Nang pa
Regular Member
In your opinion. Others see it differently.This is BS. Simple as that.
In your opinion. Others see it differently.This is BS. Simple as that.
And some others are trolls.In your opinion. Others see it differently.
In your opinion. Others see it differently.
Like those who set up situations for confrontation just to get YouTube hits, sure.And some others are trolls.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.No, actually, I really don't think this is a matter of opinion. Either the video's taker has the motive you attributed to them, or they did not. Either your accusation is true and accurate, or it is not. I can guarantee you that it is not true of everyone that has posted such videos on youtube, even if it may be true for one or two. Yet, you make no distinction, and rather plump ALL such videos together, and accuse them all at once, making your statement surely incorrect, surely wrong. That is not a matter of opinion. You made a sweeping accusation that is untrue. It is unfortunately. I won't hold it against you.
You're saying this site exists to facilitate drama queens? If that's the case, no, I haven't picked up on that at all. I thought this site was for responsible open carry, not for people who only want to stir up trouble any way they can. Please correct me if I was mistaken.Granted he has only been here 5 months, but I would think he would have picked up on the direction of this site. Speaking for myself I do not just recognize gun rights, I recognize the whole package, the big picture, the BILL OF RIGHTS.
I would suggest that people be careful of name calling when they have been around such a short time as to know whose toes they are stepping on.
They could misidentify you. Sure you know you're not a criminal, but if the policeman misspells your name, or if dispatch makes a typo, or if a real criminal has a slimier or same name, you're probably getting arrested.Hi, in a lot of the open carry videos on YouTube I see people refusing to show their ID to police when asked. Is there a reason for this? I know in a lot of states you don't have to, but why wouldn't you? All it seems to do is create hostility which is the last thing you want. If you have no criminal record and you're legally able to own and carry a gun, why not just let them run a background check?
You're saying this site exists to facilitate drama queens? If that's the case, no, I haven't picked up on that at all. I thought this site was for responsible open carry, not for people who only want to stir up trouble any way they can. Please correct me if I was mistaken.
I note a difference between people who go out of their way to set up confrontations with police, and people who are just going about their day who are confronted by police.nang, you seem to have done quite an exemplary job of stirring up trouble all by yourself; therefore, i guess you do not require any correction since apparently you are not mistaken, whatsoever.
ipse
I note a difference between people who go out of their way to set up confrontations with police, and people who are just going about their day who are confronted by police.
In the first, the OC'er is the aggressor and is in the wrong, but in the second the policeman is the aggressor and is in the wrong.
The reason you can't quote me saying all OCers are aggressors is because Iv'e said no such thing.Do you understand your saying the OCers are aggressors could be taken as you justifying the police to use force against them?
The reason you can't quote me saying all OCers are aggressors is because I've said no such thing.
There are 2 groups.
Group A: Drama queens who use OC as a gimmick to get YouTube hits, who don't care about OC one way or the other beyond it's use as a gimmick.
Group B: Regular people who OC for lawful self defense and are then bullied by police.
I dislike Group A. I like Group B.
Not even a little bit.In effect you have.
That's why drama queens love being drama queens.You cannot bait someone into committing a crime who does not have criminal intent in their heart.
What you call "gimmick" gets no hits on youtube unless the police give them some action to share.
Apparently not as it's still in my post.I also fixed your spelling errors.
IMO - the implication is there.The reason you can't quote me saying all OCers are aggressors is because Iv'e said no such thing.
There are 2 groups.
Group A: Drama queens who use OC as a gimmick to get YouTube hits, who don't care about OC one way or the other beyond it's use as a gimmick.
Group B: Regular people who OC for lawful self defence and are then bullied by police.
I dislike Group A. I like Group B.
Not even a little bit.
That's why drama queens love being drama queens.
Apparently not as it's still in my post.
I have no control over the concussion you draw. I tried to clarify.IMO - the implication is there.
As I've said, someone trying to correct a problem is conversational, not combative.No need to be so negative either. Being an active participant is not being an aggressor.
And many shine lights not to illuminate dark places, but just to get attention.Seeing a problem and stepping forward to correct it, is sometimes simply shinning a bright light in a dark place.
What about Group C, D, E, F and G?The reason you can't quote me saying all OCers are aggressors is because Iv'e said no such thing.
There are 2 groups.
Group A: Drama queens who use OC as a gimmick to get YouTube hits, who don't care about OC one way or the other beyond it's use as a gimmick.
Group B: Regular people who OC for lawful self defence and are then bullied by police.
I dislike Group A. I like Group B.
Yes.So, doing, a liberty check is being a drama queen?
It's seeking confrontation.I fail to see how that is.
There's only one, but it remains in my post. I think you need mod privs to edit other people's posts. Did you notice your improper use of a comma in your first sentence? You seem to be sensitive to that sort of thing so I wouldn't want you to look like a hypocrite or anything.I fixed them when I quoted you.
I'll have to ask you to move out from under it first.Now, go back to your bridge.
If you would identify these groups we could review them.What about Group C, D, E, F and G?
I personally have a big problem with Group T.
Your meaning is lost to me. I don't require that others agree with me.Everyone on here have opinions. But, you are trying to justify your opinion and then hard sell it to non-buyers. If you have not recognized that fact yet, it's time you do. If this goes on much further I'll bet on Grape's decision making skills.
I'm just say'n......
Another thought:
They could misidentify you. Sure you know you're not a criminal, but if the policeman misspells your name, or if dispatch makes a typo, or if a real criminal has a slimier or same name, you're probably getting arrested.
And yes it would eventually get cleared up, but what if this happens on your way to work your employer doesn't excuse your absence, and you're fired? You probably can't sue the police because they were "acting in good faith" and thus have various legal immunities.
What if it happens to someone on their way to pick up their children for visitation? Now the visit was missed, which is not only bad in and of itself but gives the ex grounds in future court battles.
And your car will be towed, which you have to pay for even if you're innocent.
That's because you are so busy looking at a couple of trees and you've missed the forest.Your meaning is lost to me.