Open carry in Support of Trump in Pittsburgh

[*bfine32*]

(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.

Has anyone in this forum besides you ever said this?

[GMDino]

(04-14-2016, 12:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Is protesting outside a political rally the same as combat?

And I'm serious.

There are police and trained people there to handle issues.  Do we need a roaming band of armed citizens who are prepared to use violence against anyone who gets in their way?

[fredtoast]

There is no need to carry a weapon except in self defense.

So when you carry a weapon to keep people from establishing roadblocks that is threatening use of deadly force when NOT in a position of self defense.

Everyone gets this except Bfine. That is why the post was taken down. It was wrong to suggest that citizens would be justified in shooting other citizens just for setting up roadblocks.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is protesting outside a political rally the same as combat?

And I'm serious.

There are police and trained people there to handle issues.  Do we need a roaming band of armed citizens who are prepared to use violence against anyone who gets in their way?

Nope, but the reasoning for displaying a weapon is the same.

Why would anyone get in their way?

[fredtoast]

(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.

You mean the Oregon situation where an armed citizen was killed for trying to pull his gun on police officers?

Gee, I wonder why that did not "dispel the notion" that a person carrying a gun is not willing to commit unjustified murder?

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no need to carry a weapon except in self defense.

So when you carry a weapon to keep people from establishing roadblocks that is threatening use of deadly force when NOT in a position of self defense.

Everyone gets this except Bfine. That is why the post was taken down. It was wrong to suggest that citizens would be justified in shooting other citizens just for setting up roadblocks.

What is the need to establish a roadblock?

When you establish a roadblock your intent is to impede traffic; that may include emergency vehicles and others with medical emergencies.

Everyone understands this but liberals that think putting up illegal roadblocks is a good idea. That's why these "patrols" were planning to respond to roadbloacks. I don't believe any threats of violence were extended and most likely only percieved by those willing to break the law; which those carrying weapons did not.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean the Oregon situation where an armed citizen was killed for trying to pull his gun on police officers?

Gee, I wonder why that did not "dispel the notion" that a person carrying a gun is not willing to commit unjustified murder?

Link to someone trying to pull his gun on an officer.

[GMDino]

(04-14-2016, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, but the reasoning for displaying a weapon is the same.

Why would anyone get in their way?

If understood the original post they intended to break up any roadblocks.

Shouldn't that be the job of the police and not the random group with weapons?

I understand the concept that if everyone shows they have a weapon then no one will use it.

[GMDino]

(04-14-2016, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the need to establish a roadblock?

When you establish a roadblock your intent is to impede traffic; that may include emergency vehicles and others with medical emergencies.

Everyone understands this but liberals that think putting up illegal roadblocks is a good idea. That's why these "patrols" were planning to respond to roadbloacks. I don't believe any threats of violence were extended and most likely only percieved by those willing to break the law; which those carrying weapons did not.

When you carried your weapon, or if you still do, you don't have to threaten violence.  You have already made the statement that you are willing to use it.  Otherwise you would not carry it.  I hope.

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Link to someone trying to pull his gun on an officer.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-releases-video-oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-death-article-1.2513298

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 12:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is the need to establish a roadblock?

When you establish a roadblock your intent is to impede traffic; that may include emergency vehicles and others with medical emergencies.

Everyone understands this but liberals that think putting up illegal roadblocks is a good idea. That's why these "patrols" were planning to respond to roadbloacks. I don't believe any threats of violence were extended and most likely only percieved by those willing to break the law; which those carrying weapons did not.

No one ever said it was legal to set up road blocks.

All I said is that citizens are not allowed to shoot and kill other citizens except in cases of self defense.

Do you think citizens should have the right to shoot other citizens just for setting up roadblocks?

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Do you think citizens should have the right to shoot other citizens just for setting up roadblocks?

If they are illegally blocking me from getting somewhere that is perhaps life and death and time is of the essence; then I might take my chances.

How about you?

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 12:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/fbi-releases-video-oregon-occupier-lavoy-finicum-death-article-1.2513298

Missed the part where it stated he tried to pull a gun on an officer.

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 01:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If they are illegally blocking me from getting somewhere that is perhaps life and death and time is of the essence; then I might take my chances.

How about you?

Under those situations maybe.

But that is nothing like what was happening here.  the people with the guns were not being put in any life threatening situation by these road blocks.

So how about we deal with reality instead of fantasy land.

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Missed the part where it stated he tried to pull a gun on an officer.

Not possible that you looked at the link and missed this


footage shot from an FBI plane shows him crashing into a snow bank, exiting his vehicle during a verbal exchange with armed officers and reaching his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket.

He had a loaded 9-mm. semi-automatic handgun in that pocket, the FBI said Thursday.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Under those situations maybe.

But that is nothing like what was happening here.  the people with the guns were not being put in any life threatening situation by these road blocks.

So how about we deal with reality instead of fantasy land.

Oh I thought we were dealing it what could happen as I am unaware of anyone getting killed at a roadblock last night. Apparently you have some news that I am unware of as you don't go to fantasy land

(04-14-2016, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not possible that you looked at the link and missed this


footage shot from an FBI plane shows him crashing into a snow bank, exiting his vehicle during a verbal exchange with armed officers and reaching his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket.

He had a loaded 9-mm. semi-automatic handgun in that pocket, the FBI said Thursday.

Oh, I seen it. I just didn't make the assumption his intent was to draw it and shot the officer. Is that how you guys do it in the TN courtrooms? I think I'll weigh all the evidence; prior to assigning a ruling of guilty.

WTS, the best you have is that out of all those folks there is a chance one may have tried to pull a gun after he had countless numerous at him. I must apologize; obviously anyone carrying a weapon is looking to kill someone.

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I seen it. I just didn't make the assumption his intent was to draw it and shot the officer. Is that how you guys do it in the TN courtrooms? I think I'll weigh all the evidence; prior to assigning a ruling of guilty.

There is no other evidence.

You just refuse to admit that you were wrong.

[fredtoast]

(04-14-2016, 01:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh I thought we were dealing it what could happen as I am unaware of anyone getting killed at a roadblock last night. Apparently you have some news that I am unware of as you don't go to fantasy land

I don't understand what your point isd here.

We were discussing armed groups going out to stop other citizens from making road blocks and then you started rambling about someone caught in traffic in a life and death situation.  Those 2 situations have nothing to do with each other.  None of the people with guns were going to be trapped in traffic in a life or death situation.

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no other evidence.

You just refuse to admit that you were wrong.

Has nothing to do with right or wrong. Of course there is/could be other evidence. Perhaps an eyewitness had a better view of maybe someone heard him say what his intentions were. I hope they just don't roll with video shot from an aircraft the convict the man of trying to shoot an officer. If you guys roll that way in Tennessee I would this man's family is happy the event occured in Oregon

[*bfine32*]

(04-14-2016, 04:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand what your point isd here.

We were discussing armed groups going out to stop other citizens from making road blocks and then you started rambling about someone caught in traffic in a life and death situation.  Those 2 situations have nothing to do with each other.  None of the people with guns were going to be trapped in traffic in a life or death situation.

Dude in post #23 jumped to "justifiable shootings", when to my knowledge not a round was fired, perhaps not even in the chamber.

Seems like that dude wanted to make up his own scenario. So I brought up a scenario just as realistic if folks establish an illegal roadblock. Yet only I was to be deemed living in fantasyland.