four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer

[Pogo]

Much ado about nothing.

In an Open-Carry jurisdiction, this should be a common sight.

---- in a restaurant?

What would you need a gun in a restaurant for? In case a herd of buffalo stampede through? No, that doesn't make sense...

-- to slaughter game for your meal? No, that's already done...

-- to rob the place?

Aha.

None of that matters, in the final analysis.

It turned into a hugely successful Teaching Moment, on the part of the Open-Carry Club folk.

It doesn't matter why they brought guns into a restaurant.

Maybe they intended on using them to stir their coffee, or tripod, then stack their jackets on.

Doesn't matter.

They have the right to do so, in that jurisdication.

Once again the point flies over your head, which is surprising for a Kondor.... the point is not and never has been "whether they have the right". The law establishes that they do. That much is not in question.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

---- in a restaurant?

What would you need a gun in a restaurant for? In case a herd of buffalo stampede through? No, that doesn't make sense...

-- to slaughter game for your meal? No, that's already done...

-- to rob the place?

Aha.

None of that matters, in the final analysis.

It turned into a hugely successful Teaching Moment, on the part of the Open-Carry Club folk.

It doesn't matter why they brought guns into a restaurant.

Maybe they intended on using them to stir their coffee, or tripod, then stack their jackets on.

Doesn't matter.

They have the right to do so, in that jurisdication.

Once again the point flies over your head, which is surprising for a Kondor.... the point is not and never has been "whether they have the right". The law establishes that they do. That much is not in question.

What, other than wanting the government to control every aspect of everyone's life, is your ******* problem with it then?

 

[Pogo]

Thread summary, reading the first half-dozen pages or so...

One side sez:

You know, when I used to work third shift in a convenience store, I met a similar "activist" one night who wore a ski mask over his head.

He said he was just wearing it to try to educate convenience store workers on the danger of people who walk into convenience stores in the middle of the night wearing ski masks over their heads.

I didn't believe him.

Other side sez:

Come arrest me for terrorism, you Nazi ****.

Guess which side wants the WMD.

You lying ******* sack of shit, there are plenty of well thought out defenses of gun rights in this thread, and plenty of asshole scumbags who are afraid of guns how resort to emotional attacks because they can't there is, literally, no rational argument against them. Then again, if you weren't an anti freedom lying scumbag you wouldn't be able to post, would you?

"Lying"?

All of those posts are quoted verbatim. Check me.

"*******"?

Guilty as charged.

As to the emotional attacks, I can understand your diaper rash at being left out. Now you're in. That was easy.

 

[Pogo]

You two are something else. Seeing a weapon isn't an excuse to kill anybody. Why do you libs think like that? You transfer your fears onto gun owners so you can insult them.

-- Who the hell suggested that?

I'm saying, you like that theory? Then try thinking it through.

Duh?

That would be the pro government scumbag that denies he is a pro government scumbag.

^^ Still butthurt that I challenged him to document that and he can't do it because he pulled it out of his ass...

 

[Pogo]

Would it have been equally as funny if someone had opened fire on black demonstrators during the civil rights sit-ins?

Or maybe if somebody opened fire on a gay rights demonstration?

Were they armed? Or brandishing?


Alrighty then.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

---- in a restaurant?

What would you need a gun in a restaurant for? In case a herd of buffalo stampede through? No, that doesn't make sense...

-- to slaughter game for your meal? No, that's already done...

-- to rob the place?

Aha.

None of that matters, in the final analysis.

It turned into a hugely successful Teaching Moment, on the part of the Open-Carry Club folk.

It doesn't matter why they brought guns into a restaurant.

Maybe they intended on using them to stir their coffee, or tripod, then stack their jackets on.

Doesn't matter.

They have the right to do so, in that jurisdication.

Once again the point flies over your head, which is surprising for a Kondor.... the point is not and never has been "whether they have the right". The law establishes that they do. That much is not in question.

So you openly admit you have no point? That not only is it legal but that it is accepted by the local authorities and the local citizenry.

 

[Pogo]

Pussified fast-food employees overreact and hide in freezer

Fixed it for ya.

I guess these victims were "pussified" in the freezer too.

--- asshole.

I guess you don't know that it is impossible to lock yourself into a freezer at a fast food restaurant, which is why I know the ******* story is a ******* lie.

"lock"?

How big is that ass you pull from exactly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I guess these victims were "pussified" in the freezer too.

--- asshole.

I guess you don't know that it is impossible to lock yourself into a freezer at a fast food restaurant, which is why I know the ******* story is a ******* lie.

"lock"?

How big is that ass you pull from exactly?

Most walk in freezers in fast food restaurants have a simple locking mechanism that when the door closes the door locks on the outside. Not usually true in convenience stores though.

 

[Pogo]

Did you know the title of your thread was a lie before you posted it or after you posted it?

There is nothing about the title of the thread that is a lie.

The Jack in the Box employees were terrified that four butt clowns walked into the store with assault weapons clearly in tow, and appropriately hid in the freezer.

In other words, "four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer" was the perfect wording of the title to anyone above a fifth-grade reading level.

Other than the fact that walk in freezers only lock from the outside? But, please, don't let your extensive fake experiences in working in convenience stores that never got robbed get derailed by facts.

By the way, I worked in a convenience store for a while. I was alone, during the night shift, in a high crime area. I actually got robbed once, and did exactly what I said I would do during raining, I asked the guy if he wanted me to help him carry the cash register to his car. It wasn't my money, I could care less if he took it, and saw no reason to get into a fight over it.

Then why do you do it here, internet tough guy?

And living like that, afraid to let anyone ever see you are carrying, that is freedom?

And living in a comic book world where everybody you see is a "Nazi **********" out to get you to the point where you paint yourself into the corner of utter dependence on firearms everywhere you go ----------- is?

Thanks for clearing that up.

He would shoot you, and I would help him plant the throwaway that we both would say you pulled on him.

Next question?

The rhetorical question wasn't directed at you, troll boy. And "he" in this scenario does not exist; he's a fantasy. Tip: don't skip reading class tomorrow.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thread summary, reading the first half-dozen pages or so...

One side sez:





Other side sez:








Guess which side wants the WMD.

You lying ******* sack of shit, there are plenty of well thought out defenses of gun rights in this thread, and plenty of asshole scumbags who are afraid of guns how resort to emotional attacks because they can't there is, literally, no rational argument against them. Then again, if you weren't an anti freedom lying scumbag you wouldn't be able to post, would you?

"Lying"?

All of those posts are quoted verbatim. Check me.

"*******"?

Guilty as charged.

As to the emotional attacks, I can understand your diaper rash at being left out. Now you're in. That was easy.

The lie was the part of the post you actually wrote, idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

^^ Still butthurt that I challenged him to document that and he can't do it because he pulled it out of his ass...

Still thinking that everything I post is about him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is nothing about the title of the thread that is a lie.

The Jack in the Box employees were terrified that four butt clowns walked into the store with assault weapons clearly in tow, and appropriately hid in the freezer.

In other words, "four texas gun-toting "activists" scare fast-food employees into hiding in freezer" was the perfect wording of the title to anyone above a fifth-grade reading level.

Other than the fact that walk in freezers only lock from the outside? But, please, don't let your extensive fake experiences in working in convenience stores that never got robbed get derailed by facts.

By the way, I worked in a convenience store for a while. I was alone, during the night shift, in a high crime area. I actually got robbed once, and did exactly what I said I would do during raining, I asked the guy if he wanted me to help him carry the cash register to his car. It wasn't my money, I could care less if he took it, and saw no reason to get into a fight over it.

Then why do you do it here, internet tough guy?

And living in a comic book world where everybody you see is a "Nazi **********" out to get you to the point where you paint yourself into the corner of utter dependence on firearms everywhere you go ----------- is?

Thanks for clearing that up.

He would shoot you, and I would help him plant the throwaway that we both would say you pulled on him.

Next question?

The rhetorical question wasn't directed at you, troll boy. And "he" in this scenario does not exist; he's a fantasy. Tip: don't skip reading class tomorrow.

Tip, there is no rule against answering a post that isn't directed at you.

 

[Pogo]

If just the sight of a gun scares you, then that says a lot about you.

Yeah, it says he has at least a rudimentary understanding of the laws of physics.

I guess my understanding of physics is more advanced than yours. For one thing, I know that physics makes it impossible for a gun that isn't pointed in my direction to discharge a projectile that will strike me.

I guess my understanding of human nature is more advanced than yours, since I know that a shooter actually aims his gun first.
Duh.

Did you have a point coming sometime soon?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess these victims were "pussified" in the freezer too.

--- asshole.

I guess you don't know that it is impossible to lock yourself into a freezer at a fast food restaurant, which is why I know the ******* story is a ******* lie.

"lock"?

How big is that ass you pull from exactly?

Gee, where did I get that from.

I'm as pro-Second Amendment as anyone, but these four butt clowns are NOT the guys I want advancing arguments for the Right to Bear Arms:

Rheana Murray, ABC News—Fast food employees who thought they were being robbed by a group of gun-toting men locked themselves in a freezer to hide, police said.

That's right, I got it from actually reading the OP.

Didn't you just makes a stupid crack about me and reading class? Maybe you should learn to do it yourself before you try to make yourself look smarter than me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, it says he has at least a rudimentary understanding of the laws of physics.

I guess my understanding of physics is more advanced than yours. For one thing, I know that physics makes it impossible for a gun that isn't pointed in my direction to discharge a projectile that will strike me.

I guess my understanding of human nature is more advanced than yours, since I know that a shooter actually aims his gun first.
Duh.

Did you have a point coming sometime soon?

And yet in this thread you have INSISTED that the mere carrying of a firearm slung over ones shoulder is reason to panic and fear. That it equates to terrorism to carry said firearm and that while legal it should never be done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, it says he has at least a rudimentary understanding of the laws of physics.

I guess my understanding of physics is more advanced than yours. For one thing, I know that physics makes it impossible for a gun that isn't pointed in my direction to discharge a projectile that will strike me.

I guess my understanding of human nature is more advanced than yours, since I know that a shooter actually aims his gun first.
Duh.

Did you have a point coming sometime soon?

Moving the goal post because I showed people how stupid you are? You were asked why the mere sight of a gun scares you, you replied physics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess my understanding of physics is more advanced than yours. For one thing, I know that physics makes it impossible for a gun that isn't pointed in my direction to discharge a projectile that will strike me.

I guess my understanding of human nature is more advanced than yours, since I know that a shooter actually aims his gun first.
Duh.

Did you have a point coming sometime soon?

And yet in this thread you have INSISTED that the mere carrying of a firearm slung over ones shoulder is reason to panic and fear. That it equates to terrorism to carry said firearm and that while legal it should never be done.

He is going to challenge you to prove he actually said that now because he thinks that is a clever debating tactic.

 

[Kondor3]

---- in a restaurant?

What would you need a gun in a restaurant for? In case a herd of buffalo stampede through? No, that doesn't make sense...

-- to slaughter game for your meal? No, that's already done...

-- to rob the place?

Aha.

None of that matters, in the final analysis.

It turned into a hugely successful Teaching Moment, on the part of the Open-Carry Club folk.

It doesn't matter why they brought guns into a restaurant.

Maybe they intended on using them to stir their coffee, or tripod, then stack their jackets on.

Doesn't matter.

They have the right to do so, in that jurisdication.

Once again the point flies over your head, which is surprising for a Kondor.... the point is not and never has been "whether they have the right". The law establishes that they do. That much is not in question.

No, Pogo, the point doesn't fly over my head.

I merely assert that the point is moot, and I speculate that it will not be allowed by Gun Rights folk to be effectively utilized by Gun-Grabber folk to advance their agenda.

Big difference.

I would have thought that that much was obvious and did not require explicit articulation.

 

[Pogo]

Well except for the whole "it is perfectly legal" and of course has been for years. Further the protests have been going on for months.

Unfortunately for that point, the thread and the question have nothing to do with "whether it was legal" --- it's about whether it is a reasonable assumption that four guys walking into a restaurant armed --- an establishment that in no way suggests firearms would be necessary ---- are up to no good. And the answer, obviously, is yes it is a reasonable assumption. If it's not obvious enough: Luby's. If that's not enough: Louisiana Pizza Kitchen. Etc etc etc.



I'll have to confer with "my ilk" at the next Ilks Club meeting to see what they posted on my behalf, but from where I sit what I've heard from your ilk is that everybody should walk around armed all the time and that the answer to a guy with a gun is... more guys with more guns!

Which is stupid. As I and my ilk actually have said, that's like fighting a fire by pouring gasoline on it. And what Rightwinger is doing with the scenario of standing his ground is taking that fallacy to its obviously fallacious conclusion. Which exposes that nutball idea for the fallacy it is.

Further as some of you have suggested others should shot on sight anyone carrying a weapon that is in fact illegal and ignorant. And in fact you not the 2nd Amendment rights people are making the claim. All with no evidence of a threat or reason for such a claim. The simple exsistance 0f A FIREARM IN AN OPEN CARRY STATE IS NOT JUSTIFICATION OR EVEN LOGIC REASON FOR SHOOTING SOMEONE AND ANYONE stupid ENOUGH TO DO IT WILL GO STRAIGHT TO JAIL AND BE CHARGED WITH AN ACTUAL CRIME.

You knee jerk dumb asses are proof positive that you have no brains no common sense and even less intelligence to conduct a logical conversation.

Already addressed above. The fallacy loses.

In an OPEN CARRY State no one is justified in acting ridiculous towards open carry. Neither you nor any other liberal has the right, authority or power to stipulate how or when a private citizen chooses to exercise their LEGAL RIGHTS. In Texas and other open carry States it is perfectly normal reasonable and LEGAL for men or women armed with rifles shotguns or hand guns to carry them openly while shopping or eating.

This point is already addressed above, and you went right back to it anyway.
SMH.... but the contrast is fascinating: you bend over backward to establish OCT is within the law (which is not in question), yet you want to set limits on how citizens can react to it?

Further you retards have been claiming for years that such an event would lead to wild west shoot outs and in fact it has NEVER happened. NOT in a single State that has open carry. NEVER.

Again, I'm not privy to the meeting notes of the Retards Club but I don't remember anyone invoking "wild west shootouts". I do remember the idea of pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out.

Actually we touched on this in another thread just recently; from that one:

>> No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way.

Veteran FBI, ATF and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress.

In cases in Washington state and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded or killed. In the mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person — one of the bystanders who had helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. << (Retards at USA Today)​

Your paranoia and cowardly opinions not withstanding no one in an open carry State has any reason to not EXPECT a person at some point or even often to carry weapons into such establishments.

Uhh.... since I'm not the one crowing about "carrying 24/7/365" and in the same breath declaring myself "not scared of a damn thing", I don't know any more about this paranoia or cowardice than the Retards Club. But inasmuch as a restaurant is for buying food that has, nearly always, already been slaughtered, the only apparent reason to take a gun in there is that it's a place of business that has cash in it and you intend to take some.

Or are you claiming such criminals don't use guns?

The only stupidity involved is from what ever retard called the cops.

Well, as your ilk keeps reminding us, the answer to a guy with a gun is more guys with more guns, and the cops have guns, so..... you're saying that idea is retarded?

Yeah I'll go with that.

 

[Pogo]

Much ado about nothing.

In an Open-Carry jurisdiction, this should be a common sight.

---- in a restaurant?

What would you need a gun in a restaurant for? In case a herd of buffalo stampede through? No, that doesn't make sense...

-- to slaughter game for your meal? No, that's already done...

-- to rob the place?

Aha.

Why not?

Ah. Well if you're saying that Starbuck$ makes more than its share of profit, congratulations Blind Squirrel

If you're saying they deserve to be robbed because of that, well that's a little iffy for those of us on this side of the anarchy Mendoza line.