This photo is triggering liberals and soyboys
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
Also interested in how taking that picture might constitute illegal conduct (assault or disorderly conduct or anything else) under Tennessee law.
I think you should be like the Democratic Party and label them by race.
Listen very carefully, you fvcking idiot...I’ll even use pilts idea...
I was mistaken and said I stood corrected on girl A and girl C. I said the first time (on the first page, no less), girl B was “legal open carry”.
Says the daily victim of unprovoked ad hominem attacks.
Just so we are clear....you were wrong in any of your statements of illegality about any of the pictures. None of them reflect illegal conduct in the states they were taken?
Yes?
Do you want to come down to my office and kick my ass?
It kind of sounds like you do.
#winning
What I’d like is for you to start applying that brain of yours to my posts occasionally, unfvck your head from your ass, and READ.
You can’t even admit what you’ve done (get on here all day trying to make a point and chasing your tail) or make a slight apology saying something like “hey Clint, ya know what, we misunderstood each other a bit. Good job owning up to girl 1/A and girl 3/C...I got what you said about girl 2/B.” That would never happen, though, would it? Your ego prevents you from seeing things you don’t wanna see.
No, I don’t want to kick your ass, you arrogant prick. I know the end result of that (if you aren’t already armed).
I owned a firearm in a much more restrictive state compared to OK or TN. What I was taught, 2 of these girls would be unlawful display of a firearm in a regular setting not posing.
This thread delivers.
I shall rate it 4.5 stars.
I shall rate it 4.5 stars.
Help me understand this since this is a totally foreign concept to me.
Yeah, let's ignore the context of the photo for a moment...
What exactly makes the difference regarding the type and use of the holster?
Some one who needs to read a book by a Canadian Jungian psychologist to know to stand up straight and clean their room.
You’ll have to defer to JD on Oklahoma law, I’m done discussing that. In Washington, open carry requires the holster outside the belt and viewable from 3 different angles. For instance, gun on your right visible from front, right and rear. Same with a back holster or leg holster.
Concealed holster is what it is...gun can’t be seen. Their laws are more restrictive as to display and brandishing.
Cool. Any reference link to the statute or training in Washington? I want to know because knowing is half the battle.
While I appreciate your effort to give a hat tip to Jordan Peterson, your definition shows a lack of understanding in tracing causality.
The condition you state is exogenous to what causes a person to be a soyboy.
After reading this thread, I feel even more pleased that we stole the Sonics.
It was actually a picture of a woman holding a gun.
So Clintoon has gone from "definitely illegal" to "what I was taught in Washington" in a thread where he's calling JD a fvcking idiot.
Seriously outstanding comedy.
Seriously outstanding comedy.
Thanks for the link. I didn't go through every sub-section but did hit the top dozen or so that looked like it would possibly cover the part about how you must carry your firearm.
Can you help me find what sub-section in the code that would address the assertion that it must be worn in a holster outside the belt and viewable from 3 different angles?
The new term spoon fed to NZ by his narrative masters....basically a “soyboy” is a male snowflake...an emasculated male...low T individual.
Clinton is absolutely insane.
As far as we know it’s a prop. It’s plastic.
She’s a trump supporter so Clinton will do and say anything and never concede because he has severe mental issues.
I admitted that a long time ago in this thread. If you had actually owned up to misunderstanding who I was referencing you’d admit you were wrong about one of them. You know it too...
That was in reference to the 2nd two women in NZ post (I even quoted it).
Now...your turn...
Yeah, I misinterpreted what you were claiming and came to a wrong conclusion about that. Not wrong about any of my legal statements though.
Which I also admitted when I said...”WHATEVER YOU SAY YOU SAID, I ADMIT YOU SAID THAT.”
You gotta admit though....you were definitely being completely less than clear as you scrambled around to different positions. I wasn’t the only one confused.
You probably could have gotten to here without resorting to name calling and personal insults.
I did.
