If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS August Giveaway ***Ruger SR40***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Reptile, Aug 8, 2019.
Apparently you have a reading comprehension issue.
Oh, cool. More insults.
Apparently still having a hard time reading. Because asking someone to re-read something they plainly did not read correctly the first time is not an insult unless you find thinking and intelligence insulting.
If that is the case, I'm unsure what your intentions are posting on a public discussion forum.
Ya, truth can be insulting but that doesn't make it any less true.
Now getting back to the cops carrying openly question. It's not a "straw man"......open carry is what this entire thread is about. You decided to chime in 8 pages into the discussion.
Had you not read and followed the flow of things or did you just not understand what the issue is that is being discussed here?
That brings up a good question, why is it that there is such a different reaction and response when people see cops open carrying, and not just holstered pistols, by “patrol” rifles, in hand?
And why can’t it be the same for the normal citizen?
But reading many of the posts here, the fact in this incident someone pulled a fire alarm over it, you’d think the mere act of someone open carrying a rifle is such an atrocity. Or as many would have you believe, it was “how” he was carrying that’s so horrible. But that’s untrue. It’s now how, it’s who.
Government = okay
Citizen = end of world
And that’s exactly backwards on what it should be.
Its absolutely CONDITIONING, from cradle to grave, but thats insulting to point it out to those who are most victimized by it.......feelings you know.....and all that.
To be honest, I think that you would be shot by the cops first, right before they beat you for your pistol.
Sheep will be sheep
Yep. There was even that one person who said they think the rights of the “collective” are more important than individual rights. That far left ideology has indeed sunk its roots in people who don’t even realize it. Conditioning works.
Yes, That collective rights bullshit is what the left used to push regarding the 2A until the SCOTUS whacked their peepee on that one.
The tyranny of the majority is always what the left pushes,.......mob rule.
For the few absolutists on this thread, is this your line in the sand? Because you certainly type like it is. I’m confused because I haven’t seen or heard about any recent tyrannical fighting endeavors. I’ll definitely keep my eyes and ears open though.
Good point. If you aren't out there killing tyrants you should shut up and take it. There's definitely no in between.
So what you’re saying is that there is a grey area?
The "black and white" is your characterization, not mine.
So that definitely seems like a yes. I’m excited.
You and a couple others talk like there is only black and white, For or against, ‘Murica VS no ‘Murica, etc. If that is not what you mean, I would suggest rethinking your approach. I don’t believe I am the only one who takes it that way.
If you do think of yourself as an absolutist, it is way past your go time and you better get to it. Daylights burning.
I thought my position has been clear, but apparently it's still too confusing. I'll try to be even more clear now.
Do you or don't you support his arrest?
Nothing has changed. It's still your characterization. Stick to arguing my positions, not making stuff up and attributing it to me. That's the definition of the logical fallacy known as a straw man.
In this specific scenario, Yes I do support the arrest.
Your position is clear via keyboard.
Oh boy, here we go again.
Another "gang mentality hero" steps up to the plate. So which one or combination of the following are you, cop, wanna be cop, fed, leftist, sheep, statist, or "other"? Because you certainly can't believe in an individual's rights if you support the guy's arrest on such a bogus charge.
Oh boy here we go again. Another “ Individualist keyboard absolutist” steps up to the plate. So which combination of the following are you, ‘Murica, ‘Murica Murica, tyrant slayer, Alt righter, or “other”? Because you certainly can’t believe in any type of individualists rights if you let his arrest stand on such a bogus charge.
Some of you are so absolutely full of crap. Such staunch absolutists that talk down to others if they do not agree with you. You cannot be what you purport to be in this day and age. You are to late.
So just what is it that you think the " some of you....or us " purport to be?
I'm truly interested in what visions roll through your head when you read the counters to your statist, gang mentality position in support for a guy being arrested for exercising his legal right to bear arms?
You are the type of person who would allow a jury to convict an innocent man based on bullshit evidence and then go about your business as usual instead of hanging the jury that justice be served.
This country is full of people like you who just go along to get along, following the crowd right off the cliff into the abyss.
I'd sooner see a thousand real criminals go free than one man falsely convicted on some bogus charge.
We disagree on this scenario. That’s really it. I don’t think you or bonesinium are bad people. I believe your hearts and minds (mostly) are in the right place. I also think you’re both full of crap in your fiend absolutism. I continually use the word absolutism because that is what both of you represent on this forum. That is my perception.
"America doesn't have a gun violence problem, every democratically controlled major city in America does.
I will not give up my rights because of their problems."
Interesting signature closure you have Uzi. It is exactly what everybody on this thread has been talking about. Not giving up our rights due to others.
Your case is now closed. Your just trolling for giggles
He is not being charged with a firearm crime. If you read the law, previously posted, he is being charge with making a terrorist threat. This only requires that he cause 10 or more people to feel threatened. The gun was one element but so was the clothing and the location, and he was recording the reactions, Any one of these by itself and he would have been fine. It was the combination, along with the recording, which shows intent, that got him in trouble. Take away the gun, keep all the other elements and have him carrying a sword, unsheathed in fron of him, and it's likely he'd be facing the same charge.
Link please. They don't need this to make the charges stick.
DMITRIY N. ANDREYCHENKO
I know what he’s being charged with. It doesn’t make anything better. If anything it makes it worse. People felt threatened?
It’s an interesting point on people’s philosophy. This very mentality is what is driving the left right now. They wish to restrict other people’s actions based on feelings. They like to ascribe beliefs and actions to others, and use those things, whether true or not, in order to oppress them. Same thing here.
Some people think so long as they thought someone was doing something, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, that person was wrong, and should be punished.
Others believe otherwise.
People felt threatened? Was he actually threatening them. Was he actually a threat? If no, then he shouldn’t be punished. Obviously you and many others think he should, because feelings.
Maybe you don’t realize it but swords are also arms. It’s not just guns. But interesting you made a point to say an “unsheathed” sword. Why is that?
It’s somewhat rhetorical.
And it hurts your point considering the rifle was slung.
Again you fall short of understanding. It's not that they felt threatened. It's that he intended to make them feel that way... and it was more than 10 people.
If you intend to make one person feel threatened its called assault. And assault is a pretty universally understood law.
You refuse to look at the totality of the situation. Tell me, when you encounter a locked door, is it the lock or the door that stops you from going through? Neither one, by itself would stop you. Yet taken together, in their totality, they prevent your passing. Get it?
Separate names with a comma.