Open carry in Support of Trump in Pittsburgh

[GMDino]

But don't let BLM people stand around shouting...those terrorist!

[fredtoast]

The real "Ed Duderino" would freak out if he knew a guy like this was using his name.

[fredtoast]

BTW what are these people supposed to do to "stop" roadblocks?

Are they really going to threaten people with their guns?

[*PhilHos*]

(04-13-2016, 11:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: BTW what are these people supposed to do to "stop" roadblocks?

Are they really going to threaten people with their guns?

I doubt it, but I'm sure they're relyiing on their intimidation factor to help.

[Belsnickel]

Also, it looks like that post has now been deleted from the subreddit.

http://imgur.com/CJDTge0 in case anyone wants to read some of the comments.

[*michaelsean*]

Hell yeah! I'm going to have a .45 on my belt and an AK slung across my shoulder. Anyone have an old John Deere hat I can borrow?

[Griever]

(04-13-2016, 02:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Hell yeah!  I'm going to have a .45 on my belt and an AK slung across my shoulder.  Anyone have an old John Deere hat I can borrow?

i got you covered homeslice

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2016, 09:27 AM)GMDino Wrote:



But don't let BLM people stand around shouting...those terrorist!

If any of these open carry folks advocate killing policemen I will condemn their actions.

[Rotobeast]

(04-13-2016, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If any of these open carry folks advocate killing policemen I will condemn their actions.

But.... the old golden question......

Will you call them terrorists ?

[Vas Deferens]

(04-13-2016, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If any of these open carry folks advocate killing policemen I will condemn their actions.

But not if they condemn killing citizens.  Which is essentially what they are doing by walking around with firearms for no other reason than stirring the pot.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2016, 08:05 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: But not if they condemn killing citizens.  Which is essentially what they are doing by walking around with firearms for no other reason than stirring the pot.  

So let me get this straight: If they walk around securing a Trump rally, they will be the ones stirring the pot?

As to carrying weapons: I would think Oregon would have crushed that stereotype; but apparently not.

[GMDino]

(04-13-2016, 05:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If any of these open carry folks advocate killing policemen I will condemn their actions.

(04-13-2016, 08:05 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: But not if they condemn killing citizens.  Which is essentially what they are doing by walking around with firearms for no other reason than stirring the pot.  

(04-13-2016, 08:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So let me get this straight: If they walk around securing a Trump rally, they will be the ones stirring the pot?

As to carrying weapons: I would think Oregon would have crushed that stereotype; but apparently not.

And no denial.

[*bfine32*]

(04-13-2016, 08:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: And no denial.

I thought referencing the Oregon situation might dispel the notion that just because someone carries a open weapon they condone (or to use my word advocate) killing citizens; and therefore. the assertion need not be "denied". Apparently, I was mistaken.

So to clear the gray area: If they advocate killing innocent citizens I will condemn their actions.   

[GMDino]

(04-13-2016, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought referencing the Oregon situation might dispel the notion that just because someone carries a open weapon they condone (or to use my word advocate) killing citizens; and therefore. the assertion need not be "denied".  Apparently, I was mistaken.

So to clear the gray area: If they advocate killing innocent citizens I will condemn their actions.   

Much better!

btw...breaking news is local, state and city police are headed toward the convention center because of clashes between the protesters and the supporters.

Edit: Arrests have been made already.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-13-2016, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought referencing the Oregon situation might dispel the notion that just because someone carries a open weapon they condone (or to use my word advocate) killing citizens; and therefore. the assertion need not be "denied".  Apparently, I was mistaken.

So to clear the gray area: If they advocate killing innocent citizens I will condemn their actions.   

So who do they need to kill in this situation?   Why the need for the deadly firearms?  

[*Nately120*]

(04-14-2016, 12:59 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So who do they need to kill in this situation?   Why the need for the deadly firearms?  

You fool, firearms are for DEFENSE...well, unless a black guy is holding it.  In that case firearms are totally for OFFENSE.

[Rotobeast]

(04-14-2016, 01:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: You fool, firearms are for DEFENSE...well, unless a black guy is holding it.  In that case firearms are totally for OFFENSE.

Really ?

I thought it would be merely for badass pictures on Facebook.

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-14-2016, 10:50 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Really ?

I thought it would be merely for badass pictures on Facebook.

Huh....I thought they were for potential Darwin Award winners.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-14-2016, 12:59 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So who do they need to kill in this situation?   Why the need for the deadly firearms?  

Look up the word 'deterrent'. (Not that I necessarily condone it in this particular situation)

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:59 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: So who do they need to kill in this situation?   Why the need for the deadly firearms?  

Hell I always had a weapon displayed in combat; either on my person or on my vehicle. Didn't mean anyone needed killing, just made them think twice about showing aggression.