Question for new Michigan Mods OT

[scot623]

Perrsonal attacks are not allowed here, even in someones signature. Not to mention that you are breaking the law yourself by having it there. And stop modifying your quotes, that has been discussed here before, also by the mods.

To answer your question, No. The founder may or may not have an opinion as to what the legal definition of brandishing is or is not, but the fact remains, there is none. It is an opinion.

What law am I breaking? And what did I put in my sig line that is attacking you?

1. Have you ever suggested breaking the law? Yes
2. Have you ever had your CPL suspended? Yes
3. Do you currently have your CPL revoked? Yes
4. DID YOU YOURSELF NOT START THREADS HERE TO DISCUSS THOSE VERY ISSUES?? YES!!!

So what's the problem??

 

[Big Gay Al]

LMAO!

Oh man. It was a mistake making anyone a moderator outside of the original members. Say what you want, but that is the reason for this thread.

To the suits: You gave power to members when it was unnecessary. As my previous post mentioned, if you would have handle the situation better from the beginning, this wouldnt be an issue. Instead of causing chaos in the forums by putting "law" in place, UPHOLD THE RULES YOU ALREADY HAVE!! Like I said before, this truly resembles our current .gov operational status.

"Sir we have a problem."
"What is it?"
"People are not following the rules."
"Should we warn them that they will be banned if they continue?"
"Nah, lets just get more cops."

I take it you didn't read the WHOLE message there. Like the "edited by" byline. It was edited by the admin, one of the original members,if not the original member.

 

[Ezerharden]

I disagree. In hand OC was once a law in IIRC, Tennessee. Every person who has to load/unload outside a vehicle, due to other stupid laws, and a LEO who dont follow nor understand their oaths, would be brandishing under your assumption of the law. As would those who chose to LGOC, as it would be impossible to do without touching it at some point.

This is a result of stupid laws, not stupid people.

Again, this isn't Tennessee

 

[Ezerharden]

Perrsonal attacks are not allowed here, even in someones signature.

That is not an attack, it is a public service announcment

 

[WilDChilD]

[h=2]os·ten·ta·tious[/h]   [os-ten-tey-shuhs, -tuhn-] Show IPA
adjective 1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others:

Carrying in the only legal manner available, does not fit the definition.

Person has no CPL, doesn't want to risk a felony, so the person considers the options available, and goes with the only one possible. = No crime.

Try websters verson.

Definition of OSTENTATIOUS
: marked by or fond of conspicuous or vainglorious and sometimes pretentious display


That seems to fit. When a pistol is in hand the next move is normally to use it. Why defend such stupid actions? Why do you feel the need to reveal all the stupid **** you do in life? If I made a fool of myself the last thing I would do is profess it all over the internet, then get offended when people tell you how stupid it was.

 

[Big Gay Al]

That is not an attack, it is a public service announcment

He wasn't referring to your signature.

 

[Ezerharden]

He wasn't referring to your signature.

I know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[autosurgeon]

And the urination continues.

Sent from my Inspire 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[FreeInAZ]

The only way to win here is not to play his game! IGNORE HIM!

For the love of all that is good people stop giving him what he wants YOUR ATTENTION!

[video=youtube;NHWjlCaIrQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo&t=30s[/video]

 

[John Pierce]

There is a new rule ...

I have added Rule # 20 to the forum

(20) DISRUPTIVE POSTERS WILL BE BANNED: We have struggled over how to address posters who do not significantly break any of the forum rules but whose very presence is disruptive to the forum and to the mission of OpenCarry.org. The result of our deliberations is that we reserve the right to ban anyone, at any time if we determine that you fall into this category. We believe strongly that the internet should foster open dialog but we also need to maintain the forum as a valuable resource for new members and the general public. Any action that threatens this mission could lead to disciplinary action, including being banned.
Under this rule, I have banned Stainless1911. I have also removed the signature attacking him as I do not want to allow such a precedent.

Can we get back to open carry now?


John

 

[detroit_fan]

thank you admin!

maybe now this thread should be closed, so we can all move on and continue doing what we do best, working together to move OC forward!

 

[OC for ME]

Out-of-stater here. It seems that a deliberate attempt to mitigate knee-jerk postings is what is required by all of us. I'm working to have zero failures on my mitigation personal plan.

I have determined that all of the moderators have a very high probability of not experiencing a knee-jerk posting. But, this is just me.

Now, if I could change one thing it would be the deletion of the word "not" from this statement: "You may not edit your posts."

Fair disclosure, I do not place anyone on ignore nor do I "report" posts.

 

[scot623]

Now that the distraction is gone, I pledge to use my posting powers for good, not evil.

 

[Grapeshot]

Now that the distraction is gone, I pledge to use my posting powers for good, not evil.

Does that mean that you will not be "disruptive." :lol:...:lol:

 

[scot623]

Does that mean that you will not be "disruptive." :lol:...:lol:

Only when it comes to you.