo/Cypher is breaking those rules every time he posts, I believe a ban would be justified, and I've said so, but I also have said many times that it's not my call, and it ain't. I'm fine with that. If moderation were instituted here and I was invited to join the "club" (which will never happen, don't worry), I would take the old Groucho Marx tack and say that I refuse to become a member of any club that would have me!

By the way, I don't think Treo/Cypher is really a "leftist prick," I think he's mentally ill. YMMV.

Blues

 

[iKarith]

Sorry to take your head off Blues… You are right that you have been the one pointing out that they're one and the same. I'd failed to go back and re-read your posts on previous pages… I had noticed that you seemed to be in agreement with other posts that made yours to me seem rather … out of place.

And yes, going from a disagreement to misrepresentation and straw men, to accusations of demonic involvement, etc, or in other words "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it", yeah, it helped me make up my mind real quick.

Though it takes the discussion in a much less topical direction, I think it's worth going down the list of "ethics", of which that was only the last:

1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
Eg, claim of an authority figure. A church elder, for example?

2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
Lots of Biblical citations. All in isolation, and usually non-sequitur.

3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
The people here are generally experts on the Constitution and laws of various states. How many of us are Biblical scholars? (More than Cypher bargained for, perhaps…)

4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
Applied fast and loose, of course. And naturally that's a one-way street.

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
"Demonic". And that's only the most recent upping of that ante.

6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
If we assume his people are anti-gun, it's "compromise".

7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
The attacks have become more ludicrous, but they keep changing.

8. Keep the pressure on.
We're at nearly 300 posts and the OP's question has been asked and answered long ago.

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
Admittedly doesn't apply here, unless you count threatening to leave the thread because we're "demonic". In which case, no that wouldn't be so bad at all.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
Well, we've seen that.

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
… Kind of goes to the whole heart of the out of sight, out of mind argument, doesn't it?

12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
There hasn't really been such a thing, has there? Any such thing has been completely ignored, at least.

13 has already been dealt with, showing that we have a fairly clear Alinksyist debate style here…

Remember that leftist "change" requires unfreezing society from an acceptable norm if necessary, moving society to the desired behavior (or closer to it), and then freezing society into the new behavior such that the old way of thinking is no longer acceptable. In other words, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."

"The ends justify almost any means," which means you can, "do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."

I could go on, as it helps to know your enemy's tactics (and their origins…) But I think I need only one more quote to show all that this thread needs to know of these tactics: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

Thus, I stand by my claim that if demonic presence exists in this thread, it is not we who have brought it.

ETA: I'm a little nearsighted, and I have an issue with eye movement that makes it hard to focus on small things at a distance. It makes using most magnified optics basically not possible, and I do lose contrast on most front sights pretty easily. Also, it's a lot like my eyes are dilated all the time—the curse of the albino. But I can read my watch in light in which you couldn't find yours. As long as we're measuring shooting accuracy in minutes of bad guy and not minutes of angle, my accuracy is superb.

 

[Bikenut]

So refreshing to see that folks know about, and understand, how the disingenuous use the teachings of the leftist hero Saul Alinsky in their attempts to win their arguments and/or push their agendas.

For more of what iKarith is referring to in his post above please go to:

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

[BluesStringer]

Sorry to take your head off Blues… You are right that you have been the one pointing out that they're one and the same. I'd failed to go back and re-read your posts on previous pages… I had noticed that you seemed to be in agreement with other posts that made yours to me seem rather … out of place.

I hope the comment I made in reply to you doesn't still seem out of place. Not positive if you know or not, but the owner of the site's name is Luke. I wondered if maybe you thought I was referring to the Book of Luke or something, and if that may have been the source of our misunderstanding? Whatever, I really was only trying to set the record straight about the user name "Treo" not being banned.

**NOTE: While writing this post and looking for quotes from this forum to include in it below, I noticed that Treo has now been banned. Anything that follows was written before I noticed that.**

If at all interested, you could search on his user name with keywords like, "Scripture" or "church" or something else that came up often in this thread, and see if you don't find the unmistakable syntax and general "tone" of Cypher in this and other recent threads. Even in print, once you're well-established in a given venue, it's nearly impossible to hide who you are.

<Snipped only for brevity's sake, not to dismiss any of the quality commentary contained in it.>

I've mentioned Alinsky Link Removed on this board. One was just a few days ago while addressing Bikenut about Cypher.

Another was directly in reply to Cypher as he pulled another Rules For Radicals-adherent deviation from the topic at hand.

I didn't find any such references from me to Treo, but I know why that is; I had him on ignore for more than a year, and only took him off earlier this year when I saw a quote of a very calm, articulate, and salient quote from Scripture by him that made me second-guess my decision to put him on ignore. Predictably though, taking him off ignore led to interaction, which led to him accusing me of "attacking" him and being un-Christ-like and blah blah blah. He was back on ignore the same day "Cypher" showed up, after "Treo" had gone pretty far off the rails with making references to naked pictures of my wife and the like.

Anyway, if he hadn't been on ignore for so much of the time that I've been active here, he definitely would have earned multiple comparisons to Alinsky from me just like his doppelganger "Cypher" did.

Looking back over some of those threads I participated in where I made reference to Alinsky revealed some interesting reading. At least to me they did.

Anyway, great post iKarith. Thanks for it.

Blues

 

[iKarith]

I've mentioned Alinsky Link Removed on this board. One was just a few days ago while addressing Bikenut about Cypher.

I know you have (though I didn't bother to keep count!). I merely keep a couple of cheat sheets handy with the Alinsky's various rules and a few other handy quotes for those occasions I need to thoroughly debunk something as being wholly based upon them, as I've done here. I don't do it often, but a little salt and light does wonders for people's understanding when I do. Most people get that an Alinskyist argument full of misrepresentation, false outrage, and the like does not and cannot be inspired by any but the prince of lies if they're paying attention at all… But to see a point by point analysis like that is very useful when someone's laying it on pretty thick.

The other thing for people to learn—and it's harder because the argument in favor is itself clothed in the Alinskyist crap—is the Delphi Method of "consensus" engineering.

 

[itsb]

contact Starbucks,they know how to ask you to throw away your rights