Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One, his views indicate he's anti-gun, Two, his views indicate he would support or vote for referendums suggesting such. You fail to understand that I am overly perceptive people's posting tendencies. Three, both one and two are evidenced by any and all opinions expressed by Vandalshandle on the subject. It is therefore viable to conclude that he A) Owns a gun but is anti gun and wishes to ban guns while keeping his own gun or B) does not own a gun, and wants to ban guns.
In further stating, Pogo, it is safe to deduce that he was lying about owning a gun. I find it strange that instead of debating the cogent point I made, you spent time speculating on what the actual meaning of my premise was, which you got wrong incidentally.
When the premise does not lead to the conclusion -- one of them is wrong.
And the fact remains that being on an anonymous message board, you have no way to judge whether he really owns a gun or not, and therefore no basis. All you're left with is speculation, which paired with $2.25 will buy you a Starbucks coffee provided you find a really cheap store.
Can he be positive? Hell no, but a minuscule chance that he is wrong, does not make him wrong.
Do you play poker, Possum?
Suppose you are playing 5 card draw and you have a king high straight flush. Do you positively have a winning hand? There are 3 possible hands that could beat you, but 99.9538% of the time, you have a winner.
No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.
No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.
No, it's a stance that you are assigning, falsely. And you expect an answer to it.
Nobody's going to answer, because it's just you, trolling.
I think Pogo is justified in asking this because the reason Open Carry gave for their presence outside of the diner has been debunked. They claimed that this was a tit-for-tat for the disruption of their meeting in San Antonio but their meeting hadn't been disrupted so that leaves some of us to ask...if it wasn't payback then what was it?
Well, what's worse?Point taken but that does not change the fact that people have the right to being safe from armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.
I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.
But, just like the rw hysteria over which bathroom transgender people are using, its very likely that I have been in restaurants where people were armed and did not know it.
As usual, the nutters want to protect their own rights at the expense of other people's rights.
Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
Fascinating.
So they were expecting this group of anti-gun moms to start shooting?
Or do you mean the moms were meeting in a restaurant so dangerous that carrying loaded weapons would be advisable? And keep in mind, there's twenty people, so we're talking an area so dangerous it requires a posse of twenty.
Because up until now the story has been that they were props to make a point.
Fascinating how quickly that turns on a dime.
If their behavior was within the law, then... no problem."...The cops who came to see them were told those props were loaded. It was the first question the officer asked..."
Maybe.
But they're still loaded.
Diga me -- if you're just taking props, why load them? Do not these props look exactly the same unloaded? Would the same point not have been made?
Loaded. Think about it.
Several wags including the nuts themselves have claimed the firearms are there as a visual prop to make a point. That's one thing.
Your task now, should you choose to accept it, is to make the case for loading those props if your purported intent does not involve shooting anybody.
--- With children in tow no less.
And keep in mind, your story is that you're not there to intimidate. Yet you're brandishing guns, and they're loaded. How's that story holding out about now?
And note: this is not a "within the law" question but a logic question.
I don't blame you if you choose not to accept. I wouldn't either.
This demonstration will self-destuct in ten seconds. Matter of fact it already self-destructed onsite.
(/end Mission Impossible references)
Why do you fools insist on saying stupid crap like this?
This gang of heavily armed thugs in a parking lot outside a restaurant restricts other people's right to safety. Look at that photo.
The people who want to eat there as well as the owners of the restaurant and any passersby have the right to be safe from gangs of armed thugs.
OTOH, at least they have the gumption to open carry so people can choose to get to a safer place.
What's funny to me is that if they were all black, you hypocritical nutters would be screeching a different tune.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't have been afraid to walk out there after a meeting of any kind. So what if they have guns? This is a case of for and against. I don't intimidate very easily. I would rather walk away but if bullied and in my face, there will be a problem. Those people with the guns were not in faces. They were just standing there with their guns.
I am FOR the right to bear arms. And no mealy mouthed chickenshits afraid to walk outside and make a mountain out of a molehill will stop me from wanting my rights. Their rights are to have their meeting, eat, stfu and go home or wherever they wanna go. The other folks rights are to sit peacefully with their guns and look at the blue sky or talk amongst themselves or just sit and people watch. Then they, too, can stfu and go home or wherever. But that didn't happen, did it? The wussies started wringing their hands and called attention to TWO peaceful demonstrations on rights.
So...my vote is for the "gun nuts". I would rather be with them than with some wimpy folks afraid of their own shadows.
Gracie....
Loaded props. With children.
Nobody wants to answer that.
Then you have a number of possible (and likely) conclusions about your own premise:
One, he's not "anti gun"...
Two, he's not trying to pass such laws;
Three, both One and Two.
Declaring the poster doesn't own such a gun on the basis of nothing, or that he doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground, are ipse dixit speculations and therefore, irrelevant. So your own premise is flawed. Hope this helps.
One, his views indicate he's anti-gun, Two, his views indicate he would support or vote for referendums suggesting such. You fail to understand that I am overly perceptive people's posting tendencies. Three, both one and two are evidenced by any and all opinions expressed by Vandalshandle on the subject. It is therefore viable to conclude that he A) Owns a gun but is anti gun and wishes to ban guns while keeping his own gun or B) does not own a gun, and wants to ban guns.
In further stating, Pogo, it is safe to deduce that he was lying about owning a gun. I find it strange that instead of debating the cogent point I made, you spent time speculating on what the actual meaning of my premise was, which you got wrong incidentally.
When the premise does not lead to the conclusion -- one of them is wrong.
And the fact remains that being on an anonymous message board, you have no way to judge whether he really owns a gun or not, and therefore no basis. All you're left with is speculation, which paired with $2.25 will buy you a Starbucks coffee provided you find a really cheap store.
Well, what's worse?Point taken but that does not change the fact that people have the right to being safe from armed gangs - no matter what their stated purpose is.
I would not knowingly sit in a restaurant with these people.
But, just like the rw hysteria over which bathroom transgender people are using, its very likely that I have been in restaurants where people were armed and did not know it.
As usual, the nutters want to protect their own rights at the expense of other people's rights.
Losing a Bill of Rights privilege?
Taking guns away from registered users?
Ensuring that only bad guys keep and bear arms?
There are more than two sides to this argument.
I personally reserve the right not to own a gun, but I support my neighbor's right to have his 250-gun museum gracing his walls that go back to colonial times. I support my daughter's right to have her CCW permit met when she is off duty.
Owning a gun is an American right and privilege. It makes the bad guys think twice before they take a random life in a Convenience Store stickup in an armed robbery.
The system works. If it isn't broke, why should it be fixed?
If you take guns away, people just resort to killing by other methods including killing someone with the bare hands.
Killing is done by people who intend to kill, and they do it one way or another, unless someone who has a permit to carry stops them by surprise. Often, it saves a lot of lives, as in the case of a gunman who carried a gun into a church in Colorado a few years back and unloaded until a woman who was an armed security guard stopped the bloodbath with a bullet of her own.
She saved many, many innocent lives.
When the premise does not lead to the conclusion -- one of them is wrong.
And the fact remains that being on an anonymous message board, you have no way to judge whether he really owns a gun or not, and therefore no basis. All you're left with is speculation, which paired with $2.25 will buy you a Starbucks coffee provided you find a really cheap store.
Can he be positive? Hell no, but a minuscule chance that he is wrong, does not make him wrong.
Do you play poker, Possum?
Suppose you are playing 5 card draw and you have a king high straight flush. Do you positively have a winning hand? There are 3 possible hands that could beat you, but 99.9538% of the time, you have a winner.
Sorry to say I do not, Ernie. I get your drift though.
What I'm telling TK there is simply that he can't make a flat statement and declare it fact, when all it is is speculation (technically all it is is snark). For that matter you can't legitimately call the chance that he's wrong "minuscule" for the same lack of evidence.
However you do get points for spelling minuscule correctly
Sounds to me that this mother hates freedoms
tapatalk post
Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
Fascinating.
So they were expecting this group of anti-gun moms to start shooting?
Or do you mean the moms were meeting in a restaurant so dangerous that carrying loaded weapons would be advisable? And keep in mind, there's twenty people, so we're talking an area so dangerous it requires a posse of twenty.
Because up until now the story has been that they were props to make a point.
Fascinating how quickly that turns on a dime.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't have been afraid to walk out there after a meeting of any kind. So what if they have guns? This is a case of for and against. I don't intimidate very easily. I would rather walk away but if bullied and in my face, there will be a problem. Those people with the guns were not in faces. They were just standing there with their guns.
I am FOR the right to bear arms. And no mealy mouthed chickenshits afraid to walk outside and make a mountain out of a molehill will stop me from wanting my rights. Their rights are to have their meeting, eat, stfu and go home or wherever they wanna go. The other folks rights are to sit peacefully with their guns and look at the blue sky or talk amongst themselves or just sit and people watch. Then they, too, can stfu and go home or wherever. But that didn't happen, did it? The wussies started wringing their hands and called attention to TWO peaceful demonstrations on rights.
So...my vote is for the "gun nuts". I would rather be with them than with some wimpy folks afraid of their own shadows.
Gracie....
Loaded props. With children.
Nobody wants to answer that.
Prove they were loaded!
Can he be positive? Hell no, but a minuscule chance that he is wrong, does not make him wrong.
Do you play poker, Possum?
Suppose you are playing 5 card draw and you have a king high straight flush. Do you positively have a winning hand? There are 3 possible hands that could beat you, but 99.9538% of the time, you have a winner.
Sorry to say I do not, Ernie. I get your drift though.
What I'm telling TK there is simply that he can't make a flat statement and declare it fact, when all it is is speculation (technically all it is is snark). For that matter you can't legitimately call the chance that he's wrong "minuscule" for the same lack of evidence.
However you do get points for spelling minuscule correctly
I'm a poker player. Poker is all about odds. It boils down to ducks. If it walks like one, quacks like one, for all intents and purposes, it's a duck. Is it always a duck? Hell no! It may be a parrot in disguise. But I'm betting a lot that it's a duck.
Because they're guns. There's no point in carrying them if they aren't loaded. The idea is to carry them for protection.
Fascinating.
So they were expecting this group of anti-gun moms to start shooting?
Or do you mean the moms were meeting in a restaurant so dangerous that carrying loaded weapons would be advisable? And keep in mind, there's twenty people, so we're talking an area so dangerous it requires a posse of twenty.
Because up until now the story has been that they were props to make a point.
Fascinating how quickly that turns on a dime.
Posse? At least 10% of the people in that parking lot were under 12. Do unarmed children really scare you that much?
Why do you fools insist on saying stupid crap like this?
This gang of heavily armed thugs in a parking lot outside a restaurant restricts other people's right to safety. Look at that photo.
The people who want to eat there as well as the owners of the restaurant and any passersby have the right to be safe from gangs of armed thugs.
OTOH, at least they have the gumption to open carry so people can choose to get to a safer place.
What's funny to me is that if they were all black, you hypocritical nutters would be screeching a different tune.
Personally speaking, I wouldn't have been afraid to walk out there after a meeting of any kind. So what if they have guns? This is a case of for and against. I don't intimidate very easily. I would rather walk away but if bullied and in my face, there will be a problem. Those people with the guns were not in faces. They were just standing there with their guns.
I am FOR the right to bear arms. And no mealy mouthed chickenshits afraid to walk outside and make a mountain out of a molehill will stop me from wanting my rights. Their rights are to have their meeting, eat, stfu and go home or wherever they wanna go. The other folks rights are to sit peacefully with their guns and look at the blue sky or talk amongst themselves or just sit and people watch. Then they, too, can stfu and go home or wherever. But that didn't happen, did it? The wussies started wringing their hands and called attention to TWO peaceful demonstrations on rights.
So...my vote is for the "gun nuts". I would rather be with them than with some wimpy folks afraid of their own shadows.
Gracie....
Loaded props. With children.
Nobody wants to answer that.
But Johnson said the police have the latitude to make decisions about those things that would affect the safety and security of the situation, including banning signs.
It is called showing the country that these mothers full of shit
tapatalk post
No, they were protesting, and showing that people with guns have a right to pack, and pose no threat...unless someone decided to try to kill them.
They were successful.
Yes, they were successful.
That's what I keep telling these wags who try to say they weren't there to intimidate.
When you and I agree on something it should be case closed.
