This photo is triggering liberals and soyboys

[07pilt]

Good point

Did it come out that Jordan Peterson has Jewish ancestry?

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You probably could have gotten to here without resorting to name calling and personal insults.

I did.

I find your repetitive posting about the same thing over and over insulting...you dug your heels into to blasting away that I was wrong about everything...over and over...and then posts like this...

He has already shown REPEATEDLY that he isn’t.

I shouldn’t have called you an idiot, for that I apologize. But you need to stop acting high and mighty all the time. That’s a fact you need to swallow.

 

[CowboyJD]

I find your repetitive posting about the same thing over and over insulting...you dug your heels into to blasting away that I was wrong about everything...over and over...and then posts like this...




I shouldn’t have called you an idiot, for that I apologize. But you need to stop acting high and mighty all the time. That’s a fact you need to swallow.

You find repetitive posting about the same thing over and over saying that you were wrong insulting?

1. It’s not. Disagreement is not disrespect.
2. Do you consider your repeated posting about the same thing telling others that they are wrong equally insulting to them? Because you do it as well.
3. What I “hear” when I read that is you find it insulting for anyone to express the belief that you are wrong. Your regular actions immediately after such an event are consistent with you equating disagreement with disrespect. It’s not.

What do you mean by “high and mighty”? I will freely admit to believing I am right when I make a statement. I don’t believe that differentiates me from anyone else here. I will also freely admit that I believe I have substantial knowledge that is superior to most...on many the topics I comment on...at least with regards to the statements I make...and particularly legal ones. When it’s a topic I don’t have what I consider to be sufficient knowledge, I tend to keep my mouth shut and learn.

If that’s what you mean by acting high and mighty...gotta tell you, that ain’t going to change.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You find repetitive posting about the same thing over and over saying that you were wrong insulting?

1. It’s not. Disagreement is not disrespect.
2. Do you consider your repeated posting about the same thing telling others that they are wrong equally insulting to them? Because you do it as well.
3. What I “hear” when I read that is you find it insulting for anyone to express the belief that you are wrong. Your regular actions immediately after such an event are consistent with you equating disagreement with disrespect. It’s not.

What do you mean by “high and mighty”? I will freely admit to believing I am right when I make a statement. I don’t believe that differentiates me from anyone else here. I will also freely admit that I believe I have substantial knowledge that is superior to most...on many the topics I comment on...at least with regards to the statements I make...and particularly legal ones. When it’s a topic I don’t have what I consider to be sufficient knowledge, I tend to keep my mouth shut and learn.

If that’s what you mean by acting high and mighty...gotta tell you, that ain’t going to change.

You could’ve re-read the entire thread and, instead of blasting away that I was wrong “ON ALL 3”, you would’ve easily seen what I was talking about. It wasn’t that hard, but you insist upon getting everything.

I know you have experience with this. I admitted early in the thread I stood corrected. You kept on with the stupid repetition, building your own lovable dogpile, and then when you’re confronted with some truth need your ego stroked with “you first” bullsh!t.

I know this isn’t going to change. It’s who you are, you have a complex with admitting it.

 

[CowboyJD]

You could’ve re-read the entire thread and, instead of blasting away that I was wrong “ON ALL 3”, you would’ve easily seen what I was talking about. It wasn’t that hard, but you insist upon getting everything.

I know you have experience with this. I admitted early in the thread I stood corrected. You kept on with the stupid repetition, building your own lovable dogpile, and then when you’re confronted with some truth need your ego stroked with “you first” bullsh!t.

I know this isn’t going to change. It’s who you are, you have a complex with admitting it.

So you you’re not gonna define what you mean by acting high and mighting except in relation to me disagreeing with you in this thread.

Okay.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

You probably could have gotten to here without resorting to name calling and personal insults.

I did.

That would have lowered my rating by at least 1 point.

 

[07pilt]

do you add or subtract points for the "v" in "fvcking?"

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

None of them clearly and obviously meet a violation of this statute either. All three do not meet the intent to intimidate mens rea as they are clearly posing for pictures. “Warrants alarm” would be a fact question, but would be strictly construed in favor of defendant and have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Good luck with that.



All of them. All three. You should stand corrected on all of them. None of them are “brandishing”. What I said applies to all three.

I would expect nothing but this from you, and don’t feel the need to engage in a legal battle with an unarmed combatant. I know what I do and who I work for and my knowledge and experience in the area, and I have a pretty good idea of yours as well. I’m good with knowing that I know what I am talking about and that you are incorrect. Don’t need to try to convince you.

You might want to address @Ostatedchi’s request for a statutory citation though because it appears he’s interested. He should probably follow his own earlier advice to the board about feeding trolls, but he’s a big boy.

He has already shown REPEATEDLY that he isn’t.

Nope. Read it.

What I said in reply applies to all three. All three are carrying and displaying legally (with the caveat that they clearly and obviously are under Oklahoma law and that I doubt Tennessee law is any more restrictive). Then you cited a Tennessee law you seemingly contended she was violating, and I explained how she is almost surely not violating that particular statute.

You now have the burden of providing your legal authority for your contention that any of them are violating the law in their display of the weapon in the picture. I believe it is your contention that because one of the pictures displays a gun in a “concealed holster” that displaying it openly in that holster constitutes some kind of a crime.

Or don’t provide it...like I said, I’m completely good with leaving it exactly where it is. Your continued argument is not with me.

You admitted you stood corrected on two of them. I corrected you on the third as well. I contend you therefore have stood corrected on all three. Because you believe you are correct on the third (you aren’t, but I am good with you believing you are) you deny you stand corrected on the third.

I’ve told you, you’re argument isn’t with me.

I’m more than happy leaving our responses exactly where they lay.

You might want to go answer Chi’s legal question though...with actual citation to law. I would enjoy seeing that.

No, that isn’t what I said at all.

I said all three are fine they way they are (certainly in Oklahoma and I doubt Tennessee is more restrictive), so that you now stood corrected on all accounts.

I can freely admit you said whatever you believe you said. Watch....WHATEVER YOU SAY YOU SAID, I ADMIT YOU SAID THAT.

But this entire portion of the discussion is a tangential, meaningless issue distracting away from the original issue of who is or isn’t exhibiting illegally. I and Chi say none of them are exhibiting illegally. Chi is asking you to prove your contention that at least one of them is carrying illegally...and you’re declining to support that contention.

But....WHATEVER.

There are three pictures of ladies in this thread...are ANY of them exhibiting or carrying illegally as it pertains to the states they are in?

 

[CowboyJD]

So you you’re not gonna define what you mean by acting high and mighting except in relation to me disagreeing with you in this thread.

Okay.

Just know that everything you are doing is reinforcing my statement #3 in a prior post.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

You didn’t understand what I was referencing yet you’re correct about everything, over and over and over again. I’m sure you’ll find a way to argue this isn’t “high and mighty”, but the fact is you REPEATEDLY insisted you were correct “on all accounts”.

 

[CowboyJD]

You didn’t understand what I was referencing yet you’re correct about everything, over and over and over again. I’m sure you’ll find a way to argue this isn’t “high and mighty”, but the fact is you REPEATEDLY insisted you were correct “on all accounts”.

So being “high and mighty” really is disagreeing with you when 1) you think it is unwarranted or 2)you are convinced I’m wrong.

Duly noted.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

So being “high and mighty” really is disagreeing with you when 1) you think it is unwarranted or 2)you are convinced I’m wrong.

Duly noted.

Your repetiivie insistence that I was incorrect “on all accounts”, when you could’ve simply re-read the thread’s first page is, yes, high and mighty.

You can’t swallow that. Duly noted.

 

[Ostatedchi]

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.

So I've searched your reference link and others and still find no requirements that you listed above.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/firearms-faq

The only thing I could find regarding open carry:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

So it seems to me to be perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm in the State of Washington as long as you aren't doing so in a manner intended to intimidate others or that would warrant alarm for the safety of others. (I'm not sure how the courts would interpret that vague language.)

So I'm contending that you are wrong on this point. Either you were given erroneous information or it has sense been updated and removed from statute. Either that or it was a local ordinance and not a state wide regulation - however that can't be the case because Washington law forbids local restrictions RCW 09.41.290RCW 09.41.300. I'd go further to contend that anyone (including a child) in the State of Washington can carry concealed while in the woods and hunting with no license to carry at all.

That's just on my research on the subject.

I could be wrong. But the onus seems to be on you to prove your post.

So basically, even on this one point about open carry I think you are just flat out dead wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll happily admit it.

 

[CowboyJD]

Your repetiivie insistence that I was incorrect “on all accounts”, when you could’ve simply re-read the thread’s first page is, yes, high and mighty.

You can’t swallow that. Duly noted.

I’m just asking for your definition.

I got your definition.

We’ve reached an understanding.

Let’s move on.

 

[Ostatedchi]

you REPEATEDLY insisted you were correct “on all accounts”.

You do realize that is exactly what you do in almost every thread? Right?

 

[wyomingosualum]

I’m just asking for your definition.

I got your definition.

We’ve reached an understanding.

Let’s move on.

What do we need to do to throw a little gasoline on this fire before it goes out completely?

 

[wyomingosualum]

I shouldn’t have called you an idiot, for that I apologize. But you need to stop acting high and mighty all the time. That’s a fact you need to swallow.

You call yourself a real man?

 

[wyomingosualum]

Clinton you’re a big sissy.

That’s the spirit!

 

[wyomingosualum]

I know where your seats are at football games, jackass.

Yes! Exactly! Good job!

 

[Ostatedchi]

So I've searched your reference link and others and still find no requirements that you listed above.

http://www.atg.wa.gov/firearms-faq

The only thing I could find regarding open carry:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.

So it seems to me to be perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm in the State of Washington as long as you aren't doing so in a manner intended to intimidate others or that would warrant alarm for the safety of others. (I'm not sure how the courts would interpret that vague language.)

So I'm contending that you are wrong on this point. Either you were given erroneous information or it has sense been updated and removed from statute. Either that or it was a local ordinance and not a state wide regulation - however that can't be the case because Washington law forbids local restrictions RCW 09.41.290RCW 09.41.300. I'd go further to contend that anyone (including a child) in the State of Washington can carry concealed while in the woods and hunting with no license to carry at all.

That's just on my research on the subject.

I could be wrong. But the onus seems to be on you to prove your post.

So basically, even on this one point about open carry I think you are just flat out dead wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll happily admit it.

One last try to see if @CSCOTTOSUPOKES can site the Washington state law, regulation, or court opinion backing up the claim regarding how to properly open carry as it relates to the holster or the 3 sides of visibility.

 

[EvilPOKES]

One last try to see if @CSCOTTOSUPOKES can site the Washington state law, regulation, or court opinion backing up the claim regarding how to properly open carry as it relates to the holster or the 3 sides of visibility.

 

[Ostatedchi]

One last try to see if @CSCOTTOSUPOKES can site the Washington state law, regulation, or court opinion backing up the claim regarding how to properly open carry as it relates to the holster or the 3 sides of visibility.

So no attempt by @CSCOTTOSUPOKES to back up his claim. Tis a shame.

@CSCOTTOSUPOKES better never say that we don't give him an opportunity to prove his point or that we don't listen. I was totally open to him proving his point. I even tried to do it for him. To no avail.

Pretty bitch move actually.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

So no attempt by @CSCOTTOSUPOKES to back up his claim. Tis a shame.

@CSCOTTOSUPOKES better never say that we don't give him an opportunity to prove his point or that we don't listen. I was totally open to him proving his point. I even tried to do it for him. To no avail.

Pretty bitch move actually.

Triggered troll boy lol

 

[squeak]

Triggered troll boy lol

That’s all you have today.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

That’s all you have today.

Yup. Not worth my time to invest anymore here. JD gave Chi too much credit early n this thread...Chi can’t take his own advice lol.

 

[HanAholeSolo2.0]

That’s all you have today.

it’s his smoke bomb exit.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Triggered troll boy lol

Not triggered at all. Mine was an honest attempt to engage you once more. You failed miserably.

I just wanted to drive home the point that the failure is all on you in this one.