"Open Carry Texas" hits Target next.

[cce1302]

lol. What, there weren't 5 guys? It was hard to tell exactly how many were there. There are lots of ways to "enjoy freedom." Many are very very stupid.

I'm not sure how I can say "speaking of stupid" without it being construed as a personal attack, so I'll just say that the 3 lies I'm referring to are your claims:

1. [OCT's actions are] for the sole purpose of being confrontational.
2. Instead of just "living free" they want to create the "in your face, now deal with it."
3. These guys are looking for trouble.

Thanks for participating in this thread.

Now I'm wondering if you're not a stooge trying to make me look good. Either way, I really appreciate it, as I'm sure the other readers do as well.

 

[ViperJock]

To you it may be stupid, but to the person enjoying the freedom, maybe not. Should they have to conform to your idea of stupid? No.

You are correct. And I've never said people don't have a right to be stupid. Darwin will take his share.

I only said, I disagree and I would like them to stop. I have no intention of stopping them. I am hoping that through the use of conversation they will change their minds. (Flexing my First ammendment rights). But, I am probably just as stupid for thinking they will understand my reasoning as OCT is for thinking they are helping the cause. Maybe even more so since I recognize that fact. Maybe I just enjoy arguing...you know, just like OCT does. Lol.

 

[cce1302]

Just wondering how many of you have called or emailed Target up to this point to let them know that you support their choice in following state laws.


Your mom has already contacted them, and she is outgunning me.



This is from her facebook page:
TELL TARGET IT'S #OFFTARGET: Gun extremists armed with assault rifles have been entering Target stores across the country, yet the company continues to allow open carry in and around stores. Nearly 90% of Target customers are women. Tell Target to do the right thing NOW - put policies in place to keep our families safe. LIKE, SHARE, and SIGN our petition here: Target: Create Gun Sense Policies in Your Stores | Everytown

And USE the info below to make your voices heard:

TWITTER: @Target #OffTarget
PHONE: 612-304-6073; press 1 for guest relations



Well, are you going to call, or are you just going to sit and whine about OCT all day?

 

[ViperJock]

I'm not sure how I can say "speaking of stupid" without it being construed as a personal attack, so I'll just say that the 3 lies I'm referring to are your claims:

1. [OCT's actions are] for the sole purpose of being confrontational.
2. Instead of just "living free" they want to create the "in your face, now deal with it."
3. These guys are looking for trouble.

Thanks for participating in this thread.

Now I'm wondering if you're not a stooge trying to make me look good. Either way, I really appreciate it, as I'm sure the other readers do as well.

first of all, I was speaking in generalities re: stupid. But I was including OCT's action in that--generally speaking.

Next: 1-3 as you bolded above are my opinion (based on the verbal and nonverbal cues. Considering decision making process and action taken by the group in the videos pics and articles) so I'm not sure they qualify to be considered "lies." A lie would be a deliberate alteration of the truth. My interpretation of the above has allowed me to draw said conclusions. There is a small possibility that I am incorrect, but that is different from a lie.

You are also correct in your assumption that I am deliberately making you look good. Facebook is lighting up with quotes of your wisdom. Trending now #cce awesomeness. Both conclusive signs that the academic world finds your latest publications to be top notch. If you were to eat a fortune cookie at this moment you would be pleased to read "Have you considers running for office?"

In fact, your argument has so moved me that I am now willing to consider its veracity. You have stated that my opinion is incorrect. Such opinion being that OCT has not helped, but has likely hurt, the ongoing battle to prevent additional restrictions on firearms and/or the general acceptance of the OC of firearms. If you can provide proof that the actions of OCT have improved the public relations, the policy of private businesses, or the introduction of gun favorable legislation, that meets or exceeds the negative response in those categories, I will happily acknowledge your opinion as the correct one. Deal?

 

[Trigger Time]

How much were you planning to give before they made that statement?

Well if they straightened their act up I might buy my kids memberships. Your question is pointless

 

[cce1302]

first of all, I was speaking in generalities re: stupid. But I was including OCT's action in that--generally speaking.

Next: 1-3 as you bolded above are my opinion (based on the verbal and nonverbal cues. Considering decision making process and action taken by the group in the videos pics and articles) so I'm not sure they qualify to be considered "lies." A lie would be a deliberate alteration of the truth. My interpretation of the above has allowed me to draw said conclusions. There is a small possibility that I am incorrect, but that is different from a lie.

you've got to be kidding me. Now you're redefining the word "opinion" to include claims of fact?

You are also correct in your assumption that I am deliberately making you look good. Facebook is lighting up with quotes of your wisdom. Trending now #cce awesomeness. Both conclusive signs that the academic world finds your latest publications to be top notch. If you were to eat a fortune cookie at this moment you would be pleased to read "Have you considers running for office?"

In fact, your argument has so moved me that I am now willing to consider its veracity. You have stated that my opinion is incorrect. Such opinion being that OCT has not helped, but has likely hurt, the ongoing battle to prevent additional restrictions on firearms and/or the general acceptance of the OC of firearms. If you can provide proof that the actions of OCT have improved the public relations, the policy of private businesses, or the introduction of gun favorable legislation, that meets or exceeds the negative response in those categories, I will happily acknowledge your opinion as the correct one. Deal?

Please quote the post where I stated that your "opinion" that "OCT has not helped, but has likely hurt, the ongoing battle to prevent additional restrictions on firearms and/or the general acceptance of the OC of firearms" is incorrect.


Or is it just your "opinion" that I made that claim?

And please, when you look for it, realize that when I make a part of your post bold (like this), the bold part is the part I am responding to, not the part immediately preceding the part I put in bold. I know you know that, I just want it to be explicit so that you won't claim that I was responding to a different part of post #51.

 

[ViperJock]

you've got to be kidding me. Now you're redefining the word "opinion" to include claims of fact?

Please quote the post where I stated that your "opinion" that "OCT has not helped, but has likely hurt, the ongoing battle to prevent additional restrictions on firearms and/or the general acceptance of the OC of firearms" is incorrect.


Or is it just your "opinion" that I made that claim?

And please, when you look for it, realize that when I make a part of your post bold (like this), the bold part is the part I am responding to, not the part immediately preceding the part I put in bold. I know you know that, I just want it to be explicit so that you won't claim that I was responding to a different part of post #51.

Fact: I cannot read minds. Ergo I cannot KNOW 100% what their intentions are.
Fact: if I cannot know something but draw conclusions, it must be my opinion.

Im sorry if that was too confusing.

 

[ViperJock]

Well if they straightened their act up I might buy my kids memberships. Your question is pointless

Quite to the contrary. You stated (implied) that you were not giving them money because of that statement. However, you never had intention of giving any money.

Referring back lack to the thread about MDA being fraudulent, claims were made by some that since she (watts) had previously planned to start MDA before Sandyhook, Mrs. Watts statement related to why started MDA was fraudulent. The further argument being that since the inception of MDA was based on a fraudulent statement, her views should be discounted as fraudulent as well.

Follow me?

imo that is not a valid conclusion, but I find it interesting that those who subscribe to that logic are not calling for a national campaign decrying your fraudulence! Lol.

incidently, I'm not going after you, sir. My point is, rather, that INGO will take a different stand on the validity of a statement, argument, whatever based on whether or not they agree with it. Not so much on whether or not it actually has validity.

or, you know, maybe I'm just too tired to be doing this anymore.

 

[cce1302]

Fact: I cannot read minds. Ergo I cannot KNOW 100% what their intentions are.
Fact: if I cannot know something but draw conclusions, it must be my opinion.

Im sorry if that was too confusing.

You know, you don't have to read any minds. You can actually read or listen to what they have to say. You don't have to form any opinions based on MDA's claims.


You can find out here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/348132-what-open-carry-texas-doing.html

 

[LPMan59]

 

[Ruger-9mm]

That's become my feeling on any of the 3 threads involved in this. Both side thinks the other is wrong and refuses to budge. On to other more important subjects, like bashing Glock owners.

 

[ATM]

Seems to me that both sides claim to equally support the right to keep and bear arms

...but only one of those sides supports the actual practice.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Seems to me that both sides claim to equally support the right to keep and bear arms

...but only one of those sides supports the actual practice.

Therein lies the difference. One side is a little hypocritical...

 

[KG1]

I guess there are some that place limits on their support of someone else's right.

The same right that they themselves posses, to practice with as they wish.

 

[Punkinhead]

Seems to me that both sides claim to equally support the right to keep and bear arms

...but only one of those sides supports the actual practice.

I support the 1st Amendment but if a group of abortion protesters came into a restaurant with signs covered in pictures of bloody fetuses while I'm eating I'm probably not going to think they're the brightest bulbs. There's a time and place for things, including when to exercise inalienable rights.

 

[beararms1776]

Therein lies the difference. One side is a little hypocritical...

It's not hypocritical. Heck, even their own organizer is contemplating changing tactics.

 

[Bobby]

I support the 1st Amendment but if a group of abortion protesters came into a restaurant with signs covered in pictures of bloody fetuses while I'm eating I'm probably not going to think they're the brightest bulbs. There's a time and place for things, including when to exercise inalienable rights.

Therein lies the problem. Who sets the limits? You? Me? Moms Demand Action? We all are going to have different standards for what is reasonable. Some people think carrying rifles is extreme. Other people think open carrying handguns is too extreme. Still others think modern weapons have no place in restaurants at all.(Suzanna Hupp would disagree.)

How about we do this? If we strive to keep government involvement to a minimum and don't infringe on those rights(1st or 2nd) at all, this gives individuals the freedom on how they want to best exercise that right.

 

[Punkinhead]

Let's do this. Don't infringe on the inalienable right at all and let individuals decide how they want to best exercise that right.

Nobody's rights were infringed upon. They weren't arrested and they don't face any charges. Likewise, our inalienable right to point and laugh at them hasn't been infringed. It's a win-win.